Well, if it’s a case for agnosticism you want, we can simply bastardize Descartes. Radical scepticism is a good foundation for agnosticism, given that (etymologically) it refers to ‘not knowing’. We don’t need to make a specifically empirical case for ignorance.
The OP requested a philosophical argument for the non-existence of God rather than a scientific one, which is why I went down the route of pointing out that the philosophical arguments for the existence of a god are all shaky. You countered with ‘I beg to differ’, and yet you don’t seem to be differing; you’re not arguing a case for the existence of a god, nor providing an example of an argument for the existence of a god that isn’t shaky. Instead you’re moving towards arguing a similar case but from a scientific perspective (which, interesting as it is, isn’t what the OP asked for).
Yes, I am a bit of a loose canon. The IIN community seems to favor well argued controversy at a bit of expense to focused consideration. Status quo participants sometimes note that these posts are a bantering version of Sunday public affairs with a dash of Beavis and Butthead providing therapeutic immaturity.
Please stay on-board. You bring out the best in people.
You two are so busy patting yourselves on the back for your brilliance that you don't even bother to respond to the only argument put forth here; mine.
I bet you can't even tell me the type of argument I'm making, albeit tongue in cheek, or which philosopher to credit it to.
Which of your statements do you want us to consider? The one about humans' incapacity to understand omniscience, which isn't an argument for or against the existence of a god or gods? The claim that a negative can't be proven, which is not strictly true (as I'm sure our mathematically inclined friend here will be able to explain more accurately and concisely than I can)? Or the various ad hominems to which you've resorted?
Our incapacity to understand omniscience. OP's request was philosophical arguments against the Bible and the existence of God. According to the Bible man was created in God's own image.
Do the philosophical math genius, I am not going to spell it out for you. Philosophy is a thought exercise.
If we are made in Gods image, and I cannot understand myself fully, let alone omniscience then what does that tell you about God? How can an omniscient being not understand itself or the universe it supposedly created?
Best philosophical arguments against god
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Well, if it’s a case for agnosticism you want, we can simply bastardize Descartes. Radical scepticism is a good foundation for agnosticism, given that (etymologically) it refers to ‘not knowing’. We don’t need to make a specifically empirical case for ignorance.
The OP requested a philosophical argument for the non-existence of God rather than a scientific one, which is why I went down the route of pointing out that the philosophical arguments for the existence of a god are all shaky. You countered with ‘I beg to differ’, and yet you don’t seem to be differing; you’re not arguing a case for the existence of a god, nor providing an example of an argument for the existence of a god that isn’t shaky. Instead you’re moving towards arguing a similar case but from a scientific perspective (which, interesting as it is, isn’t what the OP asked for).
--
MissileExpert
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes, I am a bit of a loose canon. The IIN community seems to favor well argued controversy at a bit of expense to focused consideration. Status quo participants sometimes note that these posts are a bantering version of Sunday public affairs with a dash of Beavis and Butthead providing therapeutic immaturity.
Please stay on-board. You bring out the best in people.
--
Perdition
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'll probably be shadow-banned soon enough. And not for the first time.
--
Kevinevan
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You two are so busy patting yourselves on the back for your brilliance that you don't even bother to respond to the only argument put forth here; mine.
I bet you can't even tell me the type of argument I'm making, albeit tongue in cheek, or which philosopher to credit it to.
Fucking MENSA, what a joke.
--
Perdition
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Which of your statements do you want us to consider? The one about humans' incapacity to understand omniscience, which isn't an argument for or against the existence of a god or gods? The claim that a negative can't be proven, which is not strictly true (as I'm sure our mathematically inclined friend here will be able to explain more accurately and concisely than I can)? Or the various ad hominems to which you've resorted?
--
Kevinevan
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Our incapacity to understand omniscience. OP's request was philosophical arguments against the Bible and the existence of God. According to the Bible man was created in God's own image.
Do the philosophical math genius, I am not going to spell it out for you. Philosophy is a thought exercise.
If we are made in Gods image, and I cannot understand myself fully, let alone omniscience then what does that tell you about God? How can an omniscient being not understand itself or the universe it supposedly created?