Arguments for God's Existence

[Sparhafoc]

According to LEROY's condescending dismissal of someone... who? Can't remember... maybe me, maybe any other member here... it's a bit like the Trump attacked me on Twitter Wall of Fame http://www.highsnobiety.com/2017/07/13/stephen-colbert-trump-attacked-me-on-twitter-hall-fame/ it could literally be anyone.

Anyway, according to that...

form previous threads, it is obvious that your are not even willing to look at the arguments for the existence of God and make an honest effort to understand them,

Which, if I may be so bold, means in legible English:

From previous threads, it is obvious (to me) that you are not even willing to look at the arguments for the existence of my preferred god, or to make an honest effort to understand those arguments.

So here's a nice thread all its own where LEROY can tell us about those wonderful arguments for the existence of God - all those arguments none of us are already patently familiar with, probably because we were too lazy or too dishonest to unquestioningly accept!

It'd be nice to run a partner thread where we put bets on which arguments LEROY's going to use, but that might not be very fair - it might put too much pressure on him to perform, so to speak, and we wouldn't want any excuses for any ensuing flaccidity, would we?

So here's your platform, LEROY:

 

[leroy]

According to LEROY's condescending dismissal of someone... who? Can't remember... maybe me, maybe any other member here... it's a bit like the Trump attacked me on Twitter Wall of Fame http://www.highsnobiety.com/2017/07/13/stephen-colbert-trump-attacked-me-on-twitter-hall-fame/ it could literally be anyone.

Anyway, according to that...

form previous threads, it is obvious that your are not even willing to look at the arguments for the existence of God and make an honest effort to understand them,

Which, if I may be so bold, means in legible English:

From previous threads, it is obvious (to me) that you are not even willing to look at the arguments for the existence of my preferred god, or to make an honest effort to understand those arguments.

So here's a nice thread all its own where LEROY can tell us about those wonderful arguments for the existence of God - all those arguments none of us are already patently familiar with, probably because we were too lazy or too dishonest to unquestioningly accept!

It'd be nice to run a partner thread where we put bets on which arguments LEROY's going to use, but that might not be very fair - it might put too much pressure on him to perform, so to speak, and we wouldn't want any excuses for any ensuing flaccidity, would we?

So here's your platform, LEROY:

no problem, this simple article lists and describes 4 arguments for the existence of God

Does God exist? We've seen five good reasons to think that God exists:
1. God makes sense of the origin of the universe.
2. God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
3. God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.
4. God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.


Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-1#ixzz4mpXJnsLi

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-1



select one (just one) of these arguments, prove to me that you understand the argument, and I will be glad to discuss it.

Which, if I may be so bold, means in legible English:

English is not my mother language and I have never lived in an English speaking country, if you can not deal with spelling or gramar mistakes then I am not the correct person to discuss with

 

[Sparhafoc]

1. God makes sense of the origin of the universe.

Sense? Really?

So it's sensible to posit that a being lives outside of time and space, who has the power to create universes with magical words, and did so with a special purpose in mind here, to create humans and tell them what they could or could not do, and wants to be in a relationship with them?

So this sense also includes making a space of at least 3.58×1080 m3, and then plopping down his special creation - the point of all this universe - on a small planet in an otherwise unremarkable solar system, with a livable area for his special purpose of just 24,642,757 square miles.

And this makes sense?

It makes no more sense than any other creation myth. Humans who didn't know about much at all, tried to imagine ways in which complicated things happened, and posited super human like characters to do the shaking and moving. No sense is involved, just story-telling, imagination, and ignorance.

It makes nonsense, I will give you that.


2. God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

The universe is manifestly not fine-tuned for life, so that demolishes in entirety the whole screed if they'd claim such manifestly delusional bullshit.


3. God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.

Like smashing baby's heads against rocks, taking prepubescent virgins as trophies of war after killing their families, playing tricks on parents pretending to want them to murder their own children, sending floods to murder every human, every animal, plant and organism on the planet in a fit of pique.

Those kind of morals, you mean?


4. God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

I like circular reasoning because I like circular reasoning because I like circular reasoning.

Sauron also makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Gandalf, but only morons think Sauron is real.

 

[leroy]

1. God makes sense of the origin of the universe.

Sense? Really?

So it's sensible to posit that a being lives outside of time and space, who has the power to create universes with magical words, and did so with a special purpose in mind here, to create humans and tell them what they could or could not do, and wants to be in a relationship with them?

So this sense also includes making a space of at least 3.58×1080 m3, and then plopping down his special creation - the point of all this universe - on a small planet in an otherwise unremarkable solar system, with a livable area for his special purpose of just 24,642,757 square miles.

