Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[anonymous person]

It sounds like you aren't interested in defending your claims or answering questions about them.

It seems to you that that is the case. I understand that. You've told me this before.

Do you think the argument against the existence of God from divine hiddenness is a good argument?

Yes or no?

Please show your work.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It seems to you that that is the case. I understand that. You've told me this before.

Do you think the argument against the existence of God from divine hiddenness is a good argument?

Yes or no?

Please show your work.

Stop evading. If you have no intention of answering questions about your claims, then indicate that from the outset, so people know not to waste their time.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You have faith, i.e. a firm and justified trust in them without being able to see or check or test or prove they are reliable.

I do check that they are reliable (well, mostly reliable) every day. I do so through life experience. This isn't done in a foundationalist way, but rather in a coherentist way, at least in part.

When everything that I experience confirms that my senses are senses, and that my mind is capable of understanding, that is support for the idea that I am capable of sensing and reasoning, and there is no significant reason to doubt this. That is a firm and justified trust. It's not true that one must "prove" that one can see in order to "check" and "test" one's sight against the broad spectrum of one's experiences.

Likewise, if I don't have any good reason to think that I could be in some Matrix, there is no gravitas to concerns that what I see isn't just some manufactured illusion. The sort of concerns that you have fall into this sort of solipsistic trap. It's a needless one.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[anonymous person]

By apologists' standards?

I don't make such a distinction. I am saying it is a good article in the same sense that I would say Michael Parris' article was good.

Have you read his article on the contributions of Christian evangelism to Africa in the Times of London column?

 

[anonymous person]

I do check that they are reliable (well, mostly reliable) every day. I do so through life experience. This isn't done in a foundationalist way, but rather in a coherentist way, at least in part.

When everything that I experience confirms that my senses are senses, and that my mind is capable of understanding, that is support for the idea that I am capable of sensing and reasoning, and there is no significant reason to doubt this. That is a firm and justified trust. It's not true that one must "prove" that one can see in order to "check" and "test" one's sight against the broad spectrum of one's experiences.

Likewise, if I don't have any good reason to think that I could be in some Matrix, there is no gravitas to concerns that what I see isn't just some manufactured illusion. The sort of concerns that you have fall into this sort of solipsistic trap. It's a needless one.


eudaimonia,

Mark

And it leaves you arguing in a circle too. Appealing to the deliverances of your senses to argue that your senses are veridical is fallacious.

 

[Eudaimonist]

And it leaves you arguing in a circle too. Appealing to the deliverances of your senses to argue that your senses are veridical is fallacious.

No, it only seems that way to a foundationalist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[anonymous person]

Stop evading. If you have no intention of answering questions about your claims, then indicate that from the outset, so people know not to waste their time.

I told you some time ago, that if you judge me to be this dishonest bloke you seem to think I am, then the best course of action would be to just ignore me.

Of course that is my opinion and you are not obligated to follow my advice.

 

[anonymous person]

No, it only seems that way to a foundationalist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

One need not be a foundationalist to recognize a fallacious argument.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't make such a distinction. I am saying it is a good article in the same sense that I would say Michael Parris' article was good.

Have you read his article on the contributions of Christian evangelism to Africa in the Times of London column?

No.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I told you some time ago, that if you judge me to be this dishonest bloke you seem to think I am, then the best course of action would be to just ignore me.

Of course that is my opinion and you are not obligated to follow my advice.

I'm calling attention to your persistent evasiveness in response to questions. As an apologist, one who is supposed to be "ready to answer," you're not doing a very good job.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm calling attention to your persistent evasiveness in response to questions. As an apologist, one who is supposed to be "ready to answer," you're not doing a very good job.

I don't know about....

When I see how certain "apologists" "debate", I'ld say that they are masters in addressing questions without answering them.
The more subtle they are at this evasion tactic, the more famous they seem to be. Like our good friend WLC, King of Evasion

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't know about....

When I see how certain "apologists" "debate", I'ld say that they are masters in addressing questions without answering them.
The more subtle they are at this evasion tactic, the more famous they seem to be. Like our good friend WLC, King of Evasion

I don't think Jeremy has mastered the subtlety aspect of it yet.

 

[anonymous person]

No.

Check it out.

 

[anonymous person]

I'm calling attention to your persistent evasiveness in response to questions. As an apologist, one who is supposed to be "ready to answer," you're not doing a very good job.

Being ready to give a defense is not analogous to answering every question put to me.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Being ready to give a defense is not analogous to answering every question put to me.

Or answering any at all...

You don't seem ready to "give a defense."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Check it out.

I'll give it a pass.

 

[anonymous person]

I don't know about....

When I see how certain "apologists" "debate", I'ld say that they are masters in addressing questions without answering them.
The more subtle they are at this evasion tactic, the more famous they seem to be. Like our good friend WLC, King of Evasion

All of that may be true. It would do nothing at all, however, in demonstrating that the arguments and evidences that these apologists present are unsound or invalid. It would do nothing at all in the way of demonstrating God does not exist, or that Jesus did not rise bodily from the tomb in which He was buried, etc. etc.

"You are evasive, therefore God does not exist!" is not a very good argument.

Nor is:

"You are dishonest, therefore Jesus is a myth!" is not a good argument either.

These are just examples of course.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

All of that may be true. It would do nothing at all, however, in demonstrating that the arguments and evidences that these apologists present are unsound or invalid. It would do nothing at all in the way of demonstrating God does not exist, or that Jesus did not rise bodily from the tomb in which He was buried, etc. etc.

"You are evasive, therefore God does not exist!" is not a very good argument.

Nor is:

"You are dishonest, therefore Jesus is a myth!" is not a good argument either.

These are just examples of course.

Examples of arguments no one here has made. Of course evasiveness doesn't cast your arguments into doubt (what few you've presented), but it does lead us to question your claim of being "ready to give a defence" and your character as an apologist. A productive discussion of the arguments cannot take place when you are continually evasive. But I suspect you don't particularly care for such a discussion anyway.

 

[anonymous person]

Or answering any at all...

You don't seem ready to "give a defense."

I don't doubt you see it that way.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't doubt you see it that way.

Hopefully you don't doubt that it's a developing consensus also.