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

[Theunis]

Sorry that website is factually not academic nor credible.

So please elucidate as to what you think in what ways it is not credible.

 

[Theunis]

When you propose pseudoscience then your knowledge is lacking. ....

It is not a contradiction at all. I first attacked the logic of your argument......

No your response indicates your ignorance in this regard.
You were speaking in general and the word "stricly" negates your own ad hoc response. i.e you formed, arranged, and/or did it for a particular purpose only.

 

[Reflex]

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

I vote "none of the above" and suggest he cannot grasp them.

 

[Reflex]

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.

One question: of what use or value is mind without an other?

 

[Theunis]

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,

Now you attack "Answers in Genesis". I used them for no other purpose but to explain what I meant that Dust is a Component of earth.
Your response is thus meaningless rhetoric.

 

[Theunis]

"If you can't show it, you don't know it".

Oh so show me your mind. I presume that you think you know it to be so that you have a mind but take it out and show it to me.

 

[JoStories]

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.

I would disagree. She has made it clear that she is responding to the OP and as such, she is asking, and I agree with her, that the OP is asking an unclear question. For me, it asks can you find an argument, if you believe in God, that is cogent enough to prove to oneself or another. Its really a non argument IMO, because belief in God is merely that, belief. One can respond to posts how one feels is best. Who are you to judge that it is off topic. It seems to me that you merely wish to be argumentative for its own sake.

 

[Shad]

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."

Pure nonsense. Take a few philosophy classes to see how each God argument fails. Even theists like Swinburne know God arguments are easy to refute.

 

[outhouse]

Now you attack "Answers in Genesis".

No one with any credibility, does not attack them.

And rightfully so. they have bad credibility not none.

 

[Shad]

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?

That is not cherry picking at all and you have no rebuttal at all. Try again son.

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.

I didn't skip anything. All claims have been shown to be frauds hence your claim is pseudoscience

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

An explanation based on flawed logic is still a flawed explanation.

No your response indicates your ignorance in this regard.

Nope. You seem to be oblivious to the idea that your logic is horrible so once refuting your logic I then questioned your knowledge of logic

You were speaking in general and the word "stricly" negates your own ad hoc response. i.e you formed, arranged, and/or did it for a particular purpose only.

No I am pointing out a sequence of events. First your horrible logic then your lack of knowledge of logic. A specific is not a generalization as I would not mention logic at all if it was. Do you know what specific means?

 

[outhouse]

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

Please.

You have brought nothing. I have literally begged for a decent argument and none have been presented

 

[Sundance]

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.

You realize I have caught you in a snare of misunderstanding, right?

 

[Theunis]

Please.

You have brought nothing. I have literally begged for a decent argument and none have been presented

Please. What have you contributed that is profitable discourse?
Ducking and diving and still bringing nothing to the table is your forte.
Do you think that continually saying it is not academic or not credible are in any way arguments, if so you are sorely mistaken and suffering from true comprehension of what is said!

Try returning to the original subject and at least refute one of the things I mentioned.
viz - As you beleive so it will be unto you. (this comes from the old testament!)
Or are you too afraid to try to do so for it has stood the test of time ad with things from the days we NOW live i you are doomed to failure.

 

[Theunis]

I would disagree. She has made it clear that she is responding to the OP and as such, she is asking, and I agree with her, that the OP is asking an unclear question. For me, it asks can you find an argument, if you believe in God, that is cogent enough to prove to oneself or another. Its really a non argument IMO, because belief in God is merely that, belief. One can respond to posts how one feels is best. Who are you to judge that it is off topic. It seems to me that you merely wish to be argumentative for its own sake.

I think you may have missed the subsequent conversation that clarifies the position.

Me being argumentative for its own sake I would classify as incorrect. Perhaps you can say this about Outhouse

 

[Theunis]

That is not cherry picking at all and you have no rebuttal at all. Try again son.



I didn't skip anything. All claims have been shown to be frauds hence your claim is pseudoscience



An explanation based on flawed logic is still a flawed explanation.



Nope. You seem to be oblivious to the idea that your logic is horrible so once refuting your logic I then questioned your knowledge of logic



No I am pointing out a sequence of events. First your horrible logic then your lack of knowledge of logic. A specific is not a generalization as I would not mention logic at all if it was. Do you know what specific means?

No bull. Thats nice.
My logic lecturer must have scrambled my mind.

Pseudoscience does not appear to be one of your subjects of understanding. But you sure know how to make veiled insults. To be more specific in what I mean - you ask do I know what specific means, intimating that I am ignorant, why then O Grand Master (drip, drip) why don't you try to educate me on this matter and stop casting slurs on my knowledge. whilst in many aspects yours is severely lacking.

Go back to Hereward Carrington where some things were fraudulent. Some thing does not mean all things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereward_Carrington

How about fraudulent science with the Piltdown Man and others placing arms on monkeys and apes in unnatural positions and then make fraudulent claims regarding the evolution of man. Using your logic Evolution is thus also a pseudoscience for it has been caught out in fraudulent acts, lies and deceit.

