Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[HitchSlap]

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

Please stay on topic.

That being said, we're still waiting for evidence for god/s.

We've already established that Jesus was not a literal person, and is best described as a dying and rising mythotype character, scoring high on the Rank-Raglan scale, so you're off the hook for that, but com'on, the suspense is killing us. Time to put up.

 

[anonymous person]

Nailed it!

Please do not contribute to the derailment of this thread please. The thread title is "Philosophical Arguments against the Existence of God".

Not who is "anonymous person" really?

Bringing this issue up is a red herring and as such, has no place in substantive, civil, irenic, rational discourse.

 

[anonymous person]

That being said, we're still waiting for evidence for god/s.

We've already established that Jesus was not a literal person, and is best described as a dying and rising mythotype character, scoring high on the Rank-Raglan scale, so you're off the hook for that, but com'on, the suspense is killing us. Time to put up.

Follow along with Ana the Ist and me as we discuss his argument, but do be civil and respectful.

 

[HitchSlap]

Please do not contribute to the derailment of this thread please. The thread title is "Philosophical Arguments against the Existence of God".

Not who is "anonymous person" really?

Bringing this issue up is a red herring and as such, has no place in substantive, civil, irenic, rational discourse.

Is this Jeremy or WLC speaking?

 

[anonymous person]

Is this Jeremy or WLC speaking?

This is another instance of the introduction of a red herring.

Please stay on topic.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Sure.

1. I'll submit that the primary purpose of any message is communication.

2. Lack of clarity impedes effective communication and allows for multiple interpretations of said message.

3. The existence of multiple interpretations, as exhibited by both scholars and multiple denominations...all resultant from the same "message" is evident.

4. The message therefore lacks clarity...which reduces effectiveness/efficiency.

5. The reduction in effectiveness/efficiency is therefore a flaw in the "message".

6. A perfect creator does not create flaws...therefore...

A. The creator is not perfect.
Or
B. The creator did not create the message.

B. Also entails such possibilities as the creator not existing or is not a creator god (god who creates).

 

[HitchSlap]

Is this Jeremy or WLC speaking?

And I told you I would follow Jesus if you could demonstate god/s exist.

Now get on with it.

 

[anonymous person]

And I told you I would follow Jesus if you could demonstate god/s exist.

Now get on with it.

Red herring. Ref. thread title.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

@Ana the Ist - I guess the core issue in the argument is whether a perfect God can create an imperfect record. It's possible to argue that the record perfectly reflects the author's intent - which was not to create a clear communication, but one that is deliberately open to multiple interpretations and a consequent confusion of meanings.

Of course, this argument raises more questions than it answers - the same kind of questions that the multiple lines of evidence for an ancient Earth raise for 6,000 year creationists; i.e. why? (to which the usual answer is a shrug and GWIMW [God Works In Mysterious Ways])

 

[Davian]

I know what Wikipedia says about ignosticism.

I wanted you to tell me what it was though because I did not want to presume to know.

Wiki is good enough for me.

Why you are an ignostic?

Belief is not a conscious choice. There is no 'why' that I can cite, but it does seem to follow the inability of religionists such as yourself to define this thing you believe in.

What certain presuppositions is it based on?

As few as possible.

When did you become ignostic?

I probably have always been so, and only recently looked for a label that describes my position.

Etc. etc.

Enough of your dodge. Let's go back to post #804, where you claim that "God" is not simply a product of your imagination. The question still stands: Have you considered an external reference as a means of evaluating the veracity of that belief?

 

[Davian]

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.

And, from what I gather, most of mainstream scientific knowledge would have to be tossed.

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.

Criteria that might raise it above the Great Pumpkin, for example.

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),

Are we to put reality to a vote?

and since ignosticism is a view that is not representative of the views of contemporary philosophers of religion,

lol. As if contemporary philosophers of religion are not smart enough to know which topics to avoid.

but is more often found in the works of internet infidels,

Nicely veiled insult. I thought you had changed your ways?

for the sake of this discussion, we can set it aside.

"...sweep it under the rug."

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

The terms are distinct, and not mutually exclusive. I am still not sure what you mean by "atheist".

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.

"...depth".

 

[Davian]

Sure I do. My thesis has been continually confirmed in my experience and never falsified in the nearly ten years I have been engaging in apologetics.
...

Exactly when might you consider your 'thesis' "falsified"? From what I have observed, it seems you will simply ignore, obfuscate, or sweep under the rug any objection you cannot directly address.

 

[Davian]

says be ready, does it not?

The referenced scripture lays no obligation upon me whatsoever to answer every question put to me, but to be ready to.

lol. I can only imagine, that if there exists some sort all-knowing entity that cares about any of this, would she be impressed with this sort of semantic dodge?

 

[HitchSlap]

Red herring. Ref. thread title.

Backpedaling prn I see.

 

[Davian]

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.

Sure, but we are in a forum where that is only opinion.

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.

Is this the same "God" that your theology has burning people forever for things beyond their control?

 

[Davian]

Please do not contribute to the derailment of this thread please. The thread title is "Philosophical Arguments against the Existence of God".

Not who is "anonymous person" really?

Bringing this issue up is a red herring and as such, has no place in substantive, civil, irenic, rational discourse.

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

Please stay on topic.

Indeed. Your use of a sock account should be taken up with the moderators, and not discussed in the forums.

 

[anonymous person]

Sure, but we are in a forum where that is only opinion.

Red herring.

Is this the same "God" that your theology has burning people forever for things beyond their control?

Red herring.

 

[anonymous person]

Indeed. Your use of a sock account should be taken up with the moderators, and not discussed in the forums.

Red herring. Please stay on topic.

 

[anonymous person]

Backpedaling prn I see.

Red herring. Please stay on topic.

 

[anonymous person]

Wiki is good enough for me.

Belief is not a conscious choice. There is no 'why' that I can cite, but it does seem to follow the inability of religionists such as yourself to define this thing you believe in.

As few as possible.

I probably have always been so, and only recently looked for a label that describes my position.

Enough of your dodge. Let's go back to post #804, where you claim that "God" is not simply a product of your imagination. The question still stands: Have you considered an external reference as a means of evaluating the veracity of that belief?

If you would like to formulate an argument for me to interact with then fine. If not, refrain from introducing red herrings into the discussion.