Summary of the personal apologetics. Are God-proofs the proofs?

[joinfree]

In the links below is summary of talks between Theism and Non-believers.
The main results:
1) "Atheism" is anti-idolatry,
2) False atheism is denial of God,
3) The proofs of God are objective, because a proof can not be subjective,
4) The proofs (including the "5 ways of Thomas A.") are not debunked. Any try to debunk them is a wishful thinking.

Please visit the summary in the links:
https://www.proza.ru/2017/05/29/1110
False atheism is not the Atheism (Ходящий По Лжи) / Проза.ру

Some Thoughts on Faith and Knowledge (Ходящий По Лжи) / Проза.ру

 

[xianghua]

In the links below is summary of talks between Theism and Non-believers.
The main results:
1) "Atheism" is anti-idolatry,
2) False atheism is denial of God,
3) The proofs of God are objective, because a proof can not be subjective,
4) The proofs (including the "5 ways of Thomas A.") are not debunked. Any try to debunk them is a wishful thinking.

Please visit the summary in the links:
False atheism is not the Atheism (Ходящий По Лжи) / Проза.ру

Some Thoughts on Faith and Knowledge (Ходящий По Лжи) / Проза.ру

you may add this argument:

the self replicating watch argument

 

[jayem]

The topic of god-proofs is way too broad to address in a single post. But for anyone interested, the late Victor Stenger, a particle physicist and professor at the Univ. of Hawaii published a book in 2007, which advances coherent counter-arguments to all claims for a supernatural god. He does not dogmatically deny the existence of any kind of god. But he presents a compelling case that the existence of the Abrahamic god is clearly contradicted by observable physical evidence. No one has to agree, but it's a concise, easy read with food for thought for believers and non-believers alike.

God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist

 

[DogmaHunter]

In the links below is summary of talks between Theism and Non-believers.
The main results:
1) "Atheism" is anti-idolatry,
2) False atheism is denial of God,
3) The proofs of God are objective, because a proof can not be subjective,
4) The proofs (including the "5 ways of Thomas A.") are not debunked. Any try to debunk them is a wishful thinking.

Please visit the summary in the links:
False atheism is not the Atheism (Ходящий По Лжи) / Проза.ру

Some Thoughts on Faith and Knowledge (Ходящий По Лжи) / Проза.ру

Here's my take on this....


No amount of mere words could ever be enough to demonstrate the actual existance of anything in reality.

And that is exactly what just about any apologetics argument consists of: mere words.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Here's my take on this....

No amount of mere words could ever be enough to demonstrate the actual existance of anything in reality.

And that is exactly what just about any apologetics argument consists of: mere words.

A little Philosophy is dangerous. You begin to think you can will things into existence using an argument. And then as you understand more about logic, you realize it doesn't consist of magic spells.

 

[zippy2006]

Here's my take on this....


No amount of mere words could ever be enough to demonstrate the actual existance of anything in reality.

And that is exactly what just about any apologetics argument consists of: mere words.

Words are never "mere words." They always represent reality: objects, causal relations, theories, experiences, etc.

Let's take up the common view that Darwin's On the Origin of Species demonstrated evolution. Before the book was published, evolution had not been demonstrated. After it was published, evolution was demonstrated. What effected the change? Materially, words effected the change. As so often happens, Darwin's words mediated concepts, arguments, evidence, and conclusions. They conveyed the research he had carried out and the conclusions he came to. They provided a reliable way for others to be guided by the same evidence and come to the same conclusions.

A demonstration is a movement from premises to a conclusion, and in order for a demonstration to be made available to other minds it must be communicated. Words are the standard means by which such communication takes place. There is nothing honest in the practice of dismissing an argument because it consists of words. All arguments (and all communication) consist of words.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Words are never "mere words." They always represent reality: objects, causal relations, theories, experiences, etc.

Good job missing the point.

Let's take up the common view that Darwin's On the Origin of Species demonstrated evolution.

