Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[anonymous person]

I am not going to read an article that you refuse to discuss. If you discuss it, I will be happy to read it.

It is an article about why atheists have no grounds for claiming anything is objectively evil or good, seeing as how they have nothing in their worldview that amounts to an objective, transcendent anchor for the grounding of moral values and duties.

 

[Davian]

...
And yes I know what an atheist is.

In the manner that you use the word, I do wonder what you mean by it.

In my way of thinking, the quality or state of something being true is unaffected by those that are unconvinced. I infer from this thread that you think otherwise.

Can we apply this thinking to other subjects?

"If only we could deal with those people that are sceptical of cold fusion, then we could finally deliver on that promise of clean and affordable energy..."

 

[bhsmte]

God

Ok.

So atheists (people who do not believe in a God) claim that God is the moral law giver?

 

[HitchSlap]

It is an article about why atheists have no grounds for claiming anything is objectively evil or good, seeing as how they have nothing in their worldview that amounts to an objective, transcendent anchor for the grounding of moral values and duties.

I think throwing battery acid on someone is bad. How's that for an anchor?

 

[anonymous person]

In the manner that you use the word, I do wonder what you mean by it.

In my way of thinking, the quality or state of something being true is unaffected by those that are unconvinced. I infer from this thread that you think otherwise.

Can we apply this thinking to other subjects?

"If only we could deal with those people that are sceptical of cold fusion, then we could finally deliver on that promise of clean and affordable energy..."

I agree with you.

God exists even if you are not convinced He does.

 

[anonymous person]

Ok.

So atheists (people who do not believe in a God) claim that God is the moral law giver?

Too bad you're not reading what I wrote.

 

[anonymous person]

I think throwing battery acid on someone is bad. How's that for an anchor?

Why is it bad?

 

[bhsmte]

Too bad you're not reading what I wrote.

Please clarify.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

It is an article about why atheists have no grounds for claiming anything is objectively evil or good, seeing as how they have nothing in their worldview that amounts to an objective, transcendent anchor for the grounding of moral values and duties.

The grounding authority can be a persons experience of life. Elders in the past within a tribal community (with experience) would have set the moral 'objective' authority for the others to follow, based on what worked for the greater good of the tribe/community at large over a long period of time. That experience gets passed on as tribal customs/ways to live, the experience 'transcends' the group at large (it's objective) but also exists within it because without the passing on it would die out. They can also change that objective standard based on new experiences of life and what works best. Another tribe in a different culture and context would have different experiences/customs/ways to live but they would be based on what was best for the group. This is why you see cultural clashes when one group of people comes across another and defines their way is best.


To answer your other query to another poster. Throwing acid into someone's face is bad because you can conceptualise it so, from understanding that acid burns skin and would be immensely painful and disfiguring to the person. In that moment you would understand that it would be bad for you, thus bad for another, as thier sensory experience mirrors yours. If you deemed the other persons actions had warranted or justified having acid thrown into their face you would need to put forward your reasoning for that, to which a counter argument could ensue, or you could simply say you didn't care about the person you threw acid at, thus showing yourself to be a threat to society/group etc and be removed from it. Objectively throwing acid is bad because we understand that it is. If you don't understand that try splashing your arm with some and then see if you'd like to apply it to your face. The grounding authority in that case (be it atheist, theist or whatever) would be you, by not throwing acid into another's face, you've authored that directive of non action of throwing acid 'based' (the grounding aspect) on your experience and understanding of that process as described.

 

[Davian]

I agree with you.

Then your definition of "atheist" is outside of the common vernacular. You are tilting at windmills.

God exists even if you are not convinced He does.

Is this the "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 objective measure to date indistinguishable from nothing? I am not convinced that virtually all of mainstream science is wrong.

The accuracy of the description that mainstream science has constructed of reality is not dependant on you being convinced of it.

 

[Hoghead1]

I just came on site. I am a theologian, that is to say, I have an earned doctorate in theology, plus publications, teaching experience, etc. I am more than happy to discuss and debate here. I am very familiar with the traditional proofs for the existence of God, the counterarguments, and major modern reformulations on both sides. I had time only to skim through the posting here. I thought I would respond as best as I can to some of the major themes I see here. A large amount of skepticism hangs on the problem of evil. Why would a good God allow all the suffering in the world? If you want to shipwreck someone's theology, this is the place to start, believe me. Historically, it was argued that either evil and suffering were a righteous punishment or sin, or evil is in mere appearance only. If we only could see the whole rational scheme of things, we would see how all these apparent evils are all for the better. White there is some degree of merit here, most of these arguments leave modern folks cold. The way I approach matter here is to fist of all note that there is not just one model of God in Christianity, there are at present at least two. The classical model of God saw God as omnipotent, predestining everything, ruling as a Ruthless Moralist, or Ruling Caesar or Unmoved Mover. However, there is also neo-classical theism, which takes a much different approach. Here it is argued that ruling over a democracy of free beings takes far more skill than being a cosmic dictator. We all have a genuine free will and therefore God cannot decide for us. God provides initial aims, creative possibilities, for us to actualize to create a more beautiful world. But, in the end, its our decision how we actualize these. Sometimes wee make dumb choices and fall into suffering, etc. Well, why then does God give us a free will? If it is free will that gets us into trouble, why didn't God just program us to be perfect robots? My answer is that would be impossible for God to do. God's aim is to create beauty, and beauty demands complexity, and complexity means freedom that things can be some other way, that possibilities for evil overlap with possibilities for good. For example, piano wire was created to create beautiful notes. However, the way it has to be made to do that leaves open the possibility you could also use it for evil and tear off someone's head with it, which has been done in times of war, by the way. So yes, God could have created a world with little or no suffering and evil, but it would have had to be very simple and downright boring. Now, I am not arguing that God just sits on the sidelines, not dong all that he can do. God is in fact doing all that he can do. God rules persuasively, not coercively. Of course, some tradition=bound theists may find this concept of God too small. However, my response, then, is that their God is just too big. Omnipotence is a nonsensical theological notion, to start with. In the past, theologians would claim God is omnipotent and then kill it was a million qualifies. Aquinas, for example, argued God is omnipotent, but then went on with a can't-do list for God. God cannot change, suffer, experience negative emotion, violate any of the laws of geometry, etc. Furthermore, if God does predestine it all, then we have absolutely no freedom and are but puppets. In addition, this whole classical model of God as void of body, parts, passion, compassion, wholly immutable, wholly unaffected by the world, all-determining, etc., largely comes from certain schools of Hellenic philosophy incorporated in the early church, and definitely not the Bible. So, bottom line: In addressing the problem of evil, we also have to reconsider and possibly redefine what God is like in his or her own nature and we have definite choices here.

The hiddenness of God crops up a lot. Good question: If there really is a God, how come we have no direct experience of him? Well, but who says we don't? What about mystical experiences? Are they to be totally discredited because they don't jive with our ordinary experiences? That seems like a closed-minded way to go about things. Furthermore, I don't know of any mental concepts we ha, imaginative or otherwise, that do not go back to some kind of actual experience. If there was no God, if no one had ever experienced God, then we would have no such concept or idea of such a being. Also, I think we need to recognize that conscious, sensory experience is only the tip of the ice berg. The basic ground of all experience is subconscious or unconscious feeling. So we have to be open tot he possibility that just because we do not perceive of God at one level of consciousness in no ways means we do not experience directly God in some other way, via purely unconscious , nonsensory, purely affective affective experience, for example. Note that I did not say this proves God exists, just that we shouldn't write off God just because we have no sensory awareness of him or her.

Another issue I see is the problem of verification. Since we cannot verify scientifically the God hypothesis, it is absolutely nonsense and should be thrown out. The problem here is how much do you want to accept that cannot be directly verified. For example, as the logical positivists point out, there is no way of verifying the verification principle, which underlies modern science. In short, there is no way you can use the scientific method to verify that the scientific method is the true path to reality. of course, this does not prove or disprove God. It just sets the stage better by recognizing that the scientific method rests on faith, that faith is in fact essential in any line of proof.

These are just a few comments that came to my mind as I skimmed this section. I am looking forward to receiving comments from others.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is an article about why atheists have no grounds for claiming anything is objectively evil or good, seeing as how they have nothing in their worldview that amounts to an objective, transcendent anchor for the grounding of moral values and duties.

