By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Doe it really matter if God exists or not...?

 

I am

Theist 96 20.25%
 
Atheist 178 37.55%
 
Agnostic 96 20.25%
 
Spiritual but non theist 29 6.12%
 
Other 32 6.75%
 
God. 43 9.07%
 
Total:474
o_O.Q on 02 July 2017
Aura7541 said:
o_O.Q said:

 

""all i am saying is that this is similar to what has been done with concepts associated with a god"

can you elaborate on how this employs the god of the gaps fallacy?"

 

lol so your lack of a response shows you can't actually elaborate on how this uses the god of the gaps fallacy? 

isn't that a proof by assertion fallacy? lol

 

to reiterate the positive claim i made is historical fact in that throughout history values have been attributed to gods

the other positive claim i made is that objective morality is impossible without the concept of a god and so far no one including you has been able to raise a counterargument

 

"You also have not proven the causality yet since correlation does not mean causation."

 

and this is in regards to what exactly?


are you really a moderator?

Round and round the fallacious carousel you go...

So you resorted to the same old Proof by Assertion and refuse to address your God of the Gaps fallacy. Looks like you have resorted to the Argument from Silence fallacy, too. So let's just recap. Your claims are solely dependent on Proof by Assertion and the God of the Gaps fallacies. When asked to prove your assertions to be correct, you have not fulfilled your burden of proof as you have provided absolutely zero citations and no direct evidence, and you also resorted to the ad nauseaum fallacy. And as the cherry on top, you responded to my continued skepticism with an Argument from Silence fallacy. Your thinking process is extremely predicable and can be easily refuted, so feel free to put in your last sophist words because the fallacious carousel is not my kind of ride.

 

lol... so all you can do is call out fallacies without elaborating on them?

this is absolutely hilarous, i am honestly lost for words

 

i'll try one last time

"""all i am saying is that this is similar to what has been done with concepts associated with a god"

can you elaborate on how this employs the god of the gaps fallacy?""



Around the Network
o_O.Q on 02 July 2017
JWeinCom said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

 

The burden of proof is yours. If you claim that somebody has made a fallacy, then you need to demonstrate that they have. Explain how his arguments are "God of the gaps fallacies", or leave the thread. Hell, I don't even think that God of the Gaps is an official fallacy at all. It's just a buzzword thrown around by certain people. Here check for yourself, it isn't listed. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html 

The sad thing here is that I'm on your side, but I have to call a spade a spade. You are throwing around claims of fallacies left and right without supporting them at all. 

 

I don't believe there is any official list of fallacies.  What you're probably referring to is the non-exhaustive categories of logical fallacies that we tend to address.  But, beyond those broad fallacies, there can be specific variations in regards to certain subjects.

The god of the gap fallacy (usually referred to as god of the gaps argument, but lets not split hairs) is a variation of the argument from ignorance fallacy.  For example, we can't (although I'd say we can) determine where morality comes from exactly, so it must be god.  And he pointed out exactly where the fallacy was used several times.  When you say "100 years ago using radio waves for communication would've made you a witch.. you really think that in 100 years we won't uncover more hidden aspects of reality"  that is basically a textbook example of argument from ignorance.

 

"all i am saying is that this is similar to what has been done with concepts associated with a god"

 

he said this employs the god of the gaps fallacy.. since he's failed and you agree with him can you elaborate on how i've used that fallacy here?

 

" you really think that in 100 years we won't uncover more hidden aspects of reality"  that is basically a textbook example of argument from ignorance"

 

its not its reality that as human technology improves we uncover more about the universe.. to claim that the fact that with time we learn more about our environment is a fallacy is insane lol

 



o_O.Q on 02 July 2017
Cerebralbore101 said:
o_O.Q said:

 

the other positive claim i made is that objective morality is impossible without the concept of a god and so far no one including you has been able to raise a counterargument.

 

and this is in regards to what exactly?


are you really a moderator?

I posted a counterargument to that claim this morning. 

 

"1. If God appeals to morality, then objective morality cannot exist. If Objective morality cannot exist then it does not exist. 

2. If God defines morality with his actions, then morality is not objective. If morality is not objective then Objective Morality does not exist. 

The only escape from this dilemma is to say that Objective Morality can exist without God. But that would refute your original point. Which is my point. :P"

 

well as i said afterwards i'm talking more about taking observations on which behavioral patterns are more productive and ascribing them to gods so these concepts can be communicated to the population in a digestible way 



Cerebralbore101 on 03 July 2017
o_O.Q said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

I posted a counterargument to that claim this morning. 

 

"1. If God appeals to morality, then objective morality cannot exist. If Objective morality cannot exist then it does not exist. 

2. If God defines morality with his actions, then morality is not objective. If morality is not objective then Objective Morality does not exist. 

The only escape from this dilemma is to say that Objective Morality can exist without God. But that would refute your original point. Which is my point. :P"

 

well as i said afterwards i'm talking more about taking observations on which behavioral patterns are more productive and ascribing them to gods so these concepts can be communicated to the population in a digestible way 

In that case you are saying that people can't learn about objective morality without believing in a diety. That's a completely different statement from "If God does not exist, then objective morality does not exist." 



Cerebralbore101 on 03 July 2017
o_O.Q said:
Aura7541 said:

Round and round the fallacious carousel you go...

So you resorted to the same old Proof by Assertion and refuse to address your God of the Gaps fallacy. Looks like you have resorted to the Argument from Silence fallacy, too. So let's just recap. Your claims are solely dependent on Proof by Assertion and the God of the Gaps fallacies. When asked to prove your assertions to be correct, you have not fulfilled your burden of proof as you have provided absolutely zero citations and no direct evidence, and you also resorted to the ad nauseaum fallacy. And as the cherry on top, you responded to my continued skepticism with an Argument from Silence fallacy. Your thinking process is extremely predicable and can be easily refuted, so feel free to put in your last sophist words because the fallacious carousel is not my kind of ride.

 

lol... so all you can do is call out fallacies without elaborating on them?

this is absolutely hilarous, i am honestly lost for words

 

i'll try one last time

"""all i am saying is that this is similar to what has been done with concepts associated with a god"

can you elaborate on how this employs the god of the gaps fallacy?""

Atheists are used to debating Christians and their arguments. Over the years we've come to expect certain Christian arguments, and have gotten in the habit of rebutting them. But you're not a Christian, and so we expect a certain argument, and you throw out something completely different. In other words you are throwing him for a loop, because he's assuming you're a Christian. I almost fell into the same mistake at first too. xD

The structure of the supposid God of the Gaps fallacy goes like this... 

1. We can't explain X with science. 

2. God would explain X. 

3. Therefore God must exist. 

You can fill in X with just about anything that science or philosophy doesn't understand yet. For example a God of the gaps argument from ancient Egyptians would have looked like this... "We don't know why the sun moves across the sky. Ra's chariot pulling the sun would explain that. Therefore Ra exists."



Around the Network
etking on 03 July 2017

With the current and future advances of genetic technology, quantum physics and computer simulation, we are god.



Dark_Lord_2008 on 03 July 2017

It is impossible to prove God exists or does not exist.



vivster on 03 July 2017

Nope. Because even if it was proven beyond doubt that there is no god people would still believe it. That's the beauty of believing, you don't have to care about facts and just create your own world. Your government sponsored safe space.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

MarkkyStorm on 03 July 2017
PEEPer0nni said:
o_O.Q said:

it does because without god objective morality cannot exist

laws

Laws come from morality, not the opposite. Following laws does not make you a moral person and there's laws that are not moral at all. God is a way (that for me, seems the best) to define what is moral and what isn't.

About the OP: if you believe in God that question is useless, because you don't need to know for sure, you just need to have faith in it. But I'm quite curious to see what would happen if suddenly we could prove that God exists... Would people that not follow any monotheistic religion convert? Would they still live their lifes the same?



MarkkyStorm on 03 July 2017
Qwark said:
Birimbau said:

If God doesn't exist, there is no wrong or right. If God exists, there is wrong (what God diskes) and right (what God approves) and there are consequences for both.

Ever tought laws might differ wrong from right for humans on earth instead of God. Or an imaginary being if he doesn't exist. Life itself isn't pointless without a supreme being and humans should be selfconsious enough to differ right from wrong. It doesn't take a genius to see that raping and killing people is bad for society whether god agrees or not.

None of this are selfconsious. If you were raised by monkeys in the middle of the jungle, you probably wouldn't understand why you shouldn't kill everybody that treats you bad. All moral things that seem so "selfconsious" came from somewhere. Most of it from religion and philosophy.

Also, it's not a question about what God "likes" or "deslikes". It's so more complex than that.