Before I show you what he said, I can see straight away that his overuse of long words and phrases can be destroyed by Occams Razor (Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.) and Hitchens Razor (That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence), he is basically trying to switch this around to him... That will not happen. I think it's quite evident we do not need to disprove/refute anything with no evidence baking it up.. I thought that was common knowledge. ha

EDIT: Now I have realised he keeps saying the existence is god can only be arguable in philosophical terms.. he is wrong there. It can be argued in philosophical but it can be argued in scientific terms too. If one, as all religion do, tried to fit god in with science, well then it can be argued on both scientific and philosophical terms. Scientifically.. there is no evidence to suggest a god exists and philosophically one can deduce a god, yes, but that does not make it true and a philosophy without some solid ground backed up with evidence is a weak philosophical point (The evidence for my position is that there is no evidence for the other position). The great thing about Occam's Razor (Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.) and Hitchens Razor (That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence), as mentioned above, is that it holds it's meaning and merits on both scientific and philosophical terms. The onus is on the person making the bigger claim and everything works without the assumption of a divine creator. That simplest version is usually the better one.

I suppose my main position is that the standpoint of viewing that there is no such being as god or place as heaven or hell is a rational and logical position both in scientific and philosophical terms. I would probably like to counter his refutations on my position and not his position.. meaning I don't mind if both sides are rational but my side (the one making no great claim) IS rational. You get what I mean?

(Obviously the paragraph that starts with (>) is a quote from what I said.)
It is a long read so If you guys don't want to read it all, that is fine, you can breeze through it and give some pointers or link me someplace that would love to get their hands on this and debate it.
Thank you and here it is:
********************

You are long on Blather, sophistry and New Atheist rhetoric & short on intelligent analysis. I’ll cut out the blather and get to the meat. It should shorten this nonsense up real neat.

> I would say there's no such thing as sophisticated philosophy... somewhat. You can philosophize all you want but there's no amount of psychobabble that can prove God. Or prove anything really.

Ironically the above claim is by nature a philosophical claim which by it’s own standard cannot be known to be true. Thus it is self-referential and logically incoherent & thus false.

>What you posted looks like the kind of copy paste coupled with hate mongering that overly offended religious people love to post, being too idiotic to realise it hurts their case not helping it.

As you point this finger at me note three more are pointed back at you.

>You have, I am sorry to say failed to support your claim.

Why do I need too? You have shown by the content of your response you have a child’s anthropomorphic view of religion. You wouldn’t know Ground of All Being from a Magic Old SkyMan with a Beard from a hole in the head. It is self evident by your response.

>The burden of proof is on you, else the person who cannot support his claims is the guy who has "a child's view of religion."The onus is always on you, the person making the greater claim and it will always be, therefore any discussion to be had, one has to claim the burden before accusations are thrown out.

Interesting double standard what proofs if any did you put forth? What empirical evidence did you cite? Nothing, you made a lot of assertions without philosophical argument or scientific proof. What Amazing hypocrisy.

> How dare you accuse other people of anything without supporting your claims? So childish and NOT intellectual sophisticated that you do not even understand when the burden of proof is on you.

Not really, my beef with you is not the existence of God but your implicit claim God is the subject of empirical verification not philosophical argument and investigation. You do nothing to support that claim.

—>Even worse, make analogies, which are not even related to the topic at hand.
One needs to get rid of (or justify) all the assertions before going any further.

Translation: I am too stupid to argue on philosophical grounds so I am going to assert by fiat empirical knowledge is the only valid and knowable knowledge and the only standard by which to know the existence of God or not, and I am not going to produce any empirical evidence for my claim or even attempt an incoherent philosophical argument. I am just going to make a lot of counter assertions and cry you are being mean to me.

Not impressed.

-- Outside of being generally condescending, with a near ad hominem opening only to be followed by word salad, your response composes a fair amount of assumptions and assertions.

I love being condescending to the ignorant. It is a particular vice of mine. Your initial post also contained a “fair amount of assumptions and assertions” but somehow it’s bad when I do it? Lovely hypocrisy. Well done.

> First, you asserts that God/the afterlife is somehow a rational philosophical conclusion

It is a subject of philosophical investigation just as natural selection is of biology and a Higg Boson is the subject of physics. We have not dealt with any specific argument. We are dealing with your positive claim God is the object of empirical investigation. I say that is a category mistake. God is the subject of philosophical investigation only. Your view is called Positivism. AG Flew in the 50’s at the height of his Atheism dismissed Positivism as hopelessly incoherent.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/03/scientism-roundup.html#more

>1: the philosophical view is the higher echelon of understanding while empirical investigation is only a small portion, preventing a person from understanding the big picture (one definition of category mistake)

Nope, philosophy is more fundamental then mere data. Raw data is undeniable but the meaning of the data requires philosophy and philosophical modeling and investigation.

>2: implies that heaven cannot be evaluated through scientific means

It can’t there is no impaction. I thought I was clear?

>because it is an abstract concept, so trying to relate the two processes is flawed (another definition of category mistake. I'm guessing you meant this one).

You don’t get category mistakes do you? It can’t be anymore than you can dig up a Higgs boson in the fossil record. The immortality of the soul is a philosophical argument not a product of empirical investigation. here is one. it is likely too sophisticated for you but it’s a start.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/11/platos-affinity-argument.html

Your Positivism runs deep.

>The second one poses a problem because you are essentially stating that there is nothing you can do to prove/disprove supernatural concepts via actual evidence and they are true because you believe them to be true.

Pay attention Positivism boy. I can’t dig up a Higg Boson using Archeology. I need a particle accelerator. God’s existence or the existence of the soul is a conclusion of philosophy not science.

>This game can be played with everything from ghosts to langoliers.

Not really they are isolani God in the Classic Sense is not. You can’t make a philosophical argument for them.

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/02/does...

> If this is your mentality then my best bet would be to save myself the headache and walk away, nothing will change our mind…

Change what? I could deny God tomorrow but knowing what I know about knowing I would still call your version of Atheism primitive and childish. i would argued against God on philosophical grounds not idiot positivist grounds. Indeed I would be like AG Flew in the 1950’s an Atheist but against Positivism. Your Atheism is clearly lowbrow.

>I could have a field day with your definition of omniscience and its real-life implications. The idea of an all-knowing god, fully aware of the choices every creature will make, creates them regardless, damning countless people to pain and torture while alive and/or eternal suffering in hell.

So what? They would exist and have being and having being is good. They freely choose evil and they where given sufficient grace that was truly sufficient to choose otherwise. God is not obligated to create anything. God could create a better world then this one or a worse one. But there is no world so good God is obligated to create it and none so bad that as long as it participates in being God should refrain from creating it.

>The idea of God not needing to watch you because he already knows what you are doing and what you are going to do is even more terrifying/upsetting than constant surveillance.

That is an emotive claim & as we see you make no rational argument as to why this is the case.

>I'm amazed at your degree of Orwellian doublespeak.

Words often used by persons who are about to lay down some Orwellian doublespeak.

> When is slavery not slavery? When you think the Master deserves to have slaves, I guess. Yeah... THAT's "intellectually sophisticated”.

That avoids the argument. Slavery is slavery precisely because you are serving something which in essence is equal to you. Any human being who owns you is your equal & that is what makes you a slave. God if He exists is not your equal. Thus you can’t be his “slave” in the conventional sense. You can only be His Creature/creation.

-- If you're talking about reality, then philosophy is only effective when properly combined with evidence.

How would you prove the above with philosophy or evidence and what is your philosophical argument coupled with what evidence so I know your neo-Positivism here is true?

>Trying to extend knowledge beyond what can be measured in some way is not sophisticated, it is worthless blind speculation.

The claim the only knowledge we can know is what is measured is a claim beyond what is measured. No matter how you slice it Positivism is incoherent.

-- If you're talking about morality, what is and isn't acceptable, then there are no right answers. Any two people need to agree on what the goals of morality actually are, before the discussion can even begin.

Which of course renders any moral criticism you have of God null and void. Of course God classically conceived is not a moral agent in the first place but that is an argument for another time.

>Religion loves to reverse things. "Servitude to a god equals freedom." Thinking only what he wants you to think, and doing only what he wants you to do, is somehow ultimate freedom? Heaven is a terrible existence, though I suppose people in heaven wouldn't recognize it, because they're not allowed to disagree with their god. In the christian afterlife, you're either given a lobotomy, or set on fire. Your choice. Servility comes in when one's servitude is imposed. In Christian doctrine, the consequence of dissent is eternal torture, which is about as obvious an imposition as you can get.

Nope the essence of slavery is you are in servitude to someone who in essence is your equal. A fellow human being is equal. God by definition is not equal anymore that you or I are equal to Reality Itself.

-- That's a nice way to open up a comment: starting with establishing yourself as the grownup with experience and knowledge while diminishing the opposition as the unwitting child that can be patronized. Your appear to have decided to play the "c*nt" card very early on in the game.

That is why I did it & respect my gender identity. I am not playing the c*nt card I am being a d*ck. I also don’t care. No nasty Atheist can shame me for being nasty. Let’s cut the “civility” pretext. It’s tedious. You don’t like it go back too your safe space snowflake.

>I am entitled to say that as it was you who started off an attack on me using some ad hominem attack. The "you haven't read sophisticated theologists" dungturd is an ad hominem fallacy known as the Courtier's Reply.* (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/24/the-courtiers-reply/)

PZ Myers is about as intelligent an advocate for Atheism as Jimmy Swaggart is for Christianity.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-philistinism.html

If you want to quote an Atheist to me. Make sure it’s Graham Oppy or Jack Smart or pre-Deism AG Flew. You know someone intelligent and not a buffoon?
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/02/lowder-then-bombs.html

>Here's a relevant article:
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2008/07/hypocr...

Dawkins? The King of he Idiot Atheists. I might as well be the Atheist biologist here because you just did the moral equivalent of citing an article from ANSWERS IN GENESIS to me.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/02/to-louse.html

What it’s too hard to read a sophisticated Atheist like J. J. C. Smart or Paul Edwards? Someone who can argue against God from the perspective of philosophy? You know & not make a category mistake.

-- *Another hollow display of a need to feel superior, even down right sadistic.
Is that really what a "sophisticated Philosophical Classic Theist" is like? Is that what such a person should be like?

I am a dick. If I didn’t believe in Hell or God I assure you I would be even more unpleasant. Since I would have no moral restraints.

-- I'd say that about 98% of theists are by no means "sophisticated Philosophical Classic Theists" and are not even aware of their own reasoning for believing.

True but reading your weak arse replies that overly rely on your positivist assumptions I would say 98% of all Atheist are just as philosophically unsophisticated as you.

> Most don't even realize that faith "requires a leap", but think that they have a solid foundation to stand on, as if it was based on empirical evidence. They just haven't analyzed their own beliefs enough to know this.

If they tried to rely on empiricism they would become Atheists. But few Atheists neo-Positivists realize the philosophically incoherent view that governs their Atheism that is on even more shaky rational ground and they have never analyzed their beliefs beyond the pablum they get from the likes of Dawkins or Myers.

QUOTE: “the existence of God (& or the afterlife) is a rational conclusion of philosophical argument not empirical investigation.”
-- *Game over. You can't argue something into existence.

But you can argue logically about existence and come to rational conclusions about it. God is not a isolani. Argue about the God I believe in not the one you wish I believed in. I certainly know the difference between a platonic Atheist, reductionist materialist Atheist, or Metaphysical Naturalist or Atheist Idealist. Atheism isn’t just one thing.

> You can argue that something may potentially exist but that is not proof of existence. The people that live by philosophy alone and do not include reality I don't understand. *

I don’t live by philosophy alone and since when can you not prove things using philosophy? Have you never heard of philosophical proofs?

>If you don't have evidence for it, then believing in something cannot be rational, by definition. Rational belief requires justification and you can't have that without....well…justification.

Your positivism has no rational philosophical justification. It refutes itself.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1174/
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1184/

>>QUOTE: “Like claiming you disbelieve in Natural selection because you can't prove it using a large hadron collider or disbelieving in a Higgs boson particle because you can't find one in the fossil record.”
-- No, it's like saying: "I don't believe in pixies because there's no evidence for them”.

No because your claim God is subject to empirical verification is a category mistake. Your claim you can’t have philosophical proofs is not a scientifically verifiable claim either and it is a philosophically incoherent claim the minute you try to argue for it. it refutes itself.

>-- *As you may have read I went into detail in this one above. The god character described in the bible is inferior to me in every respect save for his magical abilities. In every other arena, for example morality, competency and general intellect, I - and the majority of modern man - outstrip him enormously.

Like I said a Child’s anthropomorphic view of God. God is superior to you because he is the source of all perfections and of every perfection your objectively have.

>But putting that aside, you are have not demonstrated the reality of your god.* You have simply asserted it while being generally condescending.

I don’t care too. You don’t teach Quantum Mechanics to a fifth grader. You start off with basic science. You need to learn some basic philosophy and all I see is ignorant positivism and unsophisticated thinking and a lot of whining about how mean I am. I don’t care. And if you want to be mean to me. Knock yourself out. I could care even less. To quote Feser.

Positivism (or Scientism) is the view that all real knowledge is scientific(empirical) knowledge—that there is no rational, objective form of inquiry that is not a branch of science.

The claim that positivism is true is not itself a scientific claim, not something that can be established using scientific or empirical methods. Indeed, that science is even a rational form of inquiry (let alone the only rational form of inquiry) is not something that can be established scientifically. For scientific inquiry itself rests on a number of philosophical assumptions: that there is an objective world external to the minds of scientists; that this world is governed by causal regularities; that the human intellect can uncover and accurately describe these regularities; and so forth. Since science presupposes these things, it cannot attempt to justify them without arguing in a circle.

The rational investigation of the philosophical presuppositions of science has, naturally, traditionally been regarded as the province of philosophy. Nor is it these presuppositions alone that philosophy examines. There is also the question of how to interpret what science tells us about the world. For example, is the world fundamentally comprised of substances or events? What is it to be a “cause”? Is there only one kind? (Aristotle held that there are at least four.) What is the nature of the universals referred to in scientific laws—concepts like quark, electron, atom, and so on—and indeed in language in general? Do they exist over and above the particular things that instantiate them? Scientific findings can shed light on such metaphysical questions, but can never fully answer them. Yet if science must depend upon philosophy both to justify its presuppositions and to interpret its results, the falsity of scientism seems doubly assured. As the conservative philosopher John Kekes (himself a confirmed secularist like Derbyshire and MacDonald) concludes: “Hence philosophy, and not science, is a stronger candidate for being the very paradigm of rationality.”

>You just stated that the existence of god does not rely on empirical investigation but is a conclusion of philosophical argument, so how does "Conforming to reality" equate to "serving God"? Even if god exists, serving someone who will brutally punish you if you don't is, by definition, not freedom. Ultimate or otherwise.*

Evil is privation or lack of the good. God is Goodness Itself thus to reject God is to reject goodness itself and be in a state of privation of ultimate goodness. Otherwise known as damnation. God is not some isolanti singular entity that beats you up for not obeying him.
Rejection of God is like sticking your head in a bucket of water and complaining air should be allowed to get into your lungs without breathing and acting all surprised when you drown. Hell is being deprived Ultimate Goodness and the consequences of that choice.

Like I said you have a primitive child’s view of religion. You prove me right on that with every ignorant post.

>Yes it is. It is impossible to know everything and yet claim you are not constantly watching everyone.

My guess is you really believe God has literal eyes to watch you. Like I said a child's anthropomorphic view of God

>You are relabeling surveillance as "a need to know" to be able to form your argument. Surveillance is monitoring, even if it's not needed. As you state "God knows", that is total surveillance, needed or not.

Technically God is Pure Act and divinely simple in Essence. As such there is no real distinction between God knowing what you are doing and causing you to exist from moment to moment to do things and thus “seeing” you do it. If you want God to “stop” & he complied you would simply cease to exist.

