Jump to content

What is your favorite proof for God?


Recommended Posts

So you are claiming that your post was intended just to point out the fallacy of the implication?

No. I am claiming that you misrepresented my post in a supremely obvious way in some ridiculous attempt to support your clearly unsupportable worldview and ideology.

 

Yeah right, we all buy that...

 

Aren't you ashamed of such intellectual dishonesty?

This doesn't warrant a response, Severian... and you know it. Let's stick to what was said, and what evidence has not been presented, shall we?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Everyone needs to believe something, I believe I'll have another beer...

If someone is skeptical to use a wider interpretation of evidence, it may be because "evidence" isn't something you can just "feel differently about" without repercussions. The evidence of fraud by a

If given eternity a monkey can re-create the complete works of Shakespeare on a type writer or so that's the theory. Daft theory really. Why a monkey ? Why not a snail ? Or an amoeba ? And why a ty

No. I am claiming that you misrepresented my post in a supremely obvious way in some ridiculous attempt to support your clearly unsupportable worldview and ideology.

 

Your original post was:

 

Yeah... Disprove the existence of purple unicorns and plaid green clad ass fairies. You just don't get it, do you?

 

What does God have to do with "purple unicorns and plaid green clad ass fairies"? You didn't even bother to define your terms. This is a attempt to claim that believing in God is similar to believing in "purple unicorns and plaid green clad ass fairies".

 

Then when The Clairvoyant comes up with the fallacy (which you know well is a fallacy) that God is more popular, so more believable, what do you do? You run with it! You even managed to contort his use of the word 'popular' to bring Harry Potter into the mix.

 

If that isn't intellectual dishonesty, I don't know what is.

 

In case you still haven't got it, comparing God to "purple unicorns and plaid green clad ass fairies" is only valid if you actually define what "purple unicorns and plaid green clad ass fairies" are so that we might know how they could be detected. So, since you brought them up, tell us - how would we detect "purple unicorns and plaid green clad ass fairies"? And could we use the same techniques to detect the presence of God?

Edited by Severian
Link to post
Share on other sites
In case you still haven't got it, comparing God to "purple unicorns and plaid green clad ass fairies" is only valid if you actually define what "purple unicorns and plaid green clad ass fairies" are so that we might know how they could be detected. So, since you brought them up, tell us - how would we detect "purple unicorns and plaid green clad ass fairies"? And could we use the same techniques to detect the presence of God?

 

:doh: :doh: :doh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your original post was:

 

What does God have to do with "purple unicorns and plaid green clad ass fairies"? You didn't even bother to define your terms. This is a attempt to claim that believing in God is similar to believing in "purple unicorns and plaid green clad ass fairies".

 

Then when The Clairvoyant comes up with the fallacy (which you know well is a fallacy) that God is more popular, so more believable, what do you do? You run with it! You even managed to contort his use of the word 'popular' to bring Harry Potter into the mix.

 

Let us go ahead and name the fallacy...ad populum. And many people use it. After all...so many people can't be wrong can they?

 

 

"purple unicorns and plaid green clad ass fairies"

 

This is an appeal to ridicule...just as fallacious. I understand the original intent of the argument, but purple unicorns are clearly a figment of the person who is arguing against the concept of "god"'s imagination and should not be in the same category as "god" within the context of this discussion, considering nobody has made the case for a pantheistic view of "god". Really, I think we should first discuss the semantics of the term "god" before engaging in any form of discussion about "god", that way we can make sure we are talking about "god" and not about religion.

 

Two entirely different things, IMO.

Edited by divagreen
Link to post
Share on other sites

needimprovement,

 

Please answer a question for me if you would be so kind. Why are you here? It is fairly obvious that you are a firm believer in your god and religion so why come to a science forum to discuss it?

SFN is a place where I feel I have some friends around the world, I like the opportunity to share opinions and hear other people's points of view on subjects.

The discussions are fantastic, the input, the knowledge, the sharing of experiences and information are the best I´ve found !

 

I learn there are more ways to view anything, than just my own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.