DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
- Jan 26, 2014
- 16,757
- 8,531
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Remind me again, which "beliefs" I apparantly have to justify as an atheist?
Upvote
0
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 fact that theists and atheists struggle to justify their respective beliefs doesn't mean there are not strong justifications of both views.
I wasn't referring to expert opinion.Fair enough but how little effort it would have taking to say common responses to the problem of evil by experts is the free will defense, but out here is the mystery defense.
What those experts do is up to them.Strange that you are also unfamiliar with the fact that instead of those experts explaining why Plantinga's argument suffers from the vagueness you suggest, they concede his point and punt to probalistic formulas.
Not being an expert myself, I would rather hope for them to explain to me why the apparent weaknesses I mentioned are not the case.Perhaps you should be informing the atheist philosophers that Graham Oppy and J.H. Sobel or J.L. MAckey, Michael Martin, Quinten Smith were wrong or abandon there problem of evil arguments due to the freewill defense. That in fact they missed the knockdown defeater in Plantinga's opening pages.
My point exactly. You are ignorant of the best and soundest arguments and proponents of same for the last 25 years in U.S.Never heared of "Michael Ruse", actually. Nore do I have any knowledge of any "professional atheist philosphers". What is that even?
That is indeed a problem. But not for the reason that you're implying. Rather, because....what is that?
Is that really worse then simply "defining" limitlessness into existance?
I have done my part to help theist and atheist choose the best arguments to justify both beliefs. I recognize that many on both sides of the discussion don't choose to engage the best or even reasonable facsimiles of those arguments.I wasn't referring to expert opinion.
What those experts do is up to them.
Not being an expert myself, I would rather hope for them to explain to me why the apparent weaknesses I mentioned are not the case.
We need an explanation for the belief there was no space, no time, no matter, and no energy.Further misses the point that we need an explanation for how matter, space, time, energy come into existence from no space, no time, no matter, no energy.
No, the problem is that theists want to eat their cake and have it too. It is them who give their deity all kinds of "current" or "physical" attributes... like "intelligence" and "creativity".This may need some rework.
It seems to apply certain physical limitations true of the material world as currently described by modern science about our universe.
Problem is that theists define God as spaceless, timeless (eternal), uncreated, immaterial being.
You are providing us with the physical limits to a non-physical being?
Most of us don't have the time or inclination to gain more than a passing familiarity with these topics; but still, in the absence of positive contributions from the better-informed, we continue to get some satisfaction from locking our less well-informed horns in the forum.I have done my part to help theist and atheist choose the best arguments to justify both beliefs. I recognize that many on both sides of the discussion don't choose to engage the best or even reasonable facsimiles of those arguments.
My point exactly. You are ignorant of the best and soundest arguments and proponents of same for the last 25 years in U.S.
Hardly something to brag about.
You you are replacing them with rhetorical tricks that get the most laughs and thumbs up by uneducated people.
Opps there goes 2500 years of Western Philosophy.
Circular. assumes all that exists is physical.
Further misses the point that we need an explanation for how matter, space, time, energy come into existence from no space, no time, no matter, no energy.
I have done my part to help theist and atheist choose the best arguments to justify both beliefs. I recognize that many on both sides of the discussion don't choose to engage the best or even reasonable facsimiles of those arguments.
At least your honest about it.
No, the problem is that theists want to eat their cake and have it too. It is them who give their deity all kinds of "current" or "physical" attributes... like "intelligence" and "creativity".
But if you assume that the basic existence is not "bound" by all that descriptions, the concept of "God" becomes very... well... non-existent.
You cannot simply define your God into existence and add to it as you please.
I'm not getting it....tell the Jews that (i.e. religiously inclined "Jewish people," for those who are PC).
I'm not getting it.
Is this going in the "Jews are smart people, so they of course got it right and you are wrong" direction, or the "Jews suffered horrible persecution, so you are not allowed to disagree with them, whatever their position might be on anything" direction?
Explain yourself!
I cannot see anything "better" in the Jewish way (and the "Jewish way" has undegone as many iterations as any religion that spans millenia, so to call it "the way" is already too specific.)I'm simply opening further the can of worms that you've already set the can-opener to when you said, "You cannot simply define your God into existence and add to it as you please."
In fact, we can look at a variety of people group who have "claimed" the existence of a god or gods and then compare and contrast their respective perceptions and conceptions of their particular idea of divine beings and see how they are each built.
And thus to say that we cannot simply define God into existence begins to beg the question: How can we define God?
Furthermore, to make the assumption that any divine being that could exist would simply decide to condescend to our human level of existence and be subject to our empirical and purely rational investigations is in itself an "attribute" that would have to be posited about the said divine being in order for us to begin to think that we can apply logic and thus define that being.
No, the best we can do is look into history, look into the ethnic, cultural and social-religious thought of any given people and see how their particular god is "built." And like the many different car makers that are out there for us to choose from (or not to choose from, if you'd rather walk), we might find that different god concepts are not all built the same. I just happen to think the the Jewish way (especially the Christian way) is the better option among many ... and I don't mind foreign products, anyway.
We might call this the "Aesthetic Argument." (Does it look good and valuable to you? Do you buy into it?)
I cannot see anything "better" in the Jewish way (and the "Jewish way" has undegone as many iterations as any religion that spans millenia, so to call it "the way" is already too specific.)
But I do not see how that adresses my point - the one of the first post or that of the second - at all.
If "the Jews" think they can adress these points, they are free to do that. If you want to adress these points by using "the Jewish/Christian" way, you are free to do that.
But simply pointing out that you think that some other explanation is "better" doesn't do anything to adress my points.
Well, from the "aesthetic" side it seems you just don't want to adress my point, and so simply dismiss it. I don't mind. If you feel that you need to adress a logical or "rational" argument by simply denying that it is a rational argument... there is nothing to talk about.The implication of my aesthetic argument is that your position is akin to that of A.J. Ayer. It is a kind of conception that in and of itself, and on the other side of the issue as it is, does not offer any further objective conclusion over and above the one on the theistic side.
So, my point is that no one can accurately measure God, and hence no one can define Him "into," OR "OUT OF," existence. What you are doing in the end, whether you recognize it or not, is essentially making your own Aesthetic Decision, not one that is a necessity of logic or one born from some kind of "pure" rational means. You--like a lot of atheists--might think you have something more objective, but you have something much like what everyone else has, with the difference being that the impressions you feel you perceive from that slice of reality in which you're in don't seem to reflect the presence of God (or Jesus, in this case.)
So you presented your opinion on these "arguments" and you feel like everyone should just agree with you.
I disagree with you.
I don't need any "arguments" to justify my atheism. There is nothing in my atheism that requires any "argument".
Nice bunch of ad hom statements.
Care to actually go in on content, instead of simply engaging in such declarations?
Please look up Thales, Zeno, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. Are these Christian theologians?You mean theology.
Nope. Not assuming anything. Simply questioning the things YOU are claiming/assuming.
And asking the question how one (anyone, including me) could possibly have something sensible to say about situations that all of us are completely and utterly ignorant about.
Remember, YOU are the one here making claims concerning deities and what rules apparantly apply and don't apply in an atemporal condition where no space, time or whatever exists.
An atheist is someone who doesn't answer "yes" to the question "do you believe in god(s)?"
Every non-Christian had to make a post of signature and agreement before being allowed to post in this subforum. This included a repeat of their agreement to the Forum rules.Are you an idiot?
Can you read?
I have been clear in my reasons why the OP should not ask atheist to do the OPs homework.
Similarly, I have provided texts to help Atheists articulate a defense of their beliefs devoid of NEW Atheist propaganda and fallacy.
Of course you are welcome to hold beliefs without reason, your not engaging the argument or anything I have written.
I have been helpful educating both sides to articulate the best reasons in support of both atheism and theism. In fact here I have only focused on justifying atheism.
Stop misrepresenting my statements and start doing your own homework.
And you might also want to read up on logic again. This is not how it works.So children, and agnostic who have no knowledge one way or the other are now called atheists.
This is an old atheist trick invented by none other than Antony Flew (whom I'm sure you are unfamiliar with so don't bother telling me about your unbounded ignorance).
Fallacy of the undistributed middle (Technical Response to the post-modern proposal by New Atheists to equivocate the terms, "Atheism," and "Agnostic").
[...]
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?