Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Archaeopteryx]

Because let's face it, you and I both know ad hominems are fallacies and neither one of us make appeals to a person's character to show their arguments unpersuasive.

The appeal to my intellectual dishonesty is something you appeal to as a reason not to answer my questions. This you have said, not me.

I have said no such thing.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Not at all.

I said "I"....

I repeat "I" would not be spending the time that you are spending talking with me with someone I thought was just this terrible liar you seem to think I am.

I don't particularly care what you do with your time.

I would much rather spend time talking with the other people here who don't think I'm dishonest.

Because let's face it, you and I both know ad hominems are fallacies and neither one of us make appeals to a person's character to show their arguments unpersuasive.

The appeal to my intellectual dishonesty is something you appeal to as a reason not to answer my questions. This you have said, not me.

So don't answer them.

What else do you want me to say?

I'm not going to agree with you that I am intellectually dishonest because I know I am not.

So what do you want me to say?

I find it amusing how you pretend that it's me whose not answering your questions, even though you've repeatedly evaded the questions of others across various threads.

 

[anonymous person]

I have said no such thing.

I never said you did, did I?

In fact, I said both YOU and I know this.

 

[Davian]

One day, not too long ago, my five year old twins did something I told them not to do. As a result I sent them both to the room they share to sit on their bed and think about what they did and why it was wrong and why they were being punished. I closed the door and stood outside to listen to what they would say.

They started talking to each other and said things like "daddy is mad at us" and "we don't have a daddy anymore" and "he is being mean to us" and "when mommy gets home we are going to tell her daddy was mean to us and he is bad daddy".

Now to be sure, my children have a rudimentary understanding of morality. They know they should share their toys. They know they should not lie but tell the truth. They knew they should obey me and their mother. I even asked them if what they did was wrong when they disobeyed me and they confessed they knew that what they did was wrong.

Nevertheless they judged me to be a bad daddy when I punished them for disobedience. Although they knew right from wrong, they were not in a position epistemically to know that me punishing them was intended to bring about a greater good for them, i.e. it was to help them remember not to play where I cannot see them but to play where I can see them so that they are safe. Their ultimate well being was what I had in mind when I brought them in and told them to go to their room. I wanted them to learn to listen to me because I know I have their best interest in mind. I know of the pedophiles that prey upon unsupervised children. I know of the people driving cars that do not pay attention to where they are driving while texting that have hit children and run them over and killed them. I know of all the insects and wild dogs that are out there that could hurt them.

They don't know what I know. They can't know what I know. I am over thirty years old. They are five. I'm an adult they are a child.

They thought me bad for punishing them. They did not know what I knew.

Likewise we as adults are sometimes like my children. We don't know or see the big picture. We see God punishing people or allowing certain things to happen and we assume He is bad or mean and if all we did was pluck out of the Bible those verses that talk about these things it is no wonder we would view Him as bad bloke.

When I was a child I thought my dad was very mean to me sometimes and overbearing. I thought he was a tyrant and treated me the way he did because he didn't Iike me or didn't want me to have fun. Now that I am a man with children of my own, I realize he did what he did many times because he loved me and wanted me to renounce those things he knew would ultimately be my undoing.

Did he hold you accountable for things beyond your control?

Then I did not know it or see it. Now I do.

I have a different view of God than you do. This is partly because I find many more verses in the Bible that show God is merciful, compassionate, longsuffering, and loving than those that speak about His wrath and vengeance.

If I wanted to I could simply ignore any and all portions of the bible where God is said to be wrathful or where He does things that I can't understand or think are contrary to Him. But I dont. I don't because I believe that I should accept the whole counsel of God and that it is all God's word even the parts I don't get.

I choose not to be like Thomas Jefferson who felt free to cut out of the Bible those verses he did not agree with and make his own.

Idol worship is easy. Worshipping the One True God requires obedience.

But belief is not a conscious choice. I cannot simply 'obey' by flipping a switch in my mind and say "today, I will believe that biblical-type gods exist, and virtually all of mainstream scientific knowledge is wrong".

I cannot worship what I consider fictional.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I did not address this?

Nope...

I made an argument, you replied with something completely irrelevant about "free will" and some such nonsense.

I asked, who mentioned free will? Thinking that you'd see it has nothing to do with the argument I made.

