GOD IS DEAD

There are to unavoidable fallacies that are relevant to this discussion and they are both arguments from ignorance.The first is that somebody pretends to know there is no God.
The second is that somebody pretends to know there is God."If" there is no God, can there be a particularly higher objective meaning to life?The answer is no. I essentially agree with you.Logically, if God does exist, it follows that we have more purpose inherently, whether we acknowledge it or not. i.e. If there is a judgement day where you answer for what you did while in the body, then it is an unavoidable conclusion that you are infinitely more relevant than you could have possibly imagined.As for personal purpose, I agree with the Kuresu post. It is possible to have personal purpose without God, as it is proven through the testimonies given in this thread, which I don't have reasonable reason to doubt.

Ah well, the crunch term is the spaghetti monster isn't it. We know how it's a loaded term. State some of it's traits, that it shares with my God - and I'll state the MANY it doesn't. (Undistributed middle term).You certainly have to think like an atheist, to mention it, as the monster shares little with the creator.I assume you would be disagreeable if I inserted "human being", as that's what my Christ, my God, is.But neither "human being" nor "sphaghetti monster" affect the true claim that no human knows if God exists in any objective sense.As for proving negatives, to prove you are not wearing socks, merely show the person whom disbelieves you. A negative can be proven, if it is clearly false in reality, such as the sphaghetti monster, for he is a known falsehood.I infact DO entertain possibilities which have no proof - such as multiple big bangs. Yet you don't compae them to a sphaghetti monster.These are the reasonings I have found so many to dismiss, but they still remain sound. Why are logically sound reasonings dismissed? Because some people by into the false position that science means that God is dead. Logically, this was never shown to be a sound syllogism. If it was, please now present it is a true, valid and sound syllogism that I may dissect it.

But you only know God doesn't exist from a personal subjective position.I know he does, you know he doesn't. Let's be honest - as this doesn't favour me in the least, let's admitt that in an objective sense, we don't know if there is a God.I can only be convicted that there is God. I have experienced the Holy Spirit physically, and the external outworking of God in my life, but I apreciate that this has no objective value to you, nor would I expect it to, as it could all be a product of my mind somehow. I can only be a true witness, and state that I truly have experienced this, as I have. I believe it to be true. I don't objectively know, I only "partly know", as the bible says.I know that to you, God isn't there. To be truly neutral, you have to step out of personal significance, and realize that ultimately, you are not omniscient.I feel I shouldn't have to defend the obvious truth, that nobody knows if God is actually there.If he knocked on your door tomorrow, where would such reasoning be?I entertain any possibility, in an objective sense. I acknowledge multiple universes, even though I find them absurd, subjectively.People believe in a designer because of the facts before them. They think this whole existence is one incredible unbelievable undeniable miracle.

I have done this debate a few times since 2003, and don't want to slide down this particular route yet again. I can provide links to past-arguments if you wish to read them.What I will say is that from a neutral position, composition is essential to the soundness of the original claim I made.Now we could present examples of known falsehoods all day, but they are not compositionally equivalent to "God" in this instance.Knowledge is defined as a JTB according to epistemology. (Justified true belief). I would define it as something which is certain.Examples; I know where the pub is located. I know I am looking at a computer screen. I know I can ride a motorcycle, etc... they are all certainties as far as a JTB goes. (Except for Gettier problems, ofcourse). I disagree for many, many reasons, all of which don't have any relevance to this topic.Look more into the undistributed middle term. It explains how we make faulty comparisons, by assuming a great deal from the little knowledge we have.As for my argument, it is that nobody knows if God is there or not. I think we should agree. Any "extra" argument about IPUs, are not relevant to the specific inference because they have no affect on it.

Hi Straggler, thought I'd find this link to prove to you that I've been waffling my opinion on this for a long time. Parasomnium wrote a topic. He is an intelligent and reasonable atheist, perhaps the only one who ever KIND OF ended up agreeing with me on my points about "God". HEREI couldn't find the juicy posts but this one explains a few things, and you could check out my responses, because I will only end up repeating them here, which can be tedious.Ofcourse, this is just one of the many EvC-wars I had with Shraff, over the years. Call me an insubordinate muggle, or an obstinate fart, but I haven't changed my position on the subject.

An evidence makes a theory viable. A lack of evidence doesn't make a theory not viable, only a falsification.Evidence for God is another topic though. Evidence is defnined as something which would follow if God was true, but there are areas of disagreement here.The problem is one of composition, which you still haven't realized in your haste.We DO KNOW Zigzog, and the IPU do not exist, as far as JTB goes, because we have a JTB that they are made up. (Justified true belief).As for my argument in the topic I linked to, it was not in the following form;I suffer as a Christian, therefore my God is true.That's either a misunderstanding of my position or a strawman. I will go for the former, and give you the benefit of the doubt. My argument was that "God" has genuine meaning to people, which shows one difference between God and ZigZog. Just a difference. If I show differences, then you can't present Zigzog as the equivalent to God.1. People have died for God. People haven't for Zigzog.
2. People believe in God. People don't believe in Zigzog.
3. God is historically prevailent. Zigzog is not.
4. It is unknown as to whether God is an idea. It is known that Zigzog is.Now that is a LIST OF COMPOSITION that allows me to disprove the claim that invisible pink unicorns are the equivalent of "God". Logically, I am correct, because any analogy of a reality must show equivalent substitutions of that reality. IPUs are not equivalent except for in one manner - their apparent none-existence OR invisibility.Composition is every element of the predicate. We have a comparison. Thus far I can only think that God and Zigzog share invisibility, as we can't assume that God is made-up, because of the fact that we know Zigzog is made-up. I still have four valid differences atleast.Did you even look at the fallacy of the undistributed middle term? You can't just ignore such an important point. This is where the likes of Dawkins falls short. He has science, but in his hastey acceptance of the authority of science, he has neglected Logic 101.A rich man doesn't sit down to count his pennies, but that doesn't mean that a poor man will not find any value in pennies.

There are differences, however well hidden they are. Essentially the same problems are in there.1. We know he's made up for arguments' sake.
2. God is historically prevailent, as I refer to the history everyone has, when they look in the books, whereas you say, "you just didn't know" which is ad hoc, and not relevant to reality.I could go on but why bother. And I agree with that point.My claim isn't that God is true. My claim is that it is not known as to whether God exists or not. If that were true, why do entities such as Trask only turn up in these arguments?Can't you see that to a reasonable person, such things are not serious. It is only plain to disbelievers that God can be measured against absurd vacuous inventions, or that he is one himself, and it's arrogance to simply assume that you are correct and everyone else is incorrect.MY POINT is that logic itself, and what it teaches us objectively, can show that these types of arguments don't have any merit.However, I am reasonable. The part I do agree on is that God cannot be proved objectively. But many things can't be proved without them being absurd.It is only a claim to say that God is absurd, and it is problematic either way because such claims depend on subjective opinion either way.

I like it too.The hammer is a good analogy. And ofcourse, the designer would know what is best for us.If we go without the manual, we only reap eventual corrosion. It is possible to simply ignore the rust, and say that there is a higher purpose to just driving the wheels off of it, because it's fun, then we miss the point.Good post.Ofcourse, they can argue that there is no original purpose, but that in itself is by no means self-evident in a remarkable system, with such overwhelming design.I should point out that worldy purpose is all about what a person has, and what a person does. The secular world shows what it does. The worldly unbelievers have shown us their "purposes", and it doesn't look good at all. We see moral decay wherever unbelief abounds. Look at the UK.Once respect is gone, society is doomed, and the bible is about respect. As David Pawson says - it can be interpreted, "respect God and respect your neighbour".Ofcourse, nowadays if you had an accident, my expectation would be for the samaritan to merely laugh at me. This is the general yob-mentality where I come from, where there is Godlesness.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

1. My argument isn't superficial. Everything I have said is based on sound logic. Composition, and the undistributed middle are not "pseudo" insights, they are objective impartially derived support for my argument.2. My claim isn't that enough belief is evidence for the existence of God. (Argumentum ad populum)My claim is still that nobody knows whether God exists or not. Everything provided thereafter was to support that claim.You partake in audiatur et altera pars. i.e. You jump to conclusions, or insert too many assumptions about what I am saying.The popular argument of the IPU is a vacuous statement under logical terminology.This means that the stated "IPU" is ONLY unprovable to not exist BECAUSE it is made up. Google "vacuous truth", or "vacuous statements in logic".It's the same as if I said;If I were superman, I would fly to the moon.It is true that I would fly to the moon, BUT ONLY BECAUSE superman is false.Likewise, you can only not prove the IPU BECAUSE IT IS FALSE.This is why genuine logic requires that you FIRST SHOW GOD IS MADE-UP LIKE AN IPU IS OTHERWISE YOU CAN'T PRESENT THEM AS EQUIVALENTS.Guess what? Nobody can do that.I have brought you full circle, back to the main problem which is argumentum ad ignorantium. Nobody knows for pete's sake!!You NOW propose other gods. Automatically you are in a much stronger position that using the IPU, and I concede that it is far harder to prove the Creator, as more possible that other gods.At the moment I can only think that the other gods are usually just idols, known to be none-organic, none-living matter, whereas "God" is not defined as a piece of rock, or wood, or whatever.Also, I don't know enough about gods such as Apollo Creed, so I have to refrain. I.e. I would need to compare them after reasearch, BUT - even if I am ignorant, you still have the problem of composition. Unless Apollos is identical to "God", and all the claims about him are identical, and what he is made of is identical, then we can't truly compare him to God. This is the fallacy of argumentum ad logicam.Infact, any popular arguments are not exactly the same as mine, therefore my conclusion can be sound, if my inference is from different premisses.Infact, my very specific argument in this thread bares no resemblance or part in any [external] argument.Your problem is that I am not a pseuodo-claimant. Your problem is that I am a genuine claimant.If I have shown false philosophy, show it, and we can talk, but don't just say I speak speudo-philosophy.I put up with a lot, even with insults - but do not state I am a false prophet, as it will mean I will give you zero respect.
As far as I know, I speak honestly and truthfully, otherwise I would not try to follow Christ.You can search these OBJECTIVE subjects. As you can see, they are not pseudo. I invite you to search any and all.Ad logicam
Vacuous struth/statement
Undistributed middle term.
Composition in logicEdited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Logically, God isn't made up untill further notice, anymore than he isn't made-up untill further notice.I can't ignore logic itself, which teaches me that the IPU is known to be false, whereas God is not known to be false.There's just no getting around the fact that any reasonable person can see that the IPU is an invention for arguments' sake, which immediately REEKS of loaded spin.I have shown the errors.1. Composition. (They are not equivalent despite your protests)
2. It is vacuously true, ONLY.At this stage it is best to agree to disagree. By all means have the final word, put all of your persuasive skills into it, but essentially, you are unable to change the facts for the convenience of atheism.

Hi. But we don't believe in things we can detect. Are you promoting the fact that any religious or spiritual endeavour is silly? That would be arrogant. Neither. I fail to see the dichotomy.I see it like this, (would you believe it :rolleyes;All god are unproven objectively, including mine.Handwaving them all away as equally irrelevant is not logical, as they are, as I have proven, not equal, by any means. But also - one might be true.Here's a third possibility. God forbid we observe it. One of them might be true, and reveal a historically significant difference/s to the others. Now guess who that is? Bible-God! No doubt about it! If the whole bible is observed, there is simply nothing else like it.

If morals are relative, then your opinion of the bible, is itself, just an individual's self-righteous morals.If there is no God, why is it wrong to say that Geoffrey Dahmer's morals were in any way wrong?Jack the Ripper believes he did right. Who are you to deny it was right, when universally there is no right or wrong? I demand you apologise to Jack immediately, for being politically incorrect, and arrogantly assuming that only your morals are the correct ones.Sacrifice a bull to Jack the Ripper, and he will consider you forgiven.-- Your opinions of my God are not new, nor do they mean anything to me. You are not holy, or perfect. I only listen to the one who is without sin, for only the one who has no sin, is able to preach what is righteous. --

My final commentNobody knows if God exists.Most gods are unbelievable by simple examination. Nobody on earth believes in the IPU, or Zigzog. It is utter stupidity to compare a golden calf with a supernatural creator. That alone proves my logic, when I talk about equivalence, as nobody would take that seriously, as it is known that it is just fashioned by men.That gods are made-up is self-evident, this doesn't mean we can conclude they are 1. All made-up, 2. Equivalent.To state that all gods are equally unprovable is correct, but just not that important to the truth. To state that they are all made up untill proven, is logical positivism.Under logical positivism, the earth was never round untill it was discovered that it was round.My friend, it is only arrogance and ignorance to state that God doesn't exist untill he is proven. The earth was ofcourse still round even if it was believed flat. Likewise, God will exist, even if you can't prove he does.The facts of creation are enough to consider an intelligence because of the extraordinary design and information in creatures and cells. (Even scientific evolutionists have admitted design, and the belief that evolution done it). Abiogenesis is a a completely raligious naturalist belief with no proof whatsoever, and laughable compared with a God, that would explain information and an organism having more properties than the sum of it's make-up.The designer of this universe is still likely to exists, whoever he is, even if you remove all historical gods, because there can still be a final cause for this universe, and no amount of atheist protest will remove it.

Not personal credulity. Facts.You have to REMOVE the miracles from before my eyes. Need I list them? They are endless. It is self-evident that a designer answers to a final cause.Science has nothing to do with it. Nice try, but science doesn't support your atheism. Infact, science has shown that organisms have more properties than the sum of their parts, because of information. Information is only relevant to intelligence. The systems in organisms and cells alone are enough to point to a designer. There is nothing stopping this except incredulity.Your argument from incredulity is fallacious!As for Yahweh and Allah, didn't you read properly? time for a change of glasses. I said that even removing historical gods doesn't remove the possibility of a Creator BECAUSE of the evidence.Your problem is that you don't actually know what evidence is, which is why you say there is no evidence for God. Evidence is what makes theories viable, through the affirmation of the modus ponen. The falsification is the tollens.This means that even the most farcical theories of science, that were once accepted as true, had evidence, despite now being accepted as false.But a designer? I am not even inferring one, there is plenty of evidence under the law od modus ponen.IF there is a designer, THEN X would follow.I could state, literally, a hundred things which do follow. This doesn't prove God because science is tentative.So the only reason to state there is no evidence for God, is incredulity, because there is even evidence for false theories.What does dried blood on a mattress mean? Many theories are viable, yet the most prominent theory will be the one without any falsification.God is in the facts.If there was no God, I would expect proof of life being naturally created by now.There is none.You guys need to actually re-read your textbooks before even being qualified to lick mikey's shoes. This great irrefutable man-of-Yahweh has confounded you utterly.I could point to a thousand viable things that follow if God exists. None of them would pass your test because you have incredulity for anything "God".You erroneous and spriteful baba! Get thee down from thou atheist heights, lest mikey confound thee with irrefutable tongues of truth.(No, seriously guys, I can't post anymore, this could go on forever. We are at war spiritually, there is no agreement between darkness and light. I must say goodbye, feel free to angrily retort.)