Philosophical help with a Christian debate

[paulhe]

I hope I'm posting this in the correct forum, apologies if I am not, first time posting and all that.
After a debate I had with a christian the other day, she was taken my argument and passed it on to someone else to answer it. Basically, this other person has emailed me taking up the christian corner as it were!
When it comes to psychology I'm all there, but philosophy isn't an area I have studied. Basically I'm about to post the email that he sent below, he's banging on about Metaphysucal Naturalism and the like... I'll be honest and admit I don't clearly understand what that is! It just looks to me like its an attempt to bamboozal me with a load of technicality and nonsense and over collude my original premise (which was basically that it was illogical to take the bible as read and believe all the nonsense that was in there). However, I'd actually like to throw and email back at him in response rather saying "I don't know what you're talking about"!!! If I post the email below here, is there anyone philosophically savvy enough who could formulate a coherent and concise response (thus sparing me the time to have to get a degree in philosophy from Cambridge University!).... I look forward (and hope to learn a great deal) from your responses. Many thanks in anticipation...

The email in question:

Conversation started today

14:35
Yochanan יהוה-הוא-אדיב Lilley
Hello Paul
Sorry to just appear out of no where. I was around Lindsay's house the other day and she told me about a conversation you guys were having, and I said to her I would like to address some of the issues of atheism vs Theism that you guys were discussing.
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
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...
Now I am sending you a few deductive arguments I have written showing the rational coherency of Christian Theism as apposed to atheism.
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:
>>>Who made GOD; and the necessity of HIS existence\nature?<<<
Nope.
the-necessity-of-his-existencenature/1401941063360572
>>>C.S. Lewis’ argument from reason against naturalistic atheism...<<<
Nope.
>>>Epistemic argument for GOD; why we can not perceive reality unless GOD exists...<<<
Nope.>>>Argument for GOD from human agency and it's fundamental nature...<<<
Nope.
>>>Darwinian tautology refuted...<<<
Nope.
>>>The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties (In response to R. Dawkins)...<<<
Nope.

[Minimalist]

Like all xtian fools this clown thinks that he can assert his god and start the argument from there.

There is no tangible evidence for any fucking gods. Not his. Not Osiris. Not Zeus. Etc.

When he can produce actual evidence that any god exists we can talk about what attributes he wants to assign to that god.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Ok the something cannot come from nothing argument:

(2) "Premise 1 is false, something can come from nothing".
Answer: There are so many problems with this argument, but I will just present two.
Firstly if something can come from nothing we could not do science or rely on rationality, as we could have cats, pianos, memories, thoughts, people, strange beings, different laws of physics etc all appearing out of no where with no causal reason.

Fact of the matter is, who knows if something can come from nothing or not? As far as I know, we don't know what happened in the universe before Planck time, but we do know that at that moment, laws of physics weren't even what they are today. So can we honestly say we know what is going on at the very beginning of the universe? Don't think so. The premise of nothing comes from nothing is false not because something can come from nothing, but because the statement itself has not been proven to be true at the beginning of the universe.

Secondly, if our universe came from nothing, that means the laws of logic came from nothing. Now that means we could have universes (or anything) appearing into existence that do not obey the laws of logic, and if the laws of logic are not universal they can not be by their very nature true. Which ultimately means we can know nothing, and if that is the case why is the skeptic arguing for a rational World View.

Since you're familiar with psychology, you should know that the human mind is very good at creating order or an illusion of order in the midst of chaos. Logic is manmade. In a different universe than this, I would expect intelligent lifeforms to evolve brains that could decipher that universe, but to us it'd look utterly illogical.

Logic only works because our universe works in a certain way and we have understood it sufficiently to have a working model of logic. If something violates that, then perhaps it's time to revisit our model, not cry in a corner and declare we can know nothing.[/quote]

[MindForgedManacle]

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.

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.

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.

[genkaus]

I hope I'm posting this in the correct forum, apologies if I am not, first time posting and all that.
After a debate I had with a christian the other day, she was taken my argument and passed it on to someone else to answer it. Basically, this other person has emailed me taking up the christian corner as it were!
When it comes to psychology I'm all there, but philosophy isn't an area I have studied. Basically I'm about to post the email that he sent below, he's banging on about Metaphysucal Naturalism and the like... I'll be honest and admit I don't clearly understand what that is! It just looks to me like its an attempt to bamboozal me with a load of technicality and nonsense and over collude my original premise (which was basically that it was illogical to take the bible as read and believe all the nonsense that was in there). However, I'd actually like to throw and email back at him in response rather saying "I don't know what you're talking about"!!! If I post the email below here, is there anyone philosophically savvy enough who could formulate a coherent and concise response (thus sparing me the time to have to get a degree in philosophy from Cambridge University!).... I look forward (and hope to learn a great deal) from your responses. Many thanks in anticipation...

There are few things more annoying than a religious apologist who uses pseudo-philosophical babble and long winded sentences to present their case. Ultimately, they are not saying anything new and what they are saying has already been refuted many times over - but unfortunately for us, we still have to go through all that bullshit over and over again.

You can quote me in your response.

