unknown title: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate Discussion » unknown title » unknown title

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

unknown title

AntonToo
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 05, 2004
Location: Staten Island, NY

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 15

Posted 07/05/04 - 06:42 PM:	#71
Distortion wrote: I suppose if Bluster was still around, I'd make my post now and 'continue' the debate - but I don't know if he is still up for it Were did you get the pink elephant? thats what I alwais use
The specialized we are.

spamspamspamandham
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 19, 2003
Location: Antigua 2020 (Dallas area for now)

Total Topics: 83
Total Posts: 4153

Posted 07/06/04 - 05:15 AM:	#72
Distortion wrote: I disagree Spam, the point is to brutalize each others position with as much logic and evidence and reason and substantiation as both sides can muster until one of the other wins out. Then it's pointless. Neither side can win a debate about a topic for which no significant evidence can be presented one way or the other due to how the premise is defined.
But who is to guard the guards themselves?

Distortion
Oh yeah?

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: May 08, 2002
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 1761

Posted 07/07/04 - 03:02 AM:	#73
spamspamspamandham wrote: Then it's pointless. Neither side can win a debate about a topic for which no significant evidence can be presented one way or the other due to how the premise is defined. Not every topic can be reduced to a 'win' or a 'loss' as not everything comes down to two convientiently black and white sides where one is correct and the other is not. One can however hope that a best possible useful and productive conclusion can always be reached, whether the best possible conclusion is 'it is impossible to know' or not. If there is no evidence either way, then presumably you are arguing in terms of basis for belief and logic, from which you can also come to a fruitful, 'best possible' conclusion.
Make your own rules.

spamspamspamandham
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 19, 2003
Location: Antigua 2020 (Dallas area for now)

Total Topics: 83
Total Posts: 4153

Posted 07/07/04 - 05:16 AM:	#74
Distortion wrote: If there is no evidence either way, then presumably you are arguing in terms of basis for belief and logic, from which you can also come to a fruitful, 'best possible' conclusion. I didn't agree with your initial statement that the point was to 'win'. If the point is to win, then there is no point. We seem to agree on that.
But who is to guard the guards themselves?

SimplyPlatonic
Level 24 RogueWonderer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
Location: Maryland

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 102

Posted 08/04/04 - 04:21 PM:	#75
Paul wrote: If there isn't any, then that would simply make the argument conclusive against the existence of a God. If you can't find any evidence for object X, then you should become increasingly skeptical of object X existing. Absense of proof isn't proof of absence, but absence of evidence after a complete study has been done is indeed evidence of absense. If we are talking about a superior being than how more powerful are we talking? If God is indeed pretty darn smart than can't He, like a smart theif(refering to the court of law part) not leave fingerprint's? Also who is saying that an argument is complete, i've yet to see a complete argument. P.S. I'm new,young an I'll admit ignorant, so go easy, please?
Your skill in Reading has increased by 1 point

spamspamspamandham
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 19, 2003
Location: Antigua 2020 (Dallas area for now)

Total Topics: 83
Total Posts: 4153

Posted 08/04/04 - 07:29 PM:	#76
SimplyPlatonic wrote: If we are talking about a superior being than how more powerful are we talking? If God is indeed pretty darn smart than can't He, like a smart theif(refering to the court of law part) not leave fingerprint's? Also who is saying that an argument is complete, i've yet to see a complete argument. Well, this debate pretty much died. Yes, a really smart being can find a way not to leave fingerprints. The same can be said of a nonexistent being. If you propose the former, why? Why would you assume something exists that leaves no trace? Clearly, you must think it has left a trace, even if that trace is simply your mother telling you about it. If you are willing to entertain things existing that leave no trace, you have your work cut out, since the possible beings are potentially unbounded.
But who is to guard the guards themselves?

SimplyPlatonic
Level 24 RogueWonderer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
Location: Maryland

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 102

Posted 08/05/04 - 08:57 PM:	#77
spamspamspamandham wrote: Well, this debate pretty much died. Yes, a really smart being can find a way not to leave fingerprints. The same can be said of a nonexistent being. If you propose the former, why? Why would you assume something exists that leaves no trace? Clearly, you must think it has left a trace, even if that trace is simply your mother telling you about it. If you are willing to entertain things existing that leave no trace, you have your work cut out, since the possible beings are potentially unbounded. To the debate dying, yes. However I'm sorry I wasn't clearer in the beginning. It seemed that the superior being (God only three letter's so let's go with that) wasn't getting the credit He was due. It seem's to me if God exist's then we exist at, or more likely for, His pleasure. What fun is being God if no one is around to appreciate it? Also, let's say we messed up and did something he didn't like, like selecting the wrong produce . He may still want us, because like Ghandi he 'hates the sin, loves the sinner' (that was Ghandi right? I think I saw that somewhere.) So He still want's us to be around. Well then we have a choice to make then don't we? We can chose hanging out with God, or option B (insert various lifestyle choices). God then, having know all this would happen anyway, wouldn't leave billion's of hat's around so that His existence would be completely obvious. Where is the choice if you know with absolute certainty (or as absolute as it get's) that God exist's. That would be similar to betting on the horse your buddy the mobster already knows will win. To give human's a proper choice, God probably would let human's find out how exactely built for their existence this planet, universe, dimension is. Also he may write a book or have one written for him . And build into the species, like the mating instinct (oh look another built in thing in our universe to keep human's alive), the desire to use their choosing mechanism to ask question's that would lead them to him. Question's like ' Is there a superior being' or 'what is the meaning of life' or 'are there absolute's'. If God does exist and was very smart, like we concedded, then everyone here posting messages is proof that His plan work's.
Your skill in Reading has increased by 1 point

spamspamspamandham
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 19, 2003
Location: Antigua 2020 (Dallas area for now)

Total Topics: 83
Total Posts: 4153

Posted 08/06/04 - 05:39 AM:	#78
SimplyPlatonic wrote: ... Where is the choice if you know with absolute certainty (or as absolute as it get's) that God exist's... People know governments exist, and some choose to break laws anyway. There is no choice without knowledge. You can not make a decision to obey/disobey unless you first know god exists, and you are also aware of his rules.
But who is to guard the guards themselves?

SimplyPlatonic
Level 24 RogueWonderer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
Location: Maryland

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 102

Posted 08/06/04 - 08:51 AM:	#79
spamspamspamandham wrote: People know governments exist, and some choose to break laws anyway. There is no choice without knowledge. You can not make a decision to obey/disobey unless you first know god exists, and you are also aware of his rules. If you break a law made by the government, most people would term this person a criminal. In the same way someone who break's God's law would be termed a sinner. You can make a mistake but still serve God/government. I would obviously be in need of correction if I said that people don't make mistake's. The difference is in the following, a person that doesn't follow God is termed an unbeliever. A person who doesn't follow a government is termed an anarchist. The lawbreaker made a mistake but is still capable of following the government, an anarchist won't (it is agaisnt his/her belief system). A sinner makes a mistake and is still capable of following God(since His/Her core belief's are still bent toward following God), however an unbeliever would have to give up their belief system.
Your skill in Reading has increased by 1 point

spamspamspamandham
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 19, 2003
Location: Antigua 2020 (Dallas area for now)

Total Topics: 83
Total Posts: 4153

Posted 08/06/04 - 10:10 AM:	#80
SimplyPlatonic wrote: If you break a law made by the government, most people would term this person a criminal. In the same way someone who break's God's law would be termed a sinner. You can make a mistake but still serve God/government. I would obviously be in need of correction if I said that people don't make mistake's. Mistakes, are not the same as choices. You insinuated god hides from us so that we can choose whether or not to follow him. I claim that is incoherent, since no such choice can be made about a hidden being, as it is not possible to know his will, or even know of his existence. How do you know his will isn't for us to disbelieve in him? How do you know he doesn't want us to exterminate ourselves? Perhaps his will is for us to disobey his will. Without knowledge of his will, no choice can be made regarding obeying such will.
But who is to guard the guards themselves?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.