There is no logical argument to support ATHEISM

[Larniavc]

Something of a nature not bound by space time. Obviously something that isn't physical.

Is there any reason why a non-physical cause could NOT be the god that you are thinking off?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The resurected Michael Jackson appeared in my living room last night and sang the chorus of Billy Jean. Then he said in his trademark high pitched voice "a-hi-hiiiiiiii" and then disappeared again.

Do you believe me?
Do you give me the benefit of the doubt?

Sure, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. It would be interesting to see how your resurrected King of Pop compares with that of the King of Kings. Of course, we might want to have someone join us who believes in the resurrection of the King of Rock'n'Roll, just for good measure of comparison.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm paraphrasing, you called it ridiculous about five differn't ways.

OK, that's a question of interpretation; I'll only admit responsibility for what I actually said - I'm pedantic that way.

Dualism suffers from all the same problems as the issues we are speaking of and, again, we can't know what we don't know until we have a definite entity to study with real characteristics that we can grasp. So, there can't be a problem of interaction without some sort of definite object to interact with.

I agree that something definite (not necessarily an object) would simplify things, but the claims are what they are. I try to use the interaction problem to point out that the claims are incoherent as stated, and try to prompt some thought about that.

I'm saying the issue isn't all that complicated.

I agree, and it's fine to leave it at that if all you want to do is dismiss an incoherent claim. I prefer to clarify why the claim is incoherent, e.g. that physical claims have physical implications that can't just be hand-waved away. I think that has more chance of influencing someone (perhaps a lurker) than some non-physical 'boojum'

Btw, thanks for engaging in this discussion, it's good exercise!

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sure, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. It would be interesting to see how your resurrected King of Pop compares with that of the King of Kings. Of course, we might want to have someone join us who believes in the resurrection of the King of Rock'n'Roll, just for good measure of comparison.

So, you're going to go ahead and tell me that you'ld actually honestly consider this claim?

Come on, now.

We both know that you would consider me crazy or simply lying - and bad at it.
The real question here though, is why you felt like you couldn't simply say that... Why must you go ahead and pretend as if you'ld actually take it seriously?

Could it be that you just didn't like where it was going?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So, you're going to go ahead and tell me that you'ld actually honestly consider this claim?

Come on, now.

No, it may be possible that I'll actually give you the benefit of the doubt, however slight or moderate it might be, as I explain below.

We both know that you would consider me crazy or simply lying - and bad at it.

...that would depend on various philosophical factors.

The real question here though, is why you felt like you couldn't simply say that... Why must you go ahead and pretend as if you'ld actually take it seriously?

But surely, my good man, you don't think that I have taken you seriously. You offer a proposition for me to consider, and I say, "If so, then ..." Yet, we both know as of this moment--right now--that you indeed DO NOT hold such a view, and this is all according to your own contextual admissions.

However, if you, DogmaHunter, and the same DogmaHunter that has been on this website, let's say, for the past few years suddenly DID come to me and say that, then I would consider listening to you and contemplating what it was that you saw when you thought Michael appeared to you and snapped his crotch with a white glove. I mean, if someone as intelligence as you suddenly came to me and seemed to sincerely hold a view and perception that is otherwise an about-face from what you 'usually,' and sanely give, as contentions with all things phenomenal and/or super-natural, then the fact that you were being this way would also be recognizably inconsistent with your usual self, and it would give me pause to think.

Could it be that you just didn't like where it was going?

You're the second or third person this week to imply that. It gets tiresome, but yet, I suppose I should somehow feel affirmed, even if ironically, by all of the psycho-analytic attention I'm being given by some of you atheists. I know you'd all just love to get into my mind and explain 'me' away ... to me.

Peace,
2PhiloVoic

 

[DogmaHunter]

...that would depend on various philosophical factors.

I submit that it would not. You would look at me funny and either laugh or walk away.
You wouldn't give it one micro second of thought or serious consideration.
More then likely, you'll just go "...uhu...." and move on while thinking "what a loon...."

But surely, my good man, you don't think that I have taken you seriously. You offer a proposition for me to consider, and I say, "If so, then ..." Yet, we both know as of this moment--right now--that you indeed DO NOT hold such a view, and this is all according to your own contextual admissions.

Which doesn't matter to the point being made.
Have you ever heared of a "hypothetical"?

However, if you, DogmaHunter, and the same DogmaHunter that has been on this website, let's say, for the past few years suddenly DID come to me and say that, then I would consider listening to you and contemplating what it was that you saw when you thought Michael appeared to you and snapped his crotch with a white glove.

Keywords here: when you thought

As in, you wouldn't consider for a second that I actually saw the ghost of Michael Jackson.

If I were really serious (ie: you feel like you can reasonable exclude that I'm lying as an option), you'ld assume that I experienced something which I happened to interpret that way.

But you would not consider that it actually was Michael Jackson. Because he's dead and you understand what "dead" means.

I mean, if someone as intelligence as you suddenly came to me and seemed to sincerely hold a view and perception that is otherwise an about-face from what you 'usually,' and sanely give, as contentions with all things phenomenal and/or super-natural, then the fact that you were being this way would also be recognizably inconsistent with your usual self, and it would give me pause to think.

About my sanity. Or drug/alcohol abuse. Or general health.
But not really about me actually meeting the ghost of Michael Jackson. Right?

The real question, and the point of the hypothetical, is, why?

You're the second or third person this week to imply that.

That's certainly interesting, is it not?

It gets tiresome, but yet, I suppose I should somehow feel affirmed, even if ironically, by all of the psycho-analytic attention I'm being given by some of you atheists. I know you'd all just love to get into my mind and explain 'me' away ... to me.

Suddenly a proverb comes to mind. It's about a horse and making it drink.

 

[anonymous person]

The argument for non-theism which has the most force and which has been advanced more so than any other is the argument from evil and suffering. History confirms this. We see it in the writings of atheists from both past and present. It is not insurmountable however. Various ways of responding to the various formulations of the argument have been presented.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The argument for non-theism which has the most force and which has been advanced more so than any other is the argument from evil and suffering.

It certainly has the most emotional and ethical force; GWIMW (God Works In Mysterious Ways) is a commonly used escape clause, in various guises.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I submit that it would not. You would look at me funny and either laugh or walk away.
You wouldn't give it one micro second of thought or serious consideration.
More then likely, you'll just go "...uhu...." and move on while thinking "what a loon...."



Which doesn't matter to the point being made.
Have you ever heared of a "hypothetical"?


Keywords here: when you thought

As in, you wouldn't consider for a second that I actually saw the ghost of Michael Jackson.

If I were really serious (ie: you feel like you can reasonable exclude that I'm lying as an option), you'ld assume that I experienced something which I happened to interpret that way.

But you would not consider that it actually was Michael Jackson. Because he's dead and you understand what "dead" means.



About my sanity. Or drug/alcohol abuse. Or general health.
But not really about me actually meeting the ghost of Michael Jackson. Right?

The real question, and the point of the hypothetical, is, why?




That's certainly interesting, is it not?




Suddenly a proverb comes to mind. It's about a horse and making it drink.

...it seems that you've mistaken me for someone who gives a David Hume about your assumptions as to what I would or would not think. Or, maybe you just want to offer your services to me as my shrink?

 

[Freodin]

Can any atheist provide a logical argument that supports your belief that there is no God?

Not that the religious ideas of God. But that there is no God that designed the universe and created life purposefully.

I've seen that most atheist generally attack religion and ask for empirical evidence that shows God exists.. but I have never heard a logical argument against the existence of God ( not religion).

Thoughts and thanks

I would argue that it is impossible for something to cause/create something that is fundamentally different. Like "something that isn't bound by the laws of cause and effect cannot 'cause' something."

That would exclude the possibility of an uncreated god who created everything else,

 

[DogmaHunter]

...it seems that you've mistaken me for someone who gives a David Hume about your assumptions as to what I would or would not think. Or, maybe you just want to offer your services to me as my shrink?

No. I just think it would be seriously insulting to your intelligence to assume that you would actually take my claim seriously, when that claim is that I met the ghost of Michael Jackson.

If you wish to go ahead and go on record by saying that you would take a claim seriously, then be my guest though. But I don't think it would make you look good.


Meanwhile, it seems you succeeded in playing this out in such a way that the actual point I was making, is completely lost in the pages. So I guess you got that going for ya.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No. I just think it would be seriously insulting to your intelligence to assume that you would actually take my claim seriously, when that claim is that I met the ghost of Michael Jackson.

If you wish to go ahead and go on record by saying that you would take a claim seriously, then be my guest though. But I don't think it would make you look good.

Perhaps. But, to me, it would be really, really strange for someone as intelligence, as consistent in his views, and as hardened against the possibility of the supernatural, to then SUDDENLY come to me and say, "...Philo, I'm just freak'n out!!! I just saw Michael Jackson appear to me and he said, 'a-hi-hiiiiiiii'!!! while snapping his white glove! I've never experienced something like this before...."

So, I would give you the benefit of the doubt----the benefit of the doubt simply being that I'd be willing to listen to your story without assuming that it can just all be 'explained away.'

