Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, I agree: The argument as presented isn´t particularly strong.
But despite posting in the philosophy forum and pretending to create threads for philosophical arguments anonymous obviously isn´t in it for philosophy or logic, anyway.

But he is into apologetics.

 

[anonymous person]

The funny thing is that since posting my argument...I've thought of two rather solid rebuttals. It's not that I couldn't argue against them...but I'd be shifting goalposts rather badly.

I'll give him till the end of the day to post a rebuttal...then I'll defeat my own argument just for kicks. Once I do, I'll welcome anyone else to destroy my argument.

It's a bit odd to watch someone completely unable to think outside the bubble of their own beliefs twist in the wind like this. It doesn't exactly inspire hope for mankind.

I won't be posting any rebuttals, so you can post yours if you want.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I won't be posting any rebuttals, so you can post yours if you want.

I suspected as much....but I figured I'd give you a chance anyway.

 

[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.

The easiest rebuttal I could think of would be to say that any perceived flaw, obstacle, imperfections, inefficiency would actually be a part of this perfect god's purpose for his creations...that purpose being to inflict suffering, difficulty, frustration, etc.

This of course, adds to the definition I've made for god from simply being a perfect creator to a perfect sadistic, cruel, or evil creator...but those don't necessarily conflict with the logical framework my argument provides.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's not the only rebuttal I came up with...but it's probably the most succinct.

 

[HitchSlap]

I won't be posting any rebuttals, so you can post yours if you want.

Ok, here goes.

There is zero evidence (not the reformed kind), to believe god/s exist.

All available evidence best supports Jesus as a dying and rising mythotype.

Are you now willing to renounce your Christian faith in light of the facts?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Has it really gotten to this point? Where we are expected to present not only arguments against his position but even rebuttals to those arguments?

 

[KCfromNC]

"God's word" signifying the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.

Depends on which brand of Christian you ask. The fact that Christians can't even agree with each other on which books are actually their gods' word tells me that's there is something lacking in their approach towards evaluating evidence. If they can't get the easy stuff right, what other religious dogma are they unsure about? Seems like yet another reason to be skeptical of their claims.

 

[KCfromNC]

Has it really gotten to this point? Where we are expected to present not only arguments against his position but even rebuttals to those arguments?

You could think of the OP as the half-time entertainment rather than being part of the actual game.

 

[anonymous person]

Depends on which brand of Christian you ask. The fact that Christians can't even agree with each other on which books are actually their gods' word tells me that's there is something lacking in their approach towards evaluating evidence. If they can't get the easy stuff right, what other religious dogma are they unsure about? Seems like yet another reason to be skeptical of their claims.

And if you had no reasons to be skeptical of my claims would you commit to Christ your life and become His disciple?

You see, I could ask you if there are any claims you hold to be true that are not unanimously held. I'm sure your answer would be "yes". From this it would be shown that when it comes to these particular claims, the fact that they are disputed is not enough to make you skeptical of them.

It would follow then, that your skepticism of certain theological claims is owed at least in part to something other than the fact that they are matters of debate.

When it comes to the criteria for assessing the veracity of theogical truth claims, some set the bar so high as to make it virtually impossible for said criteria to be fulfilled. The slogan "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a favorite of some.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And if you had no reasons to be skeptical of my claims would you commit to Christ your life and become His disciple?

You see, I could ask you if there are any claims you hold to be true that are not unanimously held. I'm sure your answer would be "yes". From this it would be shown that when it comes to these particular claims, the fact that they are disputed is not enough to make you skeptical of them.

It would follow then, that your skepticism of certain theological claims is owed at least in part to something other than the fact that they are matters of debate.

When it comes to the criteria for assessing the veracity of theogical truth claims, some set the bar so high as to make it virtually impossible for said criteria to be fulfilled. The slogan "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a favorite of some.

And some set the bar so low for their preferred religious doctrines, even as they remain skeptical of all others.

 

[anonymous person]

And some set the bar so low for their preferred religious doctrines, even as they remain skeptical of all others.

I agree.

Both are extremes and should be avoided.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I agree.

Both are extremes and should be avoided.

Good advice to give yourself.

 

[anonymous person]

Good advice to give yourself.

Indeed.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Indeed.

So why are you setting the bar so low?

 

[Ana the Ist]

And if you had no reasons to be skeptical of my claims would you commit to Christ your life and become His disciple?

You see, I could ask you if there are any claims you hold to be true that are not unanimously held. I'm sure your answer would be "yes". From this it would be shown that when it comes to these particular claims, the fact that they are disputed is not enough to make you skeptical of them.

It would follow then, that your skepticism of certain theological claims is owed at least in part to something other than the fact that they are matters of debate.

When it comes to the criteria for assessing the veracity of theogical truth claims, some set the bar so high as to make it virtually impossible for said criteria to be fulfilled. The slogan "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a favorite of some.

Did you have anyone in mind who is "setting the bar so high" blah blah blah?

Frankly, even if we set the bar almost insanely low...say, one testable piece of evidence for a purely theological claim...I don't think you could still produce even that much. That's not really enough for a scientific theory to gain any traction.

The reality is, we could be rolling the metaphorical bar along the ground and you still wouldn't have anything more than a set of empty claims.

 

[bhsmte]

And if I made a strong and comprehensive positive case for my God and all that entails, established the universe requires an intelligent Creator and sustainer without appealing to human society, established all of my pertinent religious dogma etc., would you be obedient to Christ's call to repentance which entails renouncing those things which He says are worthy of renouncing and making Him Lord of your life, among other things?

Do you actually think you are fooling anyone with your desire to muddy the waters and avoid the burden of proof?

Needing to shift that burden, is obvious and any lurkers out there who are on the fence, are likely not impressed.

 

[anonymous person]

Did you have anyone in mind who is "setting the bar so high" blah blah blah?

Frankly, even if we set the bar almost insanely low...say, one testable piece of evidence for a purely theological claim...I don't think you could still produce even that much. That's not really enough for a scientific theory to gain any traction.

The reality is, we could be rolling the metaphorical bar along the ground and you still wouldn't have anything more than a set of empty claims.

Indeed it is easy to toss ideas and theories around whilst sitting in the comfort of our armchairs, heads held high in the theoretical clouds.

We can do that so long as reality does not intrude and like a great magnet, slams us back down with our feet firmly planted on the earth.

Reality has a way of sifting us like wheat. The chaff is dispersed like so many theories and notions we jettison once we realize through the crucible of human experience that they meant something to us only as long as they were left unexposed and unchallenged by the rigors of life.

Would you commit your life to Christ and renounce your sins, repent and become His disciple if I gave you testable evidence for His divinity?

 

[bhsmte]

IMO, it appears we are approaching that time again, where a change in user name may be needed.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

IMO, it appears we are approaching that time again, where a change in user name may be needed.

How about Jeremy Elio Anonymous? Has a nice ring to it.