Both of them are intellectual lightweights with a poor grasp on basic logic and epistemology. Just look at how many of their main conclusions are actually necessarily derived from established axioms - zero! The argument against god is very simple - there is no convincing evidence that he/it exists.
Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
Totality is self defined.
Logically, can you propose any condition or situation where there is not a Totality?
As I have said before, even if there were nothing at all, you would have a Totality of nothing.
Totality=God.
God=Totality.
Logically, can you propose any condition or situation where there is not a Totality?
As I have said before, even if there were nothing at all, you would have a Totality of nothing.
Totality=God.
God=Totality.
How does this help understanding when all you do is rename Everything = "Totality", and Totality = "God"?
What does this bring to the table that we didn't already know or understand?
It's really not that simple, but yes it's that simple.
Your argument against God proposes that he/it does not meet your criteria of evidence.
Okay, so how did you first come up with:
The concept that God is he/it
or
The concept that God necessarily must conform to your criteria of evidence.
or
That God depends upon any particular criteria of evidence in order to exist.
You are hanged yourself, because you have begun with conditions for the existence of God which are of your own making, and unless you define God as yourself, then you have put forth a proposition of your own mind about the conditions for proof of a previous proposition that did or did not come from your own mind?
Oh yes, you are an intellectual heavyweight...
The argument against God is not simple at all, assuming one actually does the work to understand the problem properly...
Okay, so how did you first come up with:
The concept that God is he/it
or
The concept that God necessarily must conform to your criteria of evidence.
or
That God depends upon any particular criteria of evidence in order to exist.
You are hanged yourself, because you have begun with conditions for the existence of God which are of your own making, and unless you define God as yourself, then you have put forth a proposition of your own mind about the conditions for proof of a previous proposition that did or did not come from your own mind?
Oh yes, you are an intellectual heavyweight...
The argument against God is not simple at all, assuming one actually does the work to understand the problem properly...
no, not at all.
YOU won't define God or your terms, so you have no proposition to logically defend, and none for us to refute.
YOU are hopelessly caught chasing your own tail.
Which is easy enough for even very smart men and complex issues, but your "argument" is so absurdly naive and simple-minded TAUTOLOGY that you are playing a fool
I did define God.
God=Totality.
Do you not understand what Totality is?
Most people do understand what Totality is.
God=Totality.
Do you not understand what Totality is?
Most people do understand what Totality is.
Quote from killthesunshine:
no, not at all.
YOU won't define God or your terms, so you have no proposition to logically defend, and none for us to refute.
YOU are hopelessly caught chasing your own tail.
Which is easy enough for even very smart men and complex issues, but your "argument" is so absurdly naive and simple-minded TAUTOLOGY that you are playing a fool
Do I have a notion of Omniscience? Do I have a notion of Omnipotence? Do I have a notion of Infinity? Do I have a notion of what "All" is? Certainly. Is this PROOF?
I don't know, do you have a notion of omniscience, omnipotence, infinity, etc?
Do you have a notion that ontological arguments are a priori arguments?
Do you have a notion that ontological arguments are a priori arguments?
I agree with David Hume:
There is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable.
you might want to read him sometime.