Now, on the other hand, if you came to me and said the same thing, but you instead had a history of histrionics, inconsistent perceptual responses, and a penchant for the eccentric, then I'd probably think you just need to ... calm down, get some extra sleep, and then see your shrink sometime in the next few days.

 

[Uber Genius]

It certainly has the most emotional and ethical force; GWIMW (God Works In Mysterious Ways) is a commonly used escape clause, in various guises.

Just as the OP demonstrated no research whatsoever, this post attempts to dodge the freewil defense by Plantinga et. al., devoted in the early 1970s, that has utterly wrecked the deductive argument from the problem of evil. In fact even atheists philosophers of religion only use the probabilistic formulation for the last couple decades.

 

[Uber Genius]

No. I just think it would be seriously insulting to your intelligence to assume that you would actually take my claim seriously, when that claim is that I met the ghost of Michael Jackson.

If you wish to go ahead and go on record by saying that you would take a claim seriously, then be my guest though. But I don't think it would make you look good.


Meanwhile, it seems you succeeded in playing this out in such a way that the actual point I was making, is completely lost in the pages. So I guess you got that going for ya.

based on a false analogy ghosts are univocal to Theistic claims.

Childish new atheism claim. Not a serious engagement of the topic.

These types of oft-repeated comments by new atheists have earned the ire of Michael Ruse, and other professional atheist philosophers who describe new atheist arguments as intellectual disgraceful.

Do better.

 

[Uber Genius]

I would argue that it is impossible for something to cause/create something that is fundamentally different. Like "something that isn't bound by the laws of cause and effect cannot 'cause' something."

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?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Just as the OP demonstrated no research whatsoever, this post attempts to dodge the freewil defense by Plantinga et. al., devoted in the early 1970s, that has utterly wrecked the deductive argument from the problem of evil. In fact even atheists philosophers of religion only use the probabilistic formulation for the last couple decades.

If you're referring to my post, I'm not attempting to dodge anything, just pointing out that GWIMW is a commonly used means of evading the problem - widely used on these forums - presumably by those unaware of Platinga, et al., or who perhaps aren't prepared to argue for Platinga's ill-defined concept of freedom, or his constraints on omnipotence (e.g. inability to create a world where free choices [however defined] happen always to be good). One has the impression that he would ensure his terms were defined so as to enable his argument...

 

[Uber Genius]

If you're referring to my post, I'm not attempting to dodge anything, just pointing out that GWIMW is a commonly used means of evading the problem - widely used on these forums - presumably by those unaware of Platinga, et al., or who perhaps aren't prepared to argue for Platinga's ill-defined concept of freedom, or his constraints on omnipotence (e.g. inability to create a world where free choices [however defined] happen always to be good).

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.

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.

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.

Good luck with that.

 

[Uber Genius]

for Theists and Atheists alike I recommend the following resources:

https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Theism-Arguments-against-Beliefs/dp/0521108667

J. H. Sobel

https://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Phil...coding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=QKHD18BCN799YQA26952

MIchael Martin

https://www.amazon.com/Arguing-abou...coding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=KBT5NXNHCKDPA9EP297Y

Graham Oppy

The fact that theists and atheists struggle to justify their respective beliefs doesn't mean there are not strong justifications of both views.

We get a lot of dodgeball (dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge) from both sides here.

 

[DogmaHunter]

based on a false analogy ghosts are univocal to Theistic claims.

It's not the ghost part that is the analogy.
It is the nature of the claim of encountering a ghost that is analogus to the nature of the claims of "religious revelation".

Childish new atheism claim. Not a serious engagement of the topic.

Childish old theism response. Tailored to not engage the actual point being made.

These types of oft-repeated comments by new atheists have earned the ire of Michael Ruse, and other professional atheist philosophers who describe new atheist arguments as intellectual disgraceful.

Never heared of "Michael Ruse", actually. Nore do I have any knowledge of any "professional atheist philosphers". What is that even?

Do better.

Engage the point.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Problem is that theists define God as spaceless, timeless (eternal), uncreated, immaterial being.

That is indeed a problem. But not for the reason that you're implying. Rather, because....what is that?

You are providing us with the physical limits to a non-physical being?

Is that really worse then simply "defining" limitlessness into existance?

I can define a whole bunch of things. Defining things is rather easy and only limited by my own imagination.

The fact of the matter is that nobody here knows or understands what "reality" is like when you completely remove the universe (and thus space and time and the energy and matter it contains) from existance.

So whatever "definitions" you can and will come up with concerning that "realm of existance" (by lack of better worthing), will be reather meaningless imo.