Arguments for the Existence of God

[Ana the Ist]

Are you an evidentialist?

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

It is legitimate to question our way back to our ultimate standard of truth

"Ultimate standard of truth"?

By that, do you mean reality?

and to try to identify our unproven basal assumptions about reality.

By "unproven" basal assumptions....do you mean assumptions which are and have always been consistently observable and demonstrable"?

This is not absurd reductionism.

I disagree.

It is analogous, rather, to the search in physics for fundamental particles. Once we have identified our basal assumptions, it is also legitimate to work out the implications of our assumptions.

Maybe you haven't heard of this....but we already worked out these assumptions. We used them to develop a methodology known as science. We use science to learn things about reality.

If those implications logically lead to absurdity (nihilism, universal skepticism, or solipsism, when we assume atheism), appealing to common sense when convenient does not get rid of those implications, it only masks them. To think, speak, and act differently from what our professed worldview logically gives grounds for is to live inconsistently with our worldview.

I don't think that there's anything about these basal assumptions that leads to absurdity. You certainly haven't made any such connection between the assumptions and absurdity. If you think that connection is there....let's hear it.

 

[Mediaeval]

Why?



Why?




You seem to have a very different idea on what atheism is really about compared to me.

To me, it's just the label you get when you are not a theist.
It's not a collection of claims. It's not a particular belief about origins or human nature or whatever.

Atheism doesn't tell you what I do believe.
It tells you only about what I do not believe.

It most certainly doesn't tell you anyting about my view on morality and how I acquire a moral compass and standard.

My atheism is only a lack of belief in theistic claims. Nothing else.




I'm an atheist and I don't agree that free-thought and freewill are illusory.




There are two things absurd here...

The first, is how you try to redefine atheism only to be able to declare it morally bankrupt.

The second, is how you pretend that mere obedience to a perceived authority qualifies as a moral compass or standard.

I addressed a lot of this earlier. If after looking over the earlier part of the thread you still have questions, I can recommend some resources. I don’t feel like repeating myself or reinventing the wheel. But I did find your assertion of free-thought and freewill interesting. I would call that a felicitous inconsistency with the logical implications of atheism (you can find my working definition of atheism also in the earlier part of the thread). By all means continue your belief in freewill and free-thought even though as a system of necessity atheism gives grounds for denying them (“There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.” William Provine, 1942–2015). The more inconsistent with atheism and the more consistent with Christian theism you are, even if unwittingly, the better.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I addressed a lot of this earlier. If after looking over the earlier part of the thread you still have questions, I can recommend some resources. I don’t feel like repeating myself or reinventing the wheel. But I did find your assertion of free-thought and freewill interesting. I would call that a felicitous inconsistency with the logical implications of atheism (you can find my working definition of atheism also in the earlier part of the thread). By all means continue your belief in freewill and free-thought even though as a system of necessity atheism gives grounds for denying them (“There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.” William Provine, 1942–2015). The more inconsistent with atheism and the more consistent with Christian theism you are, even if unwittingly, the better.

Oh, there are plenty of Christians that deny free will, so I don't think your argument holds water...

 

[HitchSlap]

I addressed a lot of this earlier. If after looking over the earlier part of the thread you still have questions, I can recommend some resources. I don’t feel like repeating myself or reinventing the wheel. But I did find your assertion of free-thought and freewill interesting. I would call that a felicitous inconsistency with the logical implications of atheism (you can find my working definition of atheism also in the earlier part of the thread). By all means continue your belief in freewill and free-thought even though as a system of necessity atheism gives grounds for denying them (“There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.” William Provine, 1942–2015). The more inconsistent with atheism and the more consistent with Christian theism you are, even if unwittingly, the better.

Why, even for a second, would you assume "atheism" necessarily precludes any meaning for life?

 

[Ana the Ist]

(“There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.” William Provine, 1942–2015)

I think part of the problem you're having is that you've found philosophers and scholars who have said things that you agree with....and you think that posting quotes from them somehow ends the discussion of this issue you've brought up. It doesn't. I think most of us here can pull quotes that agree with our various viewpoints....it doesn't make any of us correct.

If you think that Provine is correct in his assessment....you'll need to actually explain why that is. Simply stating your position and quote mining philosophers doesn't make an argument....it simply states your position, what you believe, and without any basis for that position no one here will really care.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I addressed a lot of this earlier. If after looking over the earlier part of the thread you still have questions, I can recommend some resources. I don’t feel like repeating myself or reinventing the wheel. But I did find your assertion of free-thought and freewill interesting. I would call that a felicitous inconsistency with the logical implications of atheism (you can find my working definition of atheism also in the earlier part of the thread). By all means continue your belief in freewill and free-thought even though as a system of necessity atheism gives grounds for denying them (“There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.” William Provine, 1942–2015). The more inconsistent with atheism and the more consistent with Christian theism you are, even if unwittingly, the better.

