The thought recently occurred to me that all of the arguments against God seem to be variants of the following logical fallacies:
1) The argument from ignorance
2) The argument from personal antipathy
3) The argument from personal incredulity
4) The genetic fallacy
5) Assuming the consequent (circular reasoning)
Question for debate: Are there any arguments against God which do not fall into one of these five categories?
Arguments against God
Moderator: Moderators
Post #141
Just a side point with hopefully interesting implications for this entire line of debate.EduChris wrote: The belief that there is an ultimate, absolute, necessary and non-contingent Reality which affords the contingent reality of our lives and of the entire universe and to which we humans (individually or collectively) might actually matter in some way, whether by personal Divine response or by Divinely-established autonomic reaction.
I have noticed that your definition of theism is compatible with my understanding of the world, provided that we accept all of these as being possibilities in the absence of relevant verifiable evidence when it comes to these matters - which is only reasonable, as I hope you'd agree (if you hadn't put me on ignore after I repeatedly asked you - in vain - to substantiate your claims in other threads).
With your "might", you attempt to simultaneously allow two completely different (and, of course, entirely unfalsifiable) god concepts, the personal (conscious, loving) and impersonal ones (which are not necessarily "supernatural" or separate from natural processes, like the "God" of Einstein). A whole lot of non-theists could agree that an impersonal "force" may be "responsible" (using both terms loosely here) for making possible the circumstances of our collective existence - in fact, saying this isn't saying much.
It's when certain "personal loving god THEISTS" start introducing an endless amount of unsubstantiated attributes for their favorite god that I start asking questions about these attributes and how they have come to know them. The answers are not very convincing, and seem to rely exclusively on the experiences, opinions, and testimonies of humans.
None of the "arguments for a generic god" do anything at all for the sort of deity which most Christians seem to have in mind. It's interesting that they often seem to argue (fallaciously, because these arguments are typically irrelevant) for the vaguest possible "god" (to the extent that calling it "god" is just an exercise in rhetoric, and I give the quoted definition above as a perfect example of this) which just MIGHT resemble what they call "god", yet they actually believe in an incredibly narrowly defined, personal, interventionist, conscious deity who takes personal interest in humans and allows at least some of them to live eternally because of the "redemptive power" of a human sacrifice in the ancient desert.
No, EduChris, you can't have non-fallacious arguments against a concept that is totally unfalsifiable. That much is obvious.
Does anyone have any non-fallacious arguments suggesting that a personal, loving deity exists in reality?
"Ultimate, absolute and non-contingent" - nice choice of words. Makes a great impression.
Does string theory fit your "working definition" of theism?
-Woland
Post #142
I am not saying that God is some being, out of the sum total of all beings, and that the particular being we call "God" happens to have attributes x, y, and z. Rather, what I am saying is that God is the ultimate source and ground and essence of all being, all existence, all differentiation, all relationality, all information, all consciousness, all volition, all creativity, and all love.Meow Mix wrote:...I believe our first points of contention were over a misunderstanding on my part -- I believed you were arguing that differentiality were a part of God's nature, which would immediately trigger the aseity-sovereignty paradox if so...
Your aseity-sovereignty paradox fails to account for the discontinuity between the necessary and the contigent, the ultimate and the penultimate; it fails to account for the difference between merely having an attribute, and being the source and ground and essence of that attribute.
The list is far from arbitrary. On another thread I showed that existence, relationality and differentiation are "superpositive" properties in the Godelian sense of being necessary in all conceivable universes. The other attributes or properties (information, consciousness, volition, creativity, and love) are "positive" or "non-arbitrary" properties in the Godelian sense for our universe because they are consistent with the superpositives and because they pass through Godel's axiom filter.Meow Mix wrote:...This second point of contention is that your list seems arbitrarily put together; reasons need to be expounded on for why things like differentiality and love (and therefore consciousness) belong to the same being when there are no apparent indications that they do, and ostensibly no contradiction in asserting they don't.
In sum, you have not presented any non-fallacious argument against God, although you have clearly shown the importance of being careful in how we conceive of God and how we speak of God.
Post #143
EduChris wrote:I am not saying that God is some being, out of the sum total of all beings, and that the particular being we call "God" happens to have attributes x, y, and z. Rather, what I am saying is that God is the ultimate source and ground and essence of all being, all existence, all differentiation, all relationality, all information, all consciousness, all volition, all creativity, and all love.
Your aseity-sovereignty paradox fails to account for the discontinuity between the necessary and the contigent, the ultimate and the penultimate; it fails to account for the difference between merely having an attribute, and being the source and ground and essence of that attribute.
I think that just makes it worse, because being a source for an attribute X implies necessarily that the being has attribute X, or some sort of X-power to impose it in the universe (which is a more complex property in itself). It's in no way a solution.
An ultimate source for existence is what might be called the necessary cause by some. But you're still forcefully packing the rest together. For example, the source of all love is sensibly human consciousness, not a supernatural one. So, in this sense, it's arbitrary to bind them into a same "source", and even what is understood by "source" is suspect.
Post #144
You haven't yet grasped what I mean by "ultimate" source. You say that love derives from human consciousness, but I am not talking about immediate or intermediate sources. If you want to understand what I mean by "ultimate" source, you would have to say, "and what is the source of human consciousness," and then what is the source of that source, and the next source, and the next....Ragna wrote:...you're still forcefully packing the rest together...the source of all love is sensibly human consciousness, not a supernatural one...
At some point, the demand for the "next" source fails because we have finally reached the ultimate source. Whatever that is, that ultimate source is God.
I do not deny that it is possible to be so hard-nosed about anything--God, consciousness, individuality, matter, energy, or whatever--that one can refuse to accept any human discourse on the subject. As an ignostic, this seems to be your choice with respect to discourse about God. But your choice to be hard-nosed here is simply arbitrary, as you do not adopt the same approach with other things. Since you cannot be consistent, your ignostic approach is not based on reason, but rather on something else.
Post #145
EduChris wrote:You haven't yet grasped what I mean by "ultimate" source. You say that love derives from human consciousness, but I am not talking about immediate or intermediate sources. If you want to understand what I mean by "ultimate" source, you would have to say, "and what is the source of human consciousness," and then what is the source of that source, and the next source, and the next....
At some point, the demand for the "next" source fails because we have finally reached the ultimate source. Whatever that is, that ultimate source is God.
Someone said inconsistency? According to this approach, any property would be non-arbitrary, since everything can be traced back to the original "source". But most properties are accidental, and that is what makes them arbitrary. Your justification is not valid this way, because you intended it to be Gdelian if I recall well.
That ultimate source, in itself, would have some characteristics, non-arbitrary, and this is in what we differ. The main disagreement point is that I haven't seen any support that anything having to do with personhood is in them. I rather see that as a contingent consequence of the universe, even in your logic.
EduChris wrote:I do not deny that it is possible to be so hard-nosed about anything--God, consciousness, individuality, matter, energy, or whatever--that one can refuse to accept any human discourse on the subject. As an ignostic, this seems to be your choice with respect to discourse about God. But your choice to be hard-nosed here is simply arbitrary, as you do not adopt the same approach with other things. Since you cannot be consistent, your ignostic approach is not based on reason, but rather on something else.
Actually it is based on reason. Ignosticism has a respect for meaning, and meaning is a pillar of logic, else words would be mere masks devoid of any information - and which could easily lead to unsound conclusions.
Post #146
I'm having trouble finding the distinction between "differentiality is part of God's nature" and "God is the ultimate source of differentiality:" these are saying the same thing. Perhaps some confusion might be arising because "differentiality is part of God's nature" is similar to the statement "God exemplifies differentiality," but there is a difference.EduChris wrote:I am not saying that God is some being, out of the sum total of all beings, and that the particular being we call "God" happens to have attributes x, y, and z. Rather, what I am saying is that God is the ultimate source and ground and essence of all being, all existence, all differentiation, all relationality, all information, all consciousness, all volition, all creativity, and all love.
Your aseity-sovereignty paradox fails to account for the discontinuity between the necessary and the contigent, the ultimate and the penultimate; it fails to account for the difference between merely having an attribute, and being the source and ground and essence of that attribute.
I don't disagree that existence, relationality and differentiation are Godelian superpositives. However, I do disagree with grouping them together as part of a being or with ostensibly unrelated things like consciousness, volition, love, etc. without a good reason.EduChris wrote:The list is far from arbitrary. On another thread I showed that existence, relationality and differentiation are "superpositive" properties in the Godelian sense of being necessary in all conceivable universes. The other attributes or properties (information, consciousness, volition, creativity, and love) are "positive" or "non-arbitrary" properties in the Godelian sense for our universe because they are consistent with the superpositives and because they pass through Godel's axiom filter.
In sum, you have not presented any non-fallacious argument against God, although you have clearly shown the importance of being careful in how we conceive of God and how we speak of God.
Why should we suppose the existence of a being that is differentiality itself + love itself, for instance (just to focus on two things to make it easier)? Why should we treat this apparently arbitrary grouping of things with any more earnestness than a being that is differentiality itself + hate itself?
Why do you combine these things as part of the same being; what reason do you have for doing so -- what evidence supports their linking? You haven't answered that most important question; all that you've said is they're "consistent." Well, it's also consistent to posit a being that is "hungriness itself + relationality itself" but very much meaningless to do so without a reason to suppose the things are together.
"Censorship is telling a man he can`t have a steak just because a baby can`t chew it." - Unknown
Post #147
Is God the ultimate source of hate, evil, darkness, impotence, ignorance, and all other negative attributes too, then -- just out of curiosity?EduChris wrote:If you want to understand what I mean by "ultimate" source, you would have to say, "and what is the source of human consciousness," and then what is the source of that source, and the next source, and the next....
At some point, the demand for the "next" source fails because we have finally reached the ultimate source. Whatever that is, that ultimate source is God.
It makes sense to have an ultimate source of differentiality and call it "differentiality itself," it makes sense to have an ultiamte source of relationality and call it "relationality itself," but it does not make sense to say that these things are part of the same thing and especially doesn't make sense to say that these sources are the same source as "love" -- at least not without a good argument. It certainly isn't the case just because someone says so. I haven't seen a real answer to this objection, just accusations that the opponents aren't understanding "ultimate sources." I disagree that we misunderstand.
"Censorship is telling a man he can`t have a steak just because a baby can`t chew it." - Unknown
-
JohnPaul
- Banned
- Posts: 2259
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:00 am
- Location: northern California coast, USA
Post #148
Are you seriously presenting that old chestnut as a "serious" argument for the existence of God, or is this a joke? If so, you should have used a smiley face!EduChris wrote: You haven't yet grasped what I mean by "ultimate" source. You say that love derives from human consciousness, but I am not talking about immediate or intermediate sources. If you want to understand what I mean by "ultimate" source, you would have to say, "and what is the source of human consciousness," and then what is the source of that source, and the next source, and the next....
At some point, the demand for the "next" source fails because we have finally reached the ultimate source. Whatever that is, that ultimate source is God.
I first read that argument many years ago when I came across some extracts from St. Thomas Aquinas in my high school library. Fortunately, I had already been exposed to elementary logic in freshman geometry and immediately recognized the embarassing absurdity of this "Christian" parody of logic.
I will not bore everyone here with yet another refutation of Aquinas' "Cosmological Argument," and I apologize for any offense that may be taken from my outburst. It was directed at the absurdity of the argument, not the person.
John
Post #149
It is my claim that the attributes I have given all pass Godel's axiom filter. The attributes you listed above do not. That is the difference, and that is why my list of attributes is not arbitrary. If you feel I am wrong, then show how your proposed attributes are 1) consistent with the Godelian superpositives, and 2) pass the filter axiom. Conversely, you could show how my list of attributes fail to meet the same criteria.Meow Mix wrote:...hate, evil, darkness, impotence, ignorance, and all other negative attributes...
You seem to be suggesting that it is coherent to inquire further into ultimate causes, as though the ultimate cause itself must depend on other (logically prior) causes. If such inquiry is coherent, then you are right and I am wrong; but if it is incoherent, then you are wrong and I am right.Meow Mix wrote:...I disagree that we misunderstand.
Post #150
No, they're not the same. For example, God is the ultimate source of everything, including hate, but that does not necessarily imply that hatred is part of God's nature. It does not logically follow that everything God creates (or allows) must necessarily be identical with God's nature.Meow Mix wrote:...I'm having trouble finding the distinction between "differentiality is part of God's nature" and "God is the ultimate source of differentiality:" these are saying the same thing...
That said, it does not strictly follow from anything I have thus far proppsed that Love (or any of the Godelian positive or non-arbitrary properties) must necessarily be a part of God's nature. But in terms of logic, such properties can be proposed for God, and that is what I have done. It is reasonable to do this because the non-arbitrary properties do not depend upon or derive from any negation of the superpositives.
But I digress. The point of this thread is not for me to prove anything about God; rather, the point is for you (or someone, anyone) to make a non-fallacious argument against God. So far your argument is nothing more than the old, "If God is the ultimate cause of everything, then what is the cause of God?" To you, the question makes sense, but to me, the question is incoherent. Therein lies the root of our disagreement.
