Today Mung claimed of TSZ that
I see mocking of Christianity, what I don’t see are arguments that Christianity is false.
As the regulars here (including Mung) know, this is bollocks. There have been many such arguments, and Mung has fled from a number of them.
You see plenty of them [arguments against Christianity], but you’re in denial.
Want to test that hypothesis? Start a thread asking for arguments against Christianity. You’ll get an earful.
He got cold feet, so I am starting the thread for him. I’ll provide some arguments in the comments. Feel free to add your own or to cross-post or link to old OPs and comments, if you can’t be arsed to reinvent the wheel for Mung’s trollish sake.
Mung’s fellow Christians are welcome to come to his aid. He’ll need all the help he can get.
If the christian god is real, is he not a sadist?
Let him continue to underestimate us.
And of his 18 OPs, none of them contained an inductive argument that Christianity is probably false. I read them all. Links are posted in this thread to each one of them.
Is there really not a single Christian out there who can explain why your God allowed that dog to eat the head of a living baby?
Is there really not a single Christian out there who can explain why an uncle who allowed a dog to eat his baby niece’s head would be condemned, but a supposed God who does the same thing is praised?
Then you have no reason to post any argument that Christianity is false.
keiths thinks his questions are arguments. All you have to do is review his 18 OPs to see that what they contain is a bunch of questions with no actual argument leading to any actual conclusion.
If he makes an argument, someone will address it.
Once again, Mung is reduced to pretending that I haven’t made an argument.
Colewd and fifth aren’t doing so well, but at least they aren’t desperate enough to pretend that no argument has been presented.
ok, you got me. Arguments can be valid or invalid, sound or unsound. I’m awaiting an argument that is both valid and sound. Does that help?
Or you could just admit that you’re not making “that kind of argument.”
When did you present an argument that Christianity is false?
I tried to explain to keiths that Christianity acknowledges evil and claims to have an answer to it, so evil is not incompatible with Christianity. As near as I can tell he simply ignored that.
It’s a shell game for atheists.
In the OP keiths quotes me:
Then he immediately makes the following claim:
I fled from what, exactly? Arguments that Christianity is perhaps not true?
keiths has basically abandoned his initial position that one could show Christianity to be false by demonstrating that one of its essential elements is false. That would be a deductive argument.
Have we seen any deductive arguments from keiths?
Overcome evil with good.
And how’s it going so far?
What is the atheist explanation for evil?
It doesn’t exist.
I can understand why the logical problem of evil can be different from the evidential problem of evil. keiths seems to often conflate the two. This is evident in his claims that evil is logically incompatible with his “omnigod.”
We could take it to mean that keiths just doesn’t know what he’s talking about. But let’s be generous.
To appeal to evidence of evil is to admit that evil exists, else there can be no evidence of it. And that evil exists is a positive claim. But given atheism, no evil exists. Yet another deeply irrational stance.
But we can pretend that Christians have no answer.
No, this undermines that free will is not important to God for the uncreated. Not sure free will in the womb is important either 🙂
Woodbine thinks Saddam Hussein was good. Or at the very least, not evil. That’s what I take from the picture he posted. It’s nice that Woodbine can post pictures of defeated enemies. Good overcoming evil, and all.
Can Woodbine make an argument that Christianity is false?
My money is on no.
Again, it’s the opposite.
Sorry, colewd. I think this one is above your pay grade.
The fact that evil has not already been overcome is evidence against the Christian God.
I explained this in an earlier OP:
What is it with these Christians? Is the 11th commandment “Thou shalt not think rationally”?
Fmm: “There is no inherent reason that a universe should do anything at all.”
Cram an entire universe’s worth of mass into a space the diameter of a Plank length (or maybe smaller – we don’t really know) and its going to expand.
Fmm: “So the universe at the big bang already had the electro-weak force which contained within it the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force just waiting to emerge when the conditions were right .”
No, there seems to be a lot of randomness at work. Better to say it contained a single force which eventually spawned off the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces this time. There’s no telling what happened in other universes.
Fmm: “Sounds pretty awesome and complex to me. Hardly dirt simple”
Randomness adds information, in this case the number, types and strengths of the fundamental non-gravitational forces. This information is added after the Big Bang begins and is not present at time zero.
davemullenix: Of course! There were no electrons or protons at the Big Bang. Too hot for them to exist.
Fmm: “So the universe at the big bang contained within it properties that would allow electrons and protons to materialize when conditions were just right”
Or sub atomic particles completely unlike anything in our universe. Or no particles at all. Remember, there’s a lot of randomness involved. Remember too that the vast majority of all universe are chaotic hell holes.
Davemullenix: When the universe cooled even more, gravitation was able to pull hydrogen and helium atoms into stars and galaxies..
Fmm: “So the universe at the big bang contained within it all that was necessary for the emergence of gravity that would allow hydrogen and helium atoms to form into stars and galaxies.”
