HEY GUYS i think i have a fairly good argument for the existence of GOD

[blablablah]

The denial of the existence of God is logically incoherent.

A person could not operate as a person if they did not accept, through faith, the existence of metaphysical concepts such as the validity of human reasoning, the trans-subjectivity of human knowledge, etc, so through their very act of existing, every person is a metaphysician. A metaphysical framework, asserts, through its very existence, a theory and standard of knowledge, and a notion of what is ultimately knowable and true. Such a framework, if it is to be logically coherent, must have as its foundation, a source of ultimate knowledge and truth, which can be described as God, or recognised as a god-like entity, or even simply as the Coherence of Existence.

To deny the existence of this source of ultimate truth and knowledge, is a logical impossibility, because to deny it is to deny the existence of knowledge or truth of any kind; which, as we have already established, man is unable to do.

[Gabriel01]

why can't you speak like normal people do? i am 12, explain it in oranges and apples please.

[bertstare101]

We needed god to help us. To have some super power so we could bring the universe to what it is now. However since this has been accomplished we need to let it go.

[rhaus]

this thread will not get you to 1k reps

abort

[blablablah]

this thread will not get you 1k reps

dont really care brah, looking for some critiques. neg me all you want

[kOneOverJordanb]

i'm a fukking retard

yep, yes you are.

[Szarko]

The denial of the existence of God is logically incoherent.

A person could not operate as a person if they did not accept, through faith, the existence of metaphysical concepts such as the validity of human reasoning, the trans-subjectivity of human knowledge, etc, so through their very act of existing, every person is a metaphysician. A metaphysical framework, asserts, through its very existence, a theory and standard of knowledge, and a notion of what is ultimately knowable and true. Such a framework, if it is to be logically coherent, must have as its foundation, a source of ultimate knowledge and truth, which can be described as God, or recognised as a god-like entity, or even simply as the Coherence of Existence.

To deny the existence of this source of ultimate truth and knowledge, is a logical impossibility, because to deny it is to deny the existence of knowledge or truth of any kind; which, as we have already established, man is unable to do.

Dumb as phuck son.

[blablablah]

Dumb as phuck son.

thank you for your thoughtful and considered response.

[NZninja101]

The denial of the existence of God is logically incoherent.

A person could not operate as a person if they did not accept, through faith, the existence of metaphysical concepts such as the validity of human reasoning, the trans-subjectivity of human knowledge, etc, so through their very act of existing, every person is a metaphysician. A metaphysical framework, asserts, through its very existence, a theory and standard of knowledge, and a notion of what is ultimately knowable and true. Such a framework, if it is to be logically coherent, must have as its foundation, a source of ultimate knowledge and truth, which can be described as God, or recognised as a god-like entity, or even simply as the Coherence of Existence.

Or it can be described as the big bang.

[Fizzle02]

where is your god now?

[boarchicken]

Tldr!

[blablablah]

Or it can be described as the big bang.

what can be described as the big bang?

[AestheticWizard]

what did i just read

[grantwarwick]

Didn't read!

[JoeOreo]

talking about religion on the misc results in negs so whether we agree with you or not we are screwed.

2nd point: I bet you couldn't even read that let alone write it (copypasta)

[coherence]

The denial of the existence of God is logically incoherent.

A person could not operate as a person if they did not accept, through faith, the existence of metaphysical concepts such as the validity of human reasoning, the trans-subjectivity of human knowledge, etc, so through their very act of existing, every person is a metaphysician. A metaphysical framework, asserts, through its very existence, a theory and standard of knowledge, and a notion of what is ultimately knowable and true. Such a framework, if it is to be logically coherent, must have as its foundation, a source of ultimate knowledge and truth, which can be described as God, or recognised as a god-like entity, or even simply as the Coherence of Existence.

To deny the existence of this source of ultimate truth and knowledge, is a logical impossibility, because to deny it is to deny the existence of knowledge or truth of any kind; which, as we have already established, man is unable to do.

Checking in. God isn't real...

[II Cybershot II]

[mrsnruB1111]

lol

look at me I'm OP

I'm going to deliberately confuse the reader by putting a bunch of huge scientific buzzwords in a cluster and hope that I appear smart. durrrr


Do you even know what metaphysical or any of the words you're using mean OP, or did you just hear them somewhere

[AceRok]

The denial of the existence of God is logically incoherent.

A person could not operate as a person if they did not accept, through faith, the existence of metaphysical concepts such as the validity of human reasoning, the trans-subjectivity of human knowledge, etc, so through their very act of existing, every person is a metaphysician. A metaphysical framework, asserts, through its very existence, a theory and standard of knowledge, and a notion of what is ultimately knowable and true. Such a framework, if it is to be logically coherent, must have as its foundation, a source of ultimate knowledge and truth, which can be described as God, or recognised as a god-like entity, or even simply as the Coherence of Existence.

To deny the existence of this source of ultimate truth and knowledge, is a logical impossibility, because to deny it is to deny the existence of knowledge or truth of any kind; which, as we have already established, man is unable to do.

It is an argument used by William Lane Craig in that video.

[blablablah]

lol, it's not that hard to understand is it? the hardest word in there is metaphysics, which a quick run to the dictionary could clear up any confusion you had.

Does anyone have any substantive criticism?

[Lucretius]

Remember when I disproved this premise in our last discussion?

It's like it went in one ear and out the other... your argument is flawed because you show no need for a 'foundation' for truth. You just say there is, because you don't like the conclusion otherwise. Just like the universe existing without a cause. Theists don't like the idea, so they demand God does it (but of course, God gets a free pass.)

[blablablah]

It is an argument used by William Lane Craig in that video.

time?

[RaaR]

all you did was use a bunch of big words to dilute the fact you just refined "god" to something else lol

[blablablah]

Remember when I disproved this premise in our last discussion?

It's like it went in one ear and out the other... your argument is flawed because you show no need for a 'foundation' for truth. You just say there is, because you don't like the conclusion otherwise.

Such a framework, if it is to be logically coherent, must have as its foundation, a source of ultimate knowledge and truth, which can be described as God, or recognised as a god-like entity, or even simply as the Coherence of Existence.

To deny the existence of this source of ultimate truth and knowledge, is a logical impossibility, because to deny it is to deny the existence of knowledge or truth of any kind; which, as we have already established, man is unable to do.

i cleared that misconception up.

[BoogaKook]

A 'fairly good argument' would not require 12 theasurus' and a huge arse dictionary to interpret.

[Lucretius]

i cleared that misconception up.

No, you just played some word games (I guess you are well versed in William Lane Craig, he loves doing this.)

Not everything needs a source. Some things just exist and 'are'. The universe is one of those things. So are the concepts of 'truth' and 'knowledge'. You are claiming they have to come from a God - with no logical correlation. You claim it is logically impossible but give no reasons why. Until you show why they need a source, they don't need one. To claim they are meaningless is arbitrary on your part - for why are they meaningful if God declares? That's just as arbitrary as them being valued for just simply being. Except it doesn't require the totally unnecessary and absurd assumption of God.

[BBmisc420196]

You sound like a moron

"To deny the existence of this source of ultimate truth and knowledge, is a logical impossibility"
People do deny it, wow I guess it ISNT logically impossible, because then how would people be doing it if it was IMPOSSIBLE

"Such a framework, if it is to be logically coherent, must have as its foundation, a source of ultimate knowledge and truth, which can be described as God"
Evidence? What because you say its so it magically is? Lets see the evidence to back up that statement.

[mrsnruB1111]

Why does a framework of logic and truth in the universe have to have a foundation/source, OP?

How come it can't just be random and just have the appearance of logic and truth? The laws of physics and mathematics are just the results of whatever? The universe turned out the way it did, not by design, but just because why the **** not?

Like when you flip a hundred pennies....the sequence of heads/tails you get is random and the odds of replicating them is like 100 million to 1....but that doesn't mean that it was intelligently or intentionally planned that way

[lucious]

In response to your Op, I would provide the following counterargument: poo poo pee pee boobies!!!!


Thats what its like discussing something philosophical with a bunch of prepubescent virgins with the attention span and IQ of a goldfish.


Serious time fromfrom here on in: Your OP is an argument known in philosophy as presuppositional apologetics, that Gods existence is the only way humans can make any sense of the world.

However, it is unfair in the sense that it doesn't argue on even grounds as it attempts to destroy knowledge. It declares itself true by fiat and its strategy is essentially "you cant argue because you have no knowledge lolol". Its liek a game of soccer with only one goalpost.

Yes, we do make metaphysical assumptions. However, metaphysical assumptions such as 'the world is real' or 'I am the same person I was in 1992' can be rationally affirmed if not not proven true by science. A good case can be made fo their rational acceptance. God however, is still a superfluous assumption.


furthermore you try to ground logic in God but that still doesn't work. Ontologically, there is no contradiction in the laws of logic simply being what they are. What you are doing is setting up a false dichotomy either God, or human minds which are fallible. You can't really invent an entity without some other justification to justify your own sources of knowledge. We have the same brains. You can't just assume God is there before you makr your argument, you must first demonstrate he is, nd then you can demonstrate the grounding of logic.

[Morentz]

The denial of the existence of God is logically incoherent.

A person could not operate as a person if they did not accept, through faith, the existence of metaphysical concepts such as the validity of human reasoning, the trans-subjectivity of human knowledge, etc, so through their very act of existing, every person is a metaphysician. A metaphysical framework, asserts, through its very existence, a theory and standard of knowledge, and a notion of what is ultimately knowable and true. Such a framework, if it is to be logically coherent, must have as its foundation, a source of ultimate knowledge and truth, which can be described as God, or recognised as a god-like entity, or even simply as the Coherence of Existence.

To deny the existence of this source of ultimate truth and knowledge, is a logical impossibility, because to deny it is to deny the existence of knowledge or truth of any kind; which, as we have already established, man is unable to do.

Why is it a logical impossibility? Man is not debating the existence of knowledge or truth as they both have a place in our ontology, but rather the existence of God is up for debate because there is no proof of an omniscient and omnipotent being other than the proof given by Man who has no knowledge or truth of the existence of God.

If you're argument is that a source of ultimate truth and knowledge has to exist in order for any truth or knowledge to exist...one could argue that the very metaphysical nature of knowledge and truth is subjective to people's realities. Of course there are laws to the Universe, but certain specific knowledge and truths are subjective based on perspective.

If you want you can read the Allegory of the Cave by Plato: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave

Faith in itself is NOT knowledge, having faith in the existence of God is nowhere near the same as having knowledge of God. Which we do not have.

The very concept of God was invented by Man, the concept of knowledge in itself cannot be invented by Man because knowledge exists outside of our belief; it is a metaphysical concept that has proof in its existence through our own relative knowledge of things.