• Banno
    2.6k
    I say they came to that conclusion through unreasonable thought process.Henri

    ...without ever setting out that thought process. You are the one firing blanks.
  • Henri
    87




    If you want examples, go through this thread and you'll see unreasonable arguments for the non-existence of God given, including your own, and my response to those arguments.

    Let's use something from last page.

    Banno said: "If God exists, His brilliance, His presence, ought be so all-encompasing as to be utterly undeniable."

    That's simply bad logic.

    There is no known natural law that says that if God exists His presence ought be so all-encompasing as to be utterly undeniable.

    It's just a man's opinion. And there is surely no law that says that a human's opinion has to be true.

    So what can one conclude about what Banno said? Nothing about whether God exists or not.
  • Akanthinos
    653
    You want to be able to freely deny God however you like, and publicly so, but when time comes for some accountability, for some examination of your thoughts, then all of a sudden let's talk definitions because atheists in fact are not hard, they are soft, etc. Build some spine, man.Henri

    This is not an argument. This is an insult.

    Are those definitions of a soft-atheist good enough?Henri

    No, because they do not constitute an argument.

    That kind of an atheist is part of my OP. He or she still doesn't believe that God exists, regardless of how open they are to change their minds sometime in the future. Today their minds aren't changed and they don't believe or think that God exists.

    I say they came to that conclusion through unreasonable thought process.
    Henri

    That is not an argument, that is an opinion,
    Anyway, I don't really have to share my experience with you. Whatever I would share here would probably go to waste, so I am not going to do it.Henri

    Then what are you doing here?
    But, again, this thread is not about proving that God exists.Henri

    It's not about having a philosophical debate either, apparently.
  • Akanthinos
    653
    Banno said: "If God exists, His brilliance, His presence, ought be so all-encompasing as to be utterly undeniable."Henri

    Well, that's a reversal of your own argument about atheist. By the same principle that would warrant the acceptation of your statement, you should accept his.
  • Henri
    87


    What exactly about Banno's quote is reversal of which of my arguments about atheists? Can you be precise?
  • Banno
    2.6k
    And my unaddressed reply - that your God is a sneak, a Loki, a Satan.
  • Akanthinos
    653
    you are quite right that if your premise is that God exists, then the existence of atheists is quite an extraordinary thing. Given the perfection of the world is such that god is, for you , undeniable, denying god must call for an extraordinary irrationality.Banno

    This is a reductio ad absurdum from your argument.

    The move to necessitate the miraculous from the mundane leads us naturally to assume the errors of your premises.
  • Henri
    87


    As far as I have seen what you've written here, you seem more like a person who believes that God exists but doesn't like Him, than that you don't believe that God exists.

    Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know.

    If you don't believe that God exists, why would you even bother discussing His presumed characteristics at such length. At the same time, what glorious outcome can it be for you to speak the way you speak, and it turns out God exists and has recorded all the things you said. It looks like a loose-loose situation, or masochistic-masochistic situation.
  • Henri
    87


    I asked you about one quote, you come back explaining the other.

    There is no reductio ad absurdum from my argument in what you quoted, in part because Banno is falsely presenting what I've said, though probably not on purpose. Maybe I wasn't clear enough.

    But anyway, there is really very simple way to show that OP is false, at least in it's absolute claim.

    Just provide one single reasonable argument in favor of the non-existence of God. Not a single one has been provided here yet, and not only that, I don't think I have ever heard or read such a thing.

    If you want to go by what you quoted, that since God exists it is extraordinary that atheists exist, hence God doesn't exist, that's not it. Because there is no known natural law that says that if God exists every human would understand that He exists.
  • ProbablyTrue
    162
    As far as I have seen what you've written here, you seem more like a person who believes that God exists but doesn't like Him, than that you don't believe that God exists.Henri

    If his position is like mine, one can dislike particular theistic conceptions while simultaneously not believing in any generally.
  • Banno
    2.6k
    Ah, good. Make the thread about me. What fun!

    What I have done is draw out the logical of your OP, to see what sort of a god it implies.

    But it seems that you cannot see this; the reductio that shows the god you create to be small and sneaky. That's the implication of his using atheists in such a self-serving and immoral fashion, treating them as an end to his own purpose.

    That's not my god. That's your god.
  • Henri
    87
    That's not my God. That's your God.Banno

    You just don't have good understanding of God's word, that's all. Your conclusions about God's character are flawed. But, again and again, this thread is not about God of the Bible.
  • ProbablyTrue
    162
    You just don't have good understanding of God's word, that's all. Your conclusions about God's character are flawed.Henri

    Define the god you're talking about.
  • Banno
    2.6k
    They are not my understandings. I am reflecting back to you the God you describe.

    You have eyes, but fail to see.
  • Akanthinos
    653
    Just provide one single reasonable argument in favor of the non-existence of God. Not a single one has been provided here yet, and not only that, I don't think I have ever heard or read such a thing.Henri

    Again : can you provide a few examples of such arguments, and on what universal basis rationality can be said to be missing in these.

    Because, again, if you don't, then this is a troll thread.
  • jorndoe
    522
    @Henri, this far you've ... made a number of bare assertions, declarations and postulates, shifted the burden of proof, admitted that you can't actually demonstrate, rather you "just know", but also postulated that you have vast amounts of clues, declared that it doesn't matter that you have nothing to show us, been a sharpshooter too somewhere, employed a misrepresentation/strawman (maybe two), and declared it unreasonable to disagree with you. :D Might have moved your goalposts too (like other posts it's not quite clear). Oh, and begging the question?

    So ...

    1. you just know
    2. therefore anyone that differ are just wrong
    3. done

    Did I miss anything? Could you put some philosophy in here?
  • Banno
    2.6k
    @Henri
    Only after I came to an understanding that God does not exists, I started to look into theistic arguments more closely.

    And my conclusion is that theists, both in general and those most prominent ones, are:

    1) quite unreasonable in interpreting what nature provides as clues for or against God
    2) quite unreasonable in their reasoning about God

    The amount of blank ammunition theists generally use for God makes me think that theism itself is indefensible. Meaning, it's something natural, forced from something inside of our observable world.

    And as such, it's basically one more clue against the existence of God.
  • Henri
    87


    All arguments in favor of the non-existence of God that have been provided on this thread are unreasonable and have been shown why. I am not going to go through all of them and copy and paste them. Again, all it takes is a single one reasonable argument in favor of the non-existence of God and this OP is not absolutely true.

    As for your question on what universal basis rationality can be said to be missing, that's a good question in fact.

    Shortly, it is a sin that blocks you from rationality.

    But if you want some secular reasoning, there are more than one parts to it, and I'm not going to go through all of them, since I don't have them in compact written form, but among the main ones is that nothing that humans can observe and measure can show that God doesn't exist.

    Humans are within creation and can observe and measure:

    1) only creation, by default,
    2) until God presents Himself and reveals them some other possible place or reality

    In case of observing and measuring creation, nothing can be observed nor measured to disprove existence of God, because God could make creation however He wants. We have no way of knowing what is probable or not and by how much. As a result, there is no known natural law that says that if God exists, humans would have to be able to understand that God exists. Not to mention that there is no known natural law that says that humans have to understand everything about reality.

    In relation to God, what's observed and measured can at best provide insights in possible character of God.

    But while nothing can show the non-existence of God, something can possibly show small probability that the world was not created with plan and purpose, but by some chance or unconscious process. That's for example calculated mathematical impossibility that life originated by some chance process. It's still possible in real life, but that possibility is impossible in mathematical sense, and reasonable conclusion is that this mathematical impossibility points to God.

    Again, nothing can be calculated to point the other way, so reasonable thinking already leans towards God, although one can also reasonable argue neutral agnostic position.

    In second case God presents Himself.

    So, being reasonable, one is either neutral agnostic or thinks or believes that there's God.
  • Henri
    87
    And my conclusion is that theists, both in general and those most prominent ones, are:

    1) quite unreasonable in interpreting what nature provides as clues for or against God
    2) quite unreasonable in their reasoning about God
    Banno

    If you would have paid attention, you would have noticed that in your case order goes 2 then 1. So I'll start with 2.

    2 is basically meaningless, since Christians learn about God through God's conviction and God's word. They are lead supernaturally, not by their own reason. Not that anybody's perfect here, by design. People from other religions also don't reason on their own about God, if they are convicted in their beliefs. It is just that their conviction comes from devil, so it's not really that they are unreasonable but deceived.

    1 comes as a result of 2, so it can't be unreasonable as presented because it's Spirit lead. But as an example, when one calculates probability for the existence of life by chance or unconscious process, result is mathematical impossibility. Siding with basic mathematical result is quite a reasonable way to interpret nature. Fighting with such result would be unreasonable, as OP states.

    By the way, this reminded me about a point that it can be argued that Christians are disproportionately more *convicted in their understanding that God exists than people from other religions. So this reasonable/unreasonable thing about theists is probably flawed as a general view since not all groups of "theists" have equal distribution of those who are convicted that God exists.

    *Convicted - as a result of supernatural conviction, having a full understanding that God exists, not just thinking or believing that God exists
  • Banno
    2.6k
    This argument can be expanded upon, based on what's available to a human in regards to understanding Nature.

    But my post is not about looking at nature, but about looking at theism. Real theism, one that we witness on Earth, not some abstract idea of theism, is quite unreasonable regardless if this universe is created by nature or not. I happen to understand that nature exists, so I can see it as forced from something inside of our observable world.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.