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

Forums - General Discussion - Do you believe in God? Why/Why not?

 

Do you believe in any god?

Yes 63 36.21%
 
No 111 63.79%
 
Total:174
WolfpackN64 on 23 August 2018
JWeinCom said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Well, you can also argue from a causal chain instead, omitting the need to time in the argument (the time based argument is also known as Kalam) and this is the one most frequently used in Christian rational theology. The principle remains the same.

The Kalam is not an argument for Christianity.  Neither god nor Jesus is included in any premise or the conclusion. At best it gets you to a generic cause, but gives you no grounds to say anything specific about that cause.

Kalam is an islamic argument.



Around the Network
WolfpackN64 on 23 August 2018
setsunatenshi said:
WolfpackN64 said:

The arguments are many and they remain the same (with some new additions every once in a while) because while they aren't conclusive to hardcore atheists or skeptics, it's pretty hard to refute any one of them in their entirity.

all those "arguments" have been refuted time and time again, hence why it usually ends up on an appeal to emotion and the classic "well, it's just my faith" which pretty much ends any discussion. 

People like to claim they are refuted. As someone who has studies many of these arguments, I can report to you that nearly none are definatly refuted. Usually they're pulled in doubt, then restored, pulled in doubt again. But I haven't seen many completely crumble. That's just not the philosophical reality.



WolfpackN64 on 23 August 2018
palou said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Well, you can also argue from a causal chain instead, omitting the need to time in the argument (the time based argument is also known as Kalam) and this is the one most frequently used in Christian rational theology. The principle remains the same.

I fail to see the issue, then, that requires a god. You can have an infinite causal chain, in both finite in infinite time. 

You have to see it like the row of natural numbers. Yes you can have infinity, but only in one way, It's impossible to regress infinitly in natural numbers (except through asympotes), one moment, you will hit zero and you can't regress past zero.



setsunatenshi on 23 August 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
setsunatenshi said:

all those "arguments" have been refuted time and time again, hence why it usually ends up on an appeal to emotion and the classic "well, it's just my faith" which pretty much ends any discussion. 

People like to claim they are refuted. As someone who has studies many of these arguments, I can report to you that nearly none are definatly refuted. Usually they're pulled in doubt, then restored, pulled in doubt again. But I haven't seen many completely crumble. That's just not the philosophical reality.

please name one such example. bear in mind we are looking for a positive argument for whatever god you claim to hold in existence without pulling any logical fallacies. 



WolfpackN64 on 23 August 2018
setsunatenshi said:
WolfpackN64 said:

People like to claim they are refuted. As someone who has studies many of these arguments, I can report to you that nearly none are definatly refuted. Usually they're pulled in doubt, then restored, pulled in doubt again. But I haven't seen many completely crumble. That's just not the philosophical reality.

please name one such example. bear in mind we are looking for a positive argument for whatever god you claim to hold in existence without pulling any logical fallacies. 

Again, the cosmological argument. It's been debated over and over, but a clear refutation hasn't really come to bear.



Around the Network
JWeinCom on 23 August 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
JWeinCom said:

The Kalam is not an argument for Christianity.  Neither god nor Jesus is included in any premise or the conclusion. At best it gets you to a generic cause, but gives you no grounds to say anything specific about that cause.

Kalam is an islamic argument.

No, because it doesn't have Allah in it anywhere either.  It may have been developed by a Muslim, but that doesn't make it an argument for Islam.  



WolfpackN64 on 23 August 2018
JWeinCom said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Kalam is an islamic argument.

No, because it doesn't have Allah in it anywhere either.  It may have been developed by a Muslim, but that doesn't make it an argument for Islam.  

That's not what I stated.



JWeinCom on 23 August 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
JWeinCom said:

No, because it doesn't have Allah in it anywhere either.  It may have been developed by a Muslim, but that doesn't make it an argument for Islam.  

That's not what I stated.

Well, that's how I interpreted it.  Feel free to clarify.



palou on 23 August 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
palou said:

I fail to see the issue, then, that requires a god. You can have an infinite causal chain, in both finite in infinite time. 

You have to see it like the row of natural numbers. Yes you can have infinity, but only in one way, It's impossible to regress infinitly in natural numbers (except through asympotes), one moment, you will hit zero and you can't regress past zero.

why would you, though? 

 

I'd say it behaves more like the rationals, no? If you say A causes B, you can (by normal intuition) find an event in between, serving as a link between the two.

 

Let's say, the strictly positive rationals, for example, to fit the "always something before" part, no? Why would that be any less valid?



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

WolfpackN64 on 23 August 2018
JWeinCom said:
WolfpackN64 said:

That's not what I stated.

Well, that's how I interpreted it.  Feel free to clarify.

I just stated the argument from time has been developed in the islamic world.