Using theist arguments to 'prove' God does not exist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-05-2014, 07:41 AM
RE: Using theist arguments to 'prove' God does not exist
Best != Perfect
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2014, 08:01 AM
RE: Using theist arguments to 'prove' God does not exist
What is "absolute truth"? It seems the argument presumes that this is already defined.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2014, 08:06 AM
RE: Using theist arguments to 'prove' God does not exist
(31-05-2014 08:01 AM)natachan Wrote:  What is "absolute truth"? It seems the argument presumes that this is already defined.

No idea. As far as I can figure out it's just a synonym for 'reality'.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2014, 08:15 AM
RE: Using theist arguments to 'prove' God does not exist
(31-05-2014 07:35 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  To say that God is perfect is to say that He is the Greatest Conceivable Being, a la Anselm.

It is to say that there is nothing greater than God. Nothing more knowledgeable, nothing more powerful, nothing more Good.

It is to say that in your mind, whatever you can conceive of as being great, God would be the terminus and possess all great-making properties. Now what these properties are is debated. In general there are three that are not debated i.e. God's unparalleled knowledge, His unparalleled power, and His unparalleled Goodness.

Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2014, 08:16 AM
RE: Using theist arguments to 'prove' God does not exist
(31-05-2014 08:01 AM)natachan Wrote:  What is "absolute truth"? It seems the argument presumes that this is already defined.

It's a semantic word game that gives them room to wriggle in a most dishonest fashion. A snake is hard to catch if you can't pin it down.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
31-05-2014, 08:26 AM
RE: Using theist arguments to 'prove' God does not exist
(31-05-2014 07:13 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Sye Ten Bruggencate's so-called 'Proof' That God Exists



Step 1)
  • Absolute Truth Exists - go to step 3
  • Absolute Truth does not exist - go to step 4
  • I don't know if Absolute Truth exists - go to step 5
  • I don't care if Absolute Truth exists - go to step 2


Step 2) Congratulations! You may continue to live your life without worrying about some ambiguous and irrelevant concept.


Step 3) Knowledge
  • - I know something to be true - go to step 6
  • - I don't know anything to be true - go to step 7


Step 4) Absolute Truth Does Not Exist
  • - Absolutely true - go to step 20
  • - False- go to step 21


Step 5) I Don't Know If Absolute Truth Exists
  • - Absolutely true - go to step 22
  • - False- go to step 23


Step 6) Logic

You have acknowledged that absolute truth exists, and that you know some things to be true. The next step towards the proof that God does not exist is to determine whether you believe that logic exists. Logical proof would be irrelevant to someone who denies that logic exists. An example of a law of logic is the law of non-contradiction. This law states, for instance, that it cannot both be true that my car is in the parking lot and that it is not in the parking lot at the same time, and in the same way.
  • - Logic exists go to step 8
  • - Logic does not exist go to step 9


Step 7) I Don't Know Anything To Be True?
  • - True -go to step 18
  • - False -go to step 19


Step 8) Nature of Logic (a)
To reach this page you have acknowledged there is absolute truth, that you know some things to be true, and that logic exists. Next we will examine what you believe about logic. Does logic change?
  • - Logic does not change - go to step 10
  • - Logic changes go to step 11


Step 9) Logic Does Not Exist?

One interesting aspect of denying logic, is that since you DO NOT believe in logic, you actually DO believe in logic. If there is no logic then contradictions like that one must be allowed in your worldview.
  • - I used logic to conclude that logic does not exist - go to step 24
  • - I came to the conclusion about logic arbitrarily - go to step 24


Step 10) Nature of Logic (b)

To reach this page, you have acknowledged that absolute truth exists, that you know some things to be true, that logic exists and that it is unchanging. The next question is whether you believe that logic is material, or is it immaterial? In other words, is logic made of matter, or is it 'abstract'?
  • - Logic is not made of matter - go to step 12
  • - Logic is made of matter - go to step 13


Step 11) If you believe that logic can change, then for all you know, logic has changed and contradictions are now valid. In that case you could have no problem with contradictionsRevert back to previous step


Step 12) The Nature of Logic (c)

To reach this page, you have acknowledged that absolute truth exists, that you know some things to be true, that logic exists, that it is unchanging and not made of matter. The next question is whether you believe that logic is universal or up to the individual. Are contradictions invalid only where you are, and only because you say they are, or is this universally true?
  • - Logic is universal go to step 16
  • - Logic is person relative - go to step 17


Step 13) Nature of Matter
  • - Matter changes - go to step 14
  • - Matter does not change - go to step 15


Step 14) You have admitted that logic does not change, and say that logic is made of matter which changes. This is a contradiction, please try again


Step 15) Seriously? If you believe that matter does not change, there is no point in continuing. You would have to believe that you are never going to die, and in that case, you need more help than this site can offer.


Step 16) The 'Proof' ...
To reach this page you have admitted that absolute truth exists, that you can know things to be true, that logic exists, that it is unchanging, that it is not made of matter, and that it is universal.

Truth, knowledge, and logic are necessary to prove ANYTHING. We only obtain knowledge by obtaining evidence. There is no evidence for God but there is plenty of evidence for simpler and more plausible explanations historically attributed to God. The gap that we can fit a god into is decreasing over time. There is no reason to think this won't continue.


Step 17) Logic is Relative?
If you believe that logic is relative, then you don't. If logic does not apply universally, then it does not necessarily apply to this site, and you could have no problem with any contradictions


Step 18) Go back two steps
Step 19) Go back two steps
Step 20) Start again
Step 21) Start again
Step 22) Go back to beginning
Step 23) Go back to beginning


Step 24) If you used logic to conclude that logic does not exist you have refuted yourself and made the wrong choice- please try again.
If you chose "logic does not exist" arbitrarily, then next time you may arbitrarily choose the other option and continue with the proof.
Go back two steps

Cute, but it completely misses the point of his argument.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2014, 08:33 AM
RE: Using theist arguments to 'prove' God does not exist
(31-05-2014 08:26 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  Cute, but it completely misses the point of his argument.

So does his entire website. His sole argument is that nothing makes sense without God.

Quote:Truth, knowledge, and logic are necessary to prove ANYTHING and cannot be made sense of apart from God.

All his preceding steps are irrelevant which is why I copied and pasted them in and only changed step 16 to something that made more sense.

(31-05-2014 07:13 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Truth, knowledge, and logic are necessary to prove ANYTHING. We only obtain knowledge by obtaining evidence. There is no evidence for God but there is plenty of evidence for simpler and more plausible explanations historically attributed to God. The gap that we can fit a god into is decreasing over time. There is no reason to think this won't continue.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2014, 08:40 AM
RE: Using theist arguments to 'prove' God does not exist
The use of the word "absolute" is an equivocation.

(31-05-2014 07:35 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  ...
In general there are three that are not debated i.e. God's unparalleled knowledge, His unparalleled power, and His unparalleled Goodness.

Erm... debatable.

I can think of a god that is more paralleled than your god.

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2014, 10:28 AM (This post was last modified: 31-05-2014 10:35 AM by Mathilda.)
RE: Using theist arguments to 'prove' God does not exist
(31-05-2014 08:40 AM)DLJ Wrote:  The use of the word "absolute" is an equivocation.

Just looked up 'equivocation'. I like it! Looks very useful.

Plantinga relies on equivocation for his argument with the word 'possible'.

Hmm, this has got me thinking. Can you equivocate using the word 'equivocation'?

Is the word autological?

And this brings us to the paradox of whether the word 'autological' is autological.

Is 'heterological' heterological?

Oh look, logical statements which are impossible to determine as being either singularly True or False.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2014, 03:28 PM (This post was last modified: 01-06-2014 03:43 PM by Mathilda.)
RE: Using theist arguments to 'prove' God does not exist
Thanks to Jeremy for giving me inspiration for a new argument

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid584979
  • God is immaterial. God is Spirit. (definition)
  • The Holy Spirit must therefore consist only of energy.
  • If the Holy Spirit was neither matter or energy then it would not be able to interact with the physical world and therefore would be irrelevant.
  • If the Holy Spirit exists as an identifiable thing then it must have order otherwise it will be chaos.
  • If the Holy Spirit has order then it is a temporally persistent pattern of energy.
  • There is no evidence of, or known physical means by which, a temporal pattern of energy can exist without the use of matter in either initiating it or persisting it.
  • Therefore God cannot exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: