Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Eudaimonist]

Why are they different issues?

Wow. Are you serious?

There is a big different between metaphysics and ethics. The metaphysical question is: "does God exist?" The ethical question is: "Does one have a duty to be obedient to a God?"

How can I make that clearer for you?

What does the word "atheism" mean to you?

It refers to not having any gods in one's worldview. IOWs, an atheist is "godless", or lacking in god-belief.

God, as the supreme Good, is the appropriate object of adoration and love. He is Goodness itself, to be desired for its own sake. And so the fulfillment of human existence is to be found in relation to God. It’s because of who God is and his moral worth that he is worthy of worship.

And feminists by definition want equality between men and women. However, that doesn't mean that "third wave feminists" actually act in such a way as to achieve that goal. So, when they recite the dictionary definition at you, that is irrelevant. What matters is what the reality is, not the definitions.

Even if you were to establish a God to me as Creator of physical reality, that wouldn't automatically make him some "Supreme Good". Indeed, that claim is highly questionable.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ad hominems, red herrings and the like have no place in substantive irenic discussions.

Please stay on topic.

There's a topic? What was that again?

 

[anonymous person]

Wow. Are you serious?

There is a big different between metaphysics and ethics. The metaphysical question is: "does God exist?" The ethical question is: "Does one have a duty to be obedient to a God?"

How can I make that clearer for you?

For starters, you can do something besides simply repeating the claim I asked you to substantiate.

Yes I am serious.

It refers to not having any gods in one's worldview. IOWs, an atheist is "godless", or lacking in god-belief.

Ok.

And feminists by definition want equality between men and women. However, that doesn't mean that "third wave feminists" actually act in such a way as to achieve that goal. So, when they recite the dictionary definition at you, that is irrelevant. What matters is what the reality is, not the definitions.

Even if you were to establish a God to me as Creator of physical reality, that wouldn't automatically make him some "Supreme Good". Indeed, this claim is highly questionable.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It being questionable means you don't get what the term means.

Would you say that it is questionable that being single is a necessary property of a bachelor?

Of course not. You recognize that by definition, being single is a necessary property a bachelor must possess.

"God" is a word.

The word "God" refers to something.

This something is "The Supreme Good".

"The Supreme Good" refers to something that by virtue of its essential nature as the Supreme Good, is worthy of worship.

To say that that is questionable is to indicate you don't get what "The Supreme Good" is.

 

[anonymous person]

There's a topic? What was that again?

Ref. thread title.

 

[Eudaimonist]

For starters, you can do something besides simply repeating the claim I asked you to substantiate.

Yes I am serious.

I'm not certain what I am supposed to substantiate. Are you not able to discern the difference between a metaphysical question and an ethical question?

It being questionable means you don't get what the term means.

No, it means that I regard some elements of a definition as essential to the concept, and some as peripheral. I'm not tricked by package deals.

Would you say that it is questionable that being single is a necessary property of a bachelor?

Of course not. You recognize that by definition, being single is a necessary property a bachelor must possess.

Yes, and that is essential to the definition. However, there are ideas one might associate with bachelors that aren't essential to the concept. Conceptual baggage.

"God" is a word.

The word "God" refers to something.

This something is "The Supreme Good".

No, God essentially refers to a supernatural creator of physical reality. It doesn't refer specifically to a good, though that idea is often tacked on. The package deal.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[anonymous person]

to bring up to speed those just joining us, we have been talking about, among other things, arguments against the existence of God.

So far we have seen most recently a particular type of the logical problem of evil, namely that the existence of God and the world we live in are logically incompatible.

as far as I can tell, and I am hopeful of being corrected if wrong, we have one here who thinks the discussion is really meaningless since the term God cannot be defined according to certain criteria. Since as far as I can tell, he is the only one here who thinks that (there may be a handful of others, but at best when taken together, they represent a small minority), and since ignosticism is a view that is not representative of the views of contemporary philosophers of religion, but is more often found in the works of internet infidels, for the sake of this discussion, we can set it aside.

having demonstrated that some atheists have multiple and varied objections to the existence of God and that some may arguably be better termed anti-theists we can move on to look more in depth at the aforementioned variation of the logical problem of evil posited by poster Ana the Ist.

This in depth look will take place shortly.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ref. thread title.

That seems a tad pointless if you're unwilling to address actual philosophical arguments presented to you.

 

[anonymous person]

No, God essentially refers to a supernatural creator of physical reality.

Why think the "essential" concept of God is limited to "creator"?

Why could not the essential concept for example entail "The Supreme Good", or aseity?

 

[anonymous person]

That seems a tad pointless if you're unwilling to address actual philosophical arguments presented to you.

ref. Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

 

[Ana the Ist]

to bring up to speed those just joining us, we have been talking about, among other things, arguments against the existence of God.

So far we have seen most recently a particular type of the logical problem of evil, namely that the existence of God and the world we live in are logically incompatible.

as far as I can tell, and I am hopeful of being corrected if wrong, we have one here who thinks the discussion is really meaningless since the term God cannot be defined according to certain criteria. Since as far as I can tell, he is the only one here who thinks that (there may be a handful of others, but at best when taken together, they represent a small minority), and since ignosticism is a view that is not representative of the views of contemporary philosophers of religion, but is more often found in the works of internet infidels, for the sake of this discussion, we can set it aside.

having demonstrated that some atheists have multiple and varied objections to the existence of God and that some may arguably be better termed anti-theists we can move on to look more in depth at the aforementioned variation of the logical problem of evil posited by poster Ana the Ist.

This in depth look will take place shortly.

I didn't posit a "logical problem of evil". You tried to characterize my argument that way...but that's really just one leg on the centipede of my argument.

Earthquakes aren't inherently evil. Malaria isn't inherently evil. Finite resources aren't inherently evil. A complex and difficult to understand universe isn't inherently evil. Anatomical deficiencies aren't inherently evil. Etc and so on.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Why think the "essential" concept of God is limited to "creator"?

Because if someone were to claim that an aware being had intentionally created physical reality, it would seem fitting to refer to such as being as "God". One wouldn't first ask if such a being were some "Supreme Good".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[anonymous person]

I didn't posit a "logical problem of evil

ref. Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

I said that your argument was a particular type and variation of the logical problem of evil, the term flaw in your argument being synonymous with notions like evil or human suffering and pain etc. etc.

 

[Ana the Ist]

ref. Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

I said that your argument was a particular type and variation of the logical problem of evil, the term flaw in your argument being synonymous with notions like evil or human suffering and pain etc. etc.

Eh...I don't know if I'd equate the term flaw necessarily to those terms. They'd certainly fit for some flaws but not others...some flaws might only be characterized by inefficiency. An example of an inefficient flaw would be putting your most important message to mankind in a 2000 year old book that's highly subjective and open to interpretation.

 

[anonymous person]

Because if someone were to claim that an aware being had intentionally created physical reality, it would seem fitting to refer to such as being as "God". One wouldn't first ask if such a being were some "Supreme Good".


eudaimonia,

Mark

Lewis once remarked: "Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered."

In a similar vein, I say "Good reasoning must exist, if for no other reason, because bad reasoning needs to be answered."

your argument for limiting the concept of God to creator is formulated as follows:

1. If a.p. claims an aware being intentionally created physical reality, then it would seem fitting to refer to such a being as "God".
2. a.p. claims an aware being intentionally created physical reality
3. Therefore, the "essential" concept of God is limited to "creator"?

The above argument contains a non-sequitur, in that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. I can well agree that a creator of the universe would appropriately be called God. That is the term English speaking philosophers of religion use when speaking of a creator of the universe. And I can well agree that the second premise is true as well. I do claim that the universe was created by a conscious agent possessing intentionality. But to reason from these, that the concept of God is limited to the notion of a creator does not follow seeing as how there is nothing in either of those two premises that ensures the truthfulness of the conclusion. At most, the first premise shows that if a.p. claims an aware being intentionally creates the universe, then the potential to create is a necessary property of "God", not that it is the only property one can infer of God or that we are restricted from inferring anything else about God.

 

[Eudaimonist]

your argument for limiting the concept of God to creator is formulated as follows:

1. If a.p. claims an aware being intentionally created physical reality, then it would seem fitting to refer to such a being as "God".
2. a.p. claims an aware being intentionally created physical reality
3. Therefore, the "essential" concept of God is limited to "creator"?

That is not what I was arguing.

The above argument contains a non-sequitur, in that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. I can well agree that a creator of the universe would appropriately be called God. That is the term English speaking philosophers of religion use when speaking of a creator of the universe. And I can well agree that the second premise is true as well. I do claim that the universe was created by a conscious agent possessing intentionality. But to reason from these, that the concept of God is limited to the notion of a creator does not follow.

You are failing to make a distinction between what is essential to a concept, and what is included in a concept by a particular tradition.

In any case, I do not want to fight over definitions with you. All I am saying is that you can't just expect someone to accept that God is some "Supreme Good" just because you say so. You'd have to establish that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[anonymous person]

Eh...I don't know if I'd equate the term flaw necessarily to those terms. They'd certainly fit for some flaws but not others...some flaws might only be characterized by inefficiency. An example of an inefficient flaw would be putting your most important message to mankind in a 2000 year old book that's highly subjective and open to interpretation.

ok then I mistook what you intended to signify when you used the word flaw.

That is a minor point though, as a rebuttal to your argument will not hinge on the perceived flaw itself, but rather, whether or not the flaw is logically incompatible with the existence of God.

Do you want me to formulate the argument for you using the aforementioned "flaw" you spoke of?

 

[anonymous person]

That is not what I was arguing.



You are failing to make a distinction between what is essential to a concept, and what is included in a concept by a particular tradition.

In any case, I do not want to fight over definitions with you. All I am saying is that you can't just expect someone to accept that God is some "Supreme Good" just because you say so. You'd have to establish that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Why is it not self evident to you that God is The Supreme Good, if the word "God" is taken to mean "that reality which is greater than that which can be conceived."

Do you disagree with Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Anselm, Augustine and all the others who saw this as self evidently true?

For the pagan Platonist, God is the Good; in fact, as A.H. Armstrong describes it, “The belief that the divine powers which rule the universe are perfectly good is the fundamental tenet of the religion of Plato and his successors.” 22
Indeed, because God was considered to be the Good, it to follow from this that his goodness diffuses throughout his creation and to all existent things in proportion to their capacity to receive it, thus leading to a hierarchy of goodness in the created order.

22 A.H. Armstrong, „St. Augustine and Christian Platonism‟, in
Augustine: A collection of critical essays
, ed. R.A.Markus (New York: Anchor Books, 1972), 19.
23 The Platonic doctrine of divine goodness is best presented in the passages of the
Timaeus(29d – 47e) thatdescribe the motives of the Demiurge in making the
world: “He was good, and none that is good is ever subject toany notion of grudging. Being without grudging, then, he desired all things to become as like as might be to himself.” (Timaeus 29e - 30a). The idea that god (theos- a generalising term, not an assertion of a monotheistic singularity) is always the cause of good, never of evil, is also put forth in Plato‟s
Republic.
II, 379c4 - 5.

 

[Ana the Ist]

ok then I mistook what you intended to signify when you used the word flaw.

That is a minor point though, as a rebuttal to your argument will not hinge on the perceived flaw itself, but rather, whether or not the flaw is logically incompatible with the existence of God.

Do you want me to formulate the argument for you using the aforementioned "flaw" you spoke of?

Use any of them if you like...just remember that part of the definition of god within the framework of my argument is the term "perfect".

I offered you a chance to define perfect in a way you saw fit...you declined. Instead you asked for my definition, which was "without flaw".

So with that in mind...feel free to let that rebuttal fly.

 

[HitchSlap]

Interestingly, Jeremy E Walker presented a similar line of questioning on another forum (1):

Like @anonymous person, rather than acknowledge any weakness in his apologetics, he also concluded that pride was the main obstacle to acceptance of Christianity (2, 3, 4). It seems that both apologists, Jeremy E Walker and anonymous person, attend the same church (5). Jeremy also previously posted as Elioenai26 (6), another apologist, now banned.

Nailed it!

 

[anonymous person]

Use any of them if you like...just remember that part of the definition of god within the framework of my argument is the term "perfect".

I offered you a chance to define perfect in a way you saw fit...you declined. Instead you asked for my definition, which was "without flaw".

So with that in mind...feel free to let that rebuttal fly.

A. I am committed to affirming that God has given to man a written record of His dealings with humans. This written record is the Old and New Testaments, collectively known as the Bible from here on out.

B. I am also committed to affirming that God is perfect i.e. without flaw. What constitutes a flaw is of course subject to debate. Generally speaking, philosophers of religion will argue that, among other things, God is able to bring about any state of affairs feasible for Him to actualize, is all-good, all-knowing, and everywhere present. Such is the conceptualization of God defended by such contemporary philosophers as Alvin Plantinga, and William Craig to name a few.

It has been put to me that I cannot be committed to both A. and B and avoid holding to logically incompatible views. IOW, Ana the Ist is arguing that I either have to hold A or B but that I cannot hold both, for they are logically incompatible.

Now since this is his argument, and to avoid attacking strawmen, I will step back and allow him to shoulder the burden of proof for his truth claims.

The floor is yours.