I can't rationalize atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-04-2014, 11:27 PM
RE: I can't rationalize atheism
(14-04-2014 07:47 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(14-04-2014 12:05 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Sorry but the possibility of something existing doesn't mean that the something MUST exist.

If that were true then the possibility of an anti-god that instantly destroys any god and itself must also exist and by its very nature, no longer exists.

The mental hoops your mind has to jump through astonishes me.

This argument applies to a maximally great being. Although, I see that in order to be maximally great, something must not exist in reality, since reality is not maximally great. Therefore, we wouldn't have any way of interacting with it.

I'm hung up on the argument from solipsism now. (You can't prove that anything exists, therefore God. (I know it's bad logic, but I can't figure out a good way to refute it...))

This is the first time I've ever heard of an argument from solipsism. It seems inherently self refuting. If I understand the structure, it's....

P1: We are unable to prove that anything it exists. (Ummm... except our own thought processes? Cognito ergo sum?)
P2: Being unable to prove anything exists would prove that God exists. (NO idea how you get this, but it seems to be the structure of the argument.)
C: God is proven to exist.

Except that by the very act of arriving at the conclusion.... at least, if we were ever establish premise 2... we have disproved the first premise, and the argument's conclusion would suddenly lacks support. Even if premise 2 could be established, this argument would at most say that SOMETHING is provable, and maybe that's God or maybe that's something else. Of course, if we could establish premise 2 (which I doubt), we would have right there an example of something being provable, and the whole argument would be unnecessary.

.... but really, where is premise 2 coming from? That's the refutation. Premise 2 is not established or supported. There's no support. That's all the refutation you need.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
15-04-2014, 01:19 AM
RE: I can't rationalize atheism
diddo97, I really don't understand this argument about a maximally great being but you seem to be hung up on it.

Maybe if you really break it down into steps like Reltzik did and explain every small step then we can point out where the flaws are. After all, if you have been convinced by it then you must be able to describe each step in detail.

Just one break in the ladder means that you can't reach the rest of the steps.


As an aside you seem to have mixed up your names.

Point 4 was your argument from solipsism in your OP yet the argument about a maximally great being is what you refer to as the ontological argument from point 1. Yet you now refer to it as the argument from solipsism.

(12-04-2014 04:54 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  1. The ontological argument, which shifts the burden of proof onto atheists
4. The idea that materialism is self refuting/argument from solipsism


(12-04-2014 08:57 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  The ontological argument proves that a maximally great being must exist.

(14-04-2014 07:47 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  I'm hung up on the argument from solipsism now. (You can't prove that anything exists, therefore God. (I know it's bad logic, but I can't figure out a good way to refute it...))
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: