Staredit Network

I guess so. I've given up on really talking in these. Just way to much arrogance. All the believers SAY they are right (maybe 'cept for FK, I'm not sure though) and all the non believers SAY they're wrong.

I admit that I'm not always right and embrace that, therefore, no arrogance on my part, and I semi-believe both sides. Mostly the non-believers side.

Yea i agree 100% man. This was basicly what i was saying. But in much smaller words. Well i think this is wraped up. there is really no need to talk in here. everyones point is across and its pointles.

Like said so many times said before, you're statement is wrong until proven right. Religious people start off stating a statement, the defending side asks it to go through a reasonable test. Religious side hasn't finished the test yet. And they may never will finish it, so therefore, we must respect their opinion until then. Even if it takes another thousand years.

(When they did prove that there is a god, it was maybe thousands of years ago, when the average person was just down right retarded. And usually couldn't even read or write.)

BTW - Snipe, you're right. this topic is now pointless.

I use these kind of topics to learn more about the religious side.

... People like ChaoticS shatter my goals.

good day.... I SAID GOOD DAY!



*sen is to weird to do it. Go look on the internet lol.

Chalk one up for the good guys then.

I'm Islamic, but since Islam believes in the same god Christianity does, I believe I can say something here.

I believe God exists because God gives me something to look forward to and something to believe in. Simply put: I believe in God because I want to. Nobody can prove God exists, but nobody can disprove the existence of God. So arguments over the existence of God shouldn't exist because neither side has any evidence to support that God does or does not exist. It is up to every person to decide whether he or she believes in God or a bunch of Gods, or not.

You took the words right of my mouth

He is right. The Bible tells of stories from the past, but no man can actually say if it is true or not. I myself beleive in God and all of his works, but not everyone else has to think he exists. But this doesn't mean you have to have arguments over things that it is impossible to win.

Yes indeed these arguments are pointless if we're trying to force people to go by one certain belief. However if all we're doing is just to learn more about the other side, then it's all good.

Exactly.

No it's the faries who do it! (sarcasm)


"..ah, here's the rub" ~Hamlet

What do you mean by the "natural" and the "supernatural"? If "supernatural" is something that cannot be seen, then wind is supernatural. If "supernatural" is a term used for explaining procedures of the unknown, then you could call evolution supernatural. If you claim the "supernatural" are religious things, then quoting Bible verses is supernatural.
But, if your difference between natural and supernatural is if it can be "scientifically explained", then you're on the right track.

If you were to ask any theistic Christian if evolution is a "natural" process, they would say no. If you asked them if it were a "supernatural" process, they would probably also say no. Wouldn't that be contradictory? I would think Christians, like me, would say Evolution is an "unnatural" process, but not a "supernatural" process.
Why is this so?

The most stereotypical "supernatural" event is known as a miracle (since it breaks rules of physics and other such things). Now Christians would not "group" evolution as a miracle because it sounds so absurd to be talked of as something "supernatural". Why is it absurd? No clue.

The point of this seemingly irrelevant babble is that what is "natural" and what is "supernatural" differs upon perspective. Observe. I am a Christian, and from my all-knowing book it shows, with logical, proof that Christianity is true. Since it is "scientically provable", God and miracles are "natural".

So you see Cheeze it is not one question, but three.
1) What is at the moment obviously "natural"?
2) With these already "natural" things, can I prove anything currently "supernatural"?
3) Are any of my now "natural" things incorrect?

Atheists try to disprove God existence by trying to point out possible flaws and inconsistencies in our religions. Christians/Muslims, can't really prove his existence (by summoning God from the sky and asking him to show his face to the world) but we can however, use logical reasonings to make God's existence reasonable. I found some of these on Wikipedia and thought they sound pretty interesting.

---

Cosmological Argument:

1. All things are caused.
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. Therefore, everything that is caused is caused by something other than itself.
4. A causal chain cannot stretch infinitely backward in time.
5. If the causal chain cannot stretch infinitely backward in time, there must be a first cause.
6. The word God means uncaused first cause.
7. Therefore, God exists.

The argument states that God has to exist because the universe needs a first cause. In other words, the existence of the universe requires an explanation, and an active creation of the universe by a being outside of the universe—generally assumed to be God—is that explanation.

---

Teleological argument (too lazy to post the actual contents

---

Ontological Argument

This argument sort of reasons why his Existence is reasonable:

1) God is the greatest possible being and thus possesses all perfections.
2) Existence is a perfection.
3) Therefore God exists.

Better description here.

---

I like how Wikipedia tries to be as neutral as possible (where they also have counter arguments for this and the opposing sides). I should use it more often

Do you not realise, that it could've just been 1 atom that started the entire chain reaction, Instead of a super human being made out of a google amount of atoms? Do you guys get your logic on that part right there? It doesn't say god doesn't exist, it just shows that chances are, he didn't come 1st.

And if u want to be REALLY technical. That theory would just support that the 1st atom is "God." But it's just 1 normal atom, that's it.

Actually, it's still only one question; in order for it to become three, you did not assume that which I already told you. I already said anything that cannot be understood by our science can potentially be super-natural.

Anything that is as "great" (power, knowledge, etc) as god is super-natural.

Therefore, my question can be restated to:

Why do you look for answers in things we cannot explain to answer the things we already cannot explain?


Evolution is a natural process because we know exactly what causes it. The only factor that we cannot put in is time; thus, we must wait.

Perhaps you can explain why you think it's "unnatural"? The foundations of evolution is based on the idea that organisms are trying to reach the most natural (thus, perfect) stage.



This isn't even an arguement. It presents an explanation for a cause. Just because we cannot understand it now does not mean we must go look for the super natural! Ad hoc fallacy anyone?

Your Ontological Argument and Teleological Argument will yield the exact same reply.

The irony gauge just blew up.

Ya, mill has a point there. But what I think cheeze meant was, it's a terrible arguement, so bad it shouldn't even be considered any arguement.

No, I mean it's not an arguement. Do I need to explain why? *sighs*

I present Point A. I then have Point B be my observation which supports Point A.

If I then say "Point A because of Point B", then it would not be an arguement (as you have done). It would be an explanation of an event. (Exception:) If I switch Point A and Point B to form "Point B because Point A", and it makes sense, then it's an arguement. Let's replace the A and B to something we know:

God exists because the universe is had to have a beginning.

"God exists" would be what you're trying to prove.

"The universe had to have a beginning" would be your observation.

Now, as I said previously, if we switch the two around and it makes sense, it would be valid, but instead, we find:

"The universe had a beginning; therefore, god exists."

Obviously, this is not an arguement!

Come on MA, you have to know this stuff by now!

Well those people on wikipedia know better than me so if they call it whatever they call it, I guess they have their reasons for it

Have you thought maybe it's because those who present it think it is an arguement? Which basically means those people share the same beliefs you do and therefore, want their "logic" to sound correct?

The ability to see other answers... one of the first things you learn after truly opening your mind. (But closing your heart to Jesus!! )

Ah, NOW i know why. They used the dictionary.

EDIT: Maybe. I guess the Fundamentalists have returned

On the contrary, perhaps you did not notice how many times the word "logic" or "reasoning" appeared within the definition of "arguement"?

You should avoid defintion 1 because those ones are talking about when people are having an arguement. I'm talking about presenting one, which is easily defined in 2 and 4.

All this forum is, is a battle of the Ad Hominem:

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

And it is just a battle between the Ad Hominem Tu Quoque:

Description of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

Examples of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

1. Bill: "Smoking is very unhealthy and leads to all sorts of problems. So take my advice and never start."
Jill: "Well, I certainly don't want to get cancer."
Bill: "I'm going to get a smoke. Want to join me Dave?"
Jill: "Well, I guess smoking can't be that bad. After all, Bill smokes."

2. Jill: "I think the gun control bill shouldn't be supported because it won't be effective and will waste money."
Bill: "Well, just last month you supported the bill. So I guess you're wrong now."

3. Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong!"

So, when people can quit being ignorant, this discussion can continue (It wont though, because both parties believe they are right, and the other is wrong, which completes a disasterous circle of the Ad Hominem and Ad Hominem Tu Quoque)

ADDITION:
Oh, and this is another thing I commonly see in this thread:

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.

Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:

1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.

Claims made by a person who lacks the needed degree of expertise to make a reliable claim will, obviously, not be well supported. In contrast, claims made by a person with the needed degree of expertise will be supported by the person's reliability in the area.

Determining whether or not a person has the needed degree of expertise can often be very difficult. In academic fields (such as philosophy, engineering, history, etc.), the person's formal education, academic performance, publications, membership in professional societies, papers presented, awards won and so forth can all be reliable indicators of expertise. Outside of academic fields, other standards will apply. For example, having sufficient expertise to make a reliable claim about how to tie a shoe lace only requires the ability to tie the shoe lace and impart that information to others. It should be noted that being an expert does not always require having a university degree. Many people have high degrees of expertise in sophisticated subjects without having ever attended a university. Further, it should not be simply assumed that a person with a degree is an expert.

Of course, what is required to be an expert is often a matter of great debate. For example, some people have (and do) claim expertise in certain (even all) areas because of a divine inspiration or a special gift. The followers of such people accept such credentials as establishing the person's expertise while others often see these self-proclaimed experts as deluded or even as charlatans. In other situations, people debate over what sort of education and experience is needed to be an expert. Thus, what one person may take to be a fallacious appeal another person might take to be a well supported line of reasoning. Fortunately, many cases do not involve such debate.

2. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.

If a person makes a claim about some subject outside of his area(s) of expertise, then the person is not an expert in that context. Hence, the claim in question is not backed by the required degree of expertise and is not reliable.

It is very important to remember that because of the vast scope of human knowledge and skill it is simply not possible for one person to be an expert on everything. Hence, experts will only be true experts in respect to certain subject areas. In most other areas they will have little or no expertise. Thus, it is important to determine what subject area a claim falls under.

It is also very important to note that expertise in one area does not automatically confer expertise in another. For example, being an expert physicist does not automatically make a person an expert on morality or politics. Unfortunately, this is often overlooked or intentionally ignored. In fact, a great deal of advertising rests on a violation of this condition. As anyone who watches television knows, it is extremely common to get famous actors and sports heroes to endorse products that they are not qualified to assess. For example, a person may be a great actor, but that does not automatically make him an expert on cars or shaving or underwear or diets or politics.

3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.

If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts. This is because for almost any claim being made and "supported" by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is made and "supported" by another expert. In such cases an Appeal to Authority would tend to be futile. In such cases, the dispute has to be settled by consideration of the actual issues under dispute. Since either side in such a dispute can invoke experts, the dispute cannot be rationally settled by Appeals to Authority.

There are many fields in which there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute. Economics is a good example of such a disputed field. Anyone who is familiar with economics knows that there are many plausible theories that are incompatible with one another. Because of this, one expert economist could sincerely claim that the deficit is the key factor while another equally qualified individual could assert the exact opposite. Another area where dispute is very common (and well known) is in the area of psychology and psychiatry. As has been demonstrated in various trials, it is possible to find one expert that will assert that an individual is insane and not competent to stand trial and to find another equally qualified expert who will testify, under oath, that the same individual is both sane and competent to stand trial. Obviously, one cannot rely on an Appeal to Authority in such a situation without making a fallacious argument. Such an argument would be fallacious since the evidence would not warrant accepting the conclusion.

It is important to keep in mind that no field has complete agreement, so some degree of dispute is acceptable. How much is acceptable is, of course, a matter of serious debate. It is also important to keep in mind that even a field with a great deal of internal dispute might contain areas of significant agreement. In such cases, an Appeal to Authority could be legitimate.

4. The person in question is not significantly biased.

If an expert is significantly biased then the claims he makes within his are of bias will be less reliable. Since a biased expert will not be reliable, an Argument from Authority based on a biased expert will be fallacious. This is because the evidence will not justify accepting the claim.

Experts, being people, are vulnerable to biases and predjudices. If there is evidence that a person is biased in some manner that would affect the reliability of her claims, then an Argument from Authority based on that person is likely to be fallacious. Even if the claim is actually true, the fact that the expert is biased weakens the argument. This is because there would be reason to believe that the expert might not be making the claim because he has carefully considered it using his expertise. Rather, there would be reason to believe that the claim is being made because of the expert's bias or prejudice.

It is important to remember that no person is completely objective. At the very least, a person will be favorable towards her own views (otherwise she would probably not hold them). Because of this, some degree of bias must be accepted, provided that the bias is not significant. What counts as a significant degree of bias is open to dispute and can vary a great deal from case to case. For example, many people would probably suspect that doctors who were paid by tobacco companies to research the effects of smoking would be biased while other people might believe (or claim) that they would be able to remain objective.

5. The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.

Certain areas in which a person may claim expertise may have no legitimacy or validity as areas of knowledge or study. Obviously, claims made in such areas will not be very reliable.

What counts as a legitimate area of expertise is sometimes difficult to determine. However, there are cases which are fairly clear cut. For example, if a person claimed to be an expert at something he called "chromabullet therapy" and asserted that firing painted rifle bullets at a person would cure cancer it would not be very reasonable to accept his claim based on his "expertise." After all, his expertise is in an area which is devoid of legitimate content. The general idea is that to be a legitimate expert a person must have mastery over a real field or area of knowledge.

As noted above, determining the legitimacy of a field can often be difficult. In European history, various scientists had to struggle with the Church and established traditions to establish the validity of their discliplines. For example, experts on evolution faced an uphill battle in getting the legitimacy of their area accepted.

A modern example involves psychic phenomenon. Some people claim that they are certified "master psychics" and that they are actually experts in the field. Other people contend that their claims of being certified "master psychics" are simply absurd since there is no real content to such an area of expertise. If these people are right, then anyone who accepts the claims of these "master psychics" as true are victims of a fallacious appeal to authority.

6. The authority in question must be identified.

A common variation of the typical Appeal to Authority fallacy is an Appeal to an Unnamed Authority. This fallacy is also known as an Appeal to an Unidentified Authority.

This fallacy is committed when a person asserts that a claim is true because an expert or authority makes the claim and the person does not actually identify the expert. Since the expert is not named or identified, there is no way to tell if the person is actually an expert. Unless the person is identified and has his expertise established, there is no reason to accept the claim.

This sort of reasoning is not unusual. Typically, the person making the argument will say things like "I have a book that says...", or "they say...", or "the experts say...", or "scientists believe that...", or "I read in the paper.." or "I saw on TV..." or some similar statement. in such cases the person is often hoping that the listener(s) will simply accept the unidentified source as a legitimate authority and believe the claim being made. If a person accepts the claim simply because they accept the unidentified source as an expert (without good reason to do so), he has fallen prey to this fallacy.

As suggested above, not all Appeals to Authority are fallacious. This is fortunate since people have to rely on experts. This is because no one person can be an expert on everything and people do not have the time or ability to investigate every single claim themselves.

In many cases, Arguments from Authority will be good arguments. For example, when a person goes to a skilled doctor and the doctor tells him that he has a cold, then the the patient has good reason to accept the doctor's conclusion. As another example, if a person's computer is acting odd and his friend, who is a computer expert, tells him it is probably his hard drive then he has good reason to believe her.

What distinguishes a fallacious Appeal to Authority from a good Appeal to Authority is that the argument meets the six conditions discussed above.

In a good Appeal to Authority, there is reason to believe the claim because the expert says the claim is true. This is because a person who is a legitimate expert is more likely to be right than wrong when making considered claims within her area of expertise. In a sense, the claim is being accepted because it is reasonable to believe that the expert has tested the claim and found it to be reliable. So, if the expert has found it to be reliable, then it is reasonable to accept it as being true. Thus, the listener is accepting a claim based on the testimony of the expert.

It should be noted that even a good Appeal to Authority is not an exceptionally strong argument. After all, in such cases a claim is being accepted as true simply because a person is asserting that it is true. The person may be an expert, but her expertise does not really bear on the truth of the claim. This is because the expertise of a person does not actually determine whether the claim is true or false. Hence, arguments that deal directly with evidence relating to the claim itself will tend to be stronger.

Examples of Appeal to Authority

1. Bill and Jane are arguing about the morality of abortion:

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally acceptable. After all, a woman should have a right to her own body."
Jane: "I disagree completely. Dr. Johan Skarn says that abortion is always morally wrong, regardless of the situation. He has to be right, after all, he is a respected expert in his field."
Bill: "I've never heard of Dr. Skarn. Who is he?"
Jane: "He's the guy that won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on cold fusion."
Bill: "I see. Does he have any expertise in morality or ethics?"
Jane: "I don't know. But he's a world famous expert, so I believe him."

