Did God create man?

[Mad_Michael]

God is the sum totality of the universe.

And your point is? Or are you just trying to 'run out the clock' as a dodge strategy hoping your little game here will difuse the critique against your argument?

So you are saying that in Bhuddhism there is a god that is worshipped, and this god is "the sum totality of the universe"?

Your dodge attempt is good. It is always a good tactic to jump on a subsidiary point and ride it out as far as possible in order to avoid the critique itself.

So, would you prefer Roman Catholicism as an example? Surely you don't dispute that it is a religion and a god as you apparently do with Buddhism and Paganism?

And just to keep your memory fresh, this is your assertion to which I am offering counter examples...

Speaking of gaping holes, find any religions which have a god, that can actually stand up to a logical argument?

Roman Catholicism, according to official doctrines, can logically stand with secular science and philosophy, including epistemology, evolution and big bang theory. One cannot logically refute the official doctrines of the Catholic faith, or the holding of same.

In other words, the 'gaping hole' is in your sweeping assertion.

[fellowtraveller]

Can't anybody help me here in identifying The Big Scorekeeper In The Sky?

I've been both naughty and nice in the last month, and I'd like to know if I'm coming back as a cockroach or a mole on Angelina Jolies inner thigh. You can see how this uncertainty could cause some stress. Is there any way in Buddhism to buy a little dispensation? Any statues I could gild?

[Who's Doing What?]

God is the sum totality of the universe.

And your point is? Or are you just trying to 'run out the clock' as a dodge strategy hoping your little game here will difuse the critique against your argument?

So you are saying that in Bhuddhism there is a god that is worshipped, and this god is "the sum totality of the universe"?

Your dodge attempt is good. It is always a good tactic to jump on a subsidiary point and ride it out as far as possible in order to avoid the critique itself.

So, would you prefer Roman Catholicism as an example? Surely you don't dispute that it is a religion and a god as you apparently do with Buddhism and Paganism?

And just to keep your memory fresh, this is your assertion to which I am offering counter examples...

Speaking of gaping holes, find any religions which have a god, that can actually stand up to a logical argument?

Roman Catholicism, according to official doctrines, can logically stand with secular science and philosophy, including epistemology, evolution and big bang theory. One cannot logically refute the official doctrines of the Catholic faith, or the holding of same.

In other words, the 'gaping hole' is in your sweeping assertion.

LMAO

The teachings of the Church have changed to adapt to science. It cannot stand against logic at all.

Oh and I don't think of Catholic Religion as a god. As a religion that worships a god yes, but not as a god itself.

So, would you prefer Roman Catholicism as an example? Surely you don't dispute that it is a religion and a god as you apparently do with Buddhism and Paganism?

^ Just to refresh your memory.

[Who's Doing What?]

Can't anybody help me here in identifying The Big Scorekeeper In The Sky?

I've been both naughty and nice in the last month, and I'd like to know if I'm coming back as a cockroach or a mole on Angelina Jolies inner thigh. You can see how this uncertainty could cause some stress. Is there any way in Buddhism to buy a little dispensation? Any statues I could gild?

Well I thought I saw something with a telescope near Jupiter years ago, but it was just a fallen angel.

I hear if you look real close at Uranus you might find something.

[Electric Monk]

Speaking of gaping holes, find any religions which have a god, that can actually stand up to a logical argument?

Roman Catholicism, according to official doctrines, can logically stand with secular science and philosophy, including epistemology, evolution and big bang theory. One cannot logically refute the official doctrines of the Catholic faith, or the holding of same.

In other words, the 'gaping hole' is in your sweeping assertion.

I may be mistaken, but in order to have a valid logical argument, you have to establish the truth of all your premises. In this case the first premise would be "The Roman Catholic God exists." All the other premises could be indisputably true, but if you can't prove the truth of that one, your argument is invalid.

[ScottSA]

Unless you are omnipotent, how do you know that? The thing I find most notable about swealian arrogance is that it doesn't hesitate for a second before plunging ahead with see-through Sophist ninnery, so convinced of its own infallability that it doesn't even see the gaping holes in its armour.

Speaking of gaping holes, find any religions which have a god, that can actually stand up to a logical argument?

That's like asking science to stand up to a theological argument. If either side shifts the argument into their own territory, evidence gets real hard to come by.

[Mad_Michael]

Speaking of gaping holes, find any religions which have a god, that can actually stand up to a logical argument?

Roman Catholicism, according to official doctrines, can logically stand with secular science and philosophy, including epistemology, evolution and big bang theory. One cannot logically refute the official doctrines of the Catholic faith, or the holding of same.

In other words, the 'gaping hole' is in your sweeping assertion.

I may be mistaken, but in order to have a valid logical argument, you have to establish the truth of all your premises. In this case the first premise would be "The Roman Catholic God exists." All the other premises could be indisputably true, but if you can't prove the truth of that one, your argument is invalid.

It is a matter of faith.

Go ahead. The onus is on you to show that this faith can't withstand your logic.

[Electric Monk]

I may be mistaken, but in order to have a valid logical argument, you have to establish the truth of all your premises. In this case the first premise would be "The Roman Catholic God exists." All the other premises could be indisputably true, but if you can't prove the truth of that one, your argument is invalid.

It is a matter of faith.

Go ahead. The onus is on you to show that this faith can't withstand your logic.

I think I just did.

[Mad_Michael]

I may be mistaken, but in order to have a valid logical argument, you have to establish the truth of all your premises. In this case the first premise would be "The Roman Catholic God exists." All the other premises could be indisputably true, but if you can't prove the truth of that one, your argument is invalid.

It is a matter of faith.

Go ahead. The onus is on you to show that this faith can't withstand your logic.

I think I just did.

Wow.

Just wow.

And I thought the bible-thumpin' theists were the worst at playing silly games and calling it logic. Apparently, I stand corrected.

[Electric Monk]

Ok, please explain, without insults.

Edit: Hang on a sec, were you asking me to prove the statement "The Roman Catholic God does not exist"?

That would also be the root of a logically invalid argument, because I can't demonstrate the truth of that statement either.

[ScottSA]

Ok, please explain, without insults.

Edit: Hang on a sec, were you asking me to prove the statement "The Roman Catholic God does not exist"?

That would also be the root of a logically invalid argument, because I can't demonstrate the truth of that statement either.

Exactly.

[Mad_Michael]

Ok, please explain, without insults.

Why should I bother? You've already announced your victory (much like Bush's 'Mission Accomplished').

You've shown your colours and announced your quality. Indeed, I'm only likely to get all condescending at you now since I actually do understand epistemology and stuff like that - and you clearly don't.

Edit: Hang on a sec, were you asking me to prove the statement "The Roman Catholic God does not exist"?

That would also be the root of a logically invalid argument, because I can't demonstrate the truth of that statement either.

No, I haven't asked you to prove a damn thing (besides which, that would be logically absurd).

To refresh your memory, you made a challenge that no religion can withstand your supreme powers of logic. I offered (amongst other examples) that of the Roman Catholic Church as a classic example of a religion that is impervious to your logical argument.

You have offered nothing more than a trite absurdity as an example of your fearsome logic. Indeed, the fact that you were using a your own assertion as your conclusion I'm sure escaped your notice.

[Electric Monk]

You may be confusing me with White Doors, I made no such assertion. The assertion I indirectly made was that the Roman Catholic religion was not logical, and you promptly agreed with me by saying it was based on faith. Do you have some different definition of the word "faith" than I do? My definition of faith is "belief in the absence of evidence".

I'm going to go read up on epistemology, since I guess you won't be of any help. Other than to provide some examples of ad hominem attacks and arguments from authority.

[Mad_Michael]

You may be confusing me with White Doors, I made no such assertion.

I stand corrected. Who's Doing What is the origin of the 'challenge' and claim of logicial supremacy.

I apologise for confusing you with that poster

The assertion I indirectly made was that the Roman Catholic religion was not logical, and you promptly agreed with me by saying it was based on faith.

The record of this thread does not appear support your interpretation of it given here.

You posted...

I may be mistaken, but in order to have a valid logical argument, you have to establish the truth of all your premises. In this case the first premise would be "The Roman Catholic God exists." All the other premises could be indisputably true, but if you can't prove the truth of that one, your argument is invalid.

So this is where you say that Roman Catholic Religion is not logical and that I agreed with you?

Forgive me if I fail to see it as such.

Do you have some different definition of the word "faith" than I do? My definition of faith is "belief in the absence of evidence".

That definition will do just fine by me.

I'm going to go read up on epistemology, since I guess you won't be of any help. Other than to provide some examples of ad hominem attacks and arguments from authority.

Okie dokie! Have fun!

P.S. Your 'rebuttal' is still rejected. Roman Catholicism stands on faith alone. It has no need for logically establishing anything at all - unlike your demand/assertion to the contrary. Your blathering on about ad hominem attacks serves apparently only as an attempt to distract one from this fact.

[Mad_Michael]

To Whom It May Concern, (addressed to no one specifically)

It would appear to me that some/many/all posters here may find my style of posting and/or debate to be either entirely opaque, convoluted or obnoxious (amongst other possible adjectives).

Suffice it to say that I am always ready and willing to explain the process of logic and/or philosophic argument that stands behind my statements. For brevity's sake, I usually omit this when posting 'on the fly'

So, in order to facilitate a more interesting and intelligent discourse, I would request that anyone who finds an objection or lacks clarity of understanding of any logical statement or logical critique that I may make, or if I use any jargon laiden term (like epistemology) or any famous name philosopher, to please just request clarification and/or explanation of the statement. I'm usually quite happy to provide it.

If someone just dismisses me, my argument, statement or critique before bothering to ask about it, I usually just dismiss their reply in the same spirit. Seen it, been there, done that. When people are dismissive or condescending towards me, I tend to throw it right back at them. Indeed, some say I'm rather accomplished in the art of condescention. It is a bit of a game, but it does serves some minor purpose.

My apologies to all for this thread digression.

[Guest American Woman]

Well, how about a creating a functional human race that doesn't kill in "His" name.... for one?

God didn't 'create people to kill in His name.' That's people's doing.

Yet God, on numerous occasions told man to kill man. Read Leviticus 20 sometime.

God didn't write Leviticus.

[Guest American Woman]

Well, how about a creating a functional human race that doesn't kill in "His" name.... for one?

God didn't 'create people to kill in His name.' That's people's doing.

Nice try. I never said anything about creating people to kill in his name... I was asking why he created a people who do kill in his name.

Any idea?

God created the human race, and the human race was created with a brain so individuals can do their own thinking. So God didn't create people to kill in His name, but some people, as I said, choose to kill in His name. So why did He create people who kill in his name? Because He didn't create robots; God doesn't control our thinking, and sometimes people make the wrong choices.

[jazzer]

Well, how about a creating a functional human race that doesn't kill in "His" name.... for one?

God didn't 'create people to kill in His name.' That's people's doing.

Yet God, on numerous occasions told man to kill man. Read Leviticus 20 sometime.

God didn't write Leviticus.

So the Bible isn't God's word?

[Guest American Woman]

So the Bible isn't God's word?

Not literally. The Bible is mans' interpretation of God's word. Furthermore, not everyone interprets the Bible the same way, which is why there are more than one translations of it. So the fact that Americans are religious as a nation doesn't mean they all believe the same things or interpret things the same way. I would answer a survey by saying I'm religious because I do believe in a Higher Power, but I don't think that God literally wrote the Bible.

It always kind of amazes me and amuses me at the same time that people who don't believe in God seem to think they know what those who do have faith believe.

[ScottSA]

It always kind of amazes me and amuses me at the same time that people who don't believe in God seem to think they know what those who do have faith believe.

They don't get it so they make it into a strawman and nip around the edges, while stentoriously intoning the TRVTH that there is no God, and only silly buggers could think that there is.

[BC_chick]

They don't get it so they make it into a strawman and nip around the edges, while stentoriously intoning the TRVTH that there is no God, and only silly buggers could think that there is.

How is that any different than the people who "nip around the edges, while stentoriously (sic) intoning the TRVTH (sic) that there is a God, and only silly buggers could think that there isn't?"

Face it, nobody knows for sure.

But at least denying the existence of God is more logical than believing. You don't need proof to disbelieve something, unlike believing....

[Electric Monk]

...Roman Catholicism stands on faith alone. It has no need for logically establishing anything at all - unlike your demand/assertion to the contrary.

So it doesn't need to, and it doesn't logically prove the existence of the Roman Catholic god. Explain how this fails to make the Roman Catholic religion illogical, if it's central premise cannot be verified.

[Guest American Woman]

....Face it, nobody knows for sure.

But at least denying the existence of God is more logical than believing. You don't need proof to disbelieve something, unlike believing....

Seems to me you're saying that those who disbelieved the world was round because there was no proof that it wasn't flat were more "logical" in their thinking than Columbus was. That being the case, "logical" didn't equal "right."

[Mad_Michael]

...Roman Catholicism stands on faith alone. It has no need for logically establishing anything at all - unlike your demand/assertion to the contrary.

So it doesn't need to, and it doesn't logically prove the existence of the Roman Catholic god. Explain how this fails to make the Roman Catholic religion illogical, if it's central premise cannot be verified.

To be "illogical" one must contradict "logic".

The assertion of the Roman Catholic Church that God exists is an article of faith.

As such, no claim of logic is made. And since one cannot contradict something that isn't there, this claim of the Roman Catholic Church cannot be deemed "illogical".

To put the point as clearly as possible - an article of faith stands entirely outside the realm of logic or human knowledge.

[Mad_Michael]

....Face it, nobody knows for sure.

But at least denying the existence of God is more logical than believing. You don't need proof to disbelieve something, unlike believing....

Seems to me you're saying that those who disbelieved the world was round because there was no proof that it wasn't flat were more "logical" in their thinking than Columbus was. That being the case, "logical" didn't equal "right."

This is nonsense (both the original point about 'disbelief' and the 'flat world' argument).

One can assert that belief in the existence of God is irrational (it is a complex argument), but one cannot make the argument that belief in God is illogical. There is no logical basis for that claim.