And this makes sense?

It makes no more sense than any other creation myth. Humans who didn't know about much at all, tried to imagine ways in which complicated things happened, and posited super human like characters to do the shaking and moving. No sense is involved, just story-telling, imagination, and ignorance.

It makes nonsense, I will give you that.


2. God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

The universe is manifestly not fine-tuned for life, so that demolishes in entirety the whole screed if they'd claim such manifestly delusional bullshit.


3. God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.

Like smashing baby's heads against rocks, taking prepubescent virgins as trophies of war after killing their families, playing tricks on parents pretending to want them to murder their own children, sending floods to murder every human, every animal, plant and organism on the planet in a fit of pique.

Those kind of morals, you mean?


4. God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

I like circular reasoning because I like circular reasoning because I like circular reasoning.

Sauron also makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Gandalf, but only morons think Sauron is real.

I will only discuss with you if you accept my ruels


the first rule is select 1 of these arguments and prove to me that you understand it.


with each of your comments you made evident that you don't even understand the arguments and you are proving my previous assertion

it is obvious that your are not even willing to look at the arguments for the existence of God and make an honest effort to understand them,

 

[MarsCydonia]

the first rule is select 1 of these arguments and prove to me that you understand it.

if Leroy is going to set-up rules, shouldn't he also respect them?

Leroy as yet to actually show any understanding of any argument, he has not yet shown any honesty about any of these arguments.

16 pages about "the silence of god" and Leroy has yet to address:
1. The correct form of the argument.
2. How his objections to his flawed form of the argument (where he pretended to know god's goals) were shown to be invalid.
3. How his flawed form of the argument and or his now reversal of "not knowing god goals' brings glaring issues for a christian standpoint.

I spent the first few comments on that thread asking Leroy to look up the argument as it truly is. He spent 16 pages of comments with his erroneous version and refuse to look honestly at the argument.

And let's not forget the 63 pages of the ever-expanding Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." where Leroy has yet to offer something that is not either meaningless of viciously circular.

it is obvious that your are not even willing to look at the arguments for the existence of God and make an honest effort to understand them,

Nowhere is this more obvious than when looking at Leroy.

 

[leroy]

besides Sparhafoc there are 2 possibilities


ether you read this article in less than 12 minutes
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-1


or you didn't even read it and showed that you are not genuinely and honestly interested in learning and understanding the arguments for the existence of God, which validates my point>

it is obvious that your are not even willing to look at the arguments for the existence of God and make an honest effort to understand them

,

 

[leroy]

the first rule is select 1 of these arguments and prove to me that you understand it.

if Leroy is going to set-up rules, shouldn't he also respect them?

Leroy as yet to actually show any understanding of any argument, he has not yet shown any honesty about any of these arguments.

16 pages about "the silence of god" and Leroy has yet to address:
1. The correct form of the argument.
2. How his objections to his flawed form of the argument (where he pretended to know god's goals) were shown to be invalid.
3. How his flawed form of the argument and or his now reversal of "not knowing god goals' brings glaring issues for a christian standpoint.

I spent the first few comments on that thread asking Leroy to look up the argument as it truly is. He spent 16 pages of comments with his erroneous version and refuse to look honestly at the argument.

And let's not forget the 63 pages of the ever-expanding Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." where Leroy has yet to offer something that is not either meaningless of viciously circular.

it is obvious that your are not even willing to look at the arguments for the existence of God and make an honest effort to understand them,

Nowhere is this more obvious than when looking at Leroy.

rule 2
all irrelevant comments will be ignored


rule 3
I will only answer to Sparhafoc




just these 3 simple rules

 

[MarsCydonia]

rule 2
all irrelevant comments will be ignored

rule 3
I will only answer to Sparhafoc

just these 3 simple rules

Rule 4
Leroy will dismiss all he wants to run from as "irrelevant"

Rule 5
Leroy's rules will not apply to Leroy except for number 4.

 

[Bango Skank]

This whole topic is amusing and frustrating to me. I mean if God exists then why do we must rely on these philosophical arguments? Do we need to have philosophical arguments if we want to prove that electricity or radiation exists for example?

This whole discussion once again strongly hints that God is only a philosophical concept.

And why all the information about God is coming from fellow humans?, and their information can be traced back to one book, the bible, which is written again by humans.

This is madness.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I will only discuss with you if you accept my ruels

I will accept neither your ruels or your rules.

The rules are not yours to dictate.

