Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Archaeopteryx]

Logical empiricism.

A treatment of it can be found in Ayer's 1936 work entitled: Language, Truth and Logic.

It has been abandoned for nearly 50 years because it is self-refuting, as many of the views of young atheists here are who have not read Ayer's work.

And it's been replaced by? Shouldn't a self-declared Christian philosopher know this?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Not at all.

Some here act like they do not know what the word means when philosophers use it in the context which I have referenced.

That is my point.

Philosophers have been having meaningful and fruitful conversations about God for hundreds of centuries.

I get on this forum and it is like stepping into the twilight zone. Atheists especially seem simply clueless regarding the rich history of philosophical discourse revolving around God and what attributes He would have if He existed.

I come here and the vast majority of atheists act like they do not know what I even mean when I use the word "God"!

I have trouble discerning whether or not some people here are even serious.

Maybe it's just you they have trouble taking seriously? Yes, there is a rich history of philosophical discourse to engage with, but you don't engage with it. You just allude to it as a means of saving your reputation by fostering the impression that you have expertise in something other than apologetics. No one is fooled by this.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Plantinga's free will defense renders the Epicurean argument impotent.

No it doesn't. See previous discussions with Jeremy E Walker.

 

[anonymous person]

What is wrong with it, when it concerns claims about reality?

Logical empiricism is self refuting.

That's the problem with it.

 

[Davian]

I am here because I enjoy being here. That is one reason at least.

What are the other reasons?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What are the other reasons?

To win converts:

Why should we bother to prove our beliefs true if all you would do is say, "Ok, your beliefs are true." and go about your merry way. As ambassadors of Christ we are beseeching you ultimately to be reconciled to God, not just to give mere intellectual assent to some propositions.

 

[bhsmte]

Logical empiricism is self refuting.

That's the problem with it.

Still waiting for your explanation of your claim that I use words with no meaning and I don't understand what I write.

See post 140 for clarification.

 

[anonymous person]

Still waiting for your explanation of your claim that I use words with no meaning and I don't understand what I write.

See post 140 for clarification.

I never claimed you used words with no meaning.

I asked you if you made a habit of doing so. Obviously the answer is no, you don't make a habit of using words with no meaning. Neither do the Philosophers who write peer reviewed articles on topics about God.

 

[bhsmte]

I never claimed you used words with no meaning.

I asked you if you made a habit of doing so. Obviously the answer is no, you don't make a habit of using words with no meaning. Neither do the Philosophers who write peer reviewed articles on topics about God.

Again, I would expect a philosopher of religion to mention the word God and do so often.

You seem to think this has some special meaning, because you are seriously grasping for straws.

Good luck with that.

 

[anonymous person]

Again, I would expect a philosopher of religion to mention the word God and do so often.

You seem to think this has some special meaning, because you are seriously grasping for straws.

Good luck with that.

The word "God", is not meaningless. That was my point.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The word "God", is not meaningless. That was my point.

It depends in what sense it is being used.

 

[anonymous person]

It depends in what sense it is being used.

In what sense would it be meaningless?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Logical empiricism is self refuting.

That's the problem with it.

You're just making more assertions.

Let's recapitulate...

My stance is that claims concerning phenomena of reality require some form of testability in order to be able assess the truth value of those claims.

Please explain how and why this is a problem.

Try to refrain from more bare assertions and one liners.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In what sense would it be meaningless?

Arguably, in the sense in which it merely substitutes for other words, like "mystery" or "unknown," or in self-contradictory statements.

 

[anonymous person]

You're just making more assertions.

Let's recapitulate...

My stance is that claims concerning phenomena of reality require some form of testability in order to be able assess the truth value of those claims.

Please explain how and why this is a problem.

Your stance is a claim concerning phenomena of reality.

Your claim cannot be tested for its truth value.

Your stance is thus self-refuting. It fails to stand up to its own criterion.

 

[anonymous person]

Arguably, in the sense in which it merely substitutes for other words, like "mystery" or "unknown," or in self-contradictory statements.

So the word "mystery" and the word "unknown" are words that are meaningless to you?

Why do you deny that these words have meaning?

In what way is the word "God" used to substitute for self-contradictory statements?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So the word "mystery" and the word "unknown" are words that are meaningless to you?

No. Read what I actually wrote, rather than what you have imposed on what I wrote.

Why do you deny that these words have meaning?

I don't.

In what way is the word "God" used to substitute for self-contradictory statements?

The placement of the comma suggests a seperate clause.

 

[anonymous person]

No. Read what I actually wrote, rather than what you have imposed on what I wrote.

I don't.

The placement of the comma suggests a seperate clause.

I have just demonstrated to you that the word "God", even if used synonymously for "mystery" or "unknown", is not without meaning. The word still has meaning.

So as an intellectually honest person, you should abandon your view about the word "God" being meaningless.

Will you?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have just demonstrated to you that the word "God", even if used synonymously for "mystery" or "unknown", is not without meaning. The word still has meaning.

So as an intellectually honest person, you should abandon your view about the word "God" being meaningless.

Will you?

I didn't say it was meaningless! Have you even be reading my posts? I said that it depends on the sense in which the word is being used. Used as a substitute for "mystery" and "unknown," it is meaningless; we already have words for things that are mysterious and for ignorance.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So as an intellectually honest person, you should abandon your view about the word "God" being meaningless.

Will you?

By the way, I don't know if, given your current status, you are in any position to be offering advice on intellectual honesty.