If God did not exist

[koshergrl]

That's a lot of words that continue to be irrelevant, and simply camouflage your inability to back up your initial assertion. So I accept your surrender. You cannot show any evidence that man has developed any sort of value system independent of religion. Thank you for your time.

 

[Capstone]

That's a lot of words that continue to be irrelevant, and simply camouflage your inability to back up your initial assertion. So I accept your surrender. You cannot show any evidence that man has developed any sort of value system independent of religion. Thank you for your time.

Nice try at a strawman, but here's my "initial assertion":

Strange then, how the evolution of modern ethical sensibilities has apparently occurred in spite of "the inerrant Word of God". In fact, given the potential biblical justifiability of so many things considered morally reprehensible today (E.G. genocide, infanticide, rape, pillaging, slavery, human sacrifice, cannibalism, polygamy, adultery, the subjugation of women, and so on...), it's astounding that predominantly Christian cultures EVER managed to advance beyond the ethics of the dark and middle ages. To imply that all historical paradigms of Christian morality have shared an objective set of guidelines is to ignore the contradictory nature of widely promoted behaviors among Christians of different eras.

From the very start of my participation in this thread, my statements and arguments have been laser-focused on the ethics of Christianity (NOT on the general concepts of "God" or "religion" as they relate to human morality) for good reason. Although not affiliated with any religion in particular, I'm a theist, and I acknowledge the subtle influence of the positive aspects of theoretical spirituality (less the dogma) on social norms and mores. That's not to say ANY stripe of spirituality is a prerequisite to human values; but I don't believe the human spirit has been entirely obstructive to them either.

But if feeling as though you've defeated me provides some kind of validation for you, then by all means, knock yourself out...

 

[koshergrl]

The straw men are your repeated attempts to divert from your original statement, which you were, and continue to be, unable to support. I was actually giving you the generic term *religion* to give you more wiggle room, but meh, it doesn't matter. You're still too dense to be able to intelligently discuss the topic that you introduced. If you don't understand how to support an argument in the first place, you would save yourself and everybody else a lot of frustration if you just don't comment at all. It's a waste of time.

 

[orogenicman]

Not true. I don't give a darn and god still showed up last night during dinner. He had two servings of meat loaf.

Hehehehe. Good one.

Nipper is right on the money. One of Christ's fortes was healing physical infirmities. Christ went to dinner at a home of one of the Pharisees. The house was packed. His gift of healing was available to everyone in that room. A cripple was lowered down into the room from the roof. He walked out of the house, the only one to benefit. The others got exactly what the sought, nothing.

I didn't respond to this specifically when I responded earlier, so I will now.

Really? How so? The evidence that Christ had these astounding abilities - comes from a few lines in one book, lines that were written by persons unknown decades after the man died. That's pretty slim evidence in my view.

 

[Steven_R]

Not natural selection, that my parents just happened to be at that party at the same time and met, that just the right ova and sperm got together, that of all the unlikely events that preceded my birth that it just all worked out. It would be more comforting if I knew I was pat of some plan as opposed to just a probability fluke.

Well, I am perfectly happy knowing that every atom in my body was born in a star, and that when I die, those atoms will be used by some other life form, thus continuing the great chain of life. Knowing that makes me feel more connected to the universe than anything else ever has.

Don't get me wrong. It is neat to know that I am stardust and when I die everything that made me physically me will continue for eons to come and there is some feeling of joy in that...

...but sometimes I wish there was more to me than a fluke of probablility and that there was some force out that that does something. Call it a longing for something I know does not exist because there is no evidence of it.

 

[koshergrl]

You think things don't exist until the *evidence* has been presented, and accepted, by you?

According to that logic, you are, in fact, god himself.

 

[daws101]

You think things don't exist until the *evidence* has been presented, and accepted, by you?

According to that logic, you are, in fact, god himself.

this coming from a poster whose every every breath is based on the false premise of god...

An argument from false premises is a line of reasoning which can lead to wrong results.[1] A false premise is an untrue proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably unsound, because its first premise is false – one could hose down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, or the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.
Another feature of an argument based on false premises that can bedevil critics, is that its conclusion can in fact be true. Consider the above example again. It may well be that it has recently rained, and that the streets are wet. This of course does nothing to prove the first premise, but can make its claims more difficult to refute. This underlies the basic epistemological problem of establishing causal relationships. The adage warns, "Correlated does not necessarily mean causally related".
A false premise can also be a premise that is poorly, or incompletely, defined so as to make the conclusion questionable. The following joke from Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar illustrates the point:
"An old cowboy goes into a bar and orders a drink. As he sits there sipping his whiskey, a young lady sits down next to him. ... She says, 'I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about women. ...' A little while later, a couple sits down next to the old cowboy and asks him, 'Are you a real cowboy?' He replies, 'I always thought I was, but I just found out I'm a lesbian'." [2]
The mistake the cowboy makes is that he assumes that the definition of a lesbian is somebody who spends the "whole day thinking about women." The reason the joke works is because in a certain way that definition could apply to lesbians, but it fails to address the point that a lesbian is a homosexual female. The cowboy is neither homosexual nor female; therefore, he is not a lesbian.

 

[orogenicman]

Not natural selection, that my parents just happened to be at that party at the same time and met, that just the right ova and sperm got together, that of all the unlikely events that preceded my birth that it just all worked out. It would be more comforting if I knew I was pat of some plan as opposed to just a probability fluke.

Well, I am perfectly happy knowing that every atom in my body was born in a star, and that when I die, those atoms will be used by some other life form, thus continuing the great chain of life. Knowing that makes me feel more connected to the universe than anything else ever has.

Don't get me wrong. It is neat to know that I am stardust and when I die everything that made me physically me will continue for eons to come and there is some feeling of joy in that...

...but sometimes I wish there was more to me than a fluke of probablility and that there was some force out that that does something. Call it a longing for something I know does not exist because there is no evidence of it.

I'm longing for a large cappuccino right now.

 

[koshergrl]

You think things don't exist until the *evidence* has been presented, and accepted, by you?

According to that logic, you are, in fact, god himself.

this coming from a poster whose every every breath is based on the false premise of god...

An argument from false premises is a line of reasoning which can lead to wrong results.[1] A false premise is an untrue proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably unsound, because its first premise is false – one could hose down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, or the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.
Another feature of an argument based on false premises that can bedevil critics, is that its conclusion can in fact be true. Consider the above example again. It may well be that it has recently rained, and that the streets are wet. This of course does nothing to prove the first premise, but can make its claims more difficult to refute. This underlies the basic epistemological problem of establishing causal relationships. The adage warns, "Correlated does not necessarily mean causally related".
A false premise can also be a premise that is poorly, or incompletely, defined so as to make the conclusion questionable. The following joke from Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar illustrates the point:
"An old cowboy goes into a bar and orders a drink. As he sits there sipping his whiskey, a young lady sits down next to him. ... She says, 'I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about women. ...' A little while later, a couple sits down next to the old cowboy and asks him, 'Are you a real cowboy?' He replies, 'I always thought I was, but I just found out I'm a lesbian'." [2]
The mistake the cowboy makes is that he assumes that the definition of a lesbian is somebody who spends the "whole day thinking about women." The reason the joke works is because in a certain way that definition could apply to lesbians, but it fails to address the point that a lesbian is a homosexual female. The cowboy is neither homosexual nor female; therefore, he is not a lesbian.

^^^^I did not read that. I choose not to read long, rambling posts about logical fallacy written by idiots who start their long, rambling and irrelevant description with an AD HOMINEM.

I have tutored college English students, written for a living and I have actually taken real classes about the subject matter. Because of that, I know that you are not a person who should be teaching ANYONE, anything.

 

[orogenicman]

Look out, folks. It's Miss Manner's evil twin.

 

[koshergrl]

You equate intelligible communication skills with...Miss Manners?

How odd.

 

[koshergrl]

Though I do suppose that those who are not able to master their own mother tongue most likely are brutish, boorish, and otherwise not fit for mixed company...

 

[daws101]

You think things don't exist until the *evidence* has been presented, and accepted, by you?

According to that logic, you are, in fact, god himself.

this coming from a poster whose every every breath is based on the false premise of god...

An argument from false premises is a line of reasoning which can lead to wrong results.[1] A false premise is an untrue proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably unsound, because its first premise is false – one could hose down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, or the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.
Another feature of an argument based on false premises that can bedevil critics, is that its conclusion can in fact be true. Consider the above example again. It may well be that it has recently rained, and that the streets are wet. This of course does nothing to prove the first premise, but can make its claims more difficult to refute. This underlies the basic epistemological problem of establishing causal relationships. The adage warns, "Correlated does not necessarily mean causally related".
A false premise can also be a premise that is poorly, or incompletely, defined so as to make the conclusion questionable. The following joke from Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar illustrates the point:
"An old cowboy goes into a bar and orders a drink. As he sits there sipping his whiskey, a young lady sits down next to him. ... She says, 'I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about women. ...' A little while later, a couple sits down next to the old cowboy and asks him, 'Are you a real cowboy?' He replies, 'I always thought I was, but I just found out I'm a lesbian'." [2]
The mistake the cowboy makes is that he assumes that the definition of a lesbian is somebody who spends the "whole day thinking about women." The reason the joke works is because in a certain way that definition could apply to lesbians, but it fails to address the point that a lesbian is a homosexual female. The cowboy is neither homosexual nor female; therefore, he is not a lesbian.

