Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Archaeopteryx]

It is a non-sequitur to conclude that people have no free will because they adopt the religion of their parents.

I didn't conclude that though, did I?

 

[anonymous person]

What is it that you are fond of saying? "Red herring. Off-topic."

It is a philosophical argument against the existence of God and as such, is very much on topic.

Given that your views are entirely derivative of his, that's unsurprising.

This statement is false. My views are not entirely derivative of Dr. Craig's. My paradigm is built from material from a wide array of sources, God, theists and non-theists, theologians, existential philosophers, philosophers of religion, social commentators, scientists, etc. etc.

You say "surely." What evidence do you have in support of this?

If you agree that God can can surely bring all men to a place in their lives where they can reasonably conclude God exists, then why are you asking me to provide evidence for something you already affirm?

If you do not affirm that God can do this, then the thrust of the argument is gone, for the argument assumes God can do this.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is a philosophical argument against the existence of God and as such, is very much on topic.

So was the discussion on "morally sufficient reasons," which you introduced, then dodged.

This statement is false. My views are not entirely derivative of Dr. Craig's. My paradigm is built from material from a wide array of sources, God, theists and non-theists, theologians, existential philosophers, philosophers of religion, social commentators, scientists, etc. etc.

Sorry, but based on what I've seen, your views come from a limited range of sources: mainly apologetics websites. You don't read as widely as you pretend to.

If you agree that God can can surely bring all men to a place in their lives where they can reasonably conclude God exists, then why are you asking me to provide evidence for something you already affirm?

If you do not affirm that God can do this, then the thrust of the argument is gone, for the argument assumes God can do this.

Given the number of people who die without converting to Christianity, I would say that the argument doesn't have thrust anyway. You would have to assume that they each died at a point where sincerely doubting the claims of Christianity was no longer possible. What reason do you have to think this?

 

[anonymous person]

Efficiency of god's message to mankind has nothing to do with whether or not they convert. It has everything to do with what god "meant" in his message. It's the lack of clarity in what god meant in his message that leads to multiple interpretations and denominations.

So for the 8th time, the flaw in god's creation (message to mankind) is a lack of clarity (inefficiency flaw) that has led to multiple interpretations and denominations (evidence of the flaw).

We both agree that there are different interpretations for some portions of the Bible.

We both agree that there are different denominations too.

Why should I construe these two observations as evidence of a flaw in the Bible?

 

[Ana the Ist]

God is not going to change who He is. He is immutable. Holy, righteous, and pure.

So if I were to list attributes of the god you believe in, they would include...

1. Perfect.
2. Creator.
3. Immutable.
4. Holy, righteous, and pure.

Just wanted everyone to see this...you know, in case they wanted to construct their own logical argument against god. I know I'll be using at least one of these in my next argument.

 

[anonymous person]

So was the discussion on "morally sufficient reasons," which you introduced, then dodged.

Said discussion could have served as seque into a separate thread on said "morally sufficient reasons" which I was all for having someone create. I am not dodging anything if I am all for having a discussion on it anymore than you would be dodging a discussion by suggesting it be undertaken in its own designated thread.

Sorry, but based on what I've seen, your views come from a limited range of sources: mainly apologetics websites. You don't read as widely as you pretend to.

At least you concede my views are not entirely derivative of Craig's, which was my only point.

Given the number of people who die without converting to Christianity, I would say that the argument doesn't have thrust anyway.

I was referring to the argument against God from divine hiddenness.

You would have to assume that they each died at a point where sincerely doubting the claims of Christianity was no longer possible. What reason do you have to think this?

Not at all. To argue thus would be to erect a strawman.

First of all, being brought to a place where one holds belief in the existence of God to be reasonable is a necessary condition of becoming a Christian, not a sufficient condition.

Secondly, it is not a matter of people being brought to a place where unbelief in the existence of God is impossible, but to a place where unbelief is unreasonable. There is a distinction.

And once again, if you agree that God is able to bring people to a place in their lives before they die where belief in His existence is reasonable, then why are you asking for evidence when you already affirm this?

If you do not agree that God is able to bring people to a place in their lives before they die where belief in His existence is reasonable, then the argument against the existence of God from divine hiddenness loses it's thrust, because it has to assume He can in order for it to go through.

 

[anonymous person]

So if I were to list attributes of the god you believe in, they would include...

1. Perfect.
2. Creator.
3. Immutable.
4. Holy, righteous, and pure.

Just wanted everyone to see this...you know, in case they wanted to construct their own logical argument against god. I know I'll be using at least one of these in my next argument.

Your conceptualization of "perfect" and mine differ. Yours entails God can do the logically impossible. Mine does not.

 

[bhsmte]

Your conceptualization of "perfect" and mine differ. Yours entails God can do the logically impossible. Mine does not.

Can you give us a list of things that are "logically impossible" for God to do?

 

[anonymous person]

Can you give us a list of things that are "logically impossible" for God to do?

I can in a separate thread. I think it would be a good little exercise for us to try and come up with a list and then talk about them. If you want, just create a new thread.

 

[bhsmte]

I can in a separate thread. I think it would be a good little exercise for us to try and come up with a list and then talk about them. If you want, just create a new thread.

So tell me, how did you gain this special knowledge, to be able to know, what God can do and what he can't do?

 

[quatona]

Yes I know.

The issue is more complex than some want to admit.

At this time, I want to use this topic as sort of a segue into another argument some use against the existence of God, namely, the argument in J. L. Schellenberg's work. The argument is an argument against God from divine hiddenness.

Yeah, that´s definitely what it looked like all the time: You aren´t addressing the argument made.

I think Dr. Craig sums up my view succinctly.

 

[anonymous person]

So tell me, how did you gain this special knowledge, to be able to know, what God can do and what he can't do?

This would make a lovely topic for a new thread.

 

[Colter]

The old "liar liar, pants on fire!" defense lol...

I don't suppose you could actually show that a god is the "source of values"...can you??

No?

Alright then...I'll just disregard your post as an empty claim then.

Atheist hide behind unprovable truths as if that's proof of something. The fact that they can't disprove God should give a wise person respect for the dilemma of those who have found God.

So by the same toajan I will ignore your doctrines of doubt.

 

[bhsmte]

This would make a lovely topic for a new thread.

Or, would solicit a simple answer if the person bringing the topic up, is truly willing to share.

I understand the caution though. You don't want to create too much exposure at one time.

 

[lesliedellow]

Can you give us a list of things that are "logically impossible" for God to do?

Logically impossible usually means that there is a self contradictory concept involved. Sometimes obvious, sometimes thinly disguised.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Atheist hide behind unprovable truths as if that's proof of something. The fact that they can't disprove God should give a wise person respect for the dilemma of those who have found God.

So by the same toajan I will ignore your doctrines of doubt.

I don't have any doctrines of doubt...I don't have any principles of doubt or axioms of doubt either. The reason I don't have any of these is the same though...they're all made up.

You made a claim Colt...if you can't back it up, expect it to get disregarded.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Your conceptualization of "perfect" and mine differ. Yours entails God can do the logically impossible. Mine does not.

What logically impossible thing am I claiming that god can do?

 

[HitchSlap]

You don't, but when one says values exist apart from the source of values then they are wrong.



Merry Christmas

Assuming of course you could deonstrate a "source" exists.

 

[Ana the Ist]

We both agree that there are different interpretations for some portions of the Bible.

We both agree that there are different denominations too.

Why should I construe these two observations as evidence of a flaw in the Bible?

Again, this is one of those points that's so obvious I didn't think it needed to be made. Let's look at the definition of clarity...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clarity

"the quality of being expressed, remembered, understood, etc., in a very exact way."

Wonderful, so now we know what l mean by "lack of clarity". I'm talking about the idea that no two people read the bible and come away with the exact same message. That's the interpretation part...I'm not simply referring to changing the words from one language to another...I'm talking about the meaning of specific events, laws, etc. There are an astonishing number of disagreements between christians on many many aspects of the bible

It's these differences that form the basis for different denominations. One group of christians read a passage one way...another group reads it another way...

Who is correct? We don't know, god doesn't settle the matter....that would be providing clarity. It's possible one group is correct, or another group is correct, or they're both correct....or they're both wrong.

For all a christian may want to say, "well god has spoken with me and told me my interpretations are correct."...such claims are useless until they can be demonstrated.

The message that god intended for mankind...the message which is supposedly of the greatest importance, the message upon which christianity is founded...is entirely unclear and largely debatable. This flaw (lack of clarity) impedes effective communication (inefficiency) and cannot be the result of a perfect creator god.

 

[Colter]

I don't have any doctrines of doubt...I don't have any principles of doubt or axioms of doubt either. The reason I don't have any of these is the same though...they're all made up.

You made a claim Colt...if you can't back it up, expect it to get disregarded.

By the same token I can then disregard you as you are unable to prove the certainty of your doubts.