Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[sparow]

Dictionary definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive. I do not know how you in particular use the word. Are you describing something real, or imaginary? You'll need to do more than simply assert your opinion.

God beliefs do. They are all over the place in these forums.

The burden of defining your terms in a coherent manner lies with you.

Can you explain how he might be alive after all this time?

The burden of understanding coherent terms is up to you but you appear to not be up to the task. I can quote scripture to you; some people are able to understand scripture even when they don't believe it; Christ is to return and every eye will see Him.

 

[sparow]

I think what Archaeopteryx was alluding to was, do you think there exists any middle ground? As in, if this god stuff is just all in your head, what is your alternative?

And, speaking of reformed epistemology:

Welcome Great Pumpkin

• Davian
• Jan 3, 2016

I don't think the member needs a hand here but I'll give an alternate answer. You Atheist are dictating the rules of the game you play, so what is this middle ground - a game within a game? The God of Israel stuff is the whole universe and the mind is where the reality of it is realised; the God stuff begins with Genesis (creation) and six thousand years later ends with destruction (of Babylon the great, the world today) called the great and terrible day of the Lord; these last six thousand years are an anti-type of the six days of creation, the seventh day or the millennium begins with the new creation the resurrection of the righteous to eternal life and the millennium ends with the resurrection of wicked to the second death. There is no middle ground, you are either with us or against us.

 

[anonymous person]

I think what Archaeopteryx was alluding to was, do you think there exists any middle ground? As in, if this god stuff is just all in your head, what is your alternative?

In the event that a defeater of my beliefs about God were presented to me, I would think soft agnosticism would be the only tenable position to espouse.

 

[sparow]

If you're going to actually believe that a lump of clay is a god, so does your Christianity.



Believers are so adorable when they try to play doctor over the internet.



Math is made up by humans - a useful tool for communicating ideas. Are you saying that's all your god's existence is? A man-made convenience?



But up above you said a statue of Buddha was god. Now it isn't. What were we saying about the definition of gods being very slippery?



These are the claims of your religion you need proof of, not proof of your religion.



You'd be kicked out of Church for claiming to be the type of Christian any of these guys were, so don't pretend that they are any sort of supporter of your view of god.

It is strange, I don't need prof for my faith only conviction and conviction I have. Only the Jews need proof; are you a Jew?

My reply to your earlier post was meant for Christian readers while you avoid serious discussion.

 

[Davian]

The burden of understanding coherent terms is up to you but you appear to not be up to the task.

Indeed, it is beyond my ability to force you to provide coherent definitions.

I can quote scripture to you; some people are able to understand scripture even when they don't believe it;

I understand it, as a work of fiction.

Christ is to return and every eye will see Him.

Wasn't that supposed to happen some time ago?

maybe next week

• Davian
• Dec 1, 2014

 

[Davian]

I don't think the member needs a hand here but I'll give an alternate answer. You Atheist are dictating the rules of the game you play,

No, reality dictates the rules of the "game". It cares nothing for what you believe, or wish to believe.

so what is this middle ground - a game within a game? The God of Israel stuff is the whole universe and the mind is where the reality of it is realised; the God stuff begins with Genesis (creation) and six thousand years later ends with destruction (of Babylon the great, the world today) called the great and terrible day of the Lord; these last six thousand years are an anti-type of the six days of creation, the seventh day or the millennium begins with the new creation the resurrection of the righteous to eternal life and the millennium ends with the resurrection of wicked to the second death. There is no middle ground, you are either with us or against us.

Not at all. I am simply here to observe; when I am not on this site, religion is not even a consideration in my life. Our [Canadian] government and educational systems appear to be very secular, and I have no issues with family, friends, or co-workers.

Believe whatever makes you happy.

 

[Davian]

In the event that a defeater of my beliefs about God were presented to me,

Unlikely, while you keep those god beliefs of yours untestable and unfalsifiable.

I would think soft agnosticism would be the only tenable position to espouse.

Agnostic atheist, or agnostic theist?

 

[anonymous person]

Unlikely, while you keep those god beliefs of yours untestable and unfalsifiable.

The proper basicality of beliefs about God do not imply they are indubitable.

These beliefs are defeasible; that is to say, they can be defeated by other incompatible beliefs which come to be accepted by the theist.

