How do i turn the table on Theists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What does your post mean? It’s like someone asking, “Do you know what time it is?” And the person answers, “Yes.” And the first person says, “Cool.” and walks away. There should be some point to it…
 
Scoobyshme said:
What does your post mean? It’s like someone asking, “Do you know what time it is?” And the person answers, “Yes.” And the first person says, “Cool.” and walks away. There should be some point to it…
Click to expand...
No its not. It is more like asking how do i refute the existence of God. Or how do i refute the commonly made arguments for his existence.

Anyway; i admit that this thread is pointless. I don’t expect the thread to go anywhere.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Well…i am waiting.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Turn the tables in what sense?

Prove from First principles that the theistic God is the God of Christianity or actually distract them long enough to physically turn their table around?😃

Ya got to give me more to work with!
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
No its not. It is more like asking how do i refute the existence of God. Or how do i refute the commonly made arguments for his existence.

Anyway; i admit that this thread is pointless. I don’t expect the thread to go anywhere.
Click to expand...
Did you mean Theists or Atheists?:confused:
 
carn said:
What about an atheistic argument why infanticide is wrong, was always wrong and will be always wrong?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you can clarify how this is evidence against theism?
 
carn said:
What about an atheistic argument why infanticide is wrong, was always wrong and will be always wrong?
Click to expand...
But if i do that everybody that supports it will feel guilty and hate me. I want everybody to love me, therefore i will continue to justify error:)
 
Soldier_Of_God said:
He means theists. Tongue-in-cheek of course. 🙂
Click to expand...
So ‘MindOverMatter2’ is on Catholic Answers looking for arguments against the existence of God:confused: Mind you that would explain the sarcastic smiley. I’m slow sometimes
 
carn said:
It would establish the existence of absolute moral without God.
Click to expand...
Well, actually it would not. Because you can ask why infanticide wrong. I suppose you can say that that’s one of your fundamental assumptions and that you don’t believe in God, but that’d be like saying “Assuming Infanticide is wrong and God doesn’t exist, we don’t need God for things to be wrong.” And it’d be a bit of an odd fundamental assumption.

In answer to this strategy, a theist could just name whatever the source of whatever bundle of moral principles you come up with “God” and start talking about it. We wouldn’t get to the Christian God without revelation though.

As for the original question: sormac.co.uk/site/machines/479x334/61/Turning-table-DRT_1.jpg
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Well…i am waiting.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
How about the argument that we can’t be sure of anything since we are fallible and imperfect? Our fallibility and imperfection is something theists agree with. And if we can’t be sure of our senses and reason, how do we know G-d exists, let alone the nature of G-d or whether any religion has fully understood what G-d expects of us? Indeed how do we know we exist according to our sense of consciousness, that we’re not dreaming, or that we’re not merely part of someone else’s dream? This life might all be an illusion.
 
hmm, not sure how to respond to this…actually…here’s something that’s interesting…I like to turn causal principles or PSR’s around and show how if the theist takes them seriously, she’s committed to some silly things. Here’s just one example:

(1) Anything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either in its own necessity or in some external cause.

Sound familiar?

Well, the sum of all concrete objects exists. So…it’s either necessary, or explained by something outside itself.

But, only concrete objects can explain, and no concrete object is outside the sum to explain it. Therefore, this sum is necessary. Therefore, all the objects of the sum are necessary. Therefore, nothing is contingent. Super.
 
Iron_Donkey said:
We wouldn’t get to the Christian God without revelation though.
Click to expand...
Would be interesting to see any argument against infanticide that can avoid the christian God. As far as i found out, infanticide was either practiced by a society and tolerated or there is no evidence to the contrary. Only two societies condemened or had some social norms vs infanticide: Old egyptians and jews.
 
Perplexity said:
(1) Anything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either in its own necessity or in some external cause.

Sound familiar?
Click to expand...
What you quote is incorrect. It’s actually “Anything that* begins to* exists has an explanation for its existence, either in its own necessity or in some external cause.”
 
Perplexity said:
hmm, not sure how to respond to this…actually…here’s something that’s interesting…I like to turn causal principles or PSR’s around and show how if the theist takes them seriously, she’s committed to some silly things. Here’s just one example:

(1) Anything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either in its own necessity or in some external cause.

Sound familiar?

Well, the sum of all concrete objects exists. So…it’s either necessary, or explained by something outside itself.

But, only concrete objects can explain, and no concrete object is outside the sum to explain it. Therefore, this sum is necessary. Therefore, all the objects of the sum are necessary. Therefore, nothing is contingent. Super.
Click to expand...
Perplexity, I have never seen someone describe their religion as Philosopher. You’ll have to explain to me how that works. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top