If you want rules, then ask for a formal debate where we will BOTH be restricted to debate rules, because, LEROY, you've shown your contempt for discoursive etiquette dozens and dozens of times, so while it no doubt would help you to be able to handicap me, why should I submit to your ego-stroking illusory authority? First, you go learn how to debate, then we'll talk about rules.

You need to stop thrusting your unwarranted hubris in peoples faces and expecting them to gobble and swallow.

I stated your prior assertions in the first post, so if you want to start dictating how we can or can't answer the questions now, then you've shown you lack the competence to respond.

Incidentally, just to spell out what everyone can see. I replied with substance to your supposedly good arguments, and you've tried to reply to me with technicalities and forms rather than substance.

Of course, this alone means your first rebuttal is a failure.

I predict many more.

the first rule is select 1 of these arguments and prove to me that you understand it.

I already did - read my post.

Secondly, you're setting the bar far too high. It's nearly impossible to get you to understand anything. If I could do that, I'd be working on the cure for cancer, or planning peace in the Middle East.

Sadly, I am just a person who's spent his life studying humans, with 25 years of teaching experience in the field and in commercial training. So you're just going to have to accept that I am limited in getting you to understand - I am only allowed to use facts, evidence, logic, reason, and rationality. And we've all seen how well those work.

with each of your comments you made evident that you don't even understand the arguments and you are proving my previous assertion

So you assert.

Got anything more than an assertion?

No, of course you don't - you've never managed to produce more than an assertion, and even then, you can barely complete a sentence before your curiously freeform approach to syntax leaves you in a semantic muddle.

it is obvious that your are not even willing to look at the arguments for the existence of God and make an honest effort to understand them,

Except, of course, I have shown exactly that by looking at the arguments and deconstructing them.

Do feel free to dispute my rebuttals if you think (ha!) that you possess the competence.

But if you want to play another game where you get to be judge, jury, and executioner while simultaneously playing for points.... nope, LEROY. Although I do appreciate that it's hardly fair to pit a Light Flyweight like yourself against the Heavyweights here. But that's what happens when you believe in bollocks for no good reason.

 

[Sparhafoc]

besides Sparhafoc there are 2 possibilities


ether you read this article in less than 12 minutes
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-1

Yes, LEROY. That's exactly what I did.

or you didn't even read it and showed that you are not genuinely and honestly interested in learning and understanding the arguments for the existence of God, which validates my point>

Even were I not to have read it, this is not a logical expression at all. This is an attempt to score points on manufactured technicalities. It's also horseshit and is therefore dismissed.

In reality, I have heard all the arguments for the existence of gods written by thousands of people, all of them vastly more competent than you, over the decades of my life. You see, there is a finite number over all of human history. I nearly provided a list at the beginning of the thread just because it would have been funny to query whether you'd offer something new. Actually, the format of all your 4 postulates is the same argument (not that you'd grasp it) - an argument from design. That one can see the existence of God in the order of the world around them. It's a piss poor argument even when stated more comprehensively than your ineptly written link. Do you want me to expand on this? We'd start in Ancient Greece where Socrates first recorded this type of argument, although problematically for you, he was using it to argue for gods other than your one!

Actually, what's worse for you here, although your hubris will protect you from the embarrassment, is that I could list vastly more arguments for the existence of god(s) than you, plus there'd be the added factor that I'd actually understand them, whereas you'd just lend them belief from their titles.

So yeah, less foreplay, more copulation.

Or were you thinking to just keep declaring every argument invalid on the grounds that they don't accept the arguments?

Please do explain precisely how one would go about showing you that they understand.

Also, learn what proof is already.

 

[Sparhafoc]

This whole topic is amusing and frustrating to me. I mean if God exists then why do we must rely on these philosophical arguments? Do we need to have philosophical arguments if we want to prove that electricity or radiation exists for example?

This whole discussion once again strongly hints that God is only a philosophical concept.

And why all the information about God is coming from fellow humans?, and their information can be traced back to one book, the bible, which is written again by humans.

This is madness.

Yep.

Arguments are needed because evidence is non-existent!

But ok, that's fine. Let's credit this god with the ability to do all it does without leaving any evidence. It's plausible, even if apparently pathetic for others to lend credence to.

Instead, there could be logical arguments that necessarily create a need that could only be resolved with a god ontology.

Sadly, even after 2000 years and having borrowed half their arguments from the Greeks, Christians still forward predominantly begged questions, and people like LEROY are never going to understand that if we all dedicated our lives to explaining it to him.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

no problem, this simple article lists and describes 4 arguments for the existence of God

Does God exist? We've seen five good reasons to think that God exists:
1. God makes sense of the origin of the universe.
2. God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
3. God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.
4. God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.


Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-1#ixzz4mpXJnsLi

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-1

[emphasis added]

:?:

Apparently, whoever wrote that is as good with numbers as dandan/leroy.

:lol:

rule 2
all irrelevant comments will be ignored

rule 3
I will only answer to Sparhafoc

just these 3 simple rules

Rule 4
Leroy will dismiss all he wants to run from as "irrelevant"

Rule 5
Leroy's rules will not apply to Leroy except for number 4.

Rule 6
We do not talk about Fight Club!

 

[Deleted member 619]

ether you read this article in less than 12 minutes
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-1


or you didn't even read it and showed that you are not genuinely and honestly interested in learning and understanding the arguments for the existence of God, which validates my point>

Or, being a seasoned campaigner with a good bit over a decade covering all the bases in this debate, he has, as have several people here, developed a keen eye for Kalamity Kraig's material, and would only have to apply six minutes of time deciding which of the myriad approaches to showing that Kraig is talking through his arse, and the other six selecting the precise tone he was going to take.

As is often the case with religious apologists, your dichotomy is false.

 

[Rando]

Oh good, more regurgitated Craig nonsense. The problem with regurgitating Craig is, none of his arguments are all that good. They don't have any demonstrable evidence behind them and they don't even argue exclusively for the christian god. Craig simply tacks on "and therefore the christian go is real." He does it with Kalam, fine tuning, absolute morality, and life after death, they all end with the same assertion "and therefore the christian god is real." The proof of that is other apologists that argue for different gods regurgitate Craig's talking points and tack on their respective gods. Here watch Hamza Tzortzis do it with Allah. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSwJuOPG4FI
Hamza even has a ready made excuse why Leroy believes Craig over him, "you're just racist against Muslims!" So Leroy are you just racist, or can you show how your god is the only one? So come on Leroy show us how any of the arguments you use can only be used to demonstrate your god and only your god. Make that connection, and don't just resort to assertion.

 

[Sparhafoc]

The real dichotomy LEROY's going for here is:

i) you are willing to look at the arguments for the existence of God and make an honest effort to understand them, which can be seen by you accepting them.

ii) you are not willing to look at the arguments for the existence of God and make an honest effort to understand them, which can be seen by you rejecting them.


So, even though both willing to look and prepared to make an honest effort to 'understand them' (even though they're written in plain English duh), anything I or others write that doesn't express intellectual subordination to these arguments for God's existence is immediately rejected as a sign of unwillingness or dishonesty.

As usual, Creationists show that even they know the only way they can hope to win is by cheating the system in their favour. Stack the deck? Nah, you're only allowed 2 cards prepicked for you!

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

These are pretty puerile arguments for a deity's existence.

A more robust set of arguments for deities can be found in Mackie's book, The Miracle Of Theism, or - if you really want to get into it - Sobel's Logic and Theism.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Sparhafoc]

Greetings,

These are pretty puerile arguments for a deity's existence.

A more robust set of arguments for deities can be found in Mackie's book, The Miracle Of Theism,...

Wow! I'd forgotten about that book! Must be 20 years since I read it.... but you are completely correct, James - that's an excellent and comprehensive synopsis: a best reading of each argument and counter! I'll have to dig that up next time I go to the UK. Bound to be stuffed in a box in the folks' loft!

 

[leroy]

besides Sparhafoc there are 2 possibilities


ether you read this article in less than 12 minutes
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-1

Yes, LEROY. That's exactly what I did..

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

so you read more than 5000 words and made a reply with 300 words in less than 12 minutes

stop lying, it is obvious that you did not even open the article.

which confirms my previous hypothesis, you are not interested in learning and understanding the arguments for the existence of God.

In reality, I have heard all the arguments for the existence of gods written by thousands of people,

from your previous reply it is obvious that you don't understand them, since you misrepresented at least 3 of them

Please do explain precisely how one would go about showing you that they understand.

sure, that has always been my intent, so select one of these 4 arguments (just one) and I will kindly explain you why did you misunderstand it and I will ask you a few questions, by answering those questions correctly you would prove that you understand the argument.


it shouldn't be a big deal, you also asked me questions to test if I understand how heredity works, if I took the time to answer to those questions, why wouldn't you do the same?


I will only have a discussion with you if you follow my rules, and of course you are free to decide if you what to follow the rules or not, no one is forcing you to stay on this thread

 

[Sparhafoc]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

so you read more than 500 and made a reply with 300 words in less than 12 minutes

Yes, LEROY. That's what I said, and that's what I did.

stop lying, it is obvious that you did not even open the article.

