Basic question about typical arguments for existence of god(s)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-05-2015, 04:21 AM
RE: Basic question about typical arguments for existence of god(s)
Philosophical Failures of Christian Apologetics series






























for more watch the rest of AnticitizenX's video's on his channel he's in my opinion the smartest anti apologist on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/user/AntiCitizenX/videos
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Ace's post
22-05-2015, 06:49 AM
RE: Basic question about typical arguments for existence of god(s)
(21-05-2015 01:48 PM)Learner Wrote:  I'm a fairly new atheist (formerly a christian), and not very philosophically minded, so I rely on the articulate definitions and explanations of those more philosophically minded.

Maybe this is a really dumb question...and I may not be formulating this question best, but would it be true to say that even in if the typical logical arguments for the existence of god were somehow sound, it still wouldn't prove the existence of a god because it still doesn't provide any evidence? At the very least, it wouldn't prove any specific god. I feel like I've heard some sort of argument like this before, but need a little help from those more philosophically minded. Thanks for your help.

Hi Learner, glad to meet you.

It is fine to ask others what they think but you shouldn't rely on it. It is OK to ask others as sort of a recon report on what they have found and learned but you should always validate the ideas you hear for yourself. Look at reality and form your own conclusions. Get some books on logic and philosophy and learn the process of reason. It's really fun.

If an argument is valid, i.e. it commits no fallacies or logical errors, and its premises are true, then the conclusion is true. If someone ever presents a valid and sound argument for the existence of a god then the existence of a god is proven. No one ever has. Every argument so far tried, fails. Once it is established that a god exists I think there would have to be further arguments to establish which one it is.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
22-05-2015, 06:54 AM
RE: Basic question about typical arguments for existence of god(s)
(21-05-2015 02:18 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  God cannot be proved or disproved empirically.

Then "God" is unfalsifiable and is outside the realm of knowledge.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2015, 06:56 AM
RE: Basic question about typical arguments for existence of god(s)
(22-05-2015 06:54 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(21-05-2015 02:18 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  God cannot be proved or disproved empirically.

Then "God" is unfalsifiable and is outside the realm of knowledge.

Yep.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2015, 06:58 AM
RE: Basic question about typical arguments for existence of god(s)
(22-05-2015 06:56 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(22-05-2015 06:54 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Then "God" is unfalsifiable and is outside the realm of knowledge.

Yep.

The belief in God is based entirely in faith and is supported by unfalsifiable anecdotal experiences and/or feelings:

aka cannot be proved/disprove via empirical evidence.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2015, 06:58 AM
RE: Basic question about typical arguments for existence of god(s)
(21-05-2015 01:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-05-2015 01:48 PM)Learner Wrote:  I'm a fairly new atheist (formerly a christian), and not very philosophically minded, so I rely on the articulate definitions and explanations of those more philosophically minded.

Maybe this is a really dumb question...and I may not be formulating this question best, but would it be true to say that even in if the typical logical arguments for the existence of god were somehow sound, it still wouldn't prove the existence of a god because it still doesn't provide any evidence? At the very least, it wouldn't prove any specific god. I feel like I've heard some sort of argument like this before, but need a little help from those more philosophically minded. Thanks for your help.

You are correct. Theology without evidence is worth no more than a bucket of spit.

I disagree.

I believe you are drastically undervaluing buckets of spit, sir.

I mean, you can pour out the spit and re-purpose the bucket to contain a different thing of higher value. Or, depending on the material from which the bucket is made, it might be worth a fair bit as melted down metal at scrap works.

Plus the bucket of spit, unlike theology, can at least provide a (somewhat off-putting) survival alternative should no fresh water sources be present.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
22-05-2015, 07:13 AM
RE: Basic question about typical arguments for existence of god(s)
(22-05-2015 06:58 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(22-05-2015 06:56 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Yep.
The belief in God is based entirely in faith and is supported by unfalsifiable anecdotal experiences and/or feelings:
aka cannot be proved/disprove via empirical evidence.

