• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is it a waste of my time to try having honest, logical debates with theists?

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Religious discussion then. I wasn't about to get involved where I had no real interest. Things can very easily turn hostile even here but I just tend to let it roll over me, as do many - but I am sure you know that. :D
I have not seen a lot of hostility here compared to elsewhere.... One atheist got so angry at me that he deleted all the posts he ever wrote on my forum... I never did a thing to him but respond to his posts... I was polite and sincere, he just does not like my beliefs, but that is no reason to strike out at anyone... Besides, he was the one who chose to post to me, I never went after him... Now somehow that is my fault because he does not like my answers.... what a child.

There might be some hostility here but everything is relative. :oops::rolleyes:
What happened to Mostly Harmless Too?
 
1) I believe a sound argument can be made for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus which would establish the central truth of Christianity.

2) I reject hard-cold evidentialism and endorse Reformed Epistemology. I consider Christianity to enjoy the warrant of a properly basic belief and as such, so long as it has no defeaters, is rational to hold.

I do not think other religions enjoy a comparatively strong case.

Regardless, one can be a theist without really following any particular religion. Even if Christianity (or all religions for that matter) were to turn out to be irrational, theism would still be an acceptable position to hold since I consider the arguments of Natural Theology to be more plausible than not, while finding the arguments in favor of atheism and agnosticism unpersuasive.

Thank you for the response. If we where debating what I asked you about I would at this point bring up issues I have with your response with explanations on how I arrived at those conclusions. It is at that point that theists can get derailed from the debate. I don't know if these people don't realize a debate is supposed to go back and forth while staying on topic or if they just don't care, they just want to nay say. If I asked you to give more information or provide something to back up one of your arguments, if you where here to have an honest debate, would likely have no problem doing that, right? Yet, with certain other theists I get "I don't have to prove anything to you!". Do you think that maybe some of these people might not understand what a debate is?
 

GoodbyeDave

Well-Known Member
… you would think there are at least a few theists out there that could give atheists a run for their money in a debate. Unfortunately, I haven't personally seen that.
Now I have exactly the same problem in reverse! I've been searching in books and on-line for some decent arguments in favour of atheism on which I could deploy my logical skills in refutation, but all I can find are the same arguments against Christianity that I'd use myself…
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I firmly believe that anything that exists is natural and bound by natural laws.
God created the natural laws but God is not bound by anything. So if God exists, God is not bound by natural laws.
Natural laws only apply to the physical world, so I guess what you are saying is that is all your mind can accommodate.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Is it logical to keep claiming that you detest debating atheists but insist on engaging atheists in a debate forum? Is that logical?
Engaging is not debating. I debate atheists all the time. I simply do not debate them on their favorite subject, their assumed rule that I must debate them on the evidence of God. That is not a debate, when one must provide everything, and the other nothing. I LOVE debating atheists, I simply won't debate them on the subject of me having to prove to them that God exists.

I note you are already indulging a habit I have seen in you before, ascribing words to someone they never said. I NEVER said I detest debating atheists. If you are going to quote me, please have the courtesy to quote what I actually said, and not something you made up.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
God created the natural laws but God is not bound by anything. So if God exists, God is not bound by natural laws.
Natural laws only apply to the physical world, so I guess what you are saying is that is all your mind can accommodate.

The problem is that the natural laws demonstrate no need for a god. And the arguments used by theists that say the universe had to have a maker can be equally applied to their god, if the universe needs a maker then by the same "logic" the maker needs a maker.

Turtles all the way down.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Engaging is not debating. I debate atheists all the time. I simply do not debate them on their favorite subject, their assumed rule that I must debate them on the evidence of God. That is not a debate, when one must provide everything, and the other nothing. I LOVE debating atheists, I simply won't debate them on the subject of me having to prove to them that God exists.

I note you are already indulging a habit I have seen in you before, ascribing words to someone they never said. I NEVER said I detest debating atheists. If you are going to quote me, please have the courtesy to quote what I actually said, and not something you made up.

Yet you run away from debates on evolution when shown to be wrong and evolution is not a god-no god debate. It is only a discussion on how life as we know it arose.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Nothing in your above claim is logical, all I see is three unsubstantiated assumptions.

1. Why do you ASSUME nothing can exist without being created, what created your god?
2. If the universe needed a creator, why do you ASSUME it has to be the god you worship? Why couldn't it be magical invisible spider monkeys that created the universe?
3. Even if the universe needed to be created, why do you ASSUME there is only one creator involved?



Did you mean to say atheists? Since you find debating distasteful, why are you in the debate forums? No one is forcing you to be here after all.



What evidence does someone have to provide to back up a claim that they don't know something? For instance, lets say that you encounter two strangers, one of which produced a shoe box and asked you and the other stranger to guess what's in the shoe box. The other stranger announces right away that there are shoes in the box. Not only that but that they are running shoes, they are blue and are size 10. Neither you or the other guy know the guy with the box or have ever seen inside that box. The box doesn't have any labels or markings on it. You (for the purposes of this exercise) honestly say that you don't know what, if anything is in the box. What evidence do you provide to the guy that claims there are running shoes in the box to convince him that you don't know what's in the box?
The syllogism I provided is perfectly logical. It is not unsound. Another counter syllogism would be the logical way to respond. Here is another, non life cannot create life, life was created, therefore God created life. Logic does not prove the ultimate truth, it tests a particular proposition, the first line of the syllogism is the proposition. Now, if you can provide evidence that nothing can create something, or that life can arise from non life, the syllogism would be unsound. We are discussing logic here, not the existence of God, those two syllogisms are examples of true logic at work. I simply used them to give you an idea of what logic is and what is logical. I assure you, other syllogisms can be constructed for the other view. Here is one you will like, Two opposing views can both be logical.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The syllogism I provided is perfectly logical. It is not unsound. Another counter syllogism would be the logical way to respond. Here is another, non life cannot create life, life was created, therefore God created life. Logic does not prove the ultimate truth, it tests a particular proposition, the first line of the syllogism is the proposition. Now, if you can provide evidence that nothing can create something, or that life can arise from non life, the syllogism would be unsound. We are discussing logic here, not the existence of God, those two syllogisms are examples of true logic at work. I simply used them to give you an idea of what logic is and what is logical. I assure you, other syllogisms can be constructed for the other view. Here is one you will like, Two opposing views can both be logical.


Your first premise needs to be proved. You can't just claim "life cannot come from non-life". And please do not be confused by the works of Pasteur in regards to spontaneous generation. That was not abiogenesis.

Your logic is flawed since you are not using valid premises.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Yet you run away from debates on evolution when shown to be wrong and evolution is not a god-no god debate. It is only a discussion on how life as we know it arose.
I don't debate you, because YOU are a waste of my time., I know ya want me, but ya ain't gonna get me.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
The problem is that the natural laws demonstrate no need for a god. And the arguments used by theists that say the universe had to have a maker can be equally applied to their god, if the universe needs a maker then by the same "logic" the maker needs a maker.

Turtles all the way down.
You are correct. That is why I do not present such arguments.
There is no proof that God created the universe, that is just a belief.
The universe could have come into existence another way. :)
 
Do you know why?



Can you name some? How clearly do you understand what you heard about our beliefs?



Can you be more specific? What claims does the Bible make that can't be true?



What stuff doesn't add up? There are some good conversations in these questions. :)

I created another thread "bible versus that don't make sense" so we can go further into this without derailing this thread.
 
Last edited:

Phantasman

Well-Known Member
Nothing in your above claim is logical, all I see is three unsubstantiated assumptions.

1. Why do you ASSUME nothing can exist without being created, what created your god?
2. If the universe needed a creator, why do you ASSUME it has to be the god you worship? Why couldn't it be magical invisible spider monkeys that created the universe?
3. Even if the universe needed to be created, why do you ASSUME there is only one creator involved?

All good and appropriate questions.

1. Rearranging created things is what the universe is. Everything is already created. Things come together to form something. This is not creation, it is engineering. To even create a balloon, we need to take other "creations" to work in chorus for what we want. We may say we created the balloon, but in truth, we engineered it.

God is not a creation, but because of him created things exist. Through him. but not by him, IMO. He can create a physical things as easy as we can create a thought. Or a solution to a problem. Physical creation is not the same as spiritual existence.

2. I agree in the content that more than one entity was involved in the creation (beginning). Orthodoxy follows that it was "God", but if it were of the same God Jesus talked of, it would have been spiritually and physically perfect, which it is not. Leads me to believe there was mistake(s) and Jesus taught of the perfect Father who doesn't make mistakes being perfect. The "god" who rued the creation of man, and to destroy him, was not the Father Jesus taught of. Which is why the Jews didn't see the son.

3. Even if we discovered every answer available in the universe, we would still not be able to understand the Father (of all). To see the created universe that we still don't understand in it's imperfection, how could we even try to understand that which is perfect? The flaws allow us to know that there is something above even the creator, that "was" flawed.

Just a point to ponder.
 
Engaging is not debating. I debate atheists all the time. I simply do not debate them on their favorite subject, their assumed rule that I must debate them on the evidence of God. That is not a debate, when one must provide everything, and the other nothing. I LOVE debating atheists, I simply won't debate them on the subject of me having to prove to them that God exists.

I note you are already indulging a habit I have seen in you before, ascribing words to someone they never said. I NEVER said I detest debating atheists. If you are going to quote me, please have the courtesy to quote what I actually said, and not something you made up.

Fair enough. That is the problem with acting on assumptions. I made assumptions about your motives based on some of your recent posts, which are very adversarial. Just keep in mind that if a topic is off limits for you than you shouldn't bring it up. If you open the door to that topic, in a debate, you can't complain if someone with an opposing view asks you to start backing up your claims.
 

Cary Cook

Member
But what if you are wrong and this is the only life we have?
Then I have wasted it preparing for something that doesn't exist. I accept that possibility. I found that the pleasures of this life usually costed more than they were worth. The older I get, the more I wish I had made this decision sooner.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
You didn't answer my question. Which makes more sense, a natural cause (Not Intelligent design) for the existence of the universe, or an endless series of creators? If an intelligent creator of some kind exists, it would need an origin as well. The argument that the world we live in is too complex to simply just exist suggests that complex things cannot just exist. Since a universe creating entity would likely be a much more complex entity than a human, it would require a creator as well. So where do you stand, natural cause or endless series of creators?



I think creator is a more descriptive word that also has less baggage associated with it. God is usually a word referring to the biblical god, which I firmly believe doesn't exist. God also seems to carry implications of supernatural and magical abilities/attributes, I firmly believe that anything that exists is natural and bound by natural laws.
God is outside all physical laws of the universe, physical laws of the universe dictate that all things must begin, therefore, God did not begin. More logic for you.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Fair enough. That is the problem with acting on assumptions. I made assumptions about your motives based on some of your recent posts, which are very adversarial. Just keep in mind that if a topic is off limits for you than you shouldn't bring it up. If you open the door to that topic, in a debate, you can't complain if someone with an opposing view asks you to start backing up your claims.
Right, I agree. I simply am trying to give folk a clearer idea of what logic is and what logical logical means.If someone would simply say it isn't logical to me, they would evade the trap of saying it isn't logical, therefore you and your position are illogical.Not necessarily true at all.
 
God is outside all physical laws of the universe, physical laws of the universe dictate that all things must begin, therefore, God did not begin. More logic for you.

Another assumption, how do you derive that your god exists outside a universe/space with laws?
 
Top