There can be no real argument

Since objective moral values and duties do exist, God must also exist. The argument is not claiming that people who don't believe in God cannot do kind things or that atheists are generally morally worse people that religious people are. The argument is claiming that the only reason such kind actions can be thought of as truly being morally good in any real or objective sense is that the atheist is wrong about God.

There can be no real argument

That most ideas supporting atheism merely attempt to invalidate ideas supporting the existence of God.

There can be no real argument

That the idea that God isn't real because "an idea that God exists lacks validity" is a circular idea lacking validity. It is like saying that if God exists, the color blue is red, and so if the color blue is not red, God does not exist, as though colors even had anything to do with it.

If I said God is real because he has made it known to me that he is real, you could reason that I was telling the truth, that I am mistaken, or that I am lying.

None of these three arguments, however, support the idea God isn't real, though one does support the idea God is real. There is, therefore, no argument supporting the idea that God is not real, where there are arguments supporting the idea God is real.

This argument could not go the other way, either, as there would be no way for one to declare with truth there is no God, for the only one that could do that would be God.

I propose there is no valid argument supporting the idea God isn't real. : DebateReligion

I would say that the majority of people who are atheist argue that because no one can provide reason there is a God, therefore is no God. I say to this that there is more reason to believe in God than there is to believe there is no God, as there is less reason to believe there is no God than to believe there is a God.

Sorry to those I miss, I will review all comments periodically to make sure I don't ignore people, it just may take time. This attempt at explaining the idea I'm proposing includes many of the responses to the arguments people have been offering, and explains the idea more clearly and as it's evolved.

I'll still try to get to every comment, but there are honestly a lot of comments saying the same thing, or saying something that is not relative to the topic I am proposing. As a side note, please do not leave the same comment at different places, it sort of creates chaos.

I also would have it be clear at this point that I am in no way suggesting that I have evidence proving whether God is real or not, or that I am not claiming God is real, or that i'm claiming God is not real, and to view my argument as such being a claim is to not understand the essence of the idea I'm proposing, and to ask for evidence or proof shows you do not understand the logic proposed here.

I thought I would be able to, and that it would just take a long time, but I was mistaken. So I won't be promising to respond to everyone starting now. I apologize to whoever this inconveniences, it was not my intention.

I have learned much, however, given the debates I have taken part in, and learned mostly that my proposal is at best part of a complete argument, and is not itself complete.

There can be no real argument

It therefore is kind of pointless on it's own, which is part of the reason I will not be attempting to complete the argument with everyone who points out why this proposal is incomplete. I will rather attempt to form a complete proposal stating with logic the things that must be, instead of stating what is in no regard to what that means.

I hope to speak to people more on this matter when that time comes, that I am ready to unveil a completed proposal regarding the matter of God's existence. University of London Common Law Reasoning Institutions Essay Title: “There can be no real argument about it: judges make law.

The declaratory theory is more or less nonsense.” Student Number: Candidate Number: Historically there are lots of arguments by the philosophers and the critics that judges make law or not.

Sep 01,  · Parmenides' argument can be refuted the same way we refute Zeno, the calculus of variation. but the time before that fraction of a second might be infinite when there's no other point of reference.

On the notion of change, I interpret it as a matter of thinking of causality that we must abide to in order to feel as free agents Author: The Skeptical Philosopher.

There is no inherent value to the Bible, Quran or any other religious text; these documents are not self-authenticating in any way. In fact, many factual inaccuracies and inconsistencies can be found within religious texts themselves. Descartes formulates this argument in many different ways, which has led many scholars to believe there are several different real distinction arguments.

However, it is more accurate to consider these formulations as different versions of one and the same argument. The cultural differnces argument provides good reason to believe its conclusion.

false. The cultural differences argument is sound. then there is no real basis for morality; morality is arbitrary. Under the Divine Command Theory of ethics, there can be no genuine doubt as .

There is currently no evidence to suggest that miracles truly exist. In reality, there are several underlying explanations behind most miracles, for example: - The event is statistically unlikely, and its unlikeliness has caused some .

The Skeptical Philosopher: Parmenides refutation of change