Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[anonymous person]

Was C.S. able to demonstrate objectively that demons exist?

No. Nor does his being able to have anything to do with the point I was making.

 

[bhsmte]

No. Nor does his being able to have anything to do with the point I was making.

Cool.

Never got the whole need to invent demons anyway.

 

[anonymous person]

Cool.

Never got the whole need to invent demons anyway.

The story is what's called an "allegory".

 

[bhsmte]

It's called an "allegory".

Yea, made up stuff.

 

[anonymous person]

Yea, made up stuff.

Do you know what an allegory is?

 

[anonymous person]

That's nice. But unless Screwtape is going to address the questions and comments you've either evaded or ignored, I'm not particularly interested.

Questions and comments like....?

 

[bhsmte]

Do you know what an allegory is?

Sure, it is what is typically used, when one has no established facts to go off of.

 

[anonymous person]

Sure, it is what is typically used, when one has no established facts to go off of.

Writers or speakers typically use allegories as literary devices or as rhetorical devices that convey hidden meanings through symbolic figures, actions, imagery, and/or events, which together create the moral, spiritual, or political meaning the author wishes to convey.

Lewis' purpose in writing the allegory was not to argue for the existence of God.

 

[bhsmte]

Writers or speakers typically use allegories as literary devices or as rhetorical devices that convey hidden meanings through symbolic figures, actions, imagery, and/or events, which together create the moral, spiritual, or political meaning the author wishes to convey.

Lewis' purpose in writing the allegory was not to argue for the existence of God.

Yes, hidden meanings that can not be substantiated with established facts.

 

[lesliedellow]

Yes, hidden meanings that can not be substantiated with established facts.

By which is meant that religion doesn't revolve around methods of science, I suppose.

 

[anonymous person]

Lol what? No...no we don't agree. Nor do we agree on any of the sentences you started with some form of "I think both of us can agree..."

No lol we don't agree....for lots of reasons. Let's start at the beginning though...you gave no one any reason to agree. None. You're basically starting off your argument with ...

"Hey guys, I think we can all agree that if this god fella exists...he's a pretty good guy, right? Right?!?

You never gave any basis for this...or for any of the other ridiculous premises that follow. Without at least a reason to think those things.. no- I don't think those things. That leaves the rest of a rather long post completely pointless.

Did you or did you not say:

So...let's use a very generalized description of "god". I'll describe it as an entity capable of thought that is "perfect" and has created all of reality. Now that we have at least some bare minimum of a definition of a god...we could start to create an argument against its existence...

 

[anonymous person]

Yes, hidden meanings that can not be substantiated with established facts.

What was Lewis driving at in writing what he did?

 

[Davian]

I understand what you're saying. Let me explain how I've come to my conclusion that an intelligent designer must have created this world.

When I was 19, I began having serious doubts about God. I decided most people who believed in Him were ignorant, and looking for some source of hope in their life. Science just didn't seem to support the God I had been told about. So, I tried to "fix" myself by attending a Christian school. Long story short, I left within months with the assumption that Christians were ignorant hypocritical [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]s.

So, I decided to pursue science. After studying plant science in depth, I realized evolution was less likely than creation. All living things are related to an extent, but nobody can link them all back to one ancestor. Evolution requires a cause and effect process, but single-celled organisms would have no reason to complicate themselves by evolving. Also, mutations do not produce additional information. While living organisms can adapt, they can't add information to their DNA.

Also, it makes no sense to evolve to become more complicated, because the more complicated something is, the more vulnerable it is. And why, if life evolved on earth, did it not evolve on Mars? If things just evolve to meet their environments, surely something on a nearby planet would have evolved to that planet's climate. This suggests our life relies on our atmosphere, which contradicts the idea behind evolution that things just change and adapt to anything. Also, there's the problem with reproduction. Self-fertilization is much more simple, and reliable. Why evolve into male and female?

The only explanation that sounded reasonable, after two years of research, was an intelligent designer. Why male and female? The marriage relationship is crucial to Christianity.
Why was everything related, but only to an extent? Common ancestors, but in the form of an original cat, dog, horse, etc. Breeds evolved.

The complexity of creation makes sense with a complex creator. Not by millions of years of accidents producing increasingly complex life forms. Why would nature voluntarily complicate itself to the point of creating life and death? The Bible has answers to those questions that science does not.

That's where my view of earth and creation comes from. Not blind faith, but years of research into the honest possibilities of where we came from and why.

Aside from an argument from incredulity, I do not see anything that substantiates your claim of "Plenty of evidence exists for God" .

 

[bhsmte]

What was Lewis driving at in writing what he did?

You tell me, you used him.

While you are at it, what was he basing his opinion on?

 

[anonymous person]

You tell me, you used him.

Did you even read what I quoted? Or did you just respond to what I said without reading the quote?

While you are at it, what was he basing his opinion on?

If you were familiar with Lewis, and the particular work in discussion, which you want me to think you are seeing as how you didn't hesitate to critique it, then you would know what he was basing his opinions on. So either you are unfamiliar with it, or you are asking a question to which you already know the answer to. Which is it?

 

[bhsmte]

Did you even read what I quoted? Or did you just respond to what I said without reading the quote?



If you were familiar with Lewis, and the particular work in discussion, which you want me to think you are seeing as how you didn't hesitate to critique it, then you would know what he was basing his opinions on. So either you are unfamiliar with it, or you are asking a question to which you already know the answer to. Which is it?

Can you tell us your view of what he was driving at or not?

 

[anonymous person]

Can you tell us your view of what he was driving at or not?

Of course I can. But I am not going to allow you to shift the burden here. I am going to hold you to what you have said and ask that you back it up because you want to take this discussion somewhere. You want to use it as a platform to argue against the existence of demons. So let's hear it.

You have said that demons are inventions C.S. Lewis made up.

I want you to show me what evidence you have to support that truth claim.

 

[bhsmte]

Of course I can. But I am not going to allow you to shift the burden here. I am going to hold you to what you have said and ask that you back it up because you want to take this discussion somewhere. You want to use it as a platform to argue against the existence of demons. So let's hear it.

You have said that demons are nothing more than inventions C.S. Lewis made up.

I want you to show me what evidence you have to support that truth claim.

Well, I didn't see any credible evidence supplied that demons do exist, so I discount this claim.

So, tell use what CS was driving at?

 

[anonymous person]

Well, I didn't see any credible evidence supplied that demons do exist, so I discount this claim.

So, tell use what CS was driving at?

Not so fast.

I am not asking you why you discount the claim that demons exist.

I am asking you to provide evidence for the truth claim you have made. You have said that demons do not exist. You have said that they are inventions people like C.S. Lewis make up. I am asking you to provide evidence for this truth claim.

 

[bhsmte]

Not so fast.

I am not asking you why you discount the claim that demons exist.

I am asking you to provide evidence for the truth claim you have made. You have said that demons do not exist. You have said that they are inventions people like C.S. Lewis make up. I am asking you to provide evidence for this truth claim.

In post 1441, you acknowledged, CS did not objectively demonstrate that demons exist, so I don't see what the big deal is.

I see no credible evidence that demons exist, period.