Searching for GOD...

[Enki]

I agree Rhi,
What I have tried to do is remove obstacles to faith - to allow people to at least realise the possibility for God to exist.

And yet again, I happily admit to the possibility that a god exists. This seems to me to be a sensible way of thinking. As for obstacles, as far as I am concerned, I don't think I have any. If I have, you certainly haven't removed them because the paucity of your arguments and your personal assertions tend to mitigate against your sort of unadulterated belief in your God. However my unbelief doesn't depend on your proselytizing, of course, but takes into account a far greater range of issues and ideas. I tend to agree with Rhi, here, as I'm sure she well knows. A person's faith is entirely up to them, and if it gives them personal comfort and well being, that's fine, as long as it isn't detrimental towards others.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

so fuckin' TEDIOUSE you must be achingly frustrated, Just PROOVE IT! or shut the fu.

with all due respect of course,

If i'm on a forum where no bugger proves anything then you are specially pleading when you ask me to.

I'm not the one claiming I can proooooooooooove anything.

Gordon and many others are following him by virtue of the positions of their noses has stated that ''arguments(plural) for God are fallacious and incoherent''. That is a positive statement and carries burden of proof. I merely and reasonably ask them to cite where it's available. They haven't and worse refuse to committing the fallacies of ''Courtiers reply'' and trying to shift the burden of proof.

You don't have the proof for why 'arguments for God are fallacious and incoherent' do you?   

[Gordon]

After you. Since I asked first.
In any case I did ask you to work on Feser's argument and that time you didn't because you couldn't spare the time.

It's becoming obvious that you cannot cite a demolition of a theistic argument let alone show any proof that ''arguments for God are fallacious and incoherent.''

RD did a reasonable job of refuting, say, the ontological argument in 'The God Delusion'. Mind you the likes of Russell did too.

[Walter]

And yet again, I happily admit to the possibility that a god exists. This seems to me to be a sensible way of thinking. As for obstacles, as far as I am concerned, I don't think I have any. If I have, you certainly haven't removed them because the paucity of your arguments and your personal assertions tend to mitigate against your sort of unadulterated belief in your God. However my unbelief doesn't depend on your proselytizing, of course, but takes into account a far greater range of issues and ideas. I tend to agree with Rhi, here, as I'm sure she well knows. A person's faith is entirely up to them, and if it gives them personal comfort and well being, that's fine, as long as it isn't detrimental towards others.

and as long as they don't expect any respect from me and others like me .

[torridon]

What I have tried to do is remove obstacles to faith - to allow people to at least realise the possibility for God to exist.

I think you are having the opposite effect.  By focussing on pseudo-scientific reasoning on issues around free will and conscious perception you are putting new obstacles that weren't there before

[Walt Zingmatilder]

RD did a reasonable job of refuting, say, the ontological argument in 'The God Delusion'. Mind you the likes of Russell did too.

So did Guanillo a Roman catholic clergyman several centuries before Russell and Daw...Daw...Daw......that other chap.

[Gordon]

So did Guanillo a Roman catholic clergyman several centuries before Russell and Daw...Daw...Daw......that other chap.

Indeed he did - as did Kant, and tellingly so. So do you agree the ontological argument is refuted?

[Walter]

Indeed he did - as did Kant, and tellingly so. So do you agree the ontological argument is refuted?

why do you bother ?

[wigginhall]

I think you are having the opposite effect.  By focussing on pseudo-scientific reasoning on issues around free will and conscious perception you are putting new obstacles that weren't there before

Exactly.  The combination in AB of pseudo-science and dishonesty will surely put off many people.   By their fruits shall ye know them.   

[Walter]

If i'm on a forum where no bugger proves anything then you are specially pleading when you ask me to.

I'm not the one claiming I can proooooooooooove anything.

Gordon and many others are following him by virtue of the positions of their noses has stated that ''arguments(plural) for God are fallacious and incoherent''. That is a positive statement and carries burden of proof. I merely and reasonably ask them to cite where it's available. They haven't and worse refuse to committing the fallacies of ''Courtiers reply'' and trying to shift the burden of proof.

