Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[anonymous person]

That's an additional claim in need of support. You have argued that, in the course of their lives, all people are brought to a point where sincerely doubting the claims of Christianity is no longer reasonable. This argument still needs support.

I have not argued that. You are attacking a strawman.

 

[Colter]

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

The ism of Atheism.

 

[Colter]

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."

??

I'm saying that the faithful and the ungodly are at an unsolvable impass. Beyond that each are talking about faith.

 

[Colter]

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

Easy, promoting Atheism.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Easy, promoting Atheism.

Promoting what and how? Please be specific so we may understand just what you mean.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

Aka "doctrines of death".

Correct. The promotion of a Godless universe concept is the promotion of a meaningless life beyond death, that this brief phenomenon of spontaneous evolution will end and meant nothing as there is no recollection in death.

 

[Colter]

Promoting what and how? Please be specific so we may understand just what you mean.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Haven't we covered this before? Promoting the philosophy of a Godless universe with the consequences compared to salvation from death of nonservivors.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Haven't we covered this before? Promoting the philosophy of a Godless universe

Which philosophy is that? There is no "the" philosophy of a Godless universe, as if there is just one philosophy doing that.

with the consequences compared to salvation from death of nonservivors.

That strikes me as a distinction you are making in your own mind. Atheism is not contrasted specifically with Christianity, or your UB spin on that. It is contrasted with "theism", or the claim that there is some God or gods.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Correct. The promotion of a Godless universe concept is the promotion of a meaningless life beyond death, that this brief phenomenon of spontaneous evolution will end and meant nothing as there is no recollection in death.

Haven't we covered this before?

Atheism does not say that there is a "meaningless life beyond death". Many atheists will disagree with that claim.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ana the Ist]

Double postage.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The ism of Atheism.

The only thing that entails is a lack of a god belief.

No faith required.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm saying that the faithful and the ungodly are at an unsolvable impass. Beyond that each are talking about faith.

Only if you leave out logic and reason.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Haven't we covered this before? Promoting the philosophy of a Godless universe with the consequences compared to salvation from death of nonservivors.

There's no philosophy to promote...atheism is the lack of a god belief, nothing more.

Your misunderstanding of the word is (I'm guessing) at least partly due to the same thing as your misunderstanding of everything else....the Uranium Book.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Correct. The promotion of a Godless universe concept is the promotion of a meaningless life beyond death, that this brief phenomenon of spontaneous evolution will end and meant nothing as there is no recollection in death.

Atheism doesn't involve a position on the afterlife...let alone promote a position on the afterlife, or evolution for that matter.

See the post above to gain a better understanding of atheism.

 

[Colter]

The only thing that entails is a lack of a god belief.

No faith required.

When you promote it but cannot provide evidence for the claim it becomes a religion, it's doctrin is the doctrin of doubt.

 

[anonymous person]

Colter has in mind this:

"atheism- the doctrine that there is no deity" - emphasis mine

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

 

[Gene2memE]

I don't see either promoting it, simply arguing their case. Which is what you do on a discussion board.

Their case is that those claiming the existence of deities have not convinced them of the existence of such.

There's no specific set of beliefs that anyone needs to have to be defined as an atheist. Atheists are defined by the lack of one specific belief. That's it.

 

[anonymous person]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Kuklinski

Kuklinski died back in 2006. He doesn't exist anymore.

I don't see how this argument has anything to do with mine. The flaw I've mentioned regarding god's message to mankind is but one tiny part of my overall argument. It's a useful example of my argument until it can be shown that it is successfully refuted. Once it's refuted, I need to only present another example of a flaw in god's creation...like the human appendix or epilepsy. Once the new example of a flaw is logically shown to be a flaw...the argument holds once again.

Furthermore, I think the argument here is actually rather easily refuted. It's this sentence...

"At some point in the process, God will bear witness to himself to that individual in such a way that unbelief that separates one from God would become unreasonable."

...that creates some logical problems for the argument as a whole. Well, suppose that I would require evidence of god that is of such a quality that it gives me an unfair advantage over others. Some examples of this would be...

1. I require god to manifest itself before me physically...and with at least two dozen other witnesses so that I cannot convince myself that I'm crazy/hallucinating. I also require a thorough Q&A session with god so that I can indeed verify that it is indeed a god. Would it not be possible for me to then exploit such an experience for personal gain? I think it wouldn't just be possible...it would be easy.

2. Part of what I might require for evidence of god is evidence that it did indeed create the universe...so to give me "reasonable belief" god takes me back in time to the beginning of the universe and I can then use such information to write a book on the beginning of the universe and (unfairly) get wealthy off of knowledge that others spend a lifetime searching for.

So, while it's a rather interesting proposal...it's also rather obvious that it doesn't happen.

Thanks for the info on Kuklinski. I was not aware that he had died.

I think that both of us can agree that God would provide enough evidence for us to be justified in believing He existed if in fact He exists, and created us to inhabit this world with the option to have fellowship and communion with Him. I think we can both also agree that God would love us so much that He would allow us the option of loving Him or not. I think we can agree that if there was anyone that didnt want to love Him and live for Him, then God would not force them to. I think we can both agree that He would want to communicate with us in a way that we can relate to and that He would see to it that this means of communicating to us would be clear enough for us to understand what was essential for us to understand. We both agree that we would expect Him to do something about the sins we have committed and the rebellion we have taken part in and that He would be merciful and gracious and longsuffering and kind and loving to us while being smart enough to come up with a way to reconcile us to Himself.

I am sure that we can agree that if God exists, then He would make it to where we all have the opportunity and the ability to know Him and do His will if that is truly what we wanted, but at the same time, respect those who do not want anything to do with them and let them be.

God would know everyone's thoughts and desires and wishes. He would know exactly how you would feel if He rendered it no longer possible for you to deny His existence. He knows if you would be overjoyed and happy, or terrified and sorrowful.

That is why the key to all of this is faith. Ravi Zacharias once said: "God has put enough into the world to make faith in Him a most reasonable thing, and He has left enough out to make it impossible to live by sheer reason or observation alone."

I think Dr. Craig sums up my view well.

He says:

"The Christian God doesn’t want to be merely some abstract “Ground of Being” or only the “best explanation for the cosmos” — he wants both to be the Lord of our lives and a loving parent. Professor Paul Moser, an eminent philosopher who has done considerable work in area of divine hiddenness, describes this filial knowledge:
In filial knowledge of God, we have knowledge of a supreme personal subject, not of a mere object for casual reflection. This is not knowledge of a vague "first cause," "ultimate power," "ground of being," or even a "best explanation." It rather is convicting knowledge of a personal, communicating Lord who expects grateful commitment by way of our appropriating God's gracious redemption. Such convicting knowledge includes our being judged and found unworthy by the standard of God's morally supreme love. God's will thereby meets, convicts, and redirects our will. Both sides of this relationship are thus personal . . . Filial knowledge of God is reconciling personal knowledge whereby we enter into an appropriate child-parent relationship with God. Such knowledge is personally transforming, not impersonally abstract or morally impotent. It is communicated by God’s personal Spirit in a way that demands full life-commitment.6
Why might, at times, God hide from us? Why wouldn’t he always make himself obvious for all to see, as obvious as the words on this page? Various reasons have been put forward in answering this important question and justice cannot done by reducing those answers to a sound bite or two. I can only sketch a couple of the responses here.7
One reason stems from the observation that if God did make himself obvious to all — as obvious as the words on this page — then for many it would destroy the possibility of developing morally significant freedom (being able to choose freely and often between good and bad courses of action) because our being powerfully aware of God would coerce us into obeying his moral commands.8 (Compare a child who is told not to eat from the cookie jar but is never given the opportunity to refrain from eating the cookies because her parents are always in the room watching). The overall result would be an underdeveloped moral character.
A second reason God might withdraw evidence of himself could be due to human sinfulness, pride, self-centeredness, and personal detachment. This brings us back to the issued mentioned in section 3, “An Objection and a Reply,” namely whether there is good reason to think that if God performed more miraculous events (parting seas for a watching audience, elevating massive objects) then more people’s hearts would be changed to want to enjoy a personal, life-transforming relationship with God. And here I think the quotations from Aldous Huxley and Thomas Nagel are quite instructive, since their heart seems to have settled the question of evidence and argument beforehand. What use is further evidence if one, in Nagel’s words, “hope there is no God!” because he “doesn’t want a universe like that?”


Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-god-imaginary#ixzz3vT7Y6kB9

 

[anonymous person]

There's no specific set of beliefs that anyone needs to have to be defined as an atheist. Atheists are defined by the lack of one specific belief. That's it.

You are wrong.

A skeptic of one worldview, is a believer in another.

Atheists have worldviews. Every atheist here has particluar answers for the big questions of life. Answers that exclude those that contradict them. They have belief systems, belief structures, which like everbody else's, are founded upon certain beliefs that are taken for granted as being true and are thus, articles of faith, i.e. articles that we are reasonable in trusting are true in the absence of some logically or mathematically rigorous proof.

No one here is arguing every single atheist believes the exact same way.

But every atheist has answers to the questions:

1. Who/what are we?
2. Where did we come from?
3. Why are we here?
4. Where are we going?

Atheists have specific answers to these specific questions. These answers and others, form their worldview.

 

[Eudaimonist]

When you promote it but cannot provide evidence for the claim it becomes a religion, it's doctrin is the doctrin of doubt.

Sure, just like Christianity is a religion of Doubt about Hinduism, Buddhism, Scientology, paganism, the Urantia Book, Science, etc.

Everyone doubts something.


eudaimonia,

Mark