Ravi's Argument for God (The Atheists Nightmare)

[LuisDantas]

There is a difference between logic helping in defining the essence of God, and between logic helping answer whether God exists or not

Would you agree with that?

Yes. Still, both are essentially impossible unless we adopt a very contradictory definition of God. By definition, God is beyond human capability for abstraction.

When we DO use logic to find out about God's existence, it is nearly always to find out that he can't exist.

 

[McBell]

it is nearly always to find out that he can't exist.

One would think that fact in and of itself is rather telling....

 

[LuisDantas]

For what it is worth, it says enough for me.

 

[Tathagata]

Atheological arguments ARE necessary. To state otherwise is to beg a large number of questions. The fact is, most humans for most of history have been (or are) theistic (of one sort or another) by default, not the reverse. Atheism isn't the intuitively obvious or default position to take.

1. Just because a majority of the world's population throughout history believed in God doesn't mean that it should be assumed that God exists. That's an Ad Populum fallacy. Not to mention, all those people had no evidence for their belief. They just had irrational faith and I find it absurd that you find irrational faith held by many, to be the least bit convincing.

2. You are committing a Negative Proof fallacy by demanding that Atheists disprove your positive assertion. The person making the claim must provide evidence for their claim. The Atheist isn't making the assertion, so they have nothing too prove. Though, despite that Atheists don't have the burden of proof, there are logical arguments that disprove God's existence.



.

 

[Dunemeister]

1. Just because a majority of the world's population throughout history believed in God doesn't mean that it should be assumed that God exists. That's an Ad Populum fallacy.

That's not what I said. What I said was this historical fact means that atheism isn't the default position. Both theism and atheism are risky positions to take.

Not to mention, all those people had no evidence for their belief. They just had irrational faith and I find it absurd that you find irrational faith held by many, to be the least bit convincing.

It's simply not true they had no evidence. They had (and have) evidence. That evidence is defeasible because that's simply the nature of the case. The big worldview questions are less decidable merely on evidence.

I could care less what you find absurd.

2. You are committing a Negative Proof fallacy by demanding that Atheists disprove your positive assertion. The person making the claim must provide evidence for their claim. The Atheist isn't make the assertion, so they have nothing too prove. Though, despite that Atheists don't have the burden of proof, there are logical arguments that disprove God's existence.

I'm not demanding anything.

 

[Dunemeister]

Which question?

God's existence, the importance of evidence to this question, and perhaps others. These will do for a start.

Because you haven't tested them against evidence. Though this is impractical for "The butler did it", other theories that make predictions can be tested.

Well, maybe belief in God is analogous to "The butler did it."

If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, experiance is most certainly evidence; Just not particularly reliable. Unless you want to accept the people that have been touched by the Flying Spaghetti Monster's Noodly Appendages.

Evidence is a proposition that one adduces to lend support to another. My belief that there's a tree there isn't "supported by" my experience of the tree. I experience the tree and form the belief; I don't form an argument. At least, not if everything's functioning as it should. And my belief that Christian experience gives rise to true beliefs about God does not commit me to anything about the FSM.

 

[Dunemeister]

Do you find Ravi's arguments convincing? Seriously.

I have spent the better part of my adult life examining and critiquing arguments made in the philosophy of religion. Ravi's arguments are nothing new. I find his arguments no more or less compelling than other intelligent theist's arguments, such as Aquinas, Lewis, Plantinga, or whoever.

 

[Dunemeister]

It seems I'm not going to get an answer to my question, so let me just say that I didn't find such arguments any more convincing when I was a theist than I do now, and I can't conceive of any reason why a theist would think it insulting or offensive that I don't find them convincing now.

I think the sole purpose of such arguments is to try to bolster the faith of people whose faith is wavering (edit: or even not wavering). I'd imagine that the number of theists who are theists because of such arguments must be miniscule. Most people have some kind of "religious" impulse, and theism is one kind of way that impulse might be satisfied. Other people might satisfy it with yoga or stargazing or surfing or physics, but either way, I don't think such arguments make the difference for a significant number of people.

Agreed.

 

[Dunemeister]

You said "Being an atheist, and thus deciding all theistic arguments are too deeply flawed as to be unconvincing, is a profoundly risky position to take (as is the contrary)".

So, I would assume you're not the contrary, that being "Being a theist, and thus deciding all theistic arguments are too deeply flawed as to be unconvincing, is a profoundly risky position to take". Right? Or is it just that you find that your position, while profoundly risky, is acceptable to you?

Theism and atheism are risky. My point is that most people on these forums tend to me much to sanguine about their views, assuming that their point of view is simply obvious, or would be to any rational person who wasn't in the grip of some kind of emotional or cultural hysteria. The fact is that the issues are deep and complex; one must eventually take a decision, but there must always be the sense, the real sense, that it's really possible I'm wrong. I don't sense that in a lot of what gets written here (I'm sure I'm among the offenders).

You're right. Those silly people, and their rationality. People should definitely be more irrational. That would make conversations and the world much better.

Actually, it might.

Anyway, you chide people for being glib and then proceed to be condescending. Good work.

Glad you approve.

Nice to know that it's OK to be condescending, but not glib. That makes perfect sense...

Nice to know you still can't perceive the point.

 

[kai]

I believe in the statement that -
"There are no athiests in foxholes."

on the contrary fox holes can make atheists, there's nothing like seeing mans inhumanity to man to shake your belief .

 

[Revoltingest]

on the contrary fox holes can make atheists, there's nothing like seeing mans inhumanity to man to shake your belief .

Plus, some of us were draft resisters.

 

[Tathagata]

That's not what I said. What I said was this historical fact means that atheism isn't the default position. Both theism and atheism are risky positions to take.

I guess I misunderstood your implication. But actually, Atheism is the default position because babies and toddlers are Atheists. It isn't until they get older that they are indoctrinated into God-belief. (They aren't Agnostic because that position requires that you acknowledge God and claim his existence is unknowable. To be an Atheist, you simply have to lack belief in God, which includes not knowing about God.)

It's simply not true they had no evidence. They had (and have) evidence. That evidence is defeasible because that's simply the nature of the case. The big worldview questions are less decidable merely on evidence.

I would be willing to grant that the people who actually lived during Biblical times may have had something that qualified as evidence for them, given they lived during the times the supposed events happened, but most people merely believe because of what's written in a holy book.

I'm not demanding anything.

Irrelevant semantics. The point is that you think the Atheists have the burden of proof, when clearly they don't. You said: "Atheological arguments ARE necessary." They aren't necessary because the believers make the claim. The only reason why Atheist arguments are needed these days is because the majority of the world holds irrational and emotionally attached beliefs (with a few exceptions i.e. Apologists).



.

 

[PolyHedral]

God's existence, the importance of evidence to this question, and perhaps others. These will do for a start.

What Tathagata said about the burden of proof being on theists. And I am unsure how evidence could not be important; After all, how can you say that something is right if you have not checked that it matches reality? (This is extending "reality" to include everything that interacts with our universe, including spirituality, souls, and so forth.)

Evidence is a proposition that one adduces to lend support to another. My belief that there's a tree there isn't "supported by" my experience of the tree. I experience the tree and form the belief; I don't form an argument. At least, not if everything's functioning as it should. And my belief that Christian experience gives rise to true beliefs about God does not commit me to anything about the FSM.

Your experience of the tree does support that it exists. However, in the tree's case, there is clear evidence (i.e. you can interact with the tree easily) and no reason to suggest it does not exist. (such as conflicting accounts all being attributed to the same tree)

Also, why is your (or someone else's) experience of God more valid than someone else's experience of the FSM? Surely if experience of God is valid, experience of a different God is also valid?

 

[LuisDantas]

on the contrary fox holes can make atheists, there's nothing like seeing mans inhumanity to man to shake your belief .

I am happy to learn that it may at least sometimes have the opposite effect as well.

Christmas truce - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

snopes.com: World War I Christmas Truce

The Christmas Truce

Amazon.com: Silent Night: The Story of the World War I Christmas…

A Midnight Clear (1992)

Last "Christmas Truce" doughboy dies at 109 - Straight Dope Message Board


We all need more soldiers like that. And Commanders too, of course.

 

[Jeremiah]

1. Just because a majority of the world's population throughout history believed in God doesn't mean that it should be assumed that God exists. That's an Ad Populum fallacy. Not to mention, all those people had no evidence for their belief. They just had irrational faith and I find it absurd that you find irrational faith held by many, to be the least bit convincing.

2. You are committing a Negative Proof fallacy by demanding that Atheists disprove your positive assertion. The person making the claim must provide evidence for their claim. The Atheist isn't making the assertion, so they have nothing too prove. Though, despite that Atheists don't have the burden of proof, there are logical arguments that disprove God's existence.



.

" Though, despite that Atheists don't have the burden of proof, there are logical arguments that disprove God's existence."

Well, don't hold back. If you can disprove the existence of God(s) then do it and let's get this done and over with. Let's hear these "logical arguments that disprove God's existence."

 

[LuisDantas]

" Though, despite that Atheists don't have the burden of proof, there are logical arguments that disprove God's existence."

Well, don't hold back. If you can disprove the existence of God(s) then do it and let's get this done and over with. Let's hear these "logical arguments that disprove God's existence."

They're conveniently available here:

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God

 

[Jeremiah]

YAWN



Atheological arguments ARE necessary. To state otherwise is to beg a large number of questions. The fact is, most humans for most of history have been (or are) theistic (of one sort or another) by default, not the reverse. Atheism isn't the intuitively obvious or default position to take.



Actually, they don't. I can't "test" whether the butler did it. I can use procedures based in science to do so, but my forensic investigation (which doesn't mean the sexed up CSI stuff you see on TV) involves what's called abductive logic, which is distinct (once again) from science and deductive logic. The world is too messy to be left up to such blunt instruments as science and pure logic (even in combination).

"The fact is, most humans for most of history have been (or are) theistic (of one sort or another) by default, not the reverse. Atheism isn't the intuitively obvious or default position to take."

Most of history? What is that like 4000 years ago? 6000? History does not go all the way back. Gods are believe to be an evolved concept. That over generations, talk and gossip of various different things slowly developed into the concept we know, today, as "gods". If that is the case, then during early prehistory, there were no such things as gods, nobody knew what a god was, since the concept had not yet been thought up. It is unlikely that early humans believed in gods, as it is quite possible the idea of gods did not even exist.

 

[Jeremiah]

They're conveniently available here:

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Existence of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't see them in there, maybe you could point them out, please.

 

[LuisDantas]

Try a bit harder, I'm sure you'll find them.

 

[Jeremiah]

Try a bit harder, I'm sure you'll find them.

No, Luis, I don't see anything that disproves gods. I see a lot of stuff that is focused on what people believe about gods but nothing that disproves gods out right. You might want to harder, Luis, because I would like to see someone actually disprove the existence of gods. Not try to sell me on the idea that there are no gods, but actually disprove gods. If you can disprove the existence of gods, then get on with, and save the human race from thousands of years of arguing and bickering.