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

[Theunis]

Sorry that website is factually not academic nor credible.

Neither are your thoughts academically or otherwise credible;

 

[ChristineES]

Without a preamble and a forum identification that yours is a new post, I must assume you are referring to the original post but like our recent post you are also
not on the original subject.

I have given them at least three items that they will be not be able to refute. So far there are no takers

Our recent discourse is way off topic.

That's normal (to go wildly off-topic). I should have known better than to not quote the OP.

 

[Theunis]

I should have quoted the opening post, that is who and what I was responding to. I was kind of late in responding. I have a job now and have much less time to come here. .

Thank you

 

[outhouse]

Neither are your thoughts academically or otherwise credible;

Mine are and every word I can source unlike your rhetoric
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis

their methodology rejects naturalistic scientific explanations of the origin of the universe in favor of the supernatural,

 

[crossfire]

In all these years debating with religious people I ve never been faced with an argument that I ended up to find challenging or hard to dismantle. They go from the clever ones to nonsense one ( like "cause I feel it in my heart" ) to the most stupid and elementary ones ( like the classic "what if you're wrong" ) but in the end they always can be rejected by use of reason and logic (even if they usually find unsatisfactory those answers cause they dont praise reason and logic ). Maybe I ve been unlucky and found only weak debaters. So my question is both to religious and not religious people

To non believers I ask, Have you ever faced an argument that really represented a challenge for you or that you weren't able to dismantle?

To believers I ask, is there an argument that you think you can present and that no unbeliever has ever been able to provide a good answer to? ( assuming it wasn't only because you would reject every possible explanation going against your faith, like for example creationists rejecting all the arguments against Noah s ark )

Have you tried dismantling or refuting Taoism? {If you like a challenge}

 

[Shad]

Sorry for the belated reply.
My thoughts on he Golden Rule is more Universal.
It is not seeking comfort for it is the most difficult of all paths to follow.
It includes, with due consideration and respect of you as a person and those things you consider to be important in your life. It is walking in Beauty, embrace the Universe and in some respects "paying it forward"

I would rather say it is based on - Peace on earth and goodwill to all men.

Thanks for the clarification. A lot of people mention the Golden Rule but never go into detail about their view of it.

 

[Shad]

Thanks me lad for "calling this ancient "son" Oh sorry now I see, from my POV, you are attempting to be derogatory by equating me to a child whose knowledge is almost naught. Tut tut. "Walk softly Peter Troy"

When you propose pseudoscience then your knowledge is lacking.

Here is a link better explaining how I perceived "dust"
You will notice that "dust" is mentioned as an "element."

https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/from-dust-to-dust/

Linking a website which makes the same mistake as you does nothing to help your argument. Notice how your source changes dust into stardust? This is an equivocation fallacy. The Bible never says stardust once. Later they use the term "dust of the Earth" again changing what dust means. Later they use "dust of the ground" changing dust a 3rd time. Later they look at the Hebrew word for dust which does not include stardust at all. Later they use clay instead of dust. All your article does it keep changing what they mean by dust to match modern science which provides specifics while the specifics in the Bible contains no specifics to what we are made of. It is the same ad hoc and post hoc rationalizations you made before.

How nice to say this while sometimes in direct or veiled manner you attempt to derogate someone.
Take a look at what you said - "....I am strictly attacking the logic, in most cases,...." (emphasis mine) This is a contradiction of terms !

It is not a contradiction at all. I first attacked the logic of your argument. However since you do not understand post hoc and ad hoc rationalization then it is not longer just about your logic but your understanding of it.

 

[Shad]

It was the intention to help you realize your mistaken thoughts that Parapsychology is not a pseudoscience

It is a pseudoscience as all of its theories have been exposed as fraudulent.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/pip369/mod10/extrasensory/sum

 

[Milton Platt]

My God exists because the universe exists.

How do you know that? And I don't want to hear what you BELIEVE....What do you KNOW? As someone once said, "If you can't show it, you don't know it". Maybe the universe exists because of someone else's god.....or a god we don't know of.....or sans a god. Your statement carries no weight. Also, the OP was asking if you knew of any arguments for theism which held up to logic, not for an off-hand declaration.

 

[cambridge79]

Have you tried dismantling or refuting Taoism? {If you like a challenge}

even if i like the general philosophy behind it ( i generally find eastern religions more fascinating and deep than western ones ) i think refuting things like feng shui, qi and chinese medicine that, if i'm not wrong, derives from basic principles of Taoism is quite an effortless task. Those things make quite phisical claims that can be scrutinized with instruments.

 

[Reflex]

In browsing through the earlier parts of the thread I skipped, I am amazed by just how right my first post in was:

"Oh, for heaven's sake. Of course atheists believe there is no argument that can stand up to reasoned scrutiny. That's because the arguments they encounter are either puerile or beyond their ability to grasp."

 

[Unveiled Artist]

 

[Reflex]

I like that. That's about the size of it.

 

[outhouse]

Of course atheists believe there is no argument that can stand up to reasoned scrutiny.

Still waiting for you to bring an argument and begin debating.

So far all you do is debate the debate.

Anyone can sit in the sidelines in complete safety

 

[Mister Emu]

It depends upon what you mean by "dismantle".

If the meaning of your challenge is for me to provide for it being a logical imperative that my God exists and you should follow him. No. The existence of anything other than your mind isn't truly imperative.

If you are reasonable requesting an argument that allows for the conclusion of deity as a reasonable belief, yes.

As far as value or worth, I can also fairly argue that morality as a concept demands a metaphysical order that goes beyond simple materialistic naturalism.

 

[outhouse]

^^^ Very well put, intellectually solid ^^^

Some of my best friends here and in the real world are theist, and its the context that makes or breaks most arguments.

I can also fairly argue that morality as a concept demands a metaphysical order that goes beyond simple materialistic naturalism.

I only wonder why morality as a concept needs to go beyond materialistic naturalism, unless your talking about human emotions.

 

[Theunis]

It is a pseudoscience as all of its theories have been exposed as fraudulent.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/pip369/mod10/extrasensory/sum

My oh my this is some excellent cherry picking what.!
All of them poor man he is confusing it with some of them

Oops I clicked Like instead of Quote, how do I undo this?

 

[Theunis]

Still waiting for you to bring an argument and begin debating.

So far all you do is debate the debate.

Anyone can sit in the sidelines in complete safety

I issued about three or so but either you did not read them or ignored them because they cannot be refuted.

 

[Theunis]

When you propose pseudoscience then your knowledge is lacking.



Linking a website which makes the same mistake as you does nothing to help your argument. Notice how your source changes dust into stardust? This is an equivocation fallacy. The Bible never says stardust once. Later they use the term "dust of the Earth" again changing what dust means. Later they use "dust of the ground" changing dust a 3rd time. Later they look at the Hebrew word for dust which does not include stardust at all. Later they use clay instead of dust. All your article does it keep changing what they mean by dust to match modern science which provides specifics while the specifics in the Bible contains no specifics to what we are made of. It is the same ad hoc and post hoc rationalizations you made before.



It is not a contradiction at all. I first attacked the logic of your argument. However since you do not understand post hoc and ad hoc rationalization then it is not longer just about your logic but your understanding of it.

I see you like to skip things and cast red herrings. Have another look what he said using an open mind to the possibilities he speaks of.

It was an attempted explanation, for your enlightenment, of what I considered dust to be ! - viz a component of earth.

 

[Theunis]

And the article failed on all counts

Of course I knew it would fail because I considered your not so open mind and don't confuse me with the facts attitude.
But one can always hope that you who vaunts the academic would at least be convinced by the finding of academics.