I was arguing from a cold rational point of view, devoid of all emotion. It is based on cold facts with no room for sympathising.
- Homosexuality is a non-productive act
- Homosexuality relies on **** *** wich poses great risk to the individuals
- Thus homostexuality is harmful
I gave you valid sources by linking to wikipedia, wich clearly proves that **** *** is unhealthy. As such, homosexuality is an unhealthy act. Never said **** *** was exclusive to homosexuals, but them having it as the only choice of intercourse wich is ultimatively harmful makes the act itself harmful.
As for things like phychopathy, it is a far worse case and comparing it to homosexuality, it's actually working against you. Psychopats and all other mentally unstable individuals don't have the same rights as they pose a threat to both others and themselves. Same goes for alchololics and other forms of addictions. Those behaviours are deemed dangerous and harmful and individuals with those traits should be and are treated differently.
It's really a self-destructive attempt.
Now by these points above we can conclude that:
- To accept homosexual unions as marriage is to promote and encourage homosexual lifestyle
- Homosexual lifestyle is harmful as it includes harmful activity
- Thus, to accept homosexual unions as marriage is to promote and encourage harmful (unhealthy) lifestyle
This is a logically sound argument as it's premises are based on facts, devoid of any emotion and subjectivity, and the conclusion that is based on them is also as such.
This was an argument from a rational point of view. Means, it's based on facts and reason. You claiming things like "it's a form of love" is not rational, but emotional statement. It's contradictive to your naturalistic position (assuming you didn't change it again) as *** is, from a natural point of view, a method of reproduction.
You haven't proven otherwise, and you can't, as emotional issues are seperate from empirical evidence.
Morals aren't in question here, as morals are a subjective matter. You wanted a rational argument not rooted in religion or in any ideology for that matter and you got it. Wether you find it cruel or not doesn't matter. Wether you find it unconvincing doesn't matter. It is logically sound, based on facts, and thus it is valid.
I'm not even gonna bother bringing replying to the RCC part as you don't bring out any valid arguments yourself (not suprised really). The burden of proof lies on you. As for RCC, as for this thread in general.
You're asserting something without backing it up with valid arguments, and are expecting us to take the burden of proof for you. A funny thing is, you're yet again proving my opening statement to be right, as you constantly ignore all the arguments I give you, while changing the topic rapidly (not realising that it is a dishonest way to debate) and sticking solely to those points, wich you yet again, fail to prove. But I'll get to that later.
Regardless, of the above arguments, I'm going to end this debate once and for all by providing you evidence for why faith isn't unrational, despite the burden of proof being solely on you. You have pointed out numerious times how that's all that matters, so instead of going with your circular reasoning any further I shall now lay out arguments for why faith is reasonable, thus proving that your point is wrong.
The following arguments include those for a basic concept of god, God as presented in Judeo-Christian concept, and ultimatively Christian God. This should be more than enough to abolish your statement, despite the fact that it has already been refuted multiple times by multiple people.
Before I get to them tough, I'll point out that you still don't get what evidence means in these matters. Empirical evidence is only necesarry in material matters and scientific examination, but not in philosophical matters. Here arguments serve as evidence, with a good number of well constructed evidences based on facts serving as proof.
Asking for empirical evidence wich can be "tasted or felt" is a sign of your ignorance on the topic at hand. (What a suprise). I'll tell you why exactly you can't ask for empirical evidence in questions like "does god exist".
The definition of God, as seen in Judeo-Christian faiths, is that of a transcendent being. Transcendent means beyond our comprehension. To give empirical evidence of God's existence would, ironically, prove that He doesn't exist!
This is because he would no longer be transcendent and thus no longer would that be God.
Paradoxially, if we were to stick to God's transcendence, proving that God doesn't exist would require one proving it to become transcendent thus he would have to become God himself!
Instead of wallowing in paradoxes, I'll provide reasonable arguments for belief in God, thus giving faith reasonable arguments (evidence), proving that it is not unreasonable.
Al-Ghazali's argument
This argument has 3 premises:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. Universe began to exist
3. Therefore, universe has a cause
To refute this argument you the opponet must refute atleast one claim. First one is obvious. Whatever begins to exist must have had something to sparkle its beginning.
Second premise declares that universe began to exist. Now, from there it logically follows that something had to happen for it to come to existence, thus there is a cause for the univere's existence.
You can't really make a logical argument here as this universe is not and cannot be infinite. First let's check what infinity is – a group of elements whose number is infinite, ie neverending. The problem with our universe being infinite is the fact that it would take an infinite amount of time for the universe to form at the point in wich it is now. I'll illustrate the paradoxes of infinity to make it simpler to understand.
-Hilbert's hotel. You might have heard of it. If you haven't it's an imaginary hotel with a supposed infinite number of rooms. Now, imagine that an infinite amount of guests come into the hotel asking for rooms. The employee says „Sure no problem“ and puts an infinite amount of guests to the infinite amount of rooms.
Now it may seem that the hotel is full, however it's not! Suppose another infinity of guests come to hotel asking for rooms. The employee says „Sure no problem“. He moves the person residing in room 1 into room 2, the person residing in room 2 to room 4, and so on until he places an infinity of already checked guests into an infinity of even numbered rooms. Now, the employee has yet again, a number of infinite rooms for the infinity of new guests. This way employee could just keep moving guests from one room to another and infinitely keep putting an infinite amount of guests in.
This proves that infinity can't even be matched by infinity itself!
Similarly, if this universe was eternal, it would imply an infinite past, wich is impossible, much like Hilbert's hotel or counting from 0 to infinity. The point in present could never be reached and thus our very existence points out that universe did in some moment begin to exist.
Even if our universe was a part of a biger multiverse, then that multiverse would face the same problem, as it would take an infinite amount of time for our universe to reach the stage in wich it is now.
Therefore, the third premise follows logically from the fact that universe begun to exist that something caused it.
This doesn't directly imply what, but that's for what this next argument is for.
Contingency argument
This is an argument closely related to the cosmological one. It has three premises.
1. Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence
2. If the universe has an explanation for its existence then that answer is God
3. The universe exists
From this it logically follows that universe has an explanation for it's existence, and it's explanation is God.
Now for you to refute this argument you must refute atleast one of these three premises. If you have any rationality you'll agree that universe exists. That means you'll have to refute either the first or the second one.
Let's look at the first premise. We know that all things that exist are divided in the broadest sense to two categories:
- things that exist necessarily
- things wich exist contingently
Things wich exist necessarily exist by a necessity of their own nature. Thus they are not caused to exist by something else. Abstract things fall into this category. Contingent things, on the other hand are things whose existence was caused by something else. To put it simply, they are things wich have been produced by something else. Familiar objects like people, planets and galaxies fall into this category.
Premise 1 thus assures that there is nothing in existence that is unexplainable. Everything has an explanation, regardless of wether we have understood it yet or not, regardless of wether it was caused or not. That said, universe also has an explanation of its existence, as it didn't just magically pop out (even if it did it would still be an explanation that it was made magically). There is no logical way to conclude that things material or not, don't have explanation to their existence.
Scientists, philosophers and pretty much every rational person accepts that. After all, modern cosmology is set to reach an explanation for univere's existence. So universe falls into the group of things that are contingent as it doesn't meet the requirements to be called a universe that exists inexplicably on its own.
Seeing how most scientists agree that universe has a cause for it's existence, as it couldn't have come from nothing, nor could it be eternal, there are only 2 possible explanations for it's existence. A cause for it's existence thus must be immaterial, non-reliant on space or time and ultimatively be able to create or cause something.
1) an abstract object
2) an immaterial force/being - God
We all know, ofcourse, that abstract objects like numbers can't create anything as that is the point of being abstract, you only exist to a certain degree. Thus, the only logical explanation is that a transcendent force or being is the cause of universe' existence.
That transcendent force or being is what religious people reffer to as God.
Transcendency argument
Now, after hearing the contingency argument an atheist may reply that if God can be an exception to the rule of creation, so can the universe. This is false for multiple reasons. First of all, universe did in fact come to existence, that much we know. As proven above it has thus a cause for it's existence, the concept of God however, is vastly different from that of our universe.
God, by his definition in Judeo-Christian religions, is a transcendent being. This means that He is beyond our comprehension. Only things we know about God are the things He chose to reveal to us. He cannot be studied or subjected to research. On our own, we can't find out anything about Him, but only draw conclusions from that wich He has revealed. This is the basic concept of God in Judeo-Christian religions and is a primary attribute tied to God as seen there.
Universe is a different story. It is obviously not impossible to understand as it is in the process of being understood as we speak. Also, it is not a personal figure like the concept of Judeo-Christian God, so it can't reveal anything to us.
Thus same rules don't apply to both God and the universe, as for it to be valid the concept of God would have to be different, thus the concept of Judeo-Christian God fits into requirements.
Argument for design
This argument also has three premises:
1. Our planet is fine-tuned for life
2. Fine-tuning coul've been a product of chance or design
3. It is not due to chance, from wich it logically follows that it's a product of design
As with the arguments before, you must refute atleast one of these premises. The first one is self-defensive as our planet is indeed fine-tuned for life. Second one gives 2 explanations, either chance or God's design. This is also a reasonable premise.
The third one, however is what atheists may point to as they try to refute the argument. Chance on it's own brings us into a position in wich it is very unlikely we actually exist. This is a problem called Boltzman's brains. It is a really complex argument as it requires knowledge on thermodinamics but in a simplified nature it goes like this:
The universe, as we know it, is a place in wich life (in this form) is very unlikely to occur. From the overall disequilbrium, there is a lot greater chance of, rather than creating an actual human living in an actual world, creation of a self-sustainable brain, a life-form wich could live on its own for a brief moment and then return into a state of chaos.
To top it off, it would be even more probable if there was a single brain necessarry. These brains are able to percieve illusions of life experiences, of living and pretty much the entirety of our experiences. It is a lot more likely for our world and ourselves ultimatively, to be just a product of a momentary illusion, a spark in a brean of a short-living organism before it suffocates in it's short existence.
If we are to go rationally, chance giving us the world we know and life we know in a hostile universe like this is a billion times less probable than us being just momentary illusions in brains wich are a lot more likely to occur.
This is a problem wich one cannot counter in any way as all empirical evidence would be a subject of the illusion. This is something no reasonable person is willing to accept.
When it comes to such high improbability, chance doesn't work as a convincing cause, thus the universe containing the planet as we know it has a lot bigger chance of being designed, rather than being made by chance.
Argument for morality
Belief in God in one way or another, is necesarry for there to be actual objective morality. This is because if the concept of God, as seen in Judeo-Christian beliefs, is the essence of all good. If there is no essence of all good, then objective morality disappears, and atheists are left with a naturalistic approach of morality being subjective.
First it's good to define a few terms.
Objecitve – independant on people's opinions
Subjective – dependant on people's opinions
Now, if we are to remove objective morality we are left by an inferior kind, the subjective one. It is inferior because it is dependant on various cultures, ways of thinking and leads to sociocultural relativism. Now, ofcourse atheists can be and are moral, however subjective morality, instills that there is no absolute good and absolute evil, everything is relative.
Wich is funny because many atheists openly oppose savage practices such as killing homosexuals, burning widows after their husbands die (present in India) , crippling women from childhood (present in China) and many other calling them evil or morally wrong.
Now this is an interesting point as according to atheist's subjective morality, these practices are completely ok as the subjective morality itself is relative. Claiming otherwise would imply objective morality.
All the times they say this is morally right or that is morally wrong, they are making a subjective irrational claim, as their morality is at the end of the day subjective.
Thus this form of morality is defective and objective moral values are necesarry for us to rightfully call something right or wrong.
Seeing how atheism doesn't allow objective moral values, it is a morally defective worldview.
Argument for purpose
If we were to discard God there would be discarding all ultimate meaning of life and would reduce ourselves to the level of just another animal, whose actions ultimatively mean nothing, whose existence is completely irellevant and who is destined for demise.
This is because in the end, regardless of wether we were moral or not, regardless of wether we suffered or were happy, regardless of wether our life was a sucess or a tragedy, we would all be equally doomed. We were all guaranteed the same faith – death.
Indeed, an atheist may reply by saying that we make our own purposes in life, however this statement completely ignores all the people who never got a chance to live, all the children who died at war, all the people who were mentally devastated by the athrocities commited by human kind, all the pain and all the suffering would ultimatively be for... nothing.
