Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[anonymous person]

What would be the point of trying to do that?

Seems obvious to me. To prove me wrong.

You will simply play the "inner witness" card and declare yourself triumphant regardless.

I would appeal to the inner witness of the Holy Spirit only when doing so was called for, and no argument you have provided thus far even require me to do so. For example, suppose you were to attempt to prove to me that the inner witness of the Holy Spirit was nothing more than just my subconscious thoughts masquerading as the Holy Spirit and that there was no actual witness of the Holy Spirit. I would wait for you to try and prove this and then address it without even appealing to the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. An appeal to the Holy Spirit is an appeal that I make only when necessary. I have never wielded the appeal as some sword with which to cut down every attempt at proving me wrong.

You may say, Jesus is not alive.

In response I would not appeal to the inner witness to say, "He lives in my heart, you are wrong!" That would not be very persuasive to you.

The appeal to the inner witness is not really even an argument people use to demonstrate the veracity of the central truth claims of Christianity. Rather, it is more of an assurance that a child of God has that he is indeed born of God. It is not something visible or tangible that one uses to argue God exists, and no Christian philosopher who appeals to it appeals to it for this reason.

It seems to me you have a misunderstanding of why people appeal to the inner witness.

Even if you had no good reasons to be as certain about your beliefs as you are, you would still maintain the same level of certainty by insisting that your personal religious experience is incontrovertible and that it supersedes anything that would otherwise compel you to reconsider your theological commitments.

No I would not. I ask that you refrain from making such claims about what I would or would not do. It is presumptuous. I shall gladly do the same for you.

Sorry, but your reliance on the apologetics game suggests that you are anything but "marvellously free" to have your beliefs questioned.

My apologetic is intricately related to the philosophy of religion. Give me some good reasons to question my beliefs and I will. But don't expect me to question them if all you have to present is "you are playing the apologetics game".

See above. What would be the point? I'm not going to assume that you are approaching these matters honestly when I have seen abundant evidence to the contrary.

I need only point to your disposition in this discussion to discredit your claim to approaching these matters with the desire to be "objective, honest, and open."

Ok then drop it.

 

[anonymous person]

There is nothing to prove wrong, because you are the one with the burden, to prove your position.

I do understand though, it is better for you to place the burden of proof on another, to prove a negative.

Intellectual honesty???

The free-will theodicy formulated by Dr. Plantinga shows that the logical problem of evil has been resolved and that there is no logical contradiction in affirming that God possess the attributes traditionally attributed to Him and that evil exists. This is the most commonly used argument championed by atheists against the existence of God.

Do you agree that the logical problem of evil has been resolved and is not a viable argument against the existence of God?

Yes or no?

If no, then you have the burden of demonstrating why. The ball is in your court. I await your response.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

How do you assess the truth value of a claim concerning phenomena of reality, if not through testing it?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The free-will theodicy formulated by Dr. Plantinga shows that the logical problem of evil has been resolved and that there is no logical contradiction in affirming that God possess the attributes traditionally attributed to Him and that evil exists. This is the most commonly used argument championed by atheists against the existence of God.

Even if there wasn't a single inconsistency between the bible and the real world, that still would not move your case forward for a single inch.

You actually need positive evidence FOR your position.

Showing that you have an internally consistent idea that doesn't contradict real world facts is a nice place to start for sure, but ... you still have to actually start.

I can make up any number of claims that are internally consistent and which do not conflict with the real world. And every single one of them will be made up on the spot.

Like that undetectable 7-headed dragon that follows you around everywhere you go.

Do you agree that the logical problem of evil has been resolved and is not a viable argument against the existence of God?

Why is this relevant? Since bhsmte didn't make that argument - at all....
Perhaps you might want to respond to what people actually say.

Bhsmte has no reason or responsability to defend an argument or claim that he didn't make.

 

[zippy2006]

You actually need positive evidence FOR your position.

