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, 10:25 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
(March 15, 2022 at 2:27 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: If he were to negate injustice altogether at all times, this would jeopardize the free will of moral agents.
Allowing rape to occur is part of allowing moral agents to exercize their free will.
If you would walk across the street, and you would see a rape happening. What would you do (or not do)? Popcorn
Cetero censeo religionem delendam esse
Reply
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
Damn those immoral fucks who stop a rapist! Don't they know they're infringing on his free will?

The problem isn't just that this is the upside down, it's that it's not true on it's own terms. A rapist prevented from raping someone has still freely willed and physically tried, to rape someone. Nobody got in the way of the freely willing, just the raping.

My question. Does islam does this to people, or are they just born this way?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
@Klorophyll

Quote:If he [God] were to negate injustice altogether at all times, this would jeopardize the free will of moral agents.

Nonsense. If God is able create people with free will, he could have chosen to create only people who, through their own free will and without coercion of any kind, would freely choose not to commit injustice.

Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
Reply
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
Quote:If he [God] were to negate injustice altogether at all times, this would jeopardize the free will of moral agents.
Bullshit there is no contradiction between a world of total  justice world and  agents with freewill
"Change was inevitable"


Nemo sicut deus debet esse!

[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]



 “No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM


      
Reply
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
Yeah, it's just super hard. Beyond the ability of we lowly human worms to accomplish, and also..apparently, beyond the ability of the fairy Kloro worships.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
I can construct a chair that is structurally sound that will hold the weight of a human being.

I can also construct a chair that is not structurally sound and anyone who attempts to sit on it will become hurt in the process.

Intentionally making a chair that will injure people is immoral.

If a god existed, it could ensure that all human beings were structurally sound.
This would in no way interfere with free will.
Insanity - Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result
Reply
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
(March 12, 2022 at 10:35 am)Deesse23 Wrote: Infinte punishment for finite crimes.

why are you still regurgitating this non-sense? The length of the punishement is obviously not proportional to the length of the crime. Murdering someone or stealing them only takes seconds or minutes, and the punishment may be lifelong.

So your assertion above is a non-sequitur, +1 to fallacy tally.

(March 12, 2022 at 10:35 am)Deesse23 Wrote: Disgusting.

Your disgust has no bearing on whether a punishment is just, I smell personal incredulity, +1 to fallacy tally.

(March 12, 2022 at 10:35 am)Deesse23 Wrote: ...says a guy with a moral compass skewed beyond recognition.

Ad hominem to dodge answering, +1 to fallacy tally.

(March 12, 2022 at 10:35 am)Deesse23 Wrote: You are now either advocating infinite punishment for finite crimes plus finite punishment, or you are backpedaling.
My bet is on #2

And you just lost the bet. Three fallacies in one post, keep up the good work.

(March 16, 2022 at 10:35 pm)Ferrocyanide Wrote: You are assuming that your brain has been designed to function properly and also, the jewish god is assuming that his brain is functioning properly.
You aren’t actually giving us any reasons why this god thinks that his brain is functioning properly.

I am obviously relying on Islamic scripture whenever I make assertions about God's intentions. In the Qur'an, God repeatedly invites to think and contemplate His signs, this obviously entails a brain capable of thinking properly.

(March 16, 2022 at 10:35 pm)Ferrocyanide Wrote: These are arguments from philosophers and philosophers love arguing with lines such as
“then the probability of having reliable cognitive faculties is low”

however, no mathematical foundation is present in their actual arguments and no experiment has been conducted to demonstrated that what they are saying is true.
In the end, we get nowhere.

I already gave my argument as to why our brains function properly.

Your argument was that mathematical thinking is a byproduct of our struggle for survival, which is the naturalist argument. Be that as it may, we may have become good enough in some mental tasks, this still that doesn't mean our brain will reliably lead us to anything true. Just because humans excelled at this highly competitive contest of natural selection doesn't make their brain wired for truth. 


(March 16, 2022 at 10:35 pm)Ferrocyanide Wrote: You need to show that tuning is even possible. If tuning is possible, then someone tuned the universe in which the jewish god exists so that the jewish god would be functional.
All these arguments that theists use can be used on their god and the house he lives in.

Tuning obviously is possible because it happened, otherwise neither you nor I would be here. We just disagree on what best explains this tuning, you think it is a brute fact, I think it requires explanation. This entails you reject the so-called PSR(principle of sufficient reason), rejecting it doesn't come without a cost, which I hope you're ready to accept.

(March 16, 2022 at 10:35 pm)Ferrocyanide Wrote: Yes, nature does have capabilities. We call them properties. As I said

The word "nature" is nothing than the sum total of stuff around us. Maybe life forms capable of self-replication have capabilites, when taken by themselves. But by saying "nature does have capabilities" you're simply commiting a fallacy of composition.

(March 16, 2022 at 10:35 pm)Ferrocyanide Wrote: Torturing criminals in the afterlife doesn’t erase what this jewish god has done/not done.

Again, free will has zero weight in your objections. You just repeat what atheists and antitheists have always done: they consider God responsible of everything by negating free will to advance their argument from evil. Here is some news for you: the argument from evil was debunked in specialized literature a while ago, and evil here includes natural evil too, which would've been a better card for you to play.

You need to do better than using an outdated argument.

(March 16, 2022 at 10:35 pm)Ferrocyanide Wrote: They grew up in a disorderly world with no jail and no modern criminal court system. 

You seem to put the modern criminal system on a pedestal. Maybe you forget its complete inability to punish heads of state or anyone with some influence, even if they happen to be war criminals. Can your modern court system do anything to Putin as he is killing children right now?
Islam forbids killing women even if they are enemy combatants, does your modern court system do that?

(March 16, 2022 at 10:35 pm)Ferrocyanide Wrote: I disagree. I understand justice and of course, there are various forms of justice.
Yes, I do understand justice better than some primitive humans from thousands of years ago.
You do know that I think the justice present in the Bible comes from primitive humans, right?

Obviously, neither you nor I believe the Bible in its present form is God's words. It has become nothing more than an anthology of ancient texts and wisdoms. We do believe, though, that it was initially the word of God.

(March 16, 2022 at 10:35 pm)Ferrocyanide Wrote: I think I know what eternity means. It means that over time, you are going to get bored out of your mind. There is a limited number of things that a human can do.
This is why I ask people who are part of the jewish flavor of religions, what are you going to do in the first 100 y in heaven?
What about the next 1000 y?
What about 10^100000?
What about 10^100000^1000000?

Your lack of imagination obviously has no bearing on the credibility of the accounts about heaven and hell, also you're assuming God will make us capable of feeling bored in the purported afterlife. Obviously this assumption has no support in scripture.

But none of that matters in this discussion as you don't believe in a god in the first place.
Reply
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
@Klorophyll I’m still waiting. You implied that atheists use their unreliable brains to conclude that a god likely doesn’t exist, and that that’s not reasonable. So what tool did you use to conclude that he does?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”

Wiser words were never spoken. 
Reply
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
(March 17, 2022 at 4:24 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Nonsense. If God is able create people with free will, he could have chosen to create only people who, through their own free will and without coercion of any kind, would freely choose not to commit injustice.

A good objection that has been dealt with in the literature. Plantinga argued that a possible world like a sinless world with free will is not logically possible, the detailed argument is very technical (heavy use of modal logic, I don't fully understand it myself), just type "transworld depravity" to find out more about it.

If a sinless world with free will is not logically possible, then it's not a possible world that God can actualize. But since omnipotence only entails actualizing possible worlds, none of that is a threat to theism.

(March 18, 2022 at 11:23 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: @Klorophyll I’m still waiting. You implied that atheists use their unreliable brains to conclude that a god likely doesn’t exist, and that that’s not reasonable. So which method did you use to conclude that he does?

That's not what I said, as atheists are usually agnostics, not strong atheists... I am simply alluding to the evolutionary argument against naturalism. Simply put, naturalism and evolutionary theory can't both be true if our brains are reliable.

(March 18, 2022 at 11:17 am)Rahn127 Wrote: If a god existed, it could ensure that all human beings were structurally sound.
This would in no way interfere with free will.

Are you referring to a possible world where people are both sinless and act freely? Again, you're asking the same question as @BrianSoddingBoru4, Plantinga refuted this possibility using his notion of "transworld depravity", I don't know more about it or how he did it to elaborate.
Reply
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
If you try to hit someone in the face, and you're stopped from hitting someone in the face, in what way is this a world where your free will to swing for a face is impossible? You're excusing your gods incompetence by claiming this is impossible..but we know it isn't..because even if your god is incompetent in this regard, we aren't. Long story short - if you think this is a good objection..as you just said it was...then you have a problem - as it makes the existence of god entirely immaterial. The whole bit could be true, and it wouldn't matter.

I suspect that if you showed your work on the next claim, that naturalism and evolutionary theory can't both be true - if our brains are reliable - it will be of similar caliber.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  My take on one of the arguments about omnipotence ShinyCrystals 9 675 September 4, 2023 at 2:57 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Conscience and the Moral Argument as Evidence for the Goodness of God. Nishant Xavier 162 7392 July 9, 2023 at 7:53 am
Last Post: Deesse23
  Christian and Atheism Worldwide Demographics: Current Realities and Future Trends. Nishant Xavier 55 2554 July 9, 2023 at 6:07 am
Last Post: no one
  Is my argument against afterlife an equivocation fallacy? FlatAssembler 61 2488 June 20, 2023 at 5:59 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Do atheists believe in the existence of friendship? KerimF 191 9161 June 9, 2023 at 3:32 pm
Last Post: Mister Agenda
  What is the worst religion in existence? Hi600 89 5373 May 6, 2023 at 12:55 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  A simple argument against God Disagreeable 149 12092 December 29, 2022 at 11:59 am
Last Post: Mister Agenda
  Atheism and the existence of peanut butter R00tKiT 721 45567 November 15, 2022 at 9:47 pm
Last Post: Jackalope
  My Almighty VS your argument against it Won2blv 43 3686 May 5, 2022 at 9:13 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  What is the best counter argument against "What do you lose by believing?" Macoleco 25 1780 May 1, 2021 at 8:05 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)