Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[brinny]

Ummm, this one?


........................................

......................

[/quote][/QUOTE]

LOL!

 

[HitchSlap]

Why is it bad?

You have to ask why?

 

[Davian]

It is an article about why atheists have no grounds for claiming anything

Atheism is only a theological position on the subject of deities. I can say for myself, what I don't believe in does not inform my morality.

is objectively evil or good,

Why need it be objective?

seeing as how they have nothing in their worldview

Atheism is not a worldview.

that amounts to an objective, transcendent anchor for the grounding of moral values and duties.

Okay.

I don't see how your particular interpretation of the Bible counts as "objective".

 

[quatona]

It seems that all anonymous poster wants to say is:
Without a God there can´t be a God-dictated morality.
He has a point there.

 

[KCfromNC]

It seems that all anonymous poster wants to say is:
Without a God there can´t be a God-dictated morality.
He has a point there.

True enough. Good thing the Muslims are around to teach it to us.

 

[HitchSlap]

True enough. Good thing the Muslims are around to teach it to us.

According to Craig's "divine command theory," you'd be correct.

 

[loveofourlord]

I am not attacking anything.

I'm just saying that empirical methods of investigation have limits. They are limited to their domain i.e. the repeatable and observable.

Science is limited to the repeatable and the observable. Metaphysics is not limited to the physical, hence the prefix "meta", for example.

Theology is not limited to the physical. It deals with non-physical concepts.

Aesthetic judgments and claims do not fall within the domain of the empirical. Value judgements about good and evil are not subject to the empirical.

Beliefs like there are other minds besides my own, or I am not a body lying in the matrix, etc. do not fall within the domain of beliefs subject to the empirical.

How my ancestors migrated across continents millenia ago is not something accessible or repeatable or observable. Historiographers and sociologists utilize other tools to draw conclusions about the past. They use inductive reasoning for example. They use written records, artifacts etc.

So no one is attacking anything or anyone. I think science is one of the most beneficial things we as humans have at or disposal, but it is not the be all and end all source of knowledge. It is one source of knowledge.

Except that neither can you, you have no method to avoid those problems either. so your saying emperacism can't do X, when neiteher can anything else, it's like attacking someone for not being able to fly but stuck with that same problem.

Ummm....those are repeatable and observable please don't tell me your a creationist, because thats a false idea of science, what has to be repeatable is the methods you used to arive at your conclusion, not the event itself, learn a bit about science.

Prove to me that were not living in the matrix, or the world wasn't created 5 minutes ago, go ahead, because unless you can, your attacking emperacism and science is nothing but but vacuous grand standing.

I believe in god, and Jesus, but also realize that I could be wrong, you havn't shown anything to show science or emperacism wrong, you just said, "Your methods can't prove X." yet neither can you, show you got methods that can solve X or stop acting like our not being able to some how means anything.

 

[anonymous person]

You have to ask why?

I have to ask you because you are an atheist. You don't believe God exists who would ground objective moral values and duties and without whom there is no transcendent objective grounds for said values or obligations.

Every time you make a moral judgment you assume there is some standard by which one judges a particular act, say acid burning, to be wrong or IOW a departure from the way a homo sapien should be treated.

When asked why a homo sapien should not be treated a certain way, you attempt to bridge the gap between what is and what ought to be by saying things like "we ought to treat people the way we want to be treated". To which I can happily agree. But I am not an atheist. I am a Christian who holds that treating others as I would like to be treated is a moral fact i.e. it is a statement that purports to report a fact about reality and that those who disagree are just as wrong as those who would say Tokyo is the capital city of the United States or that a triangle is a four sided shape. I don't appeal to my feelings or what I think to be the case or what people generally agree on or what is useful. I appeal to a moral fact that is true even if no one else thinks it is and I hold that I am obligated both to my fellow man and ultimately to God to treat others the way I want to be treated. God who alone has the power and authority to hold me personally accountable for obeying or choosing not to obey the moral commands He issues as expressions of His divine prerogative.

