Is there any religious argument that actually stands when scrutinized with reason?

[1AOA1]

This is another logical fallacy ... "circular reasoning". You are assuming your conclusion in your premise. You claim that "God made the rules" which assumes God's existence.

But God's existence is not merely an assumption in theism.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do you think the Gremlin argument is any good?

It (physical gremlins as an immaterial first cause) doesn't come from theism.

 

[Thief]

This is another logical fallacy ... "circular reasoning". You are assuming your conclusion in your premise. You claim that "God made the rules" which assumes God's existence.

God is creator....substance and the rules that make it all work

 

[Thief]

The difference is that we aren't pretending to know, whereas you do.

I can know (be sure)....and not satisfy your need for evidence.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I can know (be sure)....and not satisfy your need for evidence.

Yes you can. I'd never say otherwise.

But you must recognize that it's intellectually dishonest to say that your personal conviction about something is the same as it being a statement of fact for the rest of us.

Do you see how your argument only needs a little bit of tweaking before it's both intellectually honest and more accurate?

 

[jonathan180iq]

It (physical gremlins as an immaterial first cause) doesn't come from theism.

But the principle does, doesn't it?

It doesn't matter what you change the subject to, it's still circular logic.

I use the Gremlin as an example because we share disbelief in the Gremlin. It highlights the fact that you would not accept a circular argument about a Gremlin but you would accept one about god. That would be intellectual dishonesty and will never help to further your cause.

 

[Thief]

Yes you can. I'd never say otherwise.

But you must recognize that it's intellectually dishonest to say that your personal conviction about something is the same as it being a statement of fact for the rest of us.

Do you see how your argument only needs a little bit of tweaking before it's both intellectually honest and more accurate?

it's not conviction.....
science takes anyone with a brain all the way to the singularity.
the question is the same for all
what caused it?

it should be obvious.....substance is not 'self' creating.
substance does not beget life.
Spirit first.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I thought you understood it there for a minute. Never mind.

 

[leibowde84]

But God's existence is not merely an assumption in theism.

I never said that it was. I was referring to your claim specifically that "God made the rules".

 

[Thief]

I thought you understood it there for a minute. Never mind.

and was hoping you would.....and you don't

 

[Thief]

I never said that it was. I was referring to your claim specifically that "God made the rules".

that was my claim
and Someone made the rules.....
or maybe you think rocks rule?
(rock rules!!!!!!...hehehehehe)

 

[leibowde84]

I can know (be sure)....and not satisfy your need for evidence.

But, your inability to provide evidence weakens your claim that "you are sure".

 

[Thief]

But, your inability to provide evidence weakens your claim that "you are sure".

and your stance (you don't know) is complete ignorance with a stubborn inclination of denial

 

[leibowde84]

that was my claim
and Someone made the rules.....
or maybe you think rocks rule?
(rock rules!!!!!!...hehehehehe)

What rules are you referring to specifically? Why would "someone" have to create the rules? Why couldn't they just be our way of linguistically explaining how material interacts with other material?

 

[leibowde84]

and your stance (you don't know) is complete ignorance with a stubborn inclination of denial

I admit that both you and I are ignorant of the answer to your question. In actuality, every person on earth is ignorant in this context. The difference is that I am willing to support this claim with explanation/reason, whereas you are unable to support your claim that you are sure that spirit came first. You've used principles like "cause and effect" that may or may not apply to the big bang/singularity.

Is it better to admit ignorance or assume an answer that you can't support? There is nothing wrong with admitting that we all don't know how the Big Bang initiated.

 

[leibowde84]

God is creator....substance and the rules that make it all work

I find this concept intriguing. Why wouldn't the laws just exist on their own? Matter interacts with other matter in a certain way. When large enough bodies come close enough to each other, gravitational forces come into play. That's just what happens with large material bodies like planets. Why would God be necessary to make up gravity?

 

[Thief]

I find this concept intriguing. Why wouldn't the laws just exist on their own? Matter interacts with other matter in a certain way. When large enough bodies come close enough to each other, gravitational forces come into play. That's just what happens with large material bodies like planets. Why would God be necessary to make up gravity?

just for fun.....I'm going to say......I don't know!!!!!!
hydrogen behaves like hydrogen......
gold is gold.....
each to his own.....

ooooops.......each to his own.....
as if substance would know of itself what it is and how to behave!!!!!

naw.....God set it all in motion.....each to it's own!!!!!

 

[leibowde84]

and your stance (you don't know) is complete ignorance with a stubborn inclination of denial

Are you under the impression that ignorance and admitting ignorance on a specific subject is somehow unreasonable or bad? Just curious, as you seem to use the admission of ignorance as an insult, but nothing could be further from the truth. Admitting that we, as humans, can't yet understand something is honorable. Why do you think differently?

 

[Thief]

Are you under the impression that ignorance and admitting ignorance on a specific subject is somehow unreasonable or bad? Just curious, as you seem to use the admission of ignorance as an insult, but nothing could be further from the truth. Admitting that we, as humans, can't yet understand something is honorable. Why do you think differently?

a stance of ignorance is not a winning stance.
call yourself ignorant if you must....
claim you don't know...if you don't...

that doesn't mean I have to concede my assuredness.
I believe in cause and effect.
I believe substance does not beget life.

God.

 

[leibowde84]

as if substance would know of itself what it is and how to behave!!!!!

Where do you get the idea that substance is conscious or actively behaves? Substance, as you define it, is material without the ability to "act". It interacts with other substance in certain ways, but there is no direction or ordering necessary. It "bahaves" in the way that it does simply because of what it is. Ice, for example, melts at a certain temperature due to weak chemical bonds. Why would God have to create a rule for that?

 

[leibowde84]

I believe in cause and effect.
I believe substance does not beget life.

We are both ignorant in this context, and that I am sure of. Unless you provide some kind of evidence for your claim, I have no reason to question my stance. "Ignorance" is merely the state of not knowing something. We are both ignorant of many things ... as is every person on earth. It is in no way insulting.

And, by your use of the word "believe", it is clear that you aren't "sure". Which is most likely due to the lack of evidence supporting said beliefs.