Insights into Non-believers' strategy in debate

[JapaneseKappa]

I am going to assume it was an honest mistake for you to argue that Kreeft offers 20 proofs for the existence of God. He offered 20 “arguments” which are not the same as proofs. An argument is based on evidence that may or may not be acceptable to all, whereas a proof requires acceptance by all if the proof is conclusive.

I think Kreeft would be the first to concede that very possibly none of these arguments would persuade an atheist because none of them is conclusive proof (whatever that means) of the kind that an atheist requires.

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

From the page you’ve linked:

It is this sort of cramped and constricted horizon that the proofs presented in this chapter are trying to expand.

Emphasis mine. It seems that Kreeft uses the terms interchangeably.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It seems that Kreeft uses the terms interchangeably.

Yes, he does, and that’s a defect in his diction, though he uses the term “argument” a great deal more often than the term “proof.” I don’t know why he uses the term “proof” at all since the arguments could only be regarded as proofs by those who already accept the conclusion (namely theists) before they look at the arguments.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I wonder how many of the twenty proofs have been abandoned at one time or another by people in this thread based on the “X is impossible” arguments. To honestly claim there are 20 proofs, you would have to find all 20 compelling and never have encountered a scenario where you were unable to defend one. Otherwise, I could just slap together a list of 20 strings of baby words and claim I had 20 proofs for God’s non existence.

The list has some incredibly weak proofs, including a variation of the fine tuning argument I’ve already mentioned here.

I think this is another reason non-believers frequently go for emotional arguments. When faced with the sort of shotgun approach that is the list of 20 proofs, it is not practical to try to address them all at once. Instead, non-believers might focus on one and potentially make some headway into getting religious people to water down the conclusion, perhaps in a manner inocente pointed out. However, by the time a non-believer has done this for a handful of the “proofs,” the religious people will have forgotten about some of their earlier shortcomings, and so the non-religious person would have to start all over. And even after being unable to defend a few proofs, the religious people would still be blithely claiming they had 20 proofs.

I suppose it would be wrong to call them " proofs " strictly speaking. It would be more proper to call them justifiable reasons for believing. And certainly not all of them will appeal to everyone. I think there real value is in pointing out to skeptics that faith has its reasons. And whether you wish to admit it or not some of the arguments have indeed led some non-believers to faith. Of course if one is vehemently opposed to the idea of God’s existence like those in the " New Atheist " movement, then I suppose only a bolt of lightening ( or several ) would be convincing.

P.S. Actually, there are more than 20.

Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Another strategy of non-believers which has been used often, if to no avail, is to degrade the theist’s intelligence by the presumption that the skeptic’s intelligence is far superior. H.L. Mencken was a great practitioner of this technique and used it effectively as a reporter during the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925. Today Richard Dawkins uses it often enough. But the practice began, if I’m not mistaken, with Robert Ingersoll during the 19th Century when he made remarks such as the following:

“This century will be called Darwin’s century…. His doctrine of evolution, his doctrine of the survival of the fittest, his doctrine of the origin of the species, has removed in every thinking mind the last vestige of orthodox Christianity.”

 

[Bradski]

I believe that had he written that today he would have used the term ‘fundamentalist Christian’ and would have been referring to buffoons such as Ken Hamm.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I believe that had he written that today he would have used the term ‘fundamentalist Christian’ and would have been referring to buffoons such as Ken Hamm.

That may have been the way he would say it.

But there isn’t much difference between saying it that way, and saying it the way evolutionist Richard Dawkins says it when he wants to convey the same ignorance and stupidity of religious people.

“There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point… The truly adult view, by contrast, is that our life is as meaningful, as full and as wonderful as we choose to make it.”
― Richard Dawkins, *The God Delusion *

 

[humble_catholic]

That may have been the way he would say it.

But there isn’t much difference between saying it that way, and saying it the way evolutionist Richard Dawkins says it when he wants to convey the same ignorance and stupidity of religious people.

“There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point… The truly adult view, by contrast, is that our life is as meaningful, as full and as wonderful as we choose to make it.”
― Richard Dawkins, *The God Delusion *

Charlemagne I think Dawkins and Ham are 2 sides to the same coin as theybarr both unyielding and dogmatic and very sophomoric whhe they leave their fields of expertise , Dawkins when he sprays spouting philosophy and Ham with his young earth creationism .