What do you have? On your godless paradigm, there is no transcendent embodiment of Good. There is no ultimate authority to whom we are morally accountable that is concerned about how we treat one another. There is no comprehensive, overarching reason or plan or design behind our existence. There is no life after this one wherein the good we have done is rewarded and the evil we have done receives it's just merit.

You have homo sapiens who have evolved like everything else that has evolved. We have developed, due to socio-biological evolutionary processes, a herd morality wherein we by instinct, observe certain behaviors and over time deduce that these behaviors either help us survive or hurt us. This herd morality is a survival adaptation akin to a bird's wings or a bat's infrared capabilities. We have evolved to think that certain things are wrong or right, good or evil. Thinking these things help us survive. What helps us survive, we call good or right. What hurts us we call wrong or bad. Tribes of homo sapiens use these survival tools today. The call for unity by members of various tribes against a common perceived threat, ISIS, which itself is comprised of different homo sapien tribes. Tribe Anti-ISIS, feels threatened by tribe ISIS and reacts like a cat reacts to a perceived threat by making a hissing sound except homo sapiens don't hiss, they make speeches. Tribe ISIS feels threatened and instinctually reacts too. They make speeches. Our primate cousins use rocks and sticks and other primitive implements to survive against threats. We use guns and bombs and media and swords and words.

The ANTI-ISIS troop of homo sapiens point at the ISIS troop of homo sapiens and say "bad". The ISIS troop of homo sapiens point at the Anti-ISIS troop of homo sapiens and say "bad".

Each group has evolved to view as a threat the other. This they do because it aids in their survival. Lions roar. It's what they do. They hunt. They kill. Homo sapiens hunt and kill. It's what they do.

There is no "right" or "wrong" way to evolve. There just is the evolutionary process. There is no intelligent, personal agent behind any of this. There just is the cosmos, for the most part cold, and totally indifferent.

So don't talk to me about there being some actual transcendent, objective moral grounds for determining what is good or bad, right or wrong if you want to talk to me as an atheist. Face the fact that what you think is bad i.e. throwing acid in someone's face is something you think and feel because feeling and thinking this in some way aids in your survival and you need to come to terms that some of your fellow homo sapiens have evolved differently and see it as a very useful tool to use in surviving.

 

[anonymous person]

Except that neither can you, you have no method to avoid those problems either. so your saying emperacism can't do X, when neiteher can anything else, it's like attacking someone for not being able to fly but stuck with that same problem.

Ummm....those are repeatable and observable please don't tell me your a creationist, because thats a false idea of science, what has to be repeatable is the methods you used to arive at your conclusion, not the event itself, learn a bit about science.

Prove to me that were not living in the matrix, or the world wasn't created 5 minutes ago, go ahead, because unless you can, your attacking emperacism and science is nothing but but vacuous grand standing.

I believe in god, and Jesus, but also realize that I could be wrong, you havn't shown anything to show science or emperacism wrong, you just said, "Your methods can't prove X." yet neither can you, show you got methods that can solve X or stop acting like our not being able to some how means anything.

That's great that you believe in God and Jesus.

I have never claimed science or empiricism were wrong, whatever that would mean. I think you just misunderstand what I am saying and that's ok too.

 

[quatona]

I have to ask you because you are an atheist. You don't believe God exists who would ground objective moral values and duties and without whom there is no transcendent objective grounds for said values or obligations.

Actually, as an atheist I can believe and claim that there is an objective moral ground that I can´t demonstrate to exist, just like you do.
Also, I can simply declare something to be the only possible ground for moral objectivity, just like you do.
I don´t, though, mind you. I just can´t summon up the intellectual dishonesty required for that.

 

[HitchSlap]

I have to ask you because you are an atheist. You don't believe God exists who would ground objective moral values and duties and without whom there is no transcendent objective grounds for said values or obligations.

Every time you make a moral judgment you assume there is some standard by which one judges a particular act, say acid burning, to be wrong or IOW a departure from the way a homo sapien should be treated.

