Religion

humblebum

(5,881 posts)

6. What a rube! It's pretty hard to say that something has been debunked, when

Sun Apr 15, 2012, 06:51 PM

Apr 2012

certainly philosophical arguments cannot be debunked simply because there is no objective proof one way or another. However, the ontological and teleological arguments are very good and certainly logical. Nonetheless, they are 'un-debunkable' as well as 'unprovable.'

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

74 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Challenge To Theists [View all] SamG Apr 2012 OP

Tnx for that waste of 1:32 minutes of my life (eom) WhatintheWorld Apr 2012 #1

I think that somehow you will manage. cleanhippie Apr 2012 #2

Well I don't make videos and I don't convert atheist. zeemike Apr 2012 #3

I think you might want to look up "special pleading". darkstar3 Apr 2012 #4

OK you caught me...spelled it wrong...I edited it. zeemike Apr 2012 #5

4 dimensional world of matter? laconicsax Apr 2012 #9

it never fails to show up. zeemike Apr 2012 #15

You can protect yourself by taking a simple preventative measure: laconicsax Apr 2012 #16

The n tama Apr 2012 #23

And making it about my not calling time a variable dimension is not? zeemike Apr 2012 #32

I'm not tama Apr 2012 #33

And thanks for that. zeemike Apr 2012 #39

There is observable striking parallel tama Apr 2012 #41

I put much of the blame on fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist in general for this zeemike Apr 2012 #44

Dimesions aren't numbered. laconicsax Apr 2012 #51

As a thought experiment tama Apr 2012 #57

That is the point. laconicsax Apr 2012 #62

The point was really tama Apr 2012 #64

Sorry tama, you don't get to decide what my point was. laconicsax Apr 2012 #65

There are also cylindrical and spherical coordinates in three dimensions FarCenter Apr 2012 #67

Let's not confuse the issue with more facts, shall we? laconicsax Apr 2012 #68

No, tama Apr 2012 #72

Sorry I will never change it zeemike Apr 2012 #30

If you're unwilling to make an effort, don't complain when it impacts you. laconicsax Apr 2012 #52

And I never have before. zeemike Apr 2012 #54

If you're afraid to share an idea because it'll be ridiculed, maybe it's a dumb idea. laconicsax Apr 2012 #55

Your ridicule is just dumb nt. tama Apr 2012 #58

Good one! What's next? "I'm paper, you're glue?" laconicsax Apr 2012 #61

Well tama Apr 2012 #27

So there is matter and anti matter. zeemike Apr 2012 #34

Antimatter tama Apr 2012 #40

I am sure they do zeemike Apr 2012 #45

That's like saying logic only operates in the southern hemisphere... Silent3 Apr 2012 #17

The southern hemisphere is a material concept zeemike Apr 2012 #35

You're confusing physical laws and logic Silent3 Apr 2012 #42

Logic is all based on what we know of the physical world zeemike Apr 2012 #43

You've logically concluded that there must be worlds without logic? Silent3 Apr 2012 #46

Logic is not a physical object that exists outside of our mind zeemike Apr 2012 #53

Did logic exist before it was invented by the Greeks? (or the Chinese or Indians?) FarCenter Apr 2012 #56

Or tama Apr 2012 #60

They need a physical substrate for recording and processing symbols FarCenter Apr 2012 #66

I have no answer for that. zeemike Apr 2012 #71

Logic is a whole hell of a lot more consistent... Silent3 Apr 2012 #63

I am arguing for being open to other possibilities zeemike Apr 2012 #69

What narrative goes like that? eqfan592 Apr 2012 #70

No the last thing I want to do is expand this zeemike Apr 2012 #73

Whenever someone wants people to be "open to other possibilities"... Silent3 Apr 2012 #74

Very good tama Apr 2012 #59

Dimensions tama Apr 2012 #28

I read a book many years ago zeemike Apr 2012 #29

Mathematicians tama Apr 2012 #31

I have never really understood imaginary numbers zeemike Apr 2012 #36

Real numbers tama Apr 2012 #38

Or quaternions and octonions FarCenter Apr 2012 #50

What a rube! It's pretty hard to say that something has been debunked, when humblebum Apr 2012 #6

Two problems: 1. You're engaging in the special pleading fallacy. darkstar3 Apr 2012 #8

"in light of current knowledge." - There is no current humblebum Apr 2012 #11

Current knowledge shows that both arguments are no more or less than supposition. darkstar3 Apr 2012 #12

Yes, the Emperor's invisible clothes are so finely woven...only rigid people PassingFair Apr 2012 #10

All you have to do to debunk a supposed "proof"... Silent3 Apr 2012 #18

Ontological and teleological arguments do not arrive at an humblebum Apr 2012 #19

Well, there you go then. Silent3 Apr 2012 #20

If you live in that very narrow world where that very narrow mindset humblebum Apr 2012 #21

Those tired old theological arguments... Silent3 Apr 2012 #22

In your very narrow world and narrow mindset, that's humblebum Apr 2012 #24

Yes, I keeping forgetting... Silent3 Apr 2012 #25

Challenges are for people who might be inclined Speck Tater Apr 2012 #7

Then what's the point of discussion at all? trotsky Apr 2012 #26

Bingo! Speck Tater Apr 2012 #47

Huh Silent3 Apr 2012 #48

Oh, yeah. That too. Thanks for reminding me! :) nt Speck Tater Apr 2012 #49

I have a challenge. rug Apr 2012 #13

:) Jim__ Apr 2012 #14

He gets extra mega-points edhopper Apr 2012 #37