Deprecated: mysql_connect(): The mysql extension is deprecated and will be removed in the future: use mysqli or PDO instead in /home/coolgeek/freetag/freetag-0.240/adodb/drivers/adodb-mysql.inc.php on line 340
Honest Argument: A personal God does not exist
join message

A personal God does not exist

(Click boxes for full text or to add/edit/delete node. More help?)
A personal God does not exist  A personal God does not exist
       Ancient texts such as the bible contradict well-established science  Ancient texts such as the bible contradict well-established science
       Miraculous claims can be debunked  Miraculous claims can be debunked
              Scientific explanation does not preclude miraculous nature  Scientific explanation does not preclude miraculous nature
       The "existence of God" is an untelligible concept; the thesis therefore not rationally addressable  The "existence of God" is an untelligible concept; the thesis therefore not rationally addressable
              God can be objectively defined  God can be objectively defined
                     Biblical description of God is itself untelligible, and incomplete  Biblical description of God is itself untelligible, and incomplete
                            God's nature, as described through the Bible, is consistent  God's nature, as described through the Bible, is consistent
                                   The Bible directly contradicts itself on the definition of God  The Bible directly contradicts itself on the definition of God
                     Which Biblical decription of God?  Which Biblical decription of God?
              God can be labeled, and clearly defined for argument  God can be labeled, and clearly defined for argument
       A thesis is by definition objective, but the presence of a personal God could also be wholly subjective  A thesis is by definition objective, but the presence of a personal God could also be wholly subjective
              Subjective experiences are unreliable  Subjective experiences are unreliable
                     Truth exists indepently of "facts"  Truth exists indepently of "facts"

Comments:




J-Luck

I'm extending you the courtesy of manually copying/pasting your comments from the Pending Arguments queue

I will, however, precede them with the clear warning that accompanies Pending Argument comments:

Please restrict comments on Pending Arguments to those relating to the structure/quality of the argument, or as to why you voted the way you did (not required). Pending Argument comments are deleted at the time of approval/rejection for General Argument status.


The comments will simply be deleted next time.

----------------------------------

Point number 1 is based on mis interpretation

It's a common mis interpretation that light was created second.

It is thought the Hebrews were referring to the Universe when saying the heavens and the earth were formless, not the actual earth as we know it.

Comment by: J-Luck At: 2008-08-07 11:18:58


Miraculous claims

Are you reffering to biblical claims, or modern claims?

You can't say ALL.
1. You're not aware of all claims of miracles and prayer.
2. Not all have been explained by science.
3. Since science is the observation and study of the natural world, what makes you think that Christians/Jews/Muslims don't believe God can operate with-in the realms of science? I would never advocate that God cannot do so, however, I would say God does, overwhelmingly operate with-in laws he created.

Many devout religious practitioners would rather discard science, due to misunderstaing of the nature of science.

I would say science, rather, is the observation and study of God's creation, and therefore is not to be loathed.

Comment by: J-Luck At: 2008-08-07 11:24:20

Comment by: Ulysses Berman At: 2008-08-07 16:21:28



Re: comment: J-Luck

Yo my bad. I'll refine them and turn them into rebuttals.

Sorry about some of the issues, I'm still figuring out the forum here.

Comment by: J-Luck At: 2008-08-07 21:41:47



Re: comment: J-Luck

no need to apologize...

and we welcome suggestions from all with regard to how to make the site easier to understand and use

Comment by: Ulysses Berman At: 2008-08-08 12:44:49



"The "existence of God" is an untelligible concept; the thesis t

moved to the "A personal God does not exist" Argument:

http://honestargument.com/...

Comment by: Ulysses Berman At: 2008-08-12 19:31:45



Re: node: Many have not

J-Luck -

"The debate has gone back and forth.
The vast majority of miracles have not be debunked, or explained by science."

This isn't good enough.

I'll grant that many nodes on the site reference "conventional wisdom" without citation. And a significant point of the site is the debunking of said "conventional wisdom".

But many of your nodes read as reflexive denials. Please edit your node to cite specific examples.

I retained the point about God working through laws of nature, but removed "no it's not" part

Comment by: Ulysses Berman At: 2008-08-17 13:28:12



Re: comment: Many have not

It is acceptable.

How they are read is not what I'm interested in. Common sense is common sense.

Some things are concrete, and self evident. There are universals.

I'll allow you to keep that part off untill I get around to citing specific examples, but as for my attitude/behaviors towards how I post, nothing will change untill I am given a better reason other than percieved reflexive denials lol.

Comment by: J-Luck At: 2008-08-17 23:31:13



Re: comment: Many have not

The problem is that such an unsupported refutation risks devolving into the following type of situation:

- no it's not
- yes it is
- no it's not
- yes it is

Even if the participants eventually get around to providing examples as to why "it is" or "it's not", a good deal of ridiculousness was traversed getting there.

(And it's not a theoretical risk - I've had to clean up this type of situation before.)

The Node you were refuting was common sense to the person that added it and/or was a citation of conventional wisdom. If you're going to refute it, then requiring you to justify the refutation eliminates the possibility of falling into the "uh huh/nuh uh" black hole.

Comment by: Ulysses Berman At: 2008-08-19 21:40:56



Re: node: A thesis is by definition objective, but the presence

Node 900 should be deleted. It's not even an argument, and no definition from any dictionary even hints that objectivity is a part of the definition of 'thesis'. The rest of the node is even worse. Just because I experience X in a "completely" personal way has nothing to do with the existence of X unless some other factor is introduced that would preclude such existence. And so on for the rest of this ramble.

Comment by: machinephilosophy At: 2009-05-25 22:06:22



You are not signed in. You need to be registered to comment on this site. Sign in or create account (all you need is a valid email address)




Pending Arguments

There are no pending Arguments.

Create an Argument!