Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Davian]

...
Here a greater good would be the preservation of the capacity for humans to make significantly free moral choices by not being coerced or forced to accept the bible as God's revelation to man. Here God allows people to draw their own conclusions about His revelation and allows them to either accept it or reject it.

Does your theology not hold that there are consequences to this decision? If I were to put a flamethrower to your head, for the purposes of influencing your decisions, would you not consider that coercion?

 

[anonymous person]

Does your theology not hold that there are consequences to this decision? If I were to put a flamethrower to your head, for the purposes of influencing your decisions, would you not consider that coercion?

Red herring throwing and muddying the waters with irrelevant and emotive remarks.

Please stay on topic.

 

[anonymous person]

When we did, you were evasive, so what do you expect?

Red herring, muddying the waters. Return to topic.

 

[Davian]

Red herring throwing and muddying the waters with irrelevant and emotive remarks.

You may find having your theology called out for being morally bankrupt to be emotive, but I do not see how it is a red herring.

Please stay on topic.

Sweep It Under The Rug

• Davian
• Dec 19, 2015

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Red herring, muddying the waters. Return to topic.

The waters were already muddy long before this thread was started.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Return to topic.

DogmaHunter's question was on-topic. You evaded it repeatedly. Ana's point was on-topic. You evaded it also. Loudmouth's posts were on-topic. You barely engaged with them. So before you admonish anyone for not staying on topic, bear in mind that your evasiveness in response to on-topic posts makes it needlessly difficult to do so.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

We have presented the OP with plenty of material with which he has barely engaged or repeatedly evaded. And now, when called out on his antics, he pleads that we "stay on topic."

 

[SkyWriting]

Now, there may be a small chance that, in all of the thousands of religions and denominations and sects that somewhere in there a theist has their theology right, but exactly how are you going to determine that? Popular vote? Yelling matches? Warfare?

Much more likely they are all right and just have differing viewpoints.

 

[startender]

Much more likely they are all right and just have differing viewpoints.

To then call it "God" is to confess complete ignorance of its nature.

 

[SkyWriting]

To then call it "Godf" is to confess complete ignorance of its nature.

In that cartoon, correct.

 

[KCfromNC]

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

Yes, if I agreed with your religious views we'd be the same religion. That's what the words mean. Not sure what I'm supposed to do with that, of course.

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.

Correct. It is the fact that people holding various opinions on these disputed views can't come up with any way to distinguish correct from incorrect that makes me skeptical of them.

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.

Which explains why you haven't converted it Islam. Not sure what it has to do with me, though.

 

[KCfromNC]

Why is it not self evident to you that God is The Supreme Good, if the word "God" is taken to mean "that reality which is greater than that which can be conceived."

Why would anyone think it is?

And I thought the game was to define god as maximally good, not incomprehensible. I thought you weren't going to discuss the non-cognitivist position yet here you are agreeing with it.

Do you disagree with Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Anselm, Augustine and all the others who saw this as self evidently true?

Yep, sure do. Now what?

 

[Davian]

Much more likely they are all right and just have differing viewpoints.

But, in the cartoon, their viewpoints are not mutually exclusive.

 

[quatona]

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

I don´t know. The idea of taking such a road has never crossed my mind, in the first place.
I would be interested in your own answer though (since "worshipping someone" and announcing him "Lord of your life" appears to be an important value in your system).

 

[anonymous person]

Of your premises, I would disagree with 2 and 3...and replace them with.

1. A perfect creator would create a perfect message.

I addressed this in Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

 

[Ana the Ist]

I addressed this in Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

In that post you altered the argument to one I didn't make...specifically P2 and P3.

I didn't want you to misunderstand my argument...so I made a correction.

Nothing in your post there refutes my original argument. Nothing in your post even refutes my example of a flaw.

 

[bhsmte]

Interestingly, Jeremy E Walker presented a similar line of questioning on another forum (1):

Like @anonymous person, rather than acknowledge any weakness in his apologetics, he also concluded that pride was the main obstacle to acceptance of Christianity (2, 3, 4). It seems that both apologists, Jeremy E Walker and anonymous person, attend the same church (5). Jeremy also previously posted as Elioenai26 (6), another apologist, now banned.

Shocker!!

 

[bhsmte]

A philosophy forum that you were banned from, twice.

It appears so.

Determining whether a poster is a sock account, is always relevant, because it goes directly to credibility.

Credibility appears to be lacking here.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I addressed this in Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

You see statements like this...

"For it is logically possible God would create a disputable message."

Are basically just more empty claims until one explains a logical reason why a perfect god would purposely create an unclear message.

 

[anonymous person]

It appears so.

Determining whether a poster is a sock account, is always relevant, because it goes directly to credibility.

Credibility appears to be lacking here.

My credibility is not the subject of this thread.

Ref. Thread title.

Incidentally, appealing to someone's character to invalidate their argument is a fallacy.

I know no one here would do that though. However, dragging a smelly red herring through this thread in an attempt to divert attention from the subject of this thread is fallacious.

Please refrain from using fallacies here.