"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins

[bodie]

---

Haay... Do you realize I'm not presenting an evidence? I have no intention to because knowledge of God's existence is personal. I know He exists but that's me knowing not you. I am merely suggesting a way for you to find out whether God exists or not.

It's up to you to do it or not.

Pero when believers assert their beliefs on non-believers, then it becomes our business. Its not just a matter of faith we are talking about here. Morality, tradition, education.

Look at the evolution vs. creationism debate. Look at the the leeway given by government to religion. Religious influence is everywhere. So no, unfortunately the matter has a tendency to go beyond personal boundaries.

[bodie]

Firefox or IE? Even more important, was it running on Windoze?

Hehe... sorry ha, OT. That's my anti-Microsoft hat I'm wearing.

No problems. Unfortunately, ubuntu is incompatible with my video card so im kinda stuck. Beta testing windows 7 but firefox has issued when opening large pages or pages containing embedded documents. Now, where were we...

Granting even that your accusation is true (I believe it's not; and you haven't substantiated it; but whatever...), that still does NOT correct your error. Pointing out a logical error of someone else does not suddenly make your error disappear.

You are still committing a logical fallacy. You still have to prove your position. If you can't grasp that simple logical principle you're not going to get anywhere.

Manny, in your previous post you referred to a paper (thesis?) that you wrote 25 years ago. Were you trying to establish some sort of credentials? Because unfortunately for you, its you thats not seeing the logic here. It may not be palatable for you, but the fact remains, the burden of proof falls to the affirmative. That is a fundamental concept is discussions such as these.

Your humorous example is hilarious, I will grant that; but it is still erroneous. If the beings cited are corporeal, the claim can be confirmed. If they are not, then it makes an existential fallacy.

There you go. Many people have pointed out the flaws in your particular argument. You are welcome to continue debating the fact, so far, it seems like you stand alone in this one.

Argument #7 is one that you still have NOT refuted. I am still waiting for you to even try to do so. If you claim there is circular reasoning, then you have to show it. So far you have failed to do so.

Ok. Argument #7, we were talking about the argument from contingency the last time.

The basic form of the argument is:
1.) Since it is possible for such things not to exist, there must be some time at which these things did not in fact exist.
2.)There must have been a time when nothing existed.
3.) If this is so, there would exist nothing that could bring anything into existence.
4.) Contingent beings, therefore, are insufficient to account for the existence of contingent beings:
5.) There must exist a necessary being whose non-existence is an impossibility, and from which the existence of all contingent beings is derived.

This is the version that your using? Or are you using another variant of the cosmological argument?

I forwarded the arguments of Hume and Kant. You told me that you already refuted there, unfortunately we cannot take your word for that alone. Perhaps a link to your paper or other works so those can be critiqued as well?

You also shot down the non-sequitor argument. In short:

*"since it is possible for such things not to exist, there must be some time at which these things did not in fact exist" is a false conclusion. It is a false conclusion because from the (merely logical) contingency of anything it does not logically follow that there must be some time at which – the merely logically (not empirically) contingent – things, like for example matter, in fact did not exist (in order to prove that matter did need to have a cause outside itself).

Now you said that you had no problem with the universe having always existed. Yet this does not change the fact that the claim that point #5 is not automatically valid. God is not the backstopper here.

In the God Delusion, responds to the argument of contingency this way:

* the first three arguments are essentially the same, and rely upon the idea of a regress to which God is unjustifiably immune;
* the fourth argument is applicable to a whole lot of other concepts; 'Therefore there must exist a pre-eminent stinker, and we call him God'
* the fifth argument claims the necessity of a designer, considering that biological life looks somewhat designed, whereas evolution by means of natural selection explains its complexity and diversity.[3]

That's just stonewallling; a lame excuse to cover up the fact that there is no rational basis to adopt such a default position (that God does not exist).

The bottom line is that refuting arguments contrary to a position does not necessarily make that position correct. One must sill prove that position is correct through some form of argument. Unless that is done, that position too is baseless. That goes for BOTH sides of the issue of whether God exists.

Prove the position correct through some form of argument, yes. And in this case that is done not by proving the non-existence of god (which as I have said is impossible), but by trying to prove that god exists.

Look. Say someone asked you to prove the existence of an animal that lives somewhere. I say it does not exist, you tell me that it does. What do we do to settle the argument? We look for the animal. If you find it, it proves your point. If I find it, it proves that I am wrong.

The way you want to go about it is for the atheists to look for "unproof" while you look for proof. Its not logical. Its irrational. Kinda like dividing a number with zero.

[schmuck]

Burden of proof.

Read up mannyador

[mannyamador]

Manny, in your previous post you referred to a paper (thesis?) that you wrote 25 years ago. Were you trying to establish some sort of credentials?

That was small talk. I never thought it would impress you.

The basic form of the argument is:
1.) Since it is possible for such things not to exist, there must be some time at which these things did not in fact exist.
2.)There must have been a time when nothing existed.
3.) If this is so, there would exist nothing that could bring anything into existence.
4.) Contingent beings, therefore, are insufficient to account for the existence of contingent beings:
5.) There must exist a necessary being whose non-existence is an impossibility, and from which the existence of all contingent beings is derived.

This is the version that your using? Or are you using another variant of the cosmological argument?

Another variant. I do not need 1-2.

Why not use the process I posted earlier?

