Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

The silence of God

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 8 of 19
 [ 375 posts ] 
The silence of God
Author Message
leroy
Online
Posts: 1545Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The silence of God

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
. Stop trying to shift your burden.


:lol: :lol: :lol: honestly, who was the idiot who told you that atheist don't have a to carry a burden proof ? this is a positive argument against the existence of God, the atheist who makes the argument has the burden proof.



he_who_is_nobody wrote: You think your god wants loving relationships why? Without this first step, you are left with an empty bag. As I said before, I would think the first step is demonstrating a deity actually exists, but this is your problem to solve. You could also take MarsCydonia's advice and address the actual argument or the implications it has for Christianity.

ProTip: Saying because you said so is not a justification. That is just you admitting to making up nonsense about things only found in your head.





Things are very simple

1 the argument proposed by Grumpy is> if God exist he would have made his existence more obvious|

2 you don't know Gods goals, therefore you cant know that making his existence more obvious he would have achieved his goals more efficiently

3 even if you knew what God goals are, you cant know that humans would willingly react in accordance to Gods goals.

4 therefore (because of 2 and 3) the argument fails, and this is true regardless on what you personally would consider as "more obvious" for example grumpy suggested that if God exists he would have cured little Timmy's cancer, my objections would be

A) That you don't know what God goals are, therefore you don't know that by curing Timmy God would have achieved his goal more efficiently

B) even if you know what God goals are, you cant know that Timmy (and the rest of the world) would willingly have reacted in accordance with Gods goals.



....


the thing is that you don't disagree with 1,2,3 nor 4, you don't disagree with A nor B, I am pretty sure that you would grant each of this points, but since your default reaction is to agree with other atheist and disagree with theist you are unable (or willing) to admit that the argument presented by Grumpy fails.



your comments about Muslims going to hell, or me cherry picking form the bible, are pathetic and dishonest red hearings.


not to mention that the argument>
> if God exist he would have made his existence more obvious|


is based on a counterfactual, therefore given your own stupid and fallacious logic, the argument should be rejected by default,
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat Jun 17, 2017 3:28 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1095Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The silence of God

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:
. Stop trying to shift your burden.


:lol: :lol: :lol: honestly, who was the idiot who told you that atheist don't have a to carry a burden proof ? this is a positive argument against the existence of God, the atheist who makes the argument has the burden proof.

You're confused. Nobody has said that atheists don't have any burden of proof when they make positive claims.

Rather, when you're trying to explain away aspects of an argument, the explanation you come up with for that purpose is itself a claim, and as such is under a burden of proof.

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote: You think your god wants loving relationships why? Without this first step, you are left with an empty bag. As I said before, I would think the first step is demonstrating a deity actually exists, but this is your problem to solve. You could also take MarsCydonia's advice and address the actual argument or the implications it has for Christianity.

ProTip: Saying because you said so is not a justification. That is just you admitting to making up nonsense about things only found in your head.

Things are very simple

1 the argument proposed by Grumpy is> if God exist he would have made his existence more obvious|

2 you don't know Gods goals, therefore you cant know that making his existence more obvious he would have achieved his goals more efficiently

Again you are confused. The argument from silence is a response to the majority of christian, islamic and jewish conceptions of God.

In the vast majority of christian, islamic and jewish denominations, God is thought to actively desire a relationship with you. This is simply part of the doctrine of the religion. That God created you and wants to come to know of Him and have a personal relationship with him. The general idea for these religions is that, in so far as you have an open mind and an open heart and you actively want to come to know of God, God WILL make his existence to you known in a way you will intricately understand.

This isn't a claim atheists make. This is what the religions say is the case. The argument from silence is a response to this claim. The argument goes, basically, that if what the religions say is really true, then God's existence should be expected to be obvious to sincere and omen minded atheists.

So when atheists point out that God's existence is anything but obvious. In fact that it is demonstrably non-obvious, this is itself evidence against these religious doctrines.

Put another way: If there is a God, that God is definitely NOT trying to make it's existence obvious in the way these religions claim.

3 even if you knew what God goals are, you cant know that humans would willingly react in accordance to Gods goals.

Of course you can, you can know that for yourself. And you can talk to people and ask them.

If God wants you to know of him, will you resist it? I won't. If there really is a God, I would like to know. But nothing happens in my life that makes God's existence apparent in the least.

So this is evidence against the christian, islamic, and jewish denominations that say God wants to have a relationship with me.

If you yourself is one of these people who think God will reveal himself to everyone who is open minded and sincerely wants to know if God exists, then the fact that God doesn't reveal itself to someone like myself who really is open minded and sincerely wants to know if God exists, is very strong evidence that the belief you have is false.

This is where christians such as yourself typically give themselves a way out(though not the one you have tried here). Here they will either say that God will reveal himself to me some time in the future, or they will say that I'm not actually sincere.

But this is a problem, because those two are NEW ADDITIONAL CLAIMS. They ALSO require evidence. So in addition to the religious believer having a belief in the existence of God, the religiouos believer also has a belief about what God will do to sincere and omen minded people. IN ADDITION to this, WHEN it is shown to the religious believer that his belief is contradicted by the real world evidence, the religious believer will MAKE UP NEW BELIEFS to save his previous beliefs from empirical falsifications.

It is so patently obvious that you religious believers make EXCUSES up for you beliefs when they don't match what happens in the real world.

The religious believer simply doesn't have any good evidence for his additional beliefs that God will make contact to nonbelievers in the future, nor does he have any good evidence that the nonbelievers are not sincere in their seach for evidence for God. What you're doing is you're making excuses up to save your belief.

Remember, again, the original christian/islamic/jewish doctrines is that God actively wants a relationship with you and if you sincerely seek Him, he will reveal himself. This is what MOST abrahamic monotheists in the world believe right now. This is inexorably part of the religion.

Atheists respond to this with the argument from silence. They basically say, that this just doesn't appear to be the case. What the scriptures claim about God simply doesn't bear out in reality.

Then the theists respond to this argument from silence by MAKING UP NEW BELIEFS. New beliefs they don't have any evidene to back up. New beliefs that are really just excuses invented ad-hoc to save the original belief from falsification by the argument from silence.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sat Jun 17, 2017 4:00 pm
leroy
Online
Posts: 1545Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The silence of God

Rumraket wrote:

In the vast majority of christian, islamic and jewish denominations, God is thought to actively desire a relationship with you.



Yes granted, that is suppose to be Gods goal, (HWN is that one who is not willing to grant it) for some reason HWN wants to carry and even heavier burden proof, by claiming that we wouldn't know what Gods goals would be.



So what you have to do is prove that by doing "X" * God would have a more optimal level of loving relationships than without doing "X" you have to consider humans from present past and future.


with "X" I mean anything that you would personally consider to be making his existence more obvious ether curing cancer, knocking your door, or organizing tours around the universe.


What I would argue is that human behavior is chaotic and impossible to predict (imposible at least for modern humans) there is no way you could prove that by doing X more humans would be willing to have a relationship with God. perhaps by doing X something counterproductive would happen in 100 years, maybe in the long term X would result in less followers unless you prove that X would necessary produce more followers the argument fails


you have the burden proof, you have to show that by doing X God would have achieved his goal in a more efficient way.


so in your own particular case what would X be, and how can you show that by doing it, God would gain more followers?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:02 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1095Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The silence of God

leroy wrote:
Rumraket wrote:

In the vast majority of christian, islamic and jewish denominations, God is thought to actively desire a relationship with you.

Yes granted, that is suppose to be Gods goal, (HWN is that one who is not willing to grant it)

I see no evidence that HWN is trying to say that it is not part of abrahamic monotheist doctrine that God wants to have a relationship with anyone who is sincere and open minded.

Rather, what he is doing is questioning that claim in the first place. He is basically asking, when most christians/muslims/jews say God wants a relationship with us, how they know this?

