Freeman
Freeman's Photo Album
Noteworthy Argument: (The Argument From Divine Ineptitude)

The Argument From Divine Ineptitude is a name that I created. In this argument Hitchens attempts to show how our antiquity as a species has rather poor implications for theism.

He outlines the argument from from 8:30 in the first video until 2:40 in the second video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGzE2X43tlA&feature=player_embedded (--) 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aAUoEPkZy0&feature=related Noteworthy Argument: (The Problem With Religious Moderation/ The Case Against Religion As A Whole)


Essentially, Sam Harris argues that religious moderation is both intellectually and theologically bankrupt. Moreover, he contends that religious moderation gives cover to religious fundamentalism. If you don't want to read, he makes the argument in a lecture. It goes from 10:15 until the end of the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3YOIImOoYM This argument is really a monster (not in a bad way). If you're interested, the original file can be found here. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/logic.html I actually created this argument. Essentially, I took the main thesis of Richard Dawkins' "Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit" and synthesized it into a formal syllogism. I will eventually put out a defense of the premises. In the meantime, feel free to tell me why you think it's great or ridiculous. If you are interested, you can also read what Alvin Plantinga thinks of the second premise in his review of The God Delusion. http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2007/marapr/1.21.html
Contradictions in the bible. The original file and verses can be found here: http://www.project-reason.org/gallery3/image/105/ ["But you can't prove that God doesn't exist."]

As many students of philosophy will know, Bertrand Russell closed the door to this line of thinking for all time with his famous celestial teapot argument. Can any of us prove that there is not a celestial teapot in elliptical orbit around the sun at this moment? No. Does this make it reasonable to believe in the existence of such a teapot? No. Is it reasonable to be agnostic about the existence of such a teapot? Not quite. (Argument Over)
1.	The Failure of Theism 
2.	Against Cosmological Arguments 
3.	Against Teleological Arguments 
4.	Against Ontological Arguments 
5.	Against the Resurrection of Jesus 
6.	Against Arguments from Religious Experience 
7.	Against Reformed Epistemology 
8.	The Argument from Suffering 
9.	The Argument From Divine Hiddenness 
10.	The Argument from Non-Belief 
11.	Scientific Arguments Against God 
12.	Impossibility Arguments 
13.	The Case for Naturalism 
14.	Atheism, Morality, and Purpose
You can find the entire copies of the Skeptics annotated versions of the Bible, Qur'an and the Book of Mormon here:


http://www.project-reason.org/scripture_project/
The Evidential Argument From Evil

P1: Gratuitous suffering and pointless premature deaths probably occur.
P2: Gratuitous suffering and pointless premature deaths are incompatible with the God of theism (omnipotent, omniscient, all-good).
C: Therefore the God of theism probably does not exist.


http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nicholas_tattersall/evil.html The Evidential Argument From Evil (Evolution Version) (Part 1)

Paul Draper bases his argument from evil on the following evidence statement:

E: For a variety of biological and ecological reasons, organisms compete for survival, with some having an advantage in the struggle for survival over others; as a result, many organisms, including many sentient beings, never flourish because they die before maturity,... The Evidential Argument From Evil (Evolution Version) (Part 2)

and flourish for much of their lives usually languish in old age; in the case of human beings and some nonhuman animals as well, languishing often involves intense or prolonged suffering.

P1: We know that E is true.
P2: Naturalism has much more predictive power with respect to E than theism does (i.e., E's truth is antecedently many times more probable given naturalism than it is given theism). The Evidential Argument From Evil (Evolution Version) 
(Part 3)

P3: Naturalism is more plausible than theism (i.e., naturalism is more probable than theism independent of all evidence). (From 2)
C: So, other evidence held equal, theism is very probably false. (From 3)
The Argument From Divine Hiddenness (Part 1)

P1: If there is a perfectly loving God, all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God are in a position to participate in such relationships--i.e., able to do so just by trying to.
P2: No one can be in a position to participate in such relationships without believing that God exists. The Argument From Divine Hiddenness (Part 2)

P3: If there is a perfectly loving God, all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God believe that God exists (from 1 and 2).
P4: It is not the case that all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God believe that God exists: there is nonresistant nonbelief; God is hidden. The Argument From Divine Hiddenness (Part 3)

P5: It is not the case that there is a perfectly loving God (From 3 and 4).
P6: If God exists, God is perfectly loving.
C: It is not the case that God exists (From 5 and 6). A Transcendent Being Cannot Be Omnipresent (Victor Stenger)

P1: If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time).
P2: If God exists, he is omnipresent.
P3: To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space.
P4: To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space.
P5: Hence it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresence.
C: Therefore it is impossible for God to exist.

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Summary.htm#_edn6
The Immutability V Creation Argument (Drange) (Part 1)

P1: If God exists, then he is immutable. 
P2: If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe. 
P3: An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention. The Immutability V Creation Argument (Drange) (Part 2)

P4: For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at a later time, after the creation, no longer have the intention to create it. 
P5: Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4). 
C: Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5) 

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~yount/text/disproofs-of-god.pdf This book isn't even out yet, but I want it now.
   

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.