Ignosticism (Prove to me there is a God)

**Vuk** · 11-09-2006, 00:54

Originally Posted by Cowhead418

This argument is absurd. How did God come into existance? Fight fire with fire, I say. The exact arguments you are using for the existance of God I can use against the existance of God.

What! My arguement was not that God came into existense!!

As for Him coming into existence, He didn't! He has always existes and there for could never 'come' into existence!
If you don't want to believe it, don't! It is my personal conviction. Having spent many years studying the origin of life, and argueing AGAINST Christianity, I came to that conviction because al else seemed wrong! Not only that but the Bible seemed way to accurate for a book of Its years to NOT be divinely inspired!

**Cowhead418** · 11-09-2006, 03:21

Originally Posted by Vuk

What! My arguement was not that God came into existense!!

As for Him coming into existence, He didn't! He has always existes and there for could never 'come' into existence!
If you don't want to believe it, don't! It is my personal conviction. Having spent many years studying the origin of life, and argueing AGAINST Christianity, I came to that conviction because al else seemed wrong! Not only that but the Bible seemed way to accurate for a book of Its years to NOT be divinely inspired!

But that doesn't make any bit of sense. How can something exist but not have a creation? How can something just have always existed? Why did "all else" seem wrong? Was it your personal conviction? Because if you are arguing with logic and rationality, then you can't possibly believe that God has always existed. I just don't understand how this could happen.

**Redleg** · 11-09-2006, 04:25

Originally Posted by Cowhead418

But that doesn't make any bit of sense. How can something exist but not have a creation? How can something just have always existed? Why did "all else" seem wrong? Was it your personal conviction? Because if you are arguing with logic and rationality, then you can't possibly believe that God has always existed. I just don't understand how this could happen.

Your about to argue yourself into a circle.

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 11-09-2006, 04:29

Yeah...if something can't exist without being created, than how does anything exist?

**Cowhead418** · 11-09-2006, 04:33

Originally Posted by Redleg

Your about to argue yourself into a circle.

Yes, I'm going to stop before it gets any more confusing...

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Yeah...if something can't exist without being created, than how does anything exist?

Good point, it's just hard for me to imagine God always existing. When was there a beginning? How did this beginning come about? Why does God exist? Why does the universe exist? If there was no beginning, then how is this possible? Man, I have to stop...

**BDC** · 11-09-2006, 10:41

If 'god' didn't need a creator, why does the universe? It makes no sense. Be consistant.

**Cowhead418** · 11-09-2006, 23:25

Originally Posted by BDC

If 'god' didn't need a creator, why does the universe? It makes no sense. Be consistant.

Thank you. I was thinking along these lines, but I couldn't seem to put my thoughts into an understandable argument.

**Sigurd** · 11-10-2006, 13:53

Originally Posted by BDC

If 'god' didn't need a creator, why does the universe? It makes no sense. Be consistant.

Who is to say that God came first?

**Red Peasant** · 11-09-2006, 11:06

Originally Posted by Redleg

Your about to argue yourself into a circle.

The theist argument is the one that is 'circular', a fallacious position also known as 'begging the question'. Basically, you can't justify a claim - e.g. that God exists - simply by assuming that it is true.

Yet another rational reason to be an atheist.

**Redleg** · 11-09-2006, 14:45

Originally Posted by Red Peasant

The theist argument is the one that is 'circular', a fallacious position also known as 'begging the question'. Basically, you can't justify a claim - e.g. that God exists - simply by assuming that it is true.

edit: you might want to read what I wrote - did I claim the theist arguement does not contain logical fallacies, or did I state something else? Are you attempting a strawman arguement by arguing a position that I did not claim in the first place?

And neither can you justify a claim as false by simply attempting to disprove existance by lack of evidence. That is also a major logical fallacy. So if you agree that the theist argument is one type of logical fallacy - you have to also realize attempting to disprove God's existance based upon lack of evidence of his existance is also a fallacuous postion to take.

Yet another rational reason to be an atheist.

Not really, especially if your rational reason is based upon the arguement that god does not exist because of the lack of evidence of god's existance.

I often find it amusing that those that claim rational reasoning for their disbelive in gods existnace often fall into this simple logical fallacy and claim to be using rational logical in their arguement.

**Red Peasant** · 11-09-2006, 16:01

Originally Posted by Redleg

Not really, especially if your rational reason is based upon the arguement that god does not exist because of the lack of evidence of god's existance.

I often find it amusing that those that claim rational reasoning for their disbelive in gods existnace often fall into this simple logical fallacy and claim to be using rational logical in their arguement.

My apologies if I misconstrued your original post, there was some degree of ambiguity. Although it does not excuse your rather supercilious tone my old friend.

As for your later assertions, I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I will re-cap my earlier post as you clearly did not read it:

"I don't know what 'Ignosticism' is, but my take on 'Agnosticism' is that it is a cop-out, a kind of intellectual cowardice.

It is irrational to suspend judgement on the question of the existence of God/gods [I wouldn't want to privilege the monotheists ;) ]. The burden of proof lies with the believer, the 'theist', which means that the logical stance to take is atheism.

Ockham's Razor posits that when you have two equally supported hypotheses then you pick the simpler of the two. It is a commonsense approach. So, you can say, on the one hand, that you have some of those pesky, yet invisible, Leprechauns in your garden as well as a lawn and some flowers, or you can say that there is only a lawn and a bunch of flowers out there. The evidence for both might be irrefutable - I mean how can you prove that the invisible Leprechauns don't exist?

Yet, the rational, commonsense thing to do is to believe the latter hypothesis, unless you are drunk or worse. Why should I be 'agnostic' about this and suspend judgement?

Also, some people erroneously claim that 'atheism' is as much a matter of faith as 'theism', but they are not intellectually equal positions. It's true that we cannot prove that God/gods exist, and that we cannot prove that they positively do not exist, however this does not mean that it would be just as commonsensical or sensible for us to believe that they do exist as it is to believe that they do not. The latter is the rational, more logical and sensible stance to adopt."

**BDC** · 11-09-2006, 16:43

I think we have the next Richard Dawkins here. Only rather better at it already...

**Redleg** · 11-09-2006, 16:56

Originally Posted by Red Peasant

My apologies if I misconstrued your original post, there was some degree of ambiguity. Although it does not excuse your rather supercilious tone my old friend.

I find strawman arguements such as the one you present deserve such a response. I make no excuse for being blunt.

To assume I did not read your initial postion is false, it did not apply to my retort to your use of a strawman postion, since I dealt with the basic logical fallacies used by both sides. To include your postion that it is up to the theist to prove God's existance, That is like stating that it is up to scientists to prove the big bang theory as the creating event of the universe as fact? While the theory is logical it can not be proven.

Futhermore To make a strawman arguement that I has a theist believe you must except God's existance again is a reaching aruement since its not a postion I have taken. You don't have to believe in his existance - its mote to me if you do or not. So this whole discussion between us two is based upon your use of a strawman, and it seems you continue to do so.