Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Davian]

You shouldn't.

I don't. I do find it fascinating that so many believe in [that which appears to be] the imaginary.

No

It does seem to have all the earmarks of special pleading.

From the wiki page: "[A common objection to reformed epistemology], the Great Pumpkin Objection states that Reformed epistemology is so liberal that it allows belief in any sort of far-fetched entity to be justified as simply foundational or basic. Someone might, for example, take as basic the belief that The Great Pumpkin is all-powerful, just as the Reformed epistemologist takes a similar belief in God as basic."

I would hazard a guess that you believed first, then sought out and found this epistemology that - for you - does not outright dismiss your god as imaginary. Is that accurate?

 

[Davian]

I observe the fruit produced from my experiences and compare it with God's word.

"God's word" being your interpretation of the bible.

If the fruit of my experiences are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, self-control, meekness, selflessness, and humility, and an acute awareness of my total helplessness without Christ working in me to will and to do His good pleasure, then I am persuaded my experiences are of God, for these are the fruits Christ bore while on earth. As He honored His Father, so I honor Him.

Have you considered an external reference as a means of evaluating the veracity of your beliefs?

 

[Eudaimonist]

1. Why do you want to make a logical argument against the existence of God?

To crush my enemies, to see them driven before me, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

2. In the event that you are shown your logical argument fails to demonstrate what you think it does, is this going to open the way for you to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins and submit to the Lordship of Christ, or will there be something else that stands in your way and prevents you from doing this?

You'd actually have to make a strong and comprehensive positive case for your God and all that entails first. You would barely have scratched the surface.

If you don't mind my asking, if the fact that the world is imperfect is not what is keeping you from repenting and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins and submitting to the Lordship of Christ, then what is?

It certainly isn't that in my case. A perfect world would not in any way support the case for a divine being.

First, you would have to establish that the universe requires an intelligent creator, which can't be done simply by studying human society. Next, you'd have to establish a whole host of additional religious dogma: such as this creator being specifically the Christian God, that such a God is both Good and demands Submission (an odd contradiction), etc.

That's a tall order, but no one promised it would be easy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[anonymous person]

You'd actually have to make a strong and comprehensive positive case for your God and all that entails first. You would barely have scratched the surface.



It certainly isn't that in my case. A perfect world would not in any way support the case for a divine being.

First, you would have to establish that the universe requires an intelligent creator, which can't be done simply by studying human society. Next, you'd have to establish a whole host of additional religious dogma: such as this creator being specifically the Christian God, that such a God is both Good and demands Submission (an odd contradiction), etc.

That's a tall order, but no one promised it would be easy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

And if I made a strong and comprehensive positive case for my God and all that entails, established the universe requires an intelligent Creator and sustainer without appealing to human society, established all of my pertinent religious dogma etc., would you be obedient to Christ's call to repentance which entails renouncing those things which He says are worthy of renouncing and making Him Lord of your life, among other things?

 

[quatona]

And if I made a strong and comprehensive positive case for my God and all that entails, would you be obedient to Christ's call to repentance which entails renouncing those things which He says are worthy of renouncing and making Him Lord of your life, among other things?

Give your answer already. Don´t try to obsfucate, dodge and distract by asking endless sequences of unrelated hypothetical questions.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You'd actually have to make a strong and comprehensive positive case for your God and all that entails first. You would barely have scratched the surface.

...

First, you would have to establish that the universe requires an intelligent creator, which can't be done simply by studying human society. Next, you'd have to establish a whole host of additional religious dogma: such as this creator being specifically the Christian God, that such a God is both Good and demands Submission (an odd contradiction), etc.

That's a tall order, but no one promised it would be easy.

The Christian apologist still has a long road ahead if he is to establish the veracity of his religion's numerous other claims about the supernatural.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And if I made a strong and comprehensive positive case for my God and all that entails, would you be obedient to Christ's call to repentance which entails renouncing those things which He says are worthy of renouncing and making Him Lord of your life, among other things?

He clearly already addressed this:

Next, you'd have to establish a whole host of additional religious dogma: such as this creator being specifically the Christian God, that such a God is both Good and demands Submission (an odd contradiction), etc.

 

[anonymous person]

"God's word" being your interpretation of the bible.

"God's word" signifying the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.

It is not my position that the mere interpretation of these books as God's words to man makes the books God's words to man anymore than a Muslim 's interpretation of the Quran as the revelation of God makes the Quran the revelation of God.

Belief that the author of b is G, does not G the author make of b.

Rather, G is the author of b, if and only if G authored b.

And I am not interested at all in demonstrating the Bible is God's word here.

Have you considered an external reference as a means of evaluating the veracity of your beliefs?

Which beliefs exactly?

 

[anonymous person]

He clearly already addressed this:

No he has not.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No he has not.

Yes, he did. Your hypothetical is pointless anyway because, as you indicated earlier, you aren't at all interested in presenting such a case, at least not here. Why ask people whether they would be convinced by a case you won't even attempt to present?

 

[anonymous person]

Yes, he did. Your hypothetical is pointless anyway because, as you indicated earlier, you aren't at all interested in presenting such a case, at least not here. Why ask people whether they would be convinced by a case you won't even attempt to present?

I amended my post to contain those few specifics that had been left out. Thanks.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I amended my post to contain those few specifics that had been left out. Thanks.

And my point still remains: Your hypothetical is pointless because, as you indicated earlier, you aren't at all interested in presenting such a case, at least not here. Why ask people whether they would be convinced by a case you won't even attempt to present?

 

[anonymous person]

Yes, he did. Your hypothetical is pointless anyway because, as you indicated earlier, you aren't at all interested in presenting such a case, at least not here. Why ask people whether they would be convinced by a case you won't even attempt to present?

My hypothetical may be pointless to you. It isn't to me.

And I will put it to you. What would you do? Would you be obedient to the call?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

My hypothetical may be pointless to you. It isn't to me.

And I will put it to you. What would you do? Would you be obedient to the call?

You're asking me whether I would be convinced by a case you never intend to present. My guess is that you don't intend to present such a case because you know you don't have such a case to present.

 

[quatona]

And if I made a strong and comprehensive positive case for my God and all that entails, established the universe requires an intelligent Creator and sustainer without appealing to human society, established all of my pertinent religious dogma etc., would you be obedient to Christ's call to repentance which entails renouncing those things which He says are worthy of renouncing and making Him Lord of your life, among other things?

1. You obviously can´t make such a case, or else you would already done so - instead of asking for arguments against the existence of a God - just to avoid addressing them with reference to your hypothetical ability to make a case for your God.
2. No matter how hard you try to fabricate a back handed ad hominem - it would have no bearing on the validity logical argument that you refuse to answer. Even if Ana were totally unwilling to be obedient to your God once you had made your hypothetical "strong and comprehensive cause", this wouldn´t affect the vaildity of his argument.

You wanted to ask two questions before (which were already two more than due) before giving your answer. The questions have been answered. Now stop adding questions and give your answer, will you?

 

[anonymous person]

You're asking me whether I would be convinced by a case you never intend to present. My guess is that you don't intend to present such a case because you know you don't have such a case to present.

Whether or not I can or intend to present the case is irrelevant. The question is "hypothetical" in nature and that is why attempting to avoid it by asserting what I will actually do or not do is to fail to treat the question properly.

 

[anonymous person]

1. You obviously can´t make such a case, or else you would already done so - instead of asking for arguments against the existence of a God - just to avoid addressing them with reference to your hypothetical ability to make a case for your God.
2. No matter how hard you try to fabricate a back handed ad hominem - it would have no bearing on the validity logical argument that you refuse to answer. Even if Ana were totally unwilling to be obedient to your God once you had made your hypothetical "strong and comprehensive cause", this wouldn´t affect the vaildity of his argument.

You're exactly right when you say Ana the Ist's unwillingness to be obedient to the call of Christ would not affect the validity of his argument.

On this, you have spoken correctly.

What it would do is demonstrate that his unwillingness to be obedient to the call of Christ does not stem from some intellectual objection owed to some lack of evidence for the veracity of the truth claims of Christianity, but that it stems from that which causes one to be unwilling to be obedient to the call of Christ even after those obstacles which he claimed prevent him from being a Christian are removed and are no longer an issue.

 

[quatona]

Whether or not I can or intend to present the case is irrelevant. The question is "hypothetical" in nature and that is why attempting to avoid it by asserting what I will actually do or not do is to fail to treat the question properly.

You were the one starting "the attempt to avoid it" by introducing irrelevant hypotheticals concerning our reactions.

 

[quatona]

You're exactly right when you say Ana the Ist's unwillingness to be obedient to the call of Christ would not affect the validity of his argument.

On this, you have spoken correctly.

So stop making the response to irrelevant questions the prerequisite for presenting your promised answer, and answer already.

 

[anonymous person]

You were the one starting "the attempt to avoid it" by introducing irrelevant hypotheticals concerning our reactions.

The hypothetical is one of many tools at my disposal I utilize in understanding why people hold the views they do. As such I use it whenever and wherever I feel compelled to. As such, for me, they are always relevant.