RE: Philosophical help with a Christian debate
September 21, 2013 at 2:06 pm
(This post was last modified: September 21, 2013 at 2:13 pm by MindForgedManacle.)
(September 21, 2013 at 11:19 am)paulhe Wrote: The email in question:
[...]
As far I could see you had not made any positive arguments for atheism really, which we can address later if you wish to converse
Stop him here. It matters not whether or not you necessarily have formalized arguments because critiquing theistic arguments is all that's being done.
Quote:If I may I will just state that In my studies of philosophy I have realised two things.
Firstly that Christian Theism is the only rational and coherent World View in making sense of reality, and secondly I have particularly found the World Views which atheism has as its foundation (i.e Metaphysical Naturalism, Materialism and Physicalism) as totally incoherent and irrational in making sense of reality...
Such a claim that he discovered this through philosophy is so hilarious I'd almost say he's lying. Nor is Christian theism widely thought to be coherent in philosophy.
While it is true that most atheists do align with metaphysical naturalism, there is no necessity (i.e there are Buddhist atheists who are not metaphysical naturalists). As for materialism and physicalism, atheism has no intrinsic tie to them either. Hence why even though most philosophers are atheists (73%), only like 25% of philosophers (I think) are physicalists.
Quote:In a deductive argument if the premises are true the conclusion (logically) has to be true (as long the argument is valid).
So unless a premise is disproved, there is no argument against the conclusion of a deductive argument.
That is how a deductive arguments work. So if you disagree with the argument, please address which premise you disagree with and why...
These are a few of the argument:
Could you post those arguments here on the forums? If they include the moral argument and other standard apologetics arguments, it'll be fairly easy to deal with.
It should be noted to your supposedly nothing 'obeys' the laws of logic, like the laws of identity and noncontradiction. All those 'laws' are. are self-attesting axioms are are always necessary for language and thought. You cannot have a coherent thought or communication without them.
Even stating them to be false must necessarily assume them to be true first, then deny them. That's the purist form of a self-defeating argument.
