I find that theists like to play philosophical games when it comes to "God" rather then simply provide evidence. To me it seems that is all they have. They will construct flawed logical arguments which lack verifiable evidence, and then claim it is proof.
I find this quite annoying actually. They construct silly arguments like there must be a god due to morality and such, or a first causer whithout any evidence such a thing must be a god much less their god.
The "evidences" I have heard for god all seem like philosophical masturbation rather then evidence which is what I would actually like.
Thoughts appreciated.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@ Iron Man
Too true. When confronted with undeniable evidence of the falsity of their claims ( I am talking the Abrahamics here) they have no reply and instead present ill thought out "logic" which collapses very quickly or other philosophical complications which have nothing to do with their original claims. It seems they hope the sheer weight and volume of words will make me say "wow, that is so verbose, of course you must be right, Praise the Lord!"
Never mind the latest fashion of attempting to redefine commonly understood English words, even when the theists are presented with the standard definitions! That really gets my hairs rising.
But it is the sheer desperation of these folk that is so sad, that, and the woeful ignorance of the history of their own particular sects of Judaism.
+100 agrees for Iron Man!
They also think a failed argument can be ignored, and they can just roll onto the next one. Worse they think a string of failed arguments somehow represent a burgeoning body of "evidence", as two or more failed arguments somehow represent something more compelling than two separate failed arguments.
The theological philosophers I've encountered, like William Lane Craig use woeful nonsense tbh. The cosmological argument is risible, and any philosopher worthy of the name ought to be embarrassed to use it, but beggars chants be chooses I suppose, when they have no objective evidence to demonstrate.
@Iron man: I've seen nothing different myself unless it is the inane assertions of the presuppositionalists. No philosophy, no logic, no reason or evidence. "God is because god is and you can not disagree because god is and you really know it and are just pretending that you don't. HORSESHIT!
Actually, I tend to refer to these "philosophical games" somewhat differently, not least because some philosophical games are constructed with the intent of being genuinely informative about intricate technical issues. Such games are constructed with a view to applying the proper rules of discourse to those problems, in a manner that allows for both reasonable speculation and a certain amount of humour to be stirred into the mix.
On the other hand, the activities of the usual suspects among supernaturalists, I characterise as the business of concocting rhetorical spells and apologetic fabrications, with which to try and conjure their imaginary magic men into existence, and which, when subject to proper critique, actually constitute abuse of the proper rules of discourse, not their genuine application.
As an example of the latter, I give you this thread. Enjoy what I did in there while you're reading it. :)
Yep, this is what religion is now... God of the gaps fallacies and logical arguements (none of which are truly deductive).
You even get some of the muppets like Sye Ten willing to go as far as denying reality in order to just muddy the water.
"How do you know alive", "how do you know this is real" .......
If that is proof for your God and it is enough for you, then I have some magic beans I wish yo sell to you.