RE: A good case against God
July 3, 2012 at 9:46 am
(This post was last modified: July 3, 2012 at 9:57 am by Jeffonthenet.)
(July 3, 2012 at 3:51 am)Tempus Wrote: I'm not sure whether you understood the first sentence of my reply. It wasn't intended as an argument; it was, as you correctly identified, a statement.
In this thread, I am looking for a case against God. Cases require evidence and argument.
Tempus Wrote:(July 3, 2012 at 2:59 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: Even if there were no good arguments for God, which I don't think I need to grant given arguments such as the Kalaam Cosmological argument and the Moral Argument (from the existence of objective moral values to God) it would not follow that there is no God.
You're right. If there were no good arguments (or any arguments at all) it wouldn't follow that there are no gods, since arguments don't affect reality. It would follow, however, that there's no good reasons to believe there are gods. Just because there's no good reason to believe X it doesn't mean that X isn't true. Observing this fact doesn't strengthen a case for gods any more than it does for a tooth fairy.
It doesn't follow that if we have no good arguments for God, (which I have not accepted) then there is no good reason to believe God exists. There are no good non-circular arguments for the fact that there is a past or that the external world is real.
Tempus Wrote:By the way, the Kalam and moral arguments suck, frankly. The former is like a child took a five minute crash course in philosophy and came up with it.
Then why are they debated in professional philosophical journals by world class philosophers, some of them atheists, who take them seriously?
To everyone who answered by saying that the burden of proof is on the theist, rather than repeating myself five more times, I would direct you to post #3 where I replied to this point.