You don't have the proof for why 'arguments for God are fallacious and incoherent' do you?

As I said , I'm here only to ridicule you , not to engage .

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Indeed he did - as did Kant, and tellingly so. So do you agree the ontological argument is refuted?

The Anselmian Ontological argument is definitely challenged. Not sure about the Godelian ontological argument or The Plantignian ontological argument.

Dawkins vs Godel? I know who my money would be on.

[BeRational]

The Anselmian Ontological argument is definitely challenged. Not sure about the Godelian ontological argument or The Plantignian ontological argument.

Dawkins vs Godel? I know who my money would be on.

Present the argument, and lets see.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As I said , I'm here only to ridicule you , not to engage .

Just like all the others then.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Present the argument, and lets see.

After you please.

[Nearly Sane]

The Anselmian Ontological argument is definitely challenged. Not sure about the Godelian ontological argument or The Plantignian ontological argument.

Dawkins vs Godel? I know who my money would be on.

Dawkins obviously, since he is alive. I note the shifting the burden of proof and implied NPF in the above. Perhaps rather than just mentioning arguments, you might want to try and present them rather than trying the shifting the burden of proof route.  We could sit here listing the names of arguments and the name of the argument against but that would seem somewhat unproductive.


So off you go(del), let's see you present Kurt's marvellous proof...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dawkins obviously, since he is alive.

So Godel took his to the grave did he? Don't be so soft!

[BeRational]

After you please.

After me what?

I do not know the argument.

Do you think it cannot be refuted?

[Nearly Sane]

So Godel took his to the grave did he? Don't be so soft!

Did I say that? Nope, so another lie from Vlad. Any chance you want to have a go at presenting the argument?

[Walter]

Just like all the others then.

no , more than the others . I  have no respect for political correctness or any other kind . So PROOVE IT  or stfu ,simple !

[ekim]

Asking a question and trying an argument are not mutually exclusive. As to your  follow up, I don't understand it. It's not a thing that 'binds: me but rather that if determinism is true there is only one set of things that will happen.

I asked the question because you said 'I am also bound to point it out' which to me implied you had no option.  However your current reply clarifies what you meant.  You say 'if determinism is true', do you believe it is?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dawkins obviously, since he is alive. I note the shifting the burden of proof and implied NPF in the above. Perhaps rather than just mentioning arguments, you might want to try and present them rather than trying the shifting the burden of proof route.  We could sit here listing the names of arguments and the name of the argument against but that would seem somewhat unproductive.

Nearly Sane.

Gordon has spent the whole afternoon ''just mentioning arguments''.
Where were you then?
Don't be so hypocritical.

He also stated ''arguments for God are fallacious and incoherent'' That carries the burden of proof.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Did I say that? Nope, so another lie from Vlad. Any chance you want to have a go at presenting the argument?

Gordon never presented any of his why aren't you on to that?

[BeRational]

Gordon never presented any of his why aren't you on to that?

He stated that, to date all the arguments presented have contained a fallacy.

Do you agree that every argument you have ever seen for the existence of god contains a fallacy?

[Nearly Sane]

Nearly Sane.

Gordon has spent the whole afternoon ''just mentioning arguments''.
Where were you then?
Don't be so hypocritical.

He also stated ''arguments for God are fallacious and incoherent'' That carries the burden of proof.

What does what Gordon posts gave to do with me? As to where I was, I was taking my mother out for lunch. It's not being a hypocrite if I don't pick up everyone on this board for their wrong arguments - that would just be you indulging in a tu quoque fallacy.

[Nearly Sane]

Gordon never presented any of his why aren't you on to that?

At base because this is a tu quoque, and further because as already pointed out you are indulging in a shifting the burden of proof. What Gordon, Sassy, or Alan Burns has done here is not relevant to your arguments. Don't try and evade! Try and make an argument.