Logical Proof for God's Existence

[JoeyKnothead]

So, in the absence of any physical evidence, it seems many rely on logic claims to show a god exists. I've yet to see any of these arguments that don't rely on the 'logicer' first saying "if". "'If' x is true, then God". "'If' x is not true then God".

For debate:
What logical argument is there that doesn't rely on having to "if" a god into existence?

[Miles]

.

What I think someone may have done amounts to an ad hom attack and is slanderous?
Boy, you and I sure read different dictionaries.

I ask again if there is a TOPIC, an IDEA, that you feel qualified to debate WITHOUT personal comments.

Why would you care what I feel? Writing a book?

[Zzyzx]

.

What I think someone may have done amounts to an ad hom attack and is slanderous?
Boy, you and I sure read different dictionaries.

I ask again if there is a TOPIC, an IDEA, that you feel qualified to debate WITHOUT personal comments.

Why would you care what I feel? Writing a book?

Yes, I am writing a book -- more correctly identified as an article or essay -- on the topic of debating religion; with suggestions for answering common religionist positions, claims, stories and tactics. Among the observations is that a common tactic for those who cannot effectively debate ideas is to resort to personal comments.

If you feel (or consider yourself) competent to debate a TOPIC rather than personalities, I would be more than happy to engage you in a Head to Head debate. Although I, personally, do not think it would be prudent of you to accept such a challenge, that is my opinion based on what I read of your posts. There may be other opinions.

Again, is there a TOPIC or IDEA that you feel (or consider yourself) competent to discuss WITHOUT personal comments?

[Miles]

.

What I think someone may have done amounts to an ad hom attack and is slanderous?
Boy, you and I sure read different dictionaries.

I ask again if there is a TOPIC, an IDEA, that you feel qualified to debate WITHOUT personal comments.

Why would you care what I feel? Writing a book?

Yes, I am writing a book -- more correctly identified as an article or essay -- on the topic of debating religion; with suggestions for answering common religionist positions, claims, stories and tactics. Among the observations is that a common tactic for those who cannot effectively debate ideas is to resort to personal comments.

Hmmm. Well if you can convince me how my feelings about my qualifications to debate without personal comments could be germane to your endeavor perhaps I will. Perhaps. AND, if I'm to be a contributor to this important enterprise I need to be sure it's up to my standards. So, show me what you've got so far.

[Zzyzx]

.

Well if you can convince me how my feelings about my qualifications to debate without personal comments could be germane to your endeavor perhaps I will. Perhaps. AND, if I'm to be a contributor to this important enterprise I need to be sure it's up to my standards. So, show me what you've got so far.

Cute dance step in lieu of debate.

All you need to know about the issue has already been presented. I need no permission or approval from anyone to use quotations and examples.

The topic of this thread is "Logical Proof for God's Existence".

What theological position do you attempt to represent in this (or other) matter?

Can you offer any Logical Proof for God's Existence -- WITHOUT personal references? Is there a TOPIC that you CAN debate without personal references?

[Cathar1950]

.

What I think someone may have done amounts to an ad hom attack and is slanderous?
Boy, you and I sure read different dictionaries.

I ask again if there is a TOPIC, an IDEA, that you feel qualified to debate WITHOUT personal comments.

Why would you care what I feel? Writing a book?

Yes, I am writing a book -- more correctly identified as an article or essay -- on the topic of debating religion; with suggestions for answering common religionist positions, claims, stories and tactics. Among the observations is that a common tactic for those who cannot effectively debate ideas is to resort to personal comments.

Hmmm. Well if you can convince me how my feelings about my qualifications to debate without personal comments could be germane to your endeavor perhaps I will. Perhaps. AND, if I'm to be a contributor to this important enterprise I need to be sure it's up to my standards. So, show me what you've got so far.

Do you have anything to offer? Do you want him to make your argument for you and then explain it? How about he just create some straw man for you that you can knock down? So far this seems to be your major contrabution"

Jews don't bother with the title question much. You don't want to believe in God? So don't. Now let's talk about how you LIVE and what you DO. Forget all the supernatural stuff, what happens after you die and how God made the world and all that. How are you making the world a better place where you are, right now?

In other words, pay no attention to the subject of the thread, but instead look at this one. But why try to commander this thread when you can create one of your own about "How you LIVE and what you DO"? However, we know the answer don't we. It falls under the category of embarrassing questions that best be ignored, or better yet, buried. Sad, sad, sad.

Then for the next 8 pages you just go on and on.

[cnorman18]

.

What I think someone may have done amounts to an ad hom attack and is slanderous?
Boy, you and I sure read different dictionaries.

I ask again if there is a TOPIC, an IDEA, that you feel qualified to debate WITHOUT personal comments.

Why would you care what I feel? Writing a book?

Yes, I am writing a book -- more correctly identified as an article or essay -- on the topic of debating religion; with suggestions for answering common religionist positions, claims, stories and tactics. Among the observations is that a common tactic for those who cannot effectively debate ideas is to resort to personal comments.

Hmmm. Well if you can convince me how my feelings about my qualifications to debate without personal comments could be germane to your endeavor perhaps I will. Perhaps. AND, if I'm to be a contributor to this important enterprise I need to be sure it's up to my standards. So, show me what you've got so far.

Do you have anything to offer? Do you want him to make your argument for you and then explain it? How about he just create some straw man for you that you can knock down? So far this seems to be your major contrabution"

Jews don't bother with the title question much. You don't want to believe in God? So don't. Now let's talk about how you LIVE and what you DO. Forget all the supernatural stuff, what happens after you die and how God made the world and all that. How are you making the world a better place where you are, right now?

In other words, pay no attention to the subject of the thread, but instead look at this one. But why try to commander this thread when you can create one of your own about "How you LIVE and what you DO"? However, we know the answer don't we. It falls under the category of embarrassing questions that best be ignored, or better yet, buried. Sad, sad, sad.

Then for the next 8 pages you just go on and on.

I'll just note for the record that Miles never did get around to justifying, or even explaining, that insult, supposedly on the grounds of letting ontopic debate on this thread run its course - even though he hasn't seemed particularly dedicated to staying on topic himself since. The object of the exercise, for Miles, seems to be putdowns and snide sarcasm, and little more.

[Miles]

Cute dance step in lieu of debate.

Debate? Hold on a minute; one thing at a time. Initially You wanted me to comment on my feelings about my qualifications to debate without personal comments because you're in the process of writing an article or essay. Now you've changed your priorities to one of debating me. I'm beginning to question your commitment to your original quest here, And whether you truly have some article/essay in the works.

All you need to know about the issue has already been presented. I need no permission or approval from anyone to use quotations and examples.

Of course you don't, but you DO need my cooperation, and so far you haven't shown me any reason to give it.

The topic of this thread is "Logical Proof for God's Existence".

What theological position do you attempt to represent in this (or other) matter?

In as much as the OP question for debate was:

• "What logical argument is there that doesn't rely on having to "if" a god into existence?"

and because I know of none, my "theological position" is that as far as I know there aren't any.

Now that that's out of the way, let's get back to this article/essay you say your writing on debating religion, and just how my feels are going to be integrated into it. What can you show me about it that would convince me my participation will be worth my time?

Then for the next 8 pages you just go on and on.

But you exaggerate. Pages 2 and 4, had nothing on them relating to the issue. AND, I can't take all the credit. Cnorman18 was with me every step of the way, egging me on as it were. THEN, Zzyzx and joeyknuccione wanted in on the discussion and took my participation in another direction. The point is, I wouldn't have been able to do it all---"go on and on"---without the help of these three wonderful people.

I'll just note for the record that Miles never did get around to justifying, or even explaining, that insult, supposedly on the grounds of letting ontopic debate on this thread run its course - even though he hasn't seemed particularly dedicated to staying on topic himself since. The object of the exercise, for Miles, seems to be putdowns and snide sarcasm, and little more.