Lying? What a typically ignorant accusation on your part. One you couldn't even hope to support, but you'll toss it out to try ineffectually to antagonise anyway, because you've already been shown wrong about your silly contentions, so now you flap. Best try another strategy than well poisoning, though, because that's a strategy only used by vicious cunts.

Did I say I'd flown over the Moon? No? So wherein lies your skepticism?

All I did was read the words you cited and then reply. Not a task only legendary superhumans can achieve.

What I assume you're saying is that you can't read that article and reply within 12 minutes.

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest because, even when given days to read an argument repeatedly stated to you, you still fail to comprehend it.

But don't for a moment think that all of us are as handicapped as you in that regard.

Think for a minute LEROY. You probably couldn't even type 300 words in 12 minutes (assuming that number you've quoted relates to the time between your posting and my reply), so shouldn't you also be claiming that I didn't even write the reply?

Of course, you can't obfuscate that much even to yourself (although you invariably try) but it follows from what might be considered your 'argument', although it's just another collection of words stated with wholly undue confidence.

Regardless, I have the typing speed of a professional typist, LEROY. Do you think I spend lots of time responding to your posts? Don't be daft - I've got vastly better things to do with my time - I only spend the time sufficient to show your posts as fatuous uncritical crap - mere moments, in other words. This post, for example, will take me in the range of 2 minutes from initial response, to complete destruction of the jizz you've sprayed into the conversation.

As for reading, yes, LEROY - some of us are more competent than you. I spend my life reading - it is my one true love. I read fast, LEROY. I read a standard sized book in 2-3 days, assuming I have a few hours spare. I've estimated before that I read in the region of 40,000 words a day on average. It's a significant part of all the different jobs I do.

Do you also think that Usain Bolt can't run the 100 metres dash in under 10 seconds just because it would take you 15?

Same *cough cough* line of reasoning *cough cough*.

which confirms my previous hypothesis, you are not interested in learning and understanding the arguments for the existence of God.

Which confirms that you operate solely on uninspected prejudices that you are unwilling to address, and that you will consequently be blind to your own ignorance for the sum of your life. What a sad story.

from your previous reply it is obvious that you don't understand them, since you misrepresented at least 3 of them

No, I didn't.

You can't show that I misrepresented them which is why, as always, you simply assert it.

Your assertion is dismissed. Either show how I misrepresented them or take your cock off the table of emotionally stable mature discourse.

sure, that has always been my intent, so select one of these 4 arguments (just one) and I will kindly explain you why did you misunderstand it and I will ask you a few questions, by answering those questions correctly you would prove that you understand the argument.

You ignored my question and repeated a claim.

Read my question again: how would anyone prove to you that they understood if your working assumption is that they misunderstood if they don't accept the argument?

But thanks for writing it out for me so it doesn't just seem like me who's saying it - now you've admitted to it.

Again, LEROY, the thing getting in the way of discussion with you is the vast, bloated, pus-ridden hubris which infects all your interactions here.

You think you're in a position to be judge, jury and executioner, when really you lack the credibility to even sweep the floors once the serious people have conducted their business.

You will not be the judge of whether other people understand, not least because you show no comprehension of anything but your navel, but also because you can't both make the argument and pretend to arbitrate on whether people have understood it based on whether they agree with you.

That's like a 5 year old demanding you play by the rules they're making up on the fly. I'd probably join in with a 5 year old, because the important points in doing so would be the 'play' itself and the interaction between the child and the adult.

But with you, you don't get to play these juvenile games without getting spanked and sent to bed.

it shouldn't be a big deal, you also asked me questions to test if I understand how heredity works, if I took the time to answer to those questions, why wouldn't you do the same?

I've answered above. Feel free to address the substance of my posts whenever you muster some competence.

I will only have a discussion with you if you follow my rules, and of course you are free to decide if you what to follow the rules or not, no one is forcing you to stay on this thread

As far as I am concerned, quite aside from your overweening hubris, the forum here has rules and I can't imagine they will find it amusing that you think you get to dictate what happens here.

Want to make your own rules, LEROY? Go get your own fucking website.

As I've patently told you several times before, I don't give a rat's chuff if you will or won't enter into the standard norms of discussion or argumentation - it just show your lack of competence that you feel the need to be in control of the format of that discussion.

Don't want to discuss with me? No problem at all. I will still reply showing how moronic your assertions are, your reply is not a requirement for me.