Can somebody pls critique my ongoing discussion..

RFCA
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:08 pm

Can somebody pls critique my ongoing discussion..

Post by RFCA » Sun May 31, 2009 10:58 pm

Hello!

I'm am currently locked in a discussion with an atheist who seems to be skillful with logic. Everytime I would make my theistic points, he would spew out charges of fallacies...usually Red Herring and Weak Analogy.
Unfortunately I'm neither a logician nor a philosopher. My faith and belief in the existence of God is not at all shaken but I'm
somewhat frustrated by the 'logical' roadblocks this opponent is throwing my way -- that I am not able to successfully get my points across.

I hope my wiser brothers and sisters here can critique my ongoing discussion. I firmly believe that Christian theism is logical but I seem to fail to present it as such while at the same time expose that atheism is illogical.

Here's the link to the discussion...my id is richie_fca.
http://philippineatheists.org/forum/vie ... php?t=1305

God bless.

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Can somebody pls critique my ongoing discussion..

Post by TK » Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:57 am

Hi RFCA-

perhaps you should stop casting pearls before swine. just a thought. the person you are arguing with does not accept the supernatural. he will not accept that God is a Spirit. He will not accept that God was uncreated. I should say that he will not accept these things w/o a revelation from the Lord. I have had similar conversations with atheists like this and they are generally unfruitful.

TK

Jill
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:16 pm

Post by Jill » Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:34 pm

.
Last edited by Jill on Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
christopher
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:50 pm

Re: Can somebody pls critique my ongoing discussion..

Post by christopher » Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:03 pm

It's also possible that he's right. If you don't know the terms, you won't know whether he's making a legitimate argument or not. Here's a list of logical fallacies that you can familiarize yourself with and polish your arguments a bit.

http://www.forceofdestiny.co.uk/fallacies/Straker.html

Hope that helps.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Can somebody pls critique my ongoing discussion..

Post by Paidion » Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:07 pm

RFCA, these guys seem to have succeeded in putting you on the defensive. Don't let them. They have a rudimentary knowledge of philosophical terms and try to use them to intimidate you. Don't let them.

Ask questions. Express a real interest in their ideas, and then see whether they can actually defend them.

For example:
xtian wrote:3. Hmm, the bible states that women are properties of men and can be offered for rape to save a man’s life…my heart is quickened, if this god is real, then I am scared for the women in my life.


Don't let him get away with a ridiculous statement like this. But don't challenge him; question him, and express interest. Ask him, "Oh, I've never read that in the Bible. Could you please tell me where it's found?"
xtian wrote:2. Comparison of your god with the husband and wife relationship? Another example of that ever so popular logical fallacy of relevance we call Weak Analogy.
Keep asking him questions. "What is there about the analogy that makes you judge it as weak? Is it simply because God is almighty and people aren't? If that is the criterion, then would it be "a weak analogy" to compare an average man, with a powerful weight lifter? If we are comparing them as rational beings, as free-will agents, then would not their physical prowess be irrelevant? If so, then could not the same case be made for comparing people with God? If man was created in God's image, and then aren't both man and God rational beings/ free-will agents? For that reason, is not the fact of God's omnipotence versus man's physical limitations irrelevant? If so, and since both are rational beings, would not the analogy in fact be strong?"
non-believer wrote:omnipotence (allpowerful) = paradoxical, can he create a stone so heavy that he himself can't carry it?
Does the fact that God cannot create such a stone indicate that he is not omnipotent? Contradictions are not objects of power. If he could create such a stone, He would not be omnipotent. For He would be unable to lift it. This is analogous to claiming that God cannot be omnipotent because He cannot create a square circle.
xtian wrote:If god created everything…then he would have created himself?
In ordinary speech, are there not exclusions which are not explicitly stated but understood? For example, if we say that there is a certain barber who shaves every man in his town who does not shave himself, it must be understood that the barber himself must be excluded; otherwise there is a logical contradiction.

When we say "Everybody was at the party", do we mean that every individual in the world was at the party?

When people say that God created everything, is it not understood that they are excluding God from the set of created things?
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

RFCA
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:08 pm

Re: Can somebody pls critique my ongoing discussion..

Post by RFCA » Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:17 pm

Hi Tk,

Yes, it sometimes feels like casting a pearl before a swine. The stubborness and prejudice of my opponent is very evident throughout his posts. But who I'm really concerned about is the people (searching and weighing the arguments for and against theism) who would stumble upon the site. These atheistic sites would always paint their view as the more logical/rational/reasonable one and they would always challenge theists (particularly christians) to prove that theism is the more logical/rational/reasonable. Silence from Christians in these fora would always look like an affirmation of the atheistic claim. Whether the Christian win the debate or not, at least we are able to lay arguments that we believe to be reasonable/rational/logical, which the readers can process. At the end of the day, it is the readers who will decide which side presented the more convincing points. Thanks again.

Hi Paidion, Jill, Christopher,
Thanks for the valuable tips too.
I'm preparing a response to him and will ask more questions myself to clarify and to let him expose his points for examination.

God bless!

User avatar
Suzana
Posts: 503
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 3:09 am
Location: Australia

Re: Can somebody pls critique my ongoing discussion..

Post by Suzana » Wed Jun 03, 2009 2:35 am

Hi RFCA,

I haven't had a chance to look at your debate, but have you listened to Steve's topical called "Why I am still a Christian"?
I think that might be helpful, it was in response (I think, from memory) to some famous atheist's (?Huxley) essay "why I am not a Christian" or something similar.
If you haven't come across it, it's an audio on TNP under topical lectures.
Suzana
_________________________
If a man cannot be a Christian in the place he is, he cannot be a Christian anywhere. - Henry Ward Beecher

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Can somebody pls critique my ongoing discussion..

Post by darinhouston » Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:50 am

I really like Paidion's approach and try to use it in discussions with Christians, as well. At the very least, they'll quit seeing you as a target for "quick hit" arguments and move on to "fresh meat" or it will drive them to a more thoughtful honest dialog. It's hard and no fun defending something you can't defend.

Jill
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:16 pm

Post by Jill » Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:35 pm

.
Last edited by Jill on Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Can somebody pls critique my ongoing discussion..

Post by Paidion » Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:06 pm

Just as a matter of information, "Why I am not a Christian" was written by Bertrand Russell, the well-known agnostic philosopher .

I saw Russell interviewed on TV when he was over 90. He was asked whether he thought there was any possibility of God's existence. He replied, "Yes, about the same degree of probability as the Greek or Roman gods existing." Russell denied being an atheist, but he was over 99% certain that God does not exist.

There's no doubt that Russell was a deep thinker. In his day, it was thought that there existed a set for which any description of a set could be represented. Even "the set of pink elephants in this room" exists, and can be represented by the empty set.

Russell, however, came up with a description of a set which could NOT be represented by any actual set, and therefore does not exist. His description was "The set of all sets which are not members of themselves."

Let's give the name R to the set Russell described. If R a member of itself? If it is, then, according to Russell's description, it wouldn't be included, and is therefore not a member of itself. On the other hand, if R is not a member of itself, then, according to Russell's description, it would be included, and thus is a member of itself. In this way, Russell proved that R does not exist, that there is no such set.

This is known as "Russell's Paradox".
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Post Reply

Return to “Agnosticism & Atheism”