The same way we get peas, with forks!withoutaface said:
Have you read the webpage? Dismissing something simply because it is in the format of a weppage make me rofl.AsyLum said:
its not as stupid as you might think. anyone can make a website with a .com in it, regardless of the content. that's why it's credibility is questioned.Raaaaaachel said:
I don't think you have the capacity to grasp the true complexity of the god argument, or for that matter why the atheists are a foot behind.Raaaaaachel said:
No, but there is no evidence that confirms the existence of god, so what rational basis is there for believing in him?bshoc said:
Even if we accept this complexity argument why does this necessitate a god and even if we accept it does necessitate a god, this does not prove your particular interpretation of god, in fact given all the god's people believe in and the infinate range of possible gods, surely it is improbable that the christian interpretation of god is correct, even if we accept all your unproven assumptions.bshoc said:
Ok so there is a god, but we can't understand him or logically justify him. But we can be certain that he is the god that exists exactly as a particular religious text describes him and we can be certain that we should follow the teachings of that text.kangarulz said:
The problem with that argument is that it is very much speculative. Certainly, for all I know there may be a solid argument that can be made based on those ideas, but I am skeptical of the notion that one of us (forum goers) could produce one. For the purpose of your 'laws imply lawmaker' argument you really need more than speculation to provide the right amount of logical force - you need to be able to show that a law maker is necessary for the existence of laws, not just that it is a possible explanation. Without necessity all you can claim is that the existence of laws imply the possibility of a lawmaker. (Edit: I should mention that even such possibility needn't be implied, because it might be the case that a given set of laws logically excludes a given conception of god. You could only claim the implication of possibility after a condition of consistency had first been met.)bshoc said:
No but we can attribute a possiblilty to the proposition that a particular interpretation of god exists. The range of possible gods is infinate, so the probability that a given god, say the Christian interpretation of God is correct is infinately small.KFunk said:
LAWL YES WEB INTEGRITY FOR JOO!Raaaaaachel said:
Evidence and rational logic are two very different things. One can rationally deduce a point without evidence, thats the beauty of human rationality, whether this logic is inherently justifiable is the question at hand.Raaaaaachel said:
Im not saying its true because it is written in a webpage, Im saying that something on a webpage can be true and should be assessed on its own merits. You seem to be saying that anything on a webpage is automatically false and should be disregarded.AsyLum said:
This argument is what's known as: The Levers theory. Simply put your argument is: "The world exists in such a way that the only possible explanation for why everything 'works'...is god.bshoc said:
We should allow a site titled evilbible.com or kkk.com the same merits as any other website. The content of the website is what is relevant, not its name.AsyLum said:
By that notion we should also judge a person on their personality, not their appearance. However, the world does not work that way, and we initially judge based on the first impression, which in the case of websites is its name.Raaaaaachel said:
Sure, but asylum was trying to automatically dismiss it because of its dubious URL. Then he went on to try and make me look ignorant for citing a website as a source without reading it or making a logical argument about its credibility. So while it is reasonable to initially make some judgement about something based on its name, appearance ect. it is not reasonable to compeletly dismiss something on this basis.S1M0 said:
Every source is to some degree biased. The fact that something is written from a particular viewpoint does not mean its wrong. If its so wrong you should be able to go to the website, analyse what it says and constract as sound argument as to why it is not valid. Much of the content on the aformentioned site is excellent and you would have great difficulty doing that, so instead people try to dismiss it based on the name.Jachie said:
