| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Mark Richardson" |
| Date: |
29 Jul 2003 08:53:14 PM |
| Object: |
Re: The Argument From Nonbelief |
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:33:27 GMT, Jim07D3 <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote:
This is an interesting argument.
I'd be more interested in whether there are any logic flaws, that is,
is it logically valid, than whether it is sound.
In the following quoted material from:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/aeanb.html
I concur with Drange that the ANB is one of the best formal arguments
against the christian God.
I would say it is valid.
I have read the replies to Drange's article and find them less than
impressive - note that they argue against the attributes (the "A"s)
being necessarily true of God, rather than the validity of the
argument.
My general comment on the objections to ANB:
Make the word "God" suitably vague and meaningless and *any* argument
against it will fail - this is certainly an effective debating tactic
- but what price victory?
After witnessing a few such debates a rational being must come
eventually to the conclusion that theology is pointless.
Although it is fun for a while.
8-)
I think AE also has some power - it is certainly a spur to thought and
debate about the possible nature of "God".
I think the AE doesnt work so much to convince of the impossibility of
God - rather it leads to the conclusion that defining "God" in any
meaningful way is frought with problems.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
| User: "Jim07D3" |
|
| Title: Re: The Argument From Nonbelief |
29 Jul 2003 11:47:49 PM |
|
|
Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> said:
....
My general comment on the objections to ANB:
Make the word "God" suitably vague and meaningless and *any* argument
against it will fail - this is certainly an effective debating tactic
- but what price victory?
Yes, see below.
After witnessing a few such debates a rational being must come
eventually to the conclusion that theology is pointless.
Although it is fun for a while.
8-)
And a way to learn about logic, argumentation -- and some psychology.
I think AE also has some power - it is certainly a spur to thought and
debate about the possible nature of "God".
I think the AE doesnt work so much to convince of the impossibility of
God - rather it leads to the conclusion that defining "God" in any
meaningful way is frought with problems.
I sometimes think that the ongoing arguments against the existence of
God serve to hone a vitally important yet unacknowledged property of
the allegedly existent God, the property of undisprovability. Mark
Nutter's identification of the Emperor's New Clothes Argument (which
might be a version of the No True Scotsman argument, the Scotsman
being the theist's adversary*) is a good example of the lengths some
people are willing to go to preserve the undisprovability of their
deity. Why not just acknowledge undisprovability as an essential,
explicit aspect of God? Clearly, it is believed to be the case. That
would eliminate so much babbling.
* "Anybody who is a seeker after truth will see that God exists."
"But I seek truth and don't see any God."
"That proves you are wrong -- you aren't truly a seeker after truth."
Jim07D3
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D3" |
|
| Title: Re: The Argument From Nonbelief |
30 Jul 2003 10:00:34 AM |
|
|
(Brian F. King) said:
....
I sometimes think that the ongoing arguments against the existence of
God serve to hone a vitally important yet unacknowledged property of
the allegedly existent God, the property of undisprovability.
I don't see it as being unacknowledged.
Theists don't see God as being "allegedly" existent;
they see Him as being existent.
Certainly, you cannot disprove the existence of
an existent entity, be it you, my car, or God.
Agreed, but the history of apologetic has included a lot of
refinements of the concept and biography of God and history of God's
creation to advance/maintann the rationality of belief. I'd say that
the "same God" does not exist today in the mind of many Christians as
existed before, say, Aquinas, if not Augustine, and then again, a
transition occurred in the modern theistic view of God at the time of
Darwin. THe one objective through time has been that God exists and so
can't be disprovable, let's refine who and what God is to keep that
the case.
It's a necessary conclusion of their premise.
It's also "re-forms" their God from time to time.
Jim07D3
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