While it is indeed true that people can make themselves happy and be remembered for good deeds and what-not, they themselves, would be tragic protagonists. Poor souls suffering all their time on this miserable rock eventually welcoming death as it is finally the end of their suffering. This world on its own will eventually collapse. The sun will shut down, nuclear wars will obliderate us etc.
So many tragic outcomes, and purpose of it all? Nothing.
Someone who believes in God, or atleast in the Judeo-Christian one, doesn't face this problem. They believe that even after all this suffering and pain, we will find peace and happines, one that aren't bound to this life.
A believer trusts that this is but a momentary pain before the eternal happiness. Wicked will face consequences and good will find happiness in eternety wich they didn't find in life.
Atheists falsely accuse this as a childish belief in face of death, but no, this is not fear, but hope. Hope in the ultimate good, in the fulfillment of all those who cried, all those who were humiliated, all those who were hurt.
This is the case for religions like Christianity in wich this is actually warrented in the 8 promises.
Jesus Christ
Here I will answer the question for Christianity in specific. To put it more directly, wether it is reasonable to believe Jesus was God and wether his life, as portrayed in the Bible is trust worthy.
First it is necesarry to establish wether Jesus even existed, and if he did, wether he had any connection to what he was shown as in the Bible. Here I'll be relying specifically on extra-biblibical evidence, from reliable historical sources. Most of these cover the events portrayed in the New Testament mentioning Jesus and his disciples.
Flavius Josephus, a well known Jewish historian, wich is considered to write one of the oldest mentions of Jesus
„At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.“
Pliny the Younger, mentioned Jesus in one of his letters
"[The Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."
Gaius Suetonius - talked about Christians doint 'mischief' in the name of Christ (Chrestus)
"Because the Jews of Rome caused continous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from the city."
"After the great fire at Rome [during Nero's reign] ... Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief."
Cornelius Tacitus - one of greatest Roman historians, here he talks about Nero blaming the Christians for the fire he set in Rome and mentions Christians doint terrible superstitions in the name of Christus (Christ)
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."
These are just a few, there are a lot more, as well as mentions in other religions, such as Judaism in wich you have a parody of Jesus' life, as well as many other refferences to lost works such as Pontius Pilate letters and various other gnostic sources.
Also, I'm not one of those who claim that the Bible should not be accounted for when doing research on historicity of the claims, in fact it is of crucial value, as it provides the missing context to some of the documents. The synoptic gospels are among the early documentations of Jesus' life so they are more then good material for examination.
We also have hundreds of years of human testimony, people bearing the worst torture just because they preached Jesus and early Christians who were attacked from all sides. Surely there must have been something that made them go to such lengths.
An atheist may argue that they were delusional, however, that argument falls on its face because here we're not talking about one or two people, but hundreds and thousands of them. Surely, they had some reason to believe as they felt something life changing in Jesus.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
While arguments for morality and purpose may not be evidence of a belief's certanity, they provide insight to why it is reasonable to choose them over a devastating view like atheism.
I have thus provided more than enough evidence to prove that faith is based on reason as opposed to your definition of being without evidence.There are many more tough, but listing them all here would require a lot of time, time wich I don't have currently.
Tough, I am well aware that none of this will mean anything to you since you have already proven over and over again that you don't know what are the criterias in this area. Hence, why I said that I'm not debating you for you, but for something else, in this particular moment, for the audience to see just how far you go with fallacies and lies.
You have yet again ignored all the other arguments in my previous post, only focusing on the selected few topics wich aren't even relevant to this debate. You keep smuggling in new topics to try to avoid getting cornered while not realising that, even after being called out on it, key to these types of debate is keeping it organized. The only reason why I went with your little charade is so others could see how it would get nowhere.
You keep bringing in biased sources, ignore all the key points your opponets make, use a disgusting amount of fallacies while blaming them on your opponets without providing why and how and to top it off you dare call others ignorant for doing the same to you.
Such hypocrisy and an overall dose of intellectual dishonesty is something unheard of. You have shown on multiple occasions (one being conversation with myself) how you only care about "ownage" and not actually telling the truth. So lying is already well established with you, as are all the other traits I've mentioned.
In the end you can say whatever you want. Think that you "owned" someone as much as you want, much to your immature way of thinking. You only care about having the last word, so there, take it.
Repeat your corrupt points one last time. That's all you have been proven to be capable of.
