A good arguement

[Akshara Dasa]

I have seen many atheists, both on this forum and some outside of this forum, say that theists dont have good arguements for the existence of God. So, what im asking the atheists is, can you give me a good and valid arguement? Im not doing this becuase I hate atheists or because I want to put them down, I just want to hear if you have any better arguements.

To me, a lack of evidence doesnt disprove God. For example, if Man:A kills Man:B and there isnt alot of evidence to show that Man:A did that action, that doesnt mean that he did not do it. I can see that a lack of evidence can bring you to agnosticism, but full out Atheism, what is the reason for that?

Im eager to hear all arguements and sides, thanks!

 

[PolyHedral]

For example, if Man:A kills Man:B and there isnt alot of evidence to show that Man:A did that action, that doesnt mean that he did not do it.

"not a lot of evidence" is missing the point. If there is no evidence whatsoever that A did it, what reason do we have to suppose that A did it and not C?

 

[Akshara Dasa]

"not a lot of evidence" is missing the point. If there is no evidence whatsoever that A did it, what reason do we have to suppose that A did it and not C?

Oh, dont get me wrong, I understand what you are saying. But what I am saying is that just because there isnt enough evidence A did it, doesnt mean A didnt do it. I feel like some atheist think," Oh becuase I have no evidence God created all of this, he must not exist" and to me that is a flawed arguement. That all. Now, in real world justice we would go on to C, but sometimes the wrong people are acused because of evidence problems and go to jail innocent.

 

[Caladan]

I have seen many atheists, both on this forum and some outside of this forum, say that theists dont have good arguements for the existence of God.

I think that as long as people are at peace with their worldview, thats a great place to start. as much as im following current events that have to do with religion, I also know that religion is a much more complicated and diverse phenomenon, I'm not on a futile quest to 'rid the world of religion'.

So, what im asking the atheists is, can you give me a good and valid arguement? Im not doing this becuase I hate atheists or because I want to put them down, I just want to hear if you have any better arguements.

As I said in other threads, atheism is a natural default for me, I do not relate to anthropomorphic concepts of Divinity other than for entertainment and education, as far as I see at the moment and as argued by scientists, there is no need to assume a prime mover to the origin of life and evolution, I'm not saying the possibility may not be fascinating, but my strategy is that the vast universe offers plenty to explore in the natural realm and in the frame of physics as we know it before we even approach such questions and bring them into debate table.

To me, a lack of evidence doesnt disprove God. For example, if Man:A kills Man:B and there isnt alot of evidence to show that Man:A did that action, that doesnt mean that he did not do it. I can see that a lack of evidence can bring you to agnosticism, but full out Atheism, what is the reason for that?

Im eager to hear all arguements and sides, thanks!

Can you expand on your example? who is Man A? can we call Man A to the stand? who observed Man A commit the murder? what is the evidence that the prosecution offers?

 

[Akshara Dasa]

I think that as long as people are at peace with their worldview, thats a great place to start. as much as im following currenet events that have to do with religion, I also know that religion is a much more complicated and diverse phenomenon, I'm not on a futile quest to 'rid the world of religion'.

As I said in other threads, atheism is a natural default for me, I do not relate to anthropomorphic concepts of Divinity other than for entertainment and education, as far as I see at the moment and as argued by scientists, there is no need to assume a prime mover to the origin of life and evolution, I'm not saying the possibility may not be fascinating, but my strategy is that the vast universe offers plenty to explore in the natural realm and in the frame of physics as we know it before we even approach such questions and bring them into debate table.


Can you expand on your example? who is Man A? can we call Man A to the stand? who observed Man A commit the murder? what is the evidence that the prosecution offers?

Thanks for this response Caladan, much more intelligent that others I have seen!

And for the example, yes you may put Man:A to the stand and no one saw him commit the murder and the only evidence is the Gun which he used, but it is his friends and he was not the last person to touch the Guns before authorities found it.

 

[Rhizomatic]

Atheists don't need to argue that there is no god to justify their stance, because atheism isn't (necessarily) the belief that there is no god. It is the lack of belief in gods, and so all that needs to be justified is that lack of belief is the most logical stance to take. Here insufficient evidence is a very valid starting point--if I'm shown no evidence that man A has committed a crime, I won't hold the belief that he has committed a crime. That doesn't mean that I believe he's innocent--I very well know that he could be a murderer, but I don't have any logical reason to actively believe that he is.

 

[Akshara Dasa]

Atheists don't need to argue that there is no god to justify their stance, because atheism isn't (necessarily) the belief that there is no god. It is the lack of belief in gods, and so all that needs to be justified is that lack of belief is the most logical stance to take. Here insufficient evidence is a very valid starting point--if I'm shown no evidence that man A has committed a crime, I won't hold the belief that he has committed a crime. That doesn't mean that I believe he's innocent--I very well know that he could be a murderer, but I don't have any logical reason to actively believe that he is.

Im not trying to get anyone to justify anything, its your choice to post on this thread and if you feel like your having to justify anything, im sorry I didnt intend that.

But, why do you instantly cease to believe? If there is no visible evidence of God, why do you cease to believe. People say, "Oh I cant see God, so I wont believe". What happens if you go blind? Do you stop believing in the world? What if you lose all of your senses, do you stop believing there is a World? And the arguement that isnt good is, "Well if I lose my senses, then I can still remember there was a world", because how do you know that millions of years ago you werent with God, but now you have forgotten. You cant remember what you did at 2:30 yesterday, or what you ate this same day 5 weeks ago. Memory isnt reliable with this arguement.

The point is, why do you rely on your senses for that which is thought to be above senses. If you say God is almighty, why do you try to find evidence of him with your limited senses, mind, intellect, and memory? And if you say God isnt almighty, why are you even calling this entity God?

 

[Rhizomatic]

Im not trying to get anyone to justify anything, its your choice to post on this thread and if you feel like your having to justify anything, im sorry I didnt intend that.

I was using justify synonymously for "give me an argument to support

atheism"; no need to apologize.

But, why do you instantly cease to believe?

It's not that I cease, it's that I don't start. I don't know what color mars is if you dig down 20 miles into the crust. It could be green. I don't have a reason to believe that it's green, so I currently lack belief that it is green. Nothing ever made me stop believing--rather, nothing made me start. This goes even moreso for something like a supernatural deity, which has much less of a basis in the phenomenal reality that I have had than the possibility of green Martian rocks.

What happens if you go blind? Do you stop believing in the world? What if you lose all of your senses, do you stop believing there is a God. And the arguement that isnt good is, "Well if I lose my senses, then I can still remember there was a world", because how do you know that millions of years ago you werent with God, but now you have forgotten. You cant remember what you did at 2:30 yesterday, or what you ate this same day 5 weeks ago. Memory isnt reliable with this arguement.

At the moment I have a large number of very good reasons to believe that the world exists, which I have never been able to say for god. Ergo my belief in one but lack of belief in the other. Remember, it's just a lack of belief, not an active denial. I'm an atheist, but I'm not wrong if there is a god, because I've never said that there isn't. I've said that there is currently no logical/ empirical reason that I can see to hold belief in gods.

The point is, why do you rely on your senses for that which is thought to be above senses. If you say God is almighty, why do you try to find evidence of him with your limited senses, mind, intellect, and memory?

I don't like to break out the invisible pink unicorn example because it can be offensive to theists, comparing their beliefs to absurd fantasies. As such I will preface this by saying that some of the most intelligent people I know believe in one supernatural notion of god or another, and I by no means want to disparage theism.

