slamanamp

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? Surely you have all at least pondered on these questions. I purpose that you cannot argue against the existence of God unless you first assume his existence. For even in voicing that you disagree you are depending on the transcendental truth that language has objective meaning. But if there is nothing higher than man out there then there is nothing to say that anything must be objective. But you say mans has refined this system over time and it has always worked. A simple refutation of that is the past is by no means a reliable guide for the future, just because it always has worked doesn’t mean it will tomorrow. You breathe the air God created and deny his existence while exhaling it.
(I might add that “ad hominem” literally translated means ‘to the man’ which means attacking the person not the argument)
Thank you and I look forward to your responses , Slamanamp

tk

Language is slippery, therefore God exists. Duh.

Can you kindly express your points in formal symbolic notation? Thank you.

Zimyatin

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

I propose that you cannot argue against the existence of Zeus unless you first assume his great and irrefutible existence.

For even in voicing that you disagree you are depending on the transcendental truth that language has objective meaning.

"rubber"

UK - eraser

US - fun killer

Jinto

Wow. First sentence and already using an implied ad hominem. Ironic, isn't it?

Which God?

Brain function ceases. Shortly thereafter, the body starts to decay and smell bad. If your family is theist, they'll probably insist on holding a funeral. You as an entity will have ceased to exist. No mystery here.

Are you pondering what I'm pondering? Actually, there are a lot of atheists who haven't pondered these questions. These are the atheists who are most likely to be converted, IMO.

I propose that you cannot argue against the existence of this universe without God unless you first assume that this universe without God exists, and since you are arguing against this, God doesn't exist. You see how easy this is?

Wrong. I am depending on the empirical truth that language has a common subjective meaning that is agreed upon by a wide range of people in order to facilitate actually understanding what the hell each other is talking about it, no trancedentalism required.

Define "higher." I don't think that you are using the same definition of the word that everyone else uses. The floodlights above my head are higher than me. The moon is higher than all men (as of right now). From the sun's gravity well, Jupiter is higher than the Earth-moon system. From the galactic gravity well, there are billions of stars higher than this solar system. But I don't see what any of this has to do with objective truth.

Okay then, if past performance is no indication of future performance, then please go jump off a 1000+ ft. cliff onto a pile of sharp rocks below without wearing any safety equipment, such as a parachute. I predict, based on the past performance of people who have tried similar stunts, that you will become shredded into what can only be described as "a bloody mess." But go ahead, prove me wrong.

You breathe the air created by billions of years of photosyntetic life and yet deny their existence while exhaling it.

It's quite ironic that you should caution us against ad hominem attacks and yet make two of them in your opening statement.

Any relation to pudgyfarmer?

K

slamanamp:

No, I'm only depending on the fact that language can be used to communicate ideas. Whether it has objective meaning or is a means of codifying shared experiences is irrelevent. Why do you insist that language must have objective meaning in order to argue against the existence of God?

Why? You already assume that man exists. If man exists, doesn't that say that man must be objective?

Also, what does it matter if there is nothing "higher" than humanity to say that something must be objective? Why can't things be objective without this higher entity saying that they have to be?

Actually, I didn't say that, but I will accept it as reasonable (if we allow for an extremely loose interpretation of "always" to mean "for a very long time").

Not true. The past is an extremely reliable guide for the future. I think you meant to say that is not a GUARANTEED guide to the future. There is a huge difference between the two.

This still isn't a refutation of the fact that language may have "always" worked and been refined over time. It only means that language may not work in the future.

Your refutation doesn't involve the specifics of language, it focusses only on working always (a very long time). This would also indicate that it was impossible for ANYTHING to have worked for a very long time. Do you actually believe this?

I'll assume you are just saying this and not using it to support your position since it obviously begs the question. The following examples demonstrate.

"You breathe the air Zues created and deny his existence while exhaling it."

"You breathe the air Bugs Bunny created and deny his existence while exhaling it."

Marcel

Hi, Slamanamp,

Thank you for your sincere questions. If you are really inquisitive, you could also check the other threads on the different fora, but I can imagine that there are too many threads to browse through before for finding a thread that is suitable to your answer.

I dislike ad hominem attacks too (in discussions with Christians it often seems their favourite way of trying to convince you, or to talk yourself into some sense of guilt or sinfulness in order to need redemption), so I will avoid them. After all, it is a metaphysical question whether a god exists or not. All too often they link moral to the existence of a god.