He's not claiming to know what God wants. He's responding in two different ways to the same premise. One response is to question the factual statues of the premise. By asking, if it is actually the case, that God wants a loving relationship with us? The other response is to level the argument from silence at the abrahamic doctrine. By pointing out that it does not appear to be the case, that God wants a loving relationship with us.

Sorry, you're completely and utterly wrong in your understanding of what HWN is doing.

leroy wrote:for some reason HWN wants to carry and even heavier burden proof, by claiming that we wouldn't know what Gods goals would be.

No, he's not claiming to know what God's goals are. He is asking how ANYONE knows what God's goals are?

When christians/muslims/jews claim that God wants a loving relationship with us, how do they know this? They claim it, they point to their various holy books and say "it says so in this book". So HWN then asks "okay, it says so in the book, how do you know the book is correct? Basically, why believe the book?".
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sat Jun 17, 2017 7:50 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1095Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The silence of God

So what you have to do is prove that by doing "X" * God would have a more optimal level of loving relationships than without doing "X" you have to consider humans from

with "X" I mean anything that you would personally consider to be making his existence more obvious ether curing cancer, knocking your door, or organizing tours around the universe.

What I would argue is that human behavior is chaotic and impossible to predict (imposible at least for modern humans) there is no way you could prove that by doing X more humans would be willing to have a relationship with God. perhaps by doing X something counterproductive would happen in 100 years, maybe in the long term X would result in less followers unless you prove that X would necessary produce more followers the argument fails


you have the burden proof, you have to show that by doing X God would have achieved his goal in a more efficient way.


so in your own particular case what would X be, and how can you show that by doing it, God would gain more followers?

This is super simple to respond to, just think about it for a moment.

Suppose you want a loving relationship with another person. What is the absolutely minimal requirement for that to happen? The other person has to be aware that you exists.
What is the easiest way to make them aware of this? To meet them in person, face to face.

Every option you take that is different from meeting them face to face, makes it LESS likely that they become aware of your existence, and less likely that they want a relationship with you. If you only ever call someone on the phone, that is less likely to result in a meaningful relationship. And they can miss the call easily and forget to call back. If you only leave facebook messages, that is even less likely still (as it feels less personal). Not to mention that you might miss a single one in a big stream of messages. If you only send emails, and the emails don't mention them personally and only speaks in generalities, that makes it still less personal and so on. And they can end up in a spam folder etc.

But walking up to them in person, extending your hand, smiling sincerely and saying "Hello mr/ms name", that is pretty hard to miss. And God, I've been told, should not have a problem making His voice be heard.

If you only contact them once a year, this will even further reduce the personal effect of the relationship. Simply put, in every way God could take steps to INITIATE contact and START a relationship, God is failing to do it. As my mom told me and I'm sure your parents told you, don't wait for friends or a significant other to just turn up at your door. Get out in the world and initate contact with people. If God wants to talk, I'm here. I don't know how to contact God, I don't have his address. But God, being God, has mine, so this one is on him.

The story goes that 2000 years ago God turned up in person and initiated relationships with lots of people. Suppose the 12 disciples never personally met Jesus and only heard about him through stories, or even older scriptures. Isn't it obvious that these people would not have had the same quality of relationship with Jesus had they never met them, as they came to have through knowing him personally in the flesh, spending time with him, witnessing his deeds, miracle works and so on?

This idea you have that human beings are these totally unpredicable, chaotic and mindless creatures we can't reasonably make predictions about how are supposed to act in certain situations is really just another belief you have invented to excuse your previous belief that God wants a relationship with us, but never seems to turn up and make such a relationship possible.

You and I are having a conversation now through text. It is not the most personal conversation and it's not like we're friends. But at least we are communicating. In so far as it is possible for us to enter some sort of personal relationship and maybe become friends, the fact that I'm aware you exist and are talking to you right now is obviously a prerequisite for that.