Quite simply, if I propose the existence of an invisible pink unicorn (which is not just invisible to sight--as you have proposed of god, I'll say that the unicorn doesn't register on any of the human senses), there is no reason to believe in such a thing. Yes, it's hypothetically possible. Yes, finding evidence of this unicorn with my limited senses, mind, intellect, or memory is contrary to the very notion of the unicorn.

No, the fact that I have proposed such a thing does not give you a logical reason to hold the belief that it actually exists.​

 

[PolyHedral]

Oh, dont get me wrong, I understand what you are saying. But what I am saying is that just because there isnt enough evidence A did it, doesnt mean A didnt do it.

But saying "A did it! I know it!" is an utterly useless assertion, since we have nothing to back it up. To continue the metaphor further, there is only very questionable evidence suggesting that it was even a murder, let alone which of an infinite number of suspects did it. If there is no evidence, it is silly to suggest that any one candidate did it above all the others.

Memory isnt reliable with this arguement.

You're right! The world was actually created last Thursday.

The point is, why do you rely on your senses for that which is thought to be above senses.

This is a ludicrous idea. Anything that interacts with the universe can be detected, (not necessarily by our senses. This is why we use machines in most sciences.) and once it has been detected, it's behaviour can be theorized about. Anything that does not interact with the universe is functionally equivalent to something that does not exist.

 

[Akshara Dasa]

I was using justify synonymously for "give me an argument to support

atheism"; no need to apologize.

It's not that I cease, it's that I don't start. I don't know what color mars is if you dig down 20 miles into the crust. It could be green. I don't have a reason to believe that it's green, so I currently lack belief that it is green. Nothing ever made me stop believing--rather, nothing made me start. This goes even moreso for something like a supernatural deity, which has much less of a basis in the phenomenal reality that I have had than the possibility of green Martian rocks.

At the moment I have a large number of very good reasons to believe that the world exists, which I have never been able to say for god. Ergo my belief in one but lack of belief in the other. Remember, it's just a lack of belief, not an active denial. I'm an atheist, but I'm not wrong if there is a god, because I've never said that there isn't. I've said that there is currently no logical/ empirical reason that I can see to hold belief in gods.

I don't like to break out the invisible pink unicorn example because it can be offensive to theists, comparing their beliefs to absurd fantasies. As such I will preface this by saying that some of the most intelligent people I know believe in one supernatural notion of god or another, and I by no means want to disparage theism.

Quite simply, if I propose the existence of an invisible pink unicorn (which is not just invisible to sight--as you have proposed of god, I'll say that the unicorn doesn't register on any of the human senses), there is no reason to believe in such a thing. Yes, it's hypothetically possible. Yes, finding evidence of this unicorn with my limited senses, mind, intellect, or memory is contrary to the very notion of the unicorn.

No, the fact that I have proposed such a thing does not give you a logical reason to hold the belief that it actually exists.​

So you just never felt the reason to START believing, I see, thanks for putting it like that. And if you feel the need to use the invisible Unicorn or other analogies, please do so. It may be offensive to others, but they can provide good examples!​

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't know how to argue for the existence of something which isn't even clearly, coherently, nor consistently defined.

 

[Akshara Dasa]

But saying "A did it! I know it!" is an utterly useless assertion, since we have nothing to back it up. To continue the metaphor further, there is only very questionable evidence suggesting that it was even a murder, let alone which of an infinite number of suspects did it. If there is no evidence, it is silly to suggest that any one candidate did it above all the others.

You're right! The world was actually created last Thursday.

This is a ludicrous idea. Anything that interacts with the universe can be detected, (not necessarily by our senses. This is why we use machines in most sciences.) and once it has been detected, it's behaviour can be theorized about. Anything that does not interact with the universe is functionally equivalent to something that does not exist.

I do like the concept of "Last Thursdayism"! I agree with your first proposal, why say A did it, I know he did, when there is very little evidence. I am just stating that it would be wrong, in my view, to completely rule out the possiblity of A doing it, which you have seemed to NOT have done, and I applaud you for that :clap.

However, I see that it is not ludicrous to state that something can interact with this universe and cant be detected. I know that I cant give any logical examples, thus causing you to not believe, but if God is really almighty he can do whatever he wants and remain undetected. But again, thats up to faith, and there is not enough evidence to cause you to see that way.

Thanks for your responce!

 

[Akshara Dasa]

I don't know how to argue for the existence of something which isn't even clearly, coherently, nor consistently defined.

If it isnt clearly defined, then how can you create a valid arguement agaisnt it? It isnt defined enough, according to you. That would also mean that even abstract concepts would be hard for you to buy into because they are not well defined. An abstract concept can mean several different things:

Its above the mind

Its dumb

or it hasnt been been fully develped yet.

I would say the first and last one have the highest chance of being true. I dont believe that most of humanity is that dumb.

Also, there are many "wordly things" that cant be defined to well. Like symbolism in literature, and other subjects. Somethings just cant be well defined, and because of that, that doesnt mean that you can go off proving it wrong, especially if it isnt even that clearly defined. I would also say it is ignorant to start making assumptions based on unclear definitions and concepts.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If it isnt clearly defined, then how can you create a valid arguement agaisnt it?

What am I arguing against?

 

[Akshara Dasa]

What Im trying to get threw in this thread is that for as many arguements are there are agaisnt God, there are just as many for God. And not all of them for God are that illogical! Thats really all im trying to show. If you give me arguements agaisnt God, I can give you some for God. There are just as many for both sides until we get more evidence. The amount we have today can be viewed differently on both sides and can be twisted and turned. You cant prove with logic there is not a God, and you cant prove that there is a God. But you can to yourself. That is why I will always argue the ignorant Atheist who is always sayin, "Why do you need God, your so ignorant for following God". My dad used to say to me, and still does, "God is for the weak minded", I will argue agaisnt that until I die.

 

[Akshara Dasa]

What am I arguing against?

Oh no, sorry, not you. Im just sayint that a valid arguement cant be made with unclear lines and definitions on either sides.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Oh no, sorry, not you. Im just sayint that a valid arguement cant be made with unclear lines and definitions on either sides.

If an argument for something cannot be made, then an argument against that thing isn't even necessary.

 

[Akshara Dasa]

If an argument for something cannot be made, then an argument against that thing isn't even necessary.

Your right, and that is the fallacy with such arguements. I cant make a valid, wonderful arguement for God, so why go off trying to disprove it when a great arguement cant be made? Same with the other side too! If you cant make a valid arguement for why God isnt there, then there is no reason to come up with a counter arguement. But, it just isnt the Theist that cant do it, Atheists cant either, create good valid arguements. Or I have yet to see one!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Your right, and that is the fallacy with such arguements. I cant make a valid, wonderful arguement for God, so why go off trying to disprove it when a great arguement cant be made? Same with the other side too! If you cant make a valid arguement for why God isnt there, then there is no reason to come up with a counter arguement. But, it just isnt the Theist that cant do it, Atheists cant either create outstanding valid arguements.

The burden of proof is on whoever is making a positive claim. That would be theists in this case.

 

[PolyHedral]

if God is really almighty he can do whatever he wants and remain undetected.

No he can't; That would involve doing and not doing something simultaneously, (which, while possible under some definitions of god, is needlessly silly) since he will be detected by the fact that something has happened that has no apparent cause. (since our theories don't take into account an invisible pink unicorn fiddling with things)

An abstract concept can mean several different things:
[various things]

Abstract concepts can be defined more rigidly than concrete ones. See mathematics.

Somethings just cant be well defined, and because of that, that doesnt mean that you can go off proving it wrong, especially if it isnt even that clearly defined.

It is true that subjective things are far less rigidly defined, however God would have to be a concrete, objective thing, since he (is posited to) exist, and thus would have to have a clearly defined nature.