Is the concept of "God" necessary, let alone real?

[Dubious]

Okay, good to know! You're playing an SNL game so nothing you write on this thread needs to be taken seriously.

Only if you mistake the finger for the moon it's pointing to.

I prefer focusing with my eyeballs instead of pointing in all directions to find it. Try it some time!

Give us a clue! How many "possibles" (finger pointing in all conceivable directions) does it take to create a single certainty?

[-1-]

...they [theists] will never acknowledge a question or response which defeats them. They’ll either remain silent or pretentiously wave you off with tepid one liners secure in their superiority of being one of god’s crusaders.

For theists who do this, I think their faith is actually LESS important to them than their image of being personally "right" -- because there should be no reason to ignore directly relevant thought-provoking questions and exploration for truth UNLESS they are protecting THEMSELVES from being shown to be wrong. For these theists, it's about human ego, not divine faith.

Lacewing, I think I agree with you wholeheartedly there, while this truth of course does not take away from Dubious' point, as D makes and observation, and you, LW, give it meaning.

[-1-]

Not exactly original, but that's okay. Your argument is the whole point of Plantinga's argument. It makes my case for me. Logic compels you to say "yes" or "no." Period. None of this "I don't believe in God but God is possible" BS.

Reflex, you are not talking to five-year-old children. You are not backing up what you claim. Your words are empty. Your opinion is worthless as something to consider by others, although they may be important to you.

You just make statements without any depth, credibility or convincing power.

You have the right to live in your own world. But in the world of philosophy you just don't cut the mustard.

What are you, then? 3? A five-year old could see you backed up my claim for me, even concluding with 0% or hundred percent.

When you reach a mental age around 25, Reflex, you will see how your misunderstanding of constructs makes you an object of ridicule, and your rather idiotic interpretation of today will give way to understanding adult speak.

I won't even go into detail how and where you went wrong. You will ignore my explanation, or misunderstand it, or not understand it, or blindly or intentionally (and wrongly) deny its truth. All other posters need not be sold on that by now, since you so vigorously beat yourself into the ground with your transparent tactic; so no explanation is forthcoming.

I ask you instead:

1. Are you an idiot?
2. Are you denying obvious truths to save grace for your god?
3. Are you denying obvious truths to save your soul?
4. Are you threatened and therefore your denial is a natural psychological defense mechanism which your peers now witness?
5. Are you indeed a five-year-old?
6. Are you coming back with meaningless clips and arrogantly untrue propositions because you feel there is really not much else you can do at this point?

Please reply with a "yes" to any of the above questions, or else with "I don't know". Only choose one or the other of these answers to any question from the above list. You don't need to restrict yourself to only one question to answer. Don't be afraid, relax. There is no wrong answer, as long as you only use "yes" or "I don't know". Stick to answering the questions provided.

[-1-]

Reflex, I don't think any of us buys your "sheep in a wolf's clothing" argument. You are way beyond in loss of credibility to feed us anything plausible.

[Greta]

There is the option of simply chatting rather than going for the jugular.

[Nick_A]

Dubious wrote

Give us a clue! How many "possibles" (finger pointing in all conceivable directions) does it take to create a single certainty?

This is easy. All you need to do is make a fist and extend your middle finger toward the sky to create a single certainty of attitude.

[uwot]

Sorry, Uwot. You do NOT understand the argument because you are imposing your idea of God rather than applying Plantinga’s. The question you have yet to address is what makes his idea “meaningless.”

Plantinga's idea of God goes up to 11 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xgx4k83zzc for anyone who missed it first time.)

So does this mean you're only a theist in sheep's clothing and all this god crap is nothing more than a Love's Labour's Lost comedy routine?

In wolf’s clothing, actually, or maybe a laughing hyena’s because I do see all this argumentation this as a kind of comedy routine.

Well, the idea of you as a wolf or hyena is quite funny.

There’s no convincing skeptics that “By love he may be gotten and holden, by thought never,”...

Have you tried being more lovely?

[Necromancer]

The true delusion is with the schizophrenics...
...
"Being a monster is like tripping on acid/LSD!"

"It's dangerous to be an (immoral) Atheist in a group with other (immoral) Atheists because some of us are monsters!"
(Immoral Atheist because they choose to be Atheists and not (Secular/Atheist) Humanists!)

[uwot]

The true delusion is with the schizophrenics...
...
"Being a monster is like tripping on acid/LSD!"

"It's dangerous to be an (immoral) Atheist in a group with other (immoral) Atheists because some of us are monsters!"
(Immoral Atheist because they choose to be Atheists and not (Secular/Atheist) Humanists!)

Being a monster has nothing to do with atheism. There is plenty in religious books that monsters can and do attach themselves to.

[Reflex]

It's either 'yes' or 'no'. The logical consequences of 'no' are severe so non-believers stick their heads in the sand and refuse to discuss them in a meaningful way.

Arguments ive seen used in this form by atheists:

The law of causality is not certain . . . except for theories that seem to affirm atheism.

Only material things exist . . . except for the laws of logic and my immaterial mind that I use to come to that conclusion.

Everything has a physical cause . . . except my own thoughts and theories about atheism.

God can’t be eternal—everything needs a cause . . . except the universe—it can be eternal.

We don’t believe in anything we can’t see, hear, touch, smell, or taste . . . except the multiverse, which we can’t see, hear, touch, smell, or taste.

Intentionality doesn’t exist . . . except when I intentionally make a case for atheism.

Nature is not goal-directed . . . except when I’m doing science and depend on the laws of nature to be consistently goal-directed.

No one has free will . . . except me when I freely arrive at atheistic conclusions.

Consciousness is an illusion . . . except the consciousness I need in order to say consciousness is an illusion.

There is no objective morality . . . except for all of the moral absolutes I advocate (and don’t forget that it’s objectively immoral for you to impose your moral absolutes on me!).

There is no evil . . . except when I try to use evil to disprove God.

God is evil . . . oops, I forgot, there is no evil!

Religion poisons everything . . . except that atheistic religion I forgot to mention that has murdered millions.

All truth comes from science . . . except that truth and all the other nonscientific truths I need to do science.

Intelligent design is not science . . . except when I use it in archaeology, cryptology, biomimetics, and police work, or when I use it to suggest that an alien brought life here.

When you stop at a cause, you stop science . . . except when you stop at evolution.

The simple can’t give rise to the complex . . . except when it’s evolution.

There is no evidence for God . . . except all that evidence you keep bringing up that I’ve ruled inadmissible.

Philosophy isn’t important to science . . . except the philosophy I’m using to rig science to always provide atheistic answers.

Unlike religion, science is objective and open to new ideas . . . except when I use materialistic ideology to harass, demean, and fire you for proposing new ideas.

[attofishpi]

I am an atheist. I do say "I don't believe God exists but it's at least possible". I understand the argument very well and if Plantinga's definition of God is such that it makes his argument valid, then it is meaningless and there is no compulsion for any atheist to change their mind.

Why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xgx4k83zzc

Ah, come on uwot! What would a definition of 'God' be that remains plausible?

[uwot]

Ah, come on uwot! What would a definition of 'God' be that remains plausible?

Atto me old china, you know perfectly well that I think the god hypothesis is entirely plausible, but that I just happen not to believe it, any more than I believe that particles simultaneously take every conceivable route before deciding on which of two slits to pass through. The universe is such a bonkers place that just about any definition of god is plausible. As I said upthread:

If you ask me, the best and most essential passages in the Gospels are these:
"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
Matthew 22:39
Which when it comes to action is:
"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them."
Matthew 7:12
Whether it is by the grace of god, or simply because they seem like good ideas, I can subscribe to that. If those are not the essence of Christianity, what is?

But if it turns out that god is the sociopath that the crypto-fascists here and elsewhere insist, I will gladly take an eternity of red hot pokers, rather than be cowed.

[uwot]

It's either 'yes' or 'no'. The logical consequences of 'no' are severe so non-believers stick their heads in the sand and refuse to discuss them in a meaningful way.
Blah, blah, blah.

Is that you showing your teeth, wolfie? What happened to:

...I do see all this argumentation this as a kind of comedy routine.

[Dubious]

Arguments ive seen used in this form by atheists...

What all your "exceptions" prove is that you need to radically fine tune yourself if you're ever going to make it as a stand-up comic. Of course, you could arrange for a laugh track to reassure yourself.

[Greta]

It's either 'yes' or 'no'. The logical consequences of 'no' are severe so non-believers stick their heads in the sand and refuse to discuss them in a meaningful way.

Arguments ive seen used in this form by atheists:

(Greta's responses after A:)

The law of causality is not certain . . . except for theories that seem to affirm atheism.
A: Which theories do you refer to that prove atheism? There are none.

Only material things exist . . . except for the laws of logic and my immaterial mind that I use to come to that conclusion.
A: Define "material".

Everything has a physical cause . . . except my own thoughts and theories about atheism.
A: Define "physical".

God can’t be eternal—everything needs a cause . . . except the universe—it can be eternal.
A: Scientists don't argue for an eternal universe, rather a possible "big freeze", and they don't know what happens after that. Perhaps you'd like to tell them?

We don’t believe in anything we can’t see, hear, touch, smell, or taste . . . except the multiverse, which we can’t see, hear, touch, smell, or taste.
A: No one serious "believes" in a multiverse but they put forward arguments as to their possibility. BTW, no one's seen black holes either.

Intentionality doesn’t exist . . . except when I intentionally make a case for atheism.
A: Wha'?

Nature is not goal-directed . . . except when I’m doing science and depend on the laws of nature to be consistently goal-directed.
A: Was your body goal-oriented when it grew?

No one has free will . . . except me when I freely arrive at atheistic conclusions.
A: I think you'll find that determinists guess that their atheism was also just the knock on effects of countless prior dynamics.

Consciousness is an illusion . . . except the consciousness I need in order to say consciousness is an illusion.
A: That's just Dennett taking the piss to get attention, like Krauss's "universe from nothing".

There is no objective morality . . . except for all of the moral absolutes I advocate (and don’t forget that it’s objectively immoral for you to impose your moral absolutes on me!).
A: You underestimate the power of the relative. Those relative morals have changed and evolved from culture to culture for a long time and relative morality is plenty strong enough to order a civil society - and it is more responsive to changing circumstances than a morality decided by patriarchs in a savage world 2,000 years ago. For instance, is it wrong to kill animals for food when non-meat options can also sustain good health? You tell me.

There is no evil . . . except when I try to use evil to disprove God.
A: Evil is relative and personal, not an objective reality. That one you can take to the bank, unless you want to argue that, say, volcanoes are evil. Evil in humans is simply ethical and relational immaturity.

God is evil . . . oops, I forgot, there is no evil!
A: Straw deity. That was Hitch noting that Jehovah as posited by the OT was clearly a nasty piece of work.

Religion poisons everything . . . except that atheistic religion I forgot to mention that has murdered millions.
A: You are confusing atheism with cults of personality that posit a dictator as a god - its the antithesis of atheism, certainly not an "atheist religion", which is an oxymoron.

All truth comes from science . . . except that truth and all the other nonscientific truths I need to do science.
A: NO ONE has ever claimed that all truth comes from science. Silly straw man.

Intelligent design is not science . . . except when I use it in archaeology, cryptology, biomimetics, and police work, or when I use it to suggest that an alien brought life here.
A: ID is creationism rebadged. Get serious. No one uses ID in the sciences, but ID borrows bits and pieces from science to suit its pre-ordained conclusions.

When you stop at a cause, you stop science . . . except when you stop at evolution.
A: Incoherent.

The simple can’t give rise to the complex . . . except when it’s evolution.
A: EVERY EB practitioner speaks about the simple giving rise to the complex. You have some very unreliable information sources.

There is no evidence for God . . . except all that evidence you keep bringing up that I’ve ruled inadmissible.
A: Not even a court of law can just take people's word for it. Why should anyone take your word for it, especially given the number of dodgy attempts at rebutting straw atheists above? To believe someone, they have to trust their honesty, authenticity and judgement.

Philosophy isn’t important to science . . . except the philosophy I’m using to rig science to always provide atheistic answers.
A: Granted. Kind of.

Unlike religion, science is objective and open to new ideas . . . except when I use materialistic ideology to harass, demean, and fire you for proposing new ideas.
A: Oh, the pain, the pain ... a song to capture your mood: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCC_qEUJAwc

Science doesn't have an attitude - it's just a careful way of learning about the world. I don't know what your career expertise is, but think of it from a scientist's perspective.

Imagine that you have been passionate about a particular field, say, evolutionary biology, since childhood and you studied both at home and formally incessantly. You made great sacrifices for your life's passion and developed a huge amount of knowledge, work experience and a feel for the field over decades ... and then some superstitious neophyte who clearly does not know the field at all tells you that you are clueless. How would you react in that situation? Might your response be a tad demeaning?