2. Dave and Kintaro are arguing about Stalin's reign in the Soviet Union. Dave has been arguing that Stalin was a great leader while Kintaro disagrees with him.

Kintaro: "I don't see how you can consider Stalin to be a great leader. He killed millions of his own people, he crippled the Soviet economy, kept most of the people in fear and laid the foundations for the violence that is occuring in much of Eastern Europe."
Dave: "Yeah, well you say that. However, I have a book at home that says that Stalin was acting in the best interest of the people. The millions that were killed were vicious enemies of the state and they had to be killed to protect the rest of the peaceful citizens. This book lays it all out, so it has to be true."

3. I'm not a doctor, but I play one on the hit series "Bimbos and Studmuffins in the OR." You can take it from me that when you need a fast acting, effective and safe pain killer there is nothing better than MorphiDope 2000. That is my considered medical opinion.

4. Siphwe and Sasha are having a conversation:

Sasha: "I played the lottery today and I know I am going to win something."
Siphwe: "What did you do, rig the outcome?"
Sasha: "No, silly. I called my Super Psychic Buddy at the 1-900-MindPower number. After consulting his magic Californian Tarot deck, he told me my lucky numbers."
Siphwe: "And you believed him?"
Sasha: "Certainly, he is a certified Californian Master-Mind Psychic. That is why I believe what he has to say. I mean, like, who else would know what my lucky numbers are?"

Look at example one, that is exactly how religious people argue with this current ordeal.

Example:

Kellimus: I don't believe in god, cause I have the right to believe this without critisism from other people.

Some fool: I dissagree completely. The bible says that god exists, so he muct exsist!

Kellimus: I have not seen in the bible where it proves he exists. Only claims.

Some fool: These claims are true because the book says they are!

Kellimus: They are only claims. There is no hard evidence that he does exist.

Some fool: Well, the book was written thousands of years ago, and my religion says it's true, so it is.

I could go on for hours pointing out the fallacies in this thread. But, I don't have the time, nor the patience to do so

Why did you copy and paste?

To understand something, you have to be able to explain it in your own way.

Religious threads are always going to be battles of the Ad Hominem. It's inevitable.

Cheeze, notice the yellow. "God" means "uncaused first cause". So that means maybe it was Zeus and his other god buddies who made it. Another thing to realize is the fact that millennium forgot to state something else which makes this argument flawed. The universe could have always existed. Of course CheeZe, we have been constantly debating this; I even remember the "Infinity, Oh Infinity" thread. Yes CheeZe i must constantly bring that up.

I also don't see how that is exactly an ad hoc fallacy either. A "causer" caused the first Cause. How's that illogical? "Because it mixes with religion and the supernatural." This line best used after showing universe not infinite

Ok.

This is not a satisfying definition. I doubt Wikipedia has a better one. Something as "great" as God? Maybe you mean when you think of it, it corellates to God's Omnipotence, but then some people would consider A-Bombs and Tanks to be supernatural. Oh wait, forget what I've just typed for this quote. Let me merge these two quotations into one.


Therefore, something that is "natural" would meet these two:
1) It can be understood by our science.
2) It is not as "great" (power, knowledge, etc) as a god.

Let us look at the other quotes before going further.

Well it would be sorta stupid to use something we cannot explain to answer somethig that we already can thoroughly explain.
Let's see.. soo you're telling me that I cannot use postulates in logic to explain God?

Well, if at the moment there is a lack of evidence for the universe always existing and more evidence for the universe having a cause; and the fact that the Big Bang Theory also supports my two claims in this sentence, what caused evolution to happen? What caused it to be a natural process? Since we have never observed evolution since it is "based upon long amounts of time", evolutionists can only assume that macroevolution is a natural process in the first place!


Well, if you don't believe that evolution is "natural", you would obviously conclude it is "not natural". Well, since "supernatural" is often biased with the word "miracle" (read earlier posts) Christians aren't going to call it "supernatural". Therefore, they call it unnatural; it's a language phenomenon. What, you mean the Decension of Man from the Higher Animals?