Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[anonymous person]

I didn't say it was meaningless! Have you even be reading my posts? I said that it depends on the sense in which the word is being used.

And then I asked you in what sense would it be meaningless and you said when it is used to substitute words like "mystery" or "unknown".

To which I replied that the word still has meaning.

Now sure, if the word God is used to refer to "iaosfasj", then sure, it has no meaning.

If that is the point you were making, it kind of goes without saying.

No word has any meaning if what it refers to has no meaning.

Philosophers and theologians don't use the word "God" to refer to "iaosfasj" though. They use it to typically refer to "The Supreme Being".

Now if the phrase "The Supreme Being" is meaningless, then you need to tell me why you think that.

 

[anonymous person]

By the way, I don't know if, given your current status, you are in any position to be offering advice on intellectual honesty.

Nice. But the question stands.

If proven wrong, will you change your views? It is a question you have not hesitated in asking me multiple times by the way.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And then I asked you in what sense would it be meaningless and you said when it is used to substitute words like "mystery" or "unknown".

To which I replied that the word still has meaning.

Are you willing to restrict your usage of the term "God" to those meanings exclusively from now on?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Nice. But the question stands.

If proven wrong, will you change your views? It is a question you have not hesitated in asking me multiple times by the way.

Yes, and I note that you have repeatedly evaded it. So now I am expected to answer it straight away?

Okay, fine. Yes, I am open to be convinced that I am wrong on this and other matters in this discussion. Okay, now your turn.

 

[anonymous person]

Are you willing to restrict your usage of the term "God" to those meanings exclusively from now on?

Not at all.

I have already given a very brief definition of how I intend the word to be understood when I use it.

Have you never used the word "God" before? If you have, what did you intend to signify when using it?

 

[anonymous person]

Yes, and I note that you have repeatedly evaded it. So now I am expected to answer it straight away?

Okay, fine. Yes, I am open to be convinced that I am wrong on this and other matters in this discussion. Okay, now your turn.

Thank you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Thank you.

Yeah, that's pretty much how I thought you would respond: by avoiding the question.

 

[anonymous person]

Yeah, that's pretty much how I thought you would respond: by avoiding the question.

If you can prove me wrong on anything, I will gladly admit being wrong and abandon it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If you can prove me wrong on anything, I will gladly admit being wrong and abandon it.

No you won't. You've admitted as much already. Would you like me to link you to your own posts?

 

[anonymous person]

No you won't. You've admitted as much already. Would you like me to link you to your own posts?

No need.

I am telling you now, regardless of what I wrote, prove me wrong on anything and I will abandon it as being worthy of being abandoned.

You have inspired me.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No need.

I am telling you now, regardless of what I wrote, prove me wrong on anything and I will abandon it as being worthy of being abandoned.

Regardless of what you wrote? Are you saying we should disregard everything you have written up until now?

You have inspired me.

That must be your legendary sarcasm coming through.

 

[anonymous person]

Regardless of what you wrote? Are you saying we should disregard everything you have written up until now?

That must be your legendary sarcasm coming through.

No I did not say disregard everything I have written up till now. Just disregard the specific post in which I made a claim that you seem to think would now prohibit me from being able to abandon a view which one proves is wrong.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No I did not say disregard everything I have written up till now. Just disregard the specific post in which I made a claim that you seem to think would now prohibit me from being able to abandon a view which one proves is wrong.

Did you ever read the fable about the boy who cried "wolf"?

 

[anonymous person]

Did you ever read the fable about the boy who cried "wolf"?

Yes.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes.

You are that boy. Only instead of crying "wolf," you have repeatedly paid lip service to being "open to be convinced" when you are not. You have touted yourself as a philosopher, when instead you are an apologist.

 

[anonymous person]

You are that boy. Only instead of crying "wolf," you have repeatedly paid lip service to being "open to be convinced" when you are not. You have touted yourself as a philosopher, when instead you are an apologist.

So I should not expect you to try and prove me wrong on anything.

Did you ever think there was a good reason for me being confident in my beliefs? Or did you just assume that I am like you were. One who held beliefs without having good reasons to do so?

I am not like you in that respect. I do not hold the beliefs I do because there are no other beliefs out there to choose from or because they are not evidenced. I hold them because they are true. One who stands on the side of truth is marvelously free to have their beliefs challenged because of the confidence they have that they are indeed capable of standing up to scrutiny.

The invitation is always open to you to prove me wrong. Whether or not you accept that invitation is up to you.

Excuses satisfy only those that use them, and even then, they leave a bitter taste in one's mouth.

That is why I suspect you eventually will get around to trying to prove me wrong when you realize that your excuses are not going to deter me from allowing you the chance to prove me wrong.

 

[bhsmte]

The word "God", is not meaningless. That was my point.

All words have meaning.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So I should not expect you to try and prove me wrong on anything.

What would be the point of trying to do that? You will simply play the "inner witness" card and declare yourself triumphant regardless.

Did you ever think there was a good reason for me being confident in my beliefs? Or did you just assume that I am like you were. One who held beliefs without having good reasons to do so?

Even if you had no good reasons to be as certain about your beliefs as you are, you would still maintain the same level of certainty by insisting that your personal religious experience is incontrovertible and that it supersedes anything that would otherwise compel you to reconsider your theological commitments.

I am not like you in that respect. I do not hold the beliefs I do because there are no other beliefs out there to choose from or because they are not evidenced. I hold them because they are true. One who stands on the side of truth is marvelously free to have their beliefs challenged because of the confidence they have that they are indeed capable of standing up to scrutiny.

Sorry, but your reliance on the apologetics game suggests that you are anything but "marvellously free" to have your beliefs questioned.

The invitation is always open to you to prove me wrong. Whether or not you accept that invitation is up to you.

See above. What would be the point? I'm not going to assume that you are approaching these matters honestly when I have seen abundant evidence to the contrary.

Excuses satisfy only those that use them, and even then, they leave a bitter taste in one's mouth.

That is why I suspect you eventually will get around to trying to prove me wrong when you realize that your excuses are not going to deter me from allowing you the chance to prove me wrong.

I need only point to your disposition in this discussion to discredit your claim to approaching these matters with the desire to be "objective, honest, and open."

 

[bhsmte]

I have just demonstrated to you that the word "God", even if used synonymously for "mystery" or "unknown", is not without meaning. The word still has meaning.

So as an intellectually honest person, you should abandon your view about the word "God" being meaningless.

Will you?

You really need to read what people actually write and not interpret what they write in a manner that suits you.

Did you really just bring up intellectual honesty?

 

[bhsmte]

So I should not expect you to try and prove me wrong on anything.

Did you ever think there was a good reason for me being confident in my beliefs? Or did you just assume that I am like you were. One who held beliefs without having good reasons to do so?

I am not like you in that respect. I do not hold the beliefs I do because there are no other beliefs out there to choose from or because they are not evidenced. I hold them because they are true. One who stands on the side of truth is marvelously free to have their beliefs challenged because of the confidence they have that they are indeed capable of standing up to scrutiny.

The invitation is always open to you to prove me wrong. Whether or not you accept that invitation is up to you.

Excuses satisfy only those that use them, and even then, they leave a bitter taste in one's mouth.

That is why I suspect you eventually will get around to trying to prove me wrong when you realize that your excuses are not going to deter me from allowing you the chance to prove me wrong.

There is nothing to prove wrong, because you are the one with the burden, to prove your position.

I do understand though, it is better for you to place the burden of proof on another, to prove a negative.

Intellectual honesty???