Is the Critique of Islam Islamophobic?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9526
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: my deism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:35 am I have presented arguments that are supported by facts, knowledge, rationality and philosophical consideration.
Not at all. You asked for evidence of empirical and logical arguments for the existence of God, then refused actually to read any of them.

Your "interest", then, was obviously, in that case anyway, not sincere. So there's not a next step if you're not open to new information.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4861
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: my deism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:42 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:35 am I have presented arguments that are supported by facts, knowledge, rationality and philosophical consideration.
Not at all. You asked for evidence of empirical and logical arguments for the existence of God, then refused actually to read any of them.

Your "interest", then, was obviously, in that case anyway, not sincere. So there's not a next step if you're not open to new information.
Kant has demonstrated it is impossible to argue logically for existence of God, including the ontological, cosmological and whatever the logical argument.

I did not read from the summary, the book included any direct empirical argument for God's existence.
Direct empirical evidence mean "direct" not indirect as in the Cosmological Argument.
Example to prove the existence of any empirical objects or entity, e.g. a dog, one will bring an empirical dog for testing that the dog exists as real and anyone who want to repeat the test can do it to arrive at the same conclusion.

Note the Cosmological Argument inferred God existence from empirical objects and things. Kant has argued, it is impossible for the Cosmological Argument to prove the existence of God as real.
  • Section 5. The Impossibility of a Cosmological Proof of the Existence of God pg 507
    Critique of Pure Reason, Part II, Section II, Book II, Chapter 3;
Your ultimate step is to show direct empirical evidence God exists.
Even IF one can show an empirical God, ultimately no theists will settle for an empirical God, because an empirical God is never perfect and unconditional.

I am confident there is 99.9999% theists will NOT be able to provide any direct empirical proof God exists.

The only explanation for God exists is purely psychological, i.e. it is all in the brain and mind of theists to soothe the pains and sufferings of an internal existential crisis.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9526
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: my deism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:43 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:42 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:35 am I have presented arguments that are supported by facts, knowledge, rationality and philosophical consideration.
Not at all. You asked for evidence of empirical and logical arguments for the existence of God, then refused actually to read any of them.

Your "interest", then, was obviously, in that case anyway, not sincere. So there's not a next step if you're not open to new information.
I am confident there is 99.9999% theists will be able to provide any direct empirical proof God exists.
Yes, yes, you are. You are very confident. Very, very confident indeed.
The only explanation for God exists is purely psychological, i.e. it is all in the brain and mind of theists to soothe the pains and sufferings of an internal existential crisis.
This is another claim for which you are uninterested in any refutation at all. Several of us have pointed out what's wrong with this assumption, but nothing seems to make a dent in that confidence of yours.

But confidence can be warranted or unwarranted. You'll have to decide which kind you've got. But when someone asks for the evidence, then refuses it when it is offered, then we all know what kind it is.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4861
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: my deism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:43 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:42 pm
Not at all. You asked for evidence of empirical and logical arguments for the existence of God, then refused actually to read any of them.

Your "interest", then, was obviously, in that case anyway, not sincere. So there's not a next step if you're not open to new information.
I am confident there is 99.9999% theists will be able to provide any direct empirical proof God exists.
Yes, yes, you are. You are very confident. Very, very confident indeed.
Note edited my above in its context;

I am confident 99.9999% theists will NOT be able to provide any direct empirical proof God exists.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9526
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: my deism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:52 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:43 am
I am confident there is 99.9999% theists will be able to provide any direct empirical proof God exists.
Yes, yes, you are. You are very confident. Very, very confident indeed.
Note edited my above in its context;

I am confident 99.9999% theists will NOT be able to provide any direct empirical proof God exists.
I got what you were trying to say. My response is the same.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4861
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: my deism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:43 am The only explanation for God exists is purely psychological, i.e. it is all in the brain and mind of theists to soothe the pains and sufferings of an internal existential crisis.
This is another claim for which you are uninterested in any refutation at all. Several of us have pointed out what's wrong with this assumption, but nothing seems to make a dent in that confidence of yours.
I agree there were refutation for various posters and I have re-countered them. Making unjustified noises is not justified refutations.

Show me one outstanding refutation that I have not countered successfully?
But confidence can be warranted or unwarranted. You'll have to decide which kind you've got. But when someone asks for the evidence, then refuses it when it is offered, then we all know what kind it is.
What evidence have you provided?
Throwing a book at someone is not proper evidence.
I have refuted the book you mentioned in general.
If there is any specific argument I have missed, you can direct me to it and provide a summary of the argument.

If the above is your approach I can throw 1000s of books at you and make my claim based upon them. That would be intellectually dishonest.

I stood on Kant's shoulders with the Critique of Pure Reason and I have provided explanations to how and what Kant argued [quotes provided].
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9526
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: my deism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:04 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:43 am The only explanation for God exists is purely psychological, i.e. it is all in the brain and mind of theists to soothe the pains and sufferings of an internal existential crisis.
This is another claim for which you are uninterested in any refutation at all. Several of us have pointed out what's wrong with this assumption, but nothing seems to make a dent in that confidence of yours.
I agree there were refutation for various posters and I have re-countered them.
No, you just failed to understand the points they were making. That's not the same as countering them.

For example, I showed you very clearly that you "syllogisms" were not even syllogisms, and were not, according to the basic rules of deductive logic, even valid or sound. But you didn't even understand what I was pointing out, let alone deal with it.

And Henry pointed out that every one of your premises was merely redundant with all the rest. He was quite right about that.

And there were plenty more examples. But you just kept repeating the same old dull and prejudicial assumptions, as if that would convert them into facts. But it won't.
Throwing a book at someone is not proper evidence.
"Throwing"? :D Nothing was "thrown," I assure you. I have not discovered the trick of projectile motion through website yet.

The book to which I rightly directed your attention in response to your request was exactly what you were asking for. I gave you the respect of sending you to possibly the best source you could find...certainly one of them...dealing with several of the major scholarly, Theistic arguments from Natural Theology. And for my part, I've read it, in its entirety; so I've done my share.

But you didn't even bother to read a single chapter for yourself, to find out if there was anything there. You just dismissed it without reading anything. So there's no more to say about that. Your professed "interest" in the answer is not sincere, obviously. And even the best sources will not make a dent in your "confidence."
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4861
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: my deism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:04 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:49 am
This is another claim for which you are uninterested in any refutation at all. Several of us have pointed out what's wrong with this assumption, but nothing seems to make a dent in that confidence of yours.
I agree there were refutation for various posters and I have re-countered them.
No, you just failed to understand the points they were making. That's not the same as countering them.

For example, I showed you very clearly that you "syllogisms" were not even syllogisms, and were not, according to the basic rules of deductive logic, even valid or sound. But you didn't even understand what I was pointing out, let alone deal with it.
The basic format [among others] of a syllogism is this;
  • A is B
    C is A
    Therefore C is B.
I have followed the above format.
The only questions you raised are merely the phrases within the premises which can easily be corrected and understood. I have agreed with you to change some of the terms but that is only with you, but others will agree with it.
And Henry pointed out that every one of your premises was merely redundant with all the rest. He was quite right about that.
Nah.
I have re-countered every of his counters.
I would not have left any refutation open.
If you think there is any, show me.
And there were plenty more examples. But you just kept repeating the same old dull and prejudicial assumptions, as if that would convert them into facts. But it won't.
Be specific.
Throwing a book at someone is not proper evidence.
"Throwing"? :D Nothing was "thrown," I assure you. I have not discovered the trick of projectile motion through website yet.

The book to which I rightly directed your attention in response to your request was exactly what you were asking for. I gave you the respect of sending you to possibly the best source you could find...certainly one of them...dealing with several of the major scholarly, Theistic arguments from Natural Theology. And for my part, I've read it, in its entirety; so I've done my share.

But you didn't even bother to read a single chapter for yourself, to find out if there was anything there. You just dismissed it without reading anything. So there's no more to say about that. Your professed "interest" in the answer is not sincere, obviously. And even the best sources will not make a dent in your "confidence."
It is toothless 'throwing' a book or books at someone in a discussion/debate.
The onus on you to explain and direct me to the specific argument[s] you think is your best bet.
You should at least present a summary of the points.

I have taken the trouble to find out what the whole book is about, i.e. it is all about various arguments for God's existence from various authors.
On that I have provided my counter to the above context.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4861
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is the Critique of Islam Islamophobic?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

'Throwing' a book at me is intellectual cowardice.
You should at least give a summary and present your best bet from the book.

Since you are so incompetent and adamant, I downloaded the book.

What is the book all about?
In the Introduction, Craig wrote;
In this volume, we bring together some of the foremost practitioners of natural theology writing today and give them the opportunity to develop their arguments at length and to interact with the arguments’ critics.
The resulting volume is a compendium of theistic arguments on the cutting edge of philosophical discussion.
page X
You did not bother to inform but the above is what the reviewer stated, i.e. the whole book is ALL about the theistic arguments for God's existence.
Since the whole book is ALL about the argument for God's existence I have countered re Kant, it is impossible to prove the existence of God via logical argument.

The Contents of the Book is all about Arguments; logical argument, based directly on logical argument, moral, evil and experience;
  • 1The project of natural theology 1
    Charles Taliaferro
    2 The Leibnizian cosmological argument 24
    Alexander R. Pruss
    3 The kalam cosmological argument 101
    William Lane Craig and James D. Sinclair
    4 The teleological argument: an exploration of the fine-tuning of
    the universe
    202
    Robin Collins
    5 The argument from consciousness 282
    J. P. Moreland
    6 The argument from reason 344
    Victor Reppert
    7 The moral argument 391
    Mark D. Linville
    8 The argument from evil 449
    Stewart Goetz
    9 The argument from religious experience 498
    Kai-Man Kwan
    10 The ontological argument 553
    Robert E. Maydole
    11 The argument from miracles: a cumulative case for the resurrection
    of Jesus of Nazareth 593
    Timothy McGrew and Lydia McGrew
The majority of the above argument are based on logical/reasoning arguments. I have argued they are impossible to prove God's existence as real empirically and philosophically.

The others bolded are based on the basis of evil, experience, miracles, fine-tuning, are empirically based. I have countered it is impossible for the ultimate God to be empirical [conditional] since God must be unconditional.

The other is based on morality which is logical and necessary for the theistic moral framework. However it does not prove God exists as real empirically and philosophically.

Note there are tons of books countering the above arguments.
It is not difficult for me to 'throw' these books at you.

Note my argument, the question of God is moot, i.e. a non-starter.
The question of God is more realistic from the psychological perspective.
God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9266
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

VA

Post by henry quirk »

"I have re-countered every of his counters."

No sir, you dd not.

Again: your initial assertion was that an existential death fear undergirds all human action. In particular: death fear undergirds belief in a god. You did not prove your assertion. In fact, you offered not a jot of evidence to support your assertion. In truth, you just moved the goal posts around (refining your assertions to sidestep criticism but never actually proving a thing).

Now, you can claim your (hollow) victory if you like, but no one is lining up to acknowledge it.

The cheese stands alone (not a bad thing in itself...not particularly appealing, however, when the cheese stands on quicksand).

'nuff said.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9526
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: my deism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:40 am It is toothless 'throwing' a book or books at someone in a discussion/debate.
Well, I've seen your handling of the warranted philosophical critiques of others against your theory. I've seen you both ask for evidence of empirical arguments for Theism, then refuse to read any when I indicated to you some of the best. You'll have to forgive me, but I no longer have any confidence in your declarations of wanting to know anything about this subject. Actions do, after all, speak louder than words.

But as I said earlier, you have the right to make up you mind by any means you wish. Nobody can compel you to be factual, logical, rational or even to remain interested in what you have asked to receive.

But I don't see a next step here.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4861
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: VA

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:21 pm "I have re-countered every of his counters."

No sir, you dd not.

Again: your initial assertion was that an existential death fear undergirds all human action. In particular: death fear undergirds belief in a god. You did not prove your assertion. In fact, you offered not a jot of evidence to support your assertion. In truth, you just moved the goal posts around (refining your assertions to sidestep criticism but never actually proving a thing).

Now, you can claim your (hollow) victory if you like, but no one is lining up to acknowledge it.

The cheese stands alone (not a bad thing in itself...not particularly appealing, however, when the cheese stands on quicksand).

'nuff said.
I did not state
"an existential death fear undergirds all human action."
I stated the subconscious fear of death undergirds theism, the belief in a god.
You did not prove your assertion. In fact, you offered not a jot of evidence to support your assertion. In truth, you just moved the goal posts around (refining your assertions to sidestep criticism but never actually proving a thing).
You are making noise and complaining but without justifications.

In addition to countering your counter-views I have raised two specific threads to substantiate my thesis with details as follows;

The Subconscious Fear of Death - the Root of Theism
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27757

Subconscious Fear of Death - the Root of Religions
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27804
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4861
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: my deism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:52 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:40 am It is toothless 'throwing' a book or books at someone in a discussion/debate.
Well, I've seen your handling of the warranted philosophical critiques of others against your theory. I've seen you both ask for evidence of empirical arguments for Theism, then refuse to read any when I indicated to you some of the best. You'll have to forgive me, but I no longer have any confidence in your declarations of wanting to know anything about this subject. Actions do, after all, speak louder than words.

But as I said earlier, you have the right to make up you mind by any means you wish. Nobody can compel you to be factual, logical, rational or even to remain interested in what you have asked to receive.

But I don't see a next step here.
Your 'best'??
There are tons of counter-arguments against the argument presented in the book.
There is no new approach in that book.
What you think is the best are full of holes.

It is your discretion to continue the discussion if you are unable to counter my arguments directly, but don't give silly excuses like the above without any points in justifying the book you 'threw' at me.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9526
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: my deism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Nov 12, 2019 4:16 am Your 'best'??
No. The best. But you'll never know.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9266
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"You are making noise and complaining but without justifications."

Post by henry quirk »

No, I'm just pointing out the cheese stands alone, on quicksand.

As you like.
Post Reply