Irrational Atheism

Atheists don't seem to understand the nature of logic or reason. They think in such a whapmerjawed fashion. One of the major examples is their penchant for arguing that one must prove an argument he can make it. If you have to prove an argument before you can make it, how can you ever prove it because you to make it to prove it? How does one prove an argument without making the argument. Yesterday on carm one not only argued this, but also claimed I was begging the question because I defined what I mean by "God." She said "but you haven't proved that God exists so you can't talk about what God is like." She called that begging the question. Discussing one's belief is not begging the question. Begging the question only happens when one is using the point in dispute to answer the argument against the point in dispute. But just talking about how I believe God to be is not doing that.

But nothing beats the pathetic nature of atheists trying to sake a God argument. No length of incredulity is incredulous enough for such a one. No lie too false, no slander too bold, anything goes in resisting a God argument.

Yesterday I put down an argument on CARM:

he said nothing but quibble with the definitions.

my argument:

Terms:

Aseity = an existent cannot fail or cease to exist;is not dependent upon anything else for its existence (self sufficient existence--an extension of Ontological necessity, I will use the terms interchangeably).

God = The object of our ultimate concerns; the proper object of our religious devotion.

Contingent existence = an existent can fail or cease; the existence of which is conditioned other events.

PSA = Putative State of Affairs, the essential starting point or the ontologically prior condition for existence.

Numinous = Feeling of utter dependence, the object of ultimate concerns, sense of the Holy, any sense that we have of the special nature of things beyond the mundane.

Being itself = not a pure abstraction, not the sum total of existing things, but the basic nature of being apart from nothingness; both being in itself and being for itself.This is nt a mystical concept, it is merely a reference to any form of being, without regard to any particular being.

Argument:


(1)Nothingness as PSA is marked by its own contradiction,

A.True absolute nothingness and PSA are contradictions because nothingness means nothing at all, and PSA is something.

B.True nothingness would lack any essential potential for change; no time, no ptoentiality, noting at all; therefore, no change, no becoming.

Therefore: (2)Being, in some form, as the alterntive to nothingness must obtain to a state of aseity.

(3)Aseity implies eternal and the infinite.

(4)Human being is contrasted by finitude.

(5)The awareness of our finitude in contrast to Aseity of Being creates a sense of the unbounded condition; which evokes our sense of the numinous.

(6) The sense of the numious creates religious devotion, thus we have an object of religious devotion and theological discourse in Being itself.

(7) An object of religious devotion and theological discourse is a ratinal warrent for belief.

his comments:

proper object of our religious devotion. Improper definition, since there is no single such object for all people - unless you have started to speak of yourself in the pluralis maiestatis

The object of my ultimate concern is the survival of humanity. For me, there is no proper object of any religious devotion.

Contingent existence = an existent can fail or cease; the existence of which is conditioned other events.

As has been demonstrated a long time ago, the two definitions are not logically equivalent.

PSA = Putative State of Affairs, the essential starting point or the ontologically prior condition for existence.

This definition depends on one's personal ontology.

Numinous = Feeling of utter dependence, the object of ultimate concerns, sense of the Holy, any sense that we have of the special nature of things beyond the mundane.

Please speak for I have no such feelings.

Being itself = not a pure abstraction, not the sum total of existing things, but the basic nature of being apart from nothingness;

A "nature" is a property of some object. Of what object is "being itself" a property ?

both being in itself and being for itself.This is nt a mystical concept, it is merely a reference to any form of being, without regard to any particular being.

So "being itself" is just a placeholder ? You are being itself, I am being itself ... ?

"Whatever can be said can be said clearly" (from the prologue to the Tractatus). You would be well advised to heed Ludwig's words.

notice all the comments are about definition. He says nothing about the bit with numbers in the "argument" part.  The things with which he's quibbling in the definitions are matters of how I use the word; OF course he disputes that there is an object of ultimate concern. what does that do logically to the argument? does that beat the point about being is eternal? No it 'just tells you how i use the term God. He can say "I do not believe in the God you believe in" but does that disprove it? no of course not. It's not even a valid question about definitions since it's my explanation of how I use the term it really can't be questioned. The ultimate point can be disputed but not the fact that I use the word that way?


Then Donald says:

HRG answered it just fine- and your rebuttal is nothing but insults, and insistance that your concepts DO make sense. I'm starting to suspect that either one of two things is the case- either you know your arguments are worthless, but you're hoping that everyone will be too dazzled to notice; or you've actually fooled yourself into thinking that things like "being itself" is meaningful. I think you're hoping that nobody will look too closely, either way- and when someone does (as HRG does regularly), you have no recourse but to insist that your argument makes sense, while insulting the other person's intelligence and education- probably in the hopes of scaring away anyone else who might attempt it.

where? where did he talk about anything other than the definitions? Somehow this guy sees this vast crushing victory. how?  he goes on and own about the emperors cloths and what not. where's the argument? Where is any sort of argument about the premises? He's desperate and clutching at straws. their logic is putrid it's just absurd.