doomgiver
Warframe
just a question, if there is a "god" why didn't he prevent from the himalayan tsunami from happening and killing all his "followers"?
I am SORRY, my Faith-o-Meter(TM) has just issued an urgent alert warning me of incoming Logical Questions(TM). Since I am allergic to logic and reason, I must not answer that question.
Sorry, but I feel this is silly rhetoric in the name of logic. The "professor" conveniently fails to mention the most rational line of thought - agnosticism.
The very fact that theists "believe" in god means that they are being subjective rather than objective. Belief in something is not a logical deduction of any hitherto unexplained event.
Same is the case with atheists. They also "believe", they believe that god doesn't exist.
Both theists and atheists don't know for sure whether god exists or not. They believe, and their beliefs should be respected.
Pure logic states that unless the existence of god is proved/disproved, we don't know for sure. We can only hold beliefs. And people who don't hold any beliefs are the rational agnostics. I'm agnostic and science supports agnosticism, not atheism.
moniker, i found this awesome video, just listen to him and see him rip apart that "professor" :
[YOUTUBE]fvg3mRZXut4[/YOUTUBE]
just listen to the first 2 minutes at minimum, he demolishes the entire video in that part. thats how fragile mr kreeft's arguments are.
i'll do it in text form :
Most pseudoscientific arguments are [logical fallacies.](*yourlogicalfallacyis.com/)
1. Prime mover argument, which uses the [special pleading](*yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading) fallacy - Everything that moves has a mover... except god. he's special. It's also the [god of the gaps](God of the gaps - RationalWiki) argument. This one is fun to laugh at with the term goddidit.
2. The same argument, using the same logical fallacy. Everything has a cause... except god. he's special.
3. The same argument. This is getting dull...
4. You guessed it. Same argument.
5. He does some off-the cuff [straw man arguments](*yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman), but they aren't central to his presentation.
6. He goes back to his tired [special pleading](*yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading) fallacy.
7. He starts with a [straw man arguments](*yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman) - "All time is relative to matter" is a really sloppy and inaccurate description of general relativity... and that's being generous. Then he goes back to [special pleading](*yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading).
8. [straw man arguments](*yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman)
9. He changes things up with [ambiguity](*yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ambiguity) by collapsing faith, evidence, belief, and confidence into a single word: faith. The keystone is that evidence = information that can be independently reviewed, can be falsified (proved wrong), can be questioned, and can be tested without being first accepted. Faith is any reason to have confidence in a claim that isn't evidence. Then he redefines reason without explaining what is reason. He's using sloppy logic with logical fallacies and calling it reason.
Truth is, people who keep faith will conveniently ignore ALL EVIDENCE. Just try it. Even when faced with a mountain of counter-evidence, they'll stick to their dumb gods.