Are ANY of the arguments convincing?

[jmvizanko]

Actually, there are many more options. I favour that "God" is always-existent and creates the universe.

What reason do you have for favoring it?

 

[Willamena]

What reason do you have for favoring it?

It's more intuitive, to me at least, that if "God" creates all time then this very moment I'm experiencing now is being created, right before my eyes.

 

[TJ73]

why do you think there is sectarian violence within the religion of islam?
it is because each of those people believe they are more sensitive to gods presence....
no one should think that way because it will only lead to unjustified moral superiority which leads to strife and ultimately hate... wouldn't you say?

No, I don't think I would. i think it would be better attributed to people giving into their strong relationship with the stronger senses.

They have attachments to how things are in this world. If I am sensitive to God's presence and feel I may even be more so than others, I will be compelled to act in a manner that best develop and further my sensitivity. Avoidance would be a way. Teaching would be another. If I am left in peace to continue my path no action would be needed on my part.

If, however, someone actively sought to interrupt me from my development, to the extent that they got in my way even though i tried to avoid them, I would only then, actively exercise my right to remove them from my path.
The problems with people violently opposing another's chosen path is unsupported and worldly in nature, IMHO.

So using Islam as our example let's say Shia vs. Sunni: The fight, to me is more about who has the right to the name Muslim. I don't have to agree with how someone else interrupts the same Holy writtings. I may offer guidance, but I need to stand out of their way and they out of mine. Fighting about it will only increase the chance that one of us will fall into disbelief. Allah promises to make clear on what we differ in the end.

 

[Dan4reason]

I get the feeling this cyclical argument of you prove it has happened before.....

It is only cyclical if you fail to provide any evidence that you are right.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not those ones, no, but then for many of them, their purpose isn't to "convince." The ontological argument, for instance, it's purpose is to compose a logical proof of god. As such, it not only assumes "god," but a particular image of "god".

If a "proof" assumes then thing it's trying to prove, then it's not a proof.

You missed an argument, the personal relationship argument:
If you had a friend and they came over one day, spent the day with you, you cooked dinner for them, watched a movie, etc... Then they left and an atheist came over say a year later and said, "Prove to me that you aren't delusional that your really have this friend.”

What would you do? You would want to introduce the atheist to your friend. That is what the Christian wants to do, yet the atheist scoffs and jeers and doesn’t want to meet this imaginary friend. “do you know the tooth fairy also” he says. They will never meet the friend because of their attitude. Now they will never know your wonderful friend.

Another hypothetical: Say I tell you all about my cat. Then, one day, you come over to my house.

You look around and don't see that cat. Not only that, you see no signs of a cat at all: no litterbox, no food dish, no telltale hairs on the furniture, no characteristic "house with a cat" smell, no photos of the cat... nothing.

When you ask me where my cat is, I tell you that it's hiding under the bed. When you ask me about why it doesn't have a food dish or a litterbox, I don't give you a good answer.

Trying to reconcile the lack of evidence for a cat with the existence of a cat, you ask me if it's an "outside cat". I tell you no - it's lived inside its whole life.

At this point, would you still believe that I actually have a cat?

Just a thought...
Perhaps some people have an ability to sense God or may be some people are more sensitive to God's presence. so if we all live in "Flatland", none of us can successfully bring forth evidence from dimensions outside of our perspective.

But some of us can either practice or are naturally inclined to sense the presence outside of our confine.

I call baloney.

You're trying to have it both ways: you're trying to establish a realm that's beyond human investigation so that you don't have to come up with the difficult explanations for the lack of evidence for God while also trying to assert that people can have actual knowledge of this God.

If we all live in "Flatland" and God's in some third dimension above us, then none of the inhabitants of "Flatland" could ever know this... including you and every "prophet" who's ever lived.

No development of "sensitivity" can let you do the physically impossible. And if it's physically impossible for people to seek knowledge of God when this is convenient for you, then it's still physically impossible when you want to do it.

In the universe where God is beyond rational inquiry, every claim about God can be dismissed as made up nonsense. OTOH, if you want to claim that your religion is derived from actual knowledge of God, then God is subject to investigation and the claims of your religion are subject to demands for supporting evidence.

 

[TJ73]

If a "proof" assumes then thing it's trying to prove, then it's not a proof.


Another hypothetical: Say I tell you all about my cat. Then, one day, you come over to my house.

You look around and don't see that cat. Not only that, you see no signs of a cat at all: no litterbox, no food dish, no telltale hairs on the furniture, no characteristic "house with a cat" smell, no photos of the cat... nothing.

When you ask me where my cat is, I tell you that it's hiding under the bed. When you ask me about why it doesn't have a food dish or a litterbox, I don't give you a good answer.

Trying to reconcile the lack of evidence for a cat with the existence of a cat, you ask me if it's an "outside cat". I tell you no - it's lived inside its whole life.

At this point, would you still believe that I actually have a cat?


I call baloney.

You're trying to have it both ways: you're trying to establish a realm that's beyond human investigation so that you don't have to come up with the difficult explanations for the lack of evidence for God while also trying to assert that people can have actual knowledge of this God.

If we all live in "Flatland" and God's in some third dimension above us, then none of the inhabitants of "Flatland" could ever know this... including you and every "prophet" who's ever lived.

No development of "sensitivity" can let you do the physically impossible. And if it's physically impossible for people to seek knowledge of God when this is convenient for you, then it's still physically impossible when you want to do it.

In the universe where God is beyond rational inquiry, every claim about God can be dismissed as made up nonsense. OTOH, if you want to claim that your religion is derived from actual knowledge of God, then God is subject to investigation and the claims of your religion are subject to demands for supporting evidence.

First "the friend" or "the cat"
If I told you I have a pet dragon and he has an invisible litter box and he is oderless and you can only see him if you put on "dragon vision" glasses, you could still argue that if I really have a pet dragon I need to make him apparent without any special aid. And furthermore if there were pet dragons we would all have been born with dragon vision so we could all see them together at the same time. So you won;t see him because you refuse to use the methods needed to. You insist on your methods and if the laws governing seeing dragons don't fit with the laws of seeing everything else you will insist there are no dragons.

Having it both ways:
I did not assert that it was beyond human investigation. On the contrary, I said it IS. But the sense utilized for this task may not be as developed in some people. Just like our primary sense, I can hear a kitten, crying in a box around the corner. Yoiu may not hear it but it doesn't mean it isn't there crying. If you try hard and use some audio aid you too may be able to hear it.

If we are "flatlanders" in a 2 dimensional world we could not reach up and sense the 3rd dimension. But the 3rd dimension would have access to the 2nd. So in the 2nd you are most accustomed to using senses befitted to 2 demesions and rely on only those senses. You are not aware that you were outfitted with a less recognizable sense for the 3rd and you have to work at it to use it.

When you do use it and you "get it" you want to share the information but it is not so easy to describe. Everyone has to try on their own. You can't get someone to hear the kitten crying if they won't use a hearing aid and they cant see the dragon if they refuse to wear the glasses.

It's analogy, how else can I explain it.

I don't need you to support my religion or any other. The benefit is for the individual. Being a part of a religious community just aids the individuals in keeping and furthering faith.

 

[Willamena]

If a "proof" assumes then thing it's trying to prove, then it's not a proof.

I disagree. A proof must assume the thing it's trying to prove, or there's nothing to prove.

 

[Rakhel]

First "the friend" or "the cat"
If I told you I have a pet dragon and he has an invisible litter box and he is oderless and you can only see him if you put on "dragon vision" glasses, you could still argue that if I really have a pet dragon I need to make him apparent without any special aid. And furthermore if there were pet dragons we would all have been born with dragon vision so we could all see them together at the same time. So you won;t see him because you refuse to use the methods needed to. You insist on your methods and if the laws governing seeing dragons don't fit with the laws of seeing everything else you will insist there are no dragons.

Having it both ways:
I did not assert that it was beyond human investigation. On the contrary, I said it IS. But the sense utilized for this task may not be as developed in some people. Just like our primary sense, I can hear a kitten, crying in a box around the corner. Yoiu may not hear it but it doesn't mean it isn't there crying. If you try hard and use some audio aid you too may be able to hear it.

If we are "flatlanders" in a 2 dimensional world we could not reach up and sense the 3rd dimension. But the 3rd dimension would have access to the 2nd. So in the 2nd you are most accustomed to using senses befitted to 2 demesions and rely on only those senses. You are not aware that you were outfitted with a less recognizable sense for the 3rd and you have to work at it to use it.

When you do use it and you "get it" you want to share the information but it is not so easy to describe. Everyone has to try on their own. You can't get someone to hear the kitten crying if they won't use a hearing aid and they cant see the dragon if they refuse to wear the glasses.

It's analogy, how else can I explain it.

I don't need you to support my religion or any other. The benefit is for the individual. Being a part of a religious community just aids the individuals in keeping and furthering faith.

I couldn't have said it better myself. No. Really I couldn't. I have tried.

 

[PolyHedral]

If I told you I have a pet dragon and he has an invisible litter box and he is oderless and you can only see him if you put on "dragon vision" glasses, you could still argue that if I really have a pet dragon I need to make him apparent without any special aid.

Actually, I'd be more interested in precisely what the dragon vision glasses are doing. In the case of God, it's not doing what you think. The "dragon vision" glasses are actually video screens.


Also, before you go too far with the idea of theological "senses", remember that every sense has an underlying physical mechanism that changes in response to whatever is being sensed. What part of us changes in the presence of God?

 

[TJ73]

Actually, I'd be more interested in precisely what the dragon vision glasses are doing. In the case of God, it's not doing what you think. The "dragon vision" glasses are actually video screens.


Also, before you go too far with the idea of theological "senses", remember that every sense has an underlying physical mechanism that changes in response to whatever is being sensed. What part of us changes in the presence of God?

Alright alright, do go getting Jake on me yet...:sorry1:

Did I explain the why for this "sense" not being very describable? Because there can not be any wholly acceptable proof. It would defeat the purpose of gaining our affection via our own desire.

The glasses are video screens, OK, they still let you see what you could not have sen before and if they help you develop faith, you may pass into a place where you will no longer be in need of any special equipment, you won;t have to try to see because you have shown your desire to see. So sight will be granted. Don;t ask for it and you won't get it. What I eat won't nourish your body.

What physically changes, I could explain that as easily as I can explain the "sense" of God that I have. Sometimes I have more tangible or describable experiences, like feeling doubt removed, or asking for help to understand something or even help me out of this situation. but that is not something I can use as evidence. The only reason I can attribute it to God is because I sense it.

Tell me this... Ar you willing to try to sense God? Forget that you see no apparent
reason, that I and no one else can give you hard evidence. Are you willing to throw reason out the door, just in this one area, and try with sincerity to see if it is possible, for you alone knowing you will not be able to prove it to anyone else?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree. A proof must assume the thing it's trying to prove, or there's nothing to prove.

That renders every "proof" useless and, as I said, not valid.

Any proof of the form "given X, X exists" is tautologically true, but gives you absolutely no useful information.

Defining a thing is not the same as assuming it.

 

[Mister Emu]

It's simply an infinite chain of events that happen over and over.

Turtles, all the way down.

One can't assume the burden of proof if it's known that it's impossible to provide evidence.

An inability to prove one's propositions does not shield them from the burden of proof. If a theist says God is real, by all means ask him to evidence or prove this... but when you posit the opposite, be ready to acknowledge that your belief is without proof.

That still doesn't make the argument work, it just means that it's no longer self-contradicting.

There is something to be said for one's ideas not contradicting themselves

It then does allow for a creator without a beginning, but how do you suppose the existence of such a creator anyway? It's not a necessary part of the universe.

If the current state of the universe began to exist, then either you have an unmoved mover, or a vicious regression.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

First "the friend" or "the cat"
If I told you I have a pet dragon and he has an invisible litter box and he is oderless and you can only see him if you put on "dragon vision" glasses, you could still argue that if I really have a pet dragon I need to make him apparent without any special aid. And furthermore if there were pet dragons we would all have been born with dragon vision so we could all see them together at the same time. So you won;t see him because you refuse to use the methods needed to. You insist on your methods and if the laws governing seeing dragons don't fit with the laws of seeing everything else you will insist there are no dragons.

So you're saying that if someone came to you with a story like this, you'd take them seriously? Really?

And personally, I'd say that if the person can't answer questions like these:

- how do you know that what you're seeing in the glasses is a dragon?
- what's an "invisible litterbox"?
- if the litterbox is invisible, how do you know it's there?

Then I don't think that looking through the glasses would convince me that a dragon actually exists, even if I do see something that looks like a dragon.

Really, I think you're just pushing back the question one step. Before, it was "how do you know God exists?" Apparently, your response is that you know by some specific method that I haven't tried. Well, this leads to the obvious question: how do you know that this method works?

If you need to rely on the method to evaluate the method, then you can't really say that it does work.

Having it both ways:
I did not assert that it was beyond human investigation. On the contrary, I said it IS. But the sense utilized for this task may not be as developed in some people. Just like our primary sense, I can hear a kitten, crying in a box around the corner. Yoiu may not hear it but it doesn't mean it isn't there crying. If you try hard and use some audio aid you too may be able to hear it.

And the fact you think you hear it doesn't mean you actually do - it could just be your mind playing tricks with you.

If we are "flatlanders" in a 2 dimensional world we could not reach up and sense the 3rd dimension. But the 3rd dimension would have access to the 2nd. So in the 2nd you are most accustomed to using senses befitted to 2 demesions and rely on only those senses. You are not aware that you were outfitted with a less recognizable sense for the 3rd and you have to work at it to use it.

Here's what I'm talking about: a 2-dimensional entity does not have a "sense for the 3rd". An entity that can sense the third dimension at all is, by necessity, at least a three-dimensional entity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Turtles, all the way down.

I don't see how this is particularly worse than the idea that the bottom turtle - and only the bottom turtle - is some sort of special turtle that doesn't need to stand on anything.

There is something to be said for one's ideas not contradicting themselves

Internal consistency is necessary for truthfulness, but it's not sufficient.

If the current state of the universe began to exist, then either you have an unmoved mover, or a vicious regression.

Is it necessarily valid to say that the universe "began to exist"? If time came into existence with the universe, could it have "begun"? What does "begin" mean in a context with no time?

 

[PolyHedral]

The glasses are video screens, OK, they still let you see what you could not have sen before and if they help you develop faith, you may pass into a place where you will no longer be in need of any special equipment, you won;t have to try to see because you have shown your desire to see. So sight will be granted. Don;t ask for it and you won't get it. What I eat won't nourish your body.


What physically changes, I could explain that as easily as I can explain the "sense" of God that I have. Sometimes I have more tangible or describable experiences, like feeling doubt removed, or asking for help to understand something or even help me out of this situation. but that is not something I can use as evidence. The only reason I can attribute it to God is because I sense it.

The point of the video screens comment is that the glasses are not showing what is actually there. They are presenting you with an image that doesn't actually exist. Similarly, the sensations you attribute to God are not necessarily coming from anywhere other than your own head. The brain is known for playing tricks on itself, and it is wonderfully easy to confuse those tricks with external sprits/dieties/anything intervening.

Tell me this... Ar you willing to try to sense God? Forget that you see no apparent
reason, that I and no one else can give you hard evidence. Are you willing to throw reason out the door, just in this one area, and try with sincerity to see if it is possible, for you alone knowing you will not be able to prove it to anyone else?

Throwing reason out the door has never yielded a correct answer except by accident.

 

[TJ73]

The point of the video screens comment is that the glasses are not showing what is actually there. They are presenting you with an image that doesn't actually exist. Similarly, the sensations you attribute to God are not necessarily coming from anywhere other than your own head. The brain is known for playing tricks on itself, and it is wonderfully easy to confuse those tricks with external sprits/dieties/anything intervening.

I know what you meant. I am saying although it may be just a representation of hte "real" dragon, it is a start as you now have a closer idea to work from. You can at least begin to see dragons, even if only on screens, so you can look further to find the real deal.

Yes I am aware of the tricks of the mind. We have a pretty good understanding of how they manifest, audio and or visual hallucinations. There is even the "god machine" and DMT that can give you the feeling of a "presence" .

