Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God

Quote from stu:




Unsolved questions solve nothing, ...
More...

Isn't that a tautology?

However it does have psychological implications, since it seems to be suggesting that all science should stop. After all, what is the point of searching and questioning? Once you have certainty of something, what's the point?

One moment - I have to convince some idiots to not set sail because they will surely fall off the edge of the earth....
 
Quote from MarketMasher:

Isn't that a tautology?

However it does have psychological implications, since it seems to be suggesting that all science should stop. After all, what is the point of searching and questioning? Once you have certainty of something, what's the point?

One moment - I have to convince some idiots to not set sail because they will surely fall off the edge of the earth....
More...

i think he means unsolved questions are not to be submitted as proof for already known...
 
You agree with Hume, that's okay with me.

What does that have to do with anything?

Can you speak for yourself?

You do realize that not all philosophers agree with Hume, right?

I have read Hume, thanks. I have also read the critiques of Hume. That's why Hume's position is just one of many different positions in the western schools of philosophy...and the western schools of philosophy are only a fraction of all the different philosophies of the world.

Quote from killthesunshine:

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. :D
More...
 
Precisely that unsolved questions don't logically give rise to any necessary conclusion that the question itself is unsolvable...or that you can negate the existence of a concept of something you don't already first accept as a concept of something.

So atheists do indeed have a concept of God, which they negate with their atheism.

A turnip likely has no capacity for form a concept of God, so the turnip is without a concept of God, and without the ability to affirm or deny the concept of God.

Atheists on the other hand, do have a concept of God, which they decide to deny.

In other words, they are practicing a belief system in denying the concept of God as being a valid concept.

They don't know...but they sure do believe.

Quote from killthesunshine:

i think he means unsolved questions are not to be submitted as proof for already known...
More...
 
Quote from killthesunshine:

i think he means unsolved questions are not to be submitted as proof for already known...
More...

And yet the question has been asked - "Does God exist?"

To speak with certainty "Yes" or "No" means the question has been solved.

But in solving the question, where is the proof?

Both for the "Yes" and/or the "No"?

Those who answer "Yes" usually end up with "faith" as their answer, so it becomes a personal belief.

Those who answer "No" usually end up with "I see no evidence of a God." Which of course begs the question - "Exactly how much of the universe (or multi-verse) have you seen precisely?"

And then we wait for their thrilling answer with bated breath....
 
I think most theists will freely admit to personal faith in God.

I think most atheists will deny that the also have a personal faith in non God.

Now here is a question, a legitimate question that is not readily addressed nor discussed.

How is it logically knowable that faith in God does not in fact produce knowledge of God?

Is it logically possible that 100% pure and compete faith in God does in fact yield knowledge of God, but the failed theists were not able to effectively generate and sustain 100% pure and complete faith in God...so they lost their faith and concluded faith in God does not produce knowledge of God. (See the story of the fox and the grapes for further understanding).

If a man says "I know God through my faith in God, and God has revealed himself to me personally" does anyone know if he speaks the actual truth and reality?

Who can say? Who can actually know?

Does any human being actually know for a fact that "no two snowflakes can be exactly alike."*---see below

Nope, not a single human being knows that, simply because it is logically possible to have two snowflakes that are exactly alike.

Logic is great, but it really limits what we can know to that which is known a priori based on pure logic, and that which is known a posteriori which is based on what we personally have observed, and then faith we have in what others have observed empirically.

Atheists can't prove faith in God is false, any more than the theist can prove faith in God is true to anyone else...

That's why there are questions that exist, that cannot be answered by another human being.

Good luck with the bated breath thingy...

*--- http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/alike/alike.htm Remember, that unlikely and logically not possible are not equivalents.

Quote from MarketMasher:

And yet the question has been asked - "Does God exist?"

To speak with certainty "Yes" or "No" means the question has been solved.

But in solving the question, where is the proof?

Both for the "Yes" and/or the "No"?

Those who answer "Yes" usually end up with "faith" as their answer, so it becomes a personal belief.

Those who answer "No" usually end up with "I see no evidence of a God." Which of course begs the question - "Exactly how much of the universe (or multi-verse) have you seen precisely?"

And then we wait for their thrilling answer with bated breath....
More...
 
Thank you longshot for consistently revealing your level of depth to everyone. It only helps a reasonable person to see by contrast...

Quote from killthesunshine:

i think your both a couple phucktards with yur silly "where is the disproof?":p
More...
 
Quote from killthesunshine:

i think your both a couple phucktards with yur silly "where is the disproof?":p
More...

And yet someone claimed "math is proven".

Does that mean the answers to unsolved math problems (Millennium Prize questions) do not exist? The answers to those problems are not proven, so that means there ARE no mathematical proofs????

Then NONE of previously solved Prize questions should EVER have been answered, because they were not proven before they were proven!!

Damn them!! Damn them ALL for solving what they should NEVER have solved because the answers did not exist!!! :P :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top