Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 4:32 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How does one respond to this argument?It's long but an interesting read. Thanks :)
#21
RE: How does one respond to this argument?It's long but an interesting read. Thanks :)
Let me say this: a God which can only be argued for with logical or philosophical ideas, and not by evidence, is irrelevant. It is not interacting with Mankind since any interaction of sufficient import should provide sufficient evidence of existence.
Reply
#22
RE: How does one respond to this argument?It's long but an interesting read. Thanks :)
I agree with that.

If "god" is being argued for as an abstract idea only, it is no more real than any other concept, and there's no guarantee it maps to anything that actually exists or has an effect.

This is again why this kind of garbage never produces anything meaningful or useful.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#23
RE: How does one respond to this argument?It's long but an interesting read. Thanks :)
(May 17, 2016 at 4:58 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote: Also[the] no scientific method isn't the only way to gain knowledge but it is the only way to ascertain and validate said knowledge against our observable reality.

Do you have a scientific study or physical evidence to prove that the scientific method is the only way to validate knowledge beliefs? (knowledge is belief that has already been justified as true)


(May 18, 2016 at 6:26 am)bennyboy Wrote: Let me say this: a God which can only be argued for with logical or philosophical ideas, and not by evidence, is irrelevant. It is not interacting with Mankind since any interaction of sufficient import should provide sufficient evidence of existence.

The so-called God of the Philosophers is indeed rather pale. But it is something and the implications are surprisingly far reaching when discussing metaphysical questions such as those you are fond of raising.

(May 18, 2016 at 6:53 am)robvalue Wrote: If "god" is being argued for as an abstract idea only, it is no more real than any other concept…
&
(May 18, 2016 at 4:39 am)robvalue Wrote: Words are not as accurate as mathematical symbols…it's vitally important to negotiate the language, definitions and claims as much as anything else.

When you use terms like “abstract ideas” it suggests that you do not have a fully developed nomenclature, one such as that used by the Schoolmen, that clearly distinguishes between abstractions, ideas, and concepts. In modern usage the meanings of those words often overlap so some confusion is to be expected. Before being so dismissive of theological arguments, you would be best advised to confirm that you fully grasp how the words are used in context. Another example would be a word like substance. In antiquity and medieval philosophy the word meant something quite different since Descartes.

(May 18, 2016 at 4:39 am)robvalue Wrote: …when someone is using arguments in place of evidence, they haven't even established its existence. See my video:

You should reconsider your ceaseless self-promotion of that video. It truly misses the point. Demonstrations intended to show the existence of God are based on experiences common to all people by means of the senses. The evidence under consideration is not any one particular thing or class of things; but rather, the universal features of reality as a whole and all things within it. They do not concern specific beings; but rather, being as such.

(May 18, 2016 at 4:39 am)robvalue Wrote: …To begin with: what's a god? How do you differentiate between a god and a non-God? No theist has ever given me a coherent answer to this. The discussion seems kind of pointless if I don't even know what they are arguing for.

From the very beginning of the Christian Church believers have known that the fullness of God is incomprehensible to Man. Anslem gave the best definition of God: that which the greater than which cannot be conceived. Even though God cannot be fully comprehended that does not prevent people from knowing some things about Him, particularly like what He is not, such as limited or contingent.

(May 18, 2016 at 4:39 am)robvalue Wrote: Secondly: when you've finished telling me what it is, if we ever get that far, why should I care?

Well, at the very least you could more precisely target your critiques. Maybe then people like me would take them more seriously.
Reply
#24
RE: How does one respond to this argument?It's long but an interesting read. Thanks :)
My brain hasn't been on top form today, but I'll try and address more of the actual arguments the guy made soon.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#25
RE: How does one respond to this argument?It's long but an interesting read. Thanks :)
You should if you feel that people like me could in any way be swayed by your videos. Otherwise they are just an expression of your own vanity.
Reply
#26
RE: How does one respond to this argument?It's long but an interesting read. Thanks :)
I edited out my comment, it was unnecessary.

No, I have no hope of convincing "people like you" of anything, ever. I'm speaking to the wider audience.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#27
RE: How does one respond to this argument?It's long but an interesting read. Thanks :)
Many people find my videos very useful. I know you don't, but I'm not sure what you want me to do about that. I thought we'd agreed to disagree when it comes to debates. You think my approach is flawed, and I think yours is flawed. So I'll leave it up to the reader to decide who is more convincing.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#28
RE: How does one respond to this argument?It's long but an interesting read. Thanks :)
(May 18, 2016 at 12:18 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The so-called God of the Philosophers is indeed rather pale. But it is something and the implications are surprisingly far reaching when discussing metaphysical questions such as those you are fond of raising.
Oh, no doubt. I see the hard problem of mind quite compatible with some ideas about Deism, for example, and one might even choose to define an Idealistic universe as a kind of Mind of God.

However, when I'm asked to start investing my Sundays in an activity, I'd better see some real returns on my investment, because I have dogs to walk, porn to watch, and important naps to take.
Reply
#29
RE: How does one respond to this argument?It's long but an interesting read. Thanks :)
(May 18, 2016 at 4:39 am)robvalue Wrote: Before I dive into it wholesale, I'll make these comments:

Words are not as accurate as mathematical symbols. We don't always express precise meaning, as much as we intend to. There are all sorts of implications and concessions that we would assume the other person is aware of. So it's vitally important to negotiate the language, definitions and claims as much as anything else.

So it would be my way of stating it that, "It is reasonable to hold the belief that there is no such thing as gods." This isn't a statement of absolute truth, it's a probabilistic assessment of reality. I would assume this is what people mean when they say "there are no gods". I personally advise against making such statements of certainty, except in abstract systems where logic is absolute.

This stops the theist trying to raze the ground, to reduce everything to "you can't know anything for sure so I can dismiss what you're saying".

To begin with: what's a god? How do you differentiate between a god and a non-God? No theist has ever given me a coherent answer to this. The discussion seems kind of pointless if I don't even know what they are arguing for.

Secondly: when you've finished telling me what it is, if we ever get that far, why should I care? I've had answers, but they are generally either "isn't it interesting" (sure, if we could actually investigate it) or "obey or else" (mugging). Of course it would be interesting to investigate. But when someone is using arguments in place of evidence, they haven't even established its existence. See my video:

https://youtu.be/inw1fNItjdU
As I said in the PM:
Yea Rob I read that post and the video I watched.. got the basics of my position perfectly and very easily understandable. A very shit thing happened to me yesterday when I was packing up to go home from work.. I fecking dropped me laptop on the side of my desk and dented it and the HD drive needs to be either repaired or replaced. It will take around 2-5 working days. I actually was just about finishing writing a very well thought out reply of that post with around 4-5 patagraphs just reiterating and building upon what you have said and the numpty that I am, I didn't save it as a deaft so that is lost. I am at the moment witout my macbook pro and currently on my brothers windows. I am not giving up by a long shot just going to be a few days until my laptop is fixed. So sorry for the delay but I wouldn't mind going into a bit more detail and try to bring what we have just said into context of what he said. Hope that is ok.. at least we have the basis of our standpoint understood. and now we have a few days to think about it a bit more. ha I have a few ideas of my own and I will rewrite as frustrating as it is, I will try and rewrite what I have wrote. I wouldn't mind taking a day or so off as I am fuming with the situation at the moment. ha
Reply
#30
RE: How does one respond to this argument?It's long but an interesting read. Thanks :)
No problem at all! Of course. Never any hurry on here, I'll always be around!

Don't let it stress you out, you look after yourself and good luck with sorting out your equipment.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Good read on consciousness Apollo 41 2406 January 12, 2021 at 4:04 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Video thread for interesting philosophical discussions on YouTube and elsewhere GrandizerII 2 293 August 26, 2020 at 8:43 am
Last Post: GrandizerII
  Does one need to go through traumatic experience to truly appreciate living? Aegon 27 3055 May 14, 2018 at 8:34 pm
Last Post: The Valkyrie
  Why the vision argument is a very good one! Mystic 72 7553 April 22, 2018 at 12:11 am
Last Post: ignoramus
  (LONG) "I Don't Know" as a Good Answer in Ethics vulcanlogician 69 8394 November 27, 2017 at 1:10 am
Last Post: vulcanlogician
  A good argument for God's existence (long but worth it) Mystic 179 32473 October 26, 2017 at 1:51 pm
Last Post: Crossless2.0
  Interesting Study Minimalist 2 452 October 24, 2017 at 5:07 am
Last Post: WinterHold
  Very short version of the long argument. Mystic 68 10503 September 18, 2017 at 9:38 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Why Does No One Change the Incorrect Relationship Narrative? InquiringMind 55 6423 October 7, 2016 at 1:31 am
Last Post: InquiringMind
  Interesting statistics about academic philosophy Mudhammam 35 6499 September 18, 2015 at 10:24 am
Last Post: robvalue



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)