Apparently you're lost and looking for the thread, "Philosophical arguments for the existence of God." See, 'against' and 'for' are two different things. Antonyms, in fact! If there were a thread for English vocabulary, I would point you there, but alas!, there is not!

 

[KCfromNC]

The Quentin Smith I am referencing is an atheist philosopher of religion.

The Quentins I was referencing are American football players.

 

[KCfromNC]

What a desperate thread.

There are times where the best defense of something shows how correct the other side is. This appears to be one of those cases. Seems like someone forgot the first rule about what to do when you've dug yourself into a hole...

Should quit as soon as he realize the responses to the OP weren't going according to the script.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Apparently you're lost and looking for the thread, "Philosophical arguments for the existence of God." See, 'against' and 'for' are two different things. Antonyms, in fact! If there were a thread for English vocabulary, I would point you there, but alas!, there is not!

I was explaining how it wouldn't matter at all if there wasn't a single valid argument against gods.

You need positive evidence FOR your position.

For example, I don't think you can make a single valid argument against the idea that there is an undetectable 7-headed dragon following you everywhere you go. But that doesn't mean such a dragon is indeed following you around.

 

[KCfromNC]

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

All you have to do is produce proof that every response to Plantinga is incorrect. I'm sure you're willing to do that - after all, earlier in the thread you expected atheists to counter every conceivable argument for gods to justify their lack of belief. Only fair you'd be expected to do the same. Get to it if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[KCfromNC]

The free-will theodicy formulated by Dr. Plantinga shows that the logical problem of evil has been resolved and that there is no logical contradiction in affirming that God possess the attributes traditionally attributed to Him and that evil exists. This is the most commonly used argument championed by atheists against the existence of God.

Do you agree that the logical problem of evil has been resolved and is not a viable argument against the existence of God?

Yes or no?

If no, then you have the burden of demonstrating why. The ball is in your court. I await your response.

The free-will theodicy formulated by Dr. Plantinga does not show that the logical problem of evil has been resolved and that there is still a logical contradiction in affirming that God possess the attributes traditionally attributed to Him and that evil exists. This is the most commonly used argument championed by non-believers for the existence of problem of evil.

Do you agree that the logical problem of evil has been resolved and is not a viable argument against the existence of God?

Yes or no?

If no, then you have the burden of demonstrating why. The ball is in your court. I await your response.

Hey look, asserting stuff and throwing around random names is easy. Too bad it isn't convincing.

 

[KCfromNC]

How do you assess the truth value of a claim concerning phenomena of reality, if not through testing it?

Inner witness of the holy spirit, obviously.

 

[bhsmte]

Seems obvious to me. To prove me wrong.



I would appeal to the inner witness of the Holy Spirit only when doing so was called for, and no argument you have provided thus far even require me to do so. For example, suppose you were to attempt to prove to me that the inner witness of the Holy Spirit was nothing more than just my subconscious thoughts masquerading as the Holy Spirit and that there was no actual witness of the Holy Spirit. I would wait for you to try and prove this and then address it without even appealing to the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. An appeal to the Holy Spirit is an appeal that I make only when necessary. I have never wielded the appeal as some sword with which to cut down every attempt at proving me wrong.

You may say, Jesus is not alive.

In response I would not appeal to the inner witness to say, "He lives in my heart, you are wrong!" That would not be very persuasive to you.

The appeal to the inner witness is not really even an argument people use to demonstrate the veracity of the central truth claims of Christianity. Rather, it is more of an assurance that a child of God has that he is indeed born of God. It is not something visible or tangible that one uses to argue God exists, and no Christian philosopher who appeals to it appeals to it for this reason.

It seems to me you have a misunderstanding of why people appeal to the inner witness.




No I would not. I ask that you refrain from making such claims about what I would or would not do. It is presumptuous. I shall gladly do the same for you.



My apologetic is intricately related to the philosophy of religion. Give me some good reasons to question my beliefs and I will. But don't expect me to question them if all you have to present is "you are playing the apologetics game".



Ok then drop it.

I was abducted by aliens last night and returned to my home.

Prove me wrong.

 

[bhsmte]

The free-will theodicy formulated by Dr. Plantinga shows that the logical problem of evil has been resolved and that there is no logical contradiction in affirming that God possess the attributes traditionally attributed to Him and that evil exists. This is the most commonly used argument championed by atheists against the existence of God.

Do you agree that the logical problem of evil has been resolved and is not a viable argument against the existence of God?

Yes or no?

If no, then you have the burden of demonstrating why. The ball is in your court. I await your response.

It depends on how one defines God.

This is why, a specific definition is required, to make the best determination something exists.

 

[Davian]

The war on logical positivism continues...

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.

It depends on how you define "truth" in that context.

Do you mean absolute knowledge, as I see the word typically used by religionists in this forum, or just having the value of not being a falsity, in the philosophical sense?

"A scientific theory would be stated with its method of verification, whereby a logical calculus or empirical operation could verify its falsity or truth."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

Either way, was it your intent that this would leave a philosophical hole big enough through which you might pull your god into existing?

 

[Davian]

...

Now if the phrase "The Supreme Being" is meaningless, then you need to tell me why you think that.

I still waiting for you to define what you mean by "being".

The only "beings" I am aware of are human beings, living breathing, consuming, excreting organisms that depend on a brain, at a minimum, to maintain their "being" status (a headless body kept alive by artificial means would doubtless lose their status as a "being").

 

[Davian]

Seems obvious to me. To prove me wrong.

Have you yet to provide something testable?

I would appeal to the inner witness of the Holy Spirit only when doing so was called for, and no argument you have provided thus far even require me to do so. For example, suppose you were to attempt to prove to me that the inner witness of the Holy Spirit was nothing more than just my subconscious thoughts masquerading as the Holy Spirit and that there was no actual witness of the Holy Spirit. I would wait for you to try and prove this and then address it without even appealing to the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. An appeal to the Holy Spirit is an appeal that I make only when necessary. I have never wielded the appeal as some sword with which to cut down every attempt at proving me wrong.

To be clear, you have no testable, falsifiable evidence that this "inner witness" is more than a product of your imagination, correct?

You may say, Jesus is not alive.

How could he be after all this time?

In response I would not appeal to the inner witness to say, "He lives in my heart, you are wrong!" That would not be very persuasive to you.

Agreed. Not very.

The appeal to the inner witness is not really even an argument people use to demonstrate the veracity of the central truth claims of Christianity. Rather, it is more of an assurance that a child of God has that he is indeed born of God. It is not something visible or tangible that one uses to argue God exists, and no Christian philosopher who appeals to it appeals to it for this reason.

It seems to me you have a misunderstanding of why people appeal to the inner witness.

I would guess that you find it very convincing, based on my own experiences.

No I would not. I ask that you refrain from making such claims about what I would or would not do. It is presumptuous. I shall gladly do the same for you.

And no more mind-reading tricks?

My apologetic is intricately related to the philosophy of religion. Give me some good reasons to question my beliefs and I will.

In all your time in these forums, have you come across any good reasons to question your beliefs, or do you still have the truth?

 

[Davian]

Apparently you're lost and looking for the thread, "Philosophical arguments for the existence of God." See, 'against' and 'for' are two different things. Antonyms, in fact! If there were a thread for English vocabulary, I would point you there, but alas!, there is not!

It would seem to me that the pretence of the OP was dropped when he declined, in post #6, to define what he meant by "God".

 

[anonymous person]

How do you assess the truth value of a claim concerning phenomena of reality, if not through testing it?

Different methods depending upon the claim.

Claims subject to being assessed through repeated observation and experimentation i.e. empirical methods of investigation can be assessed using those means.

Claims not subject to being assessed through empirical methods can be assessed using other means.

