Apologetic

[bloop]

[Vlad!]

I love these arguments. This site is taking the "straw man" approach to debating theism. They take a crappy argument and treat it as if it were a serious one, and go about refuting it with a straight face. Frankly, I don't think any of these three arguments are worth a whole lot.

I prefer this ontological argument: The concept of a God exists. Therefore God exists.

This is still a little goofy, but it makes a bit more sense. However, I can conceive of things that do not (and cannot) exist. Therefore, it's still an invalid argument (though it relies less on chicanery and more on stupidity, which is a good thing because that exposes it for what it is).

The basis for the ontological argument is that of being. Ontology is, in essence, the study or science of being. So an ontological argument attempts somehow to define the being of God in such a way that God must exist. Don't mistrust all arguments labeled 'ontological,' but this one doesn't say anything.

Universal Experience:
A pretty simple argument, but easily disproved: the experience (concept) of God is not universal.

Moral argument:
This one is interesting. As I understand it, it derives from the logic which says "God implies morals." However, logicians will gladly show that reversing this to say "morals imply God" is a fallacy of the converse.

There is another way of looking at it. You have a premise: humans have morals. This premise, of course, implies that humans understand morals in roughly the same way. You have a second premise: morals imply a source. That is to say, humans didn't come up with moral code on their own, so obviously it came from somewhere extra-human. Therefore (we conclude), since morals imply a source and morals exist, a source exists. A simple exercise in logic. This logic is valid (unlike the previous example), but in this case the premise bears questioning: do humans really have a moral code that we all share? Also the conclusion is a bit shaky: does the source have to be God?
If we take the first tack, we question the validity of the premise. If humans do not have morals (or if humans cannot be said to have some sort of homogeneous understanding of morality) then nothing can be said about the existance of a source. And I think this is pretty easily refuted.
The second tack admits that humans have some sort of more-or-less extrahuman understanding of morality, but rejects the idea that that source is God. Kant in his discussion of deontology suggests that humans have a duty to follow moral (natural) law, but there is no reason why that law must come from God. Darwinists would probably point to self-interest as the basis of morality, showing how what we believe to be 'right' usually involves what is best for our survival as an individual and as a species.

So (ironically), I find myself agreeing with the atheist arguer in this case. But that's only because the atheist is taking on fairly warped or nonsensical arguments for theism rather than anything more intelligent.

Good topic, bloop, and I look forward to hearing from others on this subject.

[bloop]

Well, he does offer 18 different arguements, these representing only three, some of which I've seen used here.  I think it would be cool to tackle them 3 at a time to tell which ones are pretty good to use and which ones the atheist has correctly pinned as being pretty crappy.  I've heard almost all of them somewhere.

[Vlad!]

Well, he does offer 18 different arguements, these representing only three, some of which I've seen used here.  I think it would be cool to tackle them 3 at a time to tell which ones are pretty good to use and which ones the atheist has correctly pinned as being pretty crappy.  I've heard almost all of them somewhere.

Yeah, I realize that this is only a subset of all his arguments, but those three don't impress me any

[GusX:]

- And so It is -

[oneafroboy]

What Vlad! said.

[leinad]

I'll be using http://home.inu.net/skeptic/ in this series of posts.  I don't understand all of the arguements presented, so maybe we can get a little discussion going.  I'll just do three a week or every few days if I see it dying down earlier.  It could be interesting, and beneficial for giving people a reason for our faith.

Are we ever going to do anything else with this?

[DvChWi]

[CrustytheCannibal]

The theism arugments used here are stupid but so are some of the athiest answers.

REFUTATION: Certain attributes of god's perfection are not consistent. For example, god is said to be both perfectly just and perfectly merciful. However, perfect justice and perfect mercy do not always coincide: a perfectly merciful god would forgive us our sins; a perfectly just god would punish us for our sins. Another difficulty with this argument is the implication that perfection is an objective term. If this were the case, we would all agree on what is perfect. Perfection is a subjective term and does not belong in the search for objective knowledge. The ontological argument fails due to the difficulties inherent with the definition of god.

Yeah, okay, we are supposed to be able to judge a higher beings actions and understand their perfection when the higher being is the one who made the entire system.

This is like a computer chip telling Bill Gates how he has to run his computer.

Also, how does perfect mercy = forgiving everyone of all their sins regardless? With what data of perfection and what scales did they use to bring out thid equation or have they just assumed it as objective truth? How does "perfect" used in context with mercy mean "merciful to everyone for everything no matter what, all the time."

How does being perfectly just = condemning everyone regardless? If one creates an escape plan that says, "if you accept this escape plan I will pardon all of your wrongs", then how is not condemning them imperfect justice if they accept it?

I'm sorry but I'm confused at how these conclusions have been made.

And why would an inherently and entirely imperfect race of beings have any idea as to what perfection would be to a being who is above our level of understanding? What does one have to back up this idea?

"My thoughts are higher than your thoughts. My ways are higher than your ways."

[Vlad!]

Also, how does perfect mercy = forgiving everyone of all their sins regardless? With what data of perfection and what scales did they use to bring out thid equation or have they just assumed it as objective truth? How does "perfect" used in context with mercy mean "merciful to everyone for everything no matter what, all the time."

How does being perfectly just = condemning everyone regardless? If one creates an escape plan that says, "if you accept this escape plan I will pardon all of your wrongs", then how is not condemning them imperfect justice if they accept it?
 

I think you just proved their point on how 'perfect' is a subjective term :D

[CrustytheCannibal]

Also, how does perfect mercy = forgiving everyone of all their sins regardless? With what data of perfection and what scales did they use to bring out thid equation or have they just assumed it as objective truth? How does "perfect" used in context with mercy mean "merciful to everyone for everything no matter what, all the time."

How does being perfectly just = condemning everyone regardless? If one creates an escape plan that says, "if you accept this escape plan I will pardon all of your wrongs", then how is not condemning them imperfect justice if they accept it?
 

I think you just proved their point on how 'perfect' is a subjective term :D

Yes but they made a point before that.

a perfectly merciful god would forgive us our sins; a perfectly just god would punish us for our sins.

They gave us an absolute on what perfect mercy and perfect justice mean. And then they tell me well, perfection is subjective even though they've given me absolutes on two issues of perfection that according to them cause Christianity to be inconsistent.

Is perfection completely subjective as they say or is it subjective with the exception of their defining of perfect mercy & perfect justice?

They say after this perfect mercy & justice part "Another difficulty with this argument is" they do not release this top argument and they do not include it in the idea that perfection is subjective.

They've given me an absolute on what two perfect things are and then tell me that perfection is completely subjective.

[Vlad!]

Oh, you don't have to convince me that these guys aren't making the most consistent, logical arguments in the world. I'm sure you read my replies to what bloop posted of theirs earlier.  

[CrustytheCannibal]

True, I just like to reason things out by saying or typing them. Also I am not sure I helped prove perfection to be subjective.

I do not believe perfection can be anything to humans. As everything we do or think is filled with error. Even the tools we use are riddled with error in most cases.

When we say something outside of God is perfect we are never making a literal statement. And I am not sure we can then label perfection as subjective since we really have no grasp of what perfection is. We just know God is perfect, we just don't really know what that means.

I think something we classify as relative has to be understood to a point in order for us to be able to classify it at all.

[Smitty]

The atheist does not believe in God (yes, that's right); however, he does believe in a higher power. That higher power is represented by science. Science is the ultimate authority to the atheist. If something cannot be proved by science, than it does not exist. But what is science? Merely the knowledge and studies of man. Therefore, if science is the source of all knowledge and authority, and man is the source of science, than man is god. And if man is god, we sure make a pathetic deity.

I contend that the very fact that science cannot fathom God is simply proof that He is God. If we could totally understand and make sense of God, than we would be His equal; he would not truly be God.  

[Vlad!]

The atheist does not believe in God (yes, that's right); however, he does believe in a higher power. That higher power is represented by science. Science is the ultimate authority to the atheist. If something cannot be proved by science, than it does not exist. But what is science? Merely the knowledge and studies of man. Therefore, if science is the source of all knowledge and authority, and man is the source of science, than man is god. And if man is god, we sure make a pathetic deity.

I contend that the very fact that science cannot fathom God is simply proof that He is God. If we could totally understand and make sense of God, than we would be His equal; he would not truly be God.

Well, it depends on the atheist. A humanist (and here I mean a secular humanist) believes that man is the end in and of all things...so man is essentially the higher power, and science is the means to his elevation. A rationalist believes that logic and reason is the foundation of all, and an empiricist believes that experience and evidence (generally through science) is the basis. But then there are atheists who believe that man's purpose is pleasure (hedonists) or that man has no real purpose and either exists in himself (existentialists, though they can certainly deify science) or is doomed to eventually come to nothingness or self-annihilation (nihilists).

So atheists certainly have no deity to worship (hence the name), but (and here I agree with you) that does not mean they hold nothing sacred. It is certainly common to find atheists who still have very strong beliefs in morality and justice, though with them it is founded in humanity rather than theology. And many atheists do see either man or science (or man through science) as being the ultimate or the greatest authority.

[danny316]

_

[Vlad!]

[danny316]

_  

[Vlad!]

that's true. i think you misunderstood my point....i merely meant that if some people have different ideas as right and wrong, then perhaps the urge to do right isn't truly universal after all.

I think the point of this moral argument, assuming it indeed has a point, is that the presence of ANY urge to do right suggests that there is a God (or Spirit) prompting this urge. Many philosophers have claimed that without a God, morality must be relative, and a relative morality isn't quite as useful as a universal one.  

[danny316]

_