Comments on: The Case Against God

By: underdog

underdog — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:04:11 +0000

I’m not surprised that this argument is still around, it is a very interesting and tempting one to kick around the ol’ ticker. But a person can use as many philosophical, theological and whatever ideas and theories as there are and God will not be proven or dis-proven. People believe what they want to believe all the time; basically what it comes down to is individual faith. If you truly believe that holding your breath cures hiccups, it will. If you truly believe you can pick up a car, you can. Usually the difficult part is the faith, or at least it seems that way because most humans are power hungry and don’t like the idea that they are not in complete control of their lives. I don’t mean to imply that I don’t believe in free will, because I do, but I also believe that we all have a destiny. I know that sounds complicated, but I am working on an essay that will (hopefully) explain that centuries old debate on how free will and destiny co-exist.

In closing, I will pass on some very good advice I received many years ago: Don’t forget where you came from, and don’t forget God.

By: Dahlsson

Dahlsson — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:45:38 +0000

“But nothing can be infinite. Everything is something specific, in a specific form and quantity. Infinity is only a potentiality”
Who stated in that way?
You send the nature of mind to a passive form. Mind not only is a passive one but also a active one. If you accept the polarity of natural phenomena(man-woman,positive-negative, black-white,cold-heat,etc,etc)then our mind cannot be an exception. Our mind is both active and passive(counscious-uncounscious). I state that mind can create reality because of its dual nature, as everything in the universe that has potencialy to create. Ej. Sheakspeare created Otello but Otello is not Sheakspeare. In the same way: God create humans(multiple forms of live)but a human is not God. We create throught our mind but our mind, of couse, is finite. God create in the same way as human mind but God´s mind is infinite, eternal,endless. Our mind and God´s mind both have the same nature. The human mind is vibrating in some finite level. The theory of Vibration as a four dimension makes you to understand the process of how mind create the universe. As an example I take the nature of polarity heat-cold. There is no possibility to say that heat begins in that level or finish in those levels.
These explain that energi is vibrating in different levels of existence, if you will. The mind is vibrating in infinite different levels. The higher level of vibrating energi you can ever image people name God. But be aware of that God create not in caotic form. We know every level of existence has their own local laws. Science is dedicated to discover those laws to undestand a little more the mystery of Existence.

By: Debate: There is a rational warrant for belief in God. | Truth, Justice, and the American Way

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:50:02 +0000

[...] The Case Against God [...]

By: madmax

madmax — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:07:56 +0000

“But in no way do they prove (or disprove) anything related to the existence of a supernatural deity.”

This is wrong. David’s Objectivist-based arguments show what the proper context and standards for proof are. And thus, his arguments show that the god concept violates everything we know about human cognition. They show that the god-concept is a violation of the basic rules of epistemology and thus that there is no such thing as “god”.

Whether or not it is fruitful to debate with theists is a question open for debate. It depends on the nature of the audience. If there are people on the fence in the audience, David’s arguments might influence them to study the subject and thus to abandon supernaturalism.

By: Kevin Delaney

Kevin Delaney — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:52:15 +0000

You will lose this debate the instant you step on stage, David.

You say that you intend to “offer an argument against [God's] existence.” I’m dying to know how you will pull that off. In all my years of philosophic thinking, I have never encountered such a thing.

The statements you’ve provided contain many interesting and thought-provoking ideas. But in no way do they prove (or disprove) anything related to the existence of a supernatural deity.

Debating religion can be tempting, but it’s always a mistake. It’s a mistake because the question of God versus no-God simply does not arise in the minds of rational men.

When you agree to participate in this sort of debate, you grant religion the greatest victory imaginable: you concede intellectual respectability to the epistemological menace of faith.

By: Tweets that mention Debate statement: The Case Against God | Truth, Justice, and the American Way -- Topsy.com

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:09:54 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Keith Jones, Phoenix. Phoenix said: All you have to do is accept that your senses provide an accurate perception of reality. The rest is logic. http://bit.ly/3O5ba5 #johngalt [...]