What I want you and everyone else here to come to understand, if you do not already understand it, is this:

Not every claim is subject to empirical investigation. I am sure everyone here can agree with this. If not, examples can be given.

To say that in such cases, said claims cannot be assessed for their truth value because they are not subject to being empirically verified is a particular position one holds with regards to the meaning of propositions. In other words it is a position one holds regarding the criterion of the meaning of propositions.

Such a position is not tenable, i.e. you should not be on here telling me that my claims need to be empirically verified when:

A. Many of my claims are not even subject to being empirically verified.
B. The position is untenable because it is far too restrictive a criterion of meaning.
C. The position is ultimately self-refuting. It fails to meet its own criterion.

In light of the above, you need to realize that such a criterion of meaning is applicable to certain claims, but the vast majority of claims that both you and I make are not subject to it.

What you need to do is first determine whether my claims are even in principle, subject to being empirically verified. If they are not, then do not ask me to provide empirical verification for them.

Do you understand so far?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Different methods depending upon the claim.

Claims subject to being assessed through repeated observation and experimentation i.e. empirical methods of investigation can be assessed using those means.

Claims not subject to being assessed through empirical methods can be assessed using other means.

Considering that I am talking about claims concerning phenomena of reality, could you give an example of both?

I'm also very curious as to what those "other means" are. Hopefully a detailed explanation of this follows later in this post.

Not every claim is subject to empirical investigation. I am sure everyone here can agree with this. If not, examples can be given.

I never said otherwise.
But what I'm asking about is how to assess the truth value of a claim.
It seems to me that a claim that is not subject to verification, can't be verified. And I wonder how one goes about to assess the truth value of those claims.

The claims may be correct and they may be incorrect. The question is how we can tell wheter they are correct or incorrect, if not through some logical form of testability.

How do we verify if the claim about reality actually matches reality, if we can't verify if it does?

To say that in such cases, said claims cannot be assessed for their truth value because they are not subject to being empirically verified is a particular position one holds with regards to the meaning of propositions. In other words it is a position one holds regarding the criterion of the meaning of propositions.

yes, yes...

None of this is an answer to my question. I'm still hoping to get an answer later on in the post.

Such a position is not tenable, i.e. you should not be on here telling me that my claims need to be empirically verified when:

A. Many of my claims are not even subject to being empirically verified.
B. The position is untenable because it is far too restrictive a criterion of meaning.
C. The position is ultimately self-refuting. It fails to meet its own criterion.

How can I tell if your claims are true or false if I cannot verify them? If I can not test them to see if they actually match reality?

Am I to "just believe you"?

In light of the above, you need to realize that such a criterion of meaning is applicable to certain claims, but the vast majority of claims that both you and I make are not subject to it.

What claims do I make that can't be verified?

And I'm still waiting on what those "other means" of verification are.

What you need to do is first determine whether my claims are even in principle, subject to being empirically verified. If they are not, then do not ask me to provide empirical verification for them.

How do I tell if your claim is based in truth, if I can not verify it and test it against actual reality?

Do you understand so far?

I understand that you went through a lot of trouble to write this post and talked about empiricism and how certain claims can't be empirically verified. And I agree certain claims can't be verified.

But that was not my question. My question is: how can I assess the truth value of a claim, if I can not test that claim against reality?

You spoke about "other means" in the beginning of your post.

Those "other means" are what I am asking about.
What are they?

Please just answer the question.

 

[anonymous person]

I was explaining how it wouldn't matter at all if there wasn't a single valid argument against gods.

You need positive evidence FOR your position.

I would need to supply this if I were arguing for the existence of God. I am not doing that in this thread though so to bring it up is futile.

For example, I don't think you can make a single valid argument against the idea that there is an undetectable 7-headed dragon following you everywhere you go. But that doesn't mean such a dragon is indeed following you around.

There are arguments against the existence of God. You have seen some of them presented here. Bringing up what you have is simply unnecessary. You do not need to explain to us what you have because no one here is arguing against what you are saying.

Do you understand that?