Hey, cnorman, nice to see you back after fleeing from my devastating response to you. As for the alleged "insult," you're simply going to have to live with your misperception because I don't justify or explain things I don't believe need justification or explaining. As for not staying on topic. I followed up on each and every post you three musketeers directed at me. And, *sigh* YOU were the one who wanted to take the OP off topic---remember your infamous post #5? Well, the rest of us do. My participation here has been solely a matter of responding to whatever you and the others put to me. Don't like my responses? Then maybe you shouldn't have continued the dialog.

[Zzyzx]

.

Cute dance step in lieu of debate.

Debate? Hold on a minute; one thing at a time.

Perhaps you did not notice that this is a debate forum.

Holy Huddle might be more comfortable for those who are uncomfortable with debate.

[Miles]

Perhaps you did not notice that this is a debate forum.

Oh I did, and I also noticed your first post to me was not one of debate but of disagreement with what I did, immediately followed by a question about my . . . *blush* . . . feelings.

Holy Huddle might be more comfortable for those who are uncomfortable with debate.

"Holy Huddle" ?? Sorry, not familiar.

[Jester]

Moderator comment

What I think someone may have done amounts to an ad hom attack and is slanderous?
Boy, you and I sure read different dictionaries.

The dictionary used by the moderators leads us to define ad hominem as any unfavorable remarks about another member, regardless of whether or not they are qualified as your personal suspicions. Basically, including words such as "think" or "may" doesn't prevent comments from being a personal attack.

I ask again if there is a TOPIC, an IDEA, that you feel qualified to debate WITHOUT personal comments.

Why would you care what I feel? Writing a book?

If you wish to avoid probation and/or banishment, you would do well to heed any advice directing you away from personal comments and back to debating a topic.

Cute dance step in lieu of debate.

Debate? Hold on a minute; one thing at a time. Initially You wanted me to comment on my feelings about my qualifications to debate without personal comments because you're in the process of writing an article or essay. Now you've changed your priorities to one of debating me. I'm beginning to question your commitment to your original quest here, And whether you truly have some article/essay in the works.

All you need to know about the issue has already been presented. I need no permission or approval from anyone to use quotations and examples.

Of course you don't, but you DO need my cooperation, and so far you haven't shown me any reason to give it.

The topic of this thread is "Logical Proof for God's Existence".

What theological position do you attempt to represent in this (or other) matter?

In as much as the OP question for debate was:

• "What logical argument is there that doesn't rely on having to "if" a god into existence?"

and because I know of none, my "theological position" is that as far as I know there aren't any.

Now that that's out of the way, let's get back to this article/essay you say your writing on debating religion, and just how my feels are going to be integrated into it. What can you show me about it that would convince me my participation will be worth my time?

Then for the next 8 pages you just go on and on.

But you exaggerate. Pages 2 and 4, had nothing on them relating to the issue. AND, I can't take all the credit. Cnorman18 was with me every step of the way, egging me on as it were. THEN, Zzyzx and joeyknuccione wanted in on the discussion and took my participation in another direction. The point is, I wouldn't have been able to do it all---"go on and on"---without the help of these three wonderful people.

I'll just note for the record that Miles never did get around to justifying, or even explaining, that insult, supposedly on the grounds of letting ontopic debate on this thread run its course - even though he hasn't seemed particularly dedicated to staying on topic himself since. The object of the exercise, for Miles, seems to be putdowns and snide sarcasm, and little more.

Hey, cnorman, nice to see you back after fleeing from my devastating response to you. As for the alleged "insult," you're simply going to have to live with your misperception because I don't justify or explain things I don't believe need justification or explaining. As for not staying on topic. I followed up on each and every post you three musketeers directed at me. And, *sigh* YOU were the one who wanted to take the OP off topic---remember your infamous post #5? Well, the rest of us do. My participation here has been solely a matter of responding to whatever you and the others put to me. Don't like my responses? Then maybe you shouldn't have continued the dialog.

None of this seems to produce any actual debate content that relates to the site's topic. If you wish to debate religion, do so. If you wish to argue with individuals about who said what, take it elsewhere.