You are not unlike those who say Psychology is not a science yet Psychology uses all the tenets and tools of modern day science; The same goes for
modern day research into the paranormal.

Stop cherry picking and do yourself a favour by finding information all on your own regarding these present day researches.

Q. Who or what, my lad, was the father of science. A. Philosophy!

 

[Theunis]

An explanation based on flawed logic is still a flawed explanation.

Dear me I had already apologized for equating element with component.
It is quite obvious that you have no comprehension of the fact I was using that site to explain that I meant dust to be a component of earth.

Man oh man now it devolves into you using strawman tactics

 

[JoStories]

I think you may have missed the subsequent conversation that clarifies the position.

Me being argumentative for its own sake I would classify as incorrect. Perhaps you can say this about Outhouse

At times, he can be but that is mostly when he is confronted with people who debate with no real sense of how to debate or with people who refuse to cite their positions with credible sources. Outhouse is passionate about religious history and its place in faith based religions. My PhD study focused more on the commonalities of faiths and how they developed and also on mysticism. His educatiive endeavors, as aforementioned, are more about religious history, I can be irritated when someone will argue with me but does so only from a position of belief and not from known sources. And also when the person debating devolves into name calling and snarky remarks. Having read many of your posts, I agree that you are debating but you also tend to be rather snarky. If one of my students were to do same, I would fail them.
And thank you for increasing the font size. Very nice of you.

 

[JoStories]

Please. What have you contributed that is profitable discourse?
Ducking and diving and still bringing nothing to the table is your forte.
Do you think that continually saying it is not academic or not credible are in any way arguments, if so you are sorely mistaken and suffering from true comprehension of what is said!

Outhouse said:
Please.

You have brought nothing. I have literally begged for a decent argument and none have been presented


I would be inclined to say you are both neither right nor wrong. I would ask Outhouse this: How do you view the works of Edgar Cayce? Do you dismiss his statistics out of hand? His remarks on medical issues have proven to be incredibly correct, statistically. OTOH, I totally agree that there is not one shred of scientific evidence to prove telepathy is anything more than good guesses.

I would ask Theunis this: Have you searched Google Scholar for true evidence of your positions? If you have, I assume you can admit there is no evidence to back your claims. Why is that so hard to admit? There may be a day when it can be proven but for now, there is none. Or can you provide a credible source for your assertions?

 

[Theunis]

At times, he can be but that is mostly when he is confronted with people who debate with no real sense of how to debate or with people who refuse to cite their positions with credible sources. Outhouse is passionate about religious history and its place in faith based religions. My PhD study focused more on the commonalities of faiths and how they developed and also on mysticism. His educatiive endeavors, as aforementioned, are more about religious history, I can be irritated when someone will argue with me but does so only from a position of belief and not from known sources. And also when the person debating devolves into name calling and snarky remarks. Having read many of your posts, I agree that you are debating but you also tend to be rather snarky. If one of my students were to do same, I would fail them.
And thank you for increasing the font size. Very nice of you.

Yes I know I am at times snarky. It is mainly based on cause and effect on slurs,veiled insults and insults from others.

It is a carry over from the filth, insults and abuse many on the about.com, Atheist Forum were, without provocation, hurling at me.

I then quoted them "do unto others as you want them do unto you" I told them that I will now become "one of the others" and reflect that which they said back at them without ire, or being affronted by their ill attitudes.
After telling them of this decision they persisted with their uncouth remarks and ad hominem. Was this not then how they wished to be treated ?

 

[Theunis]

Outhouse said:
Please.

You have brought nothing. I have literally begged for a decent argument and none have been presented


I would be inclined to say you are both neither right nor wrong. I would ask Outhouse this: How do you view the works of Edgar Cayce? Do you dismiss his statistics out of hand? His remarks on medical issues have proven to be incredibly correct, statistically. OTOH, I totally agree that there is not one shred of scientific evidence to prove telepathy is anything more than good guesses.

I would ask Theunis this: Have you searched Google Scholar for true evidence of your positions? If you have, I assume you can admit there is no evidence to back your claims. Why is that so hard to admit? There may be a day when it can be proven but for now, there is none. Or can you provide a credible source for your assertions?

Okay which claims and assertions are you referring to? What Í considered to be a credible resource was not refuted with a credible source.
Take the links to the UCLA which were pooh poohed. If Outhouse is indeed what you say he is why then does he everytime he say "not credible" and I ask him to give me a more credible source, has not once given me one. On what does he base his "not credible" even when my source were beyond reproach.

I was born with telepathy which I have kept hidden, from most people, because of the shock on peoples faces when I sometimes said something and their fear of the unknown.

For me there was never any proof necessary because I cannot be the only "freak" on earth and statistically there must be others like me.