"Debating The Existence Of God" or "Making Fallacious Agruements"

[emissary666]

I have been thinking about this for a while now. Due to the fact that God is impossible to prove or disprove from an objective standpoint, how many subjective, fallacious, and nonsensical arguments can we acquire for both sides of the argument.

Argument From Lack Of Evidence
1: God is love
2: Love is blind
3: Steve Wonder is blind
4: Therefore Steve Wonder is God
5: Steve Wonder exists
6: Therefore God exists

[SixthDeclension]

I'm all for this topic, but maybe it should be in the mature boards?

[Dan2]

I do wonder where this would best fit in.  It's clearly meant to be light-hearted, but it has a lot of potential to get really insulting really fast...

I'm going to leave it here for now under the assumption that this is a thread about Making Fallacious Arguments rather than Debating the Existence of God.

[Sinfire Titan]

I believe my deity exists, but that's because my deity is change itself, and I can prove that change exists.

[Tshern]

I believe my deity exists, but that's because my deity is change itself, and I can prove that change exists.

Depends on how sceptic you want to get. One could argue it is impossible to prove anything exists, at least the way we know it. I do not belong to this bunch of people though.

[RobbyPants]

Argument From Lack Of Evidence
1: God is love
2: Love is blind
3: Steve Wonder is blind
4: Therefore Steve Wonder is God
5: Steve Wonder exists
6: Therefore God exists

You have to love the english language and how the word "is" has several different meanings.

[Tshern]

During my years I have learned that every single word means either penis, vagina or sexual intercourse. We are a versatile species indeed.

[RobbyPants]

I have been thinking about this for a while now. Due to the fact that God is impossible to prove or disprove from an objective standpoint, how many subjective, fallacious, and non nonsensical arguments can we acquire for both sides of the argument.

Speaking as someone who is religious, it's always bothered me when other religous people try to prove God's existance with science or logic.  I've been in discussions with people like this, and I actually find myself arguing agaisnt my beliefs, not because I don't agree with them, but I don't agree with their approach.  I guess I figure it's better if I'm the one to poke holes in their argument than someone else they're actually trying to convince.

Many of these arguments involve taking things out of context.  I saw one where they quoted Darwin as saying:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

So, they feel all happy that not even Darwin himself fully believes in evolution, but the full context is:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

So, yeah.  Out of context quoting only hurts your argument when someone finds the rest of the quote.

[Agita]

I like this one, personally.

Nobody knows this sentence is true.
God knows everything.
Therefore, God knows that the first sentence is true.
Therefore, God is nobody and nobody is God.
Therefore, God does not exist.

[PhaedrusXY]

So, yeah.  Out of context quoting only hurts your argument when someone finds the rest of the quote.

Nice. That's one of the "classic" creationist arguments, also (the eye being too complicated to have evolved gradually). Darwin probably put that in there as a rebuttal to some argument he'd heard on it (he didn't really "invent" the idea of Evolution, he was just the first one to spell it out in exhausting detail).

[dman11235]

Speaking as someone who is religious, it's always bothered me when other religous people try to prove God's existance with science or logic.  I've been in discussions with people like this, and I actually find myself arguing agaisnt my beliefs, not because I don't agree with them, but I don't agree with their approach.  I guess I figure it's better if I'm the one to poke holes in their argument than someone else they're actually trying to convince.

I feel the same way, though I am not religious (as far as religions that involve deities go).  I view monotheistic religions as more of a faith thing than logic.  I know it may sound corny, but I've always had the problem with people trying to prove their own faith to others, it makes them seem like they don't actually believe it fully.  You cannot prove the existence of God one way or the other because he doesn't exist.  To those who don't believe.  To those who do believe, he does.  It's not the same for everyone.

Basically, God (and Allah, Yahweh, and any and deities all other monotheistic religions, and many, if not all polytheistic religions) is faith.  Specifically the faith in the god in question.  He exists because certain people believe He does.  But only to those people.  To someone like me, the deities do not exist in reality.

[bogsnes]

I don't think god exists...

I think something happens might happen after you are dead however (but I have no clue of what)...

[emissary666]

I do wonder where this would best fit in.  It's clearly meant to be light-hearted, but it has a lot of potential to get really insulting really fast...

I'm going to leave it here for now under the assumption that this is a thread about Making Fallacious Arguments rather than Debating the Existence of God.

It is a light-hearted thread for people to post the most non-sensical arguments for or against god. I do not intend for any serious philosophical discussion, nor do I wish to insult anyone's religion.

[Dan2]

I figured as much.  So far, it's off to a good start.

On-topic:

My two favorites are simple.

God cannot be proven, ergo he does not exist.
God cannot be disproven, ergo he must exist.

[Alea_Iacta_Est]

It is a light-hearted thread for people to post the most non-sensical arguments for or against god. I do not intend for any serious philosophical discussion, nor do I wish to insult anyone's religion.

This is the internet, people will always be offended, regardless if it intentional or not. This looks to be good fun though. It's quite ironic that most of the debunking of religion now a days is assaulting Christianity.

God cannot be proven, ergo he does not exist.
God cannot be disproven, ergo he must exist.

[PhaedrusXY]

That's an awesome Calvin and Hobbes. 

[Alea_Iacta_Est]

I know, Calvin is my favorite child with a large vocabulary.

[EjoThims]

You cannot prove a negative, so you it can never be proven that a deity does not exist. You can, however, prove it to be nonsensical and illogical that a particular one does. Which then leads to the conclusion that such being exists outside of sense and logic (which, while entirely possible, as the limits to our understanding include the inability to see what lies beyond what we do understand, tends to then cast doubt on anyone and everyone attempting to in any way interpret it's wishes) or that such a being could not exist.

There are several good set ups for this with the Christian (and probably any version of the Abrahamic) God.

Illogical or circular logic definition of omnipotence and omniscience and the incompatibility of supreme benevolence with either being two of my personal favorites.

Of course, it could simply mean that those attempting to interpret His (its) wishes are simply wrong and/or evil, but that would then also contradict being all good and either omnipotent or omniscient.

To me, this means that the only way possible for the Christian God to exist is if he is entirely beyond our understanding and the Christians are absolutely wrong about him.

[veekie]

To me, this means that the only way possible for the Christian God to exist is if he is entirely beyond our understanding and the Christians are absolutely wrong about him.

At least they're trying!

[kurashu]

You cannot prove a negative, so you it can never be proven that a deity does not exist. You can, however, prove it to be nonsensical and illogical that a particular one does.

Is it illogical that a plate of spaghetti could be a god or is it that the concept of a god is illogical to begin with, that is the question we need to ask.