>Semantics. And not particularly impressive semantics at that.

Nope, proper terminology.

> First of all, Atheism has no requirement for being "intellectually sophisticated", it is simply disbelief in god.

No that is not mere Atheism that specifically is Negative Atheism. Granted it doesn’t have to be sophisticated in fact Negative Atheist rarely are. It’s just a rhetorical devise used to shift the burden of proof.

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/03/agai...

>Does such patronizing comments do justice to "sophisticated Philosophical Classic Theists"?

I am trying to shame you into learning philosophy so you can be at least philosophically sophisticated Atheist. That would be ironically a step closer to God. Being more rational is always better.

-- Is heaven a place where you will be separated from your loved ones on earth/hell?
Yes or No?

No your love ones will be separated from you since they refuse to give their consent to be happy for all eternity and choose other than happiness. Heaven is not a place more like a state of being specifically the state of the saved soul beholding the Beatific vision. Seeing God face to face. Seeing Goodness Itself is the ultimate end and ultimate final cause.

>If yes, then you are being deluded to think it is a nice place.
You are a victim of brainwashing to the point to make you so arrogant to think you are "intellectually sophisticated" if you believe such contradictory nonsense.

No I don’t have your child’s view of religion & if I was an Atheist I would still laugh cruelly at your positivism.

-- My thoughts, I am sorry to say, are far more sophisticated than your refutations. So far, your argument appears to rest upon the presupposition/assertion that god exists.

An intelligent person would ask and I would tell them. I am not a presuppositionist (thought it has it’s charms) i am a Moderate Realist Aristotelian Thomist. You are clearly a New Atheist and like most of that unsophisticated class you know little of philosophy and are long on positivism.

>"Believing in god is rational, because it's rational to believe in god. Serving god is freedom, because serving god is freedom" - that's essentially the level of your argument.

I made no argument for the existence of God I merely stated God is argued based on philosophical proof not empirical. You have not proved otherwise you merely asserted God cannot be proved philosophically and made no philosophical argument to justify that claim.

>This isn'tsophisticated, and it certainly isn't "classic theology". It's just a string of circular assertions. You’re not actually demonstrating anything. Or giving anything to make us think what your saying is worth a damn.

Which is pretty much what your counter argument has been. I am very unimpressed.

>Your philosophy, rather theology spoken philosophically, is worthless without science.

Rather you confuse your categories and your positivist philosophy is incoherent and self-refuting. God is a philosophical question whose existence is based on philosophical proofs not empirical science.

> I have a great philosophy. Philosophy is a never-ending search for wisdom. It asks all the questions and poses possible outcomes then science answers them.

This is as stupid as claiming your particle accelerator can prove natural selection or punctuated equilibrium. So idiotic.

>Sure you can logically deduce any god you want but there's nothing concrete without science. All the science and logic suggest that gods are man-made, not the other way around. Philosophy can't ever tell you whether! X is true, but if you do it right it may tell science where to start looking for evidence about whether X is true.

Your claim "there's nothing concrete without science” by definition is not itself a scientific claim but a philosophical one. An incoherent self referent one that at best might be trivially true.

>Philosophy can theorize that if A and B and not-C then X. Then science can go looking for A, B and C.

Which again makes about as much sense as digging up a Higg Boson in the fossil record. You are as wedded to these category mistakes and a Young Earth Creationist is to his stupid argument “Evolution is refuted by the 2nd Law of thermal dynamics”. Which BTW is a category mistake in the opposite direction. Treating a law of physics as a metaphysical principle. Wrong.

>*As an atheist, my view of religion is the most sophisticated possible view.

No its pathologically idiotic & logically incoherent and where I too become an Atheist tomorrow my low opinion of your “sophisticated Atheism” would not change. It is moronic.

>There are many other possible concepts of heaven. There is a movie starring Robin Williams called "What Dreams May Come" in which he dies and goes to heaven. It's very charming, and certainly has a more sophisticated view of heaven than the belief that everybody just sings the praises of God all the time forever. Charming though it is, it's still just a work of fiction.

