Surprisingly, I actually don't even feel like explaining this one. There are lots of university level intro to philosophy courses and wikipedia summaries to explain this one to you, and if you can't piece it together then I have no interest in trying.
You insult me for no good reason. Also, by not showing me the logic behind your argument, you destablize your position. Therefore, until you can come up with solid logic to the contrary, I have to declare your argument less than logical--an argument based on faith. Either put up your sword and fight, or go post in the Graveyard.
I think religious people have every right to believe and practice the way they want to--but when you try to bring something like faith into any logical discussion, you've already lost.
That's where our paths diverge. You see the OP's argument as logical. However, if you follow the collective teachings and texts that Christians claim to base their profile of God on, you'd understand that their God has always been, with no start, and no end. Therefore...according to the Bible, the supposed authority on the Christian God...there is no issue with existence as He is existence, and he has always been, just as I argued previously.
Do I have proof this is true? No. Do you have proof that an infinite God doesn't exist? No. Therefore, you must either conceed that your argument is based on faith...or you must prove me wrong with facts.
Because Mycroft started the thread in a purely logic context, so I was deconstructing the common logical issues with God.
Demonstrate to the NF how the hell any of what he said was based on logic? Isn't logic based in reality? How can you prove to me what Mycroft said was real? Just the same as I can't prove the Christian God to you.
I never said there aren't other reasons to believe in God--it seems to work really well for some people and I know that internal logical consistency is not really an important value to them, so that's fine. I wouldn't take faith away from these people because I think it does more good than harm in their lives.
Those Christians who bother to think see this as much a viable path as yours. Unfortunately, logicians on both sides can become rather stubborn in their reasoning after they've accepted something as an absolute truth. Pretty soon you start looking for things to justify your position on both sides and neither of you has a shred of real evidence.
Well, that's your interpretation. Unfortunately there are 954653 other interpretations from people who claim just as surely that they are "THE REAL CHRISTIANS!" and now, oops, nobody has any real idea what Jesus actually meant. There's problem #1.
Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia OH LOOK! WIKIPEDIA HAS AN ARTICLE!!! That means, if you are able to reference it, that there's obviously enough consensus to have a Faith (and hey, look, I even included a LINK for you). There are varying views everywhere, but to be Christians, you have to follow Christ, and believe in his mission, his miracles, and his claim to divinity, no matter what you decide to call yourself! Obviously, there's enough to go on to have a philosophical, non-logical argument about faith on both sides.
Oh by the way, my friend Jimmy and eleven of his friends told me they saw the Flying Spaghetti Monster and that they've all been touched by his noodly appendage. I have since converted to the faith.
Nice. Save some sacred s'ghetti for me!!
Srsly though their story was really passionate and elaborate! They didn't really have any evidence or any particular reason I should believe them beyond hearsay, but that's where my faith comes in--I don't need any reason to believe; accepting something on faith is accepting that it can't be taken on its own merits.
Yes. Just like the OP.
sigh. Ok man, go to wikipedia and type in "Russell's Teapot" or "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or "Invisible Pink Unicorn" or a host of other basic thought exercises that discredit the idea of arbitrary faith.
I'll take "Errant Philosophy" for $200, Alex.
Unfortunately that doesn't make faith any less inherently illogical.
I agree. Once again, "Errant Philosophy" for $200, Alex. Why don't you just admit the OP is not based on logic.
No, but if you had the background in science+a little intuition it'd be pretty obvious why that argument is terrible.
PWFFFFH. WOW! Really, how?
I remember when Chris Hitchens (admittedly a drunken asshole, but a smart one) went on Sean Hannity's show to discuss God, and Hannity rattled off that "OMG TEH WORLD IS TOO COMPLEX TO BE NOT DESIGNED LOL", which reduces essentially to, "Biology is real hard and I don't get it...DOGMATIC EXPLANATION GO!"
No, creating the original biology from goo is real hard and I can't seem to figure it out. Oh Gah....I mean, oh illogical philosophical premise!
Hitchens's response, which I will use here now: "You sound as if you've never read any of the arguments against your position."
Right back at ya.