Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[bhsmte]

Well now notice what this thread is about. It is about arguments against the existence of God.

I don't make the claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God.

Some here have but think they can just say there is no evidence for God as if that is a good argument. It's not an argument. In fact, it is actually as someone else has mentioned, demonstrably false.

So shifting the burden over to me to prove God's existence is not going to get you off the hook.

Classic burden shifting.

 

[bhsmte]

The belief that claims require a form of testability.

It is neither testable or falsifiable. But philosophers have already dealt with this decades ago.

Belief in what exactly?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Are you familiar with his responses to arguments for the existence of God?

Yep. You have a point, or are you just avoiding the content of my post?

 

[anonymous person]

Belief in what exactly?

Logical empiricism.

A treatment of it can be found in Ayer's 1936 work entitled: Language, Truth and Logic.

It has been abandoned for nearly 50 years because it is self-refuting, as many of the views of young atheists here are who have not read Ayer's work.

 

[anonymous person]

Yep. You have a point, or are you just avoiding the content of my post?

Yes I have a point. Bear with me.

Have you read Smith's article written in 1991 in the International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion, Volume 29 entitled: An Atheological Argument From Evil Natural Laws?

Yes or no?

 

[bhsmte]

Logical empiricism.

A treatment of it can be found in Ayer's 1936 work entitled: Language, Truth and Logic.

It has been abandoned for nearly 50 years because it is self-refuting, as many of the views of young atheists here are who have not read Ayer's work.

Would the burden not be on you, to show certain folks adhere to the same?

 

[bhsmte]

Yes I have a point. Bear with me.

Have you read Smith's article written in 1991 in the International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion, Volume 29 entitled: An Atheological Argument From Evil Natural Laws?

Yes or no?

Give us a summary.

 

[anonymous person]

Would the burden not be on you, to show certain folks adhere to the same?

Yes. And I have their posts in this thread to show it. Just reference them.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes. And I have their posts in this thread to show it. Just reference them.

Show us.

 

[anonymous person]

Give us a summary.

In the article, the word "God" is found in over twenty distinct occurrences.

Do you concur?

 

[anonymous person]

There are lots of people with the first name Quentin. There's even a wikipedia page with a list of them - who would have thought? Looking through the list, I'm surprised at how many of them are American football players. Anyone know if there's some common point of origin for that? I mean, it looks like it is in the top 1000 most popular names but at the uncommon end of the range.

Aren't you glad you asked about a random name rather than actually making a point?

The Quentin Smith I am referencing is an atheist philosopher of religion.

 

[bhsmte]

In the article, the word "God" is found in over twenty distinct occurrences.

Do you concur?

I have not read the article, which is why I asked for a summary.

Is this your summary, the word God appears 20 times?

What does this mean to you and what else is in the article?

 

[anonymous person]

Show us.

Reference DogmaHunter's posts.

 

[Davian]

The same measures I have taken to ward off climate change catastrophes.

Probably the same measures I have taken in my concerns about vengeful deities. We should compare notes.

I hope no one is upset that I object to someone claiming something is true unless it is actually true.

Do you make an exception for those claiming God exists?

No matter what one may think of the evidence presented it is still evidence.

It seems to matter what people think about the evidence to a.p. - is that not the common element to a.p.'s threads? Except, in this thread, he is attempting to put the disbelievers on the defence. He must be desperate.

So claiming there is no evidence is simply a completely false statement and I will not just let such a false statement be made without commenting upon it.

Indeed. I have defended the existence of garden fairies in the same manner.

 

[bhsmte]

Reference DogmaHunter's posts.

Show us and support your claim.

 

[anonymous person]

I have not read the article, which is why I asked for a summary.

Is this your summary, the word God appears 20 times?

What does this mean to you and what else is in the article?

Don't take my word for it. Read it. And tell me whether or not I am right.

 

[anonymous person]

Show us and support your claim.

Are you unable to see his posts?

 

[bhsmte]

Don't take my word for it. Read it. And tell me whether or not I am right.

I will take your word for it.

What does this mean to you, that God is mentioned 20 times?

 

[bhsmte]

Are you unable to see his posts?

It is your claim.

Tie his posts to the claim you made and show your work.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Yes I have a point. Bear with me.

Have you read Smith's article written in 1991 in the International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion, Volume 29 entitled: An Atheological Argument From Evil Natural Laws?

Yes or no?

I've read parts of it.