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, 12:20 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Philosophical help with a Christian debate
#11
RE: Philosophical help with a Christian debate
(September 22, 2013 at 2:12 am)Jiggerj Wrote: This is the problem with fanatics. They have to go so deep into religion in order to try to prove god.

We're talking about an 'all-powerful god' here. If he appeared to people throughout the biblical times (be it a burning bush, angels, miracles, and through Jesus) then he could easily appear to everyone on the planet now.

Because fanatics have to work that hard at proving god, it can only mean one of two things:

1. God doesn't exist, or
2. God doesn't WANT to be found, so they should stop trying to look for him.
There's another possibility-- God is so omnipresent that there's nothing abnormal or special about him/her/it. That divine X-factor is literally the foundation of everything that exists.
Reply
#12
RE: Philosophical help with a Christian debate
I've not properly formulated this in my mind but to me there is something really strange about a theist attempting to prove the existence of God:

God demands faith, faith denies evidence.

In other words there is little or no value assigned to belief in incontrovertible evidence.

For a theist, therefore, to attempt to prove God means, that if they succeed they prove a rather incompetent God which is as bad news for them as it would be for an atheist.

There is a God - but he's not very good at his job?
Reply
#13
RE: Philosophical help with a Christian debate
(September 22, 2013 at 2:26 am)max-greece Wrote: I've not properly formulated this in my mind but to me there is something really strange about a theist attempting to prove the existence of God:

God demands faith, faith denies evidence.

In other words there is little or no value assigned to belief in incontrovertible evidence.

For a theist, therefore, to attempt to prove God means, that if they succeed they prove a rather incompetent God which is as bad news for them as it would be for an atheist.

There is a God - but he's not very good at his job?
I don't think faith in God, in religious terms, really means believing that God exists. That part is taken for granted. The faith part is more the belief that even if the rules suck, and your life sucks, God is up to something very special that makes it all worthwhile.

You are taking God as a hypothesis, to be weighed by evidence. But that rationale doesn't make sense to a properly religious person. They feel something in the air all around them-- something that makes the hairs stand up on their arm-- and they know for sure that only something very special could cause such a special feeling.

Back to the philosophical argument-- I think the solution is simple. Ask your opponent to properly and fully define God. If he does, it should be easy to show that under his definition, God cannot exist (omni-3 problems etc.) If he doesn't, then say you're not in the habit of arguing about things when neither party knows what things you're talking about.
Reply
#14
RE: Philosophical help with a Christian debate
(September 21, 2013 at 9:48 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Back as the 1760's, the famous philosopher Immanuel Kant proposed that our knowledge of the outside world depends on our modes of perception.

It's interesting that you mention that, because Kant used that argument to demonstrate that metaphysics like the arguments in the OP could never be used to ascertain truth.

To the OP, I've only been briefly introduced to the arguments, but both Kant and Hume make good arguments for why the arguments you've been presented are nonsensical.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Reply
#15
RE: Philosophical help with a Christian debate
Kant's deconstruction of metaphysics in general was rather damning for apologetics.
Reply
#16
RE: Philosophical help with a Christian debate
Well, I think some of what he said applies, but I also agree that the "proofs" are not convincing no matter how many times they are repeated. If this forum has taught me anything it is this: atheists can be just as irrational in their denials as Christians can be in their assertions.

What bothers me most about these arguments is the fact that they do not rest in or lead into a more expansive philosophical understanding. They just kinda stop as in, "Okay I proved God, now let's talk about Jesus."

Quote:Firstly that Christian Theism is the only rational and coherent World View in making sense of reality...
Even as a Christian, I don't think so. Spinoza comes to mind.

Quote:...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...
I think he has this backwards, atheism is not the foundation, but rather the conclusion of naturalism. The problem with naturalism (in my view) is not that is leads to atheism per se. Instead, naturalism unnessesarrily restricts what can be included in reality and in doing so fails to address fundamental phenomena (not all of which require theistic support).

Quote:unless a premise is disproved, there is no argument against the conclusion of a deductive argument. That is how a deductive arguments work.
Bite me. For those of you that consider me a pompous ass, I refer you to this condescending statement.
Reply
#17
RE: Philosophical help with a Christian debate
(September 22, 2013 at 2:52 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: If this forum has taught me anything it is this: atheists can be just as irrational in their denials as Christians can be in their assertions.

There is nothing irrational in denying that which there is absolutely no verifiable proof to support its existence.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter
Reply
#18
RE: Philosophical help with a Christian debate
(September 22, 2013 at 8:43 am)Faith No More Wrote:
(September 21, 2013 at 9:48 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Back as the 1760's, the famous philosopher Immanuel Kant proposed that our knowledge of the outside world depends on our modes of perception.

It's interesting that you mention that, because Kant used that argument to demonstrate that metaphysics like the arguments in the OP could never be used to ascertain truth....

Different sentient beings have differing degrees of perception of the outside world. I'm not going to tell someone who has a metaphysical experience that they did NOT perceive anything.

John Locke conceded that you cant argue with or against metaphysics. You can try to keep it separate from other, more easily measured modes of defining reality, but metaphysics is virtually unassailable by our primitive empirical tools of science. (telescope, microscope, durometer, cash register...)

If 500 people claim they saw a miracle, how can science prove they did not? If my dog claims to hear voices which are inaudible to me, or thinks she can see stuff which I cant see (at night) is my dog going insane? Deluded?
Reply
#19
RE: Philosophical help with a Christian debate
(September 22, 2013 at 3:52 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: I'm not going to tell someone who has a metaphysical experience that they did NOT perceive anything.

I would inform them of their delusions without hesitation.

(September 22, 2013 at 3:52 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: If 500 people claim they saw a miracle, how can science prove they did not?

It is not the job of science to inform them they are deluded. Reason should already inform them that they are. If they would rather forgo with reason, then they are deluded and they are not going to allow any amount of logic to infringe upon their fantasies.

(September 22, 2013 at 3:52 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: is my dog going insane? Deluded?

Yes.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter
Reply
#20
RE: Philosophical help with a Christian debate
(September 22, 2013 at 2:52 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:
Quote:unless a premise is disproved, there is no argument against the conclusion of a deductive argument. That is how a deductive arguments work.
Bite me. For those of you that consider me a pompous ass, I refer you to this condescending statement.

What the fuck are you on about, Chad? Please. Explain it to me.


[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Free Will Debate Alan V 82 4177 November 27, 2021 at 7:08 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Video thread for interesting philosophical discussions on YouTube and elsewhere GrandizerII 2 292 August 26, 2020 at 8:43 am
Last Post: GrandizerII
  Debate Invitation John 6IX Breezy 3 661 September 1, 2019 at 2:05 pm
Last Post: John 6IX Breezy
Thumbs Up VOTE HERE: Final four questions for the Christian Debate vulcanlogician 43 4418 May 18, 2018 at 10:23 am
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  1st Call for Christian Only Debate: Our Role on AF Neo-Scholastic 132 16631 May 4, 2018 at 12:11 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Philosophical zombies robvalue 131 15254 March 7, 2018 at 3:58 pm
Last Post: polymath257
  A Philosophical Conundrum BrianSoddingBoru4 11 1730 October 27, 2017 at 9:23 pm
Last Post: ignoramus
  Philosophical zombie. robybar 3 1571 June 8, 2017 at 8:21 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  Philosophical ideas and acting "as though" bennyboy 12 2084 March 31, 2017 at 11:15 am
Last Post: henryp
  The Definitive Post On The Free Will v. Determinism Debate BrianSoddingBoru4 17 3193 September 3, 2016 at 11:20 pm
Last Post: Arkilogue



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)