Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Two years of research huh? Would you mind explaining how this research was done and where you were doing your research?

Please don't take offense at this, but in just two paragraphs you've managed to reveal a huge lack of knowledge/understanding about...plant science (sigh). Not only that, but you seem to have between little and no understanding of evolution. There's a tremendous amount of evidence for it in "plant science" alone...

So that makes me curious as to what school you were doing your research in and what specifically it was that you studied? From the looks of it...I could only guess that you did this research on your own and that you did it through a series of creationist websites. I'm sure that isn't what you meant though...so please, tell us about your studies.

 

[bhsmte]

Two years of research huh? Would you mind explaining how this research was done and where you were doing your research?

Please don't take offense at this, but in just two paragraphs you've managed to reveal a huge lack of knowledge/understanding about...plant science (sigh). Not only that, but you seem to have between little and no understanding of evolution. There's a tremendous amount of evidence for it in "plant science" alone...

So that makes me curious as to what school you were doing your research in and what specifically it was that you studied? From the looks of it...I could only guess that you did this research on your own and that you did it through a series of creationist websites. I'm sure that isn't what you meant though...so please, tell us about your studies.

This sounds like the other poster in different threads, that has claimed; they completed scientific controlled studies, proving the bible is true and God exists.

When asked to provide this scientific work, the evasion then begins.

 

[anonymous person]

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

Exactly. He was writing an allegory, not a thesis on the ontology of demons.

I see no credible evidence that demons exist, period.

Is this your argument for the nonexistence of demons?

Demons don't exist because I don't see evidence for them?

 

[quatona]

Well, when I use the word God, I am using it to signify the Greatest Conceivable Being.

There is not much point in even only investigating a such loosely and improperly defined term, to begin with.

 

[bhsmte]

Exactly. He was writing an allegory, not a thesis on the ontology of demons.



Is this your argument for the nonexistence of demons?

Demons don't exist because I don't see evidence for them?

When I have no credible evidence to substantiate something exists, my conclusion would be; I don't believe this thing exists. This could change of course, if credible evidence became available.

 

[anonymous person]

There is not much point in even investigating a such loosely and improperly defined term.

Then let's find a common ground on which to build.

Why is the concept of Greatest Conceivable Being a loosely and improperly defined term?

What criteria and methodology are you using to determine whether or not a concept is loosely defined?

What criteria and methodology are you using to determine whether or not a concept is improperly defined?

 

[anonymous person]

When I have no credible evidence to substantiate something exists, my conclusion would be; I don't believe this thing exists. This could change of course, if credible evidence became available.

You have moved goalposts.

You earlier said demons do not exist. This is a truth claim. A claim to know something, namely, that demons do not exist.

Now you are changing your position. You are now saying you don't know if they exist or not.

Which is it?

They don't exist.

Or

They may, but you just don't know?

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Two years of research huh? Would you mind explaining how this research was done and where you were doing your research?

Please don't take offense at this, but in just two paragraphs you've managed to reveal a huge lack of knowledge/understanding about...plant science (sigh). Not only that, but you seem to have between little and no understanding of evolution. There's a tremendous amount of evidence for it in "plant science" alone...

So that makes me curious as to what school you were doing your research in and what specifically it was that you studied? From the looks of it...I could only guess that you did this research on your own and that you did it through a series of creationist websites. I'm sure that isn't what you meant though...so please, tell us about your studies.

University of Nebraska. And I worked very closely with two different professors. Of course, I also looked at creationist websites.

I do understand evolution. The primary driving force behind evolution is the attempt at a longer/better life. Adaptation to surroundings in order to survive. Basically an attempt to escape death.

So, my conclusion, which no professor could refute, was this: Evolution desires to evolve based on survival. This implies a desire to avoid death. If evolution spawned life, and therefore death, why would it "create" something that every species then spent the rest of it's evolutionary cycle trying to avoid?

 

[bhsmte]

You have moved goalposts.

You earlier said demons do not exist. This is a truth claim. A claim to know something, namely, that demons do not exist.

Now you are changing your position. You are now saying you don't know if they exist or not.

Which is it?

They don't exist.

Or

They may, but you just don't know?

Where did I say; "demons do not exist"?

I said, I see no credible evidence that demons exist, so I do not believe they do exist.

Things that exist, can be objectively demonstrated and you agreed, Lewis failed to do so.

 

[quatona]

Then let's find a common ground on which to build.

Why is the concept of Greatest Conceivable Being a loosely and improperly defined term?

What criteria and methodology are you using to determine whether or not a concept is loosely defined?

What criteria and methodology are you using to determine whether or not a concept is improperly defined?

1. Define "greatest". Give the clear criteria for determing what´s "great" and "greatest" (unless, of course, you are ready to accept and apply my criteria).
As long as this term isn´t properly defined, there is no point in basing investigations upon it.
2. "Conceivable": it´s passive case. Determine a conceiver who is in the place to determine what´s the "greastest" (unless, of course, you are implying that it´s up to me to determine these things).
As long as you haven´t identified this conceiver whom you want to make the determiner for what´s "greatest", there is no basis for investigating the claim that there is a "Greatest Conceivable Being".
So it´s up to you to provide an epostemological methodology. As long as there isn´t one, we can´t deal with your assertion in a reasonable manner.

Nice attempt again at trying to shift the burden, btw. I´m not going to do your homework for you.

 

[bhsmte]

University of Nebraska. And I worked very closely with two different professors. Of course, I also looked at creationist websites.

I do understand evolution. The primary driving force behind evolution is the attempt at a longer/better life. Adaptation to surroundings in order to survive. Basically an attempt to escape death.

So, my conclusion, which no professor could refute, was this: Evolution desires to evolve based on survival. This implies a desire to avoid death. If evolution spawned life, and therefore death, why would it "create" something that every species then spent the rest of it's evolutionary cycle trying to avoid?

How did evolution spawn life?

How did evolution spawn death?

 

[anonymous person]

1. Define "greatest". Give the clear criteria for determing what´s "great" and "greatest" (unless, of course, you are ready to accept and apply my criteria).
As long as this term isn´t properly defined, there is no point in basing investigations upon it.
2. "Conceivable": it´s passive case. Determine a conceiver who is in the place to determine what´s the "greastest" (unless, of course, you are implying that it´s up to me to determine these things).
As long as you haven´t identified this conceiver whom you want to make the determiner for what´s "greatest", there is no basis for investigating the claim that there is a "Greatest Conceivable Being".
So it´s up to you to provide an epostemological methodology. As long as there isn´t one, we can´t deal with your assertion in a reasonable manner.

Nice attempt again at trying to shift the burden, btw. I´m not going to do your homework for you.

You stated previously that the phrase "Greatest Conceivable Being" was:

a such loosely and improperly defined term

I will ask you again, what evidence and reasons do you have for making this truth claim?

Please don't shift the burden over to me. I did not make the claim. You did.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

How did evolution spawn life?

How did evolution spawn death?

Evolution claims there was a puddle of primordial ooze that spontaneously began to transform itself, and along the way became a life form, as a single-celled organism.

Before that evolution that spawned life, the ooze had no life, therefore no death, therefore it spontaneously developed into something more complex and more vulnerable, which is counter to why things supposedly evolved in the first place.

 

[bhsmte]

Evolution claims there was a puddle of primordial ooze that spontaneously began to transform itself, and along the way became a life form, as a single-celled organism.

Before that evolution that spawned life, the ooze had no life, therefore no death, therefore it spontaneously developed into something more complex and more vulnerable, which is counter to why things supposedly evolved in the first place.

Show us in the theory of evolution, where it makes this claim.

 

[quatona]

You stated previously that the phrase "Greatest Conceivable Being" was:



I will ask you again, what evidence and reasons do you have for making this truth claim?

I told you where it was lacking the clarity that is required to even start making it the basis of investigating whether there is such a being.
You were the one asking for arguments against the existence of the "Greatest Conceivable Being". The claim that there is such a being doesn´t lend itself to rational investigation.That´s not my problem, it´s the claimer´s problem. "Great" is an unspecific value judgement. Provide an objecitvely investigable criterium for determining "greatness", and we´d have a starting point. Next you´d have to show that your criteria aren´t subjective, but objective.

But, if you prefer, I can simply say that I can conceive of a greater being than bible-god, and thereby prove Christianity wrong, using your very "definition".

 

[anonymous person]

Where did I say; "demons do not exist"?

I said, I see no credible evidence that demons exist, so I do not believe they do exist.

You said, and I quote:

Never got the whole need to invent demons anyway.

You then referred to demons, among other things Lewis wrote about, when you claimed that it was:

made up stuff..

From this, it follows that you affirm that demons are inventions of C.S. Lewis. Something that existed only in his mind. You affirm that demons are things people "make up".

Thus you affirm that demons do not actually exist. They are simply figments of some men's imaginations.

As such, you are making a truth claim. A claim to know that demons do not actually exist, but are figments of men's imaginations.

As such, you will need to provide evidence for this truth claim.

Things that exist, can be objectively demonstrated and you agreed, Lewis failed to do so.

Lewis could not fail to demonstrate the existence of demons in the Screwtape Letters if he never endeavored to do that to start with. You can't fail to do x if you never tried to do x to start with. The Screwtape Letters was an allegory.

Secondly, your assertion that:

Things that exist, can be objectively demonstrated

Is a truth claim. I need you to provide evidence for it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Did you or did you not say:

Of course I did...but I also clarified those definitions to avoid any logical flaws that might arise from using them.

Defining "perfect" as "maximally great" doesn't clarify anything. "Maximally great" is just as vague/subjective/ambiguous as "perfect".

It's nice to see that you're still trying to counter my argument though. Whenever you go for such long periods of time without addressing any of my posts it gives the impression that you've thrown in the towel. Good for you.

 

[bhsmte]

You said, and I quote:



You then referred to demons, among other things Lewis wrote about, when you claimed that it was:



From this, it follows that you affirm that demons are inventions of C.S. Lewis. Something that existed only in his mind. You affirm that demons are things people "make up".

Thus you affirm that demons do not actually exist. They are simply figments of some men's imaginations.

As such, you are making a truth claim. A claim to know that demons do not actually exist, but are figments of men's imaginations.

As such, you will need to provide evidence for this truth claim.



Lewis could not fail to demonstrate the existence of demons in the Screwtape Letters if he never endeavored to do that to start with. You can't fail to do x if you never tried to do x to start with. The Screwtape Letters was an allegory.

Secondly, your assertion that:



Is a truth claim. I need you to provide evidence for it.

If someone has not substantiated a claim that something exists, with verifiable evidence, I can only assume, they have made it up. Otherwise, what are they basing the claim on?

You even acknowledged, Lewis failed to objectively demonstrate that demons exist. So, what did he demonstrate exactly and what was it based on?

 

[Hoghead1]

Sister in Christ is right on about evolution. Her description of the ooze is standard in the trade in evolutionary circles.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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?

I'll admit that I don't know what he's basing his opinions on. Why not tell us?