Thank goodness someone took the time to explain to you why the labels apply.
Someone didn't. That's a fallacy in and of itself.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thank goodness someone took the time to explain to you why the labels apply.
Atheism is when you go around acting like you know everything because you pretend you use science to guide every step of your life.
I disagree with this.As far as I am concerned, the only way I could come to have a burden of proof regarding this position is if I were to make a negative claim: e.g.
A god or gods do not exist.
That would require me to defend that statement.
I disagree with this.
The burden of proof is always on the affirmative claim. If you think about it, it could hardly be otherwise.
I agree, that's just daft.I can't recall who it was, but it was a then quite familiar poster on RS who started off something like:
"Gods don't exist, prove me wrong" - now, that's not quoted word for word, but the general idea was the same. This is of course problematic: it's not possible to stake a contention and expect others to invalidate the claim. If the claim is going to be staked, it needs to offer support itself.
If somebody says, 'god exists', I have no idea of what they just said.
Atheism is when you go around acting like you know everything because you pretend you use science to guide every step of your life.
Really?God is metaphysical by definition
Really? I think we're going to need to look at your operating definition of metaphysical. I don't see a specific logical problem with this statement as presented, but I'd certainly want to reserve the right to object later, particularly because this is directly in conflict with what most believers I've encountered would suggest is a necessary and even defining characteristic of their deity, which bring is neatly to...That which is metaphysical cannot be detected
And this is where the contradiction is made fully manifest, because I know the vast majority of believers do and have always believed that their deity intervenes in the world. This contradiction arises either through defining God as metaphysical or through defining metaphysical as undetectable, which is why I reserved the right to object.Therefore Gods existence cannot be detected
The statement 'God exists' is fallacious because existence isn't a valid predicate. That's a technical point in predicate logic, though, a consequence of the notion that all predicates have referents, to the degree that the term 'God' is logically indistinguishable from the statement 'God exists', rendering the statement 'God exists' to be logically 'God exists exists'.The statement God exists therefore is fallacious because the truth claim cannot be determined even if it is true
There's a lot of guff said about things like default positions, making it seem more deep and profound than it really is.So the default position is to neither accept or reject the truth claim but to simply let it be
Which presents a bit of a problem. If you want to defined God as metaphysical by definition, you need a coherent definition of metaphysical. it's kind of how definitions work, by this sort of circular- and cross-referencing.However the word metaphysical cannot be rigorously defined because human minds cannot truly comprehend such an unknowable concept as this
Well, you've just imbued it with characteristics in the immediate aftermath pf saying it was unknowable and that we couldn't truly comprehend is.For how can one comprehend that which exists outside of space and time and has no property or dimension
To be fair, nothing you can't define can ever be falsified. That's why the wibblers keep their definitions so incredibly woolly that, in now almost twenty years of activity in discussion of this sort with apologists of all stripe from the famous to the infamous, I've yet to encounter a definition that got me even a little bit closer to understanding what this god thing is and what one is supposed to do with it.But even though it is incomprehensible it is also unfalsifiable hence why the default position is to let it be
What exists? <this thing> 'thing exists'. What is a thing that doesn't exist? That there's <thing> at the outset already assumes the existence of said <thing>
The ontological argument for a god in fact.Greetings,
Spar, you've just made an argument for God's existence!
P1: Saying a word implies that to which it refers exists;
P2: God;
C: Exists.
Kindest regards,
James
Spar, you've just made an argument for God's existence!
P1: Saying a word implies that to which it refers exists;
P2: God;
C: Exists.
ParadoxicalGod is usually defined as being omnipotent
Impossible in principleand omniscient
Incoherentand outside of space and time
Omnipotence is metaphysical?These are not physical limitations so are therefore metaphysical by definition
Cool. Can you demonstrate a referent?- metaphysical being that which transcends the physical
Not massively interested in legitimacy. Considerably more interested in veridical or epistemic value. That some idiots have thought such questions sufficiently interesting to warrant definition as a branch of philosophy in its own right doesn't make it any less idiotic.Metaphysics is also a branch of philosophy so the existence / non existence of God is therefore a legitimate question
This is one of those statements that really, really should make everybody sit up and think about the silliness of categorical statements. Empirically is the only method of demonstration by which things can be shown to exist.Indeed the existence / non existence of anything whose existence / non existence cannot be empirically demonstrated
That's not the same as suggesting that it's useful or has, in fact, even a shred of utility. The only thing mnetaphsyics ever did for humanity was to give us a metric for precisely how far up one's arse one can fit one's own head.No concept is outside of philosophical / metaphysical discussion that can be imagined by human minds and nor should it be
No it isn't. The purpose of philosophy is to teach us how to identify the failures of our presuppositions.For the purpose of philosophy is to understand the nature of reality by using logic and reason and Socratic dialogue to question any truth proposition
It's meaningless as long as it isn't defined. Still waiting for that to happen.God may be an entirely meaningless concept for atheists but it is not an entirely meaningless one for philosophy - actually the complete opposite
Excellent. We're in agreement. Let's have a definition.Therefore it is necessary for there to be some working definition of God otherwise debate is not possible
The problem is, of course, they haven't even provided a shitty one, they've danced around some characteristics they feel they have to have in order to make their preposterous arguments not quite so easy to utterly eviscerate with the tiniest bit of scrutiny - a venture in which, it should be noted, they've failed spectacularly - and a few things he definitely isn't.So the onus is on theists to provide a definition as rigorous as possible and on atheists to provide a rejection of said definition equally as rigorous