What you're saying is silly. Of course we can have totally reasonable expectations about how human beings behave in response to certain forms of actions and attempts and communication we take. And we can predict pretty easily what is going to make people be attracted to us or not. This is what everything in politics, advertisement and psychology tells us is true. Public opinion and behavior is so predictable that advertises, economists, and political parties manipulate us day in and day out in the media to get us to behave in certain ways, vote for certain individuals, buy their products, travel to certain events and locations and so on and so forth. People make literally billions of dollars on the fact that they know what they want or even can get to to want something by manipulating us. As advertises will tell you, the first thing you have to do is make people aware that your product exists. God could do more to advertise his existence. And then he could do things on top to make it apparent that he reall is God and really is a loving personal God.

For you and I right now, for example, if I spend the next 10 posts I make saying I think you're unintelligent and a typical stupid christian zealot, I'm going to predict you will have a much lower opinion of me and we can probably never be friends. In fact, it would probably make it hard for us to even have this conversation. If instead we talk to each other, I listen to what you say and consider your arguments with an open mind and enquire about your beliefs and arguments in a respectful and polite fashion, I predict you will not have a lower opinion of me, and may in fact come to respect my input if you do not already.

I know this, because it is true of myself and everyone I know. It is part of our life experiences as human beings. We have a pretty good idea about how our own behaviors affect the moods and attitudes of the people around us. For this reason it is only rational to reject your response as it constitutes an extremely implausible (so extremly implausible that you should DISbelieve it rather than believe it) excuse for Gods continues silence in the lives of most atheists (and many believers).

In short, you should not believe your own excuse. So in total, you should neither believe that there is a God that wants a loving relationship with you (because of the argument from silence), and you should not believe the excuse you tried to make to rebut the argument from silence.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:17 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2914Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: The silence of God

Greetings,

Not to mention, an all-knowing deity should know what it needs to do to get each and every human to believe in it.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sat Jun 17, 2017 9:00 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 731Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: The silence of God

Rumraket wrote:
Suppose you want a loving relationship with another person. What is the absolutely minimal requirement for that to happen? The other person has to be aware that you exists.


An awareness of God has been affirmed by virtually every civilization since the beginning of recorded human history. Some even affirmed the existence of multiple Gods.
Sun Jun 18, 2017 5:06 am
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1095Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The silence of God

thenexttodie wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Suppose you want a loving relationship with another person. What is the absolutely minimal requirement for that to happen? The other person has to be aware that you exists.


An awareness of God has been affirmed by virtually every civilization since the beginning of recorded human history. Some even affirmed the existence of multiple Gods.

Yeah, for most of human history the Sun was thought to be a diety, that went into a tunnel to the underworld to battle the forces of darkness at night time, and emerged victorious every morning.

I believe the Sun exists, I don't believe it's a sentient divine being that wants a loving relationship with me. Besides, the fact that most people have been religious in some way doesn't mean there actually is a God (textbook example of the appeal to popularity fallacy). For most of human history people have also believed in ghosts, elves, demons, dragons, unicorns, thundergods, gods of wind and rain, the flatness of Earth, geocentrism and all sorts of other fables and now-known-to-be-falsehoods.

If there really is a God that wants a loving relationship with me, having it's adherent tell me about how most people have believed in something is a terrible way of initiating that relationship.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:47 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2914Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: The silence of God

Greetings,

thenexttodie wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Suppose you want a loving relationship with another person. What is the absolutely minimal requirement for that to happen? The other person has to be aware that you exists.


An awareness of God has been affirmed by virtually every civilization since the beginning of recorded human history. Some even affirmed the existence of multiple Gods.

Actually, all religions are polytheistic - including the so-called mono-theistic ones.

There are some cultures which don't believe in the supernatural.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:52 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3245Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: The silence of God

Thank you Rumraket for handling the lions share of that. You are spot on, and went beyond what I would have said. Amazing what reading comprehension can do for a person.

leroy wrote:the thing is that you don't disagree with 1,2,3 nor 4, you don't disagree with A nor B, I am pretty sure that you would grant each of this points, but since your default reaction is to agree with other atheist and disagree with theist you are unable (or willing) to admit that the argument presented by Grumpy fails.


You really need to get a refund on those mind reading classes.

leroy wrote:your comments about Muslims going to hell, or me cherry picking form the bible, are pathetic and dishonest red hearings.


This is not a red herring, it is preemptively exposing your hypocrisy. Again, I am waiting for you to justify why you think your god wants loving relationships with us and Muslims and other theists will not go to hell. The fact that you have not done this once is telling.

leroy wrote:not to mention that the argument>
> if God exist he would have made his existence more obvious|


is based on a counterfactual, therefore given your own stupid and fallacious logic, the argument should be rejected by default,


:facepalm:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Actually, your argument is the counterfactual, that was hackenslash's point and he is correct. However, one can engage with counterfactuals to expose deeper flaws in a person's understanding, as I have done above. Now we know, as I have long suspected, that you pick and choose from your Bible when it suits you. One would have not had evidence that you do that unless I pressed you on this argument. Beyond that, now we know that when you use the Bible to justify an argument you are using, you will also hypocritically reject the Bible when it does not suit you. Amazing how that works, right?


I love it when you repeat something I already directly address. All I have to do is quote myself back at you.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:31 pm
YIM WWW
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 752Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: The silence of God

MarsCydonia wrote:Leroy could:
1. Address the correct form of the argument
2. Address how his objections to his flawed form of the argument were shown to be invalid
3. Address how his flawed form of the argument brings glaring issues for a christian standpoint.

Leroy has opted to run away from all 3 for pages of comments now.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:05 pm
leroy
Online
Posts: 1545Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The silence of God

Rumraket wrote:

Suppose you want a loving relationship with another person. What is the absolutely minimal requirement for that to happen? The other person has to be aware that you exists.
What is the easiest way to make them aware of this? To meet them in person, face to face.


So if a guy comes, knocks your door, does something that cant you cant explained naturally (like turning water in to wine)......and this guy claims to be God

1) would you become a theist?

2) would you willingly decide con have a relationship with hm ?

3) can you proof that by knocking doors, God would gain more followers? can you prove that knocking doors is more efficient that doing what God is currently doing now to gain followers?...........apparat form your own personal opinion and feels, do you have any evidence for it?


Every option you take that is different from meeting them face to face, makes it LESS likely that they become aware of your existence, and less likely that they want a relationship with you.


not necessarily, if I knock your door every single day to offer my friendship I might become the annoying person that nobody likes and you would be less likely to become my friend, perhaps the best way to gain your friendship is to organice a party in my house and invite you, you are free to decide if you what to assist to the party or not, perhaps by doing that I would have a better chance of becoming your friend.

it is at least possible that if God makes his existence too obvious he would be perceived as the guy that nobody likes in the bible God made his existence very obvious multiple times and often it caused rejection and hate, ...........
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:31 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2914Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: The silence of God

Greetings,

As I said earlier...

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Not to mention, an all-knowing deity should know what it needs to do to get each and every human to believe in it.

Kindest regards,

James

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:45 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 752Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: The silence of God

leroy wrote:So if a guy comes, knocks your door, does something that cant you cant explained naturally (like turning water in to wine)......and this guy claims to be God

1) would you become a theist?

2) would you willingly decide con have a relationship with hm ?

3) can you proof that by knocking doors, God would gain more followers? can you prove that knocking doors is more efficient that doing what God is currently doing now to gain followers?...........apparat form your own personal opinion and feels, do you have any evidence for it?

Leroy could:
1. Address the correct form of the argument
2. Address how his objections to his flawed form of the argument were shown to be invalid
3. Address how his flawed form of the argument brings glaring issues for a christian standpoint.

Leroy has opted to run away from all 3 for pages of comments now.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:59 pm
leroy
Online
Posts: 1545Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The silence of God

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:So if a guy comes, knocks your door, does something that cant you cant explained naturally (like turning water in to wine)......and this guy claims to be God

1) would you become a theist?