The email in question:

Conversation started today

14:35
Yochanan יהוה-הוא-אדיב Lilley
Hello Paul
Sorry to just appear out of no where. I was around Lindsay's house the other day and she told me about a conversation you guys were having, and I said to her I would like to address some of the issues of atheism vs Theism that you guys were discussing.
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

That's because atheism does not require any positive arguments.

If I may I will just state that In my studies of philosophy I have realised two things.

By the looks of your arguments - you didn't study philosophy. You studied apologist bullshit.

Firstly that Christian Theism is the only rational and coherent World View in making sense of reality,

Hah - what a joke. Christian theism is one of the most nonsensical, incoherent and irrational worldviews out there.

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...

Thus proving that you have not actually studied philosophy - only apologist bullshit.

Now I am sending you a few deductive arguments I have written showing the rational coherency of Christian Theism as apposed to atheism.

You do realize that deductively valid arguments from illogical premises do not establish rational coherency right? Wait, what am I thinking - ofcourse you don't.

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...

Actually, how it really works is you have to prove the premise first. We don't have to disprove it. And if you fail to prove it, the argument is to be rejected.

These are a few of the argument:
>>>Who made GOD; and the necessity of HIS existence\nature?<<<
https://www.facebook.com/notes/atheist-a...1063360572

The skeptics' question does not rest on any premise - it questions your given premise that "everything must have a cause".
Skeptics also don't assume universe to be finite.
We also don't agree that logic, math or science demands that it be finite.
The nature of universe dictates it be finite only if it exists in a temporal context. However, since the temporal context is within the universe, that argument is no longer valid. Nor is the usage of thermodynamics - which has been refuted already.
Something can come from nothing does not mean anything can come from nothing. So, even if universe did come from nothing - which no one is saying it did - it still wouldn't mean that anything can appear out of nothing.
Further, we know that the universe is not spatio-temporally bound - quite the reverse, in fact - and with that the rest of the blather about "supernatural cause" falls apart.

Even if - and this is stretching rationality to the extreme - the universe were spatio-temporally bound and did have a cause - all the other assumptions about the cause are deductively invalid. It need not be bound by any metaphysical laws nor it need be rational.

>>>C.S. Lewis’ argument from reason against naturalistic atheism...<<<
https://www.facebook.com/notes/atheist-a...1529745192

The ignorance of naturalistic philosophies is simply astounding.

Premises 2.2 and 2.3 are incorrect.

I'm getting a bit bored going through the rest of the crap. So I'll reply to the rest later.

[Clueless Morgan]

I hope I'm posting this in the correct forum, apologies if I am not, first time posting and all that.
After a debate I had with a christian the other day, she was taken my argument and passed it on to someone else to answer it. Basically, this other person has emailed me taking up the christian corner as it were!

Personally, if it were me, I'd take issue with the Christian you were originally debating who seems to have set this dog on you and, even more egregious to me, she gave your email address to a complete stranger without your consent - but that may just be me. (Do you know the Christian personally? Or this philosopher apologist? Did she ask you if she could give your email address out or was this email a surprise to you?) If she can't hold up her side of the debate and has to pass the buck on to someone else than, in my opinion, you're under no obligation to give this new guy the time of day.

Unless you want to, of course.

I assume by your choice to share this email with the forum that you are planning on replying to this person?

There's no shame in asking the advice of someone with more knowledge than you in that subject (on either side of the debate), but if you enter into a debate with someone than it's my opinion that each party has assumed the obligation to make their own arguments and understand the arguments they are making, not just parroting what other smart people are saying or hand the debate off to an expert in order to win by proxy. Please don't take me wrong, I'm not trying to denigrate anyone in these forums who replies with arguments or advice, but, Paulhe, take the time to do the homework and understand why the arguments the AF members here are making are good ones and why the holes they are pointing out in this guy's arguments are valid.

It's always a positive thing to learn so take this opportunity and run with it.

[Lion IRC]

paulhe wrote : "...When it comes to psychology I'm all there, but philosophy isn't an area I have studied."

Philosophy of science.
"The philosophy of science is concerned with all the assumptions, foundations, methods, implications of science, and with the use and merit of science."

Epistemology.
"Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge and is also referred to as "theory of knowledge"."

Back as the 1760's, the famous philosopher Immanuel Kant proposed that our knowledge of the outside world depends on our modes of perception.

[max-greece]

Way too long to read properly so I just scanned through them. There's nothing new here - not surprising as most of these arguments are over 50 years old.

Just as a shorthand:

Physics

Anything that cites cause and effect is attempting to apply our reality down here on earth to either pre-universe or big bang conditions. Can't be done. Just a cursory look at what is going on in string theory or Quantum physics shows all of our common sense is all but useless (so you may well be able to get something from nothing for example).

For example I will now disprove Einstein:

When I peddle my bicycle I move forwards. The harder I pedal the fast I go. With sufficient gearing and strong enough legs I could, in theory, pedal my bicycle up to just below the speed of light. A bit more effort then and I exceed the speed of light and Einstein was wrong. Tada!

Morality

The - there must be a perfect morality to compare to argument again fails. Either there simply doesn't have to be and we can make relative judgements (with reference to the history of morality) or we need to be able to imagine perfect morality even if it doesn't exist. I am a fan of the former although there is utility in the latter.

Everything else

Can't remember - the links have gone.

[bennyboy]

Philosophy with religious people is like baseball with Jello bats.

[Jiggerj]

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.