In constructing an elaborate argument against atheism,

Has anyone attempted to ‘disprove god’? What does this mean, ‘disprove god’? Does this question presume as knowledge that ‘god’ exists? If so, the you have built the conclusion into the statement’s definition already (i.e., circular). Similar to the statement: "Murder is wrong" when ‘murder’ is taken to mean ‘wrongful taking of life’. Doesn’t wash.

Again, you must clarify your premises here. What do you mean by ‘disprove god via evil’?? This is not clear at all to me (it may be to others, but I’m slow I guess!).

Also, you use the term ‘justice’ rather carelessly, for you fail to define what you mean by ‘justice’ (in fact, so does the Bible) and how it applies in your argument. Can you state for the record what you mean by the term ‘justice’? Are you willing to stick to that definition? IF not, then don’t bother responding. You’ll be sorry you did. Guarantee it!!

Another thing: What is meant by your phrase ‘beyond this world’? Do you mean Venus, Mars, or Jupiter? These places could be said to be ‘beyond this world’. I would like to know what address you are trying to designate, as it is ambiguous. Also, please try to show how this applies to your argument. Awkward at best.

Also, why would you say that ‘one MUST assume the equivalent of god….’? You have not provided any principles in your post which, by CONSISTENT incorporation, would require anyone not already presupposing ‘god’ to ASSUME that there is an equivalent to ‘god’. Can you clarify this principle in forty pages or less? Would this principle ‘assume’ the Christian ‘god’ while at the same time excluding definitively rival claims of ‘god’??? Please, feel free to elaborate.

I agree completely. As I have mentioned in MANY posts the axiom EXISTENCE EXISTS. In order to ‘deny’ this fact, one would defeat himself. In fact, the axiom EXISTENCE EXISTS is the only rational place to begin one’s task of explicitly identifying reality, for reality is made up of that which exists, and ONLY of that which exists. To deny this, as you say, would be ‘self-defeating’. How does the statement fit with any of the others you have made, and with the conclusion you are trying to make? It sounds like you are committing the fallacy of the stolen concept here. Tsk tsk.

What do you mean by ‘ultimate meaning’? This seems to be a vague term. Are you trying to bait the unsuspecting into affirming your premises unawares? Hmmmm….. If you refuse to define your terms, this seems rather dishonest. You also do not seem to use the concept ‘reality’ with any consistency, for reality is the realm of existence (see above), however you attempt to use this term, in statements such as the one you make above, in verifying supernaturalism, which has NOT been shown to exist. Rather presumptuous of you, don’t you think? Or, am I just not stupid enough to say "I believe"??

See what I mean? I knew this was hidden in there. For shame, Haggai!!

How is the notion ‘god’ (notice I did not say ‘concept’ - the notion ‘god’ is NOT a legitimate concept until it has been shown to be) in any way connected to reality? How is the notion ‘god’ in any way ‘meaningful’ or even ‘meaningful about reality’? More fill in the blank?? Disingenuous.

Yes, I recognize this, your sham doesn’t work on me.

My claim? My claim is that existence exists. I this not true? Can you deny it? You yourself said that ‘any kind of absolute denial about reality is self-defeating’. Didn’t you just say that above? You are like a house on stilts during the ‘big un’! Wooooooops!! (By the way, I’m NOT backing off my claim, no mater how many times someone threatens me with hell. So there!!)

I ‘dilute the strength of [my] argument’? Doesn’t this concede that my argument had strength in the first place? But regardless, aside from your parlor games, I’ll match you, for my ‘argument’ (which is really no more than a recognition) that existence exists is the principle in explicit form which lies at the premise of the statement you offered above: "any kind of absolute denial about reality is self-defeating". Sounds like more concept-stealing here.

And Blarko, Gumbygod, and Fu-Tah too??? OH SHIT!! MY WHOLE WORLD IS MELTING!!! AAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!! Lead me to the sanctuary right now!!

Sounds like something Bart Simpson would say here. And your premises are??? tap.... tap.... tap...

Wait, didn’t you say this above? Hold on! "To be an atheist (i.e., in order to be an individual who has no god-belief) in the ‘absolute sense’ (please clarify - this term is used so loosely that it is almost contentless...) one would have to assume ‘god’ (whatever that is) in order to ‘disprove god’ (whatever that means)". What was the middle part? You mean, in order to be someone who has no god-belief one has to hold a god-belief? I’m still not clear here. You mean when I was born I was NOT an atheist? Of course I was. I had no god-belief when I was born, and thus I was naturally an atheist. Are you saying that in order to have been an atheist as an infant I first had to assume ‘god’ (even though I STILL don’t know what this word means)????? Haggai, go back and work on this, you’re losing me!!

You mean sorta like that sweater my mom got me when I was in the 6th grade?? However, given how adept many theological apologists have proven themselves to be at the art of twisting logical reversals, I suppose you might be right here. We've seen this before, in fact you're attempting it here right now, aren't you?

‘Weaker, less universal form of the arguments for atheism’?? What are these arguments?? You mean like: "Hey, show me some EVIDENCE for your god-belief claims?" Not really an argument, merely a simple question. Can you answer it?? Or, are you going to try to say that such a question naturally ‘presupposes’ that ‘god’ already exists? You tickle me, Haggai!! He he eh!!

Oh yeah?? O right. <nibbling popcorn>

You say that ‘many of the atheist’s arguments [are] self-defeating’. This is not exhaustive. Do you mean to tell me that some of the ‘atheist’s arguments’ are NOT self-defeating? Now don’t fidget here! You clearly did not say "all of the atheist’s arguments". What’s up with this? I’m losing faith in you already, and we just started!!

Can you tell me how the "arguments from evil, freedom and human need all call out for God, rather than against him"? I’d like to see this. But first, I think you would have to define your terms ‘evil’, ‘freedom’ and ‘human need’. I suspect you’ll find your anticipated conclusions designed and built in right here. But go ahead, prove me wrong.

Within the context of subjectivism (the view that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness) I imagine this is just as possible as anything. The question is: DOES REALITY AGREE? No, it does not. (See your famous statement at the beginning of your post. Hey, I’ll repeat it for you: "Any kind of absolute denial about reality is self-defeating".) You yourself appear to agree that existence is absolute (i.e., existence exists). But now causality is subjective? Hmmm..... Now your context-dropping. Clumsy you!

As for explanations for basic metaphysical questions, have you ever heard of something called SCIENCE? Science is a specialized application of reason to particular questions about reality. Ever hear about the science of biology? Biology deals with issues concerning the processes of living organisms, which pertain rather directly to metaphysical questions (certainly for those living organisms in question, anyway). How about the science of physics? Ever hear of that?

This point is just another fallacious attempt to discredit the absence of god-belief by pointing to invented failures of intellectual tasks that atheism does NOT address by definition. You cannot assign to a-Santaclausism (the lack of belief in ol’ Saint Nick) the task of computer programming and then attack it for not creating the latest in microprocessor technology.

Got any more straw men up your sleeves, Hag?

If the rest of Haggai’s little argument against atheism is designed to prove this fallacious argument, then I don’t find it incumbent upon me to say anything further. Besides, I doubt Haggai’s delicate pride could handle what I would have to say about the nonsense that follows.

May you get what you deserve (it’s already starting!)

Tindrbox

_________________________________