Is this a common view among creationists? Because it certainly isn't among scientific circles.
I'll prefer the description "well supported" over "demonstrated". But okay, let's roll with it.

Before the book was published, evolution had not been demonstrated. After it was published, evolution was demonstrated. What effected the change? Materially, words effected the change.

Sure. But the words reflect empirical reality - that's the difference.
Nobody expects anyone to rely on the words alone.

That's the thing about science... theories aren't just mere words.
Theories describe actual empirical data and the relations between that data.
And you can go out into the empirical world and test those relationships. Independently from the words.


Apologetic arguments are nothing like that. It's just words and you are expected to run with just those words.

There is no empirical reality to back up those words, that is the point.
You are to "just believe" it.

A demonstration is a movement from premises to a conclusion

Only if the premises are demonstrable, independly from "the argument" and without assuming the conclusion.

Words are the standard means by which such communication takes place. There is nothing honest in the practice of dismissing an argument because it consists of words.

Sneaky, but your attempt at ommitting the word "mere" in "mere words" is spotted.

I didn't say that I'm not impressed by those arguments because they "consist of words".
I said that I'm not impressed by them because they "consist of mere words".

All arguments (and all communication) consist of words.

And clearly not all arguments have data and evidence to back up those words.

 

[zippy2006]

Sneaky, but your attempt at ommitting the word "mere" in "mere words" is spotted.

I didn't say that I'm not impressed by those arguments because they "consist of words".
I said that I'm not impressed by them because they "consist of mere words".

And what is a mere word? As I pointed out in my last, there is no such thing as a mere word. A word is a sensible sign which signifies some reality distinct from it. Anything less than this is not a word at all.

Further, to say that an argument consists of mere words and is therefore unsound is nothing more than a form of begging the question. Supposing that "mere words" even exist, what reason do we have to believe that a given argument consists of mere words? You give no reason.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And what is a mere word?

Statements that don't have any data or verification in reality to back it up.

Further, to say that an argument consists of mere words and is therefore unsound is nothing more than a form of begging the question.

I understand that you think that, considering that you don't seem to be understanding what I am talking about.

Apologetics arguments are simply not backed up by reality. Hence why I call them "mere words".

Apologetic arguments for the existance of god are all attempts to define god into existance.
It's just semantic trickery.

Supposing that "mere words" even exist, what reason do we have to believe that a given argument consists of mere words? You give no reason.

The reason is simple: when it does not reflect actual data in reality.

As I said, the "words" in a scientific theory, are reflected in actual empirical reality. Nobody is expected to buy into the theory on the words alone. In fact, the words don't even matter that much - it's the actual data that is determining the words.

But the "words" in an apologetic argument, are not like that. They aren't backed up by empirical reality. They do not reflect empirical reality. When you want to accept such an argument- ALL you have to go on, are indeed just the words. You are expected to accept the words - not the data that the words represent, because there is no such data.

The arguments are just to be believed by the words alone.

Hence: these arguments are just mere words.
A scientific theory is not just mere words. They are words reflective of reality.

 

[zippy2006]

Apologetics arguments are simply not backed up by reality. Hence why I call them "mere words".

It's ironic that you resort to mere assertion without any sign of argument or reason. "All apologetics are mere words ...because I say so!" It seems that you have an intimate familiarity with "mere words."

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's ironic that you resort to mere assertion without any sign of argument or reason. "All apologetics are mere words ...because I say so!"

In order to do that, I'ld have to go over every single apologetic argument.


You are more then welcome to provide me with any apologetics argument you wish and I will be more then happy to point out how it is not reflective of reality.

Eventhough I don't really think it is needed.

The conclusion is evident from the mere concept of what "apologetic arguments" really are.

Ask youself why they are called "arguments". You never hear about "kalaam's cosmological experiment'" for example.

Likewise, you also never hear about "the argument for the existance of germs".


Germs don't require any semantic trickery and wordplays to be defined into existance.

 

[zippy2006]

In order to do that, I'ld have to go over every single apologetic argument.

Oh, okay.

Even though I don't really think it is needed.

Oh, so now it's not needed? Which is it?

The conclusion is evident from the mere concept of what "apologetic arguments" really are.

If you think there is an analytic argument that shows all apologetic arguments are "mere words," then you're welcome to present it. As is, all you've done is presented us with so-called "mere words."

Ask youself why they are called "arguments". You never hear about "kalaam's cosmological experiment'" for example.

That's because it's an argument, not an experiment. Pretty straightforward.

Likewise, you also never hear about "the argument for the existance of germs".

That's because germs are directly observable via a microscope. No inference is needed. Now if a doctor infers that a germ is present through indirect evidence, such as symptoms and signs, he would be quite within his rights to say, "I'd argue that germ so-and-so is responsible for your illness."

Germs don't require any semantic trickery and wordplays to be defined into existance.

...therefore? Your conclusion is non-sequitur. You haven't presented a single valid argument in this post, much less a sound argument, and you have come nowhere near presenting the analytic argument against apologetics that you claim exists.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

...therefore? Your conclusion is non-sequitur. You haven't presented a single valid argument in this post, much less a sound argument, and you have come nowhere near presenting the analytic argument against apologetics that you claim exists.

His point, and it's a valid one, is that too often people who think they understand Philosophy present arguments designed to "prove" that something exists that rely upon premises that are little more than semantic slight of hand. I half expect them to yell "abracadabra" before the conclusion of the argument.

Quite a lot of apologetic arguments follow this pattern. Like the moral argument for a god's existence for example. It's complete rubbish, yet people trot it out constantly.

I'm convinced they only do so in an attempt to make themselves feel better about what they believe, rather than trying to actually convince anyone else.

 

[zippy2006]

His point, and it's a valid one, is that too often people who think they understand Philosophy present arguments...

His intended conclusion is much stronger than that:

You are more then welcome to provide me with any apologetics argument you wish and I will be more then happy to point out how it is not reflective of reality.

Eventhough I don't really think it is needed.

The conclusion is evident from the mere concept of what "apologetic arguments" really are.

His claim is that "any apologetics argument" is "not reflective of reality" and that this "conclusion is evident from the mere concept of what "apologetic arguments" really are.

To translate: "It is an analytic truth that all apologetics arguments are unsound." And that's charitable. It is quite possible he means something stronger than "unsound," such as invalid or incoherent.

That's a very grand claim, and I don't think any trained philosopher would be comfortable making it. Of course it doesn't bother me that DogmaHunter is not a trained philosopher and I have not pressed him on the improbability of his claim. I have only pointed out that he provides no argument for his conclusion, which is remarkable because both you and he are railing against ungrounded assertions, arguments without adequate support. I think he ought to take his own advice.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's because it's an argument, not an experiment. Pretty straightforward.

Yes, that is the "tell" in it all.

It's just "arguments".
You don't demonstrate that a certain thing exists in reality by mere use of words/arguments.

"yey, i got a somewhat internally consistent idea..."

Great.

That's because germs are directly observable via a microscope.

We were splitting atoms before we had microscopes powerfull enough to observe them.

No inference is needed. Now if a doctor infers that a germ is present through indirect evidence, such as symptoms and signs, he would be quite within his rights to say, "I'd argue that germ so-and-so is responsible for your illness."

Right. And his hypothesis would be backed up by plenty of actually verifiable evidence:
- germs demonstrably exist
- germs can demonstrably make you sick
- there's a catalogue of known germs and the sicknesses they causes (so we know the symptoms)
- you could also draw blood and verify if the germ is present

So indeed, this doctor's hypothesis does not consist of mere words. All of it is independently verifiable and/or based on actual demonstrable knowledge. By no means are these "mere words" that need to be "just believed".

...therefore? Your conclusion is non-sequitur. You haven't presented a single valid argument in this post, much less a sound argument, and you have come nowhere near presenting the analytic argument against apologetics that you claim exists.

I have shown how the hypothesis concerning actual real things in reality are very very different from the apologetic arguments that attempts to "prove" that gods exist.

I'll go ahead and submit to you, that there isn't a single subject outside of your faith based beliefs, where you would consider the equivalent of such an "apologetic argument" a good enough reason to accept the existance of anything.

 

[DogmaHunter]

His claim is that "any apologetics argument" is "not reflective of reality" and that this "conclusion is evident from the mere concept of what "apologetic arguments" really are.

And I absolutely stand by that statement.
It's practically burried in the very foundation of what "apologetics" are. Apologetics literally is simply discourse to attempt to "prove the truth" of theological claims.

But one doesn't "prove" anything with discourse. Discourse = words.
The prove a claim of existance, one requires evidence and data. One requires something verifiable and testable. Words are not that.

To translate: "It is an analytic truth that all apologetics arguments are unsound." And that's charitable. It is quite possible he means something stronger than "unsound," such as invalid or incoherent.

I didn't say anything of the sort. It would depend on the argument. But yes, I'm of the opinion that every apologetic argument has such problems. At least, I've never been presented with an argument that didn't. And I feel rather comfortable saying that I heared the vast majority of them, some in multiple variations.

That's a very grand claim, and I don't think any trained philosopher would be comfortable making it.

So you think that every "trained philosopher" is a theist who considers apologetics the way to go for arguing in favor of their religion?

Of course it doesn't bother me that DogmaHunter is not a trained philosopher and I have not pressed him on the improbability of his claim. I have only pointed out that he provides no argument for his conclusion

I gave my reasons: it's just discource, rethoric. That's not how you demonstrate the existance of something in reality.

 

[variant]

I gave my reasons: it's just discource, rethoric. That's not how you demonstrate the existance of something in reality.

You're missing the point. Apologetics is an attempt to convince people without demonstrating the veracity of any of your claims.

Demonstration is a weak point in religions, so they have always relied on rhetoric to convince people.

 

[Ed1wolf]

And I absolutely stand by that statement.
It's practically burried in the very foundation of what "apologetics" are. Apologetics literally is simply discourse to attempt to "prove the truth" of theological claims.

But one doesn't "prove" anything with discourse. Discourse = words.
The prove a claim of existance, one requires evidence and data. One requires something verifiable and testable. Words are not that.



I didn't say anything of the sort. It would depend on the argument. But yes, I'm of the opinion that every apologetic argument has such problems. At least, I've never been presented with an argument that didn't. And I feel rather comfortable saying that I heared the vast majority of them, some in multiple variations.



So you think that every "trained philosopher" is a theist who considers apologetics the way to go for arguing in favor of their religion?




I gave my reasons: it's just discource, rethoric. That's not how you demonstrate the existance of something in reality.

The existence of God is demonstrated just like you demonstrate the existence of anything that cannot be empirically observed, like subatomic particles or dark matter. How do you think we know those things exist?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The existence of God is demonstrated just like you demonstrate the existence of anything that cannot be empirically observed, like subatomic particles or dark matter. How do you think we know those things exist?

Subatomic particles are empirically observed in particle accelerators.

"Dark Matter" is a placeholder term for something that currently isn't understood, but which has measureable effect.

"Dark Matter", furthermore, isn't merely claimed to be there. It is concluded from data. Actual, empirically observed, data. But nobody knows what it is. And I don't think you'll find a single physicist who will say otherwise. There IS something there: we measure it.

We just don't know what it is or what its properties are.

In any case, no - these things are not the same as unfalsifiable supernatural claims. Not even remotely.

 

[zippy2006]

I gave my reasons: it's just discource, rethoric. That's not how you demonstrate the existance of something in reality.

Saying "it's just discourse, rhetoric," is not a reason, it's a blind assertion. All you have provided are the very "mere words" you eschew.