Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[anonymous person]

There are few things in this world more ironic than a man who is confident that no one can be confident about their beliefs.

 

[sparow]

Responses like these just add to the pile of evidence that there's no serious reason to consider Christianity. If believers in it are so flippant about their reasons for accepting it, why should anyone else give it any more thought?

My flippancy is intended to match your gamesmanship but is irrelevant. God calls who He wants and your response shows you are not serious Christian material.

 

[KCfromNC]

My flippancy is intended to match your gamesmanship but is irrelevant. God calls who He wants and your response shows you are not serious Christian material.

It's strange for someone to end up in a discussion forum and then run away so convincingly from actual discussion.

 

[Davian]

You're confident in the veracity of the beliefs you hold too. I don't thereby conclude you feel they are indubitable.

That would be a misrepresentation of what I said. You are the one proclaiming their beliefs to be "powerfully warranted". I'm not, and I do not consider them to be.

You can draw whatever conclusions you like.

And your persistent appeal to the verificationist principle of meaning can be interpreted in sundry ways.

And your persistent misrepresentation of my position on this is telling. Can you not let go of this straw-man?

The irony is palpable...

How so?

I don't dismiss it. I just try not to use it where it is not applicable.

And where is that exactly? Anywhere it might conflict with your god beliefs?

Nothing you said is pertinent to the point I made.

Except the part where you inappropriately applied the concept of falsifiability.

I would answer no different.

You'd still be dodging, even as an atheist.

 

[Davian]

There are few things in this world more ironic than a man who is confident that no one can be confident about their beliefs.

Are you confident enough in that statement to point it at anyone in particular?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't expect you to ignore it. I expect you to call me disingenuous, which you have.

Certain properly basic beliefs about God i have are so powerfully warranted that none of the defeaters you or anyone else here have offered defeat them.

Since my beliefs however are defeasible, it is not disingenuous of me to allow you the opportunity to attempt to provide defeaters for said beliefs.

As iron sharpens iron so too, my apologetic and critical thinking skills and talents are honed and refined by interacting with people of other faiths. You guys here, unbeknownst to you, are an integral part of my training which God has seen fit for me to undergo to be a more effective ambassador for Him.

In what sense are they defeasible, and what use is providing defeaters when you'll simply claim that your "defeater-defeater" overrides them anyway?

If all you bring to the table is a confession of ignorance, then that is not a defeater that is going to defeat my beliefs which are grounded on good evidence, arguments, and beliefs which are grounded on other beliefs properly basic.

It's not clear that your theological commitments are at all amenable to reason, so in what sense are they reasonable?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Of course you can.

Is that what people do who have good arguments?

No.

They just present their arguments in a respectful and charitable manner and let the arguments and evidence speak for themselves.

When you resort to attacking the man, all it shows is that you have no good arguments.

Who is "attacking the man"? You just admitted that we could examine his approach and ask whether it's intellectually honest or not. Do you have anything to add in this regard or do you still want to go on pretending that doing so is an ad hominem?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If all you bring to the table is a confession of ignorance, then that is not a defeater that is going to defeat my beliefs which are grounded on good evidence, arguments, and beliefs which are grounded on other beliefs properly basic.

But even if you had no good arguments or evidence, and even if there were strong evidence against your position, you would still continue to believe. That's because, like Craig, you think the only legitimate use of reason is ministerial. Again, I think The Messianic Manic says it best:

It's ironic that [Craig] calls his website "reasonable faith" because that name implies that his faith has, in fact, been evaluated by reason. Rather, the opposite is true: he contorts his reasoning to match his faith. Instead, he should call it "faithable reason," because it isn't about faith that's reasonable; it's about attempts at reasoning in a way that is compatible with his faith.

 

[anonymous person]

Are you confident enough in that statement to point it at anyone in particular?

It was addressed to all of the people here. I was speaking of you specifically however.

 

[anonymous person]

In what sense are they defeasible, and what use is providing defeaters when you'll simply claim that your "defeater-defeater" overrides them anyway?

You would be helping me become familiar with objections and potential defeaters that others may have who I may encounter while giving lectures and talks and participating in debates.

It's not clear that your theological commitments are at all amenable to reason, so in what sense are they reasonable?

Read Reasonable Faith by Dr. William Lane Craig.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You would be helping me become familiar with objections and potential defeaters that others may have who I may encounter while giving lectures and talks and participating in debates.

You didn't answer the question. In what sense are they defeasible, and what use is providing defeaters when you'll simply claim that your "defeater-defeater" overrides them anyway?

Read Reasonable Faith by Dr. William Lane Craig.

Again, you didn't answer the question: It's not clear that your theological commitments are at all amenable to reason, so in what sense are they reasonable?

 

[anonymous person]

But even if you had no good arguments or evidence, and even if there were strong evidence your position, you would still continue to believe. That's because, like Craig, you think the only legitimate use of reason is ministerial. Again, I think The Messianic Manic says it best:

I agree with the distinction between the magisterial and the ministerial uses of reason. IOW, philosophy is rightly the handmaid of theology. As Anselm put it, "ours is a faith that seeks understanding."


Read: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-is-reasonable-faith

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You would be helping me become familiar with objections and potential defeaters that others may have who I may encounter while giving lectures and talks and participating in debates.

On the topic of debates, I'll repeat what I said you in December 2014:

What would a debate accomplish? You have already indicated that your beliefs are not based on arguments or evidence and that you would continue to believe even if there were none. If your theological commitments were not reached by reason and are not amenable to reason then stop pretending that they are reasonable. Further, stop pretending that we are being unreasonable by not sharing your theology as though we were somehow intellectually obligated to assent to it.

 

[anonymous person]

You didn't answer the question. In what sense are they defeasible, and what use is providing defeaters when you'll simply claim that your "defeater-defeater" overrides them anyway?

I answered this already. Ref. previous posts.

Again, you didn't answer the question: It's not clear that your theological commitments are at all amenable to reason, so in what sense are they reasonable?

Read what I told you to read.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I agree with the distinction between the magisterial and the ministerial uses of reason. IOW, philosophy is rightly the handmaid of theology. As Anselm put it, "ours is a faith that seeks understanding."


Read: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-is-reasonable-faith

Given that your theological commitments are not amenable to reason, in what sense are they reasonable?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I answered this already. Ref. previous posts.

No, you didn't.

Read what I told you to read.

This isn't a reading club; it's a discussion forum. Are you going to address the question or not?

 

[anonymous person]

On the topic of debates, I'll repeat what I said you in December 2014:

And I will reference you to all the previous posts I have made that address this. Use the search function.

 

[anonymous person]

Given that your theological commitments are not amenable to reason, in what sense are they reasonable?

Try clicking on the link.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And I will reference you to all the previous posts I have made that address this. Use the search function.

And I will refer you to all my responses, including the many you've ignored. Use the search function. If that's too hard, I can provide links?

 

[anonymous person]

No, you didn't.

This isn't a reading club; it's a discussion forum. Are you going to address the question or not?

I addressed it. For one who is all about reading books and reading different philosophers, you sure do seem reluctant to read people's works that contradict your own views.

But I digress. You will no more read what I linked to you then you will go back and read all of the posts I have already made during my time here.