Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

What argument? You need to present an argument to address in order to claim that someone has committed a fallacy against your position. Thus far, you have been nothing but evasive in response to questions and comments presented, regardless of whether they were on-topic or not.

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.

I'm sorry, but when you do your best to evade posts that address the subject of this thread, and then plead that we "stay on-topic" when you are called out on your antics, what else do you expect? Of course your reputation is going to be called into question.

 

[anonymous person]

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.

Not at all.

You made the claim that God couldn't possibly create a disputable message. This claim lays upon you a heavy burden. So heavy in fact, that all I would have to do is show that whatever propositions you hold to be implicitly contradictory are not logically necessary truths.

I have done that.

Incidentally, your argument, as I said earlier, is along the same lines of the logical problem of evil which says God and evil cannot possibly coexist.

Both arguments attempt to prove too much and are thus very easily refuted.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not at all.

You made the claim that God couldn't possibly create a disputable message. This claim lays upon you a heavy burden. So heavy in fact, that all I would have to do is show that whatever propositions you hold to be implicitly contradictory are not logically necessary truths.

I have done that.

When?

Don't just link me to a post...quote the part where you showed the flaw in my logic.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not at all.

You made the claim that God couldn't possibly create a disputable message. This claim lays upon you a heavy burden. So heavy in fact, that all I would have to do is show that whatever propositions you hold to be implicitly contradictory are not logically necessary truths.

I have done that.

Incidentally, your argument, as I said earlier, is along the same lines of the logical problem of evil which says God and evil cannot possibly coexist.

Both arguments attempt to prove too much and are thus very easily refuted.

Also...you keep bringing up the "problem of evil argument", this isn't a similar argument. The argument I made applies to every logical flaw in his creations. Even if you somehow manage to argue that an inefficient message is better than an efficient message (and I really don't think you can)...you'll still need to contend with any other flaw in his creation I can come up with....like the existence of malaria for example.

You really need to get it out of your head that this argument is similar to the problem of evil argument. The problem of evil argument deals specifically with one perceived flaw in god's creation. My argument deals with all perceived flaws in god's creation...logically disproving one flaw doesn't disprove them all. I would only need to create another logical argument for a different flaw for my overall argument to hold.

You'll need to exercise those critical thinking skills if you want to address my argument. I didn't find it online...so I doubt you will either. I've never seen WLC address it, or anyone else for that matter...so you're on your own here.

 

[Ana the Ist]

On a related side-note...

In all your conversations with atheists, AP, have you ever heard them say something similar to...

"I can't logically disprove the existence of a god...but I can logically disprove the existence of yours."??

Ever think about what they meant by that?

 

[anonymous person]

What argument? You need to present an argument to address in order to claim that someone has committed a fallacy against your position. Thus far, you have been nothing but evasive in response to questions and comments presented, regardless of whether they were on-topic or not.

I'm sorry, but when you do your best to evade posts that address the subject of this thread, and then plead that we "stay on-topic" when you are called out on your antics, what else do you expect?

I have presented a rebuttal to an argument which attempts to demonstrate the existence of a logical incompatibility between the existence of God and the bible.

You can address this rebuttal if you like, or the argument put forward by Ana the Ist.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have presented a rebuttal to an argument which attempts to demonstrate the existence of a logical incompatibility between the existence of God and the bible.

You can address this rebuttal if you like, or the argument put forward by Ana the Ist.

You can address all the posts you've evaded if you like? Are you going to? Would you like me to list them for your convenience?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I have presented a rebuttal to an argument which attempts to demonstrate the existence of a logical incompatibility between the existence of God and the bible.

You can address this rebuttal if you like, or the argument put forward by Ana the Ist.

You never made an actual rebuttal though lol...the closest you came to it was stating that logical arguments exist against the flaw of inefficiency by lack of clarity in the bible.

Stating that such arguments exist and actually making such an argument aren't the same thing. You'll need to make such an argument before you can claim you've made a rebuttal.

 

[anonymous person]

You can address all the posts you've evaded if you like? Are you going to? Would you like me to list them for your convenience?

If appealing to these posts will commit you to reasoning fallaciously, don't do it. If not, have at it.

 

[anonymous person]

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.

I explained why you would need the additional propositions for your argument to go through. Did you miss it?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'll break all of this down for you...

Proposition 6 is the proposition the argument rests on.

A perfect creator does not create flaws.

Once unpacked, we have the following propositions which you argue are inconsistent:

P1. God (a perfect being exists)
P2. The bible, whose text is disputed, exists.

Now, P1 and P2 are neither explicitly nor formally contradictory..

This is correct...sort of. You left some important aspects of my argument out, but it doesn't matter. I logically connected the two premises in the post you're replying to here.

We can ignore your next paragraph since I logically connected the two premises. It's not an "implicit contradictory" it's completely explained.

Amending the argument to include these implicit premises, the revised argument reads:

P1. God (a perfect being exists)
P2. God, being omnipotent could see to it that the bible was indisputable.
P3. God, being all-good, would want to see to it that the bible was indisputable.
P4. The bible, which is disputable, exists.

In the above, the inclusion of P2 and P3 are the two propositions that must be logically necessary in order for the argument to go through.

It is important to understand what it is you are claiming here. The claim is quite ambitious. The claim is: given that the bible is disputable, it is impossible for God to exist. Since this is the nature of the claim, all that must be done to rebut it is to show that it is possible that God and a disputable bible can coexist.

So what reasons do you give to think that P2 is a logically necessary truth? If humans, who are the recipients of the inspired message, are significantly free, it very well may be that any possible world God actualizes will have people in it that for whatever reason, simply do not agree with each other about what the accurate interpretation of the bible is.

What about P3? Why think that this is a logically necessary truth? As long as it is possible that allowing the bible to be disputed achieves some good to such a degree that this good would either be equal to or greater than the good that would be achieved if the bible were indisputable, then the argument fails. 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.

You start off this section by mischaracterizing my argument...then spend the next several paragraphs addressing this mischaracterized argument. We can discard this altogether since it has nothing to do with my argument.

FrumiousBandersnatch all I have to do is provide a reason why God would allow His message to be disputable that is logically possible. And there are several. Each one addressing a particular proposition that must be a logically necessary truth in order for the argument to obtain.

You spend your last paragraph claiming that logical arguments exist that disprove my argument...several in fact. However, you never actually present any such argument.

Since you never presented any logical argument against mine...no rebuttal is made.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I explained why you would need the additional propositions for your argument to go through. Did you miss it?

No...I didn't miss it, I had already made those propositions. You didn't dispute any of them. Here they are again...

"Sure.

1. I'll submit that the primary purpose of any message is communication.

2. Lack of clarity impedes effective communication and allows for multiple interpretations of said message.

3. The existence of multiple interpretations, as exhibited by both scholars and multiple denominations...all resultant from the same "message" is evident.

4. The message therefore lacks clarity...which reduces effectiveness/efficiency.

5. The reduction in effectiveness/efficiency is therefore a flaw in the "message".

6. A perfect creator does not create flaws...therefore...

A. The creator is not perfect.
Or
B. The creator did not create the message.

B. Also entails such possibilities as the creator not existing or is not a creator god (god who creates)."

If you can logically dispute any of these propositions...get on with it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If appealing to these posts will commit you to reasoning fallaciously, don't do it. If not, have at it.

You're avoiding the question. Do you actually intend on addressing those posts or not? Would you like me to list them for you? This is a discussion forum, not an AMA you were specially invited to give. You seem unable to distinguish the two.

 

[anonymous person]

You're avoiding the question. Do you actually intend on addressing those posts or not? Would you like me to list them for you? This is a discussion forum, not an AMA you were specially invited to give. You seem unable to distinguish the two.

I'm not addressing in this thread, anything that is not pertinent to this thread.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm not addressing in this thread, anything that is not pertinent to this thread.

Please don't be deceptive. You've evaded quite a few pertinent posts.

 

[bhsmte]

I'll break all of this down for you...



This is correct...sort of. You left some important aspects of my argument out, but it doesn't matter. I logically connected the two premises in the post you're replying to here.

We can ignore your next paragraph since I logically connected the two premises. It's not an "implicit contradictory" it's completely explained.



You start off this section by mischaracterizing my argument...then spend the next several paragraphs addressing this mischaracterized argument. We can discard this altogether since it has nothing to do with my argument.



You spend your last paragraph claiming that logical arguments exist that disprove my argument...several in fact. However, you never actually present any such argument.

Since you never presented any logical argument against mine...no rebuttal is made.

Mischaracterizing your argument, is straight out of Willy Craig 101.

 

[anonymous person]

No...I didn't miss it, I had already made those propositions. You didn't dispute any of them. Here they are again...

"Sure.

1. I'll submit that the primary purpose of any message is communication.

2. Lack of clarity impedes effective communication and allows for multiple interpretations of said message.

3. The existence of multiple interpretations, as exhibited by both scholars and multiple denominations...all resultant from the same "message" is evident.

4. The message therefore lacks clarity...which reduces effectiveness/efficiency.

5. The reduction in effectiveness/efficiency is therefore a flaw in the "message".

6. A perfect creator does not create flaws...therefore...

A. The creator is not perfect.
Or
B. The creator did not create the message.

B. Also entails such possibilities as the creator not existing or is not a creator god (god who creates)."

If you can logically dispute any of these propositions...get on with it.

I wasn't referring to those propositions.

I was referring to P2. & P3.

The propositions, "God exists" and "imperfections in the world exist", are not explicitly contradictory. Do you understand what the term "explicitly contradictory" means?

 

[anonymous person]

Please don't be deceptive. You've evaded quite a few pertinent posts.

Present them.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I wasn't referring to those propositions.

I was referring to P2. & P3.

The propositions, "God exists" and "imperfections in the world exist", are not explicitly contradictory. Do you understand what the term "explicitly contradictory" means?

Of course...

You understand what I mean when I say that P2+P3 are mischaracterizations of my argument...right?

Do I really need to explain why? I figured you were purposely mischaracterizing it to fit your reply...but I suppose it's possible that you really don't understand why they don't have anything to do with my argument.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I wasn't referring to those propositions.

I was referring to P2. & P3.

The propositions, "God exists" and "imperfections in the world exist", are not explicitly contradictory. Do you understand what the term "explicitly contradictory" means?

P2. God, being omnipotent could see to it that the bible was indisputable.
P3. God, being all-good, would want to see to it that the bible was indisputable.

Did you mean something else?