Talk:Argument from locality

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Bad Argument)
(One intermediate revision by one user not shown)
Line 5: Line 5:
 
[[User:Momergil|Momergil]] 09:04, 9 December 2009 (CST)
 
[[User:Momergil|Momergil]] 09:04, 9 December 2009 (CST)
  
It's not meant to be a strong argument against religions. It's more something to think about. Why would God allow conditions or establish conditions that make it especially difficult for the beings God needs to worship him to get a clue regarding their eternal salvation? Sure you can make a bunch of excuses for why god takes such a round about way of doing things or just do some hand waving and say "god works in mysterious ways" (and by the way, you've made no specific criticism of the arguments in the article, you merely said is ignores the bible) which is what most Christians do whenever a doubter poses questions regarding the coherency of god's actions.
+
:It's not meant to be a strong argument against religions. It's more something to think about. Why would God allow conditions or establish conditions that make it especially difficult for the beings God needs to worship him to get a clue regarding their eternal salvation? Sure you can make a bunch of excuses for why god takes such a round about way of doing things or just do some hand waving and say "god works in mysterious ways" (and by the way, you've made no specific criticism of the arguments in the article, you merely said is ignores the bible) which is what most Christians do whenever a doubter poses questions regarding the coherency of god's actions. {{unsigned|Deimossaturn|9 December 2009}}
 +
 
 +
== Bad Argument ==
 +
 
 +
There are two arguments here. One involves a benevolent god, and is subsumed under the problem of evil. The other is a faulty argument that commits the genetic fallacy. So the parts of this page that are not redundant are fallacious. Also, this is not a scientific argument. Page should be removed (although the parts specifically dealing with a benevolent god should be relocated to the problem of evil page or merged with it).
 +
 
 +
~~Jeremie Choquette, Physics Student at McMaster University

Revision as of 10:38, 16 July 2010

I'm sorry atheist, but this is the worst exceuse I have ever read against religion >.< You deny 100% of the Bible in a way that hasn't any kind of reason (as normally you try to do), but simply by "just doing it". \o/

Sorry, but there are better arguments that this one... Could you improve it?

Momergil 09:04, 9 December 2009 (CST)

It's not meant to be a strong argument against religions. It's more something to think about. Why would God allow conditions or establish conditions that make it especially difficult for the beings God needs to worship him to get a clue regarding their eternal salvation? Sure you can make a bunch of excuses for why god takes such a round about way of doing things or just do some hand waving and say "god works in mysterious ways" (and by the way, you've made no specific criticism of the arguments in the article, you merely said is ignores the bible) which is what most Christians do whenever a doubter poses questions regarding the coherency of god's actions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deimossaturn (talkcontribs), 9 December 2009

Bad Argument

There are two arguments here. One involves a benevolent god, and is subsumed under the problem of evil. The other is a faulty argument that commits the genetic fallacy. So the parts of this page that are not redundant are fallacious. Also, this is not a scientific argument. Page should be removed (although the parts specifically dealing with a benevolent god should be relocated to the problem of evil page or merged with it).

~~Jeremie Choquette, Physics Student at McMaster University

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox