Today is National Ask an Atheist Day

[The Black Swordsman]

What do modern atheistic philosophers think of the classical and modern arguments for the existence of God?anywhere from the prime mover, to st. Anselm, to Descartes, Berkeley, Kant, etc.

I know the answer to it "it isn't good. it sucks because you are stupid.... oh ya btw I have to provide no positive evidence for my side of the argument" One Brow already admnitted there is no positive evidence towards the inexistence of god.

 

[scootsy]

I know the answer to it "it isn't good. it sucks because you are stupid.... oh ya btw I have to provide no positive evidence for my side of the argument" One Brow already admnitted there is no positive evidence towards the in existence of god.

what I don't like is that most atheists have a narrow definition of what god could be! If you believe in cause and effect, god could simply be the original cause!! <-- popular deist idea!

 

[The Black Swordsman]

what I don't like is that most atheists have a narrow definition of what god could be! If you believe in cause and effect, god could simply be the original cause!! <-- popular deist idea!

They say something like "I don't believe an invisible man/fairy in the sky" most theists don't believe that god fly's around in the sky like Apollo and them....

 

[Siro]

What do modern atheistic philosophers think of the classical and modern arguments for the existence of God?anywhere from the prime mover, to st. Anselm, to Descartes, Berkeley, Kant, etc.

Are we to critique all of those philosophers in response to your question?

Arguments for prime mover and all other similar arguments explain absolutely nothing. You cannot argue that the only explanation for a phenomenon is a more complex phenomenon that defies explanation. That's just silly. All of the Platonic philosophers you mention make the same argument over and over, just in different dressing. 'Nothing is perfect, but everything approaches a degree of perfection, so there got to be a perfect source'. 'Knowledge is inherently impossible, but since we can acquire knowledge, a source of all knowledge must exist.'

And so on. It's all a play on the same theme. It doesn't matter. Who cares about some ontological zen designed to justify the possibility of a generic god of any needed definition? Tell me the character of YOUR god, and it will either indeed be a conscious entity that resembles humans in cognition (very obviously false), or a vague deistic sentiment that barely grasps at a meaning.

 

[scootsy]

Are we to critique all of those philosophers in response to your question?

Arguments for prime mover and all other similar arguments explain absolutely nothing. You cannot argue that the only explanation for a phenomenon is a more complex phenomenon that defies explanation. That's just silly. All of the Platonic philosophers you mention make the same argument over and over, just in different dressing. 'Nothing is perfect, but everything approaches a degree of perfection, so there got to be a perfect source'. 'Knowledge is inherently impossible, but since we can acquire knowledge, a source of all knowledge must exist.'

And so on. It's all a play on the same theme. It doesn't matter. Who cares about some ontological zen designed to justify the possibility of a generic god of any needed definition? Tell me the character of YOUR god, and it will either indeed be a conscious entity that resembles humans in cognition (very obviously false), or a vague deistic sentiment that barely grasps at a meaning.

I would LOVE to hear you explain this. And simply for reference, I was referring to the advanced idea of the prime mover (I shouldn't have used the classical name). But more on the lines of the arguments against skepticism. The only way that any event's historical causation does not lead to an infinite regress is that there is a first cause of everything which have been called God.

 

[Siro]

I would LOVE to hear you explain this. And simply for reference, I was referring to the advanced idea of the prime mover (I shouldn't have used the classical name). But more on the lines of the arguments against skepticism. The only way that any event's historical causation does not lead to an infinite regress is that there is a first cause of everything which have been called God.

Are you taking about Aquinas' Efficient Cause argument? Is this the advanced argument you speak of?

I'm sure if Hume failed to take it seriously hundreds of years before we actually had a decent understanding of causation (and some argue we still don't), I sure won't.

Additionally, this is one of the simpler prime mover arguments. Aside from failing Occam's Razor, it still boils down to an ad hoc about needing something to get the universe going. But it doesn't bother elaborating on the nature of such force. You should at least look into more modern arguments for god, like the Cosmic Fine Tuning hypothesis.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

That's just silly.

See they do what I said they do. They simply say "it is bad." In this case Siro just said "just silly" instead without giving evidence.

In regards to your failed attempt at showing God goes against Occrams Razor then books don't have authors because a brain is more complex then the book it writes. Very great counterargument.

 

[Siro]

See they do what I said they do. They simply say "it is bad." In this case Siro just said "just silly" instead without giving evidence.

In regards to your failed attempt at showing God goes against Occrams Razor then books don't have authors because a brain is more complex then the book it writes. Very great counterargument.

Against my better judgement, I'm going to break my rule of ignoring you.

I said explaining something by claiming a hidden mechanism that is beyond explanation is silly. And it is. You're only too blinded to see something so obvious. In fact, I can literally explain away anything I want using that logic. There is no gravity, only divine hands holding us to the ground. This isn't air I'm breathing, but the magical essence of life that is undetectably contained in the air. It is the silliest argument is the history of silliness.

When I was a kid I was still a believer (this isn't to belittle any believers, just a fact). I was around 10, and I would lie in bed for hours thinking about religion and god. And I had SO many doubts, but was still too young to have the desire or capacity to seriously investigate the subject. But as I wanted to so badly believe, I would always use the same argument to put my heart to rest; if there is no god, then where did everything come from? Just coincidence? Impossible!

See, that's the simplest possible argument for god. It requires no knowledge, experience, insight, or anything. It's almost instinctual. It is like thinking monsters hide in the dark. A meaningless statement that breaks every rule of logic. I explained why it is ridiculous a thousand times. But it's worthless. You'll only repeat the few catch phrases that you read on your religion forums.

And Occam's Razor states that given competing explanations, the one with fewest assumptions jumps to the front of the line. It has nothing to do with your simple-minded book analogy. If you find a book, the simplest explanation is that it was written by a human. There are competing explanations. Maybe it was written by an ancient race of elves that completely disappeared without leaving any trace. Maybe there isn't a book, but only a hallucination. Maybe it was written by the supernatural creator of all things to let us know how much it it likes rectangular objects. But Occam's Razor suggests we go with the first explanation. Don't you think?

 

[The Black Swordsman]

Against my better judgement, I'm going to break my rule of ignoring you.

I said explaining something by claiming a hidden mechanism that is beyond explanation is silly. And it is. You're only too blinded to see something so obvious. In fact, I can literally explain away anything I want using that logic. There is no gravity, only divine hands holding us to the ground. This isn't air I'm breathing, but the magical essence of life that is undetectably contained in the air. It is the silliest argument is the history of silliness.

When I was a kid I was still a believer (this isn't to belittle any believers, just a fact). I was around 10, and I would lie in bed for hours thinking about religion and god. And I had SO many doubts, but was still too young to have the desire or capacity to seriously investigate the subject. But as I wanted to so badly believe, I would always use the same argument to put my heart to rest; if there is no god, then where did everything come from? Just coincidence? Impossible!

See, that's the simplest possible argument for god. It requires no knowledge, experience, insight, or anything. It's almost instinctual. It is like thinking monsters hide in the dark. A meaningless statement that breaks every rule of logic. I explained why it is ridiculous a thousand times. But it's worthless. You'll only repeat the few catch phrases that you read on your religion forums.

And Occam's Razor states that given competing explanations, the one with fewest assumptions jumps to the front of the line. It has nothing to do with your simple-minded book analogy. If you find a book, the simplest explanation is that it was written by a human. There are competing explanations. Maybe it was written by an ancient race of elves that completely disappeared without leaving any trace. Maybe there isn't a book, but only a hallucination. Maybe it was written by the supernatural creator of all things to let us know how much it it likes rectangular objects. But Occam's Razor suggests we go with the first explanation. Don't you think?

You basically said it is silly again and then ranted on how religion is childish over and over again. There are no good counterarguments against the cosmological or the fine tune argument. Also most atheists (like One Brow) admit that there is no positive evidence towards the unbelief of god and you as well haven't provided any. You have failed once again to provide a defensible case against atheism and have failed to counter the arguments for theism. Of course you will disagree due to your irrationality.

 

[Siro]

Yep, a mistake.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

Yep, a mistake.

Yep it was a mistake for you just like it would be a mistake for someone with down syndrome to challenge Einstein.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

In honor of atheist day, I did a bunch of religions stuff, and then a little extra for those that didn't get any today.
I read a few extra verses, found hidden meaning in all sorts of everyday things, and I said a few extra prayers for those that forgot to remember to say theirs.
I had some good conversations about Christ, and God, and how everything in this world points to them.

Awesome day.

Would do it again.