But I get a sense that does not involve hearing or seeing anything. I have not felt a "presence". It is not a sense I can readily express to you, but I yet I assert I sense it. I can advise anyone one how they might try to experience it as well, but it is something completely personal and nothing you can really share other than like I have now. You would have to try it for yourself.

Throwing reason out the door has never yielded a correct answer except by accident.

So it has, even just by accident. Would you do it?

 

[newhope101]

I've spent so much time around the internet learning more about why Christians think what they do, and just about never have I seen anything that remotely convinces me of the veracity of the Christian faith. And when I question their arguments to the extent where they can no longer form a logical reply, their course of action is either to get rude/angry at me, to leave/ignore me, or to reply "I have faith."

I'm not going to go into faith straight away, I'll deal with that later.

There are a HELL of a lot of arguments for God's existence. Some of them are empirical arguments, i.e they try to argue on a basis of physical evidence for God's existence, others are rationalistic arguments, i.e. they purely use reason to argue that God exists. Pascal used a probabilistic argument: it makes more sense to believe that God exists than not.

I'm gonna briefly examine as many of them as I can and explain why they don't convince me.

The teleological argument
There is apparent design in the universe, and if something gives off qualities of design, there must be a designer, i.e. a creator, i.e. God.
Problems
1) The mere fact that everything must have a designer does not mean that the designer is the Biblical God. It could be anything.
2) There is no concrete evidence that the universe requires a designer. The analogy that William Paley used was a watch. Whereas a watch does necessarily have a designer, why does that mean the universe does?
3) The teleological argument was formed before Darwinian evolution was known about, which better explains apparent design anyway.

The ontological argument
If we can conceive of something of which nothing greater can be conceived (St. Anselm) or a "perfect being" (Descartes) then for that thing to be absolutely perfect it would have to exist; i.e. it exists by definition.
Problems
1) I can conceive of anything that is absolutely perfect but that wouldn't mean it exists. The argument can be applied unsuccessfully to anything.
2) Once again, this "perfect being" is not necessarily God.

Pascal's Wager
If God doesn't exist and you believe in him then you've not lost much, and if he doesn't exist but you don't believe in him anyway, then you've made no loss still. But if you don't believe in God and he exists then you face eternal punishment ahead, and if you do believe in him, you get an everlasting reward in heaven. Therefore it's wise to believe he exists.
Problems
1) Atheists aren't interested in the threat of hell vs. heaven because they by definition do not believe that heaven or hell exists.
2) If you believe in God but he doesn't exist, you HAVE made a big loss; you've spent your life believing and praising a deity that doesn't exist in preparation for the afterlife which isn't there.
3) If you believe in God because it would be "wise to", then that is not sincere belief and God would see through you anyway.

The Bible


The Bible talks of God, therefore he must exist as the Bible is true because:

• Prophecies have been fulfilled.
• It's the word of God.
• The Bible Code shows that there is a significance to it.
• Why would someone lie about it?
• It changes lives.
• Millions of people believe sincerely in it.

Problems
1) The Bible is not an absolute authority because it is incongruent, and the contradictions in the texts are too readily dismissed as "misinterpretations".
2) On the above point, the translation of the Bible is so vague that even today references have to be made back to the original Hebrew to sort out disputes about the true meaning of it.
3) The Bible also encourages things like stoning or ostracising for petty offences.
4) It also mentions dozens of uncorroborated miraculous events like walking on water, healing the sick, raising the dead, and the feeding of the 5,000, which we know to be impossible according to science.
5) It was written 2,000 years ago without the scientific knowledge we have today, which far better explains the world.
6) That it changes lives has no impact on it's veracity.
7) The Bible Code is just another example of reading meaning into something where there is none.
8) There are any number of reasons someone could make it up; e.g for power or fame.

The fine-tuning argument
If the constants that require human life on Earth to have arose were even slightly different, it would not have happened. Our existence is so improbable that we must have been "fine-tuned" by a creator.
Problems
1) Like the other arguments, this doesn't specify who the "fine-tuner" is.
2) There are perfectly ordinary events which are completely improbable, like the outcome of 2,000 coin tosses. Only you wouldn't question that outcome at all, even though just 1,000 coin tosses in a row would require a 1 in 2^1000 chance of getting that particular sequence (2^1000 is 303 digits long.)
3) Just because something is improbable, doesn't make it impossible.
4) If the constants HAD been different, there would likely be another species marvelling at the improbability of their existence. The world is not tailored to humans.

The proof-burden shift
Atheists have no evidence that God doesn't exist.
Problems
1) We don't need any, you need to provide evidence that he does.



The arguments from emotion

• God changed my life. (Argument by anecdote)
• There is beauty in the world, this could not have arose by chance. (Probabilistic argument from beauty)
• How can you look at the stars in the night sky and not believe he exists? (Argument from incredulity)
• Christianity helps lives all over the world. You wouldn't want to take that away from them, would you? (Argument from guilt)
• God makes me feel better.

Problems
1) Many different religions change lives, that doesn't change whether they are true or false.
2) The existence of beauty does not necessitate a creator. Beauty is subjective.
3) Incredulousness at our inability to interpret beauty as signs that God exist also changes nothing.
4) Religions of all shapes and sizes help people, and whether they do or don't makes no difference as to whether they are true.
5) It may be comforting to believe God exists, but once more... that does not mean he does.

The first-cause argument
Everything is caused, therefore the universe must have a cause. This cause is God. But God is an uncaused cause.
Problem
1) There is no compelling reason to believe that God is the first-cause.
2) The argument is self-contradicting in that cause-and-effect is established as a law and then arbitrarily broken as God is established as an uncaused cause.
3) If we can decide that up to a certain point, there is one uncaused cause, why can the universe not be uncaused? Why not stop there?
4) Cause-and-effect is not necessarily a law.

There are so many more arguments. This is just a glimpse at some of the biggest arguments used by the religious. And for the reasons you can see above, I don't find ANY of them remotely convincing.

What do you think? Do any of these convince you? Is there something I'm missing? Is there actually any argument for God's existence that would stand up to scrutiny that isn't "faith"?

For someone convinced you appear to be screaming for help.

Do you find any form or concept of God suitable? If not, then you are an atheist. If so, then you are as crazy as anyone else that believes in something they cannot irrefuteably and scientifically proove.

Does that help?

 

[Mister Emu]

I don't see how this is particularly worse than the idea that the bottom turtle - and only the bottom turtle - is some sort of special turtle that doesn't need to stand on anything.

Turtles all the way down doesn't really explain anything, and while that alone does not necessitate it being untrue, it is personally unsatisfying for me...

Something just strikes a wrong note with me with the answer of a question being the question ad infinitum.

Internal consistency is necessary for truthfulness, but it's not sufficient.

I did not say it was sufficient, just that there is something to be said for it

Is it necessarily valid to say that the universe "began to exist"?

That is why I said the current state.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Turtles all the way down doesn't really explain anything, and while that alone does not necessitate it being untrue, it is personally unsatisfying for me...

Something just strikes a wrong note with me with the answer of a question being the question ad infinitum.

And a magical floating turtle at the bottom is unsatisfying for me, especially when one has to argue that only that one special magical turtle can float unsupported and no other turtle can.

Actually, I see a certain appeal in an image like a continuous ring of turtles all in orbit around the planet, all standing on the back of the one below in an unbroken ring... but maybe that stretches the metaphor a bit too far.

However, I don't see anything wrong with saying "I don't know". It's a bit unsatisfying to not know the answer, but this can spur us to inquiry and discovery.

That is why I said the current state.

In that case, what's wrong with saying that the current state of the universe is a result of its previous state?

If you're constraining yourself to asking about this one state only, then you don't have a "vicious regression"; you just have one question and one answer.

Sure, you could then ask what caused the previous state of the universe, but eventually you would get back to the point I mentioned before.

Basically, I think that in this case, before we ask "is it turtles all the way down?", we need to ask just how far "down" goes. Once we've figured that out, we can address the question of whether it's too far for a stack of turtles.

 

[Willamena]

That renders every "proof" useless and, as I said, not valid.

Any proof of the form "given X, X exists" is tautologically true, but gives you absolutely no useful information.

Defining a thing is not the same as assuming it.

An argument in the form "given X, X exists" assumes X. It doesn't prove anything.

I suspect you're taking what I say to mean that proof is assumed. That's not what I mean.