Question for atheists. . .

[Paulomycin]

During the 18th century Age of Enlightenment, where did Hume or Kant ever objectively refute any of the classical logical arguments for God's existence? <-- Don't forget that deductive logic is math-based (bivalent), therefore logic constitutes proof.

Only direct citations with book name, page, and quote(s), please.

(and this isn't just limited to Hume or Kant. Any other philosopher OR SCIENTIST from the 18th, 19th, or 20th century is acceptable too.)

^ This includes Bertrand Russell. Don't think I'm trying to limit you to one or two individuals.

 

[Tinker Grey]

It is not require for an atheist to refute the existence of gods.

 

[Moral Orel]

Don't forget that deductive logic is math-based (bivalent), therefore logic constitutes proof.

No, it doesn't. Proving the validity of an argument is proof, not the soundness though. Your premises aren't all proven true through logic. Empiricism must be used at some point.

Only direct citations with book name, page, and quote(s), please.

I hang out here for debate, not book club. It's fine if that's what you're looking for, so since I'm going to ignore your rules for posting to this thread feel free to ignore me when I correct you.

 

[Paulomycin]

It is not require for an atheist to refute the existence of gods.

It is not required for an atheist to refute the mere claim of the existence of gods. Please read the OP more carefully next time.

 

[Paulomycin]

No, it doesn't. Proving the validity of an argument is proof, not the soundness though. Your premises aren't all proven true through logic. Empiricism must be used at some point.

1. God is not an empirical claim.

2. Math is not an empirical claim. All measurable empirical evidence is dependent upon measurement. Math is unfalsifiable.

3. Proof is exclusive to math. Logic is math-based (bivalent algebra). All sound logic is reducible to math.

4. Arguments must be both valid and sound to constitute proof.

5. Empiricism is not a dogma unto itself.

Empiricism has its own problems, as Empiricism itself is very limited:

a.) Empiricism cannot resolve Is/Ought dilemma.
b.) Empiricism reduces law of causality to a question-begging fallacy.
c.) Empiricism cannot be accounted for empirically.
d.) Empiricism cannot resolve Problem of Induction.

These facts are irrefutable.

I hang out here for debate, not book club.

Oh, then I guess it's safe to conclude that none of the classical logical arguments for God's existence have ever been refuted.

 

[Moral Orel]

It is not require for an atheist to refute the existence of gods.

I'm going to side with the Christians on this one. It isn't technically required for an atheist to do anything, really. But in the context of the message board, and the specific sub-forum we're posting, yes, it's in good faith that we refute evidence and arguments presented by Christians that claim to be proving God. We don't have to disprove God's existence, but we do have to prove the evidence presented is bad.

That said, no one has presented an argument for God's existence in this thread for us to consider, so in this thread there's nothing to refute.

 

[Paulomycin]

That said, no one has presented an argument for God's existence in this thread for us to consider, so in this thread there's nothing to refute.

Well, that. . .or you're completely ignorant of them.

 

[Moral Orel]

Arguments must be both valid and sound to constitute proof.

Yeah, that's what I said. You aren't paying attention. And you can't prove soundness of any of the arguments for God's existence with pure logic.

You haven't presented any argument, feel free to do so at any time, so I'll just grab one premise as an example:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Why do we believe this is true? Because everything we've experienced coming into existence has a cause we can trace it back to. Empiricism, see? So go ahead and trash empiricism and trash your arguments by doing so.

Oh, then I guess it's safe to conclude that none of the classical logical arguments for God's existence have ever been refuted.

Since you included the I know you're just joking and not really making an argument from ignorance. But here's the thing, all humor is based on surprise. So you can't surprise folks by having a Christian make an argument from ignorance.

 

[Moral Orel]

Well, that. . .or you're completely ignorant of them.

"In this thread". Read posts before you reply to them.

 

[Paulomycin]

"In this thread". Read posts before you reply to them.

Pretty much all of the classical logical arguments for God's existence from antiquity. <-- In this thread.

It's open to any and all particulars. <-- In this thread.

If the truth is on your side, then this should be a target-rich environment for you.

 

[Paulomycin]

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Not a huge fan of the Kalam cosmological argument. So you can have that one as a freebie.

Why do we believe this is true? Because everything we've experienced coming into existence has a cause we can trace it back to. Empiricism, see? So go ahead and trash empiricism and trash your arguments by doing so.

No. The law of causality. "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is just a reformatting of the law of causality. It's a fundamental axiom of logic. There's nothing Empirically dependent about it. Law of causality is unfalsifiable. Again, the laws of logic are never empirical claims to begin with.

Since you included the I know you're just joking and not really making an argument from ignorance.

An argument from ignorance is drawing a determinate conclusion (true or false) from an indeterminate.

 

[cloudyday2]

During the 18th century Age of Enlightenment, where did Hume or Kant ever objectively refute any of the classical logical arguments for God's existence? <-- Don't forget that deductive logic is math-based (bivalent), therefore logic constitutes proof.

As I understand it, philosophical proofs begin by mapping a philosophical problem into a mathematical model. The mathematical and logical steps after this may be unassailable, but the claim in the proof may still be wrong if the mathematical model is wrong.

With a nebulous concept like "God" there is room for debate about the proper mathematical model, and I assume that is why these classical logical arguments you mentioned are not the end of the discussion?

By the way, what are the classical logical arguments that you have in mind? Listing them or giving some links might help people like me who are interested but who haven't made of study of these topics.

 

[Moral Orel]

Pretty much all of the classical logical arguments for God's existence from antiquity. <-- In this thread.

It's open to any and all particulars. <-- In this thread.

If the truth is on your side, then this should be a target-rich environment for you.

You mentioned some arguments, you've presented none. You don't like Kalam, present a different one.

Not a huge fan of the Kalam cosmological argument. So you can have that one as a freebie.

You see my point then. Present one of the arguments that you think doesn't rely on empiricism at all.

No. The law of causality. "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is just a reformatting of the law of causality. It's a fundamental axiom of logic.

lol No it's not. There are axioms of logic, such as A=A and A =/= ~A. Those are not laws. And there is no "law of causality" nor any "axiom of causality" for you to be confusing it with. Christian apologists made that up.

 

[Moral Orel]

An argument from ignorance is drawing a determinate conclusion (true or false) from an indeterminate.

"Oh, then I guess it's safe to conclude that none of the classical logical arguments for God's existence have ever been refuted." (there's your determinate). And that is supposed to follow from me stating that I won't post other people's arguments (there's your indeterminate).

Would you prefer we call it a shifting the burden of proof fallacy? Cause you guys love to do that too.

 

[Gene2memE]

During the 18th century Age of Enlightenment, where did Hume or Kant ever objectively refute any of the classical logical arguments for God's existence? <-- Don't forget that deductive logic is math-based (bivalent), therefore logic constitutes proof.

Only direct citations with book name, page, and quote(s), please.

I think question is poorly formed. I'm not certain that any of the "classical logical arguments for God's existence" ever objectively provide evidence of such, and don't offer good ground to accept them.

If you're actually interested in specific critiques, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason addresses the cosmological argument, the ontological argument and the teleological argument. Kant's critique of the cosmological argument is also a critique of the ontological argument.

To same me much time and fat fingered typing, here's a summary:

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/p/po....pdf?c=phimp;idno=3521354.0014.012;format=pdf

 

[InterestedAtheist]

During the 18th century Age of Enlightenment, where did Hume or Kant ever objectively refute any of the classical logical arguments for God's existence? <-- Don't forget that deductive logic is math-based (bivalent), therefore logic constitutes proof.

Only direct citations with book name, page, and quote(s), please.

(and this isn't just limited to Hume or Kant. Any other philosopher OR SCIENTIST from the 18th, 19th, or 20th century is acceptable too.)

^ This includes Bertrand Russell. Don't think I'm trying to limit you to one or two individuals.

I'm with @Moral Orel here. If you have an argument to present, feel free to do so, and we will be happy to address it. But don't ask us to read your mind. You may not have had much experience here, but you should know that Christians have a wide array of opinions about different arguments for God's existence, and you shouldn't assume that you know what their ideas are about even well-known arguments until they've explained it fully. I've no desire to waste my time refuting an argument you don't hold.

 

[Paulomycin]

I'm with @Moral Orel here. If you have an argument to present, feel free to do so, and we will be happy to address it. But don't ask us to read your mind.

I'm not.

You may not have had much experience here, but you should know that Christians have a wide array of opinions about different arguments for God's existence, and you shouldn't assume that you know what their ideas are about even well-known arguments until they've explained it fully. I've no desire to waste my time refuting an argument you don't hold.

I'm referring to any of the classical ones. If you don't know what I'm referring to, then you have no dog in this fight. This isn't about random theistic speculation and then watching atheists force their special kind of "flat earther" incredulity upon everything. I'm talking about whether or not any real academic achievements were ever made by skeptics in this field. This is a subject with real history. If you're not aware of that history, then you obviously can't participate.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm referring to any of the classical ones.

Well except the Kalam. You already said you don't like that one. Are you familiar with the term "Gish Gallup"?

This is a subject with real history. If you're not aware of that history, then you obviously can't participate.

Sure we can. It doesn't take a professional academic to spot errors in bad arguments.

 

[Paulomycin]

If you're actually interested in specific critiques, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason addresses the cosmological argument, the ontological argument and the teleological argument. Kant's critique of the cosmological argument is also a critique of the ontological argument.

To same me much time and fat fingered typing, here's a summary:

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/p/po....pdf?c=phimp;idno=3521354.0014.012;format=pdf

Great. Where's the specific refutation there? Don't assume it without actually reading it. Fro example, is PSR axiomatic or not? Why not? If Kant concludes that the ontological argument is unsound, then why? The author implies that he simply assumed he did in a previous work.

Aren't you just taking someone else's word for it on blind faith alone? "Kant said it, I agree with it; that settles it." lol.

 

[Paulomycin]

"Oh, then I guess it's safe to conclude that none of the classical logical arguments for God's existence have ever been refuted." (there's your determinate).

No, it was clearly stated as a "guess." That's not very determinate.

Would you prefer we call it a shifting the burden of proof fallacy? Cause you guys love to do that too.

What I'm saying here is that the existence of God was already proven throughout history and atheists failed to properly take up the burden of refutation (not the burden of proof). At best, a few philosophers hand-waved it and/or tried to punt.