J.L. Schellenberg - Fallacies in Arguing for God?

Believers in God should be appalled when poor arguments are offered to 'prove' the existence of God. These arguments can be so bad that one might think the proponents are really atheists in disguise.

[MrAndrew]

All discourses to date on the subject of the existence of God have no intellectual merit without first defining what is meant by "God" and the context or perspective in which such a concept is being discussed, all of which is invariably the case, on both sides of the debate. It can now be said, for example, how limited human perspective and understanding is with respect to "AI" beyond the event horizon of the singularity. Ther are additional problems with how such debates have been traditionally discussed, one of which is the constant decay of language use. Any discourse, regardless of topic, will prove consistently retarded, even if just one side of a given debate has a poor grasp of the requisite linguistic instruments.

So, in short, the first response to the question "Does God exist"? ought to be: what do you mean by God? And does he exist in what context?

I have a working suspicion that those who engage in most if not all academic debates do so not to advance understanding but merely to socialize. Were that not the case, I am certain that significantly more progress would have been made with respect to issues which remain unresolved. I do make this claim with some degree of experience. I would also add that comedy offers more insight than that whaic is passed off as serious debate.

[MonisticIdealism]

Schellenberg fails to see there's another option: Idealism is monism, so there is only one type of thing: consciousness. The theist can maintain simplicity in that all concrete facts are grounded in facts about the mental states of (or the mentality associated with) a single cosmic entity (Chalmers, forthcoming).

[infovy]

On the response to the simplicity of god that god introduces a new type of being, that only holds on the assumption that physicalism is true. An idealist theism would avoid the criticism, and though a (I suspect) more common dualist theism would fall foul of it, with mind materialism and a metaphysical foundation for physics generally far from certain, I don't think it's a strong criticism. In fact, it would even be possible for a physicalist god (if we were inside a simulation for instance).

[uremove]

By ‘personal’ vs. ‘scientific’ explanations, I assume he means ‘experiential vs. scientific’ or ‘subjective vs. objective’ eg. ‘falling in love’ vs. ‘increased prolactin levels’. So, religious experiences are an example of the former, perhaps not fully ‘explained’ by an analysis of corresponding brain activity. Is this a fallacy? Seems to me that ‘experiential’ explanations are not just ‘non-scientific’, but a major category of description (and explanation) in themselves. Until we solve the ‘Hard Problem’ of consciousness, and reduce all experiences to biology, this will remain the case. You have to admire the faith of some atheists that they accept the promissory IOUs of science with so little scepticism! Science is ONE description of reality, necessarily objective, and therefore limited. Phenomenology is another. Both have their strengths and limitations.

[beaconterraoneonline]

First, tell the guy cleaning the theater and bumping into things, STOP ... making noise.

Second, STOP MOVING the camera ... its not necessary.

Thank you.

[BradHolkesvig]

God is one of the biblical names used to describe the invisible artificial intelligence within the simulation that we're all experiencing. The AI has a voice that can speak directly into our minds but only chosen minds were used during this first temporary generation of the simulation to testify to the knowledge that is required to learn who we are and how we're created.

[DeusExAstra]

"Scientific" explanations for things are based on facts, observations, and logic. So I can only assume that a "personal" explanation is one in which facts, observations, and logic are not relevant. That... doesnt sound like a good explanation for much, nevermind the universe.

[senjinomukae]

Umm.. who is "she"? Are you talking about he? Given that you're a man, talking to a man, and giving an example in involving a person? How much of a coward are you? It's actually quite depressing.