Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[KCfromNC]

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.

Responses like these just add to the pile of evidence that there's no serious reason to consider Christianity. If believers in it are so flippant about their reasons for accepting it, why should anyone else give it any more thought?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Can we please just cut to the chase, @anonymous person? I've seen this movie far too many times. You challenged us to convince you once before, knowing the entire time that you would never be convinced, no matter what we presented. It's disingenuous for you to expect us to simply ignore this and to pretend otherwise.

 

[anonymous person]

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

The Messianic Manic addresses this point well:

Depends on the defeater presented. You have something against defeater-defeaters?

 

[anonymous person]

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.

If you're familiar with Plantinga, you should know what it is. Or are you only interested in atheist apologetics?

 

[anonymous person]

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.

Classic ad hominem. Attacking the man instead of his arguments.

 

[anonymous person]

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

I expounded upon what soft agnosticism looks like.

Soft agnostics don't spend their time formulating question begging so called "logical" arguments against the existence of God, by the way. The formulation of logical arguments against the existence of God is something people do who answer "no" when asked, "Does God exist?"

The soft agnostic would answer by simply saying, "I don't know " and would reserve judgment.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If you're familiar with Plantinga, you should know what it is. Or are you only interested in atheist apologetics?

I'm asking you to describe what you think it entails. I'm not that familiar with Plantinga. But then I don't feel the need to pretend to be, unlike certain apologists in this thread.

 

[KCfromNC]

If you're familiar with Plantinga, you should know what it is.

A load of nonsense? See e.g. http://www.iep.utm.edu/ref-epis/#H7

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Depends on the defeater presented. You have something against defeater-defeaters?

How vague. What do you mean it depends on the defeater presented?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Classic ad hominem. Attacking the man instead of his arguments.

What ad hominem? Aren't we allowed to discuss the arguer's strategy and whether his approach to these matters is intellectually honest or not?

 

[anonymous person]

Can we please just cut to the chase, @anonymous person? I've seen this movie far too many times. You challenged us to convince you once before, knowing the entire time that you would never be convinced, no matter what we presented. It's disingenuous for you to expect us to simply ignore this and to pretend otherwise.

I don't expect you to ignore it. I expect you to call me disingenuous, which you have.

Certain properly basic beliefs about God i have are so powerfully warranted that none of the defeaters you or anyone else here have offered defeat them.

Since my beliefs however are defeasible, it is not disingenuous of me to allow you the opportunity to attempt to provide defeaters for said beliefs.

As iron sharpens iron so too, my apologetic and critical thinking skills and talents are honed and refined by interacting with people of other faiths. You guys here, unbeknownst to you, are an integral part of my training which God has seen fit for me to undergo to be a more effective ambassador for Him.

 

[anonymous person]

How vague. What do you mean it depends on the defeater presented?

If all you bring to the table is a confession of ignorance, then that is not a defeater that is going to defeat my beliefs which are grounded on good evidence, arguments, and beliefs which are grounded on other beliefs properly basic.

 

[anonymous person]

What ad hominem? Aren't we allowed to discuss the arguer's strategy and whether his approach to these matters is intellectually honest or not?

Of course you can.

Is that what people do who have good arguments?

No.

They just present their arguments in a respectful and charitable manner and let the arguments and evidence speak for themselves.

When you resort to attacking the man, all it shows is that you have no good arguments.

 

[bhsmte]

Of course you can.

Is that what people do who have good arguments?

No.

They just present their arguments in a respectful and charitable manner and let the arguments and evidence speak for themselves.

When you resort to attacking the man, all it shows is that you have no good arguments.

The critique was in regards to willy's arguments and tactics and were not personal.

 

[anonymous person]

The critique was in regards to willy's arguments and tactics and were not personal.

His name is not willy though. It's William. He also goes by Bill or simply Dr. Craig.

This is another example of what I am talking about.

How does calling someone out of their name help your cause?

 

[bhsmte]

His name is not willy though. It's William. He also goes by Bill or simply Dr. Craig.

This is another example of what I am talking about.

How does calling someone out of their name help your cause?

Willy is the less formal usage of william.

 

[Davian]

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

But your repeated expressions of the confidence you have in the veracity of your beliefs implies that you feel that they are.

However, there is your refusal - or inability - to define this thing that you say you believe in, in some testable manner; this could be interpreted as an acknowledgement of the fragility of your beliefs... like a house of cards that you can brag about ("powerfully warranted" ), but must be kept shielded from the lightest of breezes (post #3).

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

Not necessarily. Incompatible beliefs can be accommodated with compartmentalization.

Compartmentalization is an unconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person's having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(psychology)

You live a world where science is used to explore the moons of Saturn, put computers on your desk, and kill disease, but it must be doubted or dismissed when it is applied to virtually all of the observable world (YMMV).

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.

That would be an improper application of the concept of falsification to a single, unreproducible event.

I don't recognize such designations.

Still driving that Dodge?

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."

Of course you have used the wrong question; the question would be, do you believe in a god, yes or no?

 

[KCfromNC]

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

Hmm, crickets. That says quite a bit.

 

[Davian]

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;

Evolutionarily speaking, we only need to comprehend sufficiently so as to survive as a species. More than that is simply gravy.

other wise realities are created;

Perceptions of reality are created. Religions are just ritualized versions.

God has created a reality for us;

That is your perception. Others have other gods. Or no gods.

Atheism is a set of realities;

No, atheism is simply "I am not convinced of your perception of a god as reality"

mankind creates infinite realities and the result is confusion.

Indeed, like there is no actual god(s) behind all of those religions to point them in a single direction.

 

[anonymous person]

But your repeated expressions of the confidence you have in the veracity of your beliefs implies that you feel that they are.

You're confident in the veracity of the beliefs you hold too. I don't thereby conclude you feel they are indubitable.

You can draw whatever conclusions you like.

However, there is your refusal - or inability - to define this thing that you say you believe in, in some testable manner; this could be interpreted as an acknowledgement of the fragility of your beliefs... like a house of cards that you can brag about ("powerfully warranted" ), but must be kept shielded from the lightest of breezes (post #3).

And your persistent appeal to the verificationist principle of meaning can be interpreted in sundry ways.

Not necessarily. Incompatible beliefs can be accommodated with compartmentalization.

Compartmentalization is an unconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person's having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(psychology)

The irony is palpable...

You live a world where science is used to explore the moons of Saturn, put computers on your desk, and kill disease, but it must be doubted or dismissed when it is applied to virtually all of the observable world (YMMV).

I don't dismiss it. I just try not to use it where it is not applicable.

That would be an improper application of the concept of falsification to a single, unreproducible event.

Nothing you said is pertinent to the point I made.

Of course you have used the wrong question; the question would be, do you believe in a god, yes or no?

I would answer no different.