Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[DogmaHunter]

That and another debate.

I'm also still waiting on his answers to my questions, which I even asked in this very thread.

Question 1: how do you assess the truth value of a claim, if not through evidence?

Question 2: he mentioned in a post explicitely that certain claims can't have any evidence by nature of the claims, and that "other means" must be used to assess their truth value. I asked what those mysterious "other means" are. I'm still waiting for him to explain it.

I'm not holding my breath do...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

Are you? You sometimes claim that you are, but then your conduct suggests otherwise.

 

[Colter]

"Reason is the act of recognizing the conclusions of consciousness with regard to the experience in and with the physical world of energy and matter. Faith is the act of recognizing the validity of spiritual consciousness—something which is incapable of other mortal proof. Logic is the synthetic truth-seeking progression of the unity of faith and reason and is founded on the constitutive mind endowments of mortal beings, the innate recognition of things, meanings, and values." UB 1955​

 

[Archaeopteryx]

"Reason is the act of recognizing the conclusions of consciousness with regard to the experience in and with the physical world of energy and matter. Faith is the act of recognizing the validity of spiritual consciousness—something which is incapable of other mortal proof. Logic is the synthetic truth-seeking progression of the unity of faith and reason and is founded on the constitutive mind endowments of mortal beings, the innate recognition of things, meanings, and values." UB 1955​

Hmmm... this reminds me of this recently published paper.

 

[anonymous person]

Are you? You sometimes claim that you are, but then your conduct suggests otherwise.

I am. Sometimes we are misunderstood. I confess in my life, I have many times misunderstood those whose views I thought I understood.

 

[pshun2404]

I'm also still waiting on his answers to my questions, which I even asked in this very thread.

Question 1: how do you assess the truth value of a claim, if not through evidence?

Question 2: he mentioned in a post explicitely that certain claims can't have any evidence by nature of the claims, and that "other means" must be used to assess their truth value. I asked what those mysterious "other means" are. I'm still waiting for him to explain it.

I'm not holding my breath do...

Empirically! Which is the only way we have whether or not the evidence is materialistic.

Let’s look at “Empirical” and see what it actually means…

Empirical - based on, concerned with, or verifiable by, observation or experience


Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.


em·pir·i·cal [em-pir-i-kuh l] Show IPA

adjective

1.derived from, or guided by, experience or experiment.

2.depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.

3.provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.


So we can see here that in fact empirical evidence does not rely on having to be demonstrated by the scientific method whatsoever, and that indeed even God can be said to be proven to exist through empirical means. We hear what this God has said would take place and then witness/observe that it has…we experience God personally and our experience with God has shown to us He is real and alive…God can be demonstrated in the transformation of others not yet saved…since we are guided by God and our experience with God is derived from God then God is revealed empirically.


Thus if one follows a set of outlined protocols and comes to a certain conclusion, it is usually sufficient to establish cause for experimentation by others. If in the course of time millions of others who followed the same protocols come to the same conclusion, it is almost readily accepted as factually true. Now in fact millions of people throughout time have done just that in relation to this God and according to the protocols He has established. They have followed the protocols provided to the letter and have come to the same conclusion regarding the result. How is that?


Buddhism which does not speak of God is still very similar. It speaks of how to obtain a certain enlightened state with peace of mind and good health….it outlines the ancient protocols (its S.O.P.) in The Eightfold Path….millions have followed this path…millions clearly have derived the same results, therefore Buddhist have empirical evidence that supports Gautama’s claim. His premises are true and verifiable. The effect is observable and demonstrable.


Now as with any experiment, if there are a few who did not obtain the same result, it is most likely (and usually true) that they did not meet the requirements or procedures of the outlined protocols. I therefore challenge you to follow the Biblically defined protocols and see for yourself rather than just deny the possibility just because it does not fit your current conclusion. By the same note I would say IF you wish to achieve peace of mind and good health, apply the instructions of the Eightfold Path and you will come to those same conclusions.


Most materialists are person who are like being inside a small corner of an infinitely huge box with total and sole faith in their quite limited perceptual faculties and instrumentation they intelligently designed, and by experiments they always and only intelligently engineer. They, having no possible (not just improbable) way of knowing there even is an outside or beyond the box (except perhaps SOME theoretical quantum physicists) make assertive assumptions based declarations of that which IS or MAY BE outside of their box.


Now we all absolutely know for sure (scientifically speaking) there is no way can “prove” by any means (empirical or purely materialistically) that there IS NO GOD (God is not falsifiable)…I am sure you agree with that (I hope)….and there is no way we can “prove” materialistically that there is a God (who is outside of materiality). But we do have the empirical evidence demonstrated above (and a challenge offered…do the experiment outlined first) and the fact that philosophy has given us is 15 or 20 lines of reasoning that indicate there must be a God/god/creator/designer etc., and absolutely zero that indicate there cannot be one.

Just the facts sir, just the facts....

 

[ToddNotTodd]

But we do have the empirical evidence demonstrated above (and a challenge offered…do the experiment outlined first) and the fact that philosophy has given us is 15 or 20 lines of reasoning that indicate there must be a God/god/creator/designer etc., and absolutely zero that indicate there cannot be one.

Philosophy has done no such thing. There's no philosophical argument that shows there must be a god.

 

[HitchSlap]

I am. Sometimes we are misunderstood. I confess in my life, I have many times misunderstood those whose views I thought I understood.

Theistic beliefs often lead to the presumption we (when I was a Christian), often know what others really think.

$ye Ten Bruggincate is infamous for telling his debate opponents they really know there's a god, they're just suppressing it.

 

[HitchSlap]

I am. Sometimes we are misunderstood. I confess in my life, I have many times misunderstood those whose views I thought I understood.

Theistic beliefs often lead to the presumption we (when I was a Christian), often know what others really think.

$ye Ten Bruggincate is infamous for telling his debate opponents they really know there's a god, they're just suppressing it.

 

[Loudmouth]

To recap, it has been argued that if God exists then the actions of God will be moral. Now the argument is that no matter what God does or how heinous we think the action is, Christians will define it as moral and will obediently follow that moral command.

I think that pretty well disproves the existence of God.

 

[HitchSlap]

To recap, it has been argued that if God exists then the actions of God will be moral. Now the argument is that no matter what God does or how heinous we think the action is, Christians will define it as moral and will obediently follow that moral command.

I think that pretty well disproves the existence of God.

Which is exactly why secular morality is superior to the "moral" claims of the bible.

 

[Loudmouth]

Which is exactly why secular morality is superior to the "moral" claims of the bible.

Agreed. The most dangerous moral philosophies are those that sacrifice the sense of morality we are all born with on the altar of blind faith, cult, and religion. Whatever Jim Jones says has to be moral. Whatever Charles Manson says has to be moral, because he said it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

To recap, it has been argued that if God exists then the actions of God will be moral. Now the argument is that no matter what God does or how heinous we think the action is, Christians will define it as moral and will obediently follow that moral command.

I think that pretty well disproves the existence of God.

Perhaps, perhaps not.
Can't argue against all the bloodshed and violence authorized by GOD and Jesus in the Bible.....

Ezekiel 39:
17 " And thou son of adam, thus says my Lord YAHWEH, say thou! to bird of every wing, and to all of beast of the field: 'be assemb ye! and come ye! together ye from round about on sacrifice of Me, which I sacrificing for ye,
a great sacrifice on Mountains of Israel, and ye eat flesh and ye drink blood.
18 Flesh of mighty-ones ye shall eat, and blood of princes of the Land ye shall drink.....

Reve 19:
17 And I perceived one messenger standing in the sun, and he cries-out in great voice, saying to all the birds, the ones flying in mid-heaven, "hither! be ye being gathered together! into the Supper of the Great GOD.
18 That Ye may be eating fleshes of kings......[Zeph 1:17/Ezekiel 39:19]

 

[anonymous person]

Because my position was there isn't any historically reliable evidence for the existence of Jesus.

Yes I know that is your position.

It is a fact that Bart Ehrman thinks that so many independent attestations of Jesus' existence, attestations found in Tacitus, among other places, are actually "astounding for an ancient figure of any kind ". Ehrman dismisses the idea that the story of Jesus is an invention based on pagan myths of dying-and-rising gods, maintaining that the early Christians were influenced by Jewish ideas, not Greek or Roman ones, and repeatedly insists that the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus is not seriously considered by historians or experts in the field at all.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperOne. ISBN 978-0062206442.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2013-03-20). "Did Jesus Exist?". huffingtonpost.com (The Huffington Post). Retrieved 2014-04-08.

-------------------------------------------------

Bart Ehrman is not a Christian.

Follow me so far?

 

[bhsmte]

Yes I know that is your position.

It is a fact that Bart Ehrman thinks that so many independent attestations of Jesus' existence, attestations found in Tacitus, among other places, are actually "astounding for an ancient figure of any kind ". Ehrman dismisses the idea that the story of Jesus is an invention based on pagan myths of dying-and-rising gods, maintaining that the early Christians were influenced by Jewish ideas, not Greek or Roman ones, and repeatedly insists that the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus is not seriously considered by historians or experts in the field at all.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperOne. ISBN 978-0062206442.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2013-03-20). "Did Jesus Exist?". huffingtonpost.com (The Huffington Post). Retrieved 2014-04-08.

-------------------------------------------------

Bart Ehrman is not a Christian.

Follow me so far?

When it comes to Ehrman, do you agree with his overall assessment of the gospels, or do you ignore his critique of the same?

 

[anonymous person]

When it comes to Ehrman, do you agree with his overall assessment of the gospels, or do you ignore his critique of the same?

I will not be addressing this at this time.

 

[bhsmte]

I will not be addressing this at this time.

Well, you readily use him as a reference.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

anonymous person said: ↑
Yes I know that is your position.

It is a fact that Bart Ehrman thinks that so many independent attestations of Jesus' existence, attestations found in Tacitus, among other places, are actually "astounding for an ancient figure of any kind ". Ehrman dismisses the idea that the story of Jesus is an invention based on pagan myths of dying-and-rising gods, maintaining that the early Christians were influenced by Jewish ideas, not Greek or Roman ones, and repeatedly insists that the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus is not seriously considered by historians or experts in the field at all.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperOne. ISBN 978-0062206442.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2013-03-20). "Did Jesus Exist?". huffingtonpost.com (The Huffington Post). Retrieved 2014-04-08.

-------------------------------------------------

Bart Ehrman is not a Christian.

Follow me so far?

bhsmte said: ↑
When it comes to Ehrman, do you agree with his overall assessment of the gospels, or do you ignore his critique of the same?

I will not be addressing this at this time.

Well, you readily use him as a reference.

Never heard of him until now....Interesting fellow:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Bart D. Ehrman /ərmən/ (born October 5, 1955) is an American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. According to the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, he is one of North America's leading scholars[1] in his field, having written and edited 27 books, including three college textbooks. He has also achieved acclaim at the popular level, authoring five New York Times bestsellers. Ehrman's work focuses on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the development of early Christianity............

http://www.bartdehrman.com/

Professor Ehrman completed his M.Div. and Ph.D. degrees at Princeton Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude. An expert on the New Testament and the history of Early Christianity, has written or edited thirty books, numerous scholarly articles, and dozens of book reviews. In addition to works of scholarship, Professor Ehrman has written several textbooks for undergraduate students and trade books for general audiences. Five of his books have been on the New York Times Bestseller list: Misquoting Jesus; God’s Problem; Jesus Interrupted; Forged; and How Jesus Became God. His books have been translated into twenty-seven languages.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes I know that is your position.

It is a fact that Bart Ehrman thinks that so many independent attestations of Jesus' existence, attestations found in Tacitus, among other places, are actually "astounding for an ancient figure of any kind ". Ehrman dismisses the idea that the story of Jesus is an invention based on pagan myths of dying-and-rising gods, maintaining that the early Christians were influenced by Jewish ideas, not Greek or Roman ones, and repeatedly insists that the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus is not seriously considered by historians or experts in the field at all.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperOne. ISBN 978-0062206442.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2013-03-20). "Did Jesus Exist?". huffingtonpost.com (The Huffington Post). Retrieved 2014-04-08.

-------------------------------------------------

Bart Ehrman is not a Christian.

Follow me so far?

Absolutely...you're making an appeal to authority and popularity. You and Ehrman.

I suppose the nice thing to do would be to point out that he, and you, don't actually know what historians think or "take seriously" on this matter and that polls that he invents in his head aren't really useful for anything.

Please continue though lol.

 

[anonymous person]

Absolutely...you're making an appeal to authority and popularity. You and Ehrman.

I'm not making an argument.

I'm asking you if you acknowledge that this is what a well educated, scholar has concluded from researching these matters. A scholar who is vocal about not being a Christian.

Do you acknowledge all of this?