Conquer Club

I am extending a challenge to all theists (Christians, Theistic Buddhists, Ba'hai, Muslims, Jews, etc.):

Rationally explain why you believe that there is a deity. Using accepted logic (for a list of fallacious arguments, go to fallacyfiles.org), define each step along the way that provides you proof as to the existence of a deity. If you quote from a source (Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, etc.) as a method of supporting your arguments, give a rigorous explanation as to why the source is valid to quote from without using any tautologies. Be sure to quantify all concepts and axioms that may be vague, arbitrary, or otherwise appearing to be illogical.

If you can beat my logic with better, rational logic, I will concede that there is a god.

For a bonus, if you can present to me evidence that would prove your religious ideology to be the most rational, I will not only accept your religion as the more rational philosophy, but I will argue for it whenever these debates come up.

However, if you cannot overcome my challenge, you must explain why you still hold on to your beliefs, in face of overwhelming intellectual odds.

God, I hate you. Well, you'll learn soon enough...in HELL

Hitman079 wrote:God, I hate you. Well, you'll learn soon enough...in HELL

Is that a concession? Or will you submit your points?

If it's a concession, would you explain why you still hold onto your beliefs if they cannot hold up the rational standard?

You used a lot of big words I did not understand. However, since I will not bother arguing with a college graduate or whatever you are, I'll just say I hold my faith because it works for me.

Hitman079 wrote:You used a lot of big words I did not understand.

Why not look them up? No harm in educating yourself, or expanding your vocabulary.

However, since I will not bother arguing with a college graduate or whatever you are, I'll just say I hold my faith because it works for me.

Doesn't really come across as an objectively sound reason. Wouldn't you rather lead your life in a rational manner?

I would like to point out that I am logical and rational not only by intellectual necessity, but by moral necessity as well. When one evaluates the purpose of man, one can easily come to the conclusion that the primary purpose is to survive. Everything else, is secondary. With this in mind, it is a requirement of survival to apply the rational faculty, or the tool in which we apply reason, to survive.

With this in mind, all moral and immoral actions can be judged from this sole purpose: Survival by reason. By the intellectual standards mentioned above, it would thus be immoral to acknowledge fallacy, poor logic, and general dishonesty as credible argument, and I am thus obligated to point it out and dismantle any argument which wrests upon said fallacies, poorly formed logics, and mistruths. To neglect this would be to engage in a double standard, and in the realm of morality, double standards should not exist.

Tried many times, failed every time... Might as well look up the hendy challenge.. same concept.

Jesse, something you don't seem to understand is people of faith are called to believe in their respective diety with little to no physical proof of their existance. This is part of the challenges of faith, a calling that seperates those who are worthy of the Creators good graces and those who are not.

Lord Canti wrote:Jesse, something you don't seem to understand is people of faith are called to believe in their respective diety with little to no physical proof of their existance. This is part of the challenges of faith, a calling that seperates those who are worthy of the Creators good graces and those who are not.

I'm not going to get into this discussion too much, I simply wanted to point out to you a minor point from what you said: no one is worthy of "the Creators good graces". maybe I'll add more later.

Lord Canti wrote:Jesse, something you don't seem to understand is people of faith are called to believe in their respective diety with little to no physical proof of their existance. This is part of the challenges of faith, a calling that seperates those who are worthy of the Creators good graces and those who are not.

So, to summarise:
'People of faith' not only believe in things for which there is no physical evidence... but by doing so they actually become worthier people than those who do not.

Believing in things for which there is no evidence is indeed challenging, i will grant you that.

Lord Canti wrote:Jesse, something you don't seem to understand is people of faith are called to believe in their respective diety with little to no physical proof of their existance. This is part of the challenges of faith, a calling that seperates those who are worthy of the Creators good graces and those who are not.

So you acknowledge a complete rejection of logic, reason, and general rationality is necessary to believe in a god?

I can prove that God exists. Look out the window. Do you see the world? If you see the world then you know that some higher power exists.
Now don't try and say that the world created itself because that makes no sense whatsoever. A bottle of Pepsi cannot create itself, a rock cannot create itself and the universe cannot do it either.
Now you will probably want to say, well where did God come from, if the universe can't create itself then how can God? And I will reply, God IS. And that's it.
Now you could also reply that the universe IS. But if you believe that, then you run into a few problems.
God has always been. I don't see any reason why not. But then again I've never searched for a reason why God can't have existed forever.
However, the Universe shows signs of deterioration. Therefore it cannot have always been.
God is infinite.
The universe happens to be finite.
I'd love to continue this debate but I ask that it not be turned into a flame war.

DemonHunter, that's not logic. That's asserting the consequent. One cannot prove God exists because a "pepsi bottle cannot create itself" since a Pepsi bottle is a synthetic material made only by man. One cannot assume that complex things have a simple origin vis a vis God.

