No. At 14-15 I began thinking for myself about what I was told to believe ... which lead me at 16 to cease believing just because they - tradition - told me to believe. I "came out" as an apostate, then later as an atheist, in a Jesuit high school (after several years of bible study, church history, altar-boy service & Latin) a couple years before I would study the classical "proofs" and apologetics. All those sermons to the choir did was further ground my atheism and even weaponize my profane critiques. But that was decades ago and now I'm not that sort of atheist - much less militant, though quite a bit more radical. Still irreligious though.If these arguments are all a failure. Is that part of the reason why you are atheist? — DoppyTheElv
Let me also add a subquestion to that and ask to the atheist. If these arguments are all a failure. Is that part of the reason why you are atheist? — DoppyTheElv
Let me also add a subquestion to that and ask to the atheist. If these arguments are all a failure. Is that part of the reason why you are atheist? — DoppyTheElv
The general problem is that they depend on questionable metaphysical assumptions. Theists often don't see that these are questionable because the argument "proves" what they already "know" to be true.What is the problem with the arguments that attempt to prove God? — DoppyTheElv
The general problem is that they depend on questionable metaphysical assumptions. — Relativist
As many do, he suffered, and is still suffering from those bad experiences — 3017amen
his frustrations over discussions relating to concepts about God. — 3017amen
I don’t feel frustrated discussing concepts about God. I just feel frustrated when people engage in them the way you do, with incomprehensible non-sequiturs, irrelevant questions calling for long in-depth answers that wouldn’t advance the main topic at all but only waste a ton of time, and then bad-faith reactions to those who wise up to your game and won’t fall for any of that. — Pfhorrest
No, that’s a way of saying YOU don’t understand metaphysics. — Pfhorrest
I don't understand your point. If you're just saying that it's reasonable to make metaphysical assumptions, that may be - but then it's equally fine to deny those assumptions. Consequently, the arguments are only deemed sound by those who already believe in God. There is no argument that proves God based solely on non-controversial premises.The general problem is that they depend on questionable metaphysical assumptions.
— Relativist
Wrong. Synthetic a priori judgements/assumptions are used all the time to test theories in physics. — 3017amen
If you're just saying that it's reasonable to make metaphysical assumptions, that may be - but then it's equally fine to deny those assumptions. — Relativist
There is no argument that proves God based solely on non-controversial premises. — Relativist
first place, you’re doing it wrong. The point is not to “prove” that your preconceived conclusions were right all along and “win” over the other guy, the point is for everyone to share their reasons for thinking as they do and together brainstorm possibilities that accounts for all of those reasons at once. — Pfhorrest
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.