Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Freodin]

Values are demonstrated by living them weather they be faith based or Godless secularism.

Well, in order to give evidence for the claim you made: "... they come from an absolute source that cannot be comprehended by a finite mind...", it would be helpful to show the existence of values without the neccessary existence of people "living them".

 

[Ana the Ist]

It´s a contradiction in terms.

Someone once told Colt that it was an oxymoron...

...he replied "if oxygen had intelligence, why can't we communicate with it yet?"

 

[Ana the Ist]

In a way yes, it's a foolish kind of faith like when a child knows better than their parent but they can't quite explain it. The prodigal son going off the rails until he learns the leasons of life the hard way. The heathen come together in a kind of faith community, a cumrodery of unbelievers aligned against positive faith in God.

Try to think of it in terms of something that you don't believe in...

You don't believe that the CIA is using advanced technology to read your mind...do you? Hopefully not...

Now imagine if someone came along and told you that you based your values on the faith you have that the CIA isn't reading your mind. That would sound pretty stupid to you.. wouldn't it? After all, you don't believe in mind-reading devices...so they never factor into any of your values. To the guy who's whole identity is wrapped up in the idea that he's somehow special to the CIA, to the guy who thinks they want to read his mind, to the guy wearing a tinfoil hat....it's inconceivable to him that you don't base all of your values around your lack of belief in CIA mind-reading devices.

In spite of his narrow viewpoint though...your lack of belief in his views has no bearing at all on your values.

 

[Colter]

I'm not sure what "faith" you are referring to. No faith is needed to reject unsupported claims.

We've been through this before several times, the personal spiritual experiences of the religionists can't be proven in an absolute sense. But you don't seem to want to accept it, using that as justification for your own doubts.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

We've been through this before several times, the personal spiritual experiences of the religionists can't be proven in an absolute sense. But you don't seem to want to accept it, using that as justification for your own doubts.

Yes, we have been through this before. It all comes down to the same epistemological questions.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

We've been through this before several times, the personal spiritual experiences of the religionists can't be proven in an absolute sense. But you don't seem to want to accept it, using that as justification for your own doubts.

In what sense can it be proven? (I hesitate to ask, remembering your previous responses).

 

[Colter]

Try to think of it in terms of something that you don't believe in...

You don't believe that the CIA is using advanced technology to read your mind...do you? Hopefully not...

Now imagine if someone came along and told you that you based your values on the faith you have that the CIA isn't reading your mind. That would sound pretty stupid to you.. wouldn't it? After all, you don't believe in mind-reading devices...so they never factor into any of your values. To the guy who's whole identity is wrapped up in the idea that he's somehow special to the CIA, to the guy who thinks they want to read his mind, to the guy wearing a tinfoil hat....it's inconceivable to him that you don't base all of your values around your lack of belief in CIA mind-reading devices.

In spite of his narrow viewpoint though...your lack of belief in his views has no bearing at all on your values.

* I've said before that a person can be moral, have values and deny God. A collection of those people would assume morals and values are a spontaneous phenomenon of some sort originating purely from material mind.

* I say morals and values are super material and come from the source of creation.

* You could respond by saying fine, I don't really care, I have a life and don't care to spend my days, weeks and years actively promoting a neutral position. But that's NOT your position, you are motivated to actively engage in attacking those who do have faith in the creator yet you are just as unable to prove your belief. It is therefore a kind of faith with a kind of doctrine that attempts to explain life without a creator.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

* I've said before that a person can be moral, have values and deny God. A collection of those people would assume morals and values are a spontaneous phenomenon of some sort originating purely from material mind.

* I say morals and values are super material and come from the source of creation.

* You could respond by saying fine, I don't really care, I have a life and don't care to spend my days, weeks and years actively promoting a neutral position. But that's NOT your position, you are motivated to actively engage in attacking those who do have faith in the creator yet you are just as unable to prove your belief. It is therefore a kind of faith with a kind of doctrine that attempts to explain life without a creator.

Once again, it bears repeating: no faith is needed to reject unsupported claims.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

* I've said before that a person can be moral, have values and deny God. A collection of those people would assume morals and values are a spontaneous phenomenon of some sort originating purely from material mind.

* I say morals and values are super material and come from the source of creation.

* You could respond by saying fine, I don't really care, I have a life and don't care to spend my days, weeks and years actively promoting a neutral position. But that's NOT your position, you are motivated to actively engage in attacking those who do have faith in the creator yet you are just as unable to prove your belief. It is therefore a kind of faith with a kind of doctrine that attempts to explain life without a creator.

I've yet to see religious doctrine be able to 'explain life' with a creator.