You just replied that you mentioned free will then ignored my argument entirely.

Do I really need to explain this though? Are you saying it wasn't your intention the entire time to ignore, evade, and not address those philosophical arguments which you have no answer for?

 

[anonymous person]

The problem with forming philosophical arguments against the existence of a god is that the term "god" is rarely ever clearly defined. Without a clear meaning for "god" how does one determine if it exists or not?

So...let's use a very generalized description of "god". I'll describe it as an entity capable of thought that is "perfect" and has created all of reality. Now that we have at least some bare minimum of a definition of a god...we could start to create an argument against its existence....

In using the term "perfect" I'm describing an entity that is "perfect" in every way....not just one. Since one of the functions in my definition of god is "creator"...it logically follows that our "perfect creator" makes perfect creations. That is to say...he makes creations that are the best they could possibly be.

Since this perfect creator is defined as having created everything in existence...if we can find a flaw in his creation, or imagine a creation that could be "better than it is"...we must logically conclude that this god either...

1. Does not exist.
2. Is not perfect.
3. Is not a creator.

Would you agree with my logic so far? If not, where is the flaw? If it's in the definition of god...feel free to create your own definition so I can make a logical argument against it.

This is the argument you presented.

If you are going to ignore my rebuttals to it like you ignored my rebuttals in our debate on the historicity of Jesus then no, I will not spend much time rebutting the argument.

But if you give me your word you will AT LEAST ATTEMPT to address my rebuttals, you and I can dialogue here or we can even move to the debate forum.

Whatever you want to do my friend.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is the argument you presented.

If you are going to ignore my rebuttals to it like you ignored my rebuttals in our debate on the historicity of Jesus then no, I will not spend much time rebutting the argument.

You presented such a sophisticated rebuttal in the first round. How could anyone ignore it?

But if you give me your word you will AT LEAST ATTEMPT to address my rebuttals, you and I can dialogue here or we can even move to the debate forum.

This is precious coming from you, a serial offender when it comes to ignoring questions and rebuttals. "If you give me your word..." LOL.

 

[anonymous person]

You presented such a sophisticated rebuttal in the first round. How could anyone ignore it?

This is precious coming from you, a serial offender when it comes to ignoring questions and rebuttals. "If you give me your word..." LOL.

Thanks.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Thanks.

Your gratitude is most welcome. It would be better if you responded to feedback though. You raised my hopes earlier, only to crush them.

 

[anonymous person]

Your gratitude is most welcome. It would be better if you responded to feedback though. You raised my hopes earlier, only to crush them.

Sorry I crushed your hopes. It was not my intention.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This is the argument you presented.

If you are going to ignore my rebuttals to it like you ignored my rebuttals in our debate on the historicity of Jesus then no, I will not spend much time rebutting the argument.

But if you give me your word you will AT LEAST ATTEMPT to address my rebuttals, you and I can dialogue here or we can even move to the debate forum.

Whatever you want to do my friend.

"Like I ignored your rebuttals in our debate..."

I remember pointing out how the Tacitus passage lacked any sources, and this was unusual for him...and a point against it being genuine.

You then pointed out that the passage appears in one of his most well-sourced books. That historians consider an excellent example blah blah blah...

What were you hoping I'd say? You were making my point for me....I'm not about to stop you when you shoot yourself in the foot.

Yea, it's one of his most well sourced works, yea...he cites his sources throughout it. That's exactly what makes his passage about Jesus so suspicious and smacks of interpolation. Lol I honestly don't know what you expected...

I started out by saying that there wasn't any reliable evidence for Jesus, that anything that did exist was highly unreliable. You decided to counter my claim by...pointing out the various debates regarding what little evidence there is. If I say that the little bit of evidence is highly debated...and you demonstrate that it's highly debated...why would I offer a rebuttal? You helped make my case.

But sure, I'll address your reply as long as it addresses mine.

 

[anonymous person]

"Like I ignored your rebuttals in our debate..."

I remember pointing out how the Tacitus passage lacked any sources, and this was unusual for him...and a point against it being genuine.

You then pointed out that the passage appears in one of his most well-sourced books. That historians consider an excellent example blah blah blah...

What were you hoping I'd say? You were making my point for me....I'm not about to stop you when you shoot yourself in the foot.

Yea, it's one of his most well sourced works, yea...he cites his sources throughout it. That's exactly what makes his passage about Jesus so suspicious and smacks of interpolation. Lol I honestly don't know what you expected...

I started out by saying that there wasn't any reliable evidence for Jesus, that anything that did exist was highly unreliable. You decided to counter my claim by...pointing out the various debates regarding what little evidence there is. If I say that the little bit of evidence is highly debated...and you demonstrate that it's highly debated...why would I offer a rebuttal? You helped make my case.

But sure, I'll address your reply as long as it addresses mine.

You did not address my rebuttals. The posts are there to support what I am saying. In fact you claim I helped you make your case.

We cannot go any further until you acknowledge that what I say is true. If you are unwilling, that is fine.

You ignored my rebuttals in our debate. That is, you did not even attempt to address them in our debate. Attempting to address them now does not change this.

Do you acknowledge what I say is true?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You did not address my rebuttals. The posts are there to support what I am saying. In fact you claim I helped you make your case.

We cannot go any further until you acknowledge that what I say is true. If you are unwilling, that is fine.

You ignored my rebuttals in our debate. That is, you did not even attempt to address them in our debate. Attempting to address them now does not change this.

Do you acknowledge what I say is true?

No...I didn't address your "rebuttals". I didn't see them as rebuttals...I saw them as supporting my position.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No...I didn't address your "rebuttals". I didn't see them as rebuttals...I saw them as supporting my position.

What does that discussion have to do with this one anyway?

 

[anonymous person]

No...I didn't address your "rebuttals". I didn't see them as rebuttals...I saw them as supporting my position.

The following was one of my rebuttals taken directly from the debate:

"That there are atheist/agnostic historians who are not even theists let alone Christians, affirming extra-biblical evidence for Jesus in both the Annals and theAntiquities would show that historians can come to the aforementioned conclusion without it being because they are wanting to confirm some bias."

Now how does the above support your position?

 

[anonymous person]

What does that discussion have to do with this one anyway?

Your have complained about me not addressing your argument here. In response I said I would if you were going to actually make an attempt to address my rebuttals instead of ignoring them like you did my rebuttals in our debate.

If your approach to my responses here will be like the approach you used in our debate, I won't bother. I want to know you are actually here to learn and change your views if you are shown to be wrong. I certainly am.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The following was one of my rebuttals taken directly from the debate:

"That there are atheist/agnostic historians who are not even theists let alone Christians, affirming extra-biblical evidence for Jesus in both the Annals and theAntiquities would show that historians can come to the aforementioned conclusion without it being because they are wanting to confirm some bias."

Now how does the above support your position?

Because my position was there isn't any historically reliable evidence for the existence of Jesus. I claimed that what exists is heavily debatable. You presenting one side of that debate doesn't dispute my claim.

Your position...which you never addressed...was that there is enough historical evidence to believe in a historical Jesus. Even if you could prove that Tacitus or Josephus were genuine, and you didn't, you never made the case for why they are enough to reasonably believe in a historical Jesus.

You were so focused on those two pieces of evidence, you forgot to make an argument for your position. I wasn't about to remind you...I'd rather just let you continue.

Anyway, are you going to address my argument or not?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Your have complained about me not addressing your argument here. In response I said I would if you were going to actually make an attempt to address my rebuttals instead of ignoring them like you did my rebuttals in our debate.

If your approach to my responses here will be like the approach you used in our debate, I won't bother. I want to know you are actually here to learn and change your views if you are shown to be wrong. I certainly am.

If I ignored your posts for every time you've ignored my posts, we'd never speak lol. It's not something unusual...it's your go-to move whenever you're faced with a difficult point.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Did you not realize when I set the positions in the proposal for our debate that you couldn't win simply by denying my claims? Did you realize that I set the positions on purpose so that you would have to build a case for Jesus's historicity?

You didn't...did you?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Now that I look back, I actually did point this out to you...first two sentences of my closing argument.

"I'd like to thank my opponent for finally joining the debate. While he still hasn't given us any evidence for a historical Jesus...at least he's demonstrating my earlier point that early non-christian references to Jesus are highly controversial and unreliable as evidence. "

You simply never made the case for why those were enough to reasonably believe in a historical Jesus.