Quote# 106244

It's true there are no proofs outside of Math and logic, but the things I argue are based upon logic. And anyone who wants to debate the existence of God must first accept for the sake of argument that God could exist. It's a logical foul to pretend to join such a debate and then automatically claim victory because one cannot prove what is accepted for the sake of argument. The debate itself is logical reasoning over hypotheticals. So, one can prove that certain things are logically true about those hypotheticals without proving them to be absolutely true.

Also, it's illogical to assert that a Supreme Being couldn't possibly be loving and Omnipotent, without simultaneously accepting the hypothetical existence of said God. That's a tautology that goes something like this: 'Something is false because it cannot be true.'

Rover, Amazon Atheist Forum 24 Comments [2/8/2015 3:40:53 AM]
Fundie Index: 7

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom

Indicible

Well, do you accept the existence of unicorns?

2/8/2015 3:55:32 AM

anothga

The Doctor: "All elephants are pink, Nellie is an elephant, therefore, Nellie is pink. Is that logical?"
Davros: "Yes."
The Doctor: "Do you know what a human would say about that?"
Davros: "What?"
The Doctor: "Elephants are not pink."

And that's what's the problem about logic: it all falls apart if at least one of the original statements are flat-out wrong. Thus, using logic alone is a bad idea and all statements must first be checked if they're accurate before the reasoning can be applied.

2/8/2015 5:27:30 AM

whatever

"Also, it's illogical to assert that a Supreme Being couldn't possibly be loving and Omnipotent, without simultaneously accepting the hypothetical existence of said God."

Most worthless debating point ever?

2/8/2015 6:00:59 AM

Sangfroid

Your premises are incorrect. One can discuss a hypothetical supreme being without actually accepting the reality of a supreme being. Or to reverse it, if you are correct, you cannot discuss the attributes of a God without first proving he/she/it actually exists.

There can only be two states of existence: existence and non-existence. Something cannot be true while it is also false.

And no, you cannot rig the premises of a debate so as to already prove your position. Suppose I argue God doesn't exist because there is no god?

Sounds to me like Rover got his ass kicked a couple of times so he wants to change the rules of formal debate.

2/8/2015 6:15:14 AM

Canadiest

The believers side of course has no such weights added to them. Your side doesn't have to remotely entertain the idea there is no God or your God doesn't exist. Even though all evidence suggest there is no God (no evidence for your case) you still think you control the field of argument.

Special pleading, nothing but.

It's bad enough that you lot continually claim victory when an Atheist admits "it may be possible for there to be sorta Godlike all-powerful being out there" but now you say we just have to accept at the beginning that there is.

Sorry no.


2/8/2015 6:26:43 AM

Vifibi

So, when Trekkies debate who's the superior captain, they literally believe Kirk or Picard to be real? After all, if you cannot entertain the idea of a hypothetical figure having qualities it may not have without believing said being to be real, that makes all writers pretty much delusional sods. Kinda like you!

Also, a P.S.: Absence of evidence being evidence of absence isn't a tautology, it's a basic scientific rule. Don't believe stuff you have no reason to believe, or you might see unicorns growing in your microscopes.

2/8/2015 6:29:06 AM

checkmate

first accept for the sake of argument that God could exist.

If it were truly "for the sake of argument", I'd be happy to accept that, but my bet is that somewhere along the line you're going to abandon the "for the sake of argument" part and change that to "a matter of fact".

2/8/2015 6:30:59 AM




2/8/2015 6:37:04 AM

Nemo

You're half right with the last paragraph. It is illogical to assert that an entity couldn't possibly be loving and omnipotent without explaining why. However, when it comes to any suggested entity, and the manner in which said entity is depicted by those suggesting it, you can do just that. For example, with the vague God of the philosophers, you can debate all day over whether such an entity is capable of love. With the God of the Bible, on the other hand, we have page upon page of horrific violence and a psychotic need to be revered which can only indicate a spiteful, malevolent being.

2/8/2015 7:01:21 AM

creativerealms

As a Deist I disagree. I find it illogical to believe that the Programer of Infinity can be a Loving and personal God who cares about each of his creations personally and plans to show his love by torturing us for all eternity.

2/8/2015 7:12:37 AM

Pule Thamex

Desperanto, the preferred language of theists everywhere.

2/8/2015 7:23:54 AM

Malingspann

"it's illogical to assert that a Supreme Being couldn't possibly be loving and Omnipotent, without simultaneously accepting the hypothetical existence of said God. That's a tautology that goes something like this: 'Something is false because it cannot be true.'"

Unlike the tautology so beloved by fundies: "The statement 'there is a God, OUR God!' is true because it cannot be false!"

2/8/2015 8:56:37 AM

Professor von SCIENCE!!!

'Something is false because it cannot be true.'

Generally that is what false means.

2/8/2015 9:59:25 AM

Alencon

No, it's not illogical to assert that a Supreme Being couldn't possibly be loving or omnipotent simply because one accepts his hypothetical existence.

It is hypothetically possible that Big Foot exists but I'm pretty sure that even if he does he's not all that loving or omnipotent.

Evidence of existence is distinct from evidence of being loving or omnipotent.

2/8/2015 10:01:46 AM

nazani14

I'm an atheist will to accept for the sake of argument that a creature with abilities so remarkable that humans might mistake it for a supernatural being ( a god) might exist somewhere in this vast universe. What I don't need to bother considering is the existence of your Bible god, because its mythological antecedents are well documented.

2/8/2015 10:15:32 AM

DFM

Vaguely reminiscent of Saint Anselm's fallacious argument. Nice try, though.

2/8/2015 10:23:27 AM

Doubting Thomas

You're wasting your time with all this, because if someone could have proved God's existence throughout history, they would have by now. And until someone actually does, it's ridiculous to believe in that god. You don't get to claim that all arguments have to start from the position of God exists.

2/8/2015 10:39:38 AM

Nomen Nescio

"x is false because X cannot be true" is not a tautology. provided you can actually prove the latter half, it's deductive reasoning. OTOH if you can't prove it, then the whole sentence is just you running your mouth.

2/8/2015 12:11:39 PM

Old Viking

Give him an "A" in sophistry and word-mincing.

2/8/2015 3:09:56 PM

Kanna

So you can't debate god without assuming god, but if you do, it's heads I win and tails you lose? You've got your own "logical foul" going there.

2/8/2015 3:35:15 PM

David B.

- Assume there is a largest prime number, P.
- You could then multiply all the prime numbers from 2 to P together to get a new number we'll call M.
- Now add one to M to give N.
- We know that N cannot be exactly divisible by any of the prime numbers from 2 to P, since each would always leave a remainder of 1.
- So either N is itself prime, or it has prime factors larger than those from 2 to P, contradicting our initial assumption.

So that there is a largest prime number P is false because it cannot be true.

2/9/2015 4:54:47 PM

Goomy pls

Also, it's illogical to assert that a Supreme Being couldn't possibly be loving and Omnipotent, without simultaneously accepting the hypothetical existence of said God.

So talking about the properties of a hypothetical ideal gas means that a perfectly ideal gas exists?

2/9/2015 5:19:57 PM

Sasha

it's illogical to assert that a Supreme Being couldn't possibly be loving and Omnipotent, without simultaneously accepting the hypothetical existence of said God.

First, you have to decide which supreme being you're talking about, the loving & omnipotent one or your bible god.

2/9/2015 7:47:34 PM

Ebon

This is just insisting that logic must adhere to the rules you want it to.

2/10/2015 11:21:24 AM

1 | top: comments page