Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Eudaimonist]

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

You would have to deny the central role of rational self-direction in human life, and to do so using a rational argument. In other words, you'd have to make an ethical argument for voluntary slavery, something like explaining to cult members why they must obey and never question the cult leader. Good luck.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[anonymous person]

Why would any of this require my worship?

That word "worship" and all that it signifies is the fly in the ointment of Christianity for some. It is the one bad apple that spoils the whole bunch.

It was for Nietzsche. Nietzsche called himself "the Anti-Christ," and wrote a book by that title. He argued for atheism as follows: "I will now disprove the existence of all gods. If there were gods, how could I bear not to be a god? Consequently, there are no gods."

It was not enough for Nietzsche to deny God existed. He had to let it be known that he was repulsed by the idea that reverence, respect, honor, and glory belong to anyone or anything other than himself.

Like an onion, we can one by one, peel back the layers of a person's reasons for not trusting in and committing themselves to Jesus Christ. On the surface, you have the reasons common to most i.e. lack of evidence. This reason is revealed to be but one of several layers which must be removed to get to the core or heart of one's reluctance to commitment to Christ. Some reveal that even if presented with this "evidence" they claim they would need to be able to commit to Christ, there is yet another reason why they cannot. That reason is usually something along the lines of some emotional resistance, i.e. the appeal to suffering or evil in the world. Once presented with a hypothetical wherein there existed no such things, some dig in deeper and have yet another reason for not committing to Christ. It is usually an appeal to their integrity or dignity. The deeper one digs, the more pronounced the pride becomes. Till at last, once presented with a hypothetical that would remove this last reason, we end with worship which allows no room for pride which by this time has been unmasked and exposed for what it is.

At this point one will remain, but not both. Where there is the rankest of human pride, there can be no true worship. Where there is true worship, there can be no pride.

Now this is not to say that only atheists suffer from this most reprehensible of spiritual maladies. Many a regenerate suffer from pride as well.

Nor is this to say that all atheists suffer from this. Some do. Some do not.

Nor is it for me to say which atheists this applies to. But God alone knows and those to whom He decides to reveal it.

Personally speaking from experience, and in accordance with Von Hugel...

"God is always previous."

 

[anonymous person]

You would have to deny the central role of rational self-direction in human life, and to do so using a rational argument. In other words, you'd have to make an ethical argument for voluntary slavery, something like explaining to cult members why they must obey and never question the cult leader. Good luck.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You act like this is not something you yourself do. Do you not use rational arguments in an attempt to deny the central role of rational self-direction of your fellow homo sapiens when you argue that they should voluntarily subject themselves to the dictates of the society in which they reside instead of living however they choose?

In this it is manifest that it is not subjection or submission in itself that you find objectionable. But rather, to whom you are in subjection to and to whom you submit.

You have no problem submitting and being submissive and obedient, so long as it is not to God.

You have no objections to reverencing and honoring and respecting men, it is God who you judge to be unworthy of such worship, for that is what worship is.

Jesus diagnosed the issue with such succinctness and such power and such clarity and such truth when He asked the unbelieving among Him: "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?" John 5:44

 

[Eudaimonist]

It was not enough for Nietzsche to deny God existed. He had to let it be known that he was repulsed by the idea that reverence, respect, honor, and glory belong to anyone or anything other than himself.

What does Nietzsche have to do with anything other than Nietzsche? Is this some effort to poison the well?

You act like this is not something you yourself do.

That's because I don't.

Do you not use rational arguments in an attempt to deny the central role of rational self-direction of your fellow homo sapiens when you argue that they should voluntarily subject themselves to the dictates of the society in which they reside instead of living however they choose?

No, I don't. I object to forcefully encroaching on the lives of others, but that is not the same thing as denying the central role of rational self-direction, not just ethically, but politically as well. Not raping, murdering, or stealing is not at all equivalent to accepting "society" as one's Lord and Master, and is certainly not "subjection or submission". If you can't tell the difference between individual rights and slavery, I don't know what to tell you.

In this it is manifest that it is not subjection or submission in itself that you find objectionable. But rather, to whom you are in subjection to and to whom you submit.

Mind-reading again? No, this is not manifest because that's not what I am saying. That's your spin on my words.