It seems that you have nothing in yours that amounts to that either.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I just came on site. I am a theologian, that is to say, I have an earned doctorate in theology, plus publications, teaching experience, etc. I am more than happy to discuss and debate here. I am very familiar with the traditional proofs for the existence of God, the counterarguments, and major modern reformulations on both sides. I had time only to skim through the posting here. I thought I would respond as best as I can to some of the major themes I see here. A large amount of skepticism hangs on the problem of evil. Why would a good God allow all the suffering in the world? If you want to shipwreck someone's theology, this is the place to start, believe me. Historically, it was argued that either evil and suffering were a righteous punishment or sin, or evil is in mere appearance only. If we only could see the whole rational scheme of things, we would see how all these apparent evils are all for the better. White there is some degree of merit here, most of these arguments leave modern folks cold. The way I approach matter here is to fist of all note that there is not just one model of God in Christianity, there are at present at least two. The classical model of God saw God as omnipotent, predestining everything, ruling as a Ruthless Moralist, or Ruling Caesar or Unmoved Mover. However, there is also neo-classical theism, which takes a much different approach. Here it is argued that ruling over a democracy of free beings takes far more skill than being a cosmic dictator. We all have a genuine free will and therefore God cannot decide for us. God provides initial aims, creative possibilities, for us to actualize to create a more beautiful world. But, in the end, its our decision how we actualize these. Sometimes wee make dumb choices and fall into suffering, etc. Well, why then does God give us a free will? If it is free will that gets us into trouble, why didn't God just program us to be perfect robots? My answer is that would be impossible for God to do. God's aim is to create beauty, and beauty demands complexity, and complexity means freedom that things can be some other way, that possibilities for evil overlap with possibilities for good. For example, piano wire was created to create beautiful notes. However, the way it has to be made to do that leaves open the possibility you could also use it for evil and tear off someone's head with it, which has been done in times of war, by the way. So yes, God could have created a world with little or no suffering and evil, but it would have had to be very simple and downright boring. Now, I am not arguing that God just sits on the sidelines, not dong all that he can do. God is in fact doing all that he can do. God rules persuasively, not coercively. Of course, some tradition=bound theists may find this concept of God too small. However, my response, then, is that their God is just too big. Omnipotence is a nonsensical theological notion, to start with. In the past, theologians would claim God is omnipotent and then kill it was a million qualifies. Aquinas, for example, argued God is omnipotent, but then went on with a can't-do list for God. God cannot change, suffer, experience negative emotion, violate any of the laws of geometry, etc. Furthermore, if God does predestine it all, then we have absolutely no freedom and are but puppets. In addition, this whole classical model of God as void of body, parts, passion, compassion, wholly immutable, wholly unaffected by the world, all-determining, etc., largely comes from certain schools of Hellenic philosophy incorporated in the early church, and definitely not the Bible. So, bottom line: In addressing the problem of evil, we also have to reconsider and possibly redefine what God is like in his or her own nature and we have definite choices here.

What mode of persuasion does this deity use? Are there circumstances in which persuasion would be inadequate to secure the most moral outcome?

The hiddenness of God crops up a lot. Good question: If there really is a God, how come we have no direct experience of him? Well, but who says we don't? What about mystical experiences? Are they to be totally discredited because they don't jive with our ordinary experiences?

How does one know that mystical experiences originate from the divine?

That seems like a closed-minded way to go about things. Furthermore, I don't know of any mental concepts we ha, imaginative or otherwise, that do not go back to some kind of actual experience. If there was no God, if no one had ever experienced God, then we would have no such concept or idea of such a being.

This is a silly argument if you think about it for a little longer. Take note of the word "imaginative."

Also, I think we need to recognize that conscious, sensory experience is only the tip of the ice berg. The basic ground of all experience is subconscious or unconscious feeling. So we have to be open tot he possibility that just because we do not perceive of God at one level of consciousness in no ways means we do not experience directly God in some other way, via purely unconscious , nonsensory, purely affective affective experience, for example. Note that I did not say this proves God exists, just that we shouldn't write off God just because we have no sensory awareness of him or her.

We can imagine countless entities that "communicate" to us in this way.

Another issue I see is the problem of verification. Since we cannot verify scientifically the God hypothesis, it is absolutely nonsense and should be thrown out.

That it cannot be ruled out definitively does not entail that we must therefore take it seriously. I can't definitively rule out Russell's teapot either.

The problem here is how much do you want to accept that cannot be directly verified. For example, as the logical positivists point out, there is no way of verifying the verification principle, which underlies modern science. In short, there is no way you can use the scientific method to verify that the scientific method is the true path to reality. of course, this does not prove or disprove God. It just sets the stage better by recognizing that the scientific method rests on faith, that faith is in fact essential in any line of proof.

No, science does not operate on faith. It is inimical to faith.

 

[loveofourlord]

What don't you understand about my question?
Here it is again:

How do you assess the truth value of a claim, if not through some form of testability?

Also, you mentioned in your other post that if a claim can't be tested empirically, then one has to assess the truth value thereof through "some other means".

I asked what those "other means" were.

Are you going to answer it? After all YOU said it.

Please, answer the questions.

What are those "other means"?
How to assess the truth value of a claim, if not through some form of testing/verification?

I've asked this and struggle with this myself, and never gotten a good answer, for those that attack empercism or such for being unreliable as it can test itself, provide something that CAN provide truth, there are other methods to gain truth, but these still rely on some kind of empericism to verify it, I believe in god, but I can't use revelation or such to prove it true, because I could be decieved or wrong.

For those that say empericm is self refuting, and can't determine truth give us a method that CAN provide truth and how do you tell it is.

With other methods how do you tell the difference between decieved, wrong, lied too or anything else?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

I don't care to "debate" anyone.

If you have something to say, just say it.

 

[anonymous person]

The grounding authority can be a persons experience of life. Elders in the past within a tribal community (with experience) would have set the moral 'objective' authority for the others to follow, based on what worked for the greater good of the tribe/community at large over a long period of time. That experience gets passed on as tribal customs/ways to live, the experience 'transcends' the group at large (it's objective) but also exists within it because without the passing on it would die out. They can also change that objective standard based on new experiences of life and what works best. Another tribe in a different culture and context would have different experiences/customs/ways to live but they would be based on what was best for the group. This is why you see cultural clashes when one group of people comes across another and defines their way is best.


To answer your other query to another poster. Throwing acid into someone's face is bad because you can conceptualise it so, from understanding that acid burns skin and would be immensely painful and disfiguring to the person. In that moment you would understand that it would be bad for you, thus bad for another, as thier sensory experience mirrors yours. If you deemed the other persons actions had warranted or justified having acid thrown into their face you would need to put forward your reasoning for that, to which a counter argument could ensue, or you could simply say you didn't care about the person you threw acid at, thus showing yourself to be a threat to society/group etc and be removed from it. Objectively throwing acid is bad because we understand that it is. If you don't understand that try splashing your arm with some and then see if you'd like to apply it to your face. The grounding authority in that case (be it atheist, theist or whatever) would be you, by not throwing acid into another's face, you've authored that directive of non action of throwing acid 'based' (the grounding aspect) on your experience and understanding of that process as described.

We are talking about the ontological grounds for objective moral values and duties, not whether or not atheists can be moral or come up with and live by a system of ethics or learn from experience certain acts are without utility. Sure they can, and do.

It is not my argument that atheists cannot recognize throwing battery acid in someone's face is evil, but rather there is no grounds for claiming that an act is "evil" in the first place. Why think that a particular act that causes suffering in a homo sapien has any moral dimension at all? Saying it just does is arbitrary. Michael Ruse, an atheist, would say that thinking such things is simply an aid to survival and that there is no objective grounds for calling anything "evil" or "good". You may think you are referring to some law which transcends human opinion and is objective in that's sense, nevertheless such a reference is truly without foundation.

In fact your whole "consensus of the elders" ethic leads to absurdities. For example, if a tribe found that instilling fear in their neighboring tribe by taking from them it's women and burning their faces with acid resulted in an increase in the odds of them surviving, then the elders of that tribe could come to the consensus that it was morally obligatory for this acid burning to take place and issue the command to do so, since as you say, they would have learned from experience that such acts aid in their survival.

This is absurd. It is simply utilitarianism repackaged.

Your whole view relies on a smuggled in concept of how tribes ought to survive and how tribes ought to go about growing and reproducing and assumes "this way" is true for all tribes. But there is no such "way" in a world without God. You just have a bunch of species of homo sapiens behaving like any other species of creature, i.e. according to brute instinct and natural conditioning.

Concepts of right and wrong, of good and evil are meaningless in a world without God. And "the concept of moral obligation is unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain, but their meaning is gone." -Taylor

I don't care to "debate" anyone.

If you have something to say, just say it.

Suit yourself.

 

[anonymous person]

I've asked this and struggle with this myself, and never gotten a good answer, for those that attack empercism or such for being unreliable as it can test itself, provide something that CAN provide truth, there are other methods to gain truth, but these still rely on some kind of empericism to verify it, I believe in god, but I can't use revelation or such to prove it true, because I could be decieved or wrong.

For those that say empericm is self refuting, and can't determine truth give us a method that CAN provide truth and how do you tell it is.

With other methods how do you tell the difference between decieved, wrong, lied too or anything else?

How do you know you are not a brain in a vat?

Prove through empirical means, that you are not a body lying in the matrix, or a brain in a vat of chemicals being stimulated by a mad scientist.

Prove through empirical means that the earth was not created five minutes ago with the appearance of age.

Prove through empirical means, that the speed of light remains constant as it travels between any two points.

Prove through empirical means that there are other minds besides your own.

You can't.

Do you therefore resort to throwing your hands up and saying I don't know !

Of course not.

 

[anonymous person]

It seems that you have nothing in yours that amounts to that either.

God's commands ground moral values and duties in my paradigm. But I have told you that several times. Why do you keep doing what you are doing?

I would also like to debate you on whether or not science is inimical to faith.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

God's commands ground moral values and duties in my paradigm.

Yes, the same is true of ISIS' paradigm.

 

[anonymous person]

Yes, the same is true of ISIS' paradigm.

Right.

We differ on our view of God.

You do understand where the difference lies correct?