Re: Odds on E.T. shorten : Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:42 pm  

Don't forget, we are seeing some of these planets as they were thousands, if not millions of years ago, so they may be as different now as earth is compared to the dinosaur era.

Re: Odds on E.T. shorten : Sun Jan 15, 2012 2:58 pm  

Chief Stinkwort wrote:

Stand-Offish wrote:

:lol:
Are you are getting a feel for how easy it is too argue the case on God's side?
It's pimps!
God made logic for Man, but he kept a special kind of logic for himself in a cookie jar, and you're not having any.

TBH It's pretty easy to argue the case for or against the existence of God, the impossible part is winning the argument with someone who's already made up their mind.

It's only easy to argue the case for the existence of God if you choose to omit minor components like logic and evidence from your argument.

As for your second point, it's bollox. At least in the case of those who don't believe. I don't know a single atheist who wouldn't change their opinion tomorrow if compelling evidence of God's existence came to light. Theists, on the other hand...

Re: Odds on E.T. shorten : Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:25 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

It's only easy to argue the case for the existence of God if you choose to omit minor components like logic and evidence from your argument.

As for your second point, it's bollox. At least in the case of those who don't believe. I don't know a single atheist who wouldn't change their opinion tomorrow if compelling evidence of God's existence came to light. Theists, on the other hand...

And yet theists would argue otherwise. That their logic is often false or flawed is an irrelevance to them. Thus Anselm and Descartes still enjoy popularity among believers despite the clear paucity of ontological 'reasoning'.
It's not good enough just to say the arguments lack logical or empirical credibility. They have to be countered with better logic.

On your second point, which I believe to be critical of mine, you should be more careful before you use words like 'bollox'. The argument is made on an (albeit unstated but at least to me self-evident) premise that as yet there is no compelling evidence of the existence of a supreme being. In this light my original statement still holds true.

Maybe if I'd said that 'in the light of science and logic it is as easy to correctly argue against the existence of God as it is to argue for the existence of God in the light of ignorance and superstition', then we will find common ground.

Re: Odds on E.T. shorten : Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:52 pm  

Chief Stinkwort wrote:

And yet theists would argue otherwise. That their logic is often false or flawed is an irrelevance to them.

I disagree. Most theists I have discussed the matter with don't even make the pretence that logic or evidence are important. They see blind faith - in the face of all available evidence - as a virtue. And whilst the few who do try to use logical arguments may consider it irrelevant that their logic is flawed, that does not make their argument any more credible.

Chief Stinkwort wrote:

It's not good enough to just to say the arguments lack logical or empirical credibility. They have to be countered with better logic.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here. Any argument that is based on flawed logic (or no logic at all) is fairly easy to counter.

Chief Stinkwort wrote:

On your second point, which I believe to be critical of mine, you should be more carefully before you use words like 'bollox'. The argument is made on an (albeit unstated but at least to me self-evident) premise that as yet there is no compelling evidence of the existence of a supreme being. My argument therefore still holds true.

Only in the way that if you take the recourse to facts and evidence away from any argument, it becomes 'easy' to argue in favour of either side.

Chief Stinkwort wrote:

Maybe if I'd said that 'in the light of science and logic it is as easy to correctly argue against the existence of God as it is to argue for the existence of God in the light of ignorance and superstition', then we will find common ground.

That's true for any argument, about any subject.

Re: Odds on E.T. shorten : Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:31 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

I disagree. Most theists I have discussed the matter with don't even make the pretence that logic or evidence are important. They see blind faith - in the face of all available evidence - as a virtue. And whilst the few who do try to use logical arguments may consider it irrelevant that their logic is flawed, that does not make their argument any more credible.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here. Any argument that is based on flawed logic (or no logic at all) is fairly easy to counter.

Except in the case of blind faith, as you argue yourself in your first point. I wouldn't argue that their arguments are credible, but getting them to see or agree to it is an entirely different matter.

Rock God X wrote:

Only in the way that if you take the recourse to facts and evidence away from any argument, it becomes 'easy' to argue in favour of either side.

Exactly. (as above)

Rock God X wrote:

That's true for any argument, about any subject.

Agreed, but it's particular pertinent to metaphysical arguments.

Re: Odds on E.T. shorten : Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:11 pm  

Chief Stinkwort wrote:

Rock God X wrote:

I disagree. Most theists I have discussed the matter with don't even make the pretence that logic or evidence are important. They see blind faith - in the face of all available evidence - as a virtue. And whilst the few who do try to use logical arguments may consider it irrelevant that their logic is flawed, that does not make their argument any more credible.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here. Any argument that is based on flawed logic (or no logic at all) is fairly easy to counter.

Except in the case of blind faith, as you argue yourself in your first point. I wouldn't argue that their arguments are credible, but getting them to see or agree to it is an entirely different matter.

Rock God X wrote:

Only in the way that if you take the recourse to facts and evidence away from any argument, it becomes 'easy' to argue in favour of either side.

Exactly. (as above)

Rock God X wrote:

That's true for any argument, about any subject.

Agreed, but it's particular pertinent to metaphysical arguments.

So your original post maybe ought to have said:

"It's pretty easy to make a sound argument against the existence of God, and it's easy to make a poor, illogical argument for the existence of God that is unsupported by facts or evidence. What's impossible is getting a theist to change his mind because he's already chosen to ignore the evidence in favour of his own belief."

I guess my problem with your first post was that you seemed to be implying that either position was equal to the other, and that both sides were likely to be equally stubborn when it came to changing their opinions.

Re: Odds on E.T. shorten : Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:38 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

So your original post maybe ought to have said:

"It's pretty easy to make a sound argument against the existence of God, and it's easy to make a poor, illogical argument for the existence of God that is unsupported by facts or evidence. What's impossible is getting a theist to change his mind because he's already chosen to ignore the evidence in favour of his own belief."

I guess my problem with your first post was that you seemed to be implying that either position was equal to the other, and that both sides were likely to be equally stubborn when it came to changing their opinions.

Perhaps I could have made my own position clearer in the original post. No implication was intended as to the rights and wrongs of the argument, merely the facility of having the argument. It is just as easy for the superstitious to argue a case out of pure belief, however irrational that belief may be, as it is for a materialist to argue through sound reason and science.

Your perceived inplicaton has however elicited, (in my view anyway), an enjoyable little exchange.

Re: Odds on E.T. shorten : Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:07 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

It's only easy to argue the case for the existence of God if you choose to omit minor components like logic and evidence from your argument

Exactly!
Which was the entire point of my foolery.
Am I wasting my time?

Re: Odds on E.T. shorten : Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:33 am  

Stand-Offish wrote:

Rock God X wrote:

It's only easy to argue the case for the existence of God if you choose to omit minor components like logic and evidence from your argument

Exactly!
Which was the entire point of my foolery.
Am I wasting my time?

Well I saw what you were trying to do. Can't speak for anyone else though...

Re: Odds on E.T. shorten : Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:46 am  

Chief Stinkwort wrote:

Perhaps I could have made my own position clearer in the original post. No implication was intended as to the rights and wrongs of the argument, merely the facility of having the argument. It is just as easy for the superstitious to argue a case out of pure belief, however irrational that belief may be, as it is for a materialist to argue through sound reason and science.

Your perceived inplicaton has however elicited, (in my view anyway), an enjoyable little exchange.

I now understand what you were trying to say, but I'm still a little confused as to the point you were trying to make in saying it. Doesn't it go without saying that it's easy to make an argument in favour of any preposterous position, provided that it's not a particularly strong argument?

Isn't it a bit like saying that it's easy to play chess, as long as you don't mind losing all the time?