When asked why a homo sapien should not be treated a certain way, you attempt to bridge the gap between what is and what ought to be by saying things like "we ought to treat people the way we want to be treated". To which I can happily agree. But I am not an atheist. I am a Christian who holds that treating others as I would like to be treated is a moral fact i.e. it is a statement that purports to report a fact about reality and that those who disagree are just as wrong as those who would say Tokyo is the capital city of the United States or that a triangle is a four sided shape. I don't appeal to my feelings or what I think to be the case or what people generally agree on or what is useful. I appeal to a moral fact that is true even if no one else thinks it is and I hold that I am obligated both to my fellow man and ultimately to God to treat others the way I want to be treated. God who alone has the power and authority to hold me personally accountable for obeying or choosing not to obey the moral commands He issues as expressions of His divine prerogative.

What do you have? On your godless paradigm, there is no transcendent embodiment of Good. There is no ultimate authority to whom we are morally accountable that is concerned about how we treat one another. There is no comprehensive, overarching reason or plan or design behind our existence. There is no life after this one wherein the good we have done is rewarded and the evil we have done receives it's just merit.

You have homo sapiens who have evolved like everything else that has evolved. We have developed, due to socio-biological evolutionary processes, a herd morality wherein we by instinct, observe certain behaviors and over time deduce that these behaviors either help us survive or hurt us. This herd morality is a survival adaptation akin to a bird's wings or a bat's infrared capabilities. We have evolved to think that certain things are wrong or right, good or evil. Thinking these things help us survive. What helps us survive, we call good or right. What hurts us we call wrong or bad. Tribes of homo sapiens use these survival tools today. The call for unity by members of various tribes against a common perceived threat, ISIS, which itself is comprised of different homo sapien tribes. Tribe Anti-ISIS, feels threatened by tribe ISIS and reacts like a cat reacts to a perceived threat by making a hissing sound except homo sapiens don't hiss, they make speeches. Tribe ISIS feels threatened and instinctually reacts too. They make speeches. Our primate cousins use rocks and sticks and other primitive implements to survive against threats. We use guns and bombs and media and swords and words.

The ANTI-ISIS troop of homo sapiens point at the ISIS troop of homo sapiens and say "bad". The ISIS troop of homo sapiens point at the Anti-ISIS troop of homo sapiens and say "bad".

Each group has evolved to view as a threat the other. This they do because it aids in their survival. Lions roar. It's what they do. They hunt. They kill. Homo sapiens hunt and kill. It's what they do.

There is no "right" or "wrong" way to evolve. There just is the evolutionary process. There is no intelligent, personal agent behind any of this. There just is the cosmos, for the most part cold, and totally indifferent.

So don't talk to me about there being some actual transcendent, objective moral grounds for determining what is good or bad, right or wrong if you want to talk to me as an atheist. Face the fact that what you think is bad i.e. throwing acid in someone's face is something you think and feel because feeling and thinking this in some way aids in your survival and you need to come to terms that some of your fellow homo sapiens have evolved differently and see it as a very useful tool to use in surviving.

Throwing acid on someone could maim or potentially kill them. Why would you need "transcendence" to figure this out?

 

[anonymous person]

The question, which @DogmaHunter already raised on multiple occasions (1), is how the truth of such claims is established.

Not all theological claims are epistemologically the same. Depends on the claim. What claim did you have in mind?

 

[anonymous person]

Actually, as an atheist I can believe and claim that there is an objective moral ground that I can´t demonstrate to exist, just like you do.
Also, I can simply declare something to be the only possible ground for moral objectivity, just like you do.
I don´t, though, mind you. I just can´t summon up the intellectual dishonesty required for that.

You don't exist as I recall you saying earlier. So I am not surprised at all that you can't summon up dishonesty, intellectual or otherwise.

 

[Davian]

I have to ask you because you are an atheist. You don't believe God exists who would ground objective moral values and duties and without whom there is no transcendent objective grounds for said values or obligations.

How is your subjective interpretation of the Bible "objective"? It varies from person to person.

Every time you make a moral judgment you assume there is some standard by which one judges a particular act, say acid burning, to be wrong or IOW a departure from the way a homo sapien should be treated.

I do not assume there is some standard.

When asked why a homo sapien should not be treated a certain way, you attempt to bridge the gap between what is and what ought to be by saying things like "we ought to treat people the way we want to be treated". To which I can happily agree. But I am not an atheist. I am a Christian who holds that treating others as I would like to be treated is a moral fact i.e. it is a statement that purports to report a fact about reality and that those who disagree are just as wrong as those who would say Tokyo is the capital city of the United States or that a triangle is a four sided shape. I don't appeal to my feelings or what I think to be the case or what people generally agree on or what is useful. I appeal to a moral fact that is true even if no one else thinks it is and I hold that I am obligated both to my fellow man and ultimately to God to treat others the way I want to be treated. God who alone has the power and authority to hold me personally accountable for obeying or choosing not to obey the moral commands He issues as expressions of His divine prerogative.

Does not your theology boil down to anything goes as long as you believe?

What do you have? On your godless paradigm, there is no transcendent embodiment of Good. There is no ultimate authority to whom we are morally accountable that is concerned about how we treat one another. There is no comprehensive, overarching reason or plan or design behind our existence.

Okay.

There is no life after this one wherein the good we have done is rewarded and the evil we have done receives it's just merit.

By "good" you mean, belief in your particular god in your particular way, and by "evil" you mean, disbelief. Is this accurate?

You have homo sapiens who have evolved like everything else that has evolved. We have developed, due to socio-biological evolutionary processes, a herd morality wherein we by instinct, observe certain behaviors and over time deduce that these behaviors either help us survive or hurt us. This herd morality is a survival adaptation akin to a bird's wings or a bat's infrared capabilities. We have evolved to think that certain things are wrong or right, good or evil. Thinking these things help us survive. What helps us survive, we call good or right. What hurts us we call wrong or bad. Tribes of homo sapiens use these survival tools today. The call for unity by members of various tribes against a common perceived threat, ISIS, which itself is comprised of different homo sapien tribes. Tribe Anti-ISIS, feels threatened by tribe ISIS and reacts like a cat reacts to a perceived threat by making a hissing sound except homo sapiens don't hiss, they make speeches. Tribe ISIS feels threatened and instinctually reacts too. They make speeches. Our primate cousins use rocks and sticks and other primitive implements to survive against threats. We use guns and bombs and media and swords and words.

The ANTI-ISIS troop of homo sapiens point at the ISIS troop of homo sapiens and say "bad". The ISIS troop of homo sapiens point at the Anti-ISIS troop of homo sapiens and say "bad".

Each group has evolved to view as a threat the other. This they do because it aids in their survival. Lions roar. It's what they do. They hunt. They kill. Homo sapiens hunt and kill. It's what they do.

There is no "right" or "wrong" way to evolve. There just is the evolutionary process. There is no intelligent, personal agent behind any of this. There just is the cosmos, for the most part cold, and totally indifferent.

Okay. Would accepting this as reality make you sad?

So don't talk to me about there being some actual transcendent, objective moral grounds for determining what is good or bad, right or wrong if you want to talk to me as an atheist. Face the fact that what you think is bad i.e. throwing acid in someone's face is something you think and feel because feeling and thinking this in some way aids in your survival and you need to come to terms that some of your fellow homo sapiens have evolved differently and see it as a very useful tool to use in surviving.

Nice rant. Feel better?

 

[anonymous person]

Throwing acid on someone could maim or potentially kill them. Why would you need "transcendence" to figure this out?

I never said you did.

 

[HitchSlap]

I never said you did.

Ok, good. So why do think throwing battery acid on someone is wrong?

 

[anonymous person]

Ok, good. So why do think throwing battery acid on someone is wrong?

Because a person's face is not meant to have acid thrown on it. That is not God's perfect will for us. Our faces were not designed to be recepticals for battery acid. He did not make our faces for that purpose.

 

[HitchSlap]

Because a person's face is not meant to have acid thrown on it. That is not God's perfect will for us. Our faces were not designed to be recepticals for battery acid. He did not make our faces for that purpose.

How do you know this? Is "thou shall not throw battery acid on thy brother's face," in the bible?

 

[anonymous person]

How do you know this? Is "thou shall not throw battery acid on thy brother's face," in the bible?

Why the attitude?

 

[HitchSlap]

Why the attitude?

Sorry, what?

I'm asking how you know god thinks the face was not meant to have battery acid on it?