Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
RadicalWhiggery:
I think that what Nyarlathotep meant was that any formal proof about the real world is no better than its premises, meaning that it is really no proof at all in the sense of confering certainty about the real world.
RadicalWhiggery:
The proofs of Aquinas are obsolete. I've made some comments here and there, but more importantly you have to ask yourself why such a simple proof hasn't been accepted by philosophers around the world. Why isn't it taught in every university? Why isn't it broadcast from all the electronic pulpits? Why do theologians even bother with all the other "proofs"? Why hasn't it made the headlines of every major newspaper? That should tell you that there is something wrong with your easy "proof." That would be the most reasonable conclusion by far. A "proof" is supposed to be something that compels every rational, objective, educated mind to accept. We see a huge lack of acceptance and, therefore, no proof.
I can't respond if your entire argument is a logical fallacy.
RadicalWhiggery:
There is no logical fallacy here unless you take my argument to be a deductive argument. It's an inductive argument ultimately based on observed facts. It carries a high confidence level in that very few educated people with objective, rational minds would expect a huge silence for a proof that is supposedly elementary and of long-standing history. Therefore, my argument should be of the deepest concern to you.
oh RadicalWhiggery has just concluded that god exist, you know even cults say the same thing and fool many a people, But you can`t con me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. You have no valid argument for a god or gods, so don`t go on embarrassing yourself on a atheist web site.I f you continue in this nonsence they will pick you apart.
Simplyagnostic: You have become a very effective agnostic. Hope you stay that way!
You're not making any arguments here. You're just boldly asserting that I'm trying to con people. Did you read the argument? It's a complete proof. It takes from a posteriori to justify the initial proposition and then uses deductive reasoning to arrive at an a priori conclusion. So either the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises or one of the premises is wrong. You chose neither. Instead, you made random assertions about cults and how I have no valid argument. Is this how atheists respond to deductive proofs?
A philosphical argument can be valid but untrue. Some shred of evidence of a universal intellect is necessary to support your claim.
What? No. Any argument can be valid if the conclusion follows from the premises. But to test for truth you have to access the premises themselves. If you agree with the premises and you think the conclusion follows, you must accept the conclusion as true.
@RadicalWhiggery: The standard for evidence in philosophy is far lower than in science. Philosophy is no more scientific than religion in that regard.
This isn't true. Science is covered in philosophy. Philosophy could theoretically be used to say science is unreliable. I don't hold to this view, but to say science is somehow above philosophy in terms of proving something is not inherently true. Science also evolved from a branch of philosophy. Healthy science applies both the scientific method and philosophy.
In my epistemology, the Baconian method is merely a tool for empiricist induction. I agree with you that science isn't the ultimate standard for knowledge, but instead a subsidiary of an epistemological framework.
Name one major discovery about reality that was made by philosophers in the last 400 years.
Depends on what you mean by discovery. Philosophers still debate about most arguments.
RadicalWhiggery:
The problem is always in the premises which invariably insert highly dubious claims. You will find no trickier wording than is found in many a theologian's premises! The tricky wording of lawyers can only take second place! That there are serious problems in your premises follows from my inductive argument that concluded that a real proof (easy and ancient) would have gone around the world by now. I have yet to see that any of my objections have been met.
You might notice that RadicalWhiggery makes the equivalent statement: that arguments can be valid but untrue; while maintaining that chimp's statement "argument can be valid but untrue" is false.
Except for moral argument, ligustics, and logic I don't see much validity in philosophy. Unless you consider humor a branch of philosophy.
When a branch of philosophy becomes valuable, it is separated into a new field like science, logic, math, etc. Which kind of makes your observation that there isn't much validity in philosophy almost a truism (because when they do manage to get some, it leaves). Of course the philosophers will protest this vehemently as they want the prestige that is associated with these splitter field, without being held to the associated rigor.
What a great example of how Skype is superior.
You might notice that I was making a point that the philosophical nature of an argument has nothing to do with this fact. You see again, if we had been on Skype, you would have heard me focussing on the word "Any". But even on here, these are not equivalent statements.
Now stop with the accusations. I really can't continue with you unless we move to Skype. And btw Skype doesn't mean just calls. There's a history of most of our discussions throughout the day. So your point is somewhat irrelevant.
RadicalWhiggery:
Are you going to leave without answering my objections to your premises? I have yet to see any convincing rebuttal.
Is this how [insert whatever you are here] dismiss an entire group?
what I`m saying that if Anselms argument isn`t full proof then neither is yours!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.We just don`t know yet what caused this to come about, but science is working on it regulary.AS for you premises I disagree with number nine I give you so much but you want the whole cake, Just because something has a cause and you attribute it to God doesn`t mean that you can prove a God or Gods.
What? Anselm? This argument is from Aquinas. He has nothing to do with Anselm. The ontological argument is nonsense.
I know from which source it derives, but I`m saying neither Aquinas or anselms arguments convince me if they can`t what makes you think you can lol.
Are you suggesting you won't ever change your mind on the subject? Why are you here then?
as you can see that I`m a agnostic I recently changed from Christian to agnostic. What kind of god follower are you? jew Christian what? you give 9 premises from your post to whom do you answer to?What made you believe in this so called God or Gods?
I am what you might call a deist or general theist. I don't necessarily believe in the divine aspect of the first cause. I Just believe it's a mind that exists. I was convinced by arguments like the Aquinas'. Also I think it's difficult to defend an atheist worldview.
radical do you read the bible old and new testament, you claim deism but you don`t feel god is active in peoples lives now, What makes you any different then a practicing Christian, they hold to the past but expect a second coming of the Christ figure and then a judgement.Deism is a bankrupt stance to take what your saying in short is that you believe a God exist but he isn`t active in everyday life.What do you get out of that? Where is the benefit in believing in any God at all?
Pages