I would like to dedicate this thread to discussing the fallacies committed in pro-religious debates, discussions, etc. If you are a pro-theist, please feel free to dispute what you think others are saying and give logical, well thought-out reasons for why you think whatever it is that you believe.
I will post this once and not check the thread again because I've found it useless to argue here. The only reason I didn't respond in my last thread for a month ago was because of the single line "The United States wasn't made for the freedom OF religion but freedom FROM religion" and statements like that.... well speak for themselves. I refuse to debate someone who is not compotent in the history of the last 300 hundred years; who claims to be an expert of the history of the last 6 billion years.
Man's mind is limited to man's knowledge meaning that all the information that man can understand, study, contemplate, ect. will never be anywhere near a devine beings. The reasons atheist don't believe in a deity is because they can't find evidence of proof in the limits that man knows. Logical fallacies are a joke to God because man can't comprehend God on a level he can understand because he is an omnipotent being. People being slain in the spirit are usually not brought up in these debates anyway. I've personally been slain several times and have seen countless other been as well. The sensation is something that can't be explained. Regardless I won't beat a dead horse any longer, as there is literally no use for it.
Here we have an example of a logically valid statement that is false. "Mars is closer to the Sun than Earth. Earth is closer to the sun than Venus. So Mars is closer to the sun than Venus."
The problem with this is that your premises are wrong... In fact, such a logical argument that proves a falsity would be a contradiction, and therefore couldn't exist.
It's a hot topic.
Because the atheists like discussing it because they feel that they slaughter all opposition (which is, by the way, correct), and theists tend to incite debate by posting falsities (there are exceptions, like, for example, the Mormonism thread, which has had a lot of interesting discussion over its history...)
"The United States wasn't made for the freedom OF religion but freedom FROM religion"
I'm not familiar with the post your referring to but if that is what got said it should be corrected, that Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.
Man's mind is limited to man's knowledge meaning that all the information that man can understand, study, contemplate, ect. will never be anywhere near a devine beings. The reasons atheist don't believe in a deity is because they can't find evidence of proof in the limits that man knows.
Yes correct. Given this is all we have to go on, and what we have to go on shows no indication of such a being. I then have to question the validity of any claim made by a limited human.
Logical fallacies are a joke to God because man can't comprehend God on a level he can understand because he is an omnipotent being.
This makes no sense what so ever. An omnipotent being should be able to communicate with us in a logical fashion.
I've personally been slain several times and have seen countless other been as well. The sensation is something that can't be explained. Regardless I won't beat a dead horse any longer, as there is literally no use for it.
I do wish you would come back because I'm not entirely sure what your going on about here.
This makes no sense what so ever. An omnipotent being should be able to communicate with us in a logical fashion.
Playing "Devil's" (or should I say God's) advocate: It's not up to you to decide what a being with an infinite amount of your mental capacity is capable of doing or thinking or whatever...
Of course by the qualities of a deity that is suppose to be able to do anything it would require it to be capable of such abilities.
God's advocate mode:
Actually, no - God must let people have free will (which, in itself, we will assume to be an absolute good). With free will, there comes the possibility that someone will make a "bad decision" and do something bad...
So in that sense, God cannot simultaneously create a world with free will and without evil - one precludes the other.
Actually, no - God must let people have free will (which, in itself, we will assume to be an absolute good). With free will, there comes the possibility that someone will make a "bad decision" and do something bad...
Even with free will this does not limit what a limitless being could do.
So in that sense, God cannot simultaneously create a world with free will and without evil - one precludes the other.
That's actually one of the better arguments I've heard for why there is evil, which given the source is a bit sad. Though it seems out of place with what it's replying to.
I would disagree that free-will and an absence of evil are mutually exclusive. Surely one can imagine an all-loving and perfect being endowing his creations with the freedom to choose, yet eliminate all desires toward what is 'evil'. Even if evil did not exist one would still have innumerable options to choose from in day to day life, and still be completely and solely in control of their own choices. Furthermore, much of what we consider 'evil' we also find among the other members of the animal kingdom, yet many religions claim that animals do not have freedom of choice. This would imply that the creator made them that way intentionally, therefore it alone is responsible for the 'evils' committed by animals.
I would disagree that free-will and an absence of evil are mutually exclusive. Surely one can imagine an all-loving and perfect being endowing his creations with the freedom to choose, yet eliminate all desires toward what is 'evil'. Even if evil did not exist one would still have innumerable options to choose from in day to day life, and still be completely and solely in control of their own choices. Furthermore, much of what we consider 'evil' we also find among the other members of the animal kingdom, yet many religions claim that animals do not have freedom of choice. This would imply that the creator made them that way intentionally, therefore it alone is responsible for the 'evils' committed by animals.
I can't believe I overlooked this in my last post considering I've used a similar argument on the existence of evil.