In this universe. Probably not in most universes, but there’s nobody there to notice.
davemullenix: Once the first generation of stars had burned up and created higher elements, rocky planets could form and conditions were finally suitably complex enough for life to begin.
Fmm: “So the universe at the big bang had already within it the makings that would at form complex life as soon as the conditions were right”
Again, this universe did and it acquired that information (or ‘the makings’) randomly after time zero.
Davemullenix: If all this is news to you, then you should stop arguing for a while and study some cosmology.
It’s not news to me not by a long shot
One of the big disadvantages of arguing with somebody who doesn’t know the basics of a subject is that they can pull weird relies out of their ignorance and they are unable to understand why they’re wrong.
I’d urge you to study cosmology, but I don’t think you ever will.
fifth, to davemullenix:
About as deep as yours had to be buried for you not to know the difference between the logical and evidential problems of evil. You’re a hoot, fifth.
Some advice: If you want to condescend to someone, make sure you know what you’re talking about first. Otherwise you’ll just make an ass of yourself, as you did here.
Mung: “Overcome evil with good.”
Well, in the case of the Christmas tsunami, the score is about 230,000 to none.
That was God showing his love for humanity.
keiths, I look forward to you addressing my arguments rather than pretending they don’t exist. 🙂
Is that an argument that Christianity is false? Lots of people died, therefore Christianity is false?
Some Christians take the account of Noah’s flood to be historical fact, an event in which all but 8 humans perished. Probably more than 230,000. But you go right ahead and argue that if 230,000 people die then Christianity must be false.
Let’s say that 6,000,000 Jews died in the holocaust. Again, far more than 230,000. Therefore Judaism is false. You good with that argument?
keiths, if he were consistent, would argue that.
wait a minute
It’s wasn’t me who tried to use the evidential problem as an argument that Christianity was false.
That was you 😉
Apparently you need a little help in that regard LOL
1) Are you actually claiming that the expansion of the universe from a singularity could occur absent any law at all?
There’s certainly no need for any complex law.
2) Are you actually claiming that galaxies, stars, planets or life are more complex than the laws and initial conditions that facilitate their origin?
Now you’re not even trying. Do you think that a living monkey is more complex than the DNA and the laws of physics that made it? Remember that you can store all of a monkey’s DNA plus a Physics text book on a single CD with room to spare while a thorough description of a single monkey kidney would fill a shelf of DVDs.
davemullenix: So, at time zero there were no stars, galaxies, planets, living things or even subatomic particles, just a lot of amorphous matter crammed into a tiny space plus a single ur-law of physics. Pretty dirt simple.
What exactly kept that amorphous matter crammed into a tiny space and then facilitated it’s eventual and relatively rapid transformation into the amazing cosmos we now see? Please be specific
Got me. Science is still trying to answer that while Conservative Christianity is just saying God did it full stop. No, I take that back. They’re just denying it happened because Jesus. I’d go over the most promising theories, but judging from past responses, it would go over your head.
From the OP:
Haha. I know the difference between a deductive argument and an inductive argument. Help me fellow Christians!
Are you, keiths, admitting that none of your alleged arguments that Christianity is false are deductive arguments? Because that would certainly explain why not a single one of your 18 OPs contained a deductive argument ending in the conclusion that Christianity is false.
Now I know how sensitive you [keiths] are to perceived dishonesty, so if one of those 18 OPs you authored does in fact make a deductive argument that reaches the conclusion that Christianity is false, be sure to point it out. Of course, if you fail to do so, don’t be surprised if I point that out. Just sayin’.
It’s pretty funny. keiths calling on Christian reinforcements. In response, other atheists show up. What’s up with that!?
Even 6,000,000 dead isn’t enough to dissuade Mung from his belief that God’s plan to defeat evil is going swimmingly.
This is you Mung….
Of course not. I would never say that.
It would take more bandwidth to thoroughly describe the sand in a bucket than needed to record the works of Shakespeare. Does that mean that bucket of sand is more complex than the works of Shakespeare?
use your head man
It was a Conservative Christian and Catholic Priest who came up with the Big Bang. The Idea was not originally popular with Atheists because it meant the the universe had a beginning with all that implies.
Do you honestly think that life is worse for the average Joe than it was in ancient Rome for example?
Woodbine appears to favor an alternative history, one in which Hitler and Stalin divide the world. What Woodbine does not have, is an argument that Christianity is false.
Furthermore, the question of why keiths isn’t arguing that Judaism is false continues to go unanswered. For surely, 6 million dead in Hitler’s holocaust is all the evidence that one could ask for that the “ominigod” of Judaism does not exist.
I’d bet that keiths even has objective empirical evidence that Islam is false and can link to his arguments concluding that Islam is false.
No, of course not.
But when we look at the course of history all objective evidence is that God’s plan to defeat evil hasn’t done anything of the sort. God could snap his fingers and eradicate evil completely in an instant…..and so we fall straight back into the arms of Epicurus.
So it was God’s plan that defeated Hitler and Stalin…..what are you talking about?
I don’t need one.
If ye have not an argument that Christianity is false then thou shalt be added to the rolls of those who have not an argument that Christianity is false.
So when in the OP keiths claims that “there have been many such arguments, and Mung has fled from a number of them,” he didn’t have in mind any such argument that you made, and since you made no such argument, I did not flee from it.
keiths appears to be flailing.
As I said earlier, this at least appears to be an argument. And even after I said so, keiths tried to make it appear as if I had not said what I had clearly said.
Many Christians admit the possibility that the account of Adam and Eve is not to be taken literally. Surely Rumraket knows this.
Further, original sin is a doctrine. One would need to establish that the doctrine is irrevocably tied to a literal Adam and Eve, and that it’s essential to Christianity. I haven’t researched it, but perhaps some Christians reject the doctrine.
Now I am going to pause here and ask how the critics of Christianity would apply this same argument to Judaism. What does Judaism have to say about Adam and Eve and is there a doctrine of original sin withing Judaism?
Because if Judaism is not false if there was no literal Adam and Eve, by what leap of logic can one say that Christianity is false if there is no literal Adam and Eve?
And if Judaism has a doctrine of original sin, why isn’t Judaism false? And if Judaism has no doctrine of original sin, by what leap of logic can one say that Christianity is false because it does have such a doctrine?
Now as near as I can tell, Rumraket made no response. I’d hate to think it’s because he was simply unwilling to admit the blatantly obvious. What conclusion can be drawn from the asking of a question?
I sleep at night.
But that’s YOUR logic Colewd, for fucks sake. He’s not actually making an appeal to popularity, he’s showing why YOUR appeal to popularity is fallacious by turning it around against you. Can you fathom this elementary concept?
YOU are the one appealing to “2 billion Christians”. He’s saying if you really think the numbers matter, then that is actually an argument against your position. Because most people aren’t Christians.
So that would be by YOUR logic. The appeal to popularity fallacy is and remains a fallacy. He was trying to make you understand WHY it is a fallacy in a way that would make it obvious to you. Turning your own principle against you should suffice to accomplish that for a rational person.
Yet with you it doesn’t seem to.
When something is absurd, there’s no need to demonstrate it is also false.
Mung, what are your arguments that Islam is false?
Wait, weren’t you just saying “who am I to judge” about Christian Atheists?
So now you immediately proceed to judging that in order to be a Christian, you must include Christ.
You heard it here first. God isn’t omnipotent.
This is quite possibly the dumbest shit I ever read.
The argument is that the Christian God, (the omnipotent, all-loving version) very likely doesn’t exist, because all-loving persons in a position to do so, would prevent the dog from eating the baby’s head. And God, being omnipotent, is in a position to do so. Technically, to be in a position where you can prevent the dog from eating the baby’s head, you don’t have to be omnipotent. Even a very limited being, like a Human, can in principle prevent such a thing from happening.
But alas, the dog did eat the baby’s head. So God didn’t intervene, why?
There are five ways out of this. Either God isn’t all-loving (didn’t care that the baby’s head got ate by the dog), or God is not omnipotent (or in some other sense was prevented from intervening), or both, or God doesn’t exist at all.
The fifth option concerns a typical ad-hoc apologetic which postulates that God could have good reasons for allowing the dog to eat the baby’s head. Christians who espouse this generally prefer to believe that God has some sort of grand comic plan where the bad stuff that happens in the world, will eventually lead to much greater goods in the future. Goods that can only happen if the bad stuff happens. That the bad stuff is necessary to reach those future unimaginable heights of goodness God has planned.
This apologetic raises the question “How do you know God has such a plan?”. They don’t, they just believe it by blind, unevidenced faith. Because it’s obviously just an ad-hoc rationalization they come up with after the fact.
“free will is not important to God for the uncreated”
Do you have any insights to the thought processes of leprechauns? How about fairies?
How could you possibly know this?
Yes that was the argument and it was soundly defeated decades ago.
It is no longer taken seriously by any philosophers worth their salt.
That you would try to bring it up again at this late date only demonstrates that you got nothing.
Maybe through discussing what an argument should consist of, we can reach some sort of agreement?
Yes, of course.
I agree that isn’t stated a formal argument.
Actually I think you’d like to think that. For my part, I just wonder why you are asking me, why another person’s question isn’t strictly speaking, an argument? I haven’t been on the record as saying “in this thread, there’s plenty of formal arguments against christianity”. So when you try to bring me to bear on highlighting this, what the hell are you trying to achieve? It looks like some sort of rhetorical diversion.
That the person asking it is looking for answers?