Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm not.

But you said that you are.

 

[anonymous person]

But you said that you are.

Reformed epistemology yes.

Deformed epistemology no.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Here it is again...I know you've been dodging this for over a week so maybe you forgot.

The problem with forming philosophical arguments against the existence of a god is that the term "god" is rarely ever clearly defined. Without a clear meaning for "god" how does one determine if it exists or not?

So...let's use a very generalized description of "god". I'll describe it as an entity capable of thought that is "perfect" and has created all of reality. Now that we have at least some bare minimum of a definition of a god...we could start to create an argument against its existence....

In using the term "perfect" I'm describing an entity that is "perfect" in every way....not just one. Since one of the functions in my definition of god is "creator"...it logically follows that our "perfect creator" makes perfect creations. That is to say...he makes creations that are the best they could possibly be.

Since this perfect creator is defined as having created everything in existence...if we can find a flaw in his creation, or imagine a creation that could be "better than it is"...we must logically conclude that this god either...

1. Does not exist.
2. Is not perfect.
3. Is not a creator.

Would you agree with my logic so far? If not, where is the flaw? If it's in the definition of god...feel free to create your own definition so I can make a logical argument against it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Reformed epistemology yes.

Deformed epistemology no.

They are the same. So in what sense are you an adherent?

 

[anonymous person]

Here it is again...I know you've been dodging this for over a week so maybe you forgot.

The problem with forming philosophical arguments against the existence of a god is that the term "god" is rarely ever clearly defined. Without a clear meaning for "god" how does one determine if it exists or not?

So...let's use a very generalized description of "god". I'll describe it as an entity capable of thought that is "perfect" and has created all of reality. Now that we have at least some bare minimum of a definition of a god...we could start to create an argument against its existence....

In using the term "perfect" I'm describing an entity that is "perfect" in every way....not just one. Since one of the functions in my definition of god is "creator"...it logically follows that our "perfect creator" makes perfect creations. That is to say...he makes creations that are the best they could possibly be.

Since this perfect creator is defined as having created everything in existence...if we can find a flaw in his creation, or imagine a creation that could be "better than it is"...we must logically conclude that this god either...

1. Does not exist.
2. Is not perfect.
3. Is not a creator.

Would you agree with my logic so far? If not, where is the flaw? If it's in the definition of god...feel free to create your own definition so I can make a logical argument against it.

No I don't agree with your logic.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Would you agree with my logic so far? If not, where is the flaw? If it's in the definition of god...feel free to create your own definition so I can make a logical argument against it.

I've basically given up trying to get him to answer questions. Even in the thread he created for the very purpose of answering questions, he has dodged questions. We are seeing nothing different here.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No I don't agree with your logic.

That's fair...why? How is it flawed?

 

[anonymous person]

They are the same. So in what sense are you an adherent?

Deformed epistemology is not an epistemological thesis in the philosophy or religion.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Deformed epistemology is not an epistemological thesis in the philosophy or religion.

It's another name for reformed epistemology. But there you go again, dodging the question...

 

[anonymous person]

That's fair...why? How is it flawed?

Your argument is dependent upon at least one thing and that is the concept of "perfection".

What do you mean when you say God is "perfect"?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Your argument is dependent upon at least one thing and that is the concept of "perfection".

What do you mean when you say God is "perfect"?

Without flaw.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Without flaw.

Your argument is dependent upon at least one thing and that is the concept of "perfection".

What do you mean when you say God is "perfect"?

Is that an acceptable definition of perfect for this philosophical exercise? If not...submit one you find acceptable.

I'm comfortable with almost any common usage of "perfect"....just pick one that you think best suits your god.

 

[anonymous person]

It's another name for reformed epistemology. But there you go again, dodging the question...

Do you have a peer reviewed/scholarly source for that? Is your view representative of the views of philosophers of religion?

Or is it a pejorative term coined by someone who has something against reformed epistemology?

 

[anonymous person]

Without flaw.

What is a "flaw"?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Do you have a peer reviewed/scholarly source for that? Is your view representative of the views of philosophers of religion?

Or is it a pejorative term coined by someone who has something against reformed epistemology?

The question, a.p. The question...

 

[Ana the Ist]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Flaw noun

What is a "flaw"?

[/FONT]

:an imperfection or weakness and especially one that detracts from the whole or hinders effectiveness

 

[quatona]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Flaw noun

[/FONT]

:an imperfection or weakness and especially one that detracts from the whole or hinders effectiveness

Ana, I really don´t understand why you are willing to define "God" for him.
That´s his job, and he refused to do so multiple times.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ana, I really don´t understand why you are willing to define "God" for him.

It makes it easier to argue against a god's existence...left ambiguous, any argument becomes an issue of "...that's not god...".

 

[quatona]

It makes it easier to argue against a god's existence...left ambiguous, any argument becomes an issue of "...that's not god...".

When you define it - instead of leaving it to him to define that which he wants to be argued against - this will still be his response.

 

[Ana the Ist]

When you define it - instead of leaving it to him to define that which he wants to be argued against - this will still be his response.

Lol that's the beauty of this....what's he going to argue? That his god isn't perfect? Isn't a creator?