A logic line.

[eatheiun]

(only assumption) we are not figments in the dream of an over-imaginative entymologist or, [insert matrix or other false-reality idea here].
Something either exists, or it doesn't. Something cannot half-exist. If god exists, he must actually exist. No evidence for god exists. There is no reason to believe that god exists.

Comments

[dickdawk]

I'll concede that I wrote that last post pretty hastily. Let me clear a few things up.

First, obviously by my comments made further in the post, I clearly don't believe that these arguments are water tight. I admitted everything has refutation. What should have been said is . . . that there has been no sufficient refutation to these arguments that would have them considered as irrational reasons to warrant belief in God.

But, I'm not surprised you hopped all over the error.

And yes, I made a hell of a lot of assumptions. Forgive me? ;)

"I also find it telling that when I mention a lack of evidence, your response is essentially, "Look harder," . . . when it would have been easier, had you the evidence, to present it."

Ethan, I'm not saying "Look harder", I'm saying don't avoid the tough refutations. You placing God in your reason line for the Kalam example shows that you have yet to fully comprehend the argument. That mistake, along with the mistake you make below in the Liebnitzian argument, what seems to be a strong tone of Dawkins like atheism, and your reference to the flying spaghetti monster, all contribute to my hypothesis of what "brand" of atheist you are. ;)

"I don't assume that you don't have evidence. I only use this as evidence for the hypothesis that you don't.)"

Ethan, there are numerous books written on each of these arguments. To say I have no evidence because I didn't fully unpack and spoon feed them to you is COMPLETELY absurd.

"As for the arguments themselves, the Liebnitzian argument falls apart in the first premise. "...either in the necessity of its own nature..." this is meant for god, but what's to keep it from pertaining to existence itself, the primordial atom, or tacos? In other words, 'tacos exist because they are necessary to exist.' Furthermore, the second premise is a bold-faced assumption, and a non-sequitur.

We'll deal with the first two premises here.

The premise only requires that any existing thing have an explanation for it's existence.
Here's where you go wrong.
Two types of "being" are laid out in this argument:
necessary being (things that exist on their own nature, such as numbers)
contingent being (their existence is accounted for by factors outside of themselves)

Again, this argument gets butchered due to lack of understanding. If the taco had assembled its delicious self without an outside cause, your argument could be warranted. Again, my *hypothesis* is that you haven't fully looked into and digested these arguments.

Also, a successful argument doesn't require premises that are completely certain. As long as this is so, you should believe the premise rather than it's negation (premise 1 is more plausible than it's contradictory. keep that in mind). To refute this argument, you need to show how its negation is more likely than the principle.

(cont.)

[dickdawk]

You cry non-sequitur for the second premise when this is merely a contrapositive to normal atheistic arguments! Typical atheistic arguments assert that since there is no explanation to the existence of the universe, there is no God. Now in affirming that atheism is true because the universe has no explanation of its existence, that is to also affirm the logically equivalent claim that if the universe has an explanation of its existence then the explanation is God. The atheist is committed to premise 2!

Premise 2 is also plausible on its own right due to what is essentially the Kalam argument.

"You're assuming that the existence of the universe can be explained, when, though it may be true, it is not necessarily so."

Most contemporary philosophers agree that explicability is the default position, and you should assume explicability unless you have some good reasons to thinking there's an exception, and you must have justification for that exception. Saying "That's a tough one" doesn't qualify as justification. In other words, if there is no explanation, you must explain why it has no explanation.

Again, there is much more to this argument, but to unpack it all will take some time.

"The Kalam argument is spurious as well. (I dealt with this briefly on a different comment). I tend to agree that infinite cannot exist, but I don't presume to be certain about it. However, if infinite cannot exist, then it follows that there must have been something that had no cause, you say it's god, I say there's no reason to believe it's god (why not the universe itself)."

1. If infinite cannot exist . . . how does that conclude that something HAD to have had no cause!? The only reason you would even suggest this is if one were to presuppose the absence of a God, and even then, no evidence exists to suggest such a claim. It's merely made out of necessity for an argument. Finite things must have a beginning, and further must have a cause. Actual infinity cannot exist in the universe, therefore the universe is finite!

2. My Kalam argument primarily addressed your claim of the absence of the metaphysical. The cause MUST exist outside the natural universe, outside of space and time, and by definition must be metaphysical.

"The Teleoligical argument, (at least in the way that you put it) is a straw-man, and inane. It makes assumptions in both premises and can therefore not be considered to draw a logical conclusion."

Take a look . . .

"There is no logical reason to believe in the metaphysical. If God is not metaphysical, then we can find evidence of him/her/them. No such evidence yet exists."

Presupposed that the metaphysical doesn't exist.

"(only assumption) we are not figments in the dream of an over-imaginative entymologist or, [insert matrix or other false-reality idea here].
Something either exists, or it doesn't. Something cannot half-exist. If god exists, he must actually exist. No evidence for god exists. There is no reason to believe that god exists."

Self declared assumption off the bat . . .

Ethan, come on. I'm finding myself wondering if you've EVER seen philosophical arguments before.

You didn't directly critique any premise, so I won't bother explaining them (it will take a while). If you are truly interested in furthering your understanding of the teleological argument, please read Alvin Plantinga or Frank Tippler.

"Here is something I'd like you to do, tell me, under what circumstances would you be forced to disbelieve in the existence of god? (the ability to falsify a statement makes it logical) -If you can do this, you will be the first theist I've read who could.- By extension, a hypothesis that cannot be falsified and is not supported with any evidence is at best unnecessary, and at worst, down right silly."

When I am convinced of an atheistic argument, I will stop believing that God exists. I find many philosophical reasons to warrant my belief in God and have yet to find a sufficient atheistic refutation to convince me otherwise.

Re: (cont.)

[eatheiun]

What is god?
What does it look like?
Does it eat?
Is it sentient?
Does it live forever? If so, how?
If it exists beyond our reality, by what mechanism could it possibly effect our reality?
What evidence would prove its existence?
What evidence would disprove its existence?
If it is necessary to believe in a god, can't these questions be answered?
If not, why not?

[eatheiun]

"(things that exist on their own nature, such as numbers)"

numbers don't exist.

[dickdawk]

neither does logic.

let's not go down this path, ethan.

[eatheiun]

you're ready to go down a path now?

to compare god's "necessary" existence to that of numbers is to admit that god is merely conceptual.

[dickdawk]

i'll bite.

since numbers exist conceptually in our minds . . . if every mind in the universe ceased to exist, and nothing could comprehend numbers or mathematics, would the concept itself cease to exist?

It seems like this is where this is going

[eatheiun]

Sounds like you're headed toward the Transcendental Argument for God, Matt Dillahunty does a better job than I ever could on the subject, watch the whole thing and we'll use it as a jumping point.

But to be frank, the argument we're having isn't one we should have yet, because we haven't set the ground rules, or defined our terms. You've yet to give a definition for the term 'god' as you use

Re: It seems like this is where this is going

[dickdawk]

ethan, there's a reason I never went down this road. I think the transcendental argument is relatively weak for a theistic case.

what I don't understand is why you needed to bait me into this discussion. i've responded in regards to other arguments with a lot of content, of which 95% you haven't touched.

do you feel you need to switch over to a weaker theistic argument so you can respond with Matt Dillahunty videos?

Re: It seems like this is where this is going

[eatheiun]

"...of which 95% you haven't touched."

Really not sure where you're getting that.

I apologize if I jumped the gun. If not the TAG, then where were you going with that?

Re: It seems like this is where this is going

[dickdawk]

There was really no where to go. The question was obviously just bating for the TAG, which I've said I put no stock in.

But for the question itself . . . I don't think I need to lay out the TAG to answer it.

We can even broaden it, and say "Does anything that's not physical really exist?".

I've already said, even though numbers are conceptual, if no mind was here to conceive it, the concept would still exist. And if you still hold that they don't exist, maybe time and emotions don't exist either?

Re: It seems like this is where this is going

[dickdawk]

the above comment is from me. Livejournal logins FTL.

[dickdawk]

"do you feel you need to switch over to a weaker theistic argument so you can respond with Matt Dillahunty videos? " totally ridiculous.

Do you feel the need to avoid the prior questions at hand then? Why have you not defined the term "god" as YOU use it yet?? You've responded with little hesitation or time to EVERY other post.

-sp

[dickdawk]

"Let's take out "God" and insert "Anything that exists in the metaphysical"."

This is a quote from a previous comment I left weeks ago. Look in the "cont'd" comment.

[eatheiun]

Ah, so we're in agreement then. A flying spaghetti monster is responsible for existence. 8^P

This definition doesn't work for how you're using it, we could insert ghosts, unicorns, santa clause, and a slew of other things that I can't prove don't exist. If you're using this definition then I get to write god off with all the rest of these silly ideas.

[dickdawk]

Ethan, I went this route because your claim from your original journal entry was that the metaphysical does not exist, and there is no reason to believe it exists. So, the basis of the argument dealt with the metaphysical.