With regards to Ayer's principle of empirical verifiability and Flew's principle of empirical falsifiability, suffice it to say that these principles were principles formulated by their respective creators to be used to determine whether or not statements are meaningful. IOW, they are criteria of meaning and that is why verificationism as a semantic theory has been abandoned since the 50's and falsifiability in the narrow sense, has been abandoned as a tenable criteria of meaning. Of course, in the broader sense, falsifiability as a principle is alive and helpful, for unless there are criteria for truth and falsity, no truth claims could be supported.

In addition, Hick points out that not everything that is verifiable need be falsifiable in the same manner. IOW, the relationship between the two is asymmetrical. An example can be given to illustrate this. I can verify my own immortality if I consciously observe my funeral. I cannot falsify my immortality however, for if I do not survive my death, I am not there to disprove my own immortality.

Agnostic atheist, or agnostic theist?

I don't recognize such designations.

I would simply be agnostic. I would answer "I don't know, but it is possible." to the question,"Does God exist?"

I would not answer "No.", nor would I answer the question by saying, "the question is meaningless."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm not an epistemological nihilist. I'm an adherent of reformed epistemology.

As I recall, I asked you to elucidate what that entailed earlier, but you haven't. DogmaHunter asked a similarly relevant question to this. So did KCfromNC. Most recently, I asked you what you would have us base our methods of inquiry on. No answer.

 

[bhsmte]

As I recall, I asked you to elucidate what that entailed earlier, but you haven't. DogmaHunter asked a similarly relevant question to this. So did KCfromNC. Most recently, I asked you what you would have us base our methods of inquiry on. No answer.

Standard operating procedure.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In the event that a defeater of my beliefs about God were presented to me, I would think soft agnosticism would be the only tenable position to espouse.

In the event that a defeater were presented, wouldn't you insist upon your "defeater-defeater"?

The Messianic Manic addresses this point well:

 

[sparow]

No, reality dictates the rules of the "game". It cares nothing for what you believe, or wish to believe.

Not at all. I am simply here to observe; when I am not on this site, religion is not even a consideration in my life. Our [Canadian] government and educational systems appear to be very secular, and I have no issues with family, friends, or co-workers.

Believe whatever makes you happy.

Logic requires that there is a big reality existing before the human mind tries to comprehend it but the human mind has no reference point to know when it has comprehended the universe; other wise realities are created; God has created a reality for us; Atheism is a set of realities; mankind creates infinite realities and the result is confusion.

 

[bhsmte]

In the event that a defeater were presented, wouldn't you insist upon your "defeater-defeater"?

The Messianic Manic addresses this point well:

Translation:

Craig is just another dude who has a personal psychological need to believe in a God and like others, he forms this God in the manner that fits his needs.

Classical, psychology of belief.

 

[variant]

In the event that a defeater were presented, wouldn't you insist upon your "defeater-defeater"?

The Messianic Manic addresses this point well:

WLC makes arguments to try and make it seem to believers that someone in their group can hold up to rigorous skeptical scrutiny, and to try to form a rational basis to deflect such scrutiny at it's basis.

It isn't true because he only engages in an entirely dishonest manner, but it seems that way to people who want to believe it.

Skepticism isn't his audiences strong suit to begin with.

 

[sparow]

In the event that a defeater were presented, wouldn't you insist upon your "defeater-defeater"?

The Messianic Manic addresses this point well:

thanks for showing me that excellent presentation by William Lane Craig; if his audience were Atheists the he shouldn't have been there.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

thanks for showing me that excellent presentation by William Lane Craig; if his audience were Atheists the he shouldn't have been there.

What was excellent about it?

 

[bhsmte]

WLC makes arguments to try and make it seem to believers that someone in their group can hold up to rigorous skeptical scrutiny, and to try to form a rational basis to deflect such scrutiny at it's basis.

It isn't true because he only engages in an entirely dishonest manner, but it seems that way to people who want to believe it.

Skepticism isn't his audiences strong suit to begin with.

Willy also has made a good living, out of preaching to the choir.

Some folks of faith though, can't just rely on faith, they have to convince themselves, they have logical arguments to believe what they do.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In the event that a defeater of my beliefs about God were presented to me, I would think soft agnosticism would be the only tenable position to espouse.

What would that look like? A logical argument against which you had no reply?

 

[variant]

Willy also has made a good living, out of preaching to the choir.

The traditional way to make money off of religion.

Some folks of faith though, can't just rely on faith, they have to convince themselves, they have logical arguments to believe what they do.

Well WLC pretends to have good logical arguments for those in-between.

 

[KCfromNC]

Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge. Do you agree with this explication or not?

Are you ever going to answer my question about your ideas for a better way to investigate reality?