It’s not sophisticated at all. Merely visually and athletically pleasing as a form of theater. Nothing more.

>Theology does get very complicated, but all the complications exist merely to conceal the ultimate emptiness of the belief system. Making your theories more complex may make them more sophisticated but it does not make them any more accurate. I am an atheist, and I consider myself to be so called “intellectually sophisticated” in this area.

You are entailed too your beliefs but not your own facts. Fact is you are philosophically illiterate and dogmatically a positivist. Even Daniel Dennett said “There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.” You have not examined your philosophical baggage at all.

> As the saying goes, to become an atheist all you need to do is read the bible.

As a Catholic I would agree. The bible has to be read threw church and tradition not read privately otherwise you can come up with a bunch of silliness.

> Not saying that every atheist is like this but for the most part it is true that former religious reads and learns about their religion and then decides to leave it.

I was a Deist in my youth though raised Catholic. I accepted all religions but when I learned to think more critically I saw the Church in a different light.

>I view and critique all religions the same. Remember I was a Christian, I read the bible, I went to mass, heard the priest, went to a catholic school. I was a Christian.

Catholic schools are shite. You are proof they are good for nothing but creating Atheists and Protestants.

>When your worldview, at its foundations, is based on faith, you may have difficulty understanding someone who requires MORE than faith.

I am a Thomist. Aquinas said “Reason proceeds faith. One must have reason to believe and motivation for belief. To bad you equate “more” with Positivist shite. if I was an Atheist I would never be a positivist. Just as a Christian I am not a Young Earth Creationist. Have some pride man!

>I require more than faith. I have set aside the indoctrination of my childhood and instead try to use critical thinking and skepticism as the foundation of my worldview. No idea should be exempt from critical examination. Faith is meaningless - it adds absolutely nothing to my knowledge base.

But you have learned no philosophy. You have philosophical baggage taken on board without examination. Thus your skepticism is invalid.

>This is the critical concept that makes the scientific method so powerful. You are free to make whatever assertions you wish. However, if you also want other people to agree with you, then your assertions need to come with evidence.

Philosophical evidence as well as evidence from physics and biology and history and logic. Your empiricism alone Positivist nonsense is shite. Read the links above. Your Atheism is unsophisticated.

>The scientific method allows you to build a model based on your assertions, and to then make predictions based on that model. If verifiable evidence is found that agrees with the prediction made by your model, this strengthens the validity of your assertion.However, if new evidence is brought forward that disagrees with the established model of understanding, then the current model must be changed - no matter how long that model had been accepted!

But God is a philosophical question not an empirical scientific one. God is know by philosophical proofs not science. Again trying to dig up a Higgs boson from the fossil record.

>, contrast this with a worldview based on faith. Evidence to the contrary is ignored - because you just need to have faith, or because god works in mysterious ways. Criticism and doubt is not allowed, and leads directly to eternal damnation in the fiery pit.

A view Aquinas and Vatican One both condemned. You really didn’t learn shite in Catholic school. Whoever runs the Catholics schools in Ireland or American needs to be shot or put on the rack.

>So, I do not need to "disprove" theism. I wait here patiently for someone, anyone, to bring forward evidence that can be analyzed and verified.

Then you are useless. Paul Edwards wrote a critique of the cosmological argument answered here by Feser.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/08/edwards-on-infinite-causal-serie...

>Until then, I feel exactly the same way about your god as I do about an invisible pink unicorn that farts rainbows and craps sherbet. The onus is on you to prove something exists not on me to say why not. This NEEDS to be understood before anything else. And even before this it needs to be understood that your claim is based on assertion and theology not philosophy (these can be taking into philosophy but isn’t a philosophical standpoint), there is no validation inside or outside philosophy.

The pink unicorn and the FSM are just rip offs of Russell’s teapot and it’s shite.
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/08/gutt...

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2014/02/russ...

>While big words and complex phrases may make an idea seem impressive to the ignorant, it won't work on me. There done. Thank you and goodbye.

Reasoning is a learned skill. Just because you deny gods doesn’t make you rational or informed or not ignorant.