Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Archaeopteryx]

So what methods do you use outside of empirical observation and logic to determine truths about reality?

@anonymous person was asked a similarly relevant question by @DogmaHunter earlier in this thread (1). He has evaded it thus far.

 

[KCfromNC]

The problem that Christians have is they are unable to define a spirit in tangible terms especially to people who refuse to accept spirits exist.

If they could define them for anyone, it would be a start. Alas...

If you be intellectually honest you will be aware that the only god that cannot be proved to exist is the living God of Israel.

Not at all. I can make up a dozen unprovable god concepts, all before lunch. Being untestable and immune to investigation isn't a feature, it is a bug.

 

[KCfromNC]

The response to this (if you get one) will be interesting.

I'm sure I won't get one. "But but but science is based on assumptions just like my religion" sounds really catchy, but if you think it through it kinda falls apart. Comparing "we have to assume an external reality" with "we need faith an all-powerful God sent himself as a sacrifice to himself to save us from him and he's intimately concerned with our sex lives" and you can see the level of assumptions needed aren't in the same ballpark.

 

[anonymous person]

I find it interesting that you mentioned God being concerned about people's sex lives out of all the things Christians typically claim God is concerned about.

That aside, the issue remains. No method of inquiry dependent upon the veridicality of the physical senses is indubitable.

I don't know why people take issue with this.

Do you?

 

[Davian]

I find it interesting that you mentioned God being concerned about people's sex lives out of all the things Christians typically claim God is concerned about.

Perhaps he has spent some time in the Ethics & Morality forum of this site.

That aside, the issue remains. No method of inquiry dependent upon the veridicality of the physical senses is indubitable.

I don't know why people take issue with this.

Do you?

I don't, depending on how you wish to play the equivocation game. Do you doubt that the Earth orbits the Sun, and not the other way around?

But I would ask, can you express exactly what you are trying to get at here?

Do you have a method of inquiry that would allow for "gods" but not also leave the Earth covered in giant invisible immaterial marshmallows? I hate driving though those things on the freeway.

 

[quatona]

That aside, the issue remains. No method of inquiry dependent upon the veridicality of the physical senses is indubitable.

I don't know why people take issue with this.

Because we have seen this game too often: Once their wild fantasies turn out to be untenable, the former all-objectivists become epistemological nihilists out of a sudden.

 

[sparow]

If they could define them for anyone, it would be a start. Alas...



Not at all. I can make up a dozen unprovable god concepts, all before lunch. Being untestable and immune to investigation isn't a feature, it is a bug.

Two things: first you haven't understood what I have said so your disagreement doesn't carry weight. Secondly you are moving the goal posts. You can make up 12 unprovable gods; I'd say the possibilities are infinite you are underestimating your skills. What you have failed to realise is that I only have to produce one god, say a statue of Budda and a person to worship it and the whole Atheist discipline goes up in smoke. The Atheist religion disintegrated the day it was born, your religion doesn't exist; Atheism is delusional.

God is testable but you don 't accept the proof, that is your option. As I proceed here I really do not know what your problem is; I don't know what "exists" means to you; does 1+1=2 exist, does one egg plus one egg = two eggs, can you put 2 eggs in a bag and test if they exist; a test might be to put red cellophane paper over the eggs and sprinkle salt on the paper and if the salt turns black before the eggs hatch what is proven: before the eggs hatch they exit but after the hatch they don't.

Any tangible description of God is wrong save one and that is Jesus Christ, and Jesus' proof was He raised himself from the dead; prophesy and it's fulfilment is proof of God's existence. Isaac Newton was a Christian, Darwin flopped in and out Einstein believed in a God not of the Bible so intelligence does not divide Atheism from Theism.

 

[sparow]

Well, if you cannot define what you are talking about, how can I even consider the question of its existence?

That begs the question: how does one have an irrational perception of something that is not coherently defined?

Your problem is your problem and I will help if you will allow. God is spirit; this is a coherent definition; God is not tangible; Jesus Christ was and will be tangible and as Jesus said if you have seen the son you have seen the father. Your problem may be you do not believe spirits exist. Dictionary definition or most common usage of words is that if a person has intelligence and is breathing he is a spirit or has a spirit; if he is not breathing and intelligent he is dead; the Bible only require breathing to be present or absent; a person with out breath is a dead soul.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Because we have seen this game too often: Once their wild fantasies turn out to be untenable, the former all-objectivists become epistemological nihilists out of a sudden.

It's always all-or-nothing with them.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That aside, the issue remains. No method of inquiry dependent upon the veridicality of the physical senses is indubitable.

I don't know why people take issue with this.

Do you?

What would you have us base our methods of inquiry on?

 

[KCfromNC]

I find it interesting that you mentioned God being concerned about people's sex lives out of all the things Christians typically claim God is concerned about.

Interesting in what way?

That aside, the issue remains. No method of inquiry dependent upon the veridicality of the physical senses is indubitable.

Are you ever going to answer my question about your ideas for a better way to investigate? I think 3 separate posters have asked and you've failed to answer any of them.

I don't know why people take issue with this.

Because people who make that claim never seem to be willing to tell us what their preferred alternative is. It is as if they think that saying people are imperfect is some sort of deeply held secret only they have figured out - and that sort of myopia makes me wonder how much they've actually thought about the issue.

 

[KCfromNC]

What you have failed to realise is that I only have to produce one god, say a statue of Budda and a person to worship it and the whole Atheist discipline goes up in smoke.

If you're going to actually believe that a lump of clay is a god, so does your Christianity.