I don't see how you reach any of your conclusions to be honest.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Are you an evidentialist? It is legitimate to question our way back to our ultimate standard of truth and to try to identify our unproven basal assumptions about reality. This is not absurd reductionism. It is analogous, rather, to the search in physics for fundamental particles. Once we have identified our basal assumptions, it is also legitimate to work out the implications of our assumptions. If those implications logically lead to absurdity (nihilism, universal skepticism, or solipsism, when we assume atheism), appealing to common sense when convenient does not get rid of those implications, it only masks them.

As noted earlier, you haven't shown that atheism leads to absurdity, nor have you shown that theism alleviates this purported absurdity. In short, your core claims remain unfounded.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But I did find your assertion of free-thought and freewill interesting.

I actually didn't make an assertion. Instead, I expressed disagreement with your assertion.

I would call that a felicitous inconsistency with the logical implications of atheism

You mean, with your strawman of atheism.

(you can find my working definition of atheism also in the earlier part of the thread).

It doesn't match my working definition of atheism.
So we have a problem there. How do you propose to resolve it?

By all means continue your belief in freewill and free-thought even though as a system of necessity atheism gives grounds for denying them

Again, the "atheism" you speak of only is inconsistent with it, because you explicitly defined it to be so...

But I don't actually know a single atheist who would agree with it.

The more inconsistent with atheism and the more consistent with Christian theism you are, even if unwittingly, the better.

Again, you mean your strawman version of it.

My atheism is defined only by my lack of belief in supernatural theists claims and nothing else.

There is nothing about the concept of individual free will that necessitates a deity. You're just declaring it to be so.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why, even for a second, would you assume "atheism" necessarily precludes any meaning for life?

Ow, I know, I know........

Because then he can say that "only theism gives life meaning".

Not that that's a rational argument off course, because even if it were true that life is meaningless without gods... That doesn't mean that gods exist.

Life could be meaningless. Tough luck. The universe doesn't owe us any meaning.
It's emotional pleading.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why, even for a second, would you assume "atheism" necessarily precludes any meaning for life?

I think part of the problem you're having is that you've found philosophers and scholars who have said things that you agree with....and you think that posting quotes from them somehow ends the discussion of this issue you've brought up. It doesn't. I think most of us here can pull quotes that agree with our various viewpoints....it doesn't make any of us correct.

If you think that Provine is correct in his assessment....you'll need to actually explain why that is. Simply stating your position and quote mining philosophers doesn't make an argument....it simply states your position, what you believe, and without any basis for that position no one here will really care.

I don't see how you reach any of your conclusions to be honest.

As noted earlier, you haven't shown that atheism leads to absurdity, nor have you shown that theism alleviates this purported absurdity. In short, your core claims remain unfounded.

I actually didn't make an assertion. Instead, I expressed disagreement with your assertion.




You mean, with your strawman of atheism.


It doesn't match my working definition of atheism.
So we have a problem there. How do you propose to resolve it?



Again, the "atheism" you speak of only is inconsistent with it, because you explicitly defined it to be so...

But I don't actually know a single atheist who would agree with it.



Again, you mean your strawman version of it.

My atheism is defined only by my lack of belief in supernatural theists claims and nothing else.

There is nothing about the concept of individual free will that necessitates a deity. You're just declaring it to be so.

Reading through our collective posts....a pattern emerges....


We've all noted that Mediaeval simply makes unfounded claims and follows them with unsupported conclusions. He occasionally throws in a quote or two...but I'm beginning to suspect that he doesn't actually know how the position he agrees with is reached.

Which is why there's little to zero explaining done in his posts.

 

[KCfromNC]

Ow, I know, I know........

Because then he can say that "only theism gives life meaning".

Not that that's a rational argument off course, because even if it were true that life is meaningless without gods... That doesn't mean that gods exist.

Yep, this whole thing is a giant logical fallacy - specifically, an argument from consequence. "I won't feel good if my sports team loses therefore I know they won the game last night". Substitute god for sports team and that's essentially what we've got here.

 

[victorinus]

No, it doesn't. Entropy has nothing to do with universes and beginnings.

I can see you are not a scientist

 

[HitchSlap]

I can see you are not a scientist

I can see you're a creationist.

 

[victorinus]

I can see you're a creationist.

you really know how to hurt a guy
-you won't find any proofs
-just reasonable explanations
-do you have one?
-do you want God to exist?
-just answer the last one

 

[Archaeopteryx]

you really know how to hurt a guy
-you won't find any proofs
-just reasonable explanations
-do you have one?
-do you want God to exist?
-just answer the last one

In my assessment, Christianity doesn't provide "reasonable explanations" for what it purports to explain.

 

[victorinus]

In my assessment, Christianity doesn't provide "reasonable explanations" for what it purports to explain.

answer the question
-do you want God to exist?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

answer the question
-do you want God to exist?

What kind of God are we talking about? And what do my desires (or your desires) have to do with the truth of supernatural claims?

 

[victorinus]

What kind of God are we talking about?

your kind of god
-do you want a god to exist?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

your kind of god
-do you want a god to exist?

My kind of god? What's that? I don't have a kind of god. Let's flip the script. Do you want gods (plural) to exist?

 

[victorinus]

My kind of god? What's that? I don't have a kind of god. Let's flip the script. Do you want gods (plural) to exist?

can you come back when you know what you want?
-until then there is no point in talking to you