Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The only falsifiable things are contingent, not true by definition, or not.
"I exist" - what can i do with this claim? Is it a priori, and noumenal, yet synthetic?
What about the Heinz Baked Bean?
The issue there would be its contingent, if it were a necesssary bean then everything would be made from beans. It would be impossible for the b not to be, so "if x then b" would apply.
In another thread a poster asked for a refutation of the claim that God exists, and for purposes of this task he defined "God" as "The Greatest Conceivable Being".
I am wondering if we can expect persons who ask for putting their claim to scrutinity that they define their keyterm in a way that allows for it.
I don´t think that "The Greatest Conceivable Being exists" allows for serious investigation, mainly for two reasons:
1. It isn´t descriptive. It merely provides an unspecific value judgement, and on top of that it doesn´t provide any standards or criteria for determining "greatness".
2. "Conceivable" - by whom?
It´s like asking to disprove that "The Greatest Conceivable Lake" exists.
I wouldn´t even know how I could possibly go about investigating the accuracy of such vague, unspecific value judgements (of something that otherwise isn´t defined).
Unfortunately, said poster isn´t very cooperative, but refuses any help with making the claim in question sufficiently workable for the task he asks for.
Since the poster obviously leaves it to me to apply my subjective criteria of "Greatness" to given description of a certain being, the best I could come up with would be comparing existing god concepts to what I can conceive of as "greatest being" e.g. "I can conceive of a greater being than bible god, thus bible god isn´t "The Greatest Conceivable Being". Which, of course, is far from being able to demonstrate that the greatest being I can conceive of doesn´t exist.
So I thought I´d create this thread for constructive ideas regarding this issue.
You called it "argument against the existence of God". If you feel my wording was a misrepresentation feel free to elaborate on the significant differences.Where did I ask for a refutation of the claim "God exists?"
You called it "argument against the existence of God". If you feel my wording was a misrepresentation feel free to elaborate on the significant differences.
Philosophers of religion as a part of their discipline, sometimes engage in the formulation and defense of arguments for the existence of God.
We are aware of this.
However, it is oftentimes forgotten that they also interact with arguments against theism.
In this thread, we will discuss those (arguments against theism) which atheists here think are most persuasive.
I know I studied this in a university course, but I had to Google to refresh my memory. Anselm's Ontological Argument. I never agreed with it in its entirety. While it's logical in a way, the end result for me is giving the label of God to either the richest or most powerful human, or else a hypothetical alien emperor who exists somewhere in another galaxy. I don't find it to be a very useful point. It doesn't have the ability to prove the existence of any being. It just raises an existing being to god status.In another thread a poster asked for a refutation of the claim that God exists, and for purposes of this task he defined "God" as "The Greatest Conceivable Being".
It doesn't have the ability to prove the existence of any being. It just raises an existing being to god status.
I agree, the most persuasive argument against the claim "God exists" needn´t be a refutation.Yes it is a misrepresentation.
I specifically said:
I asked for atheists to tell me about those arguments against theism which they think are most persuasive. That is not analogous to me asking for a refutation of the claim "God exists".
If a bean were necessary, or thought to be necessary, would something which wasnt a bean (eg a table or a chair, made from wood for example) falsify the initial proposal?What about it exactly? Nothing was said about beans needing to be necessary.
Is it necessary to have an exact definition? Wouldn't it work to say the "greatest being" possesses all the qualities of greatness known or conceived of? That is to say, the greatest being combines (and exceeds) the greatness of mice, dragons, lakes, men and everything else?
It's not about having an exact definition. It's that there isn't an objective definition at all. You can't come up with a trait that you deem as "great" that another person can't reasonably argue against.
Sure you can. The greatest conceivable being for example, would be morally perfect.It's not about having an exact definition. It's that there isn't an objective definition at all. You can't come up with a trait that you deem as "great" that another person can't reasonably argue against.
I'm not sure that really affects the argument. One person might say Chuck Berry is a greater composer than Beethoven, or apples are greater fruit than oranges, but that's just what they conceive, and either way it would still work.
Sure you can. The greatest conceivable being for example, would be morally perfect.
If you disagree, that's fine. Your inability to recognize truth does nothing to nullify it.
Then I take it you're not one of those atheists that likes to run around telling people God does not exist because the existence of evil and suffering are logically incompatible with the existence of an all Good God.Lol. Cute. Here, let me try...
The greatest conceivable being for example, would not be morally perfect.
If you disagree, that's fine. Your inability to recognize truth does nothing to nullify it.
Wheeee! Unsubstantiated statements are fun...
But that's precisely why it doesn't work. If person A says that trait X is great and person B says that the opposite of trait x is great, which of those would be attributed to a god? It obviously can't be both, as that leads to a contradiction.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?