Failed arguments

[Non sequitur]

Are there any arguments that have been (overwhelmingly or a majority) accepted as false/debunked/etc, on either or both sides of the fence?

Ex: Pascal's Wager, Kalam's, fine-tuning, etc.

 

[Paradoxum]

I thought I heard recently that it is accepted that the problem of evil doesn't necessarily mean there is no God. Still the problem of suffering does have emotional power, perhaps making Gods existences seem less likely.Also I doubt that many educated in a similar subject would accept pascals wager.

I would think that no one accepts Anslem's or Descartes' ontological arguments. Ontological arguments wouldn't ever seem to be safe ground for belief in my opinion.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Depending on academis standards, appeal to the people (argumentum ad populum), and also "one of the religions must be true" would be dismissed.

 

[JoeyArnold]

Our hate for evil proves God.

 

[variant]

Our hate for evil proves God.

If evil is defined by people and society at large then why wouldn't we hate it in that case as well?

 

[JoeyArnold]

If evil is defined by people and society at large then why wouldn't we hate it in that case as well?

Historically, evil isn't just defined by societies but rather by individuals.

 

[variant]

Historically, evil isn't just defined by societies but rather by individuals.

Which is why I said people and society, rather than just society.

I assume that people are understood to be individuals.

 

[JoeyArnold]

If evil is defined by people and society at large then why wouldn't we hate it in that case as well?

Why do each of us come to the same conclusions in hating evil?

 

[Paradoxum]

Our hate for evil proves God.

If evil is defined by people and society at large then why wouldn't we hate it in that case as well?

I disagree with both of you.

I think morality comes from applying the subjective objectively. By this I mean that humans naturally value themselves and their choices. Because of our capability for rationality we can then objectively see that others desires are just as important as our own, and therefore we shouldn't unnecessarily harm others. Empathy and pity also help us to do this. This at least gives us negative duties. I haven't gotten far enough in my thinking to know if you can get positive charity from this.

 

[variant]

Why do each of us come to the same conclusions in hating evil?

People often do not. All you have to do is ask two different people a complicated moral question. I can cite examples if you wish.

When they do, it is because of similar repeatable experience and socialization. Socialization tends to come to these conclusions naturally because they help to organize societies.

But, your a long way from proving God, so why don't you cite some examples of things people wouldn't usually naturally define as evil and how they relate to the existence of God.

Or, in short, why shouldn't we expect people to come to x conclusion on the nature of evil? Please include x.

 

[variant]

I disagree with both of you.

I think morality comes from applying the subjective objectively. By this I mean that humans naturally value themselves and their choices. Because of our capability for rationality we can then objectively see that others desires are just as important as our own, and therefore we shouldn't unnecessarily harm others. Empathy and pity also help us to do this. This at least gives us negative duties. I haven't gotten far enough in my thinking to know if you can get positive charity from this.

I don't think you've done a good job in actually disagreeing with me. There is of course nothing stopping people from using rationality empathy and socialization in their value system. That is how it is done.

 

[secondtimearound]

I thought I heard recently that it is accepted that the problem of evil doesn't necessarily mean there is no God. Still the problem of suffering does have emotional power, perhaps making Gods existences seem less likely.Also I doubt that many educated in a similar subject would accept pascals wager.

I would think that no one accepts Anslem's or Descartes' ontological arguments. Ontological arguments wouldn't ever seem to be safe ground for belief in my opinion.

In regards to the problem of evil you are reffering to Metaphysical possibility as the "answer". It has never been shown that a loving God and the existence of evil in the world is contradictory. The problem of evil turns out to be more of an emotional one.

Anselm's ontological argument is but a strawman to Plantinga's version. While a lot of people do not consider it a strong argument, there is a lot who do. It has not been defeated and has evolved into dizzying heights especially when combined with other arguments, here is an example:

The Messianic Drew: Maydole's Temporal Contingency Argument

 

[JoeyArnold]

I think morality comes from applying the subjective objectively. By this I mean that humans naturally value themselves and their choices. Because of our capability for rationality we can then objectively see that others desires are just as important as our own, and therefore we shouldn't unnecessarily harm others. Empathy and pity also help us to do this.

Our ability to apply subjectivity objectively proves God. Our shared desire & pursuit in valuing each other & their choices proves God. Our rationale & capabilities & perspective & attitude & love for others proves God. Our empathy & pity proves God.

 

[secondtimearound]

In regards to this thread:

I have heard it said that philosophy is like entering a room where a disscussion has been going on for thousands of years, saying your piece all-the-while knowing that the conversation will continue on for thousandof years once you leave. (paraphrase)

Fifty years ago the question of G-d's existence was considered irrelavent thanks to the verification principle and a form of philosophy known as logical positivism. Since the collapse of that philosophy, the discipline that once declared G-d dead is now host to 1/6th of it's participants being professing Christians. My point is that things change, that includes the relavance of arguments. No argument can be counted out, it may very-well be the case that it is false, but it may be shown in the future that the reasoning it is false it actually false itself.

 

[JoeyArnold]

People often do not. All you have to do is ask two different people a complicated moral question. I can cite examples if you wish.

Deep inside people know between right & wrong regardless of what they do.

 

[Non sequitur]

Deep inside people know between right & wrong regardless of what they do.

Are you talking about moral absolutes?

 

[JoeyArnold]

Are you talking about moral absolutes?

Whatever that it is, every soul is aware of it.

 

[secondtimearound]

Are you talking about moral absolutes?

Objective moral values are the words. The Moral Argument is what this is getting into.

 

[Non sequitur]

Whatever that it is, every soul is aware of it.

Ah, yes. The objective morals/moral authority.

Those don't exist, so there's that...

 

[JoeyArnold]

Ah, yes. The objective morals/moral authority. Those don't exist, so there's that...

Every soul is aware of something deep inside.