[KYA]

How do you win an argument on the internet? I would submit that the qualifications are nigh impossible, regardless of position taken.

[Locke]

Point made, good sir.

[nirvanarupali]

Atheism is no belief in the Supreme Being.

If we use metaphysical approach.

If we say "being" it connotes existence, it has "ens" and "esse" or being and act of being. Supreme Being is a "pure esse" or "pure act" and because of this it becomes an "absolute being or absolute existence".

If we follow on metaphysical order of existence such as, being-->essence-->existence. This is simply shows that if you believe in Supreme Being or God, you believe in "existence per se".

Now, in the principle of middle ground state as "It is impossible to be and not to be at the same time under the same respect". You only have two choices, and no middle ground. Therefore,

Being ---no midlde ground---Non-being. Or simply means as
Existence ------------------- No existence or Nothing.

In conclusion: If you believe in no "Supreme being" or God, you simply believe in nothing.
The next questions is: How can you believe in nothing?
(absolute nothing) I mean whatever you cannot think of.

The fact that you propose as : I don't believe in God. It presupposes that you have a prior knowledge of God and you know it exists, and you believe it. Otherwise, you cannot make that proposition without that prior knowledge. Is it not ironic?

[baavgai]

nirvanarupali, on 22 Apr, 2009 - 11:07 PM, said:

If we use metaphysical approach.

All cats die.
Plato died.
Therefore, Plato was a cat.

Do you believe in faeries?
No.
Ha! Therefore you must believe in faeries, because to deny their existence is to affirm acceptance of their existence to deny.
Are you high?

Seriously, playing word and logic games is just that.

[ccubed]

baavgai, on 22 Apr, 2009 - 09:25 PM, said:

nirvanarupali, on 22 Apr, 2009 - 11:07 PM, said:

If we use metaphysical approach.

All cats die.
Plato died.
Therefore, Plato was a cat.

Do you believe in faeries?
No.
Ha! Therefore you must believe in faeries, because to deny their existence is to affirm acceptance of their existence to deny.
Are you high?

Seriously, playing word and logic games is just that.

Still, it stands to reason, that if you oppose something, there must be reason to oppose it. If there was never a France, there would have been no french revolution because there would have been no French government to revolt against. However, This is a converse error anyways. It's the same as saying

a -> b
a
b

then saying

a->b
b
a

And guess what? The second version is wrong. We cannot assume A from B, only B from A. So anyways, I will pose another form of his argument to you Baavgai.

We cannot create - we can only modify. You can name anything you want, invention, words or otherwise, and I will tell you what it was based off of (all things which we did not make). Therefore, in order for us to 'understand' God or 'even care' about God, we must have previous knowledge of something like God, since we cannot create anything absolutely new.

This post has been edited by ccubed: 22 April 2009 - 10:44 PM

[baavgai]

ccubed, on 22 Apr, 2009 - 11:44 PM, said:

We cannot create - we can only modify.

Perhaps in physics, not in language. People create words all the time. Sometimes they're based on a thing, more often an idea. Go find a book of sniglets. Or just make up your own word... figmentor: a small creature that appears to be belly button lint and feeds on hot air. Keep it away from hydrogen.

ccubed, on 22 Apr, 2009 - 11:44 PM, said:

You can name anything you want, invention, words or otherwise, and I will tell you what it was based off of...

My little figmentor is based off of... nothing, I just made it up. Like a small child might.

You argument essentially ignores imagination. What a sad reality that would be. More importantly, as a programmer who creates, I'd be out of a job.

[ayman_mastermind]

Quote

Well since "God" always preaches forgiveness I would expect him to forgive me for my misleaded ways.

It would be too late

[ccubed]

baavgai, on 23 Apr, 2009 - 04:41 AM, said:

ccubed, on 22 Apr, 2009 - 11:44 PM, said:

We cannot create - we can only modify.