2) would you willingly decide con have a relationship with hm ?

3) can you proof that by knocking doors, God would gain more followers? can you prove that knocking doors is more efficient that doing what God is currently doing now to gain followers?...........apparat form your own personal opinion and feels, do you have any evidence for it?

Leroy could:
1. Address the correct form of the argument
2. Address how his objections to his flawed form of the argument were shown to be invalid
3. Address how his flawed form of the argument brings glaring issues for a christian standpoint.

Leroy has opted to run away from all 3 for pages of comments now.


1 done

2 done (well just with the relevant objections)

3 red hearing falasy
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:28 pm
leroy
Online
Posts: 1545Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The silence of God

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

As I said earlier...

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Not to mention, an all-knowing deity should know what it needs to do to get each and every human to believe in it.

Kindest regards,

James

Kindest regards,

James


That is a grate point,


If God knows that there is nothing that would personally convince you to become a follower, he might not do anything to convince you.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:32 pm
leroy
Online
Posts: 1545Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The silence of God

thenexttodie wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Suppose you want a loving relationship with another person. What is the absolutely minimal requirement for that to happen? The other person has to be aware that you exists.


An awareness of God has been affirmed by virtually every civilization since the beginning of recorded human history. Some even affirmed the existence of multiple Gods.



true, only a insignificant minority of the worlds population that has ever lived, thinks that the existence of "A God" is not obvious
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:37 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 752Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: The silence of God

leroy wrote:1 done

2 done (well just with the relevant objections)

3 red hearing falasy

Leroy could:
1. Address the correct form of the argument instead of pretending he did.
2. Address how his objections to his flawed form of the argument were shown to be invalid instead of pretending he did.
3. Address how his flawed form of the argument brings glaring issues for a christian standpoint instead of pretending they are a red herring.

Leroy has opted to run away from all 3 for pages of comments now.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:42 pm
leroy
Online
Posts: 1545Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The silence of God

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Thank you Rumraket for handling the lions share of that. You are spot on, and went beyond what I would have said. Amazing what reading comprehension can do for a person.



You really need to get a refund on those mind reading classes.



This is not a red herring, it is preemptively exposing your hypocrisy. Again, I am waiting for you to justify why you think your god wants loving relationships with us and Muslims and other theists will not go to hell. The fact that you have not done this once is telling.


> if God exist he would have made his existence more obvious|


is based on a counterfactual, therefore given your own stupid and fallacious logic, the argument should be rejected by default,[/quote]

:facepalm:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Actually, your argument is the counterfactual, that was hackenslash's point and he is correct. However, one can engage with counterfactuals to expose deeper flaws in a person's understanding, as I have done above. Now we know, as I have long suspected, that you pick and choose from your Bible when it suits you. One would have not had evidence that you do that unless I pressed you on this argument. Beyond that, now we know that when you use the Bible to justify an argument you are using, you will also hypocritically reject the Bible when it does not suit you. Amazing how that works, right?

I love it when you repeat something I already directly address. All I have to do is quote myself back at you.


1 you are still granting (at least tacitly) 1, 2 , 3, 4 A and B


2 even if you where accurately exposing my hypocrisy, that would still be a red hearing, any comment (true or false) that is irrelevant is by definition a red hearing

3 even if I also made CF statements, that doesn't change the fact that the argument presented by grumpy is based on a CF, why don't you read the sources that you yourself provide? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfa ... onditional
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:44 pm
Bango SkankUser avatarPosts: 151Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 4:15 amLocation: Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: The silence of God

leroy wrote:That is a grate point,


If God knows that there is nothing that would personally convince you to become a follower, he might not do anything to convince you.


Believing and following are separate things. It would still be beneficial for a god to let these people know it's existance. So even though some people wouldn't follow that God, it would give better understanding to them about those who follow and not label them as crazy people who worship imaginary being for example.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield, and those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced, but one is less unwise."
Last edited by Bango Skank on Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:52 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 8 of 19
 [ 375 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests