Ask an atheist..?

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Ask an atheist..?

Post by Lev Muishkin » Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:59 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Lev Muishkin wrote:Science does not believe in the universe. It is a method by which different models are used to describe it. The god method has been long abandoned except by those with no respect for reason and evidence.
Science knows the universe exists as any scientifically qualified\or not, theist is also aware. Don't get on your high horse with your ill conceived idea that atheism is the only bastion of logic and reason.
If you are up to the challenge i will take you on in this thread:-

An argument for the existence of God.
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=9390
Science is not about 'belief'. "Belief" is the death of the mind. Science is about the continued investigation of the Universe.
Atheism is not the bastion of logic and reason. It is not about anything. It's just a reflection on a person's belief. Atheists don't believe.
There is not viable argument for the existence of god.

Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: Ask an atheist..?

Post by Blaggard » Fri Jan 30, 2015 1:14 am

God fears anything he can't understand even his mum. ;)

thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Ask an atheist..?

Post by thedoc » Fri Jan 30, 2015 1:40 am

Science is all about belief, they believe that some idea or theory is true and then set out to prove or disprove it. The big difference is that science will accept when an idea is proven untrue. It's religion and some philosophers who can't accept when their pet ideas are proven wrong.

Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: Ask an atheist..?

Post by Blaggard » Fri Jan 30, 2015 2:31 am

Bad answer doc but then maybe you are Playing Buddha's advocate. ;)

Something is always wrong, with me most of all. With the world, well it's anyone's guess in any universe how bland that is.

Go make a cheesburger? Or indulge in lateral thinking riddles, couldn't hurt... ;)

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3986
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Ask an atheist..?

Post by attofishpi » Fri Jan 30, 2015 11:47 am

Lev Muishkin wrote:
attofishpi wrote:
Lev Muishkin wrote:Science does not believe in the universe. It is a method by which different models are used to describe it. The god method has been long abandoned except by those with no respect for reason and evidence.
Science knows the universe exists as any scientifically qualified\or not, theist is also aware. Don't get on your high horse with your ill conceived idea that atheism is the only bastion of logic and reason.
If you are up to the challenge i will take you on in this thread:-

An argument for the existence of God.
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=9390
Science is not about 'belief'. "Belief" is the death of the mind. Science is about the continued investigation of the Universe.
Atheism is not the bastion of logic and reason. It is not about anything. It's just a reflection on a person's belief. Atheists don't believe.
There is not viable argument for the existence of god.
Imagination is greater than knowledge...something Einstein stated. Imagination is akin to permitting a belief in something, and it is having that belief that scientists from before Einstein and beyond Hawking have and always will, fathom for answers.
There is a viable argument for the existence of 'god' you are [unwilling] to have your belief questioned rationally.


[Edited by iMod]

thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Ask an atheist..?

Post by thedoc » Fri Jan 30, 2015 4:43 pm

Blaggard wrote:Bad answer doc but then maybe you are Playing Buddha's advocate. ;)

Something is always wrong, with me most of all. With the world, well it's anyone's guess in any universe how bland that is.

Go make a cheesburger? Or indulge in lateral thinking riddles, couldn't hurt... ;)

I'm using belief here in the sense of an idea or theory that has not been proven, not in the religious sense of dogma that cannot be questioned. Perhaps I should have said that Scientists have an idea or theory that they believe May be true, and then set out to prove or disprove it. You are correct some ideas are wrong and should be abandon when their incorrectness has been adequately demonstrated. As far as God, that has not been demonstrated either way to everyone, just to a few individuals and their proof is just for them and no-one else. Those who think they have some proof of God's existence should just shut up, keep it to themselves, and let God take care of God's own business.

Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: Ask an atheist..?

Post by Blaggard » Sat Jan 31, 2015 1:15 am

Oh ok and not in a scientific sense either: I apologise I misunderstood.

I think Karl Popper's ideas on theory will help you here. Nothing is ever wrong or right, but some things are not even wrong. Not that he's the only man to expound upon belief in science or otherwise but he did formalise what theory, hypothesis and bullshit are, a very creditable thesis of what science of philosophy is, but then as Nietzsche once said, I am paraphrasing: don't believe anyone least of all me, or yourself. They could be any or none of them ideas.

He had a point. :)

User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Ask an atheist..?

Post by Lev Muishkin » Sat Jan 31, 2015 8:15 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Lev Muishkin wrote:
attofishpi wrote: Science knows the universe exists as any scientifically qualified\or not, theist is also aware. Don't get on your high horse with your ill conceived idea that atheism is the only bastion of logic and reason.
If you are up to the challenge i will take you on in this thread:-

An argument for the existence of God.
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=9390
Science is not about 'belief'. "Belief" is the death of the mind. Science is about the continued investigation of the Universe.
Atheism is not the bastion of logic and reason. It is not about anything. It's just a reflection on a person's belief. Atheists don't believe.
There is not viable argument for the existence of god.
Imagination is greater than knowledge...something Einstein stated. Imagination is akin to permitting a belief in something, and it is having that belief that scientists from before Einstein and beyond Hawking have and always will, fathom for answers.
There is a viable argument for the existence of 'god' you are [unwilling] to have your belief questioned rationally.


[Edited by iMod]
This is a travesty of Einstein's thoughts on imagination. Imagination, is a process, not knowledge. It is a way to examine, and way to think. It is not the knowledge itself.
Any fool can imagine a fast car, or a cake. It takes and expert to make a good one. For that you need real knowledge.
I've no idea, nor do I really care what garbled statement lies in the last sentence about god.
But i you want I'll put my imagination against yours and still show you that god has no viable argument.

User avatar
ReliStuPhD
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:28 pm

Re: Ask an atheist..?

Post by ReliStuPhD » Sat Jan 31, 2015 11:18 pm

Lev Muishkin wrote:There is no viable argument for the existence of god.
In fact, there are several viable ("capable of working successfully; feasible") arguments, even if they do not convince you. The mistake you're making here is to confuse arguments for the existence of god with demonstration thereof. It is perhaps true that one cannot demonstrate god's existence, but one can most certainly argue for it. If anything, it is arguments for the non-existence of god that are not viable insofar as they are logically impossible (there must be a non contingent ground of being—what religion could well refer to as "god"—if we are to the escape the infinite regress of contingency).

User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Ask an atheist..?

Post by Lev Muishkin » Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:13 am

ReliStuPhD wrote:
Lev Muishkin wrote:There is no viable argument for the existence of god.
In fact, there are several viable ("capable of working successfully; feasible") arguments, even if they do not convince you. The mistake you're making here is to confuse arguments for the existence of god with demonstration thereof. It is perhaps true that one cannot demonstrate god's existence, but one can most certainly argue for it. If anything, it is arguments for the non-existence of god that are not viable insofar as they are logically impossible (there must be a non contingent ground of being—what religion could well refer to as "god"—if we are to the escape the infinite regress of contingency).
I'm not confusing anything.
Each one of these arguments is flawed, and are thus not viable.
There is no argument for the non-existence of anything. The existence of a thing requires that it be established. Until then no denial or counter argument is necessary.
What arguments are you talking about? I've never seen any argument for the non-existence of god. . Whilst I have seen all arguments for god, refuted as inadequate.

User avatar
ReliStuPhD
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:28 pm

Re: Ask an atheist..?

Post by ReliStuPhD » Sun Feb 01, 2015 3:29 am

Lev Muishkin wrote:Each one of these arguments is flawed, and are thus not viable.
Which arguments? You're speaking as if we've settled on a set of arguments. I, at least, have not mentioned any.
Lev Muishkin wrote:What arguments are you talking about? I've never seen any argument for the non-existence of god. . Whilst I have seen all arguments for god, refuted as inadequate.
So you don't know what arguments I've offered are viable? This and the previous quote don't "mesh." Anyway, the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the argument from contingency are two off the top of my head that have yet to be undermined in any meaningful way. (They're certainly dismissed by atheists with regularity, but dismissing something is obviously not the same as showing it not to hold.)

And yes, there are most certainly arguments for the non-existence of God. Tons of them (here are two from PhilosophyNow, in fact). Otherwise, you have nothing to refute the claim that God exists. I get the sense that you're not keeping up with your reading in Philosophy of Religion.
Lev Muishkin wrote:I'm not confusing anything. ... The existence of a thing requires that it be established.
I'm not sure if you've contradicted yourself or we're talking past one another. It seems to me you are definitely confusing arguments for the existence of something and demonstration thereof. To establish the existence of something is not the same as to argue for its possible existence. I can argue for the existence of Martian life even if I cannot establish that it exists. I am not maintaining here that god exists and I can prove it. (e.g. "We've settled on the possibility that Martians exist, not to establish that they do, in fact, exist.") I am maintaining that there are viable arguments for the existence of god. If I've misunderstood what you meant by "no viable arguments," let me know, but I suspect you're saying "one cannot prove God exists" which is not the same as there being no viable arguments for that existence.

Melchior
Posts: 839
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:20 pm

Re: Ask an atheist..?

Post by Melchior » Mon Feb 02, 2015 5:32 pm

ReliStuPhD wrote:
Lev Muishkin wrote:Each one of these arguments is flawed, and are thus not viable.
Which arguments? You're speaking as if we've settled on a set of arguments. I, at least, have not mentioned any.
Lev Muishkin wrote:What arguments are you talking about? I've never seen any argument for the non-existence of god. . Whilst I have seen all arguments for god, refuted as inadequate.
So you don't know what arguments I've offered are viable? This and the previous quote don't "mesh." Anyway, the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the argument from contingency are two off the top of my head that have yet to be undermined in any meaningful way. (They're certainly dismissed by atheists with regularity, but dismissing something is obviously not the same as showing it not to hold.)

And yes, there are most certainly arguments for the non-existence of God. Tons of them (here are two from PhilosophyNow, in fact). Otherwise, you have nothing to refute the claim that God exists. I get the sense that you're not keeping up with your reading in Philosophy of Religion.
Lev Muishkin wrote:I'm not confusing anything. ... The existence of a thing requires that it be established.
I'm not sure if you've contradicted yourself or we're talking past one another. It seems to me you are definitely confusing arguments for the existence of something and demonstration thereof. To establish the existence of something is not the same as to argue for its possible existence. I can argue for the existence of Martian life even if I cannot establish that it exists. I am not maintaining here that god exists and I can prove it. (e.g. "We've settled on the possibility that Martians exist, not to establish that they do, in fact, exist.") I am maintaining that there are viable arguments for the existence of god. If I've misunderstood what you meant by "no viable arguments," let me know, but I suspect you're saying "one cannot prove God exists" which is not the same as there being no viable arguments for that existence.
No, you are wrong. A 'viable' argument is one that is compelling and sound. All arguments for the existence of God are either circular or otherwise fallacious, as Kant demonstrated in the Critique of Pure Reason in 1781.

User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Ask an atheist..?

Post by Lev Muishkin » Mon Feb 02, 2015 6:04 pm

Melchior wrote:
ReliStuPhD wrote:
Lev Muishkin wrote:Each one of these arguments is flawed, and are thus not viable.
Which arguments? You're speaking as if we've settled on a set of arguments. I, at least, have not mentioned any.
Lev Muishkin wrote:What arguments are you talking about? I've never seen any argument for the non-existence of god. . Whilst I have seen all arguments for god, refuted as inadequate.
So you don't know what arguments I've offered are viable? This and the previous quote don't "mesh." Anyway, the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the argument from contingency are two off the top of my head that have yet to be undermined in any meaningful way. (They're certainly dismissed by atheists with regularity, but dismissing something is obviously not the same as showing it not to hold.)

And yes, there are most certainly arguments for the non-existence of God. Tons of them (here are two from PhilosophyNow, in fact). Otherwise, you have nothing to refute the claim that God exists. I get the sense that you're not keeping up with your reading in Philosophy of Religion.
Lev Muishkin wrote:I'm not confusing anything. ... The existence of a thing requires that it be established.
I'm not sure if you've contradicted yourself or we're talking past one another. It seems to me you are definitely confusing arguments for the existence of something and demonstration thereof. To establish the existence of something is not the same as to argue for its possible existence. I can argue for the existence of Martian life even if I cannot establish that it exists. I am not maintaining here that god exists and I can prove it. (e.g. "We've settled on the possibility that Martians exist, not to establish that they do, in fact, exist.") I am maintaining that there are viable arguments for the existence of god. If I've misunderstood what you meant by "no viable arguments," let me know, but I suspect you're saying "one cannot prove God exists" which is not the same as there being no viable arguments for that existence.
No, you are wrong. A 'viable' argument is one that is compelling and sound. All arguments for the existence of God are either circular or otherwise fallacious, as Kant demonstrated in the Critique of Pure Reason in 1781.
Yes., QED arguments for god being circular, are not viable.
Are you shooting yourself in the foot, or trying to shoot me in the foot?
Either way arguments for God as still unviable.

User avatar
ReliStuPhD
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:28 pm

Re: Ask an atheist..?

Post by ReliStuPhD » Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:50 pm

Melchior wrote:No, you are wrong. A 'viable' argument is one that is compelling and sound. All arguments for the existence of God are either circular or otherwise fallacious, as Kant demonstrated in the Critique of Pure Reason in 1781. [emphasis added]
Philosophy of Religion has come a long way since Kant. If the best you've got is Pure Reason, color me unimpressed, if for no other reason than that it suggests you're unfamiliar with Practical Reason (where Kant advances the so-called "Moral Argument"* for God). You really should catch up on your reading. That, or amend your "All arguments for the existence of God" to read "All speculative arguments for the existence of God" (and then we can get into the work in the past 200 years that challenges that position).

You would also do well to revisit your understanding of viability. The operative definition of something that is "capable of working successfully; feasible" allows for a rather wide range of arguments, and is, thankfully, immune to your particular druthers with regard to compulsion.
Lev Muishkin wrote:No Yes., QED arguments for god being circular, are not viable.
Are you shooting yourself in the foot, or trying to shoot me in the foot?
Either way arguments for God as still unviable.
Where an argument is circular, yes, it is not viable. Absolutely no argument there. The arguments I offered are not circular, however (if you can demonstrate the circularity of the Kalam Cosmological Argument or the Argument from Contingency, you need to stop posting here immediately and get out on the debate circuit. You have untold riches awaiting you). Now, if you find that these arguments are not convincing, that's obviously fine. I think it's reasonable to ask you to show why they're not convincing rather than simply stating an opinion to that effect, but I certainly wouldn't go so far as insist you agree with them. However, in the absence of some clear proof that the arguments do not hold on this or that ground (circularity is not the only way to disprove an argument), they are most certainly "viable." Remember that the viability of an argument is not grounded in whether you like it, or in what your 'gut' might tell you, but in whether you can find a flaw. So far, the Kalam and AfC arguments have not been disproved. I certainly will not hold that it is impossible to do so, but until such time as they are, there is little else one can do but but to at least acknowledge them as viable, even if they are unconvincing. ("viable" != "true")

(PS I am more than happy to work through arguments for why they're not viable if you've got them. As I said, I'm not insisting such a thing is impossible.)

*
Immanuel Kant in [i]The Critique of Practical Reason[/i], 'V. The Existence of God as a Postulate of Pure Practical Reason.' wrote:It follows that the postulate of the possibility of the high- est derived good (the best world) is likewise the postulate of the reality of a highest original good, that is to say, of the existence of God. Now it was seen to be a duty for us to promote the summum bonum; consequently it is not merely allowable, but it is a necessity connected with duty as a requisite, that we should presuppose the possibility of this summum bonum; and as this is possible only on condition of the existence of God, it inseparably connects the supposition of this with duty; that is, it is morally necessary to assume the existence of God.

User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Ask an atheist..?

Post by Lev Muishkin » Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:43 am

ReliStuPhD wrote:
Lev Muishkin wrote:No Yes., QED arguments for god being circular, are not viable.
Are you shooting yourself in the foot, or trying to shoot me in the foot?
Either way arguments for God as still unviable.
Where an argument is circular, yes, it is not viable. Absolutely no argument there. The arguments I offered are not circular, however (if you can demonstrate the circularity of the Kalam Cosmological Argument or the Argument from Contingency, you need to stop posting here immediately and get out on the debate circuit.
None of these arguments point to god.

I take it from your handle that you claim to be a student of RelSt, or are a wanna be PhD student.
If you want to be taken seriously I suggest you sign up for a BA in philosophy at a decent University first. Otherwise you are just going to be a laughing stock.

There are no viable arguments for God. You can list as many as you like, but until you have to guts to argue the points you might as well get off the debate circuit yourself.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests