There is no logical argument to support ATHEISM

[DogmaHunter]

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

Remind me again, which "beliefs" I apparantly have to justify as an atheist?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

I wasn't referring to expert opinion.

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.

What those experts do is up to them.

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.

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.

 

[Uber Genius]

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

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.

Reason doesn't require tricks it seems.

5 D's of dodge ball.

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

Opps there goes 2500 years of Western Philosophy.

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

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.

 

[Uber Genius]

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.

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.

 

[Non sequitur]

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.

We need an explanation for the belief there was no space, no time, no matter, and no energy.

 

[Freodin]

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?

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.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

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.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Nice bunch of ad hom statements.
Care to actually go in on content, instead of simply engaging in such declarations?

Opps there goes 2500 years of Western Philosophy.

You mean theology.

Circular. assumes all that exists is physical.

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.

I'm not assuming or claiming anything.
I have no problem acknowledging ignorrance where ignorance reigns.

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.

Where have I said that we don't need an explanation?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

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".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

...tell the Jews that (i.e. religiously inclined "Jewish people," for those who are PC).

 

[Freodin]

...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!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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'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?)

 

[Freodin]

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.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

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.)

 

[Freodin]

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.)

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.

But I still think that your point is wrong. There is no need to "accurately measure" God... but if you want to talk about its existence or non-existence, you need to have a way to make clear what you are talking about. You need to have some at least vague definition.

Like the OP gave: "My definition of God is 'The Intelligent Force that everything extends from' .. "

And with such a definition you can work. You can try to find out whether it can be correct. Or whether it is meaningful at all.

I presented my case why I think such a given definition for "God" can not work. A rational objection.

As long as the whole rebuttal of that consists of "This is just, like, you opinion." I think I am justified to say that it is a logical reason to support atheism.



.

 

[Uber Genius]

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".

Post #118 gave sound resources justifying atheistic beliefs.

Do a quick google search of "The difference between beleif and knowledge."

Then tell me why you need to justify atheist Claims.


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.

 

[Uber Genius]

Nice bunch of ad hom statements.
Care to actually go in on content, instead of simply engaging in such declarations?

When you take a course on logic you will discover that ad hominem attacks suggest X is true because the opponent of x is (list negative attributes here).

I am not making any such claims.

Theism is the best explanation of the world we see due to the liebnizian and Kalam cosmological arguments, various teleological arguments, the moral argument, the unusual effectiveness of math to describe our world,various transcendent arguments, not to mention a properly basic warranted beleif, final via the innerwitnessof the HS.

Some am just pointing out that your views destroy a lot of other knowledge claims. And that you are misrepresenting just about every knowledge are you engage with straw men (look it up)

You mean theology.

Please look up Thales, Zeno, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. Are these Christian theologians?

Really

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.

 

[Uber Genius]

An atheist is someone who doesn't answer "yes" to the question "do you believe in god(s)?"

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").

P1 -All Russians are revolutionaries
P2 - All anarchists are revolutionaries
A - Therefore all anarchists are Russians.

The middle term is 'revolutionaries." While both Russians and anarchists share the common property of being revolutionaries, making both premises true, there may be separate groups of revolutionists, and so we cannot conclude that all anarchists are the same as Russians in every way.

Now let's examine the redefinition of "Atheism," from a claim that there is no god(s) to a lack of belief in god(s).

P1 - All agnostics lack the belief in god(s)
P2 - All atheists lack the belief in god(s)
A - All atheists are agnostics.

Something has happened here that seems wrong but is hard to nail down why. The first two terms are equivocated and I have dealt with that informal fallacy elsewhere.

Let's proceed since the origin to the change in definition seems to orb around Antony Flews 1970s arguments suggesting those lacking belief should not have to defend their position. Further, that it should be the starting point for knowledge.

P1 - All agnostics make no knowledge claims (this premise is also false but work with my assumption)
P2 - burden of proof rests on those making knowledge claims
P3 - All atheists are agnostics
A - Therefore (from 1,2,3) atheists have no burden of proof


Venn Diagram:

The Example is represented by this diagram, where "S" represents the minor term, "Atheists" "P" I is the major term "Agnostics" and "M" the middle term "make no knowledge claims." The diagram does not show the conclusion to be true, which means that the argument is invalid.

Further, we could see the intersection in purple would be the property of "lacking belief in god(s)." But what about the red portion? This is the property of claiming there are good reasons for believing their are no god(s)!

The red area in the Venn diagram above also corresponds with knowledge claims. Or justified beliefs. The agnostic has insufficient evidence to make atheistic knowledge claims. They could gather evidence in the future and become theist or atheist, but currently are not making such claims.

 

[Freodin]

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.

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.

I guess such a post was not considered necessary for the Christian members, most likely because the administration of this board thought all "Christians" would of course agree to follow to the rules that a Christian Forums set up.

But I think you might want to read these rules again. Just in case.

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").

[...]

And you might also want to read up on logic again. This is not how it works.

 

[bhsmte]

LOL