Some autistic user on here always spergs out about how "god" doesn't exist in completely irrelevant threads...

Some autistic user on here always spergs out about how "god" doesn't exist in completely irrelevant threads. I will use this as an opportunity to teach a lesson in logic.

Today's lesson starts with the association fallacy. This is committed when one infers that because some things share some properties, they must share additional properties. The "argument" said user usually makes is something like "herp there's like 5 gorillion gods. which one is it then? checkmate." The association fallacy here is the assumption that because these "gods" and "God" have the same word for their reference, they must share additional properties. This not-necessarily-existent additionally-shared property is user's assessment that "gods" are ridiculous, and the following implicit conclusion is something like "haha so ur god's ridiculous too derp." This doesn't actually do anything to show that "God" is ridiculous. Neither can this even function as a valid induction (inferred probability of a specific outcome from multiple past events), because of the mere question of whether "god" and "God" even refer to the same set.

Mighty Thor and his hammer Mjölnir, god of thunder, is not the same thing as a conscious, intelligent, transcendent creator of the universe. This equivalence is assumed from the beginning because it's assumed God doesn't exist and thus that all conceptions of Him must be incorrect, which fallaciously precedent to the exact same conclusion. This is called begging the question, and means the conclusion is unsound.

The "argument" is also violation of the principle of charity, which states it is the interpreter's responsibility to choose the best possible interpretation of words to make someone correct. When an atheist hears "God," they immediately interpret it as "that ridiculous thing that doesn't exist," which is not logically sound. Instead, the rational approach would be to reassess one's understanding of "God," not just assume Christians believe in a cartoon character.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
twitter.com/AnonBabble

ok

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

>straw man
woah you just blew me away, kid. I forgot about the trump card "link to wikipedia straw man page." How fucking new are you?
>you showed how the argument is stupid, therefore you are misrepresenting it
It isn't even an argument, idiot. The contention is merely "herp derp there are so many gods, so God probably doesn't exist." Go ahead and explain how the user in question's argument is any different. Oh wait, you can't.

haha triggered noob

i agree

The first cause argument can be applied arbitrarily to any innovated monotheistic belief system and is not exclusive to Christianity.

Islamic / judiac theism is more coherent than the trinity.

The first cause argument can just as well be true, but humanity could still be a fluke of evolution no more significant to the first cause than a random scattering of pebbles. Human accounts of mythological figures (e.g. Jesus, moses) are not obligatory to accept in the same vein as a first cause.

sage

rip op

>the average Christian believes in a non intervening, unknown morality first cause creator

Most sci atheists will admit you can't know for sure there isn't a creator, but deny the existence of benevolent omniscient omnipotent deities.

Many religious people believe in exactly the deities you claim atheists troll about. How can you dilute Christianity until you get the vague unknowable first cause get out that you're left with and still claim atheists are idiots.

...

He still won though

Sending virtual thumbs up

...

>This is what christcucks actually believe

What cracks me up is that all that is proved by that argument is that something/someone created/started the universe. Wew lad! Big fucking deal! Nice discovery! The universe must have something that started it! Great job, you are such a genius.

But then you conclude with "omniscient, etc." How? How does your argument prove the starter has all those properties. You just proved a started exists. You don't know anything about it. And what adds insult to injury is that even though this /pol/ tier propaganda does not say it, this argument is supposedly a proof for the christian God. Somehow that argument proves Jesus came down to earth and killed himself.

Please also keep in mind that this is the best of christian philosophy. This is considered high tier argumentation by christians. Pathetic.

no u: the thread
forget god, all supernatural phenomena is impossible

As I see it, God doesn't give fuckshit about us or is only a local phenomenon. Neither really fits christian description so yeah, I cannot say God doesn't exist, I do say YOUR God doesn't exist.

>What cracks me up is that all that is proved by that argument is that something/someone created/started the universe
But that's wrong, you retard. The argument is that something is "operating" the universe, right this moment.

Slide 2
>Note: Aquinas is not arguing for a beginning to the universe, but rather for a causal power that is operating right now.
Slide 7
>right now, in the present
>right now
Slide 9
>right now
>right now
Slide 10
>in the present
It's italicized and repeated for you over and over and over again in hopes that you won't miss it. And you still missed it. Please note that if you cannot read simple English, you cannot be taken seriously in a philosophical debate.

Yeah, that is what it "says" in italics to catch the attention of monkeys like you. But then if you actually read the argument you notice that it talks about a chain of causality and it's the main conclusion is that an infinite chain of non-movers would not be able to move. Therefore there must be a mover at the beginning of the chain.

You are literally the kind of person that the government from 1984 has wet dreams about. They can tell you the exact opposite of what they mean but just put it in pretty italics and you will swallow it whole like a retard.

By the way, obviously, the starter still operates the universe. That is also trivial as fuck. We know as much as that because the universe is still working. You have still not proven anything impressive.

K, this is my argument: there's no need for a God and it's not logical to assume one exists. There doesn't have to be some sentient "creator" it's could just be a physical process like nuclear fusion is a physical process that creates heavy elements. First it was "God created the Earth", then the heavens then the universe. Once we figure out what caused the big bang you're gonna say God created that too. It's neverending.

0101 = Base_2 = Binary = HP LoveCraft'sc'dUdles?!

>The sun converts hydrogen to helium
Stop reading here, 'cause we know since the Curie's that the sum is a little less :
2H -> 1He + energy

>motion means change
nice aristotelianism
good thing science has moved on from that

But user, although you cleverly argumented it, I don't think you quite catch up the point.

Yes, the 5 million God argument is about metaphyisical entities that don't have to carry the God trait as we would understand it(Apollo, God of the Sun cannot be compared to the Christian God in any sense) but I believe that when you talk about it you are not critizising the idea of God but rather the idea that one interpretation of God under the lenses of a old mythos when you cannot even experience if it's true or not make the idea of following a God retarded since there is no way it can be true or not.

Of course, it doesn't mean that God doesn't exists, is more about talking about how understanding it through ritualis is retarded since you had 5 million interpretations of the samething, to achieve the same effect and that doesn't have to be more valid than the other.

But we know the underlying mechanisms now, and we can say many general things about the universe that explain its behaviour without requiring a God.

Is not even a chain of events, the natural world is filled with open cycles interacting with themselves and each other and keeping themselves afloat through energy differentials, so you don't need a first mover making things work just an original event with enough force to make the whole system move, and even if you had one first mover you don't need God on it, it doesn't even need to be conscious just a natural phenomenon happening through the interaction of other natural laws.

For example: You don't need direction to create aminoacids, you can simply add energy to a system that has the required elements and they will order themselves into those chemical structures, through simple natural laws.

So you either change the interpretation of God one more along the lines of Spinoza(God is the natural substance and its laws, not an entity by itself) or turn temporarily into an agnostic until you find something that makes sense with our current understanding.

Actually it proves nothing since it contradicts itself. It defines an inert member as a member which has no preceding member and then states that an infinite chain of members is inert. But in an infinite chain all members would have a preceding member, making each non-inert.

Well, you have to remember that it was written by a Christian philosopher and Christians are not really known for their intelligence. In my opinion, that guy was just trying to jump through a bunch of hoops in order to "justify" his grandiose conclusion of "My sky daddy exists".

I think it is better to ignore the retarded details and focus on the core of the argument. It all boils down to "Something must have started the universe" or "The universe must have come from something/somewhere".

Those are valid statements to propose and they must be in some sense true. We don't know in what way those statements are true because we do not know how the universe operates, but we do know that the universe is operating and has been doing so for a while now.

Well well well, if you aren't one pompous twat..

No they aren't valid; infinite regression is completely possible and a valid hypothesis. Additionally, our understanding of causality might not apply at all. It might simply be beyond our comprehension or ability to determine.

> Therefore there must be a mover at the beginning of the chain.
But that says nothing about the "creation" of the universe. You can't break free of the assumption that a chain of causality necessarily implies a sequence of events.

>You are literally the kind of person that the government from 1984 has wet dreams about. They can tell you the exact opposite of what they mean but just put it in pretty italics and you will swallow it whole like a retard.
You're confusing being contrarian with being intelligent and thinking for yourself. That's why you'll never rise above the level of an autistic retard.

>I think it is better to ignore the retarded details and focus on the core of the argument.
Translation:
>I think it is better to ignore the details I didn't grasp and strawman instead

Why wouldn't gods and God be in the same set? bear in mind the answer is not
>b-but mine is the right one so you can't lump mine in with the rest

>OP says that their argument for God can't work unless you pre-assume that God exists
>claims that Thor and God are different because God actually exists and thor doesn't
>OP accuses OTHER people of begging the question

rly makes you think