1

I have been thinking about a question for a long time which apparently seems to be theological but ,on a deeper srutiny is a profound philosophical question.The question concerns the nonexistence of God.It is common knoledge, hopefully as all of us would admit,that all efforts to provide a valid logical,scientific and philosophical arguments have failed.So ,as Antony Flew would tell us,let's put the question this way:What would entitle us not ,not psychologically and morally,but logically and rightly,to hold that there is no God?In other words,how should the cosmos be like in order for any rational person to say justifiably that there is no God?

sajjad veeri
  • 31
  • 2
  • 2
    The question is entirely a non-starter without a definitin of God. – David H Jan 24 '15 at 15:18
  • Anything that human reason cannot possibly know...or any supernatur aspect of cosmos can be taken as God in anweting the above question – sajjad veeri Jan 24 '15 at 15:47
  • Then your definition answers your question: we cannot possibly know. – David H Jan 24 '15 at 16:07
  • I actually meant something that operates beyond the machinery of physical laws...something that the word supernatural catches – sajjad veeri Jan 24 '15 at 17:18
  • Even if that is vague you can take it identical to Biblical God for the sake of the argument..but i wonder why u r insisting on defining God ..i see so many questions related to God with nobody asking for definitions...if we do it for every word and term it would make all conversation impossible. – sajjad veeri Jan 24 '15 at 17:23
  • IMHO philosophy has plenty of room for contemplating ideas outside both what "operates beyond the machinery of physical laws" and "god". Your definition(s) are still flawed. – Drux Jan 24 '15 at 18:48
  • You are equating the term negative theology to atheism. They are two different terms. Negative theology does not equal atheism. Derrida has a negative theology (post-modern western), Advaita Vedanta (Hindu) has a negative theology, and Nagarjuna (Mahayana Buddhist) has a negative theology. – Swami Vishwananda Jan 25 '15 at 14:47
  • 1
    "Hopefully as all of us would admit, that all efforts to provide a valid logical... arguments [sic] have failed." No, not all of us would. – James Kingsbery Jan 27 '15 at 02:27
  • @SwamiVishwananda: There is also a Negative Theology in Catholicism, that determines what God isn't ie he is not finte and so on. – Mozibur Ullah Jan 28 '15 at 15:45
  • As Flying-Spaghetti-Monsterism would tell us, that conclusion is most equivalent to 'Biblical God' and shall not be disproven – dwn Jan 28 '15 at 20:29

1 Answers1

0

If they've failed, then they've failed very badly considering just how many people in the world are convinced that there Brahman and his avatars, God and Allah.

The problem here is your word 'proof'; what is understood as proof in mathematics has been established by long consensus; the originary point usually taken as Euclid (but probably established earlier - given how these things work); where a pardigm of precision in both definition, proof and theorem are established; and the theorems look incontrovertible given that the axioms look 'clear and distinct'.

The Sophists reacted against the dialectical argument of Socrates to provide a similar 'universality' to ethics; Socrates chased definitions of lache (courage) to make them more precise; but they argued, that in this area where possibility (is a definition of lache* possible) and vagueness (what exactly is lache) are important one argues for on the basis of probability - its the key criterion one uses in a court; thus one wants to build persuasive arguments; not arguments of proof on the mathematical model.

Hence the usual arguments of faith can be considered arguments of persuasion; and they have historically been very effective.

Mozibur Ullah
  • 47,073
  • 14
  • 93
  • 243
  • Unless I much misunderstood the OP --very likely --the statement was that arguments against the belief in God have failed. – Chris Sunami Jan 28 '15 at 01:44
  • That is strange, the OP made the statement fairly clearly, at least within a reasonable ambiguity implied by the English language. Still, I also misread it. – dwn Jan 28 '15 at 14:10
  • @sunami: Ok, I see where you driving at; and looking at the latter part of the question; it is, I think the correct interpretation. – Mozibur Ullah Jan 28 '15 at 15:43