Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Do you insult those that disagree with you in real life?It sure is.
Talking to some people here, you would get the impression that they are children, not adults.
*Cue sophomoric and juvenile sarcasm about my post being ironic*
Philosophical arguments against the existence of something depend entirely on the arguments for the existence of it. Not to mention on a proper definition of the term - provided by its proponents.Philosophical arguments against the existence of God
That question can't be answered until the specific claims are properly presented in a testable and / or falsifiable manner.
...
One analyses the claims and asks "how could this claim be falsified? what data/evidence would we expect to find and NOT to find, if this claim is true?".
So your claim requires a form of testability.
The concept of falsifiability is distinctly separate from logical empiricism, or positivism. From that, not so clear.From this, it is clear that DogmaHunter is espousing a form of logical empiricism.
The first argument would focus on the burden of proof. We don't need to disprove claims that have no evidence to support them. As Bertrand Russell put it:Philosophers of religion as a part of their discipline, sometimes engage in the formulation and defense of arguments for the existence of God.
We are aware of this.
However, it is oftentimes forgotten that they also interact with arguments against theism.
In this thread, we will discuss those which atheists here think are most persuasive.
Any takers?
That would be a misrepresentation of what I said.
My position is consistent with the modern philosophy of mind, based on the work of philosophers working with neuroscience.
"The unsettling point about modern philosophy of mind and the cognitive neuroscience of will, already apparent even at this early stage, is that a final theory may contradict the way we have been subjectively experiencing ourselves for millennia. There will likely be a conflict between the scientific view of the acting self and the phenomenal narrative, the subjective story our brains tell us about what happens when we decide to act. (p. 127)
From a scientific, third-person perspective, our inner experience of strong autonomy may look increasingly like what it has been all along: an appearance only. (p. 129)"
From http://www.beinghuman.org/metzinger
What philosophy of mind do you adhere to?
Well, I had not considered that question, but I do hypothesis that if I were to believe in a God that [allegedly] walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every object measure to date indistinguishable from nothing, there would be many people that I could not take seriously. Scientists, for instance.
The Davian creed. A belief which states that we all are a homo sapiens whose phenomenal narratives make us think that we are in some way free to choose certain courses of action, but in reality, actually dance to our DNA, and are totally determined in all that we do. A belief that is neither testable nor falsifiable.
Not at all.Does a philosopher of religion mentioning God 20 times in an article surprise you?
How could I possibly know what you mean when using this word?I come here and the vast majority of atheists act like they do not know what I even mean when I use the word "God"!
Not at all.
Some here act like they do not know what the word means when philosophers use it in the context which I have referenced.
That is my point.
Philosophers have been having meaningful and fruitful conversations about God for hundreds of centuries.
I get on this forum and it is like stepping into the twilight zone. Atheists especially seem simply clueless regarding the rich history of philosophical discourse revolving around God and what attributes He would have if He existed.
I come here and the vast majority of atheists act like they do not know what I even mean when I use the word "God"!
I have trouble discerning whether or not some people here are even serious.
Not at all.
Some here act like they do not know what the word means when philosophers use it in the context which I have referenced.
That is my point.
Philosophers have been having meaningful and fruitful conversations about God for hundreds of centuries.
I get on this forum and it is like stepping into the twilight zone. Atheists especially seem simply clueless regarding the rich history of philosophical discourse revolving around God and what attributes He would have if He existed.
I come here and the vast majority of atheists act like they do not know what I even mean when I use the word "God"!
I have trouble discerning whether or not some people here are even serious.
That would be a misrepresentation of what I said.The Davian creed. A belief which states that we all are a homo sapiens whose phenomenal narratives make us think that we are in some way free to choose certain courses of action, but in reality, actually dance to our DNA, and are totally determined in all that we do.
Not my belief.A belief that is neither testable nor falsifiable.
By all means, put the flame to that straw-man.But let us not stop there.
It wasn't when I wrote it.Davian's unfalsifiable, untestable belief is actually self-refuting.
How are we not autonomous? If you see something falling in your direction, are you unable to move to avoid it?If our phenomenal narrative does not present us with an accurate description of reality, but a false one in which we merely think we are in some way autonomous,
Where did I mention unreliability?then based on the unreliability
Where did you get "false" from? Is the image on your computer screen false? "Sure, it may look like a web page to you, but in reality it is only pixels in a liquid crystal matrix. Don't be fooled!"of said phenomenal cognitive apparatuses for presenting us with an accurate description of reality, we cannot rationally conclude that our cognitive apparatuses are presenting us with an accurate description of reality when they tell us that our phenomenal narrative does not present us with an accurate description of reality, but a false one!
Or how you are going to stuff even more of them in there.Davian, your views are so multiply flawed and problematic that I often times have trouble in determining which flaw should be addressed first.
An apt description of your post.Take some time and actually think about what it is you believe and just try and untangle yourself from the webs of logical inconsistency and manifestly fallacious reasoning you have fallen victim to.
How could I possibly know what you mean when using this word?
And you could simply resolve the problem by providing the definition you want counterarguments to be based upon. Your reluctance to do so is telling.
I didn´t ask you for help. I am trying to help you with your request.If you don't know what a Christian means when they use the word "God" then I don't think I can help you.
Ah, the there-must-be-a-window-because-all-of-this-window-dressing fallacy....
Philosophers have been having meaningful and fruitful conversations about God for hundreds of centuries.
I get on this forum and it is like stepping into the twilight zone. Atheists especially seem simply clueless regarding the rich history of philosophical discourse revolving around God and what attributes He would have if He existed.
I come here and the vast majority of atheists act like they do not know what I even mean when I use the word "God"!
I have trouble discerning whether or not some people here are even serious.
I do recall that the description I use - a character in a book named "God" that [allegedly] walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every object measure to date indistinguishable from nothing - has pretty much lasted around here with no attempts to correct it.If you don't know what a Christian means when they use the word "God" then I don't think I can help you.
I do recall that the description I use - a character in a book named "God" that [allegedly] walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every object measure to date indistinguishable from nothing - has pretty much lasted around here with no attempts to correct it.
Yea, that is because none of us can really take you seriously.
That would be a misrepresentation of what I said.
Not my belief.
By all means, put the flame to that straw-man.
It wasn't when I wrote it.
How are we not autonomous? If you see something falling in your direction, are you unable to move to avoid it?
Where did I mention unreliability?
Where did you get "false" from? Is the image on your computer screen false? "Sure, it may look like a web page to you, but in reality it is only pixels in a liquid crystal matrix. Don't be fooled!"
Or how you are going to stuff even more of them in there.
An apt description of your post.
That's the description we are going to go with unless you supply a different one.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?