Belief

[Welsh cake]

That's not at all what he said... he was responding to the arguments against God from a Christian theological perspective.

Oh really? Strange. This wouldn't be the first time where I've completely misinterpreted him, either that or just I'm too tired or bored of magic man to debate today...

[Strongbad]

---

I am willing to take it a step further, however, and state that I believe that no god(s) exist. I know that some of you find that to be an irrational claim, but I disagree. I do not claim to have objective knowledge that no god(s) exist ... Belief does not require objective knowledge.

I am one of those who find that to be an irrational claim. Allow me to explain why (for it has nothing to do with knowledge, objective or otherwise).

When you say, "I believe that no deity exists," you are indicating an implicit conclusion to which you have given intellectual assent (belief). However, a conclusion is something arrived at, that is, through a process of reasoning from premises. And what critical scrutiny will demonstrate is that you have given your intellectual assent on the basis of invalid reasoning. As any number of fallacies could have been committed in that process, I cannot specify which one you have committed. But if you spell out the premises which leads to the conclusion "no deity exists," you may realize the logical error without any comment from me. Are you willing to dare a critical evaluation of your belief?

1. "_____________________________________."

2. "_____________________________________."

3. "Therefore, no deity exists."

---

[Captain Scarlet]

If you would like to try, I am willing to show you why that fails to rescue such arguments. At this point I am unable to envision what sort of argument you are thinking of.

? I think the arguments are well trodden and aired, we may take different and competing views of which carry more force. My point is that the so called, defeaters such as the free will defence, do not give a knock out blow to arguments for atheism such as evil and reasonable unbelief (divine hiddenness).

Saying that it is wrong and a problem remains for the theist does not help me see it. Furthermore, there is no such thing as "redefining" free-will; such a statement presupposes a universal and objective definition of free-will from which others deviate and shoulders an enormous burden of proof. I do not redefine free-will; I have a definition that competes with others.
Having said that, I struggle to think of any definition of free-will under which my statement fails. Whether libertarianism, determinism, or compatibilism, my statement holds. Can you show me otherwise? In pursuit of accuracy, my statement again was, "Informing a person of what his choices are and the consequences thereof does not negate his ability to freely choose according to his desires."

I find this a very theoretical rejoinder. Sure if a god was to say "if you take one more step you'll fall over a cliff" does not in any sense undermine free will as it is just "Informing a person of what his choices are and the consequences thereof does not negate his ability to freely choose according to his desires."
Lets stop talking for a second about the philosophical god and talk about the Christian god, who clearly threatens people if they do not do as they are told. What is free about this choice if you a) beleive it and b) you beleive that god can do anything they want to you or others? It is coersion and duress at best and bullying at risk of eternal torture at worst. It is not free will by any common definition I am aware of. Worship is by definition and abondment of your autonomy and ultimately free will.

[tackattack]

Just because you feel duress at the information presented doens't mean it's any more of an act of bullying or coersion, then an informative lesson. Last I recall Arcanus and I are both Christians and I can't speak for him, but I believe that God's intent is not to interfere with free will, but to inform. You obviously have a differing opinion so please site refernece and a framework for your logic.

[Ryft]

1. Humans have developed a vivid imagination.
2. Many fictional characters have been created by human imagination, e.g. leprechauns, fairies, dragons, god(s), etc.
3. Therefore, no deity exists, except in the realm of human imagination.

An argument that assumes gods are products of human imagination in order to conclude that gods are products of human imagination is a viciously circular epic fail.

---

---

My point is that so-called defeaters, such as the free-will defense, do not give a knockout blow to arguments for atheism such as evil and reasonable unbelief (divine hiddenness).

The only arguments for atheism such defeaters knockout are the logical forms thereof, which are intended to demonstrate a contradiction. If there is no logical contradiction, then such arguments are defeated (e.g., if God has a morally sufficient reason for X, then X no longer demonstrates a contradiction and the argument is dead). To maintain the argument, the atheist would have to show that God having a morally sufficient reason for X itself involves a contradiction. The logical Problem of Evil and other such arguments are exercises in futility that since the 70s and 80s (Smith, Mackie, etc.) few atheist philosophers waste time on.

Let's stop talking for a second about the philosophical [concept of] god and talk about the Christian God, who clearly threatens people if they do not do as they are told.

First, the God of Christianity is the only one I contend for in my arguments anyway, regardless of whether others are using generic deity or not. Second, God does not threaten anybody, if 'threat' means an act of coercion (which you indicated as your meaning); it carries the implication of forcing someone against their will into this or that action, which is inapplicable here because God does not force anyone into anything. It is more akin to your cliff analogy, wherein God says, "You can do X, which results in P, or not, which results in Q." You can now make an informed choice, knowing what this or that choice results in. Taking umbrage to some consequence does not equate to the loss of free-will. Third, the very notion of God forcing someone against their will is utterly meaningless (it presupposes a will capable of resisting God, which is question-begging vis-à-vis omnipotence and omniscience).

Worship is by definition an abandonment of your autonomy and ultimately free will.

The abandonment of your autonomy assumes you had it to begin with, which is question-begging vis-à-vis a God who is sovereign over his creation. You can assume what you like, of course, but belief P (God's sovereignty) is not refuted by the mere existence of ~P belief y (human autonomy).

[Welsh cake]

1.If god the creator exists, he is perfect i.e. a state of completeness and flawlessness.

2.A perfect creator god by definition does not want or need to create anything else.

3.Therefore god the creator does not exist.

[Paul the Human]

1. I look at a blank wall and wish a door were there.

2. There is no door.

3. Therefore, god does not exist.

[Welsh cake]

^Good one.

1.God is depicted as an old man who wants to love us.

2.I don't want to be loved by a cosmic perverted senior citizen, I prefer spaghetti.

3.Therefore god does not exist.

XD

1.Christ said Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

2.I can't eat words.

3.Therefore god does not exist.

[Lethe]

Jokey ones now (i.e. not in need of legitimate responses but I can't resist):

1. God is the cake.
2. The cake is a lie.
3. Therefore, God is a lie.

1. The sentence below is true.
2. The sentence above is false.
3. Therefore, there is no God.

And on to the less jokey...

1. In Christianity/Islam/Judaism, humans were made in the image and likeness of the Abrahamic God.
2. Humans do not have an intuitive understanding of the mechanisms through which the universe operates.
3. Therefore, it is illogical to presume that the Abrahamic God is the creator and maintainer of said universe.

1. Yahweh's origins date back to the flood of the Euphrates ca. 2900 BCE, when he was then known by the name Enlil (though he is more often compared to Enki/Ea).
2. Enlil/Yahweh belonged to a pantheon of deities.
3. Therefore, the likelihood of Yahweh/Enlil's existence is equiprobable to the likelihood of the existence of all of the deities belonging to this pantheon.

[lilyannerose]

Lethe' pid='108261' dateline='1291568241'
Jokey ones now (i.e. not in need of legitimate responses but I can't resist):

1. God is the cake.
2. The cake is a lie.
3. Therefore, God is a lie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dgmgub8mHw