Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[loveofourlord]

If first hand eyewitness testimony is not evidence then we really have some explaining to do involving both the recording of history and the system of justice we employ as both are, at present, very reliant upon that. Though you seem somewhat confused about the difference between testimony and anecdote,you do know how to pluralize using an s, Good for you.

you seem confused about how historical evidence and how law works, historical evidence usually requires multiple sources, the bigger the claim the more evidence required, it's not all just taken on word. And same with law, eye witness testimony as I said is extremly unreliable and courts take this into account, no court would accept revelation or anything coming close to personal experience with god, they are inadmissable.

 

[anonymous person]

Some people knock eyewitness testimony when it comes to God stuff but are quick to rely on it when in a court of law, such testimony benefits them in some way.

 

[anonymous person]

Ok.


To me, that would be: the total lack of any reasonable argument for the existence of god(s).

Would you care to debate me? I have some evidence.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Some people knock eyewitness testimony when it comes to God stuff but are quick to rely on it when in a court of law, such testimony benefits them in some way.

Do you think that religious claims would stand up in a court of law if the only support given for them consisted of multiple contradictory second- or third-hand accounts? If eyewitness testimony is sufficient, why on earth do you rely on apologetics?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Would you care to debate me? I have some evidence.

Ahhh... now the purpose of this thread becomes clear.

 

[Loudmouth]

Response one comes in the form of a question and it is:

R1. You used the word good. What is good and what standard, point of reference, benchmark or criterion are you using to distinguish between that which is good and that which is non-good?

To establish morality I am using what everyone uses, empathy and reason. While there may be some gray areas that are difficult to figure out, some things are pretty obvious. For example, genocide is bad. It is evil. Standing by and doing nothing to stop it is immoral.

Another example I have used in other threads is the idea of children wandering onto a highway. If someone stood on a sidewalk and just watched 3 year old children run by him onto a busy highway where they are struck by cars, and that person does nothing, is that person moral? No.

Also, we have established that it is immoral to punish descendants for the sins of their ancestors. When someone is put in jail for murder we don't throw their children in with them.

R2. Why do you think that God existing and being omnipotent would preclude there also existing a world that contains non-good or evil? IOW, there is some implicit premise that a defense of your view would make explicit. What is/are this/these premise(s)?

It is a moral imperative that someone stop evil and suffering if they can. An omnipotent deity can stop evil and suffering without even exerting much energy. So why does evil and suffering exist? God either can't stop evil, which would mean God isn't omnipotent, or God can stop evil and doesn't, which would make God immoral.

 

[anonymous person]

Do you think that religious claims would stand up in a court of law if the only support given for them consisted of multiple contradictory second- or third-hand accounts?

No.

If eyewitness testimony is sufficient, why on earth do you rely on apologetics?

Apologetics....

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No.

Then you understand why it's not enough.

Apologetics....

View attachment 167017

Oh, I apologise. I meant to say "Christian philosopher." But then again, even though you claim such a title for yourself, "I don't think it means what you think it means."

 

[Loudmouth]

you seem confused about how historical evidence and how law works, historical evidence usually requires multiple sources, the bigger the claim the more evidence required, it's not all just taken on word. And same with law, eye witness testimony as I said is extremly unreliable and courts take this into account, no court would accept revelation or anything coming close to personal experience with god, they are inadmissable.

I have yet to see a single case in court hinge on the testimony of what a person claims God told them.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

To establish morality I am using what everyone uses, empathy and reason. While there may be some gray areas that are difficult to figure out, some things are pretty obvious. For example, genocide is bad. It is evil. Standing by and doing nothing to stop it is immoral.

Another example I have used in other threads is the idea of children wandering onto a highway. If someone stood on a sidewalk and just watched 3 year old children run by him onto a busy highway where they are struck by cars, and that person does nothing, is that person moral? No.

Also, we have established that it is immoral to punish descendants for the sins of their ancestors. When someone is put in jail for murder we don't throw their children in with them.



It is a moral imperative that someone stop evil and suffering if they can. An omnipotent deity can stop evil and suffering without even exerting much energy. So why does evil and suffering exist? God either can't stop evil, which would mean God isn't omnipotent, or God can stop evil and doesn't, which would make God immoral.

Similar to my own thinking on this matter (1). If we would consider it a moral failure for a human being to refrain from saving the child, especially when doing so would exhaust only negligible resources, then how much more of a moral failure would it be to refrain from saving the child when one's resources are inexhaustible?

 

[Loudmouth]

Similar to my own thinking on this matter (1). If we would consider it a moral failure for a human being to refrain from saving the child, especially when doing so would exhaust only negligible resources, then how much more of a moral failure would it be to refrain from saving the child when one's resources are inexhaustible?

Futhermore, it would be immoral to let such a child die a painful death simply because their great, great, great, great grandparents ate the wrong fruit.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Futhermore, it would be immoral to let such a child die a painful death simply because their great, great, great, great grandparents ate the wrong fruit.

Created sick; commanded to be well.

 

[Loudmouth]

And just to be clear . . .

What I am falsifying is one description of God as agreed upon by "anonymous person". As we can see, that deity is falsified by being self-contradictory. You can't be omnipotent and moral in a world where evil and suffering run free.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And just to be clear . . .

What I am falsifying is one description of God as agreed upon by "anonymous person". As we can see, that deity is falsified by being self-contradictory. You can't be omnipotent and moral in a world where evil and suffering run free.

Cue a.p. making reference to Plantinga in 3, 2, 1...

 

[Davian]

Some people knock

...anonymous stories of nameless accounts of...

eyewitness testimony when it comes to God stuff but are quick to rely on

...contemporary, first-hand, fully documented versions of...

it when in a court of law, such testimony benefits them in some way.

Okay.

 

[Davian]

Would you care to debate me? I have some evidence.

Are you alluding to something that you have not previously posted to these forums, in all of your posting history in these forums?

 

[Davian]

No.



Apologetics....

View attachment 167017

Words are defined by how we use them. If you repeatedly use the word in a manner that says "what you resort to in the absence of robust, testable evidence presented in a falsifiable hypothesis", then that is how the word is understood when used by you.

The emperor's clothes are empty.

 

[anonymous person]

To establish morality I am using what everyone uses, empathy and reason. While there may be some gray areas that are difficult to figure out, some things are pretty obvious. For example, genocide is bad. It is evil. Standing by and doing nothing to stop it is immoral.

Another example I have used in other threads is the idea of children wandering onto a highway. If someone stood on a sidewalk and just watched 3 year old children run by him onto a busy highway where they are struck by cars, and that person does nothing, is that person moral? No.

Also, we have established that it is immoral to punish descendants for the sins of their ancestors. When someone is put in jail for murder we don't throw their children in with them.

Please read this article and share with me your thoughts:

winteryknight.com/2015/08/12/can-evolution-empathy-and-well-being-account-for-the-existence-of-moral-facts/

 

[anonymous person]

Words are defined by how we use them. If you repeatedly use the word in a manner that says "what you resort to in the absence of robust, testable evidence presented in a falsifiable hypothesis", then that is how the word is understood when used by you.

The emperor's clothes are empty.

How many of your claims and beliefs are backed up by robust testable evidence presented in falsifiable hypotheses?

 

[bhsmte]

Please read this article and share with me your thoughts:

winteryknight.com/2015/08/12/can-evolution-empathy-and-well-being-account-for-the-existence-of-moral-facts/

This source doesn't seem to be an authority, on human behavior and or psychology.

It does seem to be biased towards religious claims though.