View allAll Photos Tagged Philosophymemes
This may be discouraging for atheists, but in accordance with the latest definitions of "atheism" by the most respected sources, atheism is illogical. It's important to use the most accurate and reputable definitions. While you probably shouldn't use a Black and Decker drill as a tool to perform medical surgery, you also probably shouldn't use Webster's dictionary for philosophical definitions, if you have philosophical sources available.
Definitions of "atheism":
"Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
"The theory or belief that God does not exist." (Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy)
Why Atheism is Illogical
Summary Argument
1) With respect to agnosticism, if atheism means, "the negation of theism" and the “denial of God's existence,” and history shows that there is no convincing evidence to demonstrate that theism and God have been negated and denied, then choosing atheism is illogical.
2) History shows that atheists have not logically demonstrated probability that theism and God have been negated and denied.
3) Therefore, with respect to agnosticism, choosing atheism is illogical.
Expanded points
1. The burden is on those who wish to affirm a belief or position to offer reason and evidence in support of such.
2. According to Stanford, "Atheism means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." And Oxford defines atheism as, "The theory or belief that God does not exist." - with both definitions implying a positive claim is being assumed, as opposed to agnosticism, in which a lack of belief is emphasized.
3. Philosophical definitions of "atheism" in context are more appropriate than a generic description as, "a lack of belief in God" - which also could apply to agnosticism.
4. In terms of logic, the atheist truth claim, “God does not exist,” is not an analytic truth claim and is not strictly provable. Likewise, the truth claim of atheism is not a synthetic one because it cannot be strictly demonstrated. For these reasons, atheism cannot be strictly proved.
5. In terms of probability, it is not enough to critique the theist fine tuning argument. To prove atheism is superior atheists need to provide a superior probability argument, among other things. If you search the Internet, you will most likely find as I did that "probability argument for atheists" turns up only probably arguments for theists, as criticized by atheists, which is not adequate.
6. In terms of metaphysics and metaethics, the belief that science has all the answers is not empirically demonstrable and is logically weak, however, top atheist authorities, such as Hawking and Dawkins, lean toward positivism. In comparison to theism, answers to many important metaphysical questions and convictions remain unresolved and incoherent for atheists in general.
7. The atheist may claim that belief in theism and God should be dismissed as ludicrous or undefinable, but some of the greatest minds in science and philosophy have believed in God and defended theism with logic and reason, and the background of arguments for God remain a challenge to atheists.
8. Pursuant to points 1 to 7, theism and God's existence can neither be lightly dismissed nor effectively disproved. In contrast to theism, the lack of atheist answers to important metaphysical questions reveals a lack of holistic efficacy for atheists. Therefore, with respect to authoritative definitions of “atheism” and “agnosticism,” atheism is illogical.
Constructive Affirmation
A first criticism of the above points may be the definition of “atheism” used in point two. However, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is considered authoritative and this definition is required for the disambiguation of atheism and agnosticism.
Point four underscores that atheism cannot be strictly proved with logic. The truth claim, “No bachelor is married” is an analytic truth claim that demonstrates logical certainty, without the need to actually observe a bachelor. The phrase “married bachelor” is clearly negated as a logical contradiction. The truth claim, “God does not exist” offers no such analytical foothold. And by contrast, synthetic truth statements cannot be determined based solely on logic, and are based on experiences that contingently true. However, unlike analytic truth, synthetic truth cannot be determined absolutely. The PhilosophyOTB website reviews this problem for atheists in depth with four essays.
In terms of probability, it's not enough to merely nitpick the theist fine tuning argument. To affirm and effectively demonstrate that atheism is superior, a superior and highly convincing probability argument in favor of atheism must be presented. A cursory search for "probability argument for atheists" only turns up probability arguments for theists. Any atheist is free to post any such argument at my blog comments, if they have one.
In terms of metaphysics, many authoritative atheists today, such as Hawking and Dawkins, lean towards logical positivism, which basically denies metaphyscs outright. The positivist belief that science has all the answers, however, has been rejected by authoritative secular philosophers, with descriptions of, “Logical positivism's fall,” that, “nearly all of it was false," that it is now, “dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes". If anyone believes that positivism has been convincingly reused, please post a link in the comments of this post. As has been pointed out, logical positivists may claim: “All statements that can't be empirically verified are meaningless.” But critics can reply: “It's impossible to empirically verify that claim!” Logical positivism is the philosophy that emphasizes a need for verified “meaning: and cannot verify that its own statements are meaningful. The inefficacy of positivism has been described by a blogger: “What is surprising about logical positivism as outlined by Wittgenstein, is that any representation – whether picture, sound recording or text – should make sense only to the extent to which we can split it into individual statements about what is the case...” Obviously, a picture can make sense and convey intended meaning without the analytical dissection of each element. Three objections to positivism are noted at this linked blog, with no apparent rebuttal. The late Karl Popper claimed, "A theory that explains everything, explains nothing." He was emphasizing that positivism, claiming to explain everything by verification, was in itself unverifiable and incoherent.
Wittgenstein also elucidated the folly of logical positivism. He underscored that ethical issues are not verifiable for positivists and are of a transcendent nature. Ethical questions result in incoherent answers from secular atheists. For example, I've found that secular atheists generally have a moral conviction that bestiality is immoral. They seem to always claim that animals should be able to give consent before engaging in any sexual physical pleasure with humans. Yet, the same people will claim that animals do not need to offer consent before they are slaughtered, butchered and consumed (by these very people)! Atheists cannot refute claims of personal religious experience, cannot explain how immaterial minds came from material substance, or how peer-reviewed dislocated mind-body near death experiences could possibly occur. Scott Youngren elaborates on a number of these metaphysical problems for atheists and why Ockham’s Razor ultimately supports theism rather than atheism. The challenge for the atheist is to provide cogent answers to metaphysical questions that are more convincing than explanations and arguments from theists.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy outlines the historical philosophical background behind the valid claim that, "Faith and reason are both sources of authority upon which beliefs can rest." underscoring that, "Reason generally is understood as the principles for a methodological inquiry, whether intellectual, moral, aesthetic, or religious. Thus is it not simply the rules of logical inference or the embodied wisdom of a tradition or authority."
Point seven is important because there is a trend among New Atheists these days to try to dismiss theism and God's existence based upon shallow and illogical excuses. For example, there are at least seven reasons why Richard Dawkins' excuses for not debating William Lane Craig are illogical. Likewise, defending his "Evil God Challenge," Stephen Law has make the false claim that it is not necessary for atheists to overcome the stronger theist arguments in order to validate atheism. Craig describes Law's illogical position: "In the debate, Law made the remarkable claim that the cosmological and teleological arguments are not even part of a cumulative case for theism! This is clearly wrong."
A brief search of the Internet reveals that popular atheist sites offer sophistry as an alleged defense of atheism. Examples include this statement: "If God is omnipotent, is it possible to create a rock so heavy that it cannot be lifted by God?" or this one: "Can you present your logical "proof" against any other God than your own?" Matt Slick outlines that the first example is a weak objection because, "...God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature." The second question is an evasive tactic. As shown by the disambiguation of "atheism" and "agnosticism" from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the onus is on the atheist to positively negate theism and to deny God's existence, or, to accept the alternative, to take a stance of agnosticism. For the theist, the request for "any other God" is incoherent, because God is logically a singularity. See the latter argument in this post disproving polytheism.
The Christian apologist C.S. Lewis offered, “If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning.” This offers a valid epistemological challenge to atheists. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has outlined that faith and reason are both sources of authority, with regard to a holistic approach towards understanding meaning, significance, ethics, aesthetics and other poignant subjects.
With regard to authoritative definitions, atheism is illogical and agnosticism is more of a logical position for skeptics of theism. I believe that Christianity offers the most logical conclusion with the most explanatory power. If any atheist wishes to challenge the points outlined, please post in the comments or a link to your rebuttal.
