Atheism Destroyed in Under 50 Seconds

[CliveStaples]

So I'm acting on a belief, which I lack and deny the existence of a god that I don't believe exists?

Oookk.........

Whatever floats your boat.

Well, think of it. Pragmatism says that the only beliefs that really matter are the ones that influence your actions, and that conversely your actions determine what your beliefs are. So a Pragmatist doesn't care about beliefs that don't influence actions. Thus, there is no Pragmatist distinction between two people who act in precisely the same manner in the same circumstances.

Alright, I state that it doesn't demonstrate the existence of god seeing as that argument can be applied to anything. Replace 'god' with any fictional character and it'll be as likely a non-explanation as 'god'. Now I'm actually expecting a theist to give reasons as to why and how it demonstrates that a god does exist. Got any?

But that's not true. Replace 'god' with a fictional character that's incapable of creating the universe, and the explanation no longer works. The character can't be material, otherwise he couldn't precede the universe, right?

I think your approach has some merit--the idea of finding equally-plausible explanatory alternatives to god--but I think you need to think it through more, tighten it up and make it more rigorous.

It'll raise questions and eyebrows but it wouldn't prove the existence of god (or your xtian god). I'd still keep to the don't know answer.

Really? So if the very best explanation is that God exists, and no other deity exists, and every other explanation is incredibly unlikely, you'd still refuse to accept that God probably exists?

Do you do this with any other explanatory entity? Like, if you saw a guy fall from the sky who could leap tall buildings in a single bound, could shoot heat beams from his eyes, and could run faster than a speeding bullet, and said he was from Krypton, that his name is Kal-El, and provided a sample of Kryptonite, and then flew you to the ruins of his planet, you'd refuse to believe that Superman exists?

That's actually a good analogy, because in that case, the best available explanation is that Superman exists, but would you really say, "Nah, I really don't know if Superman exists. I might just be hallucinating! Maybe I'm just a brain in a vat!"

It's a standard to first demonstrate that pixies (or in your case 'god') exists before it can be used to explain anything. It's a basic principle.

Um, no, it's not. What things are assumed and what must be shown depends on the audience of your proof. A mathematician writing in an academic journal might not bother to prove that the real numbers form an integral domain, even if that fact was necessary for a proof he wrote, because it would be 'common knowledge'.

---

What is the value of pragmatism to you as it applies to those who believe in gods other than the one in which you believe? If no sharp delineation exists, what criteria obtain by means of which you can assess the value of any god or gods other than your own?

I think that Pragmatism is an interesting philosophy. I don't know how convinced I am that it is the best way to understand the world.

A pragmatist would evaluate religious beliefs not by asking which ones are true, but by asking which ones produce the best results in living one's life. If living your life according to a set of beliefs B makes your life worse than living your life according to a set of beliefs B', then you should live according to B'.

That's according to Pragmatism, or at least my understanding of it. I'm a bit more Platonic/Existential than all that--I think I'd be more interested in having true beliefs, even if they made my life miserable and made me an asshole.