2 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 214 previous comments
- And you can prove that statement with 100% certainty also can you?
You haven't been able to so far which shows there is no serious challenge to the theists beliefApr 16, 2015
- I don't need 100 % proof.
Nothing at all can be proven about reality... but the evidence for the fictionality of the god concept is massive.
Meanwhile, there's no evidence of the god concept actually referring to real entities.
There is no good reason to disregard all that evidence. In other words, there is no reason to believe the god concept is anything else than a man-made fiction. Deductive nonsense and all.Apr 17, 2015
- You say that you don't need 100% proof that there is no God yet you demand 100% proof from theists!
I see a double standard here don't you!
There is no evidence to prove a natural cause for the universe, there are no arguments or theory's of any sort that come close.
It's no good arguing from ignorance that we "do not know", then contradicting yourself by saying "I know that there is no God", can you explain this contradiction?
All the evidence within the universe infer a creator, you can either accept the conclusion as theists do or be honest & say I do not know which makes you agnosticApr 18, 2015
- Don't be dishonest: I am saying that what you call "100 % proof" (just read to OP to see that claim) is a 0% proof, because it's unsound. That is the problem with deductive arguments, it's all or nothing: A successful deductive proof is 100% proof.
A failed deductive proof is 0 % proof.
What you are now pursuing (as Kreeft does, also) is a license to take a whole bunch of 0% proofs and claim that they can be "taken together". Well, they can, but 20 times 0 is still 0.
That is why we rely on induction instead. If we evaluate all the data, then the conclusion, while it might not be 100 % true, will still hold more truth than most of the alternative conclusions. And, when an inductive conclusion fails, we learn something.
If a deductive argument fails, we learn nothing at all.
Nothing at all about the universe suggests a magical mind behind it. In fact, even deductively, a magical mind behind the universe would solve nothing as there would be no explanation for why that mind existed.Apr 18, 2015
- As said before, it's only unsound because you simply do not understand the key terms and inferences of the background metaphysics which is absolutely essential.
Another widely accepted argument of validity is Alvin Plantingas problem of evil, so we now have 2 valid deductive arguments as evidence whereas you still have nothing
It seems that you're being intellectually dishonest by claiming nothing about the universe suggests a "magical mind" behind it given the validity of the above arguments, not to mention the fact that we are Not claiming it's a "magical" mind but a non corporeal, non temporal, omnipotent "Being" Apr 19, 2015
- It is unsound because it is unsound. You're just saying that I'd have to agree to let you beg the question, and of course I should not.
You're begging the question because real arguments won't let you do what you want to do. So you cheat.
I will go ahead an make an #anthologychallenge post for you, so you can try to deliver Plantinga's argument, and then we can see if you can deliver it without fallacy or false premises.Apr 20, 2015