• Either all things are necessary beings or not.
• All thiings cannot be necessary beings because some can go out of existence or some rely on another being in some way for their existence.
• So either all things are contingent or not.
• But if absolutely all things are contingent, how do they get their necessity?
• If all things are contingent, therefore, they are insufficient to account for the existence of contingent beings:
• There must exist at least a necessary being whose non-existence is an impossibility, and from which the existence of all contingent beings is derived.

At this point, Hume's objection is that this Necessary Being is not necessarily God.

Now you said that you had no problem with the universe having always existed. Yet this does not change the fact that the claim that point #5 is not automatically valid. God is not the backstopper here.

But then what is the backstopper? A Necessary Being is required to account for a source of necessity of some kind. And as I have pointed out, that Necessary Being is a lot like the God I believe in. It is even more like a bare-bones God that theists would believe in: a source of being -- a Creator.

In the God Delusion, responds to the argument of contingency this way:

* the first three arguments are essentially the same, and rely upon the idea of a regress to which God is unjustifiably immune;

Please take note that I am relying on your quote and assessment of Dawkins here. I do not have his book

This is the Dawkins argument that directly addresses the argument from contingency. And it fails because it just makes an arbitrary claim: that God is unjustifiably immune from infinite regress. Dawkins misses the point. If the necessary Being were part if the infinite regress of contingent beings, then the necessary being would not be a necessary being and would not solve the problem of there being no necessity in a universe of contingent beings. A Necessary Being is required, and such a Necessary Being has the most basic fundamental characteristic that theists attribute to God: a source of being. In other words, a Creator.

Look. Say someone asked you to prove the existence of an animal that lives somewhere. I say it does not exist, you tell me that it does. What do we do to settle the argument? We look for the animal. If you find it, it proves your point. If I find it, it proves that I am wrong.

But what if you DON'T find it? Hehe... just teasing. Read below.

But that is not the only way. If I say that the animal is a large reptile large and lives somewhere in particular, and we go and find that its claimed habitat is a live lava flow (or some other place where such an animal could not exist), then my claim has a problem. Let's not quibble with the details (which we can always change to suit the analogy). The point is, if you can find a condition incompatible with the claim, and this condition cannot be explained so as to allow the condition and the claim to co-exist, then you have disproved the claim.

This is the course of action taken by some of your co-atheists.

Saying a priori that you cannot disprove the existence of God is a bogey, a lame excuse. And by simply showing you how to do it, I have already rendered your claimed impossibility untenable. There IS a way to do it, so it is NOT impossible unless you actually attempt it and find out if you can make an argument. And even if you fail, it does not mean no such argument can eventually be made or discovered.

Also, as I have said earlier, there are those who claim God's existence cannot be proven, since any evidence cannot directly point to Him at all (or for some other reason). If you call that stonewalling then it applies to your claimed impossibility too. It cuts both ways.

This is getting funny. Atheists make a claim, I ask them to prove it, and all I get are lame excuses for NOT doing so. That is supposed to be a rational position? Come on, guys.

But of course, I do agree that this is not enough to justify the theist position. The debate is not over. I must also prove that God exists or my position is just as lame and irrational.

[schmuck]

Unsaon man pagpangita og evidence for the non-existence of something? beh beh beh

[bluedes]

Unsaon man pagpangita og evidence for the non-existence of something? beh beh beh

if your statement that something exists is universal, you only have to show one example wherein its not possible for it to exist..

pero kung specific imong example na something exists, then the burden of proof is on the person stating that it exists.. you don't have to counter that it does not exist.

Example:

1. God exists - universal statement
- talk to the heavens, if God does not answer, then obviously he does not exist

2. God exists - specific claim of one person
- no comment na lng.. iya man nang pagtuo gud.. not necessarily true.

[schmuck]

if your statement that something exists is universal, you only have to show one example wherein its not possible for it to exist..

pero kung specific imong example na something exists, then the burden of proof is on the person stating that it exists.. you don't have to counter that it does not exist.

Example:

1. God exists - universal statement
- talk to the heavens, if God does not answer, then obviously he does not exist

2. God exists - specific claim of one person
- no comment na lng.. iya man nang pagtuo gud.. not necessarily true.

good point.

just to add, it is possible to prove a negative as long as a there is scope element(can be more).
like, 'there are no rabbits in this hat.'

the existence of rabbits(a) is true if
we will see rabbits in the hat(b)

likewise, (a) is false if (b) is false.

however, a statement such as 'god exists'(a) needs a scope element(b) to qualify as a provable negative statement. since there isn't any, it is logical to place the burden of proof on proving the positive instead. This is what mannyador fails(refuses?) to understand.

[Sinyalan]

Granting that "theist" seen god or god existed... can you describe what his looks like?

[schmuck]

^ Invisible. He is that warm feeling that makes you feel giddy all over. The feeling is so intense that you can't contain it, so much that you feel the urge to spread it all around to other people.

Hallelujah!

*proceeds to speak in tongues

[sizz-lorr]

^ Invisible. He is that warm feeling that makes you feel giddy all over. The feeling is so intense that you can't contain it, so much that you feel the urge to spread it all around to other people.

Hallelujah!

*proceeds to speak in tongues

hey, i get that feeling tooooo. minus the speak in tounges and rick rolling.

usually when i'm HORNY as a crazy monkey in heat.