Arguments Against Existence of God are Piontless

 


Ooberman on CARM writes:

t

From a site I can't link, but you can paste and google it.

[the site he got it from is Strongatheist.net]

1. There are three attributes of existants which concern us particularly, these being:
1. Primary Attributes
2. Secondary Attributes
3. Relational Attributes.
2. B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existant’s A in order to be considered meaningful.
3. The term “God” lacks a positively identified A.
4. Because of this, the term “God” holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)
5. However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.
6. Therefore, the term “God” is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5)
7. Therefore, the god-concept is invalid.

The person making the argument on Tremblays site has a very fine write-up on the possible counters, but I'd like to see what the Christians here think. I know it's mostly Fundi's in this section, but maybe a few reasonable people will see this thread.

p3 is a false statement:

primary attributes:

a. ground of being
b. eternal
c. necessary (ontologically and logically)
d. primary condition or "first cause" to all existing things.
e. Transcendental signified.
f. personal itself.




4. Because of this, the term “God” holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)

false statement because it assumes 3 which is a false statement.

5. However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.


  arbitrary assumption disproved above
6. Therefore, the term “God” is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5)

based only upon false assumptions and arbitrary assertions of ideology.

7. Therefore, the god-concept is invalid.

false statement. I just demonstrated it's false hood. what he really mans to say is "concept invalid given my language game."

I don't play his language game.

The person making this argument doesn't demonstrate the truth of it and doesn't even attempt supporting it. to be true p3 would have to be true of all God concepts. he doesn't bother to show that it's true of one.

He says he got the original argument from an atheist website. goggling the argument above it wound up on the iron Chariot site.  So it 's the work of amateurs who don't know philosophy.

That site is the atheist answer to Josh McDowell. Some atheist dude said "let's show these fundies that they have no monopoly on cheap apologists! we can up a dogmatic site that pretends to have all the answer but is really just a bunch of high school kids giving superficial crap from their book reports, too."

an exaple of the stupidity of the people doing the Iron Chariots site.

here's what he think via negitiva means.

"A. The Non-Accomplishments Of Negative Definitions.

In this section, the insufficiency of negative definitions to provide meaning to the god-concept will be discussed, which will provide further understanding toward the need of specificity in identification.

The theist, in attempt to provide meaning to the term “God”, may object to this argument by saying that we know “God” to be infinite, limitless, and immaterial. These descriptions, however, amongst others, do nothing to help their position. This is because these descriptions are not identifying in nature—they are “negative definitions”.

A negative definition is a definition which tells us what something is not, rather than what something is. It is a description which critically lacks specificity—not telling us what is meant by a term that we may apply any secondary traits, but informing us only of what it is not, which doesn’t help our situation at all.

For example, consider the following identification:

“I am not George W. Bush, Jr.” "

I. not via negativia, not even close to what it means

II. those are not negative definitions

saying "God is eternal" is not saying "God is not temporal." its' a positive affirmation of something God is.

III. since he doesn't know what via negativia means (it doesn't' man attributes like eternal, all knowing all power, all present) then he can't argue with it or say that it's false because he has no idea what he's talking about.

IV. mystical theology is way over this guys' head I wouldn't even bother to discuss it with him. But the fact of it is accepting that God is beyond our understanding is not the same as saying that he has no attributes.

these are very clear and definite positive attributes and this guy in doing is not only showing off his ignorance but merely demonstrating that his own concept is fallacious.


there's more, he makes it worse. he supossedly spikes out any future come back by suppossedly showing that defintiopn is impossible:

On The Impossibility Of A Definition


We’ve established that the word “God” is meaningless, and thus that atheism is a justified position.

we did, how? by misusing the term via negativina and asserting something we don't bother to demonstrate, such as p3 in the original argument.

This is, however, only until a theist should provide a valid definition. While I will not leave out the possibility of a god-believer doing so, George Smith does provide an argument against the prospect when considering the secondary characteristics theists would wish to apply to the term “God” thereafter.

here he says "a believer might have a definition" after saying there can't be a definition, then he claims someone esle preempts the possibility how do they do that? by asserting without proving that there can't be one and arguing with secondary qualities, which are not essential to a definition.


Smith develops his argument by noting many of these character traits that are applied to the term—specifically omnipotence and limitlessness. Considering these attributes, he argues, defining “God” is an impossible task.

I've already disproved those fallacious assertions that are just based upon ignorance and using the definitions wrongly.
but even so most theologians don't' use the omnis now anyway.



Why? Smith argues that this is because of the consequences of a thing’s identity. To have an identity, Smith observes, is to be presented with various limits. Things one simply cannot do by virtue of its nature. However, since a “God” is supposed to be both omnipotent and limitless, a valid definition for the term itself is unattainable.


The God os process theology and the Tillich concept of the Super-essential Godhead (being itself) are not open to this charge because they don't require an "identity" in the same way that an individual man does.

all of his arguments leave out the two major moves of theology in the 20 century he obviously doesn't even understand them.

Only can one not disprove God because you can't prove a negative but also becuase this usually invovles misconstruing the nature of God. The real argument for God points out the nature  of being thus the only conceivable argument against God would be to say there's nothing special about being. That is automatically refuted by the nature of life.

Bully boys in action

Here's an original post to  thread by so called "big thinker" the super rand puba of analytical thinking whose great seminal arguments we examined last time.

Meta,
Of all of the 300+ studies you have listed on your website, are any of them falsifiable?
If so, which ones and in what ways are they falsifiable?

If you don't mind, pick the absolute best one, the one that you think is the best 'slam dunk' 'that settles it' argument and explain how it could be falsified and let's talk about it.

Thanks,
BT

that looks nice.he's serious, so it seems. not insulting. So I gave him a serious answer.

All empirical quantitative studies can be verified and falsified.

these are all empirical studies, some qualitative but most of them quantitative, thus they are all verifiable.

There is no one single best study. Most are good some notable such as the Wuthnow becuase it was the first really rigorous scientific double blind study of its kind, on this topic.

I tired to give you the chapter on the M scale because it's the m scale that makes them all work. that's why they use it as standard procedure. Before that they all tried to make their own scales. But Hood succeeded in making one that is all purpose and can be verified.

Here's how he verifies it.

He has three things it's based upon

(1) the mystical of the world who write about their experiences
(2) W.E. Stace who read all the mystics and makes a theory about the experiences bases upon the writings.
(3) the actual data form interviewing modern people.

It also has three measurement scales.

(1) those who have experiences with specific reference to religious tradition such as "Christianity"

(2) those with no such reference

(3) the inoperative experiences such as the noetic quality (meaning mystical experience of a kind which does not usually have ideas in it--its beyond word, but some convey ideas where people feel they have learned things, such as "God is love."

Then the verification is

(1) the tests demonstrate Stace got it right, which verifies the mystics: modern respondents answer along the lines of the timeless mystics. so people in India 2000 years ago were having the very same kind of experiences people in Virginia today are having. This is by their own descriptions but the modern Americans have not read the guys in India.

(2) He tried with several other traditions apart form Christianity. Islam, Hinduism, a type of Hinduism called Vedanta and other traditions. Same answers.

(3) done with several other cultures: Iran, Japan, Europe, Russia, England, America other non English speaking countries.

all these answers come out the same. People all over the world are having the same experiences.

Now you might say "O that's contradicting Christianity." My view is there is one reality (the divine--God) behind all religions. We experience that beyond words and to put into words we have to use cultural constructs and that's what makes religions all seem different.

Hoods findings show that even when people with no religious beliefs have such experiences they relate to them in the same way the religious people do. In the interpretive aspects they are all learning the same things from these experiences (God is love, or if they don't believe in God the void is love, undifferentiated unity of all things and other such ideas).

they are all getting the same experience and they relate to it the same.

then the upshot is we can determine real mystical experience from fake becasue the correlations are such that the fakes stand out from the findings.

Now let's see what "the boys" do with it.

Uswername, (the genius who wants liberal arts taken out of universities)

Metacrock, you claim to have 300 studies. Then you claimed to have read them all and know what they say.

Are you qualified to make any kind of judgment of their findings? Are you SCIENTIFICALLY (not mythically, or poetically) qualified to know what the studies mean?

I think not. I think you should back up your bluster and submit the studies to a Science Forum.

You've had it easy, posting on a Christian site that lets you insult people freely. Go somewhere where you actually have to work hard to prove yourself.

Einstein or Darwin didn't have a free ride like you have gotten at the sites you haunt. Man up, big boy, pick a science forum and post your BEST study and let people evaluate it.

Until then, it's just more bald assertions on your part.

Now he knows very well what my credentials are, BA in sociology, studied social research methods, Doctoral work in history of science. Had help from the major researcher in studying the studies and writing the book. I've also made the sources pubic man times, put up links to the text that books that talks about them. But becuase I can't get a study on line and will not type one up he mocks and ridicules the studies and claims they are bad of course he wont look one up and never read one. These guys don't see anything wrong. They see this is totally my fault for being so stupid to think there could be a study that supports God (as though these studies are really simplistic enough to say "we  support God.")

from another thread I'm grousing about all the mocking and riducling  they do and "recall" say this:

"And all just because you refuse to spend the slightest bit of effort double-checking your own assertions before posting them for the entire world to see. "

here's what I told him


you are a liar. you hear me? I can prove that I consulted the guy wote the M scale. that's a fact. I can prove I consulted other academics who experts in the field. what you are saying is a lie, it 's calculated to destroy my trade when I publish the book, when i find out your real id I'm going to sue you for the cost of the book because you are destroying the market for it.

you are a liar and i can prove you are a liar. you have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to say things that immune the reputation of my book when you have no knowledge at all fo m y activities or efforts. you also have no right because I've made it extremely clear that I've a huge amount of work. ony becasue I wont do your work for you, it's your job not mine to attack the studies, becasue I wont do your work for you you want to destroy my reputation and my book.\

I will sue you. I will sue for all you have. understand you liar! do you understand liar!???


then the feeding frensy, ou are stupid, you don't know anything, you dont' have any studies you didn't go to school you aer not good you are liar you can't think your arument are stupid no one listens to you you are no good you a liar you can't do anyting you dont' know anything our arugment are lies no one cares what yiou say over and over and voer

but they not ideolgoical are they noawwwww. they are just internet. that' all it's not atheism it's just the internt. just blame the internet. 90% of them say these things. they are all mostly very stupid only a hand full are even capable of a serious conversation and they just keep at it all the time.


they are totally absolutely desperate to stop what I have to say.


link to thread here

and here