Quite right.
It can only be disproven by self-contradiction.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
22-05-2015, 07:46 AM
RE: Basic question about typical arguments for existence of god(s)
(22-05-2015 06:56 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(22-05-2015 06:54 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Then "God" is unfalsifiable and is outside the realm of knowledge.

Yep.

I commend you for your honesty Kingschosen.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
22-05-2015, 08:07 AM
RE: Basic question about typical arguments for existence of god(s)
Here is an argument that proves that the Christian does not exist:

1. If the objects of consciousness do not conform to the subject of consciousness, then existence has primacy in the relationship between existence and consciousness.

2. If existence has primacy over consciousness, then the Christian God does not exist.

3. The objects of consciousness do not conform to the subject of consciousness.

4. Therefore the Christian God does not exist.

Now, if the arbitrary is excluded as evidence, this arguments is valid and sound. It commits no fallacy and its premises are true. its conclusion must be true. Of course if the arbitrary is admissible as evidence then no argument is sound and logic becomes useless.

The arbitrary is an statement or claim unsupported by any evidence either perceptual or conceptual. In essence the person is saying OK your argument is valid but not sound because: fill in the blank with some arbitrary claim.

Don't let people do this to you. Don't deal with these people further. This is a call for perpetual skepticism. I think this is so prevalent because we have all been told all of our lives "don't be certain, you can't be certain of anything". Either logic is a valid means to certainty or it isn't.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2015, 08:13 AM
RE: Basic question about typical arguments for existence of god(s)
(22-05-2015 06:49 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(21-05-2015 01:48 PM)Learner Wrote:  I'm a fairly new atheist (formerly a christian), and not very philosophically minded, so I rely on the articulate definitions and explanations of those more philosophically minded.

Maybe this is a really dumb question...and I may not be formulating this question best, but would it be true to say that even in if the typical logical arguments for the existence of god were somehow sound, it still wouldn't prove the existence of a god because it still doesn't provide any evidence? At the very least, it wouldn't prove any specific god. I feel like I've heard some sort of argument like this before, but need a little help from those more philosophically minded. Thanks for your help.

Hi Learner, glad to meet you.

It is fine to ask others what they think but you shouldn't rely on it. It is OK to ask others as sort of a recon report on what they have found and learned but you should always validate the ideas you hear for yourself. Look at reality and form your own conclusions. Get some books on logic and philosophy and learn the process of reason. It's really fun.

If an argument is valid, i.e. it commits no fallacies or logical errors, and its premises are true, then the conclusion is true. If someone ever presents a valid and sound argument for the existence of a god then the existence of a god is proven. No one ever has. Every argument so far tried, fails. Once it is established that a god exists I think there would have to be further arguments to establish which one it is.

True Scotsman,

Good to meet you as well. Thank you for your input and suggestions. You said: "It is fine to ask others what they think but you shouldn't rely on it. It is OK to ask others as sort of a recon report on what they have found and learned but you should always validate the ideas you hear for yourself. Look at reality and form your own conclusions." As a new atheist and deconvert from christianity, this is something I am still very much learning, so I appreciate your input. With Christianity and dogma, a person is allowed to think only within the bounds of dogma...and discouraged from believing what honestly makes the most sense, in lieu of thinking what agrees with accepted doctrine. I think the difficult balance is recognizing my own limited knowledge in certain areas and listening to those with more knowledge in those areas...to then attempt to study and weigh the arguments on my own for not just what makes sense to me at first, but what I feel is true and corresponds with reality after examining the argument from every possible angle. When I was a christian, I distinctly remember my first break with dogma and allowing myself to be a free-thinker when I came to the conviction: "I don't care what the Bible says, no way in hell did Noah's Flood ever happen." So it's basically a growing process of courage in one's own ability to think on their own. And you are right...thinking for yourself is such a fun and freeing thing.

You said: "If someone ever presents a valid and sound argument for the existence of a god then the existence of a god is proven. No one ever has." So it sounds like you'd disagree with the question I had in the opening post? But you're right that the arguments fail...and even if they didn't fail, there's no argument that could prove a specific god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: