Another "How do you refute this argument?" question.
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-07-2014, 01:14 PM
RE: Another "How do you refute this argument?" question.
Quote:You claim: There is no God.

No I don't. You're straw-manning me in a desperate attempt to defend your irrational beliefs.

Quote:But unless you are God and have infinite knowledge of all things, then your philosophy is self-defeating because it presupposes such knowledge -- that you -- a finite and fallible human being -- have in fact searched the entire universe for Him and have infinitely exhausted all means of finding him.

I don't even need to justify this with a response because, as stated before, my -- and by extension most of the people here's -- claim is not that there is no God. I reject the notion of a God because of lack of evidence. However, to humour your laughable attempts at a "Got'cha! Checkmate!", I'll say this: it matters very little that we haven't searched every nook and cranny of the universe because without evidence, there's no reason to look in the first place. Moreover, one could interchange God with anything in your sophomoric argument. "By claiming that Elvis is dead, you presuppose infinite knowledge. Have you checked every part of the universe to show that Elvis isn't still alive and yet hiding? Checkmate, Anelvisists!"

More Min Gee Ziss
[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 04:39 PM
RE: Another "How do you refute this argument?" question.
(19-06-2014 09:05 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 12:46 AM)f stop Wrote:  Has anyone heard the following argument before? It doesn't sound like original thinking on the theist's part and I'm thinking he got it out of a book or something.

Of course the second paragraph can be immediately dismissed as an ad hominem attack.

If there is no way to show a claim to be false then it is unfalsifiable and that makes it an arbitrary claim which need not be considered. Period. Besides we can know that there is no god. The concept of a supernatural being that can create, control and maintain existence is a direct violation of the principle of the metaphysical primacy of existence, a principle which is directly observable and empirically verifiable. A contradiction can not exist in reality. The only place they can exist is in the imagination but there is a fundamental difference between what is imagined and what exists.

On the contrary, any philosophy which starts from an unfalsifiable, arbitrary claim that violates known laws of nature and basic self evident axioms of existence is the absurd philosophy.

Well said. I often wonder how theists don't seem to notice how patently ridiculous their supernatural claims are; how at odds they are with what we know to be true from biology and physics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: