CALLING ALL ATHEISTS TO A CHALLENGE!!!

Ah, sorry, I fudged the postbox argument. That's what happens when I'm taking the pills. I'll try to fit it specifically into the argument pattern you proposed.


"1) That which begins to exist must have a cause
2) God did not begin to exist
3) God does not require a cause"




The postbox fallacy should read as:

1) All postboxes are red things (or something along the lines of "That which is a postbox must be red", or similar universal claims)
2) The red balloon is not a postbox (negation of A pertaining to object C, e.g. God did not begin to exist)
3) Therefore, the red balloon is not red.


Both arguments follow the pattern I mentioned before:

1) All A's are B's
2) Object C is not an A
3) Therefore object C is not a B


Using exactly the same argument pattern with reasonable premises we are able to arrive at a ridiculous and contradictory conclusion. The content of the argument is irrelevant (so long as the conclusion is related to the premises); in fact, I think that both premises and the conclusion are all correct, demonstrating that the argument pattern itself, not the content, is incorrect.

Another example might be in order:

1) All chat forums are fun (or to fit into the God argument's phrasing, are required to be fun)
2) The play house is not a chat forum
3) Therefore, the play house is not fun (when it actually may be)

I don't approve of hitlers standard of gassing Jews for sure.

I don't wish to 'bite' on this question, 'what standards should we measure ourselves by', i'm not saying our own is perfect, its application is aided or prohibited by what consequences a power (e.g. government, or relationship) places on you, but I don't understand how it is possible to follow any other standard than what you know, your own.

If Hitler honestly thought he was doing the right thing, I'd call him deluded. Do I think he is an evil being? To the extent his delusion offends my perception of morality; quite alot.

Can you condemn hitler's actions as immoral beyond the subjective?

Then couldn't you also be deluded? I will tell you the greatest standard. It is the Standard of God kept in the Ten commandments. Read them and tell me if those are not good standards. If you say they are, then you would say, whoever or whatever, these are legit.

But if you choose to compare your standards to another man's standards of good and evil, you will fall short of Truth. I don't compare my ideas with you, nor with scientists, as some of these others would, and do. No. I know that his standards are perfect. And just looking at those ten commandments, I see EVERY SINGLE ISSUE IN THIS WORLD! But it leaves me to wonder then, how can anyone keep all of these standards?

Would an evil man, which all men are inherently, be able to live up to such standards? Surely, if a man said to keep those laws to be saved, he would burn in hell. My friend, I simply love you. And so, I will now leave this up to the Lord. Only he can teach you, IF you want to be taught. If not. Well, I will pray. Anyhow. May Jesus bless you, I have to move on.

I condemn them only by the amount I am capable, on my own.
You will have your own position
Society will have its own position
A god would likely have his own position, but I do not know god's standards.

Ten commandments. Those are his standards.

Well kudos for your interest.........it would be bizzare if after being on CC for a while you hadn't heard Jesus is the way, repent and truly trust in Jesus.......I know it can't be said too much, because I spent 26 years, many of those hearing at church, school, home, reading the Bible and praying, without anything appear to sink in!
I missed the simplicity of the gospel

again jimmy theres problem with your claim. there is nothing provided to say god is this, therefore it doesnt need to be created what was quoted was just another guys opinion with his interprtation of plasm 90:2.

basicaly you have a soultion to the god problem but you havent proved this solution is correct with a theroy. first you need to find if anything can exist outside the universe get your results and find away to look for something outside the universe that are similar to your results. if you find something it supports your theory you just need to test to see if its ageless or something that would come to a conclusion that it always has been and a god

I see no good reason to believe they are great or legitimate (from a god), or that one is proof of the other.

So you can only condemn on a subjective basis?

This is the setup... I think;

1)That which is A, is required to be a B
2)C is not an A
3)therefor C isn't required to be a B

What is so invalid about that? It's just deductive reasoning.




It still isn't supported. It's not the pattern that's wrong, but rather the items in the pattern.

If you stated...

1) That which is red, must be a postbox
2) the red balloon is not a postbox
3) therefor the red balloon cannot be red

It just isn't supported, because if 1) is true, then 2) can't be. How so? The balloon couldn't even be red to begin with. However, we know that 1) isn't true. Thus, it all falls apart.

This is what I am argueing. I think..

1)That which is A, is required to be a B
2)C is not an A
3)therefor C isn't required to be a B


Similar patterns sure, but identical... no.

The problem is, you've so far not given the postbox issue in an order that requires for a red balloon to actually not be red. The first premise would be incorrect if the second is true.

The arguement doesn't follow. 3) isn't supported by 1)

Re-phrase it...

1) All things fun, are chat forums
2) The play house is not a chat forum
3) therefor, the play house is not fun

Now, if the play house is fun, then 3) is invalid because 1) is now proven to be a false premise.

"1) That which begins to exist must have a cause
2) God did not begin to exist
3) God does not require a cause"




The pattern is invalid because you simply cannot determine whether C is a B or not purely based on A. It means it doesn't have to be a B, but there's nothing saying it isn't one. In this case it would be "God is not required to be something that is required to have a cause" rather than an absolute statement of "God does not require a cause".

There's a big difference between "C is not a B" and "C is not required to be a B"...

Unless that was your intention all along lol... Sorry, I should have been more charitable in my interpretation...

I'm not sure about jimmy's postition, but I would put it the other way around.

It's not that "God is x", it's "X is God".

As for existing outside the universe... The universe is not eternal, it had a beginning or some form of catalyst that set things in motion. I wouldn't say it has to be "outside" of the universe, but it might be solitary actor that exists independently (again, the "unmoved mover" or "uncaused cause" which comes from the logic of Aristotle and Aquinas, not just some guy's interpretation of the Psalms as you mention).

Sure, but I can also defer judgements for decisions to what I believe is a more objective source so that others may defer to it; creating order.
Can you condemn objectively?

Its all very well saying 'God's law is objective and perfect, but all I find are 'second' (third) hand claims of what other people says his law is.

The desire to create order is a subjective desire. It is not transcendental.

Hopefully I'm not the one doing the condemning. It is God who condemns, I only inform.

I know you don't believe scripture to be inspired, but for the sake of arguement, If it is inspired and inerrent, then we have an accurate first hand account of God's transcendental and universal moral law.

This is beginning to go beyond me. I couldn't find where on Reasonablefaith.org William Lane Craig explains it, but it is him who stated it. His website sometimes is difficult to find things on. I'll continue looking though.

How do we move from 'for sake of argument' to justified evidence?

Notice the "if"? I didn't want to argue over inspiration of scripture.

The biggest flaw that I see with "The Golden Rule" is the hidden expectation of reciprocal behavior. A better moral code would be to be nice to others with no expectation of the favor being returned. Truely moral people behave this way. The golden rule judges the right behavior off of the participants desired reciprocal behavior. This means that the participant decides what is morally right and wrong on a case by case basis. This moral code has no externaly set standard of behavior. A Macivelian individual expects others to behave ruthless just like he behaves ruthless, and vise versa.

Who says this is moral or immoral?