You wrote:

This question is, what they call in philosophy, an ontological question. The tricky thing with such questions is, that we first have to know what we mean with what we want/ask/expect/hope to exist. Such questions can only be made intelligible by construing them either as questions about the advisability of adopting a kind of 'framework', or as questions posed within that framework. We can, for instance, also ask ourselves: "Do numbers exist?" or "Does gravity exist?" The argument here, is that we can accept talk 'about' entities in mathematics or physics withour either to believe in the reality of such entities, or to provide a reductionist account of them in terms of something else. This is, according to philosopher Rudolf Carnap, the argument of deflationism.
If we take the belief in a god as, among other things, a statement of an ontological position (=relating to the existence or nonexistence of something), then it has to face this deflationist argument. If the argument goes through, then not only is the issue of the reality of numbers and the like a specious issue, but the question of God's existence is also undermined. In other words, if deflationism is correct, then we should be theological intrumentalists, and hold that theistic statements are non-descriptive.
You could also apply this to abstract entities, that is entities which are supposed (by some) to exist outside space and time. It is not so plausible when applied to temporal objects (eg. things which are subject to the progress of time), because we ourselves are temporal objects and we cannot but believe in our own existence. The fundamental meaning of 'exist' is to have a location in time. So 'Does god exist?' should either be seen as a question about whether God exists in time, or should be construed as the deflationist would construe it.

Zimyatin rightfully asks whether you can prove the existence of Zeus. We could also ask: "Does Verel am Stroogervleek, the great celestal, invisible transcendental poet exist?" Anything goes, of course. If somebody manages to write a book about this divine Verel am Stroogervleek, does it mean that people who do not believe in Verel should give credible arguments for their disbelief?

As is the case with all theists; the theists claim that there is a god. Therefore, the theist should prove that he exists. The burden of proof is on the one who claims the existence. The believer should find arguments to make his faith credible. Atheists have hitherto not been convinced by such arguments, and are therefore unbelievers. Principally, all people are atheists; as a baby, you do not believe in a god and it takes upbringing and years of indoctrination before you start believing in him.

I have never pondered on these questions, honestly. Why should I?
We know what happens when we die; we die, out bodily fluids stop running, metabolism ceases, our bodies start decomposing and that is all there is to it.
Once again, why would we assume that more will happen? What is the problem? What lies behind the question 'what happens when we die?' if we know that everything ceases? Maybe you mean that we have a soul which is an immaterial thing that survives after our material bodies have died. There is no reason to think that we have such a soul when we know that our personalities and our characters are being formed by our brains. If somebody tries to claim that we have a spiritual soul, then the should give arguments and proof for that.


I think these questions are now clearly irrelevant. Atheists do not have to argue against God's existence. Atheism is the default position when all theistic claims have been dismissed.

Kind regards, Marcel.

emotional

Agreed.



Agreed.



Disagreed!

emotional

First off, slamanamp, I'm a theist, but I don't quite agree with you.



That's the argument that the word "atheist" can't have existed without there being a "theos" in the first place. But this Argument from Language doesn't prove your point. There are lots of words in human language, some of them denoting non-existent things. I don't have to assume the existence of leprechauns to argue against their existence. Give a better argument, then.



I discern the existence of God from the existence of ubiquitous natural law all over the universe. Teleological Argument: design requires a designer; design is evolutionary (I believe in evolution, not creation), but evolutionary design requires a designer too, to make it work in the first place. God exists outside of space and time and is the Cause of space and time (Cosmological Argument), and the Setter of Natural Law which makes chemical and biological evolution possible.



With due respect, slamanamp, that's an Ad Hominem and won't get you anywhere. "You all believe, yet you deny" - not a great starting point for intellectual debate, I'm afraid.

Aerik Von

When I argue against the existensce of "God" I am not arguing about a specific, named diety but a concept of a larger, supernautually based being that seemingly adopts human qaulities as "it" sees fit. I simply believe that since man imagines something, it exists.

I also refute the wish of fish to Polka, does that mean they must have done the Polka for me to argue against them doing it?

Being correct has nothing to do with being objective, if there is a "God" or supernatural host, it's THERE or it's NOT. It's hard to be ojective in such obvious "yes or no" cases.

"You breathe the air God created and deny his existence while exhaling it."

What scientfic proof do you have of this? Please give me a hypothesis please. As far as I knew, the air was free and existed due to the mixing of randon chemical compounds that we adapted to breath. If I am wrong, please let me know with better evidence than I had before. Then I will GLADY admit I am wrong.

I think this is the only semi-intelligent response I've used on this board :banghead:

Aerik Von

Emotional...I'd rather a book from a scientist than a lawyer. Lawyers spin words and lies, scientists spin expiriments.

Lets compare the two...