Nocterro wrote:
God is a necessary being by definition.

The problem with this is that it is only the definition of people that already believe that God has to be necessary because he/she/it is necessary.

Nocterro wrote:
He's not contingent.

Well at least here you are correct, God is not contingent because God does not exist.

Nocterro wrote:
He can't fail to exist. (note: I am not claiming that God exists here, I am merely describing the ontology of God)

What you are doing is defining God into existence and then claiming that God cannot fail to exist by definition. I does not work.

Nocterro wrote:
That's why the argument doesn't work. God, if he exists, has no explanation. He exists necessarily.

Oh please, go get a real argument.

It's a modal operator.

The last time I checked modal operators had more to do with defining fictional worlds than with defining reality or anything else.

You should really get over it and go mutter reassuring nonsense to yourself and those in your congregation rather than bang your head on the wall here. What you have is faith in God but do not seem satisfied with that. You want to argue your faith using some semblance of reason, but you do not have what it takes to back it up. Pick one and stay wit it: Faith or Reason.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Nocterro wrote:
God is a necessary being by definition.

The problem with this is that it is only the definition of people that already believe that God has to be necessary because he/she/it is necessary.

Nocterro wrote:
He's not contingent.

Well at least here you are correct, God is not contingent because God does not exist.

Nocterro wrote:
He can't fail to exist. (note: I am not claiming that God exists here, I am merely describing the ontology of God)

What you are doing is defining God into existence and then claiming that God cannot fail to exist by definition. I does not work.

Nocterro wrote:
That's why the argument doesn't work. God, if he exists, has no explanation. He exists necessarily.

Oh please, go get a real argument.

It's a modal operator.

The last time I checked modal operators had more to do with defining fictional worlds than with defining reality or anything else.

You should really get over it and go mutter reassuring nonsense to yourself and those in your congregation rather than bang your head on the wall here. What you have is faith in God but do not seem satisfied with that. You want to argue your faith using some semblance of reason, but you do not have what it takes to back it up. Pick one and stay wit it: Faith or Reason.

-God does not exist? Prove it

-What is a "real argument"?

-Are you denying modal logic in general?

-I have no congregation, as I do not hold to any religion.

-You have a ridiculous view of what faith actually is. It doesn't preclude reason, and everyone has it.

From another thread:

Nocterro wrote:
"Faith" as it is understood in Christianity comes from the greek pistis, which is translated as "to trust, to have confidence, faithfulness, to be reliable, to assure[1]". One can place value on evidence and still have faith. They are not mutually exclusive.

I think what you mean to critique is Fideism; which is "the name given to that school of thought—to which Tertullian himself is frequently said to have subscribed—which answers that faith is in some sense independent of, if not outright adversarial toward, reason.[2] " Note that fideism is not exclusive to religion.


[1] Thomas, Robert L.; Editor, General (1981). New American standard exhaustive concordance of the Bible :. Nashville, Tenn.: A.J. Holman. pp. 1674–75.
[2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fideism/

This is now the third time I have posted this on this forum. I'm kind of getting tired of it, but almost every thread I read, someone has no clue what they're talking about.

Nocterro wrote:
-God does not exist? Prove it.

God doe not exist as in God is superfluous to any explanation ever offered for anything ever attributed to God being necessary. There is no evidence for God or any action attributed to God, and any and all explanations and descriptions of God are little more than the superstitions of less developed cultures that are regularly dismissed by so called more modern religions that are themselves nothing more than more elaborate superstitions.

Nocterro wrote:
-Are you denying modal logic in general?

Just pointing out that it deals with fictional worlds rather than reality.

Nocterro wrote:
-I have no congregation, as I do not hold to any religion.

I guess you’ll have to mutter to yourself alone then.

Nocterro wrote:
-You have a ridiculous view of what faith actually is. It doesn't preclude reason, and everyone has it.

Religious faith is believing without evidence or in spite of evidence, and it certainly does preclude reason if reason gets in the way of faith. Whether you think that the root is pistis or fedelis does not matter the current definition of religious faith is as stated above, and in Christianity it has been the definition for a very long time.

A few more comments:

-Saying there is no evidence for God is ridiculous. You can say "The evidence is not strong enough" or "the evidence supports a different conclusion", or something similar; but saying "there is no evidence" is arbitrarily dismissing everything people have offered as evidence over the last few thousand years.

-I assume by "mutter to yourself" you mean prayer. Well, I do not pray either. Try again.

-Your view on evidence and faith is absolutely ridiculous. In fact, I was an atheist myself up until a month ago. My "conversion" to theism was not based on any sort of personal experience or divine revelation, but on REASON. Because of various arguments, I now think it is more likely that God exists than does not exist. If you want to redefine faith to exclude reason out of some misguided effort to make your own position appear more reasonable, so be it. I suspect that for some reason, you simply cannot accept that any theists can be reasonable.

Nocterro wrote:A few more comments:

-Saying there is no evidence for God is ridiculous. You can say "The evidence is not strong enough" or "the evidence supports a different conclusion", or something similar; but saying "there is no evidence" is arbitrarily dismissing everything people have offered as evidence over the last few thousand years.

like what?

josephchoi wrote:

Nocterro wrote:A few more comments:

-Saying there is no evidence for God is ridiculous. You can say "The evidence is not strong enough" or "the evidence supports a different conclusion", or something similar; but saying "there is no evidence" is arbitrarily dismissing everything people have offered as evidence over the last few thousand years.

like what?

Have you never actually spoken to a theist before?

Nocterro wrote:

josephchoi wrote:

Nocterro wrote:A few more comments:

-Saying there is no evidence for God is ridiculous. You can say "The evidence is not strong enough" or "the evidence supports a different conclusion", or something similar; but saying "there is no evidence" is arbitrarily dismissing everything people have offered as evidence over the last few thousand years.

like what?

Have you never actually spoken to a theist before?

Don't dodge the issue- for one, I used to be a theist. I've read the so-called arguments, like Kalam, teleological etc. 1st problem- arguments aren't evidence.

josephchoi wrote:

Nocterro wrote:

josephchoi wrote:

Nocterro wrote:A few more comments:

-Saying there is no evidence for God is ridiculous. You can say "The evidence is not strong enough" or "the evidence supports a different conclusion", or something similar; but saying "there is no evidence" is arbitrarily dismissing everything people have offered as evidence over the last few thousand years.

like what?

Have you never actually spoken to a theist before?

Don't dodge the issue- for one, I used to be a theist. I've read the so-called arguments, like Kalam, teleological etc. 1st problem- arguments aren't evidence.

Arguments are not evidence? Why not? What ridiculous definition of "evidence" are you using?

Nocterro wrote:

josephchoi wrote:

Nocterro wrote:

josephchoi wrote:

Nocterro wrote:A few more comments:

-Saying there is no evidence for God is ridiculous. You can say "The evidence is not strong enough" or "the evidence supports a different conclusion", or something similar; but saying "there is no evidence" is arbitrarily dismissing everything people have offered as evidence over the last few thousand years.

like what?

Have you never actually spoken to a theist before?

Don't dodge the issue- for one, I used to be a theist. I've read the so-called arguments, like Kalam, teleological etc. 1st problem- arguments aren't evidence.

Arguments are not evidence? Why not? What ridiculous definition of "evidence" are you using?

Um. Arguments REQUIRE evidence for them to be sound. Now, what kind of "ridiculous definition of 'evidence'" are YOU using?

something like "that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. "

Question: Do you dismiss all a priori and deductive reasoning?

Nocterro wrote:something like "that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. "

Question: Do you dismiss all a priori and deductive reasoning?

As evidence in and of themselves? Yes.

ok then...

1) I think.
2) Therefore I am.

This is a priori. Since you deny this, how do you know you exist?

Nocterro wrote:
-Saying there is no evidence for God is ridiculous. You can say "The evidence is not strong enough" or "the evidence supports a different conclusion", or something similar; but saying "there is no evidence" is arbitrarily dismissing everything people have offered as evidence over the last few thousand years.

A list of this evidence might be helpful even if only partial. I say that there is no evidence you claim that there is two thousand years of it. It should not be hard to present some of it.

Nocterro wrote:
-Your view on evidence and faith is absolutely ridiculous. In fact, I was an atheist myself up until a month ago.

Well that’s pretty convenient isn’t it.

Nocterro wrote:
My "conversion" to theism was not based on any sort of personal experience or divine revelation, but on REASON.

Forgive me for not taking you seriously, but I have not seen any reason in your arguments that would convince anyone that I know to abandon reason for religion.

Nocterro wrote:
Because of various arguments, I now think it is more likely that God exists than does not exist.

Have you presented these arguments here or they a secret?

Nocterro wrote:
If you want to redefine faith to exclude reason out of some misguided effort to make your own position appear more reasonable, so be it. I suspect that for some reason, you simply cannot accept that any theists can be reasonable.

I don’t redefine religious faith, the Christian faith/church did that long ago. But no I do accept that theists/Christians can be reasonable, just not where their religion is concerned. Reason and rationalization are not the same thing.

Nocterro wrote:ok then...

1) I think.
2) Therefore I am.

This is a priori. Since you deny this, how do you know you exist?

I think is the evidence.

I think, therefore I am is an argument, and not evidence in and of itself.

josephchoi wrote:

Nocterro wrote:ok then...

1) I think.
2) Therefore I am.

This is a priori. Since you deny this, how do you know you exist?

I think is the evidence.

I think, therefore I am is an argument, and not evidence in and of itself.

You still have offered a definition for "evidence".

Nocterro wrote:something like "that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. "

Question: Do you dismiss all a priori and deductive reasoning?

An argument may be analytically correct, and yet have no evidence and be far from proven.

eg. 1.God exists
therefore,
2. god did it. [Assuming a definition for god as being omnipotent]

The problem [obviously] is the assertion that god exists in the first place, and for that you need evidence.

I would have no problem with:-

1. IF god exists, then 2.God did it.

This version still lacks evidence. Maybe god exists, but evolution did it, for example. In any case, logic is useless without evidence because although it may [or may not] be analytically correct], it still fails if there is no evidence.

The classic example All Swans are white was once true in English society [if you discount the odd mutation] , but when the English came to Australia, they found black Swans. No matter. So long as we are not absolutist in our claims, then we can modify our arguments in the light of any new evidence. This may have been a more acceptable comment:-

To the best of our knowledge, all swans are white. Many arguments leave off the disclaimer or qualifier, especially in religious statements. From context, this does not seem to be an oversight, but an absolute and unrealistic claim not based on evidence.

All Koalas are marsupials is a statement of category that must be by definition true, but even so assumes some knowledge of the traits of Koalas and marsupials. This is OK, as such knowledge can easily be obtained, and is not usually in dispute. But the religious assumption of an omniscient god is in dispute, and therefore requires evidence to support the claim and the arguments raised from that claim.

josephchoi wrote:

Nocterro wrote:ok then...

1) I think.
2) Therefore I am.

This is a priori. Since you deny this, how do you know you exist?

I think is the evidence.

I think, therefore I am is an argument, and not evidence in and of itself.

It still seems to be a type of deduction, though I could be wrong.

1) I am thinking
2) If I am thinking, I exist
3) I exist

At any rate, you don't accept arguments insofar as they posit some conclusion outside of your experience, or you don't accept arguments in general?

Nocterro wrote:ok then...

1) I think.
2) Therefore I am.

This is a priori. Since you deny this, how do you know you exist?

I'm more of an "I am therefore I think" kind of guy, which requires just two assumptions;

1) There exists a reality independent of my subjective experience.
2) This reality can be described in a representative fashion.

MitchLeBlanc wrote:

josephchoi wrote:

Nocterro wrote:ok then...

1) I think.
2) Therefore I am.

This is a priori. Since you deny this, how do you know you exist?

I think is the evidence.

I think, therefore I am is an argument, and not evidence in and of itself.

It still seems to be a type of deduction, though I could be wrong.

1) I am thinking
2) If I am thinking, I exist
3) I exist

At any rate, you don't accept arguments insofar as they posit some conclusion outside of your experience, or you don't accept arguments in general?

Arguments in and of themselves are not evidence... how many times do I have to repeat this? Arguments may be sound, but in order for it to BE sound, it requires evidence. So, no. I don't accept arguments as EVIDENCE in and of itself.

josephchoi wrote:

MitchLeBlanc wrote:

josephchoi wrote:

Nocterro wrote:ok then...

1) I think.
2) Therefore I am.

This is a priori. Since you deny this, how do you know you exist?

I think is the evidence.

I think, therefore I am is an argument, and not evidence in and of itself.

It still seems to be a type of deduction, though I could be wrong.

1) I am thinking
2) If I am thinking, I exist
3) I exist

At any rate, you don't accept arguments insofar as they posit some conclusion outside of your experience, or you don't accept arguments in general?

Arguments in and of themselves are not evidence... how many times do I have to repeat this? Arguments may be sound, but in order for it to BE sound, it requires evidence. So, no. I don't accept arguments as EVIDENCE in and of itself.

Without defining what you mean by the term "evidence" I do not know how to understand your statements.