Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Davian]

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

I think, with some soap and water, and a bit of touch-up paint, and he'll be back on the road in no time.

Stuck

• Davian
• Mar 9, 2012

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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?

But you look oh so comfortable in your armchair.

 

[HitchSlap]

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?

Sure.

 

[Eudaimonist]

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?

Just so that we are clear here, you'd have to make a strong ethical case for "obedience" as a virtue, if that is really what you mean to include in "and all that entails".

Sure, if you could show that God exists and that the proper ethical relationship with such a God is to make him Lord and Master, then sure. I think that pretty much covers everything.

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?

My spider sense is tingling. I sense a punchline that involves a play on the meaning of "giving" testable evidence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tinker Grey]

My spider sense is tingling. I sense a punchline that involves a play on the meaning of "giving" testable evidence.

No kidding. It can't just be testable evidence, but rather evidence that is testable and actually tests true. Also, I'm waiting for so-called testable evidence that is, in fact, either not testable or not true. The interlocutor will simply claim that he has met the test and call those who deny it liars.

 

[anonymous person]

.... if you could show that God exists and that the proper ethical relationship with such a God is to make him Lord and Master, then sure....

What criteria do you go by in assessing whether or not someone is worthy of worship or worthy of being Lord of your life?

 

[anonymous person]

No kidding. It can't just be testable evidence, but rather evidence that is testable and actually tests true. Also, I'm waiting for so-called testable evidence that is, in fact, either not testable or not true. The interlocutor will simply claim that he has met the test and call those who deny it liars.

Explain to me what you mean by "testable" and give some examples please.

Then tell me whether or not you hold any claims to be true which are not subject to this "testing", and if so, why.

Then tell me why you require me to give this "testable" evidence.

 

[HitchSlap]

What criteria do you go by in assessing whether or not someone is worthy of worship or worthy of being Lord of your life?

Why would one necessarily concern themselves with worshiping anything? What's the point?

 

[Davian]

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.

I do hypothesize that some individuals that come here have no intention of answering your questions, or substantiating their claims. It is enough for them to see if their "faith" can weather such questioning. They entrench, rather than reason.

Yet it would seem that they simultaneously wish to convince others these beliefs onto which they hold so tight are an accurate description of reality, and make that claim.

An awkward approach, on their part.

 

[bhsmte]

I do hypothesize that some individuals that come here have no intention of answering your questions, or substantiating their claims. It is enough for them to see if their "faith" can weather such questioning. They entrench, rather than reason.

Yet it would seem that they simultaneously wish to convince others these beliefs onto which they hold so tight are an accurate description of reality, and make that claim.

An awkward approach, on their part.

IMO, they are not secure in their faith, so they need to test the waters by putting their feet in. When the water gets too high, they run back out and take refuge on the beach, to avoid any risk, they can't handle.

The fact that it appears this OP has changed user names several times, tells you all you need to know.

 

[HitchSlap]

IMO, they are not secure in their faith, so they need to test the waters by putting their feet in. When the water gets too high, they run back out and take refuge on the beach, to avoid any risk, they can't handle.

The fact that it appears this OP has changed user names several times, tells you all you need to know.

Not to mention the fact that, almost every reply he gives, sounds as if he's quoting directly from the work of WLC.

 

[bhsmte]

Not to mention the fact that, almost every reply he gives, sounds as if he's quoting directly from the work of WLC.

Would indicate more insecurity, not being able to think on your own.

 

[anonymous person]

I do hypothesize that some individuals that come here have no intention of answering your questions, or substantiating their claims. It is enough for them to see if their "faith" can weather such questioning. They entrench, rather than reason.

I agree with this.

Yet it would seem that they simultaneously wish to convince others these beliefs onto which they hold so tight are an accurate description of reality, and make that claim.

An awkward approach, on their part.

And with this.

 

[anonymous person]

Why would one necessarily concern themselves with worshiping anything? What's the point?

Explain to me why you are asking this question after having told me you would commit your life to Christ and renounce your sins, repent and become His disciple upon being given testable evidence for His divinity.

 

[Davian]

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

So you believe.

It is not my position that the mere interpretation of these books as God's words to man makes the books God's words to man anymore than a Muslim 's interpretation of the Quran as the revelation of God makes the Quran the revelation of God.

Sure. You have that Great Pumpkin epistemology going for you.

Belief that the author of b is G, does not G the author make of b.

Rather, G is the author of b, if and only if G authored b.

And I am not interested at all in demonstrating the Bible is God's word here.

Or yet again failing to do so, I would presume.

Which beliefs exactly?

Do you drive a Dodge in real life? That would be so ironic.

You could start post #804, where you claim that "God" is not simply a product of your imagination. Beyond that, pretend that you are in a philosophy forum, addressing someone that self-identifies as an ignostic; define this "God" thing that you claim exists - in a testable, falsifiable manner - and we'll go from there. Or, if you like, dodge.

 

[Davian]

My hypothetical may be pointless to you. It isn't to me.

And I will put it to you. What would you do? Would you be obedient to the call?

I don't see the point of your hypotheticals.

"If you believed, like me, would you believe, like me?"

I really don't know what you believe.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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?

It's quite possible...it depends on what that evidence is, how it can be tested.

Let's not be so coy though AP...you're not going to give me anything of the sort.

 

[Davian]

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

Not just your claims, but how much of mainstream scientific knowledge must be tossed in order to accommodate them. You have not been clear on that.

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.

You could ask, but it begs the question: what claims are there out there that exist with unanimous acceptance?

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.

That would be faulty logic. And, speaking for myself, I do not make any delineation between claims of religion and claims of things like alleged visitations by extraterrestrial aliens.

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.

I do not use that approach. Before we get to evidence, I'd ask that the [insert religious claim here] be defined in a testable, falsifiable manner, so at least we can agree upon what we are talking about.

 

[anonymous person]

So you believe.

Correct.

Sure. You have that Great Pumpkin epistemology going for you.

Why are you speaking pejoratively about my epistemology when the argument you just quoted has as its conclusion, one you no doubt agree with? That is, that one's belief regarding some proposition p is not the truth-maker of p.

Believing something does not make it so.

Right?

That was my point.

Do you drive a Dodge in real life? That would be so ironic.

I drive the truck God blessed me with in my avatar. It is an 04' Chevrolet Silverado Z71 4x4.

You could start post #804, where you claim that "God" is not simply a product of your imagination. Beyond that, pretend that you are in a philosophy forum, addressing someone that self-identifies as an ignostic; define this "God" thing that you claim exists - in a testable, falsifiable manner - and we'll go from there. Or, if you like, dodge.

Ok. Why are you an ignostic? What is an ignostic, in your own words? When did you become an ignostic? Let us start with those.

 

[HitchSlap]

Explain to me why you are asking this question after having told me you would commit your life to Christ and renounce your sins, repent and become His disciple upon being given testable evidence for His divinity.

Why would any of this require my worship?