 

[Freodin]

* I've said before that a person can be moral, have values and deny God. A collection of those people would assume morals and values are a spontaneous phenomenon of some sort originating purely from material mind.

* I say morals and values are super material and come from the source of creation.

There is evidence for the first claim (well, the non-strawman version of that claim). There is no evidence for the second claim. Why should anyone prefer the second claim over the first?

* You could respond by saying fine, I don't really care, I have a life and don't care to spend my days, weeks and years actively promoting a neutral position. But that's NOT your position, you are motivated to actively engage in attacking those who do have faith in the creator yet you are just as unable to prove your belief. It is therefore a kind of faith with a kind of doctrine that attempts to explain life without a creator.

As long as there are those who actively engage in attacking those who DON'T have faith in your kind of creator, the other side will defend itself.

 

[Colter]

In what sense can it be proven? (I hesitate to ask, remembering your previous responses).

In the same sense that Love can be demonstrated without being defined. The religious live their faith. Jesus challenged his followers to "love one another the way I have loved you." The followers of religious leaders are attracted to the "truths" they find within the spirit of the teachings not material or mathematical facts.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In the same sense that Love can be demonstrated without being defined. The religious live their faith. Jesus challenged his followers to "love one another the way I have loved you." The followers of religious leaders are attracted to the "truths" they find within the spirit of the teachings not material or mathematical facts.

I noticed that you put the word "truths" in quotation marks. Why is that? Is it because some of these "truths" are not really truths at all?

 

[Colter]

Once again, it bears repeating: no faith is needed to reject unsupported claims.

It bears repeating, when you go past neutral and support unbelief, being unable to prove your unbelief in an absolute sense you would be more tolerant of the fact that religious people can't prove God. After that is when you go fishing or something.

 

[Ana the Ist]

* I've said before that a person can be moral, have values and deny God. A collection of those people would assume morals and values are a spontaneous phenomenon of some sort originating purely from material mind.

* I say morals and values are super material and come from the source of creation.

* You could respond by saying fine, I don't really care, I have a life and don't care to spend my days, weeks and years actively promoting a neutral position. But that's NOT your position, you are motivated to actively engage in attacking those who do have faith in the creator yet you are just as unable to prove your belief. It is therefore a kind of faith with a kind of doctrine that attempts to explain life without a creator.

Exactly what belief do you think I'm advocating/promoting? What makes you think I can't prove it?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It bears repeating, when you go past neutral and support unbelief, being unable to prove your unbelief in an absolute sense you would be more tolerant of the fact that religious people can't prove God. After that is when you go fishing or something.

We've been over this multiple times... having been a member of this forum for several years, you should already know what most atheists mean when they say "I don't believe..." Yet you're making the same basic mistakes a newbie to this discussion would make. You should know better.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Exactly what belief do you think I'm advocating/promoting? What makes you think I can't prove it?

He thinks you're promoting the "doctrines of doubt" (whatever they are).

 

[quatona]

He thinks you're promoting the "doctrines of doubt" (whatever they are).

Aka "doctrines of death".

 

[Ana the Ist]

He thinks you're promoting the "doctrines of doubt" (whatever they are).

I'm just trying to follow his line of thinking here...but maybe that's my mistake...

C-Your unbelief is faith based just like my beliefs!
A-No it isn't.
C-It is! Because you're promoting it!
A-What am I promoting?
C-....gimme a minute....it'll come to me...

 

[Ana the Ist]

It bears repeating, when you go past neutral and support unbelief, being unable to prove your unbelief in an absolute sense you would be more tolerant of the fact that religious people can't prove God. After that is when you go fishing or something.

How does one "support" a lack of belief? Can you at least give us an example of what that would look like?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You could respond by saying fine, I don't really care, I have a life and don't care to spend my days, weeks and years actively promoting a neutral position. But that's NOT your position, you are motivated to actively engage in attacking those who do have faith in the creator yet you are just as unable to prove your belief. It is therefore a kind of faith with a kind of doctrine that attempts to explain life without a creator.

Let's say that hypothetically, I'm attacking someone's claims because they haven't backed up their claims with anything.

They made a statement (like you did) and I pointed out that it was baseless (like I did).

You're saying that I shouldn't do this unless I have a basis for my beliefs? Even if my beliefs and their beliefs aren't related?

What I called you out on was a baseless claim about morality. I stated that you can't prove your claim (which I meant as, you have no proof/evidence of your claim)...

Even though you probably don't know anything about my beliefs regarding morality...is there anything about my views of morality that will change the fact of this statement...

"You cannot prove god is the source of morality."

??