Gen. 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years
No matter what negation of the definition of God I point to you can claim that's not what you mean by God.
But since not only are you probably reluctant to, not to mention incapable of, defining what you mean by God, we'll just go for the Judeo Christian God.
Of course, you can make up your own God as you go along.
Problem is God didn't make the sun and the stars until the forth day, so there were several days where light was coming from nowhere, or at least not the places light comes from.
For the concept of God itself there's the Problem of Evil, the Euthyphro dilemma for you divine command theorists, and the paradox of omnipotence, among others. Lots of rationalistic refutation.
Faith (again, in the theological sense) is merely believing in something come what may, because you believe it. Secondarily confusing belief with knowledge is helpful, but not essential.
"Buttress your faith against falsification", what a lovely way of saying "Believing something despite whatever the fuck the facts are".
I.e., confuse belief and knowledge.
This is crap. You are simply restating the same thought again, dressing up the concept of believing in something no matter what in pomo-babble language.
Wrong. Analytic truths are tautological, things that are "true by definition" such as "a bachelor is an unmarried man". Synthetic truths, that make claims about the world, such as "that car is red" are not true by definition, and are empirically verifiable. The car may not actually be red. You want to treat the existence of God as an analytic truth, true by definition, which you can't because 1. It doesn't stand on rationalistic grounds and 2. The claim isn't an analytic truth anyway, it's a synthetic truth, a claim about an external, empirically verifiable state of the world.
Again, you are invoking a law of identity (A=A) as if that represented the sum of all truths. How about when A doesn't equal A, such as when there is light without suns?
No, a racist would just believe black people are inferior no matter how fast they run. Horses run fast too, after all. Doesn't men you'd want your daughter to marry one. Come on, you've seen bigoted dodges in the face of facts, it's just a matter of "faith".
Thank you for that breathtaking non sequitur.
Your existence isn't an analytic truth. You do not exist as if your existence is an obligatory part of the whole idea, the definition, of existence. You exist as a state of affairs in the world
If you maintain that "God exists" is a tautology (despite the fact that existence isn't an attribute anyway), then why bother saying anything else? Once you go on to continue to make the case you actually refute your own claim of God's existence being true by definition by your own actions.
The standard "disproof" (if you can call it that)
The problem with solipsistic arguments is that they "do no work" and just piggy-back on any observation one can make without adding anything.
« Older Arghhhhh!!! Aghhhhhhhh! Arghhhhhhh!!!
Cheats fo... | "Facettes de la petit mort"... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt