I’m not even sure where in this convoluted thread you are referencing.
I’ve never received any hate or felt it to be a burden, but I’m pretty low key about it. I have mine, others have theirs. I’ll be the last person to tell someone that they’re wrong or should have to prove their belief, because in the end nobody on either side can prove their position adequately to the other.
3 Likes
My apologies, it was @twojarslave
Some want to believe they are carrying a cross.
1 Like
As far as rape being evil, it would depend on where or who you are arguing that. If you are making your case with a member of ISIS you might not find him agreeing with you.
Right, but I think most of us would argue that it IS IN FACT an evil thing to do. Yet, we can’t measure the evil of rape. Can’t measure evil at all. And, most of the remainder, who would refuse to call it evil because of the implications (stating something as a fact without any way to prove/falsify it) would probably come off as outright morally outraged in their tone, though they’re explanations for why they oppose rape might basically boil down to something about rape’s inconvenience to society. In short, betraying their true feelings, moral revulsion.
1 Like
But yes, what is your stance? Your reply makes it sounds as if you are wanting to argue for agnosticism over the question of rape, because people can disagree on what is and isn’t evil, or if anything is evil at all (since it may not exist) . And this is due to our inability to falsify the existence of the evil of rape. Therefore, we must logically be agnostic, at least, on this point.
Or, you just wanted to point that out, while still being willing to state that rape IS evil. I.e.
1 Like
I’m deeply offended that you assumed my identity to be a large Jewish man with a different black-and-white circular avatar and better writing skills. Especially on the heels of a deeply personal post about getting dragged to church as a child.
4 Likes
No, arguments for God’s existence can and have been made. They are falsifiable with a series of ‘nots’. You cannot make an argument for nothing. That is unfalsifiable.
10 living? I don’t know many living philosophers. We tended to study dead ones.
But:
Dr. William Lane Craig, Plantinga, James Porter Moreland, Dr. Jordan Peterson, Quentin Smith, Dr. Scott Hahn, Dr. John Lennox, Peter Hitchens (yes, the brother of Christopher Hitchens), Ravi Zacharias, Edward Feser
There, 10. Not sure what this has to do with anything, but there is your list of names.
So if I don’t believe as you do, I am sophomoric? Yet, you offer no compelling counter at all. Sorry, I am not soft like you. If people don’t like what I have to say, they know where they can stick it. You have no obligation to engage.
I won’t soften what I know to be true just to please you or anybody else. You are under no obligation to like it.
I believe your the one being sophomoric if anyone is being so. You do no research, you’re functioning on pure assumption and you say things like “You cannot affirm a negative.” without realizing that’s done all the time. Or that ‘it would be big news and everybody would know it, if God’s existence were proven’.
I ask questions, you don’t answer, you just move on.
Watch: 0-1=-1 ← That is a negative, proven. Math is a form of deductive a priori immutable reasoning. It affirms negatives all the time. And if you look at deductive logic, they are often setup like math problems. And deductive logic is binary, it’s either right or wrong, there is no middle ground.
I am happy to move to the moral argument. Kant is always right…
Also, because if you believe morals are objective, not subjective, then you are forced to consider the source. Nobody wants to do that.
The problem with that logic is you move from morality to power. Might makes right, and those who have the might make the rules. The fact that ISIS men may think it’s fun and a-ok to rape, does not mean there is not a victim. And when you only consider what the powerful may think, you diminish the worth of the victim.
So by this you are saying, we make our own rules and if we think its ok to hurt someone terribly, then that’s ok as long as I and my buddies think it’s ok, despite the fact that you demeaned and damaged an innocent person permanently.
That’s the problem with subjectivism, it shifts morality to those with the most power. They make the rules. And in the 21st century, I thought we’d be way past these ancient ideas.
The problem I have found is that it tends to be a very technical discussion. And if you don’t understand logic, its very difficult to make headway.
It took me years to learn this stuff and most people never bother to look, much less study. I did it formally. We got into huge arguments in classes. It was great fun, but they knew the subject matter.
Well, I know for a fact that one of them (Peterson) is not a professional philosopher (he’s a psychologist). I suspect checking the credentials of the others will reveal that many of them fail to clear the bar as well.
No, your inane argument is sophomoric. And you know it.
Yes, that’s the way this ‘discussion’ thing works–the burden is on you to support your proposition, and until you do so, there is no burden on me to counter it. At all.
Ah. What YOU know to be true, indeed. Now we’re getting somewhere.
I don’t suppose you have any sense of how deeply ironic it is for you to say this.
Nice troll attempt.
Note that if you would simply amend your assertion ‘The existence of God has been proven’ to read ‘The existence of God has been proven to my satisfaction,’ all this tiresome silliness would vanish.
1 Like
If you truly want to understand why people might not hold you bullet proof logical arguments in as high regard,as you do yourself, or might consider you sophomoric, I highly suggest you look at what you wrote here. If you are genuinely making that comment with a straight face I just dont even know what to say.
If you truly dont understand why after, there is no hope for you. Its why I stopped engaging with you a while ago.
@EmilyQ, sorry I dropped off suddenly, I just dont have the time I used to have to give your arguments the time they need to discuss.
1 Like
Since no one has proven god exists, any argument for his existence is trying to prove nothing exists.
Besides, the only one who could prove god exists is god so any person who claims he can prove God’s existence is trying to play god.
Well, if you say god decrees morality then isn’t that submitting to the one with the most power?
Sure, they’ve been made. Persuasive ones, indeed, to me. And to you.
But, again, faith in G-d, is a gift from G-d. Some people aren’t given the gift. And we mere humans cannot succeed in something that G-d has decided against.
I find that unreasonable (or at least not understandable) on G-d’s part.
But I also don’t know why mosquitoes exist. I have a serious problem with the Creator in that regard, as well. I strongly disagree they were a good idea. He, to date, doesn’t seemed to care about my opinion.
4 Likes
Here’s my logic, taken from a real and actually productive conversation with an atheist-
Him- “So, you believe in God without any proof?”
Me “Yep.”.
Him " how?"
Me “The same way that you believe that there is no god without any proof.”.
Him- "Oh.
Me " See? We have more in common than you thought, don’t we?"
Him “Apparently, we do”
You see, by making belief an action that we both take instead of debating the existence of God, we actually gained common ground, and which one he believed in a much closer choice.
Haha… If I understood logic…
3 Likes
The difference is, it is a priori impossible to prove a negative, so it’s not really a fair comparison.
Taking it out of the emotionally-charged religious context for a moment: Suppose I say I believe little green men live on Mars. You respond (quite reasonably) by saying you don’t, and ask me to provide proof that they do. ‘Well, what’s your proof they don’t?’ I retort. To which you say…What? There is no adequate response. That is, nothing you could say, no evidence you could provide, would prove that there are no little green men on Mars.
So, does it follow that our two assertions are on equal logical footing? Of course not. The burden is always on the affirmative to make their case.
To be clear, I’m not making an argument for or against the existence of God.
1 Like