seeds wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:22 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 3:56 am
seeds wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:40 pm
[....]...
...The bottom line is that you can arbitrarily
"propose" that...
...however, that doesn't necessarily mean that the proposal is factual.
You are cherry picking.
You did not take into account my following responses,
viewtopic.php?p=368483#p368483
and any relevant that follows in that thread.
In the post you linked to, the following statements were made:
seeds wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:42 pm
I’m sorry, but all you are doing is presenting strawman arguments that have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not God could be real.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:15 am
I do not think so.
You have to explain why 'strawman.'
Well, let me explain it for you right now...
In that particular thread you asserted the following as being supportive proof as to why the existence of God is impossible...
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:28 am
...an inferior empirical god can be easily proven to be inferior and thus easily ridiculed and they even killed by other believers who believed in a superior God than which no greater exists. Note Islam where Muslims destroyed all the idols in the Kaaba and reinstate their superior monotheistic God. It is the same with Christians condemning the 'inferior' gods of others.
In other words, what you are basically saying is that because humans are idiots, it therefore follows that God cannot be real.
Nope you got it wrong, and that is your strawman.
Note my syllogism is not a strawman,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
I did not misinterpret your proposition, rather I presented a valid and sound argument. The onus is on you to counter it. Your accusation itself that my syllogism is a strawman, is your strawman.
Your 'because humans are idiots' is also a strawman since I never propose such a point in my argument.
My point is all humans has an inherent drive for perfection as driven by an inherent existential crisis.
It is the existential crisis that drives the majority of humans to ultimately a perfect God.
If you don't claim a perfect God, then your God is an imperfect God which is vulnerable to be ridiculed by those who claim their God is perfect.
And that, my dear Veritas, is a
strawman argument.
I even went so far as to formalize your strawman argument in my own little syllogism...
seeds wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:18 pm
- P1. Veritas Aequitas (a hardcore atheist) believes that under no circumstances (neither empirical nor transcendent) could there exist a “real” God.
P2. As proof of the veracity of P1, Veritas Aequitas uses the example of theists being prone to ridiculing gods that appear to be lesser than the one they believe in.
C. Ergo, there can be no “real” God.
What you are relying on as being proof of your claim that
"God is an Impossibility," is the epitome of a strawman argument that you erected and then destroyed while completely ignoring the fact that it has absolutely no relevance to the question of whether or not God actually exists.
Indeed, that is what "strawman arguments" are all about, in that they are constructed and then destroyed by their creators under the false assumption that they (the strawmen) are somehow relevant to the original premise when, in truth, they aren't.
Your above misinterpretation of my argument is the real strawman_ing.
Furthermore, in that same post you linked to, you then went on to say this...
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:15 am
As far as I have known, I have countered all arguments against my premises and I have not conceded to any.
Tell me where if I have missed your counter to my P2. I will be very eager to counter your views.
Unfortunately, relying on strawmen to fend off your opponent's rebuttals can hardly be deemed a proper means for countering all arguments against your thread premise.
Moreover, never at any time did you even try to provide an adequate counter to this...
seeds wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:42 pm
...if the entire enterprise of the present state of humanity’s take on theism was to be proven false, it still would not be evidence (or proof) of the impossibility of God’s existence.
In fact, in a later post, in response to my attacks on your use of strawman proposals, you not only accused my little syllogism of being an
"...ad hominin and below the belt...," but you actually (in the most non self-reflecting manner imaginable) had the brazen temerity to offer-up this little gem...
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:47 am
Making statements do not mean you are right.
Dear lord, can there be a more obvious demonstration of someone shooting themself in the foot with a gun (make that a cannon) loaded with pure irony?
_______
Note this OP is merely the "final nail" to the coffin 'that God does not exist'.
My whole series of my claim that 'It is impossible for a God to be real' rest upon the following;
- 1. Kant's justifications & 'proof' [philosophically] that God is a transcendental idea that is illusory which cannot be empirically real. [as in the whole of the CPR].
2. Kant's justification & 'proof', it is impossible to prove the existence of the ontological, cosmological, physio-theological God. CPR B611 - B659.
3. The argument in
God is an Impossibility to be empirically real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
as the 'final nail'.
Point 2 above is a counter to your "is it impossible to prove the non-existence of God." Claiming a God exists is like claiming a circle is a square at the same time and same sense.
Thus it is a non-starter to resort to 'impossibility to prove the non-existence of a God, which is actually a strawman to counter my claim.
Resorting to asking 'proving a negative' is also a desperate escapism from rationality to cover for your desperate existential crisis.
The point is one can only THINK [not imagine] of a God for regulative purposes but impossible to reify such a thought of God constitutively.
If you are only allowed to THINK of a God, why not think of a perfect God rather than an imperfect God which is vulnerable to be condemned as a idiot God relatively.