Generic failures in arguments for the nonexistence God

Philosophy of Religion
465

Skeptical theism

1 Like
466

Argument from fine-tuning.

  1. The universe is fine-tuned for life
  2. If the universe is fine-tuned for life then God’s working under constraints
  3. God is working under constraints
  4. If God is working under constraints then God isn’t omnipotent
  5. God isn’t omnipotent

First God is omnipotent and hence can be omnipotent and not omnipotent.

Second we have no issue with a God that’s not omnipotent, just as we accepted the bimoral/malevolent nature of God.

467

The mother of all refutations of arguments for the nonexistence of God

God is beyond logic

God moves in a mysterious way ~ William Cowper

God’s ways are not our ways. God’s ways are higher

On generic failures found in arguments for the existence of god
468

So by definition illogical.

QED.

1 Like
469

God is above Logos

1 Like
470

:+1:

Paraconsistent logic & Dialetheism?

471

It’s quite clear that the biggest gun in the theist’s arsenal is God is beyond logic i.e. he’s omnipotent. Being so he can be good and bad at the same time, create a rock he can’t lift and lift it, can see his own future and still be free.

:t_rex:

The Problem of Happiness
472

Yeah, it’s a pop gun. :hear_no_evil_monkey:

By “omnipotence” I understand the power to create or destroy every possible world as well as to instantly cause changes to or within any (or every) possible world.

473

A pop gun for pop things, yeah. :grinning_cat_with_smiling_eyes:

Your understanding of omnipotence is important but omnipotence conventionally means the ability to do anything, no constraints.

474

“Conventionally” =/= philosophically.

475

In this case conventionally = philosophically.

1 Like
476

Good day sir. For your consideration.

1 Like
477

Having to abandon classical logic and appeal to paraconsistent logic is an admission of failure. It’s a post hoc rationalisation of a belief that you accept is otherwise unjustified.

So why believe in God in the first place? It’s almost like you don’t care about the reasons; you just really really want to believe in God, and so then make up reasons for it after the fact — hence your shotgun argumentation.

3 Likes
478

First, paraconsistent logic has been widely applied in many fields. One that I’m aware of is in computer databases.

Second, life is full of inconsistencies.

I’m an agnostic.

1 Like
479

One retort to the Kalam cosmological argument is that the universe need not have a cause. However, this is inconsistent with the mathematics of Laplace’s rule.

n = Number of observations
m = Number of times X was observed

Pr(X will be observed again) = \frac{m + 1}{n + 2}

We’ve observed so many things in our lives. A conservative estimate would be at least a million events and all these events surely had causes. So for m = n, the probability that the next thing we observe doesn’t have a cause = \frac{1}{n + 2}.

Pr(the universe - the next thing we observe - doesn’t have a cause) = \frac{1}{10^6 + 2}

Pr(the universe has a cause) = 1 - \frac{1}{10^6 + 2} = 99.9999 \%

480

You’re agnostic about the truth-value of the claim “God exists”?

Or are you agnostic about the truth-value of the claims of “theism”?

481

I’m agnostic about whether God exists or not. I don’t know if God exists or doesn’t exist. Theism is a more complex entity. I’m also open to the possibility that God is malevolent or bimoral.

1 Like
482

Something I believe is important

  1. The OOO-God can’t be disproven or proven
  2. A Deus Malus is better than a Deus Bonum
483

Argument from chaos theory

  1. The mathematics of celestial mechanics so far tells us that the solar system should be unstable (re n-body problem)
  2. The solar system is surprisingly stable
  3. God exists
1 Like
484

The son of God died. Just because it is absurd, it is to be believed. And he was buried and rose again. It is certain because it is impossible ~ Tertullian

Credo quia absurdum
Certum est quia impossibile est
:smiley: