Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Eudaimonist]

Effect-to-cause reasoning is a very common mode of reasoning.

Yes, but it is a highly ineffective mode of reasoning when one has little idea what the cause is like. For instance, if one finds DNA in a jungle somewhere that one doesn't recognize, one can reasonably attribute that to some animal that isn't in one's DNA databank. That would be reasonable reasoning.

However, that sort of reasoning becomes much, much less trustworthy when applying it to a type of cause that one has no direct experience with. It invites too much imagination and ad hoc conclusions. It is the sort of speculation that one ought to be very cautious and tentative about.

By rejecting it you can avoid God, but unfortunately you will lose science at the same time. Scientific theories, especially in fields such as particle physics, are essentially an attempt to explain a set of effects by reference to some other entity (which is often unseen).

Yes, but the problem with this argument is that scientists have plenty of experience with physical entities such as particles/waves. This is why one can reasonably speculate about dark matter. It's because scientists are already well familiar with visible matter.

You have a serious logical problem when it comes to something like "God". It's not really the same kind of reasoning process, even if it may seem that way superficially.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Is scientific inquiry super-human? How could a lack in human truth-seeking ability be corrected by a purely human discipline such as scientific inquiry?

To quote Jacob Bronowksi, “science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible.”

Is]It is more fundamental than that, it is a question of fundamental disposition towards skepticism or reliability. Science can have no reliability if humans themselves aren't fundamentally reliable, as science is a mere tool of humans. A telescope won't do a blind man any good.

I consider that a false dichotomy. Skepticism can help to improve reliability. By identifying less reliable methods we are able to develop better and more reliable ones.

Is]In order to safeguard his own reason, the atheist desperately wants to say that humans are fundamentally reliable, yet he often says just the opposite when it comes to religion. Despite the fact that this is often taken lightly or shrugged off, I find it significant.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fundamentally reliable," or why you consider it significant.

 

[quatona]

Jesus is what God looks like.

What does Jesus look like?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I don't even know what I look like. Being for others is a leap of faith.

 

[anonymous person]

What of those who received different information "in the spirit"?

"Different information" is a phrase in need of explanation, and clarification.

 

[quatona]

"Different information" is a phrase in need of explanation, and clarification.

Whereas "self-disclosure in the spirit" isn´t, of course.

 

[anonymous person]

Suppose you and a co-worker were assigned a project by your boss. You do your part but your co-worker procrastinates and goofs off. You report back to your boss and he honors you with a raise and a pat on the back. Your co-worker's experience is different. He is demoted and gets a verbal reprimand.

There was not two different bosses, but one boss who related to two people differently.

But your question is addressing the fact that there are different religions. What about Muhammed who gives us different information than the authors of the Bible?

Whose right?

You rightly understand that they all cannot be right. Jesus for example, was either crucified and died or He didn't.

What of Muhammed then? He was wrong. He was wrong in the same sense that he would have been wrong if he claimed Julius Caesar was never killed by members of the senate.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

"Different information" is a phrase in need of explanation, and clarification.

Let me rephrase: what of those who reach different theological conclusions on the basis of information also ostensibly derived "in the spirit"?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Suppose you and a co-worker were assigned a project by your boss. You do your part but your co-worker procrastinates and goofs off. You report back to your boss and he honors you with a raise and a pat on the back. Your co-worker's experience is different. He is demoted and gets a verbal reprimand.

There was not two different bosses, but one boss who related to two people differently.

But your question is addressing the fact that there are different religions. What about Muhammed who gives us different information than the authors of the Bible?

Whose right?

You rightly understand that they all cannot be right. Jesus for example, was either crucified and died or He didn't.

What of Muhammed then? He was wrong. He was wrong in the same sense that he would have been wrong if he claimed Julius Caesar was never killed by members of the senate.

I'm sure Muslim apologists would declare, with comparable confidence, that you are wrong.

 

[anonymous person]

Let me rephrase: what of those who reach different theological conclusions on the basis of information also ostensibly derived "in the spirit"?

Depends on the conclusion they reach.

 

[anonymous person]

I'm sure Muslim apologists declare, with comparable confidence, that you are wrong.

I'm sure they do. Is there a point?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Depends on the conclusion they reach.

Suppose it's a conclusion that differs from yours.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm sure they do. Is there a point?

It just flew over your head.

 

[anonymous person]

Suppose it's a conclusion that differs from yours.

Depends on how it differs.

 

[anonymous person]

It just flew over your head.

No seriously. What is your point?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No seriously. What is your point?

Perhaps you should meditate on it a while.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Depends on how it differs.

Suppose it differs radically, such that it is recognisably dissimilar to your theology.

 

[anonymous person]

Perhaps you should meditate on it a while.

Perhaps I should ignore you.

 

[anonymous person]

Suppose it differs radically, such that it is recognisably dissimilar to your theology.

Have an example?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Perhaps I should ignore you.

That's your choice. You've already ignored or evaded numerous questions and comments, so it's in keeping with the norm for you.