Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Davian]

Red herring.

Not at all. We are in a forum where your affirmations alone are insufficient to substantiate your claims. Try the Exploring Christianity forum.

Red herring.

Not at all. Your theology has your "perfect" (i.e. without flaw) 'god' burning people forever for things beyond their control. Is not "morally bankrupt" a flaw?

 

[Davian]

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.

My post was in response to your claim that this "god" that you believe in is not simply a product of your imagination.

Do you retract this claim?

 

[HitchSlap]

My post was in response to your claim that this "god" that you believe in is not simply a product of your imagination.

Do you retract this claim?

Agreed.

 

[anonymous person]

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).

Proposition 6 is the proposition the argument rests on.

A perfect creator does not create flaws.

Once unpacked, we have the following propositions which you argue are inconsistent:

P1. God (a perfect being exists)
P2. The bible, whose text is disputed, exists.

Now, P1 and P2 are neither explicitly nor formally contradictory.

This means that you are arguing that they are implicitly contradictory. But what does this mean? To argue that the aforementioned set of propositions is implicitly contradictory is to argue that one or more of the terms violates a logically necessary truth, but this would entail some implicit premises exist which you would argue are logically necessary truths. Looking back at propositions 1-5 of your argument, we can formulate from these propositions, several that of necessity have to serve as implicit logically necessary truths for the argument to go through.

Amending the argument to include these implicit premises, the revised argument reads:

P1. God (a perfect being exists)
P2. God, being omnipotent could see to it that the bible was indisputable.
P3. God, being all-good, would want to see to it that the bible was indisputable.
P4. The bible, which is disputable, exists.

In the above, the inclusion of P2 and P3 are the two propositions that must be logically necessary in order for the argument to go through.

It is important to understand what it is you are claiming here. The claim is quite ambitious. The claim is: given that the bible is disputable, it is impossible for God to exist. Since this is the nature of the claim, all that must be done to rebut it is to show that it is possible that God and a disputable bible can coexist.

So what reasons do you give to think that P2 is a logically necessary truth? If humans, who are the recipients of the inspired message, are significantly free, it very well may be that any possible world God actualizes will have people in it that for whatever reason, simply do not agree with each other about what the accurate interpretation of the bible is.

What about P3? Why think that this is a logically necessary truth? As long as it is possible that allowing the bible to be disputed achieves some good to such a degree that this good would either be equal to or greater than the good that would be achieved if the bible were indisputable, then the argument fails. Here a greater good would be the preservation of the capacity for humans to make significantly free moral choices by not being coerced or forced to accept the bible as God's revelation to man. Here God allows people to draw their own conclusions about His revelation and allows them to either accept it or reject it.

To conclude, highlighting a point made by a respected contributor FrumiousBandersnatch all I have to do is provide a reason why God would allow His message to be disputable that is logically possible. And there are several. Each one addressing a particular proposition that must be a logically necessary truth in order for the argument to obtain.

 

[anonymous person]

Not at all. We are in a forum where your affirmations alone are insufficient to substantiate your claims. Try the Exploring Christianity forum.

Not at all. Your theology has your "perfect" (i.e. without flaw) 'god' burning people forever for things beyond their control. Is not "morally bankrupt" a flaw?

Red herring. Please refrain from using fallacies in this philosophy forum.

 

[anonymous person]

My post was in response to your claim that this "god" that you believe in is not simply a product of your imagination.

Do you retract this claim?

This is a derailment of the intents of this thread. Please respect those here who want to have a discussion on the topic in the thread title.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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

Please stay on topic.

This is not a substantive irenic discussion.

 

[Davian]

Red herring. Please refrain from using fallacies in this philosophy forum.

Explain how this is a red herring, or simply answer it. Pretend that you actually are in a philosophy forum.

Again: Your theology has your "perfect" (i.e. without flaw) 'god' burning people forever for things beyond their control. Is not "morally bankrupt" a flaw?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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."

Yours has been answered.

 

[Davian]

This is a derailment of the intents of this thread.

It's your derail. Respond or retract.

Please respect those here who want to have a discussion on the topic in the thread title.

