So, your point is... ? — 3017amen

My point is the arguments for God's existence do not have the power to convince anyone God exists - only Theists accept them. Why bother?

I've laid out numerous concepts and you've essentially folded under pressure. — 3017amen

You asked a bunch of irrelevant and poorly phrased questions, and you want to take the fact that I don’t give enough of a shit about you to engage with your nonsense to claim some kind of victory in a fight only you are having.

If you want to “score a point” in some kind of philosophical competition, you have to say something actually new, and it’s up to the other side to determine whether you actually have or not... and they don’t even have to tell you whether you have or not, so you may never know.

You asked a bunch of irrelevant and poorly phrased questions, and you want to take the fact that I don’t give enough of a shit about you to engage with your nonsense to claim some kind of victory in a fight only you are having — Pfhorrest

I'm missing your point? Are you talking about these questions about the nature of existence:

What method best explains my will to live or die?

What method can best explain the reason I choose to love or not love?

What method can best explain the nature of my sense of wonder ?

What method can best explain the nature of causation ? (Why should we believe that all events must have a cause.)

What method can best explain the nature of my reaction to seeing the color red, and/or my reaction to music that I love?

Why do I have the ability to perform gravitational calculations when dodging falling objects do not require those mathematical skills for survival?

If those are the questions/concepts, correct me if I'm wrong, but you refused to attempt any explanation or possible answers to them. They are relative to the nature of [your] conscious existence. Accordingly, it's almost as if you have no training or even any willingness, to engage in any debate about them :snicker:

So what you said earlier about an exchange of ideas seems contradictory. In your proposed approach, It seems as though if they are ideas or concepts that do not pose any challenges to you, then you welcome them. On the other hand, if they do, then you simply claim foul and throw in the towel for whatever reason.

My point is the arguments for God's existence do not have the power to convince anyone God exists - only Theists accept them. Why bother? — Relativist

Really? Why does America have 'In God we Trust" on their currency? Is that not a source or the tools used for the exchange of economic power?

It's been my observation that there are more angry/resentful atheists than there are reasonable one's. — 3017amen

fundamentalist's — 3017amen

domain's — 3017amen

It's because theists keep putting the apostrophe in the wrong place. So damned annoying.

Hahaha. I suppose everyone has their weaknesses' :razz:

Really? Why does America have 'In God we Trust" on their currency? Is that not a source or the tools used for the exchange of economic power? — 3017amen

What does that have to do with proofs of God's existence?

What does that have to do with proofs of God's existence? — Relativist

You're overlooking the obvious. You said arguments for God's existence have no power to convince anyone God exists. Why then were the majority of citizens convinced enough to put " In God We Trust" on their currency? What about national anthems...etc. etc..etc..

They imply causation. — 3017amen

You didn't join in the discussion of causation here. A shame, since causation is central to your argument, yet problematic.

What is the problem with the arguments that attempt to prove God? — DoppyTheElv

There is a tendency for the arguments to depend on a misguided view of cause; sometimes an implicit reliance on Aristotelian mechanics, sometimes on causal determinism except where it doesn't suit.

But there is also a form of intellectual dishonesty inherent in the very notion of a proof of the existence of god. Few folk, if any, are convinced by the arguments. Folk either believe in god and see the arguments as a confirmation of that belief; or they do not believe, and see the arguments as faulty. Either way, the arguments are post hoc to the belief.

I did the same with loose and lose for a while.

:up:

You're overlooking the obvious. You said arguments for God's existence have no power to convince anyone God exists. Why then were the majority of citizens convinced enough to put " In God We Trust" on their currency? What about national anthems...etc. etc..etc.. — 3017amen

So... you are suggesting that belief in god derives from the arguments.

I'd bet that a survey of 'mercan Christians would show that the vast majority could not give a competent presentation of even one such argument.

Have you such a survey?

Got it - you believe truth is established by majority vote. Setting aside that argumentum ad populum fallacy, this has absolutely nothing to do with the formal deductive proofs of God's existence (KCA, LCA, Argument from Objective Moral Values, Ontological argument).

:up:

What is the problem with the arguments that attempt to prove God? — DoppyTheElv

Another issue, which I don't think has been mentioned here, is that existence is treated as a first-order predicate.

My point here is not so much that this is wrong, as that it is far from settled. Hence, the arguments remain contentious.

Hi Banno
Is Aristotelian mechanics Aristotelian and Thomistic metaphysics? I heard that a whole lot of the argumentation about the 5 ways for example are basically just theists defending AT metaphysics.

Thanks!

Thanks! I feel like I need a big book on logic and arguments before I can truly grasp the weight of this.
At the moment it feels like the theist can perhaps justify these questionable assumptions?

Got it - you believe truth is established by majority vote. Setting aside that argumentum ad populum fallacy, this has absolutely nothing to do with the formal deductive proofs of God's existence (KCA, LCA, Argument from Objective Moral Values, Ontological argument). — Relativist

I've never been a proponent of the Ontological argument. It's strictly a priori.

Otherwise, majority ruling has the power from logical inference.

Aristotelian mechanics comes in for a lot of criticism, but it is actually quite brilliant. However, it is wrong. I was looking at a video earlier today that compared Aristotle, Copernicus, and Galileo on Motion.

The Thomist Five Ways are certainly based on Aristotelian mechanics; Aquinas had no alternative. More recent accounts attempted to reissue the Five Ways in a way consistent with more recent developments in physics.

I wonder how many atheists began their doubt with the Brothers teaching them the Five Ways? Perhaps it wasn't such a good idea.

Aristotelian mechanics comes in for a lot of criticism, but it is actually quite brilliant. However, it is wrong. I was looking at a video earlier today that compared Aristotle, Copernicus, and Galileo on Motion. — Banno

I'm going to bookmark that for a watch later.

The Thomist Five Ways are certainly based on Aristotelian mechanics; Aquinas had no alternative. More recent accounts attempted to reissue the Five Ways in a way consistent with more recent developments in physics. — Banno

And they aren't all that successful I suppose? :razz:

Have you such a survey? — Banno

No I don't. But certainly would not be opposed to studying that... .

And they aren't all that successful I suppose? :razz: — DoppyTheElv

Well, they are certainly not controversial.

I'm being as polite as I can. In my view they are self-serving bullshit. But I won't say that here.

Here's some real data, for what it's worth: the PhilPapers survey of philosophers.

God: theism or atheism?

Accept: atheism 1710 / 3226 (53.0%)
Accept: theism 427 / 3226 (13.2%)
Lean toward: atheism 426 / 3226 (13.2%)
Agnostic/undecided 227 / 3226 (7.0%)
Lean toward: theism 172 / 3226 (5.3%)
Reject both 55 / 3226 (1.7%)
Accept another alternative 52 / 3226 (1.6%)
The question is too unclear to answer 41 / 3226 (1.3%)
Accept an intermediate view 31 / 3226 (1.0%)
There is no fact of the matter 27 / 3226 (0.8%)
Skip 25 / 3226 (0.8%)
Other 16 / 3226 (0.5%)
Accept both 16 / 3226 (0.5%)
Insufficiently familiar with the issue 1 / 3226 (0.0%)

One might assume that these folk have at least some experience with the arguments, yet they remain overwhelmingly unconvinced.

What might we conclude?

If those are the questions/concepts, correct me if I'm wrong, but you refused to attempt any explanation or possible answers to them. — 3017amen

Because they’re non-sequiturs. Do you know what that term means? It means they have nothing to do with the topic of conversation. Some of them are not even philosophical questions, but empirical scientific questions that would require an investigation into you personally, and nobody’s going to do that just for a forum conversation.

Why don’t YOU say what you think the answers to those are and why you think they matter, instead of pointlessly baiting others to waste their time then acting victorious when they don’t bite.

Or don’t, because I don’t care either way, because you’re a lost cause.

↪180 Proof I wonder how many atheists began their doubt with the Brothers teaching them the Five Ways? Perhaps it wasn't such a good idea. — Banno

For most ex-Catholic atheists, it seems, doubt began in grade school or early high school 'bible study' without or, for some, years before reading The Quinque viæ. Good parochial schooling (at least in America) has been a fairly effective inoculation against the catechistic disease. E.g. @Ciceronianus the White & @Frank Apisa can attest to that. Close study of Biblical history, as well as its scriptural contents, or Church history "wasn't such a good idea". Not only Aquinas, but Luther et al too, share a lot of the blame or praise.

I'm in the list, too. Apostate by about 13. Interesting, that age; to do with puberty and the ensuing rejection of authority, no doubt. Or just to impress the girls.

If you're really interested in exploring the standard arguments for God's existence, join the forum at "Reasonable Faith" website. There are links to all the arguments, and plenty of Christians to defend them - and several of us Atheists who point out problems.

Yes you led me here from there! Albeit unintentionally. ;p

I always do keep an eye out there. I just want to expand my horizons and learn more. From a broader subset of people.

Yes this is a big one. I've heard a few things.
Might conclude that the arguments are whack..Which is what most people do. Also seen people say that most "experts" of the arguments are theist. Then I have also seen people say this is due to selection bias.

How do you get the enhanced answers like this? I always only get the main Yes, No or other replies.