Atheism is delusional.

Believers are so adorable when they try to play doctor over the internet.

As I proceed here I really do not know what your problem is; I don't know what "exists" means to you; does 1+1=2 exist, does one egg plus one egg = two eggs, can you put 2 eggs in a bag and test if they exist; a test might be to put red cellophane paper over the eggs and sprinkle salt on the paper and if the salt turns black before the eggs hatch what is proven: before the eggs hatch they exit but after the hatch they don't.

Math is made up by humans - a useful tool for communicating ideas. Are you saying that's all your god's existence is? A man-made convenience?

Any tangible description of God is wrong save one and that is Jesus Christ

But up above you said a statue of Buddha was god. Now it isn't. What were we saying about the definition of gods being very slippery?

and Jesus' proof was He raised himself from the dead; prophesy and it's fulfilment is proof of God's existence.

These are the claims of your religion you need proof of, not proof of your religion.

Isaac Newton was a Christian, Darwin flopped in and out Einstein believed in a God not of the Bible so intelligence does not divide Atheism from Theism.

You'd be kicked out of Church for claiming to be the type of Christian any of these guys were, so don't pretend that they are any sort of supporter of your view of god.

 

[KCfromNC]

It's always all-or-nothing with them.

Yep. We can't prove anything with 100% airtight certainty, therefore my guesses about magical man-gods walking the earth are just as valid as rigorously tested scientific principles.

 

[anonymous person]

Interesting in what way?



Are you ever going to answer my question about your ideas for a better way to investigate? I think 3 separate posters have asked and you've failed to answer any of them.



Because people who make that claim never seem to be willing to tell us what their preferred alternative is. It is as if they think that saying people are imperfect is some sort of deeply held secret only they have figured out - and that sort of myopia makes me wonder how much they've actually thought about the issue.

Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge. Do you agree with this explication or not?

 

[Davian]

Your problem is your problem and I will help if you will allow.

I do not have a problem with your posts being incoherent.

God is spirit; this is a coherent definition;

Calling it coherent without actually making it coherent is as useful as calling it a cocker spaniel.

God is not tangible;

Religionists are always ready to tell you what there god is not.

Jesus Christ was

...if he existed...

and will be tangible

...at some undefinable time in the future...

and as Jesus said

...words were attributed to Jesus...

if you have seen the son you have seen the father.

So God is a human? Or what?

Your problem may be you do not believe spirits exist. Dictionary definition or most common usage of words is that if a person has intelligence and is breathing he is a spirit or has a spirit; if he is not breathing and intelligent he is dead; the Bible only require breathing to be present or absent; a person with out breath is a dead soul.

Your problem is that you have yet to define what *you* mean by "spirit". I am well aware of the etymology of the word, in that long before our current understanding of human physiology, breathing was something you did when you were alive; an unborn child was not alive until it took its first breath and got its 'spirit'. However, this is the 21st century, and you will need to be much more explicit when you use such words with others that do not hold your presuppositions.

To reiterate: if you cannot define what you are talking about, how can I even consider the question of its existence?

That begs the question: how does one have an irrational perception of something that is not coherently defined?

 

[Davian]

It's always all-or-nothing with them.

Indeed, as a.p. affirmed back in #435.

 

[sparow]

I do not have a problem with your posts being incoherent.

Calling it coherent without actually making it coherent is as useful as calling it a cocker spaniel.

Religionists are always ready to tell you what there god is not.

...if he existed...

...at some undefinable time in the future...

...words were attributed to Jesus...

So God is a human? Or what?

Your problem is that you have yet to define what *you* mean by "spirit". I am well aware of the etymology of the word, in that long before our current understanding of human physiology, breathing was something you did when you were alive; an unborn child was not alive until it took its first breath and got its 'spirit'. However, this is the 21st century, and you will need to be much more explicit when you use such words with others that do not hold your presuppositions.

To reiterate: if you cannot define what you are talking about, how can I even consider the question of its existence?

That begs the question: how does one have an irrational perception of something that is not coherently defined?

Do you need me to teach you to say Goo Goo or Da Da, if you want to know what spirit you can look in a dictionary. Current understanding isn't an authority for any thing it is just a passing phase, God does not change.

Before we can communicate we have to have common ground and we have none; there is more historical evidence that Jesus existed than any other man, even if people dispute who he was.

 

[anonymous person]

Because we have seen this game too often: Once their wild fantasies turn out to be untenable, the former all-objectivists become epistemological nihilists out of a sudden.

I'm not an epistemological nihilist. I'm an adherent of reformed epistemology.

 

[Davian]

I'm not an epistemological nihilist. I'm an adherent of reformed epistemology.

I think what Archaeopteryx was alluding to was, do you think there exists any middle ground? As in, if this god stuff is just all in your head, what is your alternative?

And, speaking of reformed epistemology:

Welcome Great Pumpkin

• Davian
• Jan 3, 2016

 

[Davian]

Do you need me to teach you to say Goo Goo or Da Da, if you want to know what spirit you can look in a dictionary.

Dictionary definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive. I do not know how you in particular use the word. Are you describing something real, or imaginary? You'll need to do more than simply assert your opinion.

Current understanding isn't an authority for any thing it is just a passing phase, God does not change.

God beliefs do. They are all over the place in these forums.

Before we can communicate we have to have common ground and we have none;

The burden of defining your terms in a coherent manner lies with you.

there is more historical evidence that Jesus existed than any other man, even if people dispute who he was.

Can you explain how he might be alive after all this time?