The Atheists Paradox

[descarte]

Of course i think your the one to give evidence of your first claim cuz it just a presumption

you are taking of good and evil but what is good and what is evil?

 

[Ishmael]

Of course i think your the one to give evidence of your first claim cuz it just a presumption

Do you believe that God does not exist and you can support your belief or you are just a blind non theists who can not support her/his belief? You non theists provide no evidences, just excuses for why you shouldn't have to justify your position of 'No God exists'.

Intellectual laziness is not evidence.

 

[Ishmael]

you are taking of good and evil but what is good and what is evil?

If you doesn't know what is good or evil, then what were you trying so desperately to refute?

 

[descarte]

Dismissals are not refutations. You lack any refutations.

You lack any evidence or arguments to justify your blind non theist faith.

I am trying to argue that neither theist nor atheist cannot give a rational account of whether God exist or not,both claims are weak

 

[descarte]

I am trying to argue that neither theist nor atheist cannot give a rational account of whether God exist or not,both claims are weak

You cannot argue from posterior to a prior,you lack legitimacy considering logic

 

[Ishmael]

I am trying to argue that neither theist nor atheist cannot give a rational account of whether God exist or not,both claims are weak

My moral argument is the evidence of existence of God. Refute if you can.

 

[descarte]

My moral argument is the evidence of existence of God. Refute if you can.

Moral argument can never be the evidence of the existence of supreme being. We do not have moral objective in the sense you are arguing. Our moral beliefs can be explained in naturalistic account. This means that the environment we are born have great impact on our values.
Anyway can you give me an example of any moral value which you consider ontologically objective?

 

[descarte]

Do you believe that God does not exist and you can support your belief or you are just a blind non theists who can not support her/his belief? You non theists provide no evidences, just excuses for why you shouldn't have to justify your position of 'No God exists'.

Intellectual laziness is not evidence.

I am not arguing in favor of theistic or atheistic view, what i put across is that both views cannot give the evidence of either god exists or not. You argument does not hold water in whatever sense. In short the argument is full of ad hominem nothing else.

 

[descarte]

So, you can only die when you are born?

Of course a human being die when he or she is born, denial of that causing a serious problem of language.

 

[descarte]

If you doesn't know what is good or evil, then what were you trying so desperately to refute?

I think you have not answered the question what is good? and what is evil You do not need to dodge the question. Can you answer please?

 

[Ishmael]

Moral argument can never be the evidence of the existence of supreme being. We do not have moral objective in the sense you are arguing. Our moral beliefs can be explained in naturalistic account. This means that the environment we are born have great impact on our values.
Anyway can you give me an example of any moral value which you consider ontologically objective?

Unless you can demonstrate that God has no morally sufficient reasons to permit suffering and free-willed evil, then you have no evidence whatsoever. You have no excuse. You cannot seriously engage my evidence, much less refute it.

FYI: There is no evil if God doesn't exist - only us chemical animals doing whatever chemicals cause.

 

[Ishmael]

I am not arguing in favor of theistic or atheistic view, what i put across is that both views cannot give the evidence of either god exists or not. You argument does not hold water in whatever sense. In short the argument is full of ad hominem nothing else.

Here is another argument for God, impugn if you can: Ontological argument – God is a metaphysically necessary Being. Since God's attributes are metaphysically possible, and all metaphysical possibilities are also actual, God must be actual. Refute my argument if you can.

 

[Ishmael]

Of course a human being die when he or she is born, denial of that causing a serious problem of language.

Nope that is not true, you can even die while in your mother's stomach.

 

[Ishmael]

I think you have not answered the question what is good? and what is evil You do not need to dodge the question. Can you answer please?

If we are 100% chemical animals according to non theism belief and our chemicals cause child rape, why is child rape morally wrong?

Why is the child rapist morally culpable when he has no free-will choice?

The answer of those questions, defines "good". Now answer me.

 

[descarte]

Unless you can demonstrate that God has no morally sufficient reasons to permit suffering and free-willed evil, then you have no evidence whatsoever. You have no excuse. You cannot seriously engage my evidence, much less refute it.

FYI: There is no evil if God doesn't exist - only us chemical animals doing whatever chemicals cause.

Give me an example of moral value which you think is the ontologically objective

 

[descarte]

Here is another argument for God, impugn if you can: Ontological argument – God is a metaphysically necessary Being. Since God’s attributes are metaphysically possible, and all metaphysical possibilities are also actual, God must be actual. Refute my argument if you can.

Metaphysics is merely a non sense,can you verify your statements.
you are just using terms and justify yourself without give us a verification of the terms you are using. I can advice you that you better read Immanuel Kant's critique of pure reason. you will understand better what I am talking about and you will see that you argument of sufficient reason is just fallacious.

 

[descarte]

My moral argument is the evidence of existence of God. Refute if you can.

i have refuted it, it seems you do not get it. you first premise in your argument is not correct. if you based your conclusion on wrong premises then the conclusion will be false you. This is the way deductive argument goes. Anyway, in whatever the case one cannot hold that moral objectivity exists because of the supreme being,that proposition is wrong because there is presumption.
In fact you cannot take that statement to be right because you have not verified if it is impossible for Human beings to have objective morality without considering God. It is just a wrong claim that is why many moral philosophers deny the connection of supreme being and moral values.

 

[descarte]

Unless you can demonstrate that God has no morally sufficient reasons to permit suffering and free-willed evil, then you have no evidence whatsoever. You have no excuse. You cannot seriously engage my evidence, much less refute it.

FYI: There is no evil if God doesn't exist - only us chemical animals doing whatever chemicals cause.

You claim is just wrong,i say it over and over again

 

[descarte]

If we are 100% chemical animals according to non theism belief and our chemicals cause child rape, why is child rape morally wrong?

Why is the child rapist morally culpable when he has no free-will choice?

The answer of those questions, defines "good". Now answer me.

you are just about the bush. answer ma question.you have not said anything concerning ma question

 

[descarte]

Unless you can demonstrate that God has no morally sufficient reasons to permit suffering and free-willed evil, then you have no evidence whatsoever. You have no excuse. You cannot seriously engage my evidence, much less refute it.

FYI: There is no evil if God doesn't exist - only us chemical animals doing whatever chemicals cause. [/QUOTE
Man i just wanna tell you that the argument of sufficient reason by Leibniz where you based on is also logically wrong as Immanuel Kant pointed out that there is no way one can move from a posterior to a prior.