Straightforward Challenge

[CTD]

In terms of philosophy, can anyone give an example of a claim more implausible and absurd than the claim to possess the knowledge that God does not exist?

 

[Sweet Tea]

The claim that Christianity is true without possessing all knowledge of every religious belief to have existed or currently exists.

Also, the claim to possess the knowledge God exists is equally absurd as what you have proposed in the OP.

While those claims may not be more absurd than the one you have stated, they are nonetheless equally as absurd.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

In terms of philosophy, can anyone give an example of a claim more implausible and absurd than the claim to possess the knowledge that God does not exist?

Thae claim to possess the knowledge does AND does not exist.

 

[Eudaimonist]

In terms of philosophy, can anyone give an example of a claim more implausible and absurd than the claim to possess the knowledge that God does not exist?

Yes, the claim that because no one has proven absolutely that God doesn't exist, the claim that God does exist is made relatively more plausible or less absurd.


But this one takes the cake:

The Son of God was crucified: there is no shame, because it is shameful.
And the Son of God died: it is wholly credible, because it is unsound.
And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible.
-- Tertullian, De Carne Christi V, 4



eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Lord Emsworth]

In terms of philosophy, can anyone give an example of a claim more implausible and absurd than the claim to possess the knowledge that God does not exist?

Actually, it depends on how you define 'God.'

And, depending on your definition of 'God,' you just may already have one such example of implausibility and absurdity.


(ETA: Oh, I just see that you are a Young Earth Creationist. Although, does that pass muster as philosophy?)

 

[GrowingSmaller]

But this one takes the cake:

The Son of God was crucified: there is no shame, because it is shameful.
And the Son of God died: it is wholly credible, because it is unsound.
And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible.
-- Tertullian, De Carne Christi V, 4



eudaimonia,

Mark

IIRC Tertullian is often regarded as proposing irrationalism, that Christianity ought to be believed simply because it is irrational. But his view was that it would not be expected that rational men believed such stuff unless it were actually true. No one would be so gullible to believe it otherwise, so it must be based in fact.

I think it is a bit like Humes view on miracles. It would be more miraculous that sane men believed such falsehoods and were duped, rather than they believed Christianity's irrationalisms and they were in fact true.

 

[DaisyDay]

In terms of philosophy, can anyone give an example of a claim more implausible and absurd than the claim to possess the knowledge that God does not exist?

Which God?

In fact, few thinking people would claim to know that the Trinitarian God does not exist although they may believe (or have concluded from the evidence available) that He/They do not.

In terms of philosophy, there is Bertram Russell's argument that it is equally absurd to claim knowledge of certainty that there is not a teapot somewhere between Earth and Mars that is orbiting the sun, but it is not more implausible - so you win, I guess.

 

[Eudaimonist]

IIRC Tertullian is often regarded as proposing irrationalism, that Christianity ought to be believed simply because it is irrational. But his view was that it would not be expected that rational men believed such stuff unless it were actually true. No one would be so gullible to believe it otherwise, so it must be based in fact.

Yeah, I know. But it is still silly when taken in that way.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

In terms of philosophy, can anyone give an example of a claim more implausible and absurd than the claim to possess the knowledge that God does not exist?

Yes, the claim that Metagod doesn´t exist.

 

[CTD]

The claim that Christianity is true without possessing all knowledge of every religious belief to have existed or currently exists.

...On the principle that it is absurd to know 2 + 2 = 4 without having evaluated all alternatives: 2 + 2 = 3, = 2182, = -pi, = 9.323, etc Obviously!

Also, the claim to possess the knowledge God exists is equally absurd as what you have proposed in the OP.

Only if one presupposes God does not exist! If God does exist, and someone finds out, how is it absurd? Honesty is not absurdity.

 

[CTD]

Thae claim to possess the knowledge does AND does not exist.

I think you mean any violation of non-contradiction, right?

 

[CTD]

Yes, the claim that because no one has proven absolutely that God doesn't exist, the claim that God does exist is made relatively more plausible or less absurd.

Do tell...

That's presupposing some absurdity in the existence of God.

May I guess? Is it absurd to think some agency of justice exists because so many would just really really really prefer otherwise?

But this one takes the cake:

The Son of God was crucified: there is no shame, because it is shameful.
And the Son of God died: it is wholly credible, because it is unsound.
And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible.
-- Tertullian, De Carne Christi V, 4



eudaimonia,

Mark

...And that's been handled.

 

[CTD]

Actually, it depends on how you define 'God.'

And, depending on your definition of 'God,' you just may already have one such example of implausibility and absurdity.


(ETA: Oh, I just see that you are a Young Earth Creationist. Although, does that pass muster as philosophy?)

Well then, in what way does redefining God

alter the absurdity of the claim?

Are you saying the redefinition process is a legitimate means of altering reality - that by redefining God in some manner it can become any more or any less absurd?

 

[CTD]

Which God?

In fact, few thinking people would claim to know that the Trinitarian God does not exist although they may believe (or have concluded from the evidence available) that He/They do not.

In terms of philosophy, there is Bertram Russell's argument that it is equally absurd to claim knowledge of certainty that there is not a teapot somewhere between Earth and Mars that is orbiting the sun, but it is not more implausible - so you win, I guess.

Not really able to make it out. Is this one of those self-defeating "knowledge itself is absurd" arguments?

I see the false analogy ploy rearing its head, but first things first.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In terms of philosophy, can anyone give an example of a claim more implausible and absurd than the claim to possess the knowledge that God does not exist?

Yes, the claim that people can take words with no decisive definitions, slam them together in sentences (or questions) that reflect a lack of coherent syntax, and still believe that something substantive, relevant, or true is being stated should be a candidate for a claim that is worse than the one you offer.

 

[Sweet Tea]

...On the principle that it is absurd to know 2 + 2 = 4 without having evaluated all alternatives: 2 + 2 = 3, = 2182, = -pi, = 9.323, etc Obviously!


Only if one presupposes God does not exist! If God does exist, and someone finds out, how is it absurd? Honesty is not absurdity.

CTD, 2 + 2 will always be 4. This is math. 2 + 2 = 3 is not an alternative to 2 + 2 = 4. Come now.

You don't even have a definition of God laid out, therefore this entire thread just is useless. Define your God, CTD.

 

[Eudaimonist]

this entire thread just is useless.

That covers it.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[CTD]

CTD, 2 + 2 will always be 4. This is math. 2 + 2 = 3 is not an alternative to 2 + 2 = 4. Come now.

God will always be God.

There are plenty of wrong answers to both issues. The law of identity precludes man or Satan from being God.

Don't "come now" me, when you started the nonsense.

The claim that Christianity is true without possessing all knowledge of every religious belief to have existed or currently exists.

That's silly. If Christianity be proven true, it is then logically necessary that anything contradicting Christianity be false. Law of non-contradiction's not half so difficult as scoffer custom maintains.

You don't even have a definition of God laid out, therefore this entire thread just is useless. Define your God, CTD.

Do tell...

Does he who makes the absurd claim have his definition laid out? If it is not a proper one, his claim is only that much the more ridiculous.

 

[variant]

In terms of philosophy, can anyone give an example of a claim more implausible and absurd than the claim to possess the knowledge that God does not exist?

All knowledge is aluminum poodle.

See, not even that hard.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Well then, in what way does redefining God

alter the absurdity of the claim?

I don't quite understand where you see the problem. Depending on who and what you are listening to God is merely some kind of first cause, the universe itself, an intelligent entity, an intelligent omnimax entity, an intelligent enitiy that answers prayers etc pp.

And, implicitly or explicitly, an atheist will have their definition on what God is too. For example, a pantheistic God is generally not meant and hence not included in a presumed statement that there is no God, or what have you.

Are you saying the redefinition process is a legitimate means of altering reality - that by redefining God in some manner it can become any more or any less absurd?

No, it is certainly not a means of altering reality. But depending on definitions of individual words statements have different meaning.