Perhaps in physics, not in language. People create words all the time. Sometimes they're based on a thing, more often an idea. Go find a book of sniglets. Or just make up your own word... figmentor: a small creature that appears to be belly button lint and feeds on hot air. Keep it away from hydrogen.

ccubed, on 22 Apr, 2009 - 11:44 PM, said:

You can name anything you want, invention, words or otherwise, and I will tell you what it was based off of...

My little figmentor is based off of... nothing, I just made it up. Like a small child might.

You argument essentially ignores imagination. What a sad reality that would be. More importantly, as a programmer who creates, I'd be out of a job.

Words are constructs of letters. The meanings of which are based on pre-existing words. The words themselves are based on what we associate with them. The word cat is irrelevent, what's important is the image that we have for it in our minds. Therefore, your figmentor is based off a picture associated with it that is based off of some pre-existing thing.

As for your figmentor, if I had a picture of it, I guarantee it would look something like an animal on our planet, no matter how crazily you draw it.

I'm not ignoring imagination, I'm just pointing out that imagination can't even create something aboslutely new, something that we've no previous knowledge of.

[baavgai]

ccubed, on 23 Apr, 2009 - 09:11 AM, said:

I'm not ignoring imagination, I'm just pointing out that imagination can't even create something aboslutely new, something that we've no previous knowledge of.

I follow what you're saying. There is a baseline experience from which we extrapolate. That's a given.

I'm not sure how it really helps the a priori God argument. It might just as well be applied to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

This post has been edited by baavgai: 23 April 2009 - 08:48 AM

[Bort]

ccubed, on 23 Apr, 2009 - 07:11 AM, said:

I'm not ignoring imagination, I'm just pointing out that imagination can't even create something aboslutely new, something that we've no previous knowledge of.

I disagree. Imagination can create new things, look at the Teletubbies, lol.

[WolfCoder]

There's way more than a simple Imagination, there's a ton of stuff humans come with that they never use or even realize is there.

[ccubed]

baavgai, on 23 Apr, 2009 - 07:47 AM, said:

ccubed, on 23 Apr, 2009 - 09:11 AM, said:

I'm not ignoring imagination, I'm just pointing out that imagination can't even create something aboslutely new, something that we've no previous knowledge of.

I follow what you're saying. There is a baseline experience from which we extrapolate. That's a given.

I'm not sure how it really helps the a priori God argument. It might just as well be applied to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I don't think the point of the argument is to do anything other then say 'We have some previous knowledge of a construct like God.'

WolfCoder said:

There's way more than a simple Imagination, there's a ton of stuff humans come with that they never use or even realize is there.

Like what? Even if I make an imaginary friend, it's still based off a 'human-esque' construct.

[baavgai]

ccubed, on 23 Apr, 2009 - 12:22 PM, said:

I don't think the point of the argument is to do anything other then say 'We have some previous knowledge of a construct like God.'

I'll agree.

When I first entered the world, there was being that created me. They were my entire world. I relied on them everything, food, shelter, life. They controlled all aspects of my existence. From what I could tell, they controlled everything in the Universe.

I called her Mom.

[ccubed]

baavgai, on 23 Apr, 2009 - 10:35 AM, said:

ccubed, on 23 Apr, 2009 - 12:22 PM, said:

I don't think the point of the argument is to do anything other then say 'We have some previous knowledge of a construct like God.'

I'll agree.

When I first entered the world, there was being that created me. They were my entire world. I relied on them everything, food, shelter, life. They controlled all aspects of my existence. From what I could tell, they controlled everything in the Universe.

I called her Mom.

ROFL. Amen. Don't screw with the momma - you get hurt.

[Gloin]

ayman_mastermind, on 23 Apr, 2009 - 02:52 PM, said:

Quote

Well since "God" always preaches forgiveness I would expect him to forgive me for my misleaded ways.

It would be too late

The whole point of that first quote was to emphasise on always. It is said that god always preaches forgiveness but you mean then only until you die??