- Oct 28, 2006
- 21,175
- 9,960
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Question for atheists. . .
- Thread starter Paulomycin
- Start date
Bradskii
Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
- Aug 19, 2018
- 15,940
- 10,830
- 71
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
I'm happy with what Grayling wrote (I'm still working my way through Hume). If you're not then bring up one of his arguments and we can discuss it. I'm more than happy to.
Upvote
0
Yes. If reducible to math, then proof. Logic itself is bivalent.
There's three:
- Kurt Gödel's proof taken from Anselm.
- An expanded version of Aquinas' cosmological argument.
- A modus ponens version of Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason.
I can discuss ^ the last two. The first one is still a bit over my head, in spite of the fact that Computer Scientists use it for other applications (which means that it clearly works).
Upvote
0
I stated "700+." Because, as everyone who's actually studied this stuff knows, it could go all the way back as far as Plato and Aristotle.
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
- Aug 19, 2018
- 15,940
- 10,830
- 71
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
I thought the idea was that we give you examples of refutations (book, chapter and verse) because you didn't know of any (?) and then you give us an example of what you don't like that was said and then we discuss it.
All we've had so far is 'you don't want to discuss it' (although I have asked what you'd like to discuss in every post) and 'I agree with this bit'.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
And you're essentially shotgunning with (hand wave) --> "all of these."
I try to get you to endorse one above the rest, and you refuse to budge. I try to force your hand with absolutely all of them, and you balk, "I didn't say that." Then I give up to your attempt at playing coy, but you keep posting as-if you cared.
Upvote
0
You clearly won the entire debate on a technicality that I didn't explicitly say "specific" anywhere in the OP.
My bad. Next time I'll get a lawyer to write it up.
Upvote
0
HitchSlap
PROUDLY PRIMATE
I think that’s the point though, you’ve done nothing more than provide a sophist approach. As I said your argument is essentially; ‘one can’t prove god doesn’t exist, so believe.’
Sophistry is mental master......, as they say. We’ve heard all the arguments and they’ve left us unconvinced. Give us a rubber meets the road option.
Upvote
0
It was an honest question.
- Only if you deliberately omit the fact that proofs of God have already been established throughout history.
- Only if you ignore my further clarifications that no atheist has pointed out any specific errors to the historical proofs. So far, only Bradskii has gotten close, but refused to commit to anything in-particular. Which is telling.
You also have no specific fallacies to accuse me of.
It's not about "convincing you." Atheist activists have already pre-determined their subjective will to suppress all objective proof in the name of their own confirmation bias. It's the magic of forced incredulity.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I saw AC Gray Grayling give a talk and Q&A in Australia a while ago, and I've read a couple of his books. (Meaning of Things and Towards the Light)
Elsewhere, I dont recall ever seeing/hearing anything by him purporting to be a slam dunk, iron-clad, rolled gold refutation of the classical logical case for God. He certainly hasn't provided a scientifically valid falsification of whatever human biology it is which millions/billions of humans experience as real sensus divinatis.
This thread is a pretty good demonstration of how #team_atheism can quite easily claim that, as individual atheists, they personally don't find a certain fact claim or logical proposition persuasive. They can make a brute (special pleading) assertion that something doesn't meet their personal definition of "evidence". They can merely assert that something ISNT finely tuned, that something HAS always existed, that maximal greatness is in the eye of the beholder, that morality isn't connected to divinity...etc.
But what they can't do, and haven't done in this thread, or anywhere else, is provide a solid, substantial counter-explanation (rebuttal) of God which is sufficiently persuasive to outweigh the true witness of the Holy Spirit, the sensus divinatis, and real, lived experience of supernatural events that theists have unanimously corroborated for thousands of years.
Elsewhere, I dont recall ever seeing/hearing anything by him purporting to be a slam dunk, iron-clad, rolled gold refutation of the classical logical case for God. He certainly hasn't provided a scientifically valid falsification of whatever human biology it is which millions/billions of humans experience as real sensus divinatis.
This thread is a pretty good demonstration of how #team_atheism can quite easily claim that, as individual atheists, they personally don't find a certain fact claim or logical proposition persuasive. They can make a brute (special pleading) assertion that something doesn't meet their personal definition of "evidence". They can merely assert that something ISNT finely tuned, that something HAS always existed, that maximal greatness is in the eye of the beholder, that morality isn't connected to divinity...etc.
But what they can't do, and haven't done in this thread, or anywhere else, is provide a solid, substantial counter-explanation (rebuttal) of God which is sufficiently persuasive to outweigh the true witness of the Holy Spirit, the sensus divinatis, and real, lived experience of supernatural events that theists have unanimously corroborated for thousands of years.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
PloverWing
Episcopalian
- May 5, 2012
- 4,396
- 5,089
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Earlier this week, I came across your post in the thread "What Convinced you God Exists?", saying that you became a Christian because of the philosophical arguments. I had no idea that was the case for you. I won't debate you further in this thread, then; I have no desire to attack the foundation of your religious belief.
You've already posted a link to the first argument, from Gödel. If you have links to the other two arguments, I would enjoy reading them, out of my own personal interest in religious philosophy.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
PloverWing
Episcopalian
- May 5, 2012
- 4,396
- 5,089
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
@Paulomycin : I am glad you had a personal experience that brought you to God. You did say, though, that the philosophical proofs helped you to be even more convinced, so it appears that those proofs are also part of the foundation of your faith.
I do not know of any proofs of the existence of God that I accept as fully sound proofs, holding up to the same kind of scrutiny that we use in our everyday work as mathematicians and computer scientists. I suspect that no such proofs exist. Still, I enjoy looking at proposed proofs as a kind of philosophical recreation. And maybe there's a sound proof out there -- who knows? Hence my interest in this discussion.
I initially thought this thread was recreational for you as well, a bit of philosophical fun. But your post in the other thread suggests otherwise. I have no desire to chip away at the foundation of someone else's faith. If I "won" this argument, I would win nothing, except maybe a millstone.
I do not know of any proofs of the existence of God that I accept as fully sound proofs, holding up to the same kind of scrutiny that we use in our everyday work as mathematicians and computer scientists. I suspect that no such proofs exist. Still, I enjoy looking at proposed proofs as a kind of philosophical recreation. And maybe there's a sound proof out there -- who knows? Hence my interest in this discussion.
I initially thought this thread was recreational for you as well, a bit of philosophical fun. But your post in the other thread suggests otherwise. I have no desire to chip away at the foundation of someone else's faith. If I "won" this argument, I would win nothing, except maybe a millstone.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
