Baz1 Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Ok, take the flying spaghetti monster. It is impossible to disprove it's existence, because any argument you make can be countered by me making up a new property of the monster that gets round your argument. I was trying to relate to this kind of thinking in another thread- when Santa was being used as an example. Unfortunately many atheists like to add spin and rely on rhetoric to change angles and take debates away- even the current new atheism (militant atheists like Dawkins and Hitchins) use this. You can use logic to deduce the likely existence of God compared to trying to apply the same rational in attempting to prove FSM exists or the so called celestial teapot or pink unicorns/santa. Just in case Flamming Jimmy butts in, I am not advocating the 'appeal to the people' fallacy or as he likes to point out, the correct term being argumentum ad populum, but there are countless people who hold the belief that some intelligent being exists- even brilliant minds/scientists have pondered the God question and STILL do. Atheists like Dawkings and Hitchins have written books about it- where are the books on pink unicorns/FSM and how many people actually take these seriously?? We can use arguments to show that a God could exist- we have inferences and, as the Greeks use to do, apply logic. For example, there are cosmological arguments (arguments for a first cause), teleological arguments (arguments for a Grand Designer), moral arguments (arguments for a Moral Lawgiver), and others. If you're serious about this then these arguments have to be dealt with properly- I don't see any arguments for the FSM, Pink Unicorns et al. That is why it is pointless to sometimes debate on here- some atheists do try to con their way around and use nothing but psychology on words and rhetoric- it is exactly how Dawkins has sold his books- it appeals to his type- those who pre condition themselves to shut the door on anything to do with religion without looking at how knowledge could be derived (Epistemology) that does show us that there is good evidence for a creator- whether that evidence is appealing or convincing to an atheist is irrelevant, what is important is that a compelling case can be made. There, I feel much better for getting that off my chest- now I can go on my holiday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Unfortunately many atheists people like to add spin and rely on rhetoric to change angles and take debates away There, fixed it for you. Seriously though, if you're going to lay down this repeated slur, why not give specific examples so we might examine your complaint. Otherwise it just makes your arguments all the more weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 God became man and walked the earth two thousand years ago. Prove he didn't exist. We have proof that the person, Joshua Bar Joseph, probably existed. We don't have proof he was divine, and from his "quotes", he never claimed divinity for himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agbus Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 We have proof that the person, Joshua Bar Joseph, probably existed. We don't have proof he was divine, and from his "quotes", he never claimed divinity for himself. There was the woman at the well. The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he. (John 4:25) Added here are some more The divinity of Jesus Christ is further illustrated in John 8:58. Jesus said, “Truly, Truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am”, which means that Jesus existed before His human life on earth. "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30.) “the Father is in me and I am in the Father." (John 10:38.) "Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me," [ONE PERSON] (John 14:11) “In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.” [ONE PERSON] John 14:20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 For example, there are cosmological arguments (arguments for a first cause), teleological arguments (arguments for a Grand Designer), moral arguments (arguments for a Moral Lawgiver), and others. If you're serious about this then these arguments have to be dealt with properly- I don't see any arguments for the FSM, Pink Unicorns et al. You see at least three arguments for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You just quoted them. They are every bit as valid for arguing the existence of the FSM as they are for arguing the existence of any other supernatural creator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 There was the woman at the well. The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he. (John 4:25) Added here are some more The divinity of Jesus Christ is further illustrated in John 8:58. Jesus said, “Truly, Truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am”, which means that Jesus existed before His human life on earth. "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30.) “the Father is in me and I am in the Father." (John 10:38.) "Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me," [ONE PERSON] (John 14:11) “In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.” [ONE PERSON] John 14:20 You do yourself no favours with this kind of talking, it means nothing to the majority and certainly wouldn't win a plain English award. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agbus Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 You do yourself no favours with this kind of talking, it means nothing to the majority and certainly wouldn't win a plain English award.Then let me say in plain English that Jesus made the claim he was he was divine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 God became man and walked the earth two thousand years ago. Prove he didn't exist. No. You need to provide proof as it is you that is making the claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Selfish and vain That sounds more like "god" to me. Here are some of the names he is known by. Here's another one for you... The Pope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Then let me say in plain English that Jesus made the claim he was he was divine. ...or words to that effect. My point is that throwing in quotes such as these does not endear others to listen. The perception of Church is that we will be bombarded with these biblical rantings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.