0 votes

Religion and Proof

Three questions on religious proof. Stefan Molyneux podcast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhj3Ra9597A

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

listened to about the 620 mark

First of all I disagree that phillosophy in itself is proof, and this guy seems to making pure philisophical argument.

Second before you can have a debate about God you must first name who you believe God to be, so it is intellectually dishonest to try to generalize God on this argument.

Third I would submit that the testimony of Gods word and Gods people are proof of God. Certainly not everything that says its Gods word is actually Gods word, so that would also need to be narrowed down, and certainly not everyone that claims to be Gods people are Gods people the same as not every politician that claims to be conservative is conservative, so you would have to be specific about whose testimony you mention.

Fourth it is ridiculous to claim that if an all knowing God changed something that would make him not an all knowing God (note this is where I stopped listening) as an all knowing God would know the result of every possibility of every decision ever possible, although I do find it interesting that this philosopher tends to think of God in calvinistic terms.

wraith - You stopped listening right where it started

making you uncomfortable I guess. The rest of the podcast provides a pretty convincing argument against the rationality for the exsistence of a God or Gods.

it didnt make me uncomforatble

it was making a flawed philosophical argument, as I stated above. If my logic is wrong point it out. I dont understand how philosophy in itself would prove anything one way or another and he was making it clear that his entire argument against God was based on philosophy. He said he had three points and I assume his best one was first and it is easily dismissed, maybe you should point out what his other two were and if they are interesting I might listen, other wise I dont care to listen to poorly thought out philosophical arguments that only work because they generalize who God is, as I said earlier is intellectually dishonest. Although I agreed with much of what he said until he got to his philosophical argument against God, there must be some proof. One of the reasons I stopped listening is when someone generalizes god like he does he then can put any attributes on this god that he wants to, therefore I have no more reason to listen to his arguments since he is no longer arguing against my God. I honestly find it irritating that someone puts an attribute on some generalized god, then claims my God does not exist because there god can not exist because of the attribute that they just put on their god.