You have no objections to reverencing and honoring and respecting men

That is true, actually, but that's not what I'm objecting to.

it is God who you judge to be unworthy of such worship, for that is what worship is.

No, you have been clear about being obedient and accepting a "Lord" over one's life. That's not even close to "reverencing, honoring, and respecting".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Davian]

Correct.



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.

Put this in the context of your posts, and the number of times you have stated how sure you are of your beliefs, as if, in some way, that is evidence that they are an accurate description of reality. From over here, that drowns out your few attempts at establishing some sort of credible epistemology. It doesn't help that you fell back on an epistemology that can be used to support beleif in the Great Pumpkin.

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

Nice. I'm a long time Chevy fan, but decided to treat myself with the S5.

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.

The dodge it is then. That does save you that awkward part where you yet again have to maneuver your way out of having to define whatever it is you believe in, and how much of mainstream science has to be tossed to accommodate it.

 

[Davian]

Like an onion, we can one by one, peel back the layers of a person's reasons for not trusting in and committing themselves to Jesus Christ.

There is one objection that I raised a ways back, that you have yet to address.

He's Dead, Jim

• Davian
• Jul 30, 2015

 

[anonymous person]

Put this in the context of your posts, and the number of times you have stated how sure you are of your beliefs, as if, in some way, that is evidence that they are an accurate description of reality. From over here, that drowns out your few attempts at establishing some sort of credible epistemology. It doesn't help that you fell back on an epistemology that can be used to support beleif in the Great Pumpkin.

Nice. I'm a long time Chevy fan, but decided to treat myself with the S5.

The dodge it is then. That does save you that awkward part where you yet again have to maneuver your way out of having to define whatever it is you believe in, and how much of mainstream science has to be tossed to accommodate it.

Or you don't have to tell me about your ignosticism. Lol...

 

[anonymous person]

What does Nietzsche have to do with anything other than Nietzsche? Is this some effort to poison the well?



That's because I don't.



No, I don't. I object to forcefully encroaching on the lives of others, but that is not the same thing as denying the central role of rational self-direction, not just ethically, but politically as well. Not raping, murdering, or stealing is not at all equivalent to accepting "society" as one's Lord and Master, and is certainly not "subjection or submission". If you can't tell the difference between individual rights and slavery, I don't know what to tell you.



Mind-reading again? No, this is not manifest because that's not what I am saying. That's your spin on my words.



That is true, actually, but that's not what I'm objecting to.



No, you have been clear about being obedient and accepting a "Lord" over one's life. That's not even close to "reverencing, honoring, and respecting".


eudaimonia,

Mark

Confessing Jesus as Lord.

That is objectionable to you.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[anonymous person]

There is one objection that I raised a ways back, that you have yet to address.

He's Dead, Jim

• Davian
• Jul 30, 2015

If it has something to do with God, then we can forego the small talk.

You've convinced yourself that ignosticism is the best way to handle the issue and I won't attempt to convince you otherwise.

 

[Davian]

Or you don't have to tell me about your ignosticism. Lol...

In this post you appeared to be quite familiar with the concept. What happened?

 

[Davian]

If it has something to do with God, then we can forego the small talk.

What does that mean?

You've convinced yourself that ignosticism is the best way to handle the issue

The alternative would be to hold some presuppositions. That begs the question: Whose, and on what basis?

and I won't attempt to convince you otherwise.

Why stop now?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Like an onion, we can one by one, peel back the layers of a person's reasons for not trusting in and committing themselves to Jesus Christ. On the surface, you have the reasons common to most i.e. lack of evidence. This reason is revealed to be but one of several layers which must be removed to get to the core or heart of one's reluctance to commitment to Christ.

Where there is true worship, there can be no pride.

You don't really believe this, do you? You don't really think you have some magical ability to determine someone's motives for their beliefs...do you? Even a psychologist would admit that the best they can do is make an educated guess. Your inability to deconstruct a simple logical argument doesn't speak well for your ability to logically deconstruct someone's personal motives for a belief or lack of belief. Perhaps you should consider your own pride has blinded you to this fact.