Why Polytheism is Illogical
1. Polythieism is defined as, "The belief in, or worship of, many gods" (Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy)
2. A god is defined as a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality.
3. As a conceptual possibility, a god must be either eternal or not eternal.
4. Something eternal can be considered as literally "perfect" while something created cannot.
5. Something eternal and perfect in many qualities would be dynamically perfect and superior.
6. Many gods cannot conceptually be eternal and dynamically perfect because this would pose a problem for the law of identity, where A = A, where existence equals essence, because eternal dynamic perfection cannot be shared by separate entities.
7. It would be incoherent to propose one god with one will with perfect authority if another separate god with a separate will had perfect omniscience and perfect omnipotence and omnipresence, this is because the "perfection of cohesion" and unity cannot be obtained by one god or shared across the wills of many gods.
8. Ultimately, if "perfect perfection" literally exists, it must exist as a transcendent dynamic perfection, as a singularity, as the prime authority and prime mover.
For those that would offer that the Trinity represent many gods, this is a misunderstanding. The Trinity does not represent many gods with separate wills, but one God of three aspects.
templestream.blogspot.com/2016/06/why-atheism-and-polythe...
There is no possible objective basis of morality without God's existence.
In philosophical debates, Essentialist Divine Command Theory underscores a logical explanation of objective morality based on God's existence. This is a partial outline from a debate linked afterward....
R: Brit offers a very good question: “...how does my opponent defend that these things are good?” How can I defend that moral qualities attributed to God are “actually” good? The question is similar to: What is the standard outside of God that I use to claim to know what goodness is like in order to then claim that God is good? If I merely claim that God represents goodness and goodness is defined by God, then this is a tautology. I can address these questions with the following approaches.
I. Conceptual necessities and possibilities. - Based on the understanding that an objective basis of morality must be non-arbitrary and, “not influenced by personal feelings or opinions,” a non-arbitrary moral basis is only conceivably possible if, A) There is a supreme and capable moral authority and law giver that provides perfect moral decrees (see Essentialist Divine Command Theory, IV.4.), or, B) There is a valid and objective locus or standard of morality ( a perfect moral yardstick that applies to all moral agents and all moral questions). There is no possible manner that secular humanism could provide either A or B. It is logically possible, however, that both A and B are possible if God exists. Only a perfect moral being could be capable of providing perfect moral decrees. Therefore, in keeping with our definitions and conditions of “morality” and “objective” as concepts, only God could be considered an objective basis of morality. In this case we do not need to define “goodness” specifically in order to understand that an objective basis of morality must be attached to a concept of “God” - if it is possible at all metaphysically.
II. Empirical evidence confirmed by conventional definitions. - I can define what “goodness” and “morality” are “like” as qualities, without an appeal to God. Brit has proposed to offer an affirmative argument that there is an objective basis of morality. And I concur with Brit that “most of us agree” that there is an objective basis of morality, whether or not it can be logically explained and accounted for. Though we cannot demonstrate and prove that moral qualities exist in a science laboratory, human experience does concur with conventional definitions in a remarkable manner that certain things are “right” and others are “wrong” with these experiences being consistent with concepts such as goodness, honesty, justice, holiness, and so on. I agree with Dr. Craig that, “I clearly apprehend objective moral values and have no good reason to deny what I clearly perceive.” In other words, I have strong reasons to believe that “goodness” is an objectively “good” quality before examining what is logically possible as the meta-ethical objective basis. I am not thus arbitrarily “presuming that the [moral] aspects of God's nature are good” - but I have an empirical moral conscience and conventional definitions that testify that these qualities are good and based on Point I, God's existence would be the only possible explanation.
III. Possible historical events. - If we grant God's existence as a metaphysical possibility, then it's possible that certain biblical accounts of Jesus Christ, acting as Messiah, God incarnate, could be based on actual historical events. For example, Peter described Jesus performing an apparent miracle: “When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" (Luke 5.8). After living with Jesus for three years, the apostles apparently had such a firm conviction that Jesus was the morally-perfect Messiah that they (and their families) were willing to die for their testimony of Jesus as God incarnate, rather than recant and live.
