Can You Refute This Philosophical Argument

What is the most satisfying philosophical argument?

Some of my most satisfying arguments, in my opinion either get good results or push the boundary of conceivabilty in a useful way. These involve major projects like omni-Science and perpetual motion:Assumptions of system claiming objectivity:https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a...General laws of perpetual motion in simple machines:Nathan Coppedge's answer to What principles might be conducive to perpetual motion machines?

How can we refute philosophical skepticism?

Depends on how strong the skepticism is. René Descartes did a pretty great job refuting the strongest possible case of skepticism. His thought experiment establishing the existence of the thinker proves that there is at least one fact that can't be doubted.However, there are various weaker forms of skepticism. Descartes tried to refute these as well, but they are much trickier. We know for a fact that our senses don't pick up the real world exactly, they are merely reconstructions. The best example of this is optical illusions. We know that examining these patterns makes our brain see things that aren't there. How to prove that this doesn't occur more often is hard.

What arguments have Buddhist philosophers used to refute the existence of a creator god?

When a wandering ascetic asked the Buddha, “if there is a Soul”? Then he asked, “is there no Soul?” On both the occasions the Buddha remained silent. Which was to say he did not want to answer the question.His disciple said to the Buddha, “Why was the ascetics questions not answered”?In response the Buddha said, “Both the concepts were extremes and it would have further confused the person if he tried to explain it. He teaches in the middle way”.The meaning of the middle way is that we avoid all questions where it is not helpful in our basic quest in life to find happiness and release from suffering. Thus the Buddha never said, “there is no God”. As this question is not helpful in developing wisdom. We work with what we have at hand and in the present. We understand, “HOW the mind works” not “Why it is this way”.It is an never ending fight between Theists and Atheists as no one can prove the other wrong in a definitive 100% full proof way. Then why bother getting into this argument.The path of the Buddha is for investigation and development of one’s wisdom. We don’t have beliefs and faith (we use faith skillfully not blindly), we have tools of investigation which is Meditation and the teachings of the Buddha.This is why I use my time to develop my understanding of how my mind is working and seeing first-hand the reality of the mind. This gives you more access and control to life then any philosophical musings.Dhamma Sukha Meditation Center

Have all popular logical arguments for atheism been refuted?

Atheist: “I see no evidence that convinces me that gods exist.”That’s all there is to an atheist’s position. What’s to argue? What’s to refute?Theists make arguments for their god’s existence. Atheists point out the flaws in those arguments. (Basically that there is no scientific evidence to support the claim. (Note: That isn’t evidence for non-existence.)) Are you asking if theists have countered all the atheists’ most popular counter-arguments?The underlying problem when theists and science-minded atheists debate is the theists are making philosophical arguments. Their arguments just have to be emotionally persuasive. But for science-minded atheists, an argument needs to be based on what the physical world shows us. The theist gets frustrated that the atheist rejects the theist’s feels-right argument in favor of an argument that requires an understanding of science in order to feel right.The two are arguing from different positions.When theists stick to arguments based on the supernatural, those can’t be refuted by arguments based on physical evidence. So in that sense, yes, some atheists’ counter-arguments sort of have been refuted. If a theist’s claim is wholly supernatural, the counter-argument is likewise wholely philosophical. It can’t be proven or disproven. Only argued.For instance, a theist can say, “God exists outside of physical space and time.” That’s not a testable theory. An atheist can only respond with a philosophical counter-argument like, “I have an invisible elephant in my living room that you can’t disprove exists. Therefore it must exist.” In the absence of evidence, which argument is more persuasive?“I believe because I feel God exists. I know there’s no physical evidence,” is a personal truth. (EDIT: I had said, “statement of fact”.)But when Bible literalists say, “The earth is only 6000 years old because (an extrapolation from) the Bible says so,” that’s something that can be tested and refuted. A theist can philosophically argue that their God made the universe look like it was billions of years old to test man’s faith. But a cool-headed atheist won’t take the bait. They’ll stick to their argument based on how the physical world behaves.

How do I construct a response to a philosophy argument?

Great question.What I would suggest is the following:Look for any logical fallacies in the argument you’re responding to.Establish premises in your argument or propositions that establish foundation of your argument.Do a point-by-point refutation of the argument in your response and have a logical conclusion that flows from your premises that’s airtight.What I learned from Ethics class is to write an introduction summarizing the argument, and then write paragraphs where you can strengthen or show the weaknesses in the arguments. Then, a conclusion where your position is made clear.Any philosopher worth their salt usually does those things, and at the end of the day, it’s not about who is smarter or impressing the audience; it’s about protecting your opinion or stance on a particular subject to the best of your ability.To explain further, logical fallacies are simply holes or conclusions from someone’s logic that is faulty. The most common are non-sequitur where a person argument’s has an built-in assumption that doesn’t follow logically from a previous statement.This is an example from formal logic:If A is true, then B is true.B is true.Therefore, A is true.It doesn’t necessarily follow that A has to be true; there could be other rules involved.A straw-man argument is another fallacy where someone appears to refute another person’s argument, but really is refuting an argument that wasn’t stated by that person; it shifts the blame or attention.There’s also the false dilemma or either-or fallacy where a proposition or argument oversimplifies options when usually a third option may be available.Circular logic, another fallacy, is where the person uses his own argument to prove its validity.There’s also no need for ad hominem arguments which attacks the person’s character which some people who are upset would do which is ill-advised.Aside from philosophers, formal logic and modal logic are useful to debate teams, lawyers, and computer scientists who use argumentation all the time.Lastly, there’s also two ways of making your argument: either deductive reasoning-using facts or inductive reasoning-using experience or analyzing patterns that happen most of the time, but keep in mind, inductive reasoning can be more unreliable.Either way, you can’t prove your arguments using deduction or induction since that would be circular.