Perhaps the reason you seem to think that atheists are basing their lack of belief in god in some emotional basis...because deep down you realize that your belief in god is founded upon emotion, not logic or reason. You know that you'll never be able to construct a logical or rational argument for god...nor will you be able to present any evidence for your beliefs. The result is you project this emotional foundation for your belief in god (which you know is a shaky, poor reason to believe) upon the atheists who disagree with you...because you want to believe that the foundation of their disbelief is just as shaky and poor and emotional.

Also...pride has nothing to do with worship...but threats do. If I asked for your praise while holding a gun to your head...I would seriously doubt the sincerity of any praise you gave me. It's hard to imagine a god so foolish that he thinks his praise is genuine when eternal torment is the only other option he gives anyone.

Lol perhaps his emotional need for praise has blinded him to reality as well.

 

[Davian]

I agree with this.



And with this.

Did you find yourself described in that post?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Confessing Jesus as Lord.

That is objectionable to you.

That's all I'm saying.

I have been a seeker for 7 years, you have no idea how often and fervently I have prayed within that time. My atheism does not stem from some resistance towards religion.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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

Well, he is trying to emulate him, so he might take that as a compliment, even though it isn't.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That word "worship" and all that it signifies is the fly in the ointment of Christianity for some. It is the one bad apple that spoils the whole bunch.

It was for Nietzsche. Nietzsche called himself "the Anti-Christ," and wrote a book by that title. He argued for atheism as follows: "I will now disprove the existence of all gods. If there were gods, how could I bear not to be a god? Consequently, there are no gods."

It was not enough for Nietzsche to deny God existed. He had to let it be known that he was repulsed by the idea that reverence, respect, honor, and glory belong to anyone or anything other than himself.

You haven't read much Nietzsche, have you? Let me guess... you read a few snippets on an apologetics blog?

Like an onion, we can one by one, peel back the layers of a person's reasons for not trusting in and committing themselves to Jesus Christ. On the surface, you have the reasons common to most i.e. lack of evidence. This reason is revealed to be but one of several layers which must be removed to get to the core or heart of one's reluctance to commitment to Christ.

This isn't the mystery you make it out to be. It's abundantly clear that the apologist has a long road ahead if he is to establish the truth of his religion's central claims. But you're just shifting the burden.

Some reveal that even if presented with this "evidence" they claim they would need to be able to commit to Christ, there is yet another reason why they cannot. That reason is usually something along the lines of some emotional resistance, i.e. the appeal to suffering or evil in the world. Once presented with a hypothetical wherein there existed no such things, some dig in deeper and have yet another reason for not committing to Christ. It is usually an appeal to their integrity or dignity. The deeper one digs, the more pronounced the pride becomes. Till at last, once presented with a hypothetical that would remove this last reason, we end with worship which allows no room for pride which by this time has been unmasked and exposed for what it is.

What pride? You are asking whether we would worship your god if his existence were firmly established. Many have in turn asked why we should worship him. Instead of presenting a case for why worship is necessary, morally or otherwise, you accuse us of pride? It's a legitimate question: if this god exists, what makes him worthy of worship? But let's not fool ourselves: we both know that you won't bother with the question, since doing so would require some intellectual labour on your behalf.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Confessing Jesus as Lord.

That is objectionable to you.

That's all I'm saying.

What pride prevents you from accepting the doctrines of Islam, a.p.?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Perhaps the reason you seem to think that atheists are basing their lack of belief in god in some emotional basis...because deep down you realize that your belief in god is founded upon emotion, not logic or reason. You know that you'll never be able to construct a logical or rational argument for god...nor will you be able to present any evidence for your beliefs. The result is you project this emotional foundation for your belief in god (which you know is a shaky, poor reason to believe) upon the atheists who disagree with you...because you want to believe that the foundation of their disbelief is just as shaky and poor and emotional.

I think that pretty much nails it. We are accused of pride by a guy who wants a god to tell him that he is special. He won't feel special any other way.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

As I said before:

The more pertinent question is why are you here? Why are you here among us loathsome infidels, casting "pearls before swine," to use your own words? If I were to speculate, I would say that we serve as emblems for the doubts you harbour in your mind, the doubts you desperately want to vanquish. Although you are ostensibly here to witness to the godless, I speculate that you are really here to convince yourself.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Regarding anonymous person's persistent evasiveness in response to questions:

Yes sir I am. Always ready.

...be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.....