You admitted you framed your question as tongue in cheek.
If you read more carefully, I said you insinuated that I felt that way.
As long as you understand their limitations and, objectives.
lol⊠okay what are you made of? Russian bot?
Snips and snails and puppy dogs tails.
Those are made of carbon too. Anything that is alive or was alive is made from carbon.
Prove carbon actually exists.
I gotta go anyway. Work just got busy as hell.
not sure who you are quoting with proved them wrong. I said your argument had issues, specifically, your premises are not proven. Other issues included your conclusion not being the only outcome of your premises. Multiple people did this, multiple times, yet you still think the argument is infallible. This has been shown to not be the case, and anybody who read those threads can go back and read them to CLEARLY see how they turned ouy No Nobel prizes needed.
The irony is, youâd think the people that could prove the existence of God would be the ones getting the Nobel prize.
Haha if you mean getting whipped around for hundreds of posts as errored
Lots of people have. On this forum and elsewhere. As for arguing for the existence of god, that is what you were trying to do, donât blame me on the fact that the argument you used isnât an argument for what you were trying to say.
Oh itâs comical. The burden of proof is shifted for some reason. You canât disprove a number of random ridiculous ideas, that doesnât mean there is proof for them.
1 Like
I think this statements sums up the disconnect we are having: Pat thinks that religious scholars, philosophers, and scientists are as equally enamored with Kantâs moral argument for the existence of god as he is. As a scientist myself at an academic institution, I can assure everyone this is untrue. In fact, I donât know a single PhD philosopher, scientist, or religious scholar who finds Kantâs argument compelling âproofâ of a God and has accepted Godâs existence because of it. (and I know many).
4 Likes
Kant himself had issues with his argument and as far as I know, he never said it proved god existed; it was just the best argument for godâs existence. I donât even think he meant it to be a persuasive argument as much as the only reasonable way for people to try and comprehend his existence.
Serious question:
Do you think the 300 priests in the Pennsylvania child molestation scandal (who sexually abused over 1,000 children) will go to heaven, but a Buddhist monk who lives his life solely focused on empathy and compassion (but doesnât believe in God) will go to hell?
Or that those priests and the kids they molested will be in heaven together? And can the fathers of those kids, who will also be in heaven, kick those priestsâ asses up there on a daily basis?
If I may, @antiquity .?
Personally, I wouldnât presume to say anyone will be in heaven or hell. Thatâs above my pay grade⊠From my own brand name of Christianity.
CCC843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all good and truth found in these religions as âa preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.â
CCC847 âŠâThose who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscienceâthose too may achieve eternal salvation.â
But yes, I suppose some (many) would be shocked and scandalized by who may or may not make it to heaven. There is only one unpardonable sin, after all.
Of course, we could all uknowingly share the same fate, anyways. Non-existence.
Indeed. Curls in the squat rack.
3 Likes
Lol. Yep.
1 Like
Well this is a complete lie. I know itâs a lie, because you wonât be able to find where these premises have been proven wrong or disproven. Go ahead, look.
It is clear everybody is in attack mode, care more to attack my character then have a discussion. Trying to get an emotive response rather than examine the logic.
That being the case, I am not going to waste my time if people arenât going to be honest or open minded and half decent.
So I am done with this. If anybody is wanting to discuss the actual logic and not appeal to emotion, or appeal to what someone once said long ago, or appealing to the populous, then I welcome the conversation.
Telling me I am wrong doesnât make me wrong. Calling me names, or trying to elicit a negative emotion doesnât make me wrong.
Anybody wantâs to have a decent, well reasoned, logical conversation hit me up. I am outta here.
Again, your beliefs arenât âwrongâ anymore than mine or anyone elseâs. The problem we are having is that you feel the need to perpetuate the falsity that your beliefs are irrefutably proven. You also believe they are endorsed by modern scholars and thinkers to the extent that a Nobel Prize would be awarded to a person who successfully refutes this moral argument. (It should also be noted that no Nobel Prize category even exists in philosophy or religious studies. They exist in Chemistry, Physics, Medicine, Literature, Economics, and Peace).
3 Likes
This is the problem. Itâs not about âdisprovingâ. You make the statement, you prove it. There are things that cannot be dis-proven because we donât know, that fact does not mean it is proven. This is very basic.
Thatâs not what happened and you know it. There have been three separate occasions where your argument has been dismantled yet you stand by the fact that it has not been âdisprovenâ. It is a meaningless distinction because it is an argument, and your argument was shown to not be able to make the conclusion you make from it.
Edit: Iâll also add that you keep misinterpreting what Iâm saying. You say Iâm lying about what happened because the arguments were not disproven. I never claimed they were. Weâre getting into Zep-like misinterpretations with how many times this point has been made without landing.