^^^^I did not read that. I choose not to read long, rambling posts about logical fallacy written by idiots who start their long, rambling and irrelevant description with an AD HOMINEM.

I have tutored college English students, written for a living and I have actually taken real classes about the subject matter. Because of that, I know that you are not a person who should be teaching ANYONE, anything.

sure you have dear... the post does not ramble, it's a concise description of the fallacy you put so much time and effort in.
everybody has at one time or another "has written for a living", obviously you failed in that endeavor.
tutored! so the fuck what.
to get my masters it was required to teach undergrads.
your story and mine are irrelevant....except yours is a dodge .

 

[daws101]

You equate intelligible communication skills with...Miss Manners?

How odd.

fun fact: KG USES THIS PLOY EVERY TIME SHE'S GETTING HER ASS HANDED TO HER.
GET USED TO SEEING IT A LOT.

 

[daws101]

Though I do suppose that those who are not able to master their own mother tongue most likely are brutish, boorish, and otherwise not fit for mixed company...

fun fact: KG USES THIS PLOY EVERY TIME SHE'S GETTING HER ASS HANDED TO HER.
GET USED TO SEEING IT A LOT.
__________________

 

[Newby]

this coming from a poster whose every every breath is based on the false premise of god...

An argument from false premises is a line of reasoning which can lead to wrong results.[1] A false premise is an untrue proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably unsound, because its first premise is false – one could hose down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, or the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.
Another feature of an argument based on false premises that can bedevil critics, is that its conclusion can in fact be true. Consider the above example again. It may well be that it has recently rained, and that the streets are wet. This of course does nothing to prove the first premise, but can make its claims more difficult to refute. This underlies the basic epistemological problem of establishing causal relationships. The adage warns, "Correlated does not necessarily mean causally related".
A false premise can also be a premise that is poorly, or incompletely, defined so as to make the conclusion questionable. The following joke from Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar illustrates the point:
"An old cowboy goes into a bar and orders a drink. As he sits there sipping his whiskey, a young lady sits down next to him. ... She says, 'I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about women. ...' A little while later, a couple sits down next to the old cowboy and asks him, 'Are you a real cowboy?' He replies, 'I always thought I was, but I just found out I'm a lesbian'." [2]
The mistake the cowboy makes is that he assumes that the definition of a lesbian is somebody who spends the "whole day thinking about women." The reason the joke works is because in a certain way that definition could apply to lesbians, but it fails to address the point that a lesbian is a homosexual female. The cowboy is neither homosexual nor female; therefore, he is not a lesbian.

^^^^I did not read that. I choose not to read long, rambling posts about logical fallacy written by idiots who start their long, rambling and irrelevant description with an AD HOMINEM.

I have tutored college English students, written for a living and I have actually taken real classes about the subject matter. Because of that, I know that you are not a person who should be teaching ANYONE, anything.

sure you have dear... the post does not ramble, it's a concise description of the fallacy you put so much time and effort in.
everybody has at one time or another "has written for a living", obviously you failed in that endeavor.
tutored! so the fuck what.
to get my masters it was required to teach undergrads.
your story and mine are irrelevant....except yours is a dodge .

You copied/pasted it from Wiki... Bravo!

 

[daws101]

^^^^I did not read that. I choose not to read long, rambling posts about logical fallacy written by idiots who start their long, rambling and irrelevant description with an AD HOMINEM.

I have tutored college English students, written for a living and I have actually taken real classes about the subject matter. Because of that, I know that you are not a person who should be teaching ANYONE, anything.

sure you have dear... the post does not ramble, it's a concise description of the fallacy you put so much time and effort in.
everybody has at one time or another "has written for a living", obviously you failed in that endeavor.
tutored! so the fuck what.
to get my masters it was required to teach undergrads.
your story and mine are irrelevant....except yours is a dodge .

You copied/pasted it from Wiki... Bravo!

yeah.... and ?

 

[Ropey]

^^^^I did not read that. I choose not to read long, rambling posts about logical fallacy written by idiots who start their long, rambling and irrelevant description with an AD HOMINEM.

I have tutored college English students, written for a living and I have actually taken real classes about the subject matter. Because of that, I know that you are not a person who should be teaching ANYONE, anything.

sure you have dear... the post does not ramble, it's a concise description of the fallacy you put so much time and effort in.
everybody has at one time or another "has written for a living", obviously you failed in that endeavor.
tutored! so the fuck what.
to get my masters it was required to teach undergrads.
your story and mine are irrelevant....except yours is a dodge .

You copied/pasted it from Wiki... Bravo!

 

[daws101]

sure you have dear... the post does not ramble, it's a concise description of the fallacy you put so much time and effort in.
everybody has at one time or another "has written for a living", obviously you failed in that endeavor.
tutored! so the fuck what.
to get my masters it was required to teach undergrads.
your story and mine are irrelevant....except yours is a dodge .

You copied/pasted it from Wiki... Bravo!

 

[itfitzme]

Pope Francis responded to editorials written in July and August by Eugenio Scalfari, an agnostic and the paper's founder, in which he was asked whether the Christian God forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith.

"Scalfari said he had not expected the Pope to answer "so extensively and so affectionately, with such fraternal spirit."

Pope Francisco writes to La Repubblica:
"An open dialogue with non-believers"

Dear Dott. Scalfari,

I would cordially like to reply to the letter you addressed to me from the pages of "La Repubblica" on July 7th, which included a series of personal reflections that then continued to enrich the pages of the daily newspaper on August 7th.

First of all, thank you for the attention with which you have read the Encyclical "Lumen fidei". In fact it was the intention of my beloved predecessor, Benedict XVI, who conceived it and mostly wrote it, and which, with gratitude, I have inherited, to not only confirm the faith in Jesus Christ, for those who already believe, but also to spark a sincere and rigorous dialogue with those who, like you, define themselves as "for many years being a non-believer who is interested and fascinated by the preaching of Jesus of Nazareth".

Therefore, without a doubt it would seem to be positive, not only for each one of us, but also for the society in which we live, to stop and speak about a matter as important as faith and which refers to the teachings and the figure of Jesus.

More at link below.
* * *

In your editorial of July 7th, you also asked me how to understand the originality of Christian Faith as it is actually based on the incarnation of the Son of God, with respect to other religions that instead pivot on the absolute transcendency of God.

I would say that the originality lies in the fact that faith allows us to participate, in Jesus, in the relationship that He has with God who is Abbà and, because of this, in the relationship that He has with all other men, including enemies, in the sign of love. In other words, the children of Jesus, as Christian faith presents us, are not revealed to mark an insuperabile separation between Jesus and all the others: but to tell us that, in Him, we are all called to be the children of the only Father and brothers with each other. The uniqueness of Jesus is for communication not for exclusion.

Of course a consequence of this is also - and this is not a minor thing - that distinction between the religious spere which is confirmed by "Give to God what belongs to God and give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar", distinctly confirmed by Jesus and upon which, the history of the Western world was built. In fact, the Church is called to sow the yeast and salt of the Gospel, and that is the love and mercy of God which reaches all men, indicating the definitive destination of our destiny in the hereafter, while civil and political society has the difficult duty of expressing and embodying a life that is evermore human in justice, in solidarity, in law and in peace. For those who experience the Christian faith, this does not mean escaping from the world or looking for any kind of supremacy, but being at the service of mankind, of all mankind and all men, starting from the periphery of history and keeping the sense of hope alive, striving for goodness in spite of everything and always looking beyond.

At the end of your first article, you also ask me what to say to our Jewish brothers about the promise God made to them: Has this been forgotten? And this - believe me - is a question that radically involves us as Christians because, with the help of God, starting from the Second Vatican Council, we have discovered that the Jewish people are still, for us, the holy root from which Jesus originated. I too, in the friendship I have cultivated in all of these long years with our Jewish brothers, in Argentina, many times while praying have asked God, especially when I remember the terrible experience of the Shoah. What I can say, with the Apostle Paul, is that God has never stopped believing in the alliance made with Israel and that, through the terribile trials of these past centuries, the Jews have kept their faith in God. And for this, we will never be grateful enough to them, as the Church, but also as humanity at large. Persevering in their faith in God and in the alliance, they remind everyone, even us as Christians that we are always awaiting, the return of the Lord and that therefore we must remain open to Him and never take refuge in what we have already achieved.

As for the three questions you asked me... (more at link below)

With brotherly love,

Francesco

(Translated from Italian by Sara Cecere)

(11 SETTEMBRE 2013)

Pope Francisco writes to La Repubblica: "An open dialogue with non-believers" - Repubblica.it

It's a dumb question, there is no "god"....