|
|
Post by pieisgood on Mar 6, 2004 11:10:35 GMT -5
okay, this is a game I wanted to try out. I don't know how easy/hard/if it will work/whatever; I have never tried it before.
Here's how it works: Someone will provide a proof which will prove something which isn't quite true. They will do this by putting a tiny bit of Crap Logic(TM) into the argument. EVerybody else's goal is to find the glitch and prove it wrong.
Anybody who has one can post an argument.
I'll start with one:
(1) If an all-powerful God exists, then he could make life better for us at no cost to himself.
(2) If God truly loves us all a whole bunch, like the bible says, he would want us to be happy.
(3) God could easily make us happy, based on (1), with no cost to himself. However, he doesn't.
(4) If he doesn't when he could have, then either an all-powerful God doesn't exist OR God doesn't truly love us all.
(5) Therefore, we can conclude that an All-powerful God and a God that loves us all are mutually exclusive.
...but (5) is not in fact true. I worked a small glitch into the argument. Your goal is to find it. Go.
Have fun,
-pie
|
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Mar 6, 2004 12:46:36 GMT -5
Well, as I see it, the argument fails to prove the necessity that an all-powerful God that loves us must act to make us happy, but then assumes that necessity has been proven in formulating the argument. It is possible that an all-powerful God loves us, but wants us to work things out for ourselves to be happy. That breaks down the binary argument.
Incidentally, it was originally an idea to formulate essays for this site based on debunkings of classical God-proofs. I've written one myself about Anselm's "ontological proof", but there are many others out there. It might not be a bad idea to work them in here, and challenge our members to find the reasons that Thomas Aquinas' five proofs of God (for example) don't work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Griffey on Mar 6, 2004 14:51:43 GMT -5
HMM, I wonder why Yaw was the first one to post here, maybe it was the title, it probably stood out to him like a red flag...  pie, I have a few things. 1.) What if God doesn't love us that much? Maybe just muy pequeno...2.) Some people are happy! Not everyone is miserable. So perhaps he's choosy. 3.) Like Yaw says, why does God HAVE to do anything? 4.) Perhaps God is not like the Bible says, and either doesn't love EVERYone, or isn't all powerful. 5.) Maybe we're better off the way we are and just don't know it, and God is being loving by letting us be. The words "crap logic" can't seriously be trademarked. (Unless Yaw has them. ;D sorry im picking on you but you should hear yourself in the Mafia games!) |
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Mar 6, 2004 15:36:27 GMT -5
Well, Griffey, that is where the trademark comes from. (Mafia games, not myself. Far better players than I.) And the red flag was the God-related proof.  |
|
|
|
Post by Griffey on Mar 6, 2004 21:11:06 GMT -5
Oh, well, that makes sense. Har har. *sticks sign to own forehead that says "naive"* Sorry Yaw ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by pieisgood on Mar 6, 2004 23:43:05 GMT -5
HMM, I wonder why Yaw was the first one to post here, maybe it was the title, it probably stood out to him like a red flag... pie, I have a few things. 1.) What if God doesn't love us that much? Maybe just muy pequeno... wouldn't he want us to be as happy as possible? This is certainly debatable2.) Some people are happy! Not everyone is miserable. So perhaps he's choosy. ...but nobody is 100% happy, which is what i was looking for.3.) Like Yaw says, why does God HAVE to do anything? 4.) Perhaps God is not like the Bible says, and either doesn't love EVERYone, or isn't all powerful. perhaps, but if he did then that still supports my argument that him loving everybody a whole bunch and him being all-powerful being mutually exclusive5.) Maybe we're better off the way we are and just don't know it, and God is being loving by letting us be. yeah, this is what I was looking for. I made the assumption that God would grant us a whole buncha gifts to make us happy instead of perhaps letting the human race do better on it's own. Good job, you and yaw.The words "crap logic" can't seriously be trademarked. (Unless Yaw has them. ;D sorry im picking on you but you should hear yourself in the Mafia games!) |
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Mar 7, 2004 0:34:57 GMT -5
Well what i hate is when poeple say "God saved me" and whatnot, he has like what millions of billions of poeple why would he care about you?
|
|
|
|
Post by pieisgood on Mar 7, 2004 11:53:35 GMT -5
;D well put, non.
Yaw... I haven't heard about the essays, although they seem good for this thread. They didn't come up on Google... do you know where I can find them?
here's another crap-logic proof that disproves a large part of Christianity.
a) there are bible contradictions
b) According to the bible, God wrote the bible.
c) According to the bible, God never lies.
d) If the bible is true, then we can conclude that God did write the bible, but then since God never lies to us, the contradictions prove this line of thinking wrong; If God wrote a false document that he gave to us, then he lied to us. Therefore the Bible cannot be 100% true.
e) If the bible is even a little bit false, then God can't have written the Bible, therefore a huge chunk of Christian belief if proved false.
f) therefore, the Bible must not be all true, and from that we can conclude that a large part of Christianity is false.
good luck,
-pie
|
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Mar 7, 2004 14:27:56 GMT -5
pieisgood Actually, Maverick put what we have so far on the Questions & Answers page. So far it consists only of my Anselm argument, although AuntieSocial at one time was going to write an extensive essay about Pascal's Wager. I gave Maverick summaries of St. Augustine's proof, and the five Aquinas proofs, so if he still has them on file they should be available on request. (I'm not sure if I have them anymore -- I can check.) As for the new argument -- is that really the Christian position? I know the Jewish position is that the bible is God-inspired (sort of a God-given template that was filled in later), not literally written by God. It's pretty clear the prophet books were written by the prophets themselves. So I'm not convinced b is a valid statement, at least not in general. (There probably are some really fundamentalist churches that go by the "God wrote the bible", though.) The last logical leap also goes too far. Christianity is a creative interpretation of the bible. (So is Judaism.) You don't see slavery anymore, for example, even though the bible does contain rules regarding it. So attacking the bible itself doesn't really make much of an argument against its interpretation. These are pretty well-thought out bad arguments, though. You should try them on fundamentalists some time. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by pieisgood on Mar 7, 2004 16:08:28 GMT -5
I was under the impression that the bible claimed that it was god's word that god told his advocates who then wrote it down. So he effectively lied to his advocates, which doesn't make sense. I may be wrong, but taht wasn't the thing I was looking for.
THe problem lies in the way I concluded step d.
-pie
|
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Mar 7, 2004 18:25:23 GMT -5
... although AuntieSocial at one time was going to write an extensive essay about Pascal's Wager. Ack! Thanks for the reminder, Yaw! I have my research notes here somewhere ... as well as a few other writing projects I have on the go ... I got caught up in trying to get one of my Op/Ed pieces published (to no avail) and started working on my website and plumb forgot about the Pascal's Wager essay. |
|
