Karma reasons for concrete message



    Posts: 2336
  • Darwins +299/-16

Hello all,
There is this question that comes really often during the course of my other discussion and it is beginning to seriously impede the evolution of the discussion.
So does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains? Yes
How can you prove it?
The same way you prove the existence of something immaterial as a separate entity - separate from human brains. Through it's definition.
Or using the ontological argument.
If the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality. Of course he would exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains.
Or using the start of everything.
Everything have a beginning but one. This one is called God and is the beginning of everything he must exist as a separate entity - separate from human brains since they were not created yet.
Or using the "bad" in the world.
Nothing can be made without consequences. What would happen to a child rapist who committed suicide right after raping the child? God (an entity external to our brain) must exist to execute his judgement.
Or using the design argument.
There is more order than chaos in what you see everyday. There must be something that thought about the laws of everything. That "thing" is God and is outside your mind (he made it)

So you can prove, then, that Santa Claus exists merely by defining him as existing? No, sorry. FAIL. Things are not demonstrated to independently exist merely by "saying so". This is your bullshit belief and it has no basis in fact, since anyone can merely SAY (define) whatever mythical thing they want to. It does not logically follow that such things exist independently of human conception. So once again, you are using irrational arguments (and you know better).

Second, you have raised (but not presented or defended) the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, the moral argument, and the design argument. And ever single one of these arguments fails.

Ontological Argument - This argument fails for the same reason your "because I say so" argument about miracles or a god fails. You cannot merely define something into actual independent existence. Merely engaging in linguistic construction does not make something real or actual. So merely CLAIMING that because you can think of a specific "great" being doesn't prove that there is such a thing. This argument is ad hoc at best.

Cosmological Argument - You say, "Everything have a beginning but one" but you didn't prove it. Again, this is just more of your "because I say so" bullshit. The Cosmological Argument fails miserably at demonstrating a God for many reasons. 1) The term "God" is not coherently define and has been consistently shown to be vacuous and meaningless in it's application. 2) Even if our local universe had a beginning that does not mean that there are not other universes in existence or that a magic "God" is a sufficient explanation. There are numerous possibilities. Merely asserting "because I say it must be God" is childish. You don't win by default.

The "Bad in the World" Moral Argument - Just because harm happens in the world, it does not follow that there must be some father "judge". But you didn't even attempt to defend this argument. All you did (as is so common with you) is ASSERT IT with out evidence. Again, "because I say so" = FAIL. The fact that actions have consequences (such as a rapist being sent to jail) says nothing about a deity god "thing".

Design Argument - "There must be a thinking god. Therefore there is one" is your argument? Really? That's pathetic dude. This is just more "because I say so" fallacy. Again, your saying it is so doesn't make it so. You need to actually DEMONSTRATE your claims - not just claim them as fact a priori. The design argument fails because you haven't demonstrated that anything IS designed. All you've done is said that they look designed to you. But science is not about your personal opinions of what "looks" like design. Our planet is the only one that we know of that is even remotely OK for life. Everywhere else (including most of our planet btw) is hostile to life (like outer space, black holes, other galaxies, etc). If anything, the universe is good for death and killing life (or at least not permitting it). This argument is not sound because it doesn't present a designer. It merely asserts what it needs to prove.

It's really too bad that you can't come up with anything better than just words to demonstrate your alleged invisible God. Could that be because your God is imaginary fiction?

Changed Change Reason Date
DumpsterFire Another great post from Median. May 28, 2014, 09:27:49 PM
Disciple of Sagan You are a juggernaut of reason May 25, 2014, 09:11:29 PM