Question for atheists. . .

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Personally I always prefer someone's own point of view. Backed up if necessary with a citation or two. I must admit I don't get your continued demand for book, chapter and verse. You can Google that yourself.

I can't if they don't give me anything to run on. "Backed up if necessary with a citation or two" is agreed and often necessary in these discussions, since atheists tend to assume a lot of implied "laws of thought" without any citations whatsoever.

I was raised in public schooling myself, and went to college a few times, and I know what they're getting at. But for the life of me, I can't remember a single direct citation to that effect. I mostly remember it as pure rhetoric on the lecturer's authority alone, and nothing more. With me, it happened in Sociology. Never happened in any of the hard sciences. But that was decades ago.

And if you find you disagree with an argument then you can tell us why YOU disagree with it. Othewise it's Link Wars. And although you don't appear to be guilty of this to a great extent, please, no blocks of scripture. Just a heads up - I will not be reading them if they are used as an argument.

That's fine. I'm not going to quote anything out of context, but usually it's a verse at a time, and never more than 15-20 verses at most.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,706
10,603
71
Bondi
✟248,979.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I can't if they don't give me anything to run on. "Backed up if necessary with a citation or two" is agreed and often necessary in these discuss at most.

Hey, you started the thread. Make a claim. Back it up with a citation if necessary and explain why you personally believe it and ask for comments. You're coming across like some guy in a bar who stands on a chair and shouts 'The USA is the best damn country in the world! Anyone want to disprove that?'

Flexing your theological muscles ain't impressing anyone.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Paulomycin
Upvote 0

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Hey, you started the thread. Make a claim. Back it up with a citation if necessary and explain why you personally believe it and ask for comments. You're coming across like some guy in a bar who stands on a chair and shouts 'The USA is the best damn country in the world! Anyone want to disprove that?'

lol. Yeah.

I'm still waiting. . .
 
Upvote 0

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
@Bradskii

My claim is essentially, "Hey, no atheist ever took up the burden of refutation after all the Classical Arguments for the existence of God."

All the classical arguments can be reduced to pure logic.
Logic is math-based.
Proof is exclusive to math.
Therefore, the existence of God has been proven, and (as far as I know) never objectively refuted.

^ That's why I asked the question in the OP.
 
Upvote 0

Lion IRC

Newbie
Sep 10, 2012
509
198
✟19,082.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
lol. Yeah.

I'm still waiting. . .

One of my pet peeves is when you get a demand for citations from folks in the... 'Thats Not Evidence' crowd, who have zero intention of modifying their position no matter what citations you eventually provide.

Them : "citation needed"
Me : "OK, but before I do, will you agree to modify your view...admit your error...if shown to be wrong?"
Them : Aha! See? You're stalling because you secretly know you're wrong"
Me : "ok, I'm not gonna be your google bus boy if its a waste of time."

@Bradskii isn't guilty of this, but many of his non-theist cohort are.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Paulomycin
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,706
10,603
71
Bondi
✟248,979.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
One of my pet peeves is when you get a demand for citations from folks in the... 'Thats Not Evidence' crowd, who have zero intention of modifying their position no matter what citations you eventually provide.

Them : "citation needed"
Me : "OK, but before I do, will you agree to modify your view...admit your error...if shown to be wrong?"
Them : Aha! See? You're stalling because you secretly know you're wrong"
Me : "ok, I'm not gonna be your google bus boy if its a waste of time."

@Bradskii isn't guilty of this, but many of his non-theist cohort are.

Personally speaking, if I'm discussing a matter with someone, I am really interested in what their position is. If it concerns what might be a factual matter with which one of us disagrees then I have no real problem with asking, or being asked, for some corraborating evidence.

But it should be used as an adjunct to the discussion. Not the basis for it.

And there should be more use made of terms such as:

You might be right.
I may be wrong.
A good point.
I agree with you but...
I disagree with you but I understand your position.
Thanks.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Personally speaking, if I'm discussing a matter with someone, I am really interested in what their position is. If it concerns what might be a factual matter with which one of us disagrees then I have no real problem with asking, or being asked, for some corraborating evidence.

But it should be used as an adjunct to the discussion. Not the basis for it.

And there should be more use made of terms such as:

You might be right.
I may be wrong.
A good point.
I agree with you but...
I disagree with you but I understand your position.
Thanks.

Personally, I'm usually more concerned with 'how' a person has arrived at their position. Of course, maybe I've just been corrupted by the field of Education.:rolleyes:
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Paulomycin
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
@Bradskii

My claim is essentially, "Hey, no atheist ever took up the burden of refutation after all the Classical Arguments for the existence of God."

All the classical arguments can be reduced to pure logic.
Logic is math-based.
Proof is exclusive to math.
Therefore, the existence of God has been proven, and (as far as I know) never objectively refuted.

^ That's why I asked the question in the OP.
Let me see if I have this right; you want me to believe in a god you can’t prove exists, because I can’t prove it doesn’t?
 
Upvote 0

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Let me see if I have this right; you want me to believe in a god you can’t prove exists, because I can’t prove it doesn’t?

No. I want you to believe in a God that has already been proven to exist numerous times over 700+ years, or prove how those proofs are in-error. Get it right.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,706
10,603
71
Bondi
✟248,979.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
No. I want you to believe in a God that has already been proven to exist numerous times over 700+ years, or prove how those proofs are in-error. Get it right.
Is this thread still a thing? Good grief...

Paul, I'm going to assume you've read information about the various proofs of God. Maybe you've a few books on the subject. Maybe a tome or two on your Kindle. I've got a few. Some of the books are putting the case forward for religion and religious beliefs (including the aforementioned proofs) and some are putting the contrary view. It's always good to get a balanced view.

Or you could say 'Know thine enemy'. So you are tooled up, locked and loaded when it comes to discussions about religion. There has been a proposal by some that atheists tend to know more about religion than your average believer. Whether that's true or not, it certainly comes in handy for your atheistic forum warrior if he knows something the other guy doesn't. It's a chance to show off if nothing else...

So...I find it puzzling that not only do you not appear to have any information regarding the refutation of the proofs of God, you actually seem unaware that any exists. Colour me puzzled.

So can I suggest that you read up on the matter. There's free info on sites like rationalwiki - this one about the first cause argument:

Argument from first cause - RationalWiki

And more books that you could poke a stick at. I'd recommend this one by A. C. Grayling. He covers most of tbe usual proofs in some detail:

https://www.amazon.com/God-Argument-against-Religion-Humanism/dp/1620401924

From memory, you were asking for chapter and verse in the op. It's chapter 7 in this case.

Let me know how you get on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Is this thread still a thing? Good grief...

You'd be surprised how thoroughly we can beat a dead horse.

So...I find it puzzling that not only do you not appear to have any information regarding the refutation of the proofs of God, you actually seem unaware that any exists. Colour me puzzled.

I am genuinely unaware that any truly objective refutations exist at all. You seem to be implying that some refutations exist, but I honestly haven't seen them. I've read some superficial attempts to refute, but most of them are a facade of utilitarian work-arounds, or, "Let's assume this bit instead," or, "I really don't like this fellow," etc. Then the narrative is spun as-if it were a refutation based on the author's reputation alone.

So can I suggest that you read up on the matter. There's free info on sites like rationalwiki - this one about the first cause argument:

Argument from first cause - RationalWiki

There's multiple criticisms here that I've addressed numerous times in the past. Are you actually claiming to endorse all of them?

Also, RationalWiki isn't a real wiki because it's a fandom wiki for skeptics. They even openly admit their own biases as such. I admit that I often post RationalWiki for atheists regardless, because their own echochambers seem to be the only thing they ever pay attention to. Also, citing my own hostile witnesses often provides the best support.

And more books that you could poke a stick at. I'd recommend this one by A. C. Grayling. He covers most of tbe usual proofs in some detail:

https://www.amazon.com/God-Argument-against-Religion-Humanism/dp/1620401924

And yet nothing specific that you appear to want to endorse on the forum here with any real conviction. Is there anything you'd actually place your bets on, or are you just trying to get rid of me?

From memory, you were asking for chapter and verse in the op. It's chapter 7 in this case.

Remember your personal policy about believers posting huge sections of scripture? You're kind-of running a double standard on that right now. If you're a fan, then why can't you seem to argue Grayling's case in your own words? How come only Grayling can do the trick, but can't actually teach others how to do it?
 
Upvote 0

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Let me know how you get on.

I got the book here. Chapter 7 was surprisingly short. Grayling does a general summary of the classical arguments, and classifies them all rather well, but doesn't actually begin addressing them until subsequent chapters (8-11). This isn't a real chore, but I'm sure it's far more than you'd be willing to read if the tables were turned. It's not very encouraging either.

Edit: I finished reading through Chapter 11. Of course there are some arguments I like better than others. For example, I actually agree with his critique of Plantinga. But I have already done so for years, and this isn't anything new to me.

In the end, I can't even guess which hill you'd be willing to die on. Or maybe that's not the atheist's goal at all. Rather, it could very well be that the atheist sees every critique as a separate piece of furniture to shove against the door of theism; some of it much heavier than others. And so, the atheist sees nothing wrong at all with stacking all the furniture against the door; regardless of how effective any single one of them would be.

But then again, I can't assume that's how you'd see it. *shrug*
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,706
10,603
71
Bondi
✟248,979.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I got the book here. Chapter 7 was surprisingly short. Grayling does a general summary of the classical arguments, and classifies them all rather well, but doesn't actually begin addressing them until subsequent chapters (8-11). This isn't a real chore, but I'm sure it's far more than you'd be willing to read if the tables were turned. It's not very encouraging either.

Edit: I finished reading through Chapter 11. Of course there are some arguments I like better than others. For example, I actually agree with his critique of Plantinga. But I have already done so for years, and this isn't anything new to me.

In the end, I can't even guess which hill you'd be willing to die on. Or maybe that's not the atheist's goal at all. Rather, it could very well be that the atheist sees every critique as a separate piece of furniture to shove against the door of theism; some of it much heavier than others. And so, the atheist sees nothing wrong at all with stacking all the furniture against the door; regardless of how effective any single one of them would be.

But then again, I can't assume that's how you'd see it. *shrug*

Well, I've done what you asked. Which was to give examples of refutations of various proofs of God that are readily available. And I've even given you the chapter (if not the verse). Now you know they're available. I'm astonshed that you had to be shown some examples of them.

Let me know if you need any more.

Edit: I see you originally asked for examples from enlightenment thinkers like Hume. You can also check out ' Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.' Whether it goes into enough detail for you is something you'll have to check out yourself.
 
Upvote 0

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Well, I've done what you asked. Which was to give examples of refutations of various proofs of God that are readily available.

Your shotgun approach doesn't even say which ones you prefer more than others. Or are you just trying to shove every-single-piece of furniture against the door to keep God from coming in?

And I've even given you the chapter (if not the verse). Now you know they're available. I'm astonshed that you had to be shown some examples of them.

I hadn't read Grayling before, but the arguments themselves are nothing new.

Let me know if you need any more.

So what I hear you saying is that you're highly confident of all of the examples given, and you're willing to die to defend the absolute truth of every one of them as objective refutations. o_O
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,706
10,603
71
Bondi
✟248,979.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Your shotgun approach doesn't even say which ones you prefer more than others. Or are you just trying to shove every-single-piece of furniture against the door to keep God from coming in?



I hadn't read Grayling before, but the arguments themselves are nothing new.



So what I hear you saying is that you're highly confident of all of the examples given, and you're willing to die to defend the absolute truth of every one of them as objective refutations. o_O

My shotgun approach? You asked for examples and I gave you two. I even mentioned an additional book by Hume (who you specifically named as someone you'd like as an example of refutation) where he discusses exactly what you were looking for.

'So what I hear you saying...'

No Paul. You don't hear me saying anything. Other than 'here's what you asked for'. If you want to discuuss anything specific then please let me know.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
My shotgun approach? You asked for examples and I gave you two.

Those were sources, not specific examples, and you know it.

I even mentioned an additional book by Hume (who you specifically named as someone you'd like as an example of refutation) where he discusses exactly what you were looking for.

I saw Grayling, but not Hume. Regardless, I'm seeing this as no different from Dawkins' "Read a book," defense.

No Paul. You don't hear me saying anything. Other than 'here's what you asked for'. If you want to discuuss anything specific then please let me know.

Oh. So you're not immediately willing to side with anything in-particular. Glad we could settle this.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,706
10,603
71
Bondi
✟248,979.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Those were sources, not specific examples, and you know it.

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

I gave you a book name and a chapter number which contained specific examples. But do you think a refutation of the ontological argument for example can be reduced to a single quote? What the..? What are looking for? Fortune cookie philosophy? Or did you think I was going to cut and paste a few hundred words from Kindle into a post for you?

Again, if you want to discuss anything in particular, let me know.
 
Upvote 0

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
"Only direct citations with book name, page, and quote(s), please."

Which are the objective refutations? You know, as opposed to mere doubt or speculation.

I gave you a book name and a chapter number which contained specific examples. But do you think a refutation of the ontological argument for example can be reduced to a single quote? What the..?

Sure! Isolating an objective error doesn't have to be that complicated.

But you're not willing to defend anything in-particular, so no worries.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,706
10,603
71
Bondi
✟248,979.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Which are the objective refutations? You know, as opposed to mere doubt or speculation.

You said you read the chapters. I don't recall Grayling exhibiting any doubt or relying on speculation. Did you see any? If so, do you want to discuss any specific point he made?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
4,338
5,024
New Jersey
✟332,494.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
All the classical arguments can be reduced to pure logic.
Logic is math-based.
Proof is exclusive to math.
Therefore, the existence of God has been proven, and (as far as I know) never objectively refuted.

Interesting. So, you believe that one or more of the classical arguments for the existence of God is a logically sound proof? (That wasn't clear to me from your initial post.)

Is there one proof of the existence of God that you find particularly compelling? We could focus our attention on that one.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0