Drange's argument from nonbelief

Originally posted by Dasa

Mother cow gives us milk and father bull works the land (they should be cared for with respect) and not slaughtered.

You have much to consider.[/b]

I knew it!! A bovine has gained access to the internet.

I thought you are suppose to tell us to eat more chicken.

Originally posted by Dasa
Dear Suzanne.

You have a religion that says the cosmos was created 6500 years ago.

You have a religion that says man is only that old.

You have a religion that created a doctrine only about 4000 years ago.

Clearly this is all nonsense and definitely a fabrication.

But however the Vedas are millions of years old and the Vedic civilisation was thri ...[text shortened]... and (they should be cared for with respect) and not slaughtered.

You have much to consider.

All lies.

But really, I didn't expect much more than that from you.

If you can say these things about "my" religion (as if you even know what I believe), then you clearly do NOT know anything about "my" religion.

As for the "millions of years old" thing about the Vedas, clearly that's not true. Clearly.

Stop treating us like children who are innocent enough to believe everything they're told.

Originally posted by Dasa
Dear Suzanne.

You have a religion that says the cosmos was created 6500 years ago.

You have a religion that says man is only that old.

You have a religion that created a doctrine only about 4000 years ago.

Clearly this is all nonsense and definitely a fabrication.

But however the Vedas are millions of years old and the Vedic civilisation was thri ...[text shortened]... and (they should be cared for with respect) and not slaughtered.

You have much to consider.

There must be some type of conflict within you for you can make a post
with truth and turn around and make another post full of lies. Why can't
you remain honest like you expect from other people?

Originally posted by Suzianne
All lies.

But really, I didn't expect much more than that from you.

If you can say these things about "my" religion (as if you even know what I believe), then you clearly do NOT know anything about "my" religion.

As for the "millions of years old" thing about the Vedas, clearly that's not true. Clearly.

Stop treating us like children who are innocent enough to believe everything they're told.

hehe. he thinks a religion invented at most, 3700 years ago is actually millions of years old. he belongs in the same category as young earth creationists.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
hehe. he thinks a religion invented at most, 3700 years ago is actually millions of years old. he belongs in the same category as young earth creationists.

A religion coming to mankind in the most perfect language in the world - how do you account for this because only highly intelligent persons can learn Sanskrit and its not for lay persons - especially meat eaters with dull brains.

The Bhagavad Gita was spoken 5000 years ago (documented)

But it was not the first time it was spoken.

We are in the Kali Yuga which started 5000 years ago - and before the Kali Yuga there were 3 different Yugas before that - and that only account for one cycle - but there are thousands of cycles.

You must stop inventing from thin air - in a foolish attempt to support your atheism because you simply come across as a bogan.

You are following the pseudo Judaic/Christian calendar - but the Vedic calendar pre-dates history itself and is the actual true calendar for mankind because it starts with actual creation itself starting with Lord Brahma.

You may research the history of what I am saying and you will see all this for yourself (but you wont)

Originally posted by Dasa
[b]A religion coming to mankind in the most perfect language in the world -

the vedas were not written in armenian.

how do you account for this because only highly intelligent persons can learn Sanskrit and its not for lay persons - especially meat eaters with dull brains.

not that what you claim is true, it's actually absurd, however a language that only intelligent persons can learn is far from 'perfect.' especially considering sanskrit which was only taught to the socially upper castes.

social bias does not prove that the upper caste were more intelligent or that the lower castes were duller people. it proves they were arrogant twits who didn't give many people opportunity to prove their worth.

The Bhagavad Gita was spoken 5000 years ago (documented)

it's quiet irrelevant how long a language in which a religion was eventually written, was spoken.

You must stop inventing from thin air - in a foolish attempt to support your atheism because you simply come across as a bogan.

You are following the pseudo Judaic/Christian calendar - but the Vedic calendar pre-dates history itself and is the actual true calendar for mankind because it starts with actual creation itself starting with Lord Brahma.

You may research the history of what I am saying and you will see all this for yourself (but you wont)

the judeo/christian calender didn't exist when the vedas were about 3700 years ago or less, and they were eventually written sanskrit, a language that came into existence at about the same time.

the bhagavad gita is a much later composition, perhaps 22-2300 years old, nowhere near the "astrological" claim of 5000 years.

Originally posted by Dasa

You may research the history of what I am saying and you will see all this for yourself (but you wont)

Correct, I won't see all this for myself, because it is simply not true.

You love to exaggerate, I can see that clearly enough.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Oh! good grief.

http://blogs.mycentraljersey.com/mets/files/2009/05/charlie_brown.jpg

Lol

Is that then an admission of failure or frustration?

Drange's argument is wrong google. He says that God wants man to know Him, and should facilitate that arrangement, and Drange goes on to say that when a man dies not knowing God it is God's fault since, if there were a God, that man should have learned there is a God because God would have made it irrefutably known; if there were a God. But since men die not knowing there is a God there is therefore no God because if there were a God He would have made Himself known.

And on and on it goes.

This is the reality google. There is a God that wants you to know Him personally. Not just that He exists, but to know Him. You don't buy it because you don't see any evidence for the existence of a Creator/God.

If there is no God, any argument contrived to prove it is fallacious from the start. Therefore, the only sound argument that can be made is the one for the existence of God because the evidence is all around you, but there is no evidence around you for the existence of nothing.

Originally posted by whodey
Everything hinges on free will. Why free will? It is because love demands a choice and God IS love. If you do not have a choice to love someone, is it love? If God forced us to accept or reject him, then it would only be God loving or hating himself back.

Faith is also related. We place our faith in those we love. We have no empirical evidence that ...[text shortened]... e read the account of one Jesus Christ and his invitiation and we choose to accept or reject it.

Everything hinges on free will. Why free will? It is because love demands a choice and God IS love. If you do not have a choice to love someone, is it love? If God forced us to accept or reject him, then it would only be God loving or hating himself back.

No, you are confused. The argument from ignorance has to do with belief in the proposition that God exists. The proposition that God exists is just a descriptive one, which just picks out the fact (supposing it is a fact) that the world is such that the concept 'God' is instantiated. Whether or not one believes that this proposition is true has nothing to do with accepting or rejecting God out of volition. I cannot, even in principle, go about "accepting" or "rejecting" God out of volition in any non-ersatz way if I do not happen to think God exists in the first place. Oh sure, I could say I "reject" your concept of 'God', in the sense that I think it fails to be instantiated in the first place, or some such. But this sense is irrelevant to your usage. To get persons in the position to accept or reject Him out of volition, God needs minimally to provide for the world to be such that these persons at least have sufficient reason to believe He exists in the first place. This has nothing to do with the freedom of will on the part of these persons: it has to do with the availability of reasons that would garner the cool assent of their intellect towards the simple fact (again, supposing it is a fact) that God exists in the first place.

So, your appeals to freedom of the will here are irrelevant, because they are irrelevant to the mere subject of belief in God's existence. I do not think you want to imply that mere belief in God's existence is principally a matter of the agent's freedom of the will. Isn't your base belief that God exists based on what you take to be good reasons that make this proposition likely true and thus passively garner the assent of your intellect, rather than just your wanting and willing for it to be the case that God exists?

Again, I really do not care for the way Drange has formulated this argument, and I would toss his version in the garbage. But, I do believe that there is a problem of ignorance for the theist in question. This theist of course holds that God exists; this theist holds that it is God's design intention that persons at least be in the position to freely accept or reject Him (or some such); but this minimally requires something predominantly beyond the active influence of those persons -- namely, that the world be such that these persons at least have sufficient reason to believe God exists in the first place. But, the world in a significant way fails to be as such. Hence, the problem.

Originally posted by josephw
Lol

Is that then an admission of failure or frustration?

Drange's argument is wrong google. He says that God wants man to know Him, and should facilitate that arrangement, and Drange goes on to say that when a man dies not knowing God it is God's fault since, if there were a God, that man should have learned there is a God because God would have made i ...[text shortened]... vidence is all around you, but there is no evidence around you for the existence of nothing.

It was frustration, you don't understand logical reasoning, which makes arguing with you using
logical reasoning nigh on impossible.

The argument disproves a certain version of god, however it's quite easy to postulate
version of god it doesn't disprove.
However this doesn't mean they exist, just that this logical argument doesn't rule them out.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It was frustration, you don't understand logical reasoning, which makes arguing with you using
logical reasoning nigh on impossible.

The argument disproves a certain version of god, however it's quite easy to postulate
version of god it doesn't disprove.
However this doesn't mean they exist, just that this logical argument doesn't rule them out.

You think I don't understand logical reasoning?

Try this on. If God exists, then what may be know about Him can only be that which is reveal by Him. And nothing else. Therefore, what is known about God comes from God and not from the imagination of man.

Originally posted by josephw
You think I don't understand logical reasoning?

Try this on. If God exists, then what may be know about Him can only be that which is reveal by Him. And nothing else. Therefore, what is known about God comes from God and not from the imagination of man.

Ok, lets try this.

Is god infinitely powerful and able to do absolutely anything he wants? (one definition of omnipotence?)

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ok, lets try this.

Is god infinitely powerful and able to do absolutely anything he wants? (one definition of omnipotence?)

Yes and no.

Know what I mean?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Again, I really do not care for the way Drange has formulated this argument, and I would toss his version in the garbage. But, I do believe that there is a problem of ignorance for the theist in question. This theist of course holds that God exists; this theist holds that it is God's design intention that persons at least be in the position to freely accep ...[text shortened]... the first place. But, the world in a significant way fails to be as such. Hence, the problem.[/b]

You assume that rejecting God is merely rejecting him in name only. Interestingly, when David sinned God asked him why he hated him. In other words, the mere fact that he sinned by sleeping with another man's wife and then having him killed, was equal to hating who he was and what he stood for.

Originally posted by josephw
Yes and no.

Know what I mean?

no, it was a question with a yes or no answer, not a yes and no answer.

the point was, If you claim a god that is omnipotent as defined,
Then that leads to a logical contradiction.

You ask a question like, "can god create an immovable object, that not even god can move?"

If the answer is yes, then god has created an object he can't move, thus there is something he
can't do, and thus he can't do absolutely anything.
If the answer is no, then there is something god can't do, thus he can't do absolutely anything.
As you defined god to be able to do absolutely anything, then this version of god can't exist.

This is inescapable unless you specify god as not having to follow the fundamental rules of logic.

However if god doesn't follow the rules of logic then there is absolutely nothing at all whatsoever
you can claim about it.

For example existence, and non-existence are mutually exclusive, following the laws of logic you can
do one or the other but not both at the same time.

However if god doesn't obey the laws of logic then god can both exist and not exist,
or be good and evil, ect ect...

god can't be claimed to have any properties whatsoever or discussed or understood in any way shape or form.
Anything god is claimed to have done god also didn't do.
Including following the rules of logic or not.


As you (should be able to) can see a god that doesn't obey the laws of logic is ridiculous and nonsensical and impossible.
Thus if god exist it must obey the laws of logic.

If god obeys the laws of logic then god cant do anything it wants because there are some things that are logically impossible.

Thus you can put a scope on what god concepts are possible.