| Ivaj |
| Posted 07/24/12 at 09:23 AM | Reply with quote #1 |
|
Hi it's Ivaj again,
So I was thinking since we have a bad atheist arguments topic we should in all fairness have a bad theist arguments topic. So let's start listing the bad theist arguments out there. I will start the list.
Leibnizian Cosmological Argument: Argument from ignorance.
Teleological Argument: Argument from ignorance.
Kalam Cosmological Argument: Argument from ignorance.
Moral Argument: Unfounded assertions of objectivity.
Ontological Argument: Because the greatest thing we can imagine exists because it is the greatest thing we can imagine... Not..
and of course:
Yeah we can explain that.
So keep listing the bad arguments people and have a good day <3.
*puts on flame suit and hides*
/Ivaj |
| Loading... | |
| lehmar |
| Posted 07/24/12 at 11:20 AM | Reply with quote #2 |
|
Hmm, these are just things I've heard from contacts, but one believer said something like "You're breathing right now. Who created that ability? God!" Another one said "You can't understand God. Anything you understand isn't God. So since you don't understand God, God exists." *facepalm!*
Not to sidetrack the thread, but I'm interested in why you think the first three arguments you listed are arguments from ignorance. I'm not gonna try to counter what you say, just wondering what you think, haha. |
| Loading... | |
| Ivaj |
| Posted 07/24/12 at 11:34 AM | Reply with quote #3 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by lehmar
Hmm, these are just things I've heard from contacts, but one believer said something like "You're breathing right now. Who created that ability? God!" Another one said "You can't understand God. Anything you understand isn't God. So since you don't understand God, God exists." *facepalm!*
Not to sidetrack the thread, but I'm interested in why you think the first three arguments you listed are arguments from ignorance. I'm not gonna try to counter what you say, just wondering what you think, haha.
They all make claims in areas where our knowledge is limited and rely on that. |
| Loading... | |
| Lawlessone777 |
| Posted 07/24/12 at 11:55 AM | Reply with quote #4 |
|
 |
| Loading... | |
| lucid |
| Posted 07/24/12 at 12:07 PM | Reply with quote #5 |
|
Every theistic argument sucks. This includes the -
Moral
Ontological
Teleological
Cosmological
A similar thread was opened up a while back asking believers which arguments for their case they found to be the weakest, and to my amusement, many of them pointed out one or more of the above arguments, favoring instead the argument from personal experience.
I was watching The Atheist Experience recently, and some guy who called in said something like "Why don't we die when the sun sets?", seriously, he was using this question as an argument in favor of god.
|
| Loading... | |
| Route_70 |
| Posted 07/24/12 at 12:31 PM | Reply with quote #6 |
|
Quote: It [apologetics] thereby gives people the intellectual permission to believe when their hearts are moved. |
| Loading... | |
| Route_70 |
| Posted 07/24/12 at 12:33 PM | Reply with quote #7 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Lawlessone777
Quote: Originally Posted by lucid
"Uh-oh, some guy is asking difficult questions. Quick, call him a troll and run for it!" |
| Loading... | |
| Fhbradley |
| Posted 07/24/12 at 03:24 PM | Reply with quote #8 |
|
I think you misunderstand what an argument from ignorance is, which is not surprising. An argument from ignorance is of the form:
You can't prove that not-p, so, p
So
You can't prove that ~(There is a God), so, There is a God
None of the arguments you mentioned are of this form. Also, you misunderstand the ontological argument, and I'm assuming you aren't familiar with Plantinga's modern version of it either.
|
| Loading... | |
| Fhbradley |
| Posted 07/24/12 at 03:29 PM | Reply with quote #9 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by lucid
Every theistic argument sucks. This includes the -
Moral
Ontological
Teleological
Cosmological
A similar thread was opened up a while back asking believers which arguments for their case they found to be the weakest, and to my amusement, many of them pointed out one or more of the above arguments, favoring instead the argument from personal experience.
I was watching The Atheist Experience recently, and some guy who called in said something like "Why don't we die when the sun sets?", seriously, he was using this question as an argument in favor of god.
Why should it be surprising that someone asked a dumb question on the Atheist Experience? Don't you realize that the people who call that show are just ordinary people who have no formal training in these matters? Secondly, and more importantly, why don't you actually give an argument, instead of just asserting that these arguments are bad? You're essentially on a philosophy forum, and a necessary condition of philosophy is to provide an argument for your contention.
Tell me what's wrong with the moral argument.
Tell me what's wrong with the ontological argument.
Tell me what's wrong with the teleological argument.
Tell me what's wrong with the cosmological argument. |
| Loading... | |
| Ivaj |
| Posted 07/24/12 at 03:42 PM | Reply with quote #10 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Fhbradley
I think you misunderstand what an argument from ignorance is, which is not surprising.
Thank you for not being condescending lol.
Quote: Originally Posted by Fhbradley
An argument from ignorance is of the form:
You can't prove that not-p, so, p
So
You can't prove that ~(There is a God), so, There is a God
So I used the wrong words then. No biggie.
Quote: Originally Posted by Fhbradley
None of the arguments you mentioned are of this form. Also, you misunderstand the ontological argument, and I'm assuming you aren't familiar with Plantinga's modern version of it either.
Then you assume wrong: http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/post/Refutation-of-the-ontological-argument-5879809
|
| Loading... | |
| Rostos |
| Posted 07/24/12 at 07:43 PM | Reply with quote #11 |
|
This thread is no different to me starting up a thread and saying i can beat Lebron James in a game of one on one...
Essentially what this means is, it seems that the arguments by the OP put forward do not get refuted at the very top of academia, yet some internet posters who do not have any where near the level of knowledge and critical thinking skills that that the top of academia have, yet they think they can refte them, hence , just like me thinking i can beat Lebron James in a game of basketball, even though the very best NBA players cant, but i can... |
| Loading... | |
| lucid |
| Posted 07/24/12 at 07:53 PM | Reply with quote #12 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by FhbradleyQuote: Originally Posted by lucid
Every theistic argument sucks. This includes the -
Moral
Ontological
Teleological
Cosmological
A similar thread was opened up a while back asking believers which arguments for their case they found to be the weakest, and to my amusement, many of them pointed out one or more of the above arguments, favoring instead the argument from personal experience.
I was watching The Atheist Experience recently, and some guy who called in said something like "Why don't we die when the sun sets?", seriously, he was using this question as an argument in favor of god.
Why should it be surprising that someone asked a dumb question on the Atheist Experience? Don't you realize that the people who call that show are just ordinary people who have no formal training in these matters? Secondly, and more importantly, why don't you actually give an argument, instead of just asserting that these arguments are bad? You're essentially on a philosophy forum, and a necessary condition of philosophy is to provide an argument for your contention. Tell me what's wrong with the moral argument. Tell me what's wrong with the ontological argument. Tell me what's wrong with the teleological argument. Tell me what's wrong with the cosmological argument.
You're an unbeliever. You should be able to work it out for yourself. |
| Loading... | |
| Godboy |
| Posted 07/24/12 at 08:01 PM | Reply with quote #13 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Ivaj
Leibnizian Cosmological Argument: Argument from ignorance.
It's not an argument from ignorance.
It states that everything that exists has a sufficient reason for its existence, either in itself or in something else. Thus, either anything that exists is explained by something else, or there's at least one self-existent being.
What exactly is being concluded from ignorance here?
Quote: Ontological Argument: Because the greatest thing we can imagine exists because it is the greatest thing we can imagine... Not..
I'm not clear why you think this argument is bad.
|
| Loading... | |
| Lion_IRC |
| Posted 07/24/12 at 08:28 PM | Reply with quote #14 |
|
People who complain about about theistic argument/reasoning in this way are actually saying that;
a) Total ignorance
...is somehow better than
b) Sound logical assertions/conclusions. |
| Loading... | |
| Fhbradley |
| Posted 07/24/12 at 08:47 PM | Reply with quote #15 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by IvajQuote: Originally Posted by Fhbradley
I think you misunderstand what an argument from ignorance is, which is not surprising.
Thank you for not being condescending lol. Quote: Originally Posted by Fhbradley
An argument from ignorance is of the form:
You can't prove that not-p, so, p
So
You can't prove that ~(There is a God), so, There is a God
So I used the wrong words then. No biggie. Quote: Originally Posted by Fhbradley
None of the arguments you mentioned are of this form. Also, you misunderstand the ontological argument, and I'm assuming you aren't familiar with Plantinga's modern version of it either.
Then you assume wrong: http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/post/Refutation-of-the-ontological-argument-5879809
I assumed wrong that you were not familiar with the modern version of the Ontological Argument, but you do misconstrue the semantics of 'it is possible that...' in contemporary modal logic. To make a long story short, modal logic was regarded with suspicion, since it had a syntax but no semantics. Once possible world semantics was introduced, however, modal logic became a very powerful tool in philosophical arguments. For instance, some believe that modal logic can demonstrate that mental types cannot be identical with physical types. Here's some definitions
Possible world=df a complete and total way things could have been
It is possible that p=df p is true in at least one possible world
It is necessary that p=df p is true in all possible world
Note that no one is contending that possible worlds actually exist (excluding David Lewis). You can't really get a clear meaning of what it means for something to a proposition to be necessary unless you understand that, if the world was different, that proposition would still be true. Let me illustrate with examples. (1)-(3) would seem to be true, no matter how the world turned out to be
(1) If all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is a mortal
(2) Whatever is red is colored
(3) 3 is a prime number
whereas (4)-(6), prima facie, seem like they could have been false
(4) Barack Obama wins the election 2008
(5) There are cats
(6) The Earth has one moon
We may say, then, that (1)-(3) are true in every possible world, whereas (4)-(6) are not true in every possible world. The former are necessary truths, the latter are true contingently. |
| Loading... | |