Did that not go sideways on the first page when you were unable to define your terms?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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

To bring up to speed those just joining us, anonymous person is most likely Jeremy E Walker, who is also Elioenai26, both banned members. He continues to pester this forum despite having been banned twice.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

You derailed the thread by not engaging with the arguments and questions put to you, so derailment isn't an issue. I don't think you are here looking for "substantive, civil, irenic, rational discourse."

 

[anonymous person]

To bring up to speed those just joining us, anonymous person is most likely Jeremy E Walker, who is also Elioenai26, both banned members. He continues to pester this forum despite having been banned twice.

Red herring.

Please respect that this is a philosophy forum.

 

[anonymous person]

You derailed the thread by not engaging with the arguments and questions put to you, so derailment isn't an issue. I don't think you are here looking for "substantive, civil, irenic, rational discourse."

What I am here for is irrelevant to the discussion. As such, it is a red herring.

Please refrain from using fallacies here.

 

[anonymous person]

It's your derail. Respond or retract.
Did that not go sideways on the first page when you were unable to define your terms?

Red herring.

Please respond with an argument or a post pertinent to the title of this thread.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Red herring.

Please respect that this is a philosophy forum.

Yes, it's not an apologetics forum.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Red herring.

Please respond with an argument or a post pertinent to the title of this thread.

When we did, you were evasive, so what do you expect?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Red herring.

Please respect that this is a philosophy forum.

A philosophy forum that you were banned from, twice.

 

[Davian]

Red herring.

How so?

Please respond with an argument or a post pertinent to the title of this thread.

I did. I asked you to define your terms. You have yet to do so. The philosophical elephant in the room, as it were.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Proposition 6 is the proposition the argument rests on.

A perfect creator does not create flaws.

Once unpacked, we have the following propositions which you argue are inconsistent:

P1. God (a perfect being exists)
P2. The bible, whose text is disputed, exists.

Now, P1 and P2 are neither explicitly nor formally contradictory.

This means that you are arguing that they are implicitly contradictory. But what does this mean? To argue that the aforementioned set of propositions is implicitly contradictory is to argue that one or more of the terms violates a logically necessary truth, but this would entail some implicit premises exist which you would argue are logically necessary truths. Looking back at propositions 1-5 of your argument, we can formulate from these propositions, several that of necessity have to serve as implicit logically necessary truths for the argument to go through.

Amending the argument to include these implicit premises, the revised argument reads:

P1. God (a perfect being exists)
P2. God, being omnipotent could see to it that the bible was indisputable.
P3. God, being all-good, would want to see to it that the bible was indisputable.
P4. The bible, which is disputable, exists.

In the above, the inclusion of P2 and P3 are the two propositions that must be logically necessary in order for the argument to go through.

It is important to understand what it is you are claiming here. The claim is quite ambitious. The claim is: given that the bible is disputable, it is impossible for God to exist. Since this is the nature of the claim, all that must be done to rebut it is to show that it is possible that God and a disputable bible can coexist.

So what reasons do you give to think that P2 is a logically necessary truth? If humans, who are the recipients of the inspired message, are significantly free, it very well may be that any possible world God actualizes will have people in it that for whatever reason, simply do not agree with each other about what the accurate interpretation of the bible is.

What about P3? Why think that this is a logically necessary truth? As long as it is possible that allowing the bible to be disputed achieves some good to such a degree that this good would either be equal to or greater than the good that would be achieved if the bible were indisputable, then the argument fails. Here a greater good would be the preservation of the capacity for humans to make significantly free moral choices by not being coerced or forced to accept the bible as God's revelation to man. Here God allows people to draw their own conclusions about His revelation and allows them to either accept it or reject it.

To conclude, highlighting a point made by a respected contributor FrumiousBandersnatch all I have to do is provide a reason why God would allow His message to be disputable that is logically possible. And there are several. Each one addressing a particular proposition that must be a logically necessary truth in order for the argument to obtain.

Of your premises, I would disagree with 2 and 3...and replace them with.

1. A perfect creator would create a perfect message.

Perfect in this case would be, again, without flaw. The flaw being, of course, lack of clarity as I outlined in my previous post.

I have no idea what you mean by the "bible achieving some good". Books don't achieve things...people do. Books simply are a means of communication...often (as in this case) a poor means of communication.

Also...is it your intention to show that the bible isn't a flaw as I've perceived it? You do realize that doesn't change my argument...it just strikes one of many flaws off the list of flaws that support my argument.