Now onto the meat of my post,
------------------------------
If faith was logical, atheists wouldn't exist. We'd still have agnostics, but we wouldn't have a group of people wandering around talking about the inherent gaps in logic that faith requires.

It's the same as a movie, it's called Suspension of Disbelief. What is SoD? SoD is the ability to overlook the glaring factual errors in a film in order to enjoy the movie as a whole event.

Wikipedia - Suspension of disbelief wrote:Suspension of disbelief refers primarily to the willingness of a reader or viewer to accept the premises of a work of fiction, even if they are fantastic or impossible. It also refers to the willingness of the audience to overlook the limitations of a medium, so that these do not interfere with the illusion. However, suspension of disbelief is a quid pro quo: the audience agrees to provisionally suspend their judgment in exchange for the promise of entertainment.

Inconsistencies or plot holes that violate the initial premises, established canon, continuity, or common sense, are often viewed as breaking this agreement. For particularly loyal fans, these 'dealbreakers' are usually accompanied by a sense of betrayal. However, the extent to which the suspension has been compromised is often dependent on the beholder. A physicist, for example, may be more likely to question a fantastical breach of known physics, while an architect's suspension of disbelief may be damaged by being introduced to a building of unrealistic proportions. Similarly, 'common sense' is a relative term, and so the same piece of fiction may stand up or not depending on the particular audience.

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_judgment

I have to disagree that Faith requires one to ignore logic. It is very logical to believe that a god exists. It doesn't really take faith on that part.

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:I am extending a challenge to all theists (Christians, Theistic Buddhists, Ba'hai, Muslims, Jews, etc.):

Rationally explain why you believe that there is a deity. Using accepted logic (for a list of fallacious arguments, go to fallacyfiles.org), define each step along the way that provides you proof as to the existence of a deity. If you quote from a source (Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, etc.) as a method of supporting your arguments, give a rigorous explanation as to why the source is valid to quote from without using any tautologies. Be sure to quantify all concepts and axioms that may be vague, arbitrary, or otherwise appearing to be illogical.

If you can beat my logic with better, rational logic, I will concede that there is a god.

For a bonus, if you can present to me evidence that would prove your religious ideology to be the most rational, I will not only accept your religion as the more rational philosophy, but I will argue for it whenever these debates come up.

However, if you cannot overcome my challenge, you must explain why you still hold on to your beliefs, in face of overwhelming intellectual odds.

While I can't do that, I can prove that its more logical to practice a religion in general than not too - give me a few minutes to draw up the diagram!

DemonHunter wrote:I have to disagree that Faith requires one to ignore logic. It is very logical to believe that a god exists. It doesn't really take faith on that part.

I believe that the rejection of all contrary ideas on the basis that they're contrary is a gap in logic.

"Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind."
- Go look up who said that


Its an interesting point that a lot of high-level scientists practice religion, because the two are not mutually exclusive, and anyone who says otherwise has an agenda!

START

Get an Idea: God Exists

Perform Experiment: See if creation exists

Does the evidence support the theory: Creation exists, thus a creator must exist. This being must be able to create the whole universe and thus would be considered as God.

There ya go. Logically, if there is creation then there is a creator. And logically if this being is able to create a universe. Then he must be a higher being then us seeing as how we can't create anything, much less a universe. A higher being would be a supreme being. Thus he would be God.
So I have just logically proved that God exists.

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:I am extending a challenge to all theists (Christians, Theistic Buddhists, Ba'hai, Muslims, Jews, etc.):

Rationally explain why you believe that there is a deity. Using accepted logic (for a list of fallacious arguments, go to fallacyfiles.org), define each step along the way that provides you proof as to the existence of a deity. If you quote from a source (Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, etc.) as a method of supporting your arguments, give a rigorous explanation as to why the source is valid to quote from without using any tautologies. Be sure to quantify all concepts and axioms that may be vague, arbitrary, or otherwise appearing to be illogical.

If you can beat my logic with better, rational logic, I will concede that there is a god.

For a bonus, if you can present to me evidence that would prove your religious ideology to be the most rational, I will not only accept your religion as the more rational philosophy, but I will argue for it whenever these debates come up.

However, if you cannot overcome my challenge, you must explain why you still hold on to your beliefs, in face of overwhelming intellectual odds.

Challang to all rationalists:

Prove that rational thinking is the only correct way to the truth without being circular

DemonHunter wrote:START

Get an Idea: God Exists

Perform Experiment: See if creation exists

Does the evidence support the theory: Creation exists, thus a creator must exist. This being must be able to create the whole universe and thus would be considered as God.

There ya go. Logically, if there is creation then there is a creator. And logically if this being is able to create a universe. Then he must be a higher being then us seeing as how we can't create anything, much less a universe. A higher being would be a supreme being. Thus he would be God.
So I have just logically proved that God exists.

Sir, your logic is impeccable.

Off topic, but the logical proof that you should practice a religion - doesnt heplp you choose which one though!

DemonHunter wrote:I can prove that God exists. Look out the window. Do you see the world? If you see the world then you know that some higher power exists.

This is simply a watchmakers argument in the making.

Now don't try and say that the world created itself because that makes no sense whatsoever.

Poisoning the well, a logical fallacy. In short, you're creating a preemptive ad hominem and not addressing the merits of the concepts.

A bottle of Pepsi cannot create itself, a rock cannot create itself and the universe cannot do it either.

So, if I may break this down to its syllogistic core, you're stating the following:

Premise: X is too complex to have occurred randomly or accidentally.
Premise: Therefore, X must have been created by a sentient being.
Premise: God is that sentient being.
Premise: Therefore, God exists.

The first (and therefore second) premise assumes that one can infer the existence of creation merely by examining an object. The teleological argument assumes that because life is complex, it must have been designed. This is non-sequitur logic. You are describing objects as "complex" or "ordered", which implies that a deity has ordered them. However we know this to be patently false as there are examples of systems which are non-random or ordered simply because it is following natural physical processes (snowflakes, diamonds, stalacites, etc.).

The watered down designed claim you are using in nothing but an argument from ignorance, since it unexplained and unsupported. You're making the huge assumption that natural objects and man-made objects have similar properties, therefore they both must be designed. However, different objects can have similar properties for different reasons, such as stars and light bulbs. You must therefore demonstrate that only a sentient being can cause orderly systems or the argument is invalid.

Now you will probably want to say, well where did God come from, if the universe can't create itself then how can God? And I will reply, God IS. And that's it.

Suppressed premise. You have failed to state how you have rationally concluded that god exists. "Just because" is not a valid method of debate, or logic.

Using your own logic, I could just as well claim that god does not exist "just because", and still maintain the validity of your argument.

Now you could also reply that the universe IS. But if you believe that, then you run into a few problems.

Oh, really?

God has always been. I don't see any reason why not. But then again I've never searched for a reason why God can't have existed forever

Do you mind proving how gods always been using logical measures, and defining each step along the way?

However, the Universe shows signs of deterioration. Therefore it cannot have always been.

False. The universe is showing signs of expansion, not deterioration.

God is infinite.

Prove to me this.

The universe happens to be finite.

Again, false, or at least intellectually dishonest. Various sciences as well as mathematical proofs have proved the universe to be expanding (and while this may imply a finite universe in the observable universe, it doesn't make it so when theoretical universe is applied), it's still not known whether the universe is finite. Moreover, you're vague in defining finite, as pointed out above.

Thus, we can conclude that your premise stated here:

Now you could also reply that the universe IS. But if you believe that, then you run into a few problems.

is total trash, and not supported by any logical or rational means.

I'd love to continue this debate but I ask that it not be turned into a flame war.

It'll only turn into a flame war if you let it.

But if I may critique

heavycola wrote:

DemonHunter wrote:START

Get an Idea: God Exists

Perform Experiment: See if creation exists

Does the evidence support the theory: Creation exists, thus a creator must exist. This being must be able to create the whole universe and thus would be considered as God.

There ya go. Logically, if there is creation then there is a creator. And logically if this being is able to create a universe. Then he must be a higher being then us seeing as how we can't create anything, much less a universe. A higher being would be a supreme being. Thus he would be God.
So I have just logically proved that God exists.

Sir, your logic is impeccable.

I imagine this is sarcasm but I'll asy thanks anyways.

RenegadePaddy wrote:Off topic, but the logical proof that you should practice a religion - doesnt heplp you choose which one though!

I am doubtful, scratch that, very doubtful when it comes to religion, but I believe that a loving and caring god shouldn't actually care wether you believe in him/her or not, but rather care about the way you have lived your life.

RenegadePaddy wrote:Off topic, but the logical proof that you should practice a religion - doesnt help you choose which one though!

Actually it does. Find the religion with the worst hell, and believe in that.

RenegadePaddy wrote:Off topic, but the logical proof that you should practice a religion - doesnt heplp you choose which one though!

LOL. Pascal's Wager?

First, I'll begin with the counter wager: You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

Next, you're supposing that god rewards belief. If I may quote Richard Carrier:

Suppose there is a god who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. For all others are untrustworthy, being cognitively or morally inferior, or both. They will also be less likely ever to discover and commit to true beliefs about right and wrong. That is, if they have a significant and trustworthy concern for doing right and avoiding wrong, it follows necessarily that they must have a significant and trustworthy concern for knowing right and wrong. Since this knowledge requires knowledge about many fundamental facts of the universe (such as whether there is a god), it follows necessarily that such people must have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about such things are probably correct. Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven — unless god wishes
to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy

Finally, you must look at opportunity costs, as well as the irreconcilability that if a person is uncertain whether a particular religion is true and the god of that religion is real, but that person still "believes" in them because of the expectation of a reward and the fear of punishment, then that belief is not a true valid belief or a true faith in that religion and its god.