First, I'd offer that Jesus spoke with a supreme moral authority and no one was apparently able to overcome his moral positions. His apparent goodness was so extraordinary that people came out of nowhere and wept at his feet, even as He forgave their sin (moral error). (Luke 7:36-50). It was not difficult for people to see that His standards were shown to be much higher than average, even assessed as perfect. If we allow the metaphysical possibility of God's existence, then it is possible that Jesus, as God incarnate, displayed perfect holiness and moral authority. One could ask: “How can we verify the standard of an apparent standard?” When John the Baptist doubted Jesus' authenticity, Jesus responded, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.” (Luke 7.22b NIV). Jesus basically refereed to historic prophecies He fulfilled, as only God incarnate could have. These hold veracity, and I agree with Dr. Craig that other evidence, including Craig's four other arguments for God's existence, can be considered as relevant, if I am supposed to offer support as to why it should be considered that an objective basis of morality is based on God's existence. If other arguments support the greater plausibility that God exists, then this offers greater plausibility that objective morality is based on God. As Craig notes, “In the [Craig-Law] debate, Law made the remarkable claim that the cosmological and teleological arguments are not even part of a cumulative case for theism! This is clearly wrong.”
If Christ did indeed live and walk the earth as a perfect moral authority, then the “goodness” and “rightness” of His authority was displayed physically and in action in many circumstances. In this case, “goodness” and “rightness” are identical to the qualities of “Messiah-ness” or “Jesus-ness” that had been displayed. Without “definitions alone” this perfect moral standard was experienced directly in society.
Jesus displayed moral acts and people recognized that these were “good”acts and these His life was morally superior to their own, in fact perfect. The only ones that opposed this conception were those that were offended by the possibility that Jesus was, in fact, God, as Jesus indirectly claimed. He claimed that the true standard of morality was moral perfection (Matthew 5.48). In order for my position to be valid, I don't necessarily have to prove that Jesus was actually morally perfect and actually exemplified it, I just have to substantiate that it is metaphysically and logically possible that He lived a morally perfect life and displayed perfect moral authority (in accordance with 4.I.A). I also want to emphasize that I am discussing a basis of objective morality, not a moral system or applied ethics in this example.
Second, Jesus could be considered the, “living yardstick” and standard of perfect moral authority. If there is ever a discrepancy regarding a manufactured yardstick, then it can be taken and compared to the original metal yardstick which was made precisely as a universal standard. If Jesus is Messiah, then it is metaphysically possible that He embodies perfect holiness and moral purity, as a consistent standard. This state could be considered, “objective” as, “irrelevant to the opinions and preferences of any subjective being.” If Brit can prove that Jesus did not exist, that Jesus was not actually God incarnate, that Jesus committed any moral error, or that Jesus was not recognized as exemplifying a comparatively perfect moral standard, then Brit could remove this possibility. Otherwise, Jesus Christ can conceivably provide support for an exemplary perfect moral standard (a basis - not an applied ethical system) and a logical bridge from “is” to “ought” without a tautology.
If you'd like to see the entire debate so far, it's at this link to Templestream Blog Titled: "Debate: "Secular Humanism Offers an Objective Basis of Morality"
templestream.blogspot.com/2016/05/debate-secular-humanism...
In the song "Flight Rather Than Fight," the lyrics poignantly capture the essence of a journey through the complexities of modern life. With its towering concrete walls, the city becomes a metaphor for the weight of existence, where solitude whispers in the wind, inviting the protagonist to transcend the fight and seek the sky. Technology, while connecting us, also highlights our separations, leading to a profound discovery of self beyond the digital glow. Like old film reels, memories flicker and reshape, urging a reevaluation of the past. Actual growth emerges from the journey upward and outward, as each step into the unknown reveals inner strength and rebirth. Time, an unstoppable river, flows through moments of mindfulness, anchoring the present. The vast and shifting world below unveils its hidden beauty, offering the thrill of discovery in every breath. Choosing flight over struggle symbolizes finding peace and boundlessness in freedom, an ever-ongoing journey of exploration.
Blogger:
www.jjfbbennett.com/2024/07/complexities-of-modern-life.html
Keywords:
Wisdom, Consciousness, Existence, Truth, Beauty, Morality, Reflection, Discourse, Reality, Knowledge, Cosmos, Transcendence, Dialogue, Being
The world isn’t what you think it is…
It’s what you think it is!
empoweringmeditations.com/nsflkpost
#Deepthinking #Deepthought #Deepunderstanding #Empoweringmeditations #EmpoweringThoughts #Energywork #Freethinker #JamesCole #Lifeisanillusion #Lifeiswhatyoumakeit #Lovethisquote #Newage #Notwhatyouthink #Notwhatyouthinkitis #Philosopher #Philosophers #Philosophical #Philosophy #Philosophymemes #Shaman #Shamanic #Shamanism #Wordstoremember
The world isn’t what you think it is…
It’s what you think it is!
empoweringmeditations.com/nsflkpost
#Deepthinking #Deepthought #Deepunderstanding #Empoweringmeditations #EmpoweringThoughts #Energywork #Freethinker #JamesCole #Lifeisanillusion #Lifeiswhatyoumakeit #Lovethisquote #Newage #Notwhatyouthink #Notwhatyouthinkitis #Philosopher #Philosophers #Philosophical #Philosophy #Philosophymemes #Shaman #Shamanic #Shamanism #Wordstoremember
The world isn’t what you think it is…
It’s what you think it is!
empoweringmeditations.com/nsflkpost
#Deepthinking #Deepthought #Deepunderstanding #Empoweringmeditations #EmpoweringThoughts #Energywork #Freethinker #JamesCole #Lifeisanillusion #Lifeiswhatyoumakeit #Lovethisquote #Newage #Notwhatyouthink #Notwhatyouthinkitis #Philosopher #Philosophers #Philosophical #Philosophy #Philosophymemes #Shaman #Shamanic #Shamanism #Wordstoremember
The world isn’t what you think it is…
It’s what you think it is!
empoweringmeditations.com/nsflkpost
#Deepthinking #Deepthought #Deepunderstanding #Empoweringmeditations #EmpoweringThoughts #Energywork #Freethinker #JamesCole #Lifeisanillusion #Lifeiswhatyoumakeit #Lovethisquote #Newage #Notwhatyouthink #Notwhatyouthinkitis #Philosopher #Philosophers #Philosophical #Philosophy #Philosophymemes #Shaman #Shamanic #Shamanism #Wordstoremember
The world isn’t what you think it is…
It’s what you think it is!
empoweringmeditations.com/nsflkpost
#Deepthinking #Deepthought #Deepunderstanding #Empoweringmeditations #EmpoweringThoughts #Energywork #Freethinker #JamesCole #Lifeisanillusion #Lifeiswhatyoumakeit #Lovethisquote #Newage #Notwhatyouthink #Notwhatyouthinkitis #Philosopher #Philosophers #Philosophical #Philosophy #Philosophymemes #Shaman #Shamanic #Shamanism #Wordstoremember
The world isn’t what you think it is…
It’s what you think it is!
empoweringmeditations.com/nsflkpost
#Deepthinking #Deepthought #Deepunderstanding #Empoweringmeditations #EmpoweringThoughts #Energywork #Freethinker #JamesCole #Lifeisanillusion #Lifeiswhatyoumakeit #Lovethisquote #Newage #Notwhatyouthink #Notwhatyouthinkitis #Philosopher #Philosophers #Philosophical #Philosophy #Philosophymemes #Shaman #Shamanic #Shamanism #Wordstoremember
The world isn’t what you think it is…
It’s what you think it is!
empoweringmeditations.com/nsflkpost
#Deepthinking #Deepthought #Deepunderstanding #Empoweringmeditations #EmpoweringThoughts #Energywork #Freethinker #JamesCole #Lifeisanillusion #Lifeiswhatyoumakeit #Lovethisquote #Newage #Notwhatyouthink #Notwhatyouthinkitis #Philosopher #Philosophers #Philosophical #Philosophy #Philosophymemes #Shaman #Shamanic #Shamanism #Wordstoremember