Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tabula_rasa · 04-18-2003, 03:07 PM

Quote:

from slamanamp:
I purpose that you cannot argue against the existence of God unless you first assume his existence.

You are correct: It is not possible for some 'thing' to be falsified unless there is a basis for assuming what this 'thing' is. So, with all due haste, please state a working definition and the full set of characteristics which describe this God-'thing.' This would allow one to then A) assume that such a thing exists in order to B) argue against the existence of such a thing. Until you do that, there really is no point to a debate of anykind. We've all seen debates where the definitions shift once the debate begins.

Tabula_rasa

Duvenoy · 04-18-2003, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by trekbette
I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were serious. Being an atheist for me means that I do not believe in any god or demon, this includes satan, zeus or any other mythological character you can dream up.

doov

04-18-2003, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cthulhu
And I challenge you to a duel, sir. I choose pistols at dawn.

Pistols? How gauche...

Fish will be my weapon of choice. I challenge you to a fish-slapping duel. My fish of choice?

Swordfish. What else?

04-18-2003, 07:20 PM

Then prepare to get bitch-slapped with a killer whale.

04-18-2003, 09:10 PM

A killer whale? How pedestrian...

Then sir, I will respond with a sperm whale. In other words, I will commit... spermicide!

Jinto · 04-18-2003, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by shifterknob
A killer whale? How pedestrian...

Then sir, I will respond with a sperm whale. In other words, I will commit... spermicide!

Oh my sides...

WEll then, I shall trump you both with my BLUE WHALE.

Urg... how am I supposed to move this thing?

04-18-2003, 09:31 PM

I'm sorry, I had a condem stretched over my head for protection. What did you say?

Silent Dave · 04-18-2003, 11:07 PM

Slamanap, if you're still here, your argument actually disproves, rather than proves, the existence of God. When we use language, we do assume that it denotes objective reality -- and by assuming that, we assume that it doesn't change from one moment to the next. We can assume that because neither humans nor nature has the power to change it. But God would have the power to change it; his existence would preclude that assumption. Therefore, simply by making that opening post, you granted the presupposition that God does not exist.

Dave

Eudaimonist · 04-19-2003, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Silent Dave
Slamanap, if you're still here, your argument actually disproves, rather than proves, the existence of God. When we use language, we do assume that it denotes objective reality -- and by assuming that, we assume that it doesn't change from one moment to the next. We can assume that because neither humans nor nature has the power to change it. But God would have the power to change it; his existence would preclude that assumption. Therefore, simply by making that opening post, you granted the presupposition that God does not exist.

Hm, not bad.

Thomas Metcalf · 04-19-2003, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by slamanamp :

Quote:

I openly challenge all intellectual atheists (those who avoid the use of �ad hominem� attack) to debate me on the issue of the existence of God. Does God Exist? What happens when we die?

Let me refer you to a post I've made on the subject:

slamanamp's presuppositionalist argument

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-18-2003, 07:20 PM	#44
Cthulhu Guest Posts: n/a	Then prepare to get bitch-slapped with a killer whale.

04-18-2003, 09:10 PM	#45
shifterknob Guest Posts: n/a	A killer whale? How pedestrian... Then sir, I will respond with a sperm whale. In other words, I will commit... spermicide!

04-18-2003, 09:31 PM	#47
shifterknob Guest Posts: n/a	I'm sorry, I had a condem stretched over my head for protection. What did you say?

04-18-2003, 11:07 PM	#48
Silent Dave Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Bloomington, MN Posts: 2,209	Slamanap, if you're still here, your argument actually disproves, rather than proves, the existence of God. When we use language, we do assume that it denotes objective reality -- and by assuming that, we assume that it doesn't change from one moment to the next. We can assume that because neither humans nor nature has the power to change it. But God would have the power to change it; his existence would preclude that assumption. Therefore, simply by making that opening post, you granted the presupposition that God does not exist. Dave

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.