Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Davian]

...
What people should say is that they have reviewed the evidence theists provide for the existence of God and find it unpersuasive or unconvincing which is a far more modest claim and one which is easier to defend.

One still would be responsible for giving reasons why all of the arguments and evidence marshaled for the existence of God are unpersuasive to them.

I do not see why I would have any such responsibly.

While I may oblige you in pointing out the apparent flaws in your array of argumentation, I am not privy to my subconscious mind's exact methods by which it accepts or rejects as accurate descriptions of reality. Belief is not a conscious choice, after all.

 

[Davian]

...

I see no reason to think that this approach is one which should be taken.

You see no reason to actually define what X is when you claim that "X exists"???

I do think it would feel peculiar to believe in something that I could not define, while being so adamant that my beliefs are an accurate description of reality true.

 

[anonymous person]

I do not see why I would have any such responsibly.

While I may oblige you in pointing out the apparent flaws in your array of argumentation, I am not privy to my subconscious mind's exact methods by which it accepts or rejects as accurate descriptions of reality. Belief is not a conscious choice, after all.

You don't really know why you believe what you believe or why you think what you think because you are not privy to your subconscious mind's exact methods by which it accepts or rejects as accurate descriptions of reality.

But you're confident that you don't know any of this exactly......

Right....

Now tell me, am I really supposed to take you seriously?

 

[anonymous person]

I will take your word for it.

What does this mean to you, that God is mentioned 20 times?

Do you make a habit of using words that have no meaning or words that you have no idea what they mean?

 

[Davian]

The belief that claims require a form of testability.

I don't believe that claims require a form of testability. Believe whatever you want, claim whatever you want.

It is neither testable or falsifiable. But philosophers have already dealt with this decades ago.

"I am not convinced" is not a belief, or a positive claim.

Now, is there something you would like to present for consideration here, as an accurate description of reality?

Pretend that you are in a philosophy forum.

 

[bhsmte]

Do you make a habit of using words that have no meaning or words that you have no idea what they mean?

What???

Which of the words in my simple question, have no meaning?

Tell me where you are confused.

 

[Davian]

...

So shifting the burden over to me to prove God's existence

When did it ever leave you?

is not going to get you off the hook.

What hook?

 

[anonymous person]

What???

Which of the words in my simple question, have no meaning?

Tell me where you are confused.

You misunderstood my question. It was not aimed at anything you wrote. It was a question in general.

Do you make a habit of using words that have no meaning or words that you have no idea what their meaning is?

Yes or no?

 

[anonymous person]

I've read parts of it.

Good.

Are you aware that in the article, the word "God" is found either used by Quentin Smith directly, or quoted by him in the works of other professional philosophers at least twenty different times?

Yes or no?

 

[bhsmte]

You misunderstood my question. It was not aimed at anything you wrote. It was a question in general.

Do you make a habit of using words that have no meaning or words that you have no idea what their meaning is?

Yes or no?

Now, I am thoroughly confused. You state I use words with no meaning and don't understand what they mean, correct?

Then you state, it is not based on anything I wrote.

So, if your claim is not based on anything I wrote, what exactly is it based on? Was it a phone call we had, was it a blog of mine you read or was this just another example of you making another claim, that makes absolutely no sense?

 

[bhsmte]

Good.

Are you aware that in the article, the word "God" is found either used by Quentin Smith directly, or quoted by him in the works of other professional philosophers at least twenty different times?

Yes or no?

How can one be a philosopher of religion, without mentioning the word God? Religions involve Gods don't they?

 

[anonymous person]

Show us and support your claim.

In response to my question of what criteria one uses in determining whether or not a belief is true, DogmaHunter said:

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.

From this, it is clear that DogmaHunter is espousing a form of logical empiricism.

 

[anonymous person]

Now, I am thoroughly confused. You state I use words with no meaning and don't understand what they mean, correct?

Then you state, it is not based on anything I wrote.

So, if your claim is not based on anything I wrote, what exactly is it based on? Was it a phone call we had, was it a blog of mine you read or was this just another example of you making another claim, that makes absolutely no sense?

It is a question I asked.

Do you or do you not make a habit of using words that have no meaning or words you do not know the meaning of?

Yes or no?

What is it about the question that confuses you?

 

[anonymous person]

How can one be a philosopher of religion, without mentioning the word God? Religions involve Gods don't they?

I did not say that a person could be a philosopher of religion without mentioning God.

I am not arguing that at all.

I am pointing out the fact that the word is found over 20 times in his article.

 

[quatona]

What a desperate thread.

 

[anonymous person]

What a desperate thread.

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*

 

[bhsmte]

I did not say that a person could be a philosopher of religion without mentioning God.

I am not arguing that at all.

I am pointing out the fact that the word is found over 20 times in his article.

Does a philosopher of religion mentioning God 20 times in an article surprise you?

 

[Davian]

You don't really know why you believe what you believe or why you think what you think

That would be a misrepresentation of what I said.

because you are not privy to your subconscious mind's exact methods by which it accepts or rejects as accurate descriptions of reality.

But you're confident that you don't know any of this exactly......

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

Right....

What philosophy of mind do you adhere to?

Now tell me, am I really supposed to take you seriously?

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.

 

[quatona]

It sure is.

Talking to some people here, you would get the impression that they are children, not adults.

Well, with a thread like this, what would you expect?

 

[bhsmte]

It is a question I asked.

Do you or do you not make a habit of using words that have no meaning or words you do not know the meaning of?

Yes or no?

What is it about the question that confuses you?

I told you what confused me and it seemed to have slipped by you. Being a nice guy, I will repeat it.

You stated I use words with no meaning and I don't understand what they mean. Then, you say, it is NOT BASED ON ANYTHING I WROTE.

So, if your claim of me using words not having any meaning, or myself understand what they mean is not based on what I have wrote, what on earth is it based on?