3 ms·

Just because you didn't find them compelling doesn't mean they are somehow flawed. There are whole schools of philosophy that are mutually exclusive and yet are

Just because you didn't find them compelling doesn't mean they are somehow flawed. There are whole schools of philosophy that are mutually exclusive and yet are subscribed to each by many very intelligent people who are unable to decisively prove each other wrong. Having studied so much philosophy, you of all people should understand that there is a huge difference between a rational, consistent argument and a proof. EDIT: Proving or disproving the existence of God is, in general, a fool's game. One could probably prove that certain types of deities are impossible, but it's impossible to prove that no form of deity is possible. On the other hand, proving the existence of God would almost certainly require a well-documented divine intervention, and even then many people would (rightfully) remain skeptical. Also, my previous post didn't say anything about proving the existence of God: I said that they made "arguments in favor of religion," which is not the same thing. First, not all religions involve deities. Even if you restrict the discussion to religions involving deities, it is possible to argue that it is desireable or advantageous to believe in God without first proving that God exists. Furthermore, even some atheists argue that religion in general or some religions in particular have had a net positive impact on humanity.

ignifero 15y ago
Good points here, although i must note that your appeal to authority ("many intelligent people") does not lend credence to any of these arguments. For many people, they are no more true than any random syntactically correct sentence. And in any case, i feel this thread is diverting to a ... religious argument. p.s. "...but it's impossible to prove that no form of deity is possible" - could you point to a proof of that?
- klipt 15y ago
  Well, if you accept that it's impossible to prove that we aren't in a simulation - then it's possible we are in a simulation, and that would make the being responsible for simulating us a deity of sorts.
- lucasjung 15y ago
  It was not an appeal to authority, nor was it intended to support any of those arguments. It was intended to underscore the point that a particular philosophical argument is not automatically invalid simply because some people, no matter how intelligent and rational, do not find it convincing. In effect, it was a rejection of gp's appeal to his own authority as a student of philosophy. As for your latter point: if you disprove the possibility of deities with a particular quality or set of qualities, I can then describe a deity which lacks those qualities and is therefore outside the set of deities you have proven impossible. For example, if you can somehow prove that there has never been divine intervention of any form (which I highly doubt is possible to prove), then I could respond by positing a deity that does not intervene in the temporal universe at all, but instead rules only in the afterlife. Since the afterlife is beyond temporal measurement, it is by definition beyond empirical observation, and there is therefore no way you can disprove the existence of an afterlife. By extension, there is no way you can disprove the existence of a deity which rules the afterlife.
  - ignifero 15y ago
    Thanks for your time. See, i am an eliminativist myself, so i would doubt things like afterlife and spirit are accessible to us humans. I might accept forms of non-intervening deities if it were confined to setting the initial conditions of the big bang. Point is, arguing against it or for it is like arguing the weather.

ignifero 15y ago

Good points here, although i must note that your appeal to authority ("many intelligent people") does not lend credence to any of these arguments. For many people, they are no more true than any random syntactically correct sentence. And in any case, i feel this thread is diverting to a ... religious argument. p.s. "...but it's impossible to prove that no form of deity is possible" - could you point to a proof of that?

klipt 15y ago
Well, if you accept that it's impossible to prove that we aren't in a simulation - then it's possible we are in a simulation, and that would make the being responsible for simulating us a deity of sorts.
lucasjung 15y ago
It was not an appeal to authority, nor was it intended to support any of those arguments. It was intended to underscore the point that a particular philosophical argument is not automatically invalid simply because some people, no matter how intelligent and rational, do not find it convincing. In effect, it was a rejection of gp's appeal to his own authority as a student of philosophy. As for your latter point: if you disprove the possibility of deities with a particular quality or set of qualities, I can then describe a deity which lacks those qualities and is therefore outside the set of deities you have proven impossible. For example, if you can somehow prove that there has never been divine intervention of any form (which I highly doubt is possible to prove), then I could respond by positing a deity that does not intervene in the temporal universe at all, but instead rules only in the afterlife. Since the afterlife is beyond temporal measurement, it is by definition beyond empirical observation, and there is therefore no way you can disprove the existence of an afterlife. By extension, there is no way you can disprove the existence of a deity which rules the afterlife.
- ignifero 15y ago
  Thanks for your time. See, i am an eliminativist myself, so i would doubt things like afterlife and spirit are accessible to us humans. I might accept forms of non-intervening deities if it were confined to setting the initial conditions of the big bang. Point is, arguing against it or for it is like arguing the weather.