Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange
Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:30 pm
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:28 amThat's one way of putting it.
Do you really mean "eventually"? That doesn't fit the template of a creator of the universe. That aside, I cannot see any logical link between 'could exist' and 'must exist'.
What template is that exactly as you have provided none. In an infinite universe all possibilities must exist through a form of modal realism. However if you do not believe the universe is infinite, nor believe the concept of infinity exists, they by default your "truth as belief" will inevitably end.
The usual suspects: ontological, which is simply unsound, and all the variations on teleological/design arguments, all of which rest on dodgy premises.
And as I said, what arguments are those? Ontological arguments stem from a priori evidence, much in the same manner atheist arguments do. The same for teleological arguments emphasis on order as a foundation, is simultaneously founded for atheist arguments in a seperate respect. The definition of a creator is not, and cannot be limited to either ontological and/or teleological arguments.
Now according to you, the premises are dodgy...what premises are those exactly? The premises you chose break down to belief in one respect and absence of belief in another, religious arguments follow a similiar structure as they believe in God but not x or they do not believe in x therefore they believe in God.
In all frankness, from what it appears, you appear not to believe in God(s) simply because you don't "feel" like it. That I can understand as a premise, but don't argue strict logic with the above.
Well, it is a review of a book, that deals with two specific arguments (listed at the end of the review) that aim to show that "the God of evangelical Christianity" does not exist. To me, that's a no-brainer.
The arguments he applied used premises which do not exist. Take for example: God does not exist because Christians believe in x as a universal. However if X does not exist as part of the Christian doctrine, then the argument is founded on unsounded premises. The author is a bad author because he simply "lied" and used logic as a covering mechanism. Atheistic are bigger hypocrites than the religious.
The god of evangelical Christianity is transparently based on a iron age myth, itself the distillation of earlier bronze age myths; manipulated and codified by the then two most influential mediterranean cultures, Rome and Greece, which since the reformation has been further distorted to suit a wide variety of local requirements.
Agreed, however the author does not argue this point specifically in his argument, if I remember correctly. Arguing against evangelical Christianity does not equate to God does not exist. You understand that logic, right?
But that is a different claim to no god at all exists.
Agreed, it is a completely different claim