This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

using the "different plain of existence" argument is just ignorant

#1Forte89Posted 7/15/2011 12:01:45 AM
basically those who use that comfort themselves with "since god can never be investigated his existence can't be proven but his existence can't be dis proven" its such a cop-out to actually having something to back up their claims.
#2xXxCroNoxXxPosted 7/15/2011 3:07:06 AM
It's a fine argument, but the people who use it tend to be hypocrites. You cannot say that God is on a different plane of existence and not beholden to our laws of physics and logic, then immediately turn around and presume to speak about what God is or what God does. If God truly is on a completely different plane of existence, than any logical defense for his existence or nature is by default incorrect. The closest thing to an accurate statement you could then make about God is that no accurate statement can be made about God. To quote the Vedas, God can run without legs and catch without hands. He could have created the world without creating it, and he could exist without existing. meaningless nonsense? absolutely, but its also the logical conclusion of the argument some people are trying to make.
#3KNessJMPosted 7/15/2011 7:41:59 AM
This topic title is going to bug me until it goes away.

PLANE of existence....*twitch*
---
Quote of the Week: "He who is attached to things will suffer much."
#4actarusPosted 7/15/2011 8:02:15 AM
It is not the lack logical evidence but the resistance to accept a that Universe has a beginning and it was a violation of the Law of Thermodynamics.
(Because then must they admit that the Universe has a supernatural cause.)

http://mbbc.us/creation/inquiry/debate_first_law.htm

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/how-to-defend-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-just-like-william-lane-craig/

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/263-religion/59704863
---
Even the smallest star twinkles in the dark
#5squareandrarePosted 7/15/2011 8:02:21 AM
"God of the gaps" is a powerful basis for rationalizing the belief in total nonsense. When they ran out of physical gaps (people used to think the sky was the heavens), they just switched to abstract gaps.
---
"Physics is not a religion. If it were, we'd have a much easier time raising money."
-- Leon Lederman
#6OrangeWizardPosted 7/15/2011 8:09:54 AM(edited)
Claiming that God did something because it was the best option and claiming that God SHOULD have done something else are two very different claims.

One assumes, from God's own communication with us, that he is Omnipotent and Omniscient
The other assumes that he is no smarter than the person making the claim.

This is when we usually bring up this "God is unknowably high" point. It doesn't backfire on us because we're basing all of our knowledge about God on things that he's actually told us: Things he has let us know.
---
"this game is about reality. ... when you fire a gun you are not like "what is this am i shooting sausages?""
-General_Dong on Black Ops
#7KNessJMPosted 7/15/2011 8:16:19 AM
"God is unknowably high"

That would actually explain a LOT. He's just so stoned it's beyond human comprehension.
---
Quote of the Week: "He who is attached to things will suffer much."
#8Forte89(Topic Creator)Posted 7/15/2011 9:33:28 AM
^that sounds lovely.
#9OrangeWizardPosted 7/15/2011 10:11:22 AM
So, no opposing arguments then? Just immature jokes?
---
"this game is about reality. ... when you fire a gun you are not like "what is this am i shooting sausages?""
-General_Dong on Black Ops
#10ledzepfan15Posted 7/15/2011 10:18:03 AM
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/how-to-defend-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-just-like-william-lane-craig/

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam

This site is like the wikipedia of apologetics and counter-apologetics.
---
"If you think, you are late. If you are late, you use strength. If you use strength, you tire. And if you tire, you die." - Saulo Ribeiro