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 29, 2024, 2:43 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
#11
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
(February 26, 2022 at 6:26 pm)Angrboda Wrote:
(February 26, 2022 at 6:23 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Neither Kant nor Hume agree with you. I guess I should be proud of how stupid I am.

You're full of shit.  I can quote you where Hume shits all over the teleological argument.  Show us where Kant or Hume say the teleological argument isn't crap.  

(And Kant is a moot point, as he was a theist bound determined to bend himself into a pretzel to prove God, so he's hardly a worthwhile defeated.)

^This is why I suspect Kloro hasn’t read Hume’s ‘Dialogues’. Cleanthes’ assertion quoted above is pretty handily demolished. The ‘Dialogues’ were written as a framework of fictional debates to reject arguments for God.

Hume had his weaknesses, but supporting teleology wasn’t one of them.

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
#12
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
(February 26, 2022 at 6:26 pm)Angrboda Wrote:  Show us where Kant or Hume say the teleological argument isn't crap.  

Sure:

‘This proof always deserves to be mentioned with respect’: Immanuel Kant.
Reply
#13
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
(February 26, 2022 at 6:33 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:
(February 26, 2022 at 6:26 pm)Angrboda Wrote:  Show us where Kant or Hume say the teleological argument isn't crap.  

Sure:

‘This proof always deserves to be mentioned with respect’: Immanuel Kant.

As noted, Kant's testimony is rather moot, but where did he say that?
[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
#14
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
Let's not get sidetracked on a few quotes. I am aware that neither Kant nor Hume accept the TA, if that's what you want to know.

Back to the argument :

Let A be a new successful (valid and sound) argument for the God of classical theism, based on an uncontroversial set of premises, and discovered by someone (a philosopher, for example) at the date T. Here is now an argument (by reductio ad absurdum) against the very possibility of A.

1. Argument A wasn't known to (almost) anyone before the date T.
2. (From 1.) No one was rationally justified in believing in God before T.
3. (Restatement of 2.) God didn't make his existence known to anyone before T.
4*. God is willing, and was always willing, to make his existence known to everyone.
5. If God is willing, and was always willing, to make his existence known to everyone, then God was willing to make his existence known to anyone who lived before the date T.
6. (From the conjunction of 3. and 5.) God is both willing and unwilling to make his existence to everyone before T. Absurd conclusion. (3. and non-3. are simultaneously true, non-3. being: God made his existence known to at least one person. And 5. entails non-3.)

Therefore, there is no date t at which belief in the God of classical theism suddenly becomes rationally justified.

So, is premise 4 the only controversial premise? If 4. is conceded, is the argument valid ?

(February 26, 2022 at 6:36 pm)Angrboda Wrote:
(February 26, 2022 at 6:33 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Sure:

‘This proof always deserves to be mentioned with respect’: Immanuel Kant.

As noted, Kant's testimony is rather moot, but where did he say that?

http://www.epistemology.pe.kr/kant/Criti.../ideal.htm

Ctrl+F and type "with respect"
Reply
#15
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
(February 26, 2022 at 6:36 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:
(February 26, 2022 at 6:36 pm)Angrboda Wrote: As noted, Kant's testimony is rather moot, but where did he say that?

http://www.epistemology.pe.kr/kant/Criti.../ideal.htm

Ctrl+F and type "with respect"

Skip on down a bit brother....

Quote:I therefore maintain that the physico-theological proof can never by itself establish the existence of a supreme being, but must always fall back upon the ontological argument to make good its deficiency.
[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
#16
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
Kant on the teleological argument :

"This proof always deserves to be mentioned with respect.
It is the oldest, the clearest, and the most accordant with the
common reason of mankind. It enlivens the study of nature,
just as it itself derives its existence and gains ever new vigour
from that source. It suggests ends and purposes, where our
observation would not have detected them by itself, and extends
our knowledge of nature by means of the guiding-concept of a
special unity, the principle of which is outside nature. This
knowledge again reacts on its cause, namely, upon the idea
which has led to it, and so strengthens the belief in a supreme
Author [of nature] that the belief acquires the force of an irre-
sistible conviction.
It would therefore not only be uncomforting but utterly
vain to attempt to diminish in any way the authority of this
argument."

http://www.epistemology.pe.kr/kant/Criti.../ideal.htm

Even though he rejected the argument, it's undeniable that this argument is much more appealing (even to the philosophers) than the ontological or the cosmolgical, both of which are more abstract and independent of our everyday experience with nature around us, if that makes sense..

Again, @Angrboda , I am not arguing here that Kant defended this argument. But you called it crap, that was unfair.

Does the TA prove that there is a unique, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being? No, not by itself, but this doesn't means it has zero argumentative force. In other words, it can be used in conjunction with other arguments to reach the ambitious conclusion of theism.

I have the perceptual experience of an external world, therefore I posit the existence of an external world.
There appears to be other people than myself, therefore it's reasonable to posit the existence of other people.
There appears to be design, therefore it's reasonable to posit a designer.

This seems to be the most natural and straightforward way to believe in God. Every other argument is contrived.
Reply
#17
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
Oh boy, arguing god into existence.

Wheeeeeeeeeeee.............
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem.
Reply
#18
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
Yay another tired attempt by Klor to make belief an invisible sky wizard into being  Dodgy
"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
#19
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
(February 26, 2022 at 6:36 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Let's not get sidetracked on a few quotes. I am aware that neither Kant nor Hume accept the TA, if that's what you want to know.

Back to the argument :

Let A be a new successful (valid and sound) argument for the God of classical theism, based on an uncontroversial set of premises, and discovered by someone (a philosopher, for example) at the date T. Here is now an argument (by reductio ad absurdum) against the very possibility of A.

1. Argument A wasn't known to (almost) anyone before the date T.
2. (From 1.) No one was rationally justified in believing in God before T.
3. (Restatement of 2.) God didn't make his existence known to anyone before T.
4*. God is willing, and was always willing, to make his existence known to everyone.
5. If God is willing, and was always willing, to make his existence known to everyone, then God was willing to make his existence known to anyone who lived before the date T.
6. (From the conjunction of 3. and 5.) God is both willing and unwilling to make his existence to everyone before T. Absurd conclusion. (3. and non-3. are simultaneously true, non-3. being: God made his existence known to at least one person. And 5. entails non-3.)

Therefore, there is no date t at which belief in the God of classical theism suddenly becomes rationally justified.

So, is premise 4 the only controversial premise? If 4. is conceded, is the argument valid ?

(February 26, 2022 at 6:36 pm)Angrboda Wrote: As noted, Kant's testimony is rather moot, but where did he say that?

http://www.epistemology.pe.kr/kant/Criti.../ideal.htm

Ctrl+F and type "with respect"

3 doesn’t follow from 2, nor can it be called a ‘restatement’ of 2. One can be ‘rationally justified’ in believing in God without God making his existence known. 

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
#20
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
(February 26, 2022 at 8:16 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: 3 doesn’t follow from 2, nor can it be called a ‘restatement’ of 2. One can be ‘rationally justified’ in believing in God without God making his existence known. 

Boru

Easy proof: 

4. God made his existence known to someone before T.
5. (From 4.) At least one person is justified in believing in God before T.

The contraposition of the conditional statement (4.->5.) is (non-5. -> non-4.), which is exactly (2.->3.). QED.
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 9162 June 9, 2023 at 3:32 pm
Last Post: Mister Agenda
  What is the worst religion in existence? Hi600 89 5375 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 45588 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)