Are there any good arguments for God?

[NewChapter]

If you don't believe in Zeus you're also an atheist.

If that is how you feel then that is your business, but your god Zeus obviously has no power (the meaning of "god" is having power,) whereas Love, the God of Abraham obviously to those who can see is the All-Powerful Force in this universe.

 

[NewChapter]

Are you claiming to know better than Tiberius what Tiberius believes?
Perhaps you are claiming to have some sort of authority over the terms "atheist" and or "agnostic"?


Rather interesting how so many of gods followers are the most active in making god out to be an arrogant egotistical prude.

Putting you on ignore Mr./Mrs./Ms. Mestemia.

Goodbye.

 

[McBell]

Putting you on ignore Mr./Mrs./Ms. Mestemia.

Goodbye.

Mr.
Thank you.

 

[JustWondering]

If that is how you feel then that is your business,

No, that's how the definition of the word atheist works.

but your god Zeus obviously has no power (the meaning of "god" is having power,) whereas Love, the God of Abraham obviously to those who can see is the All-Powerful Force in this universe.

I have no god. Zeus is just as real as the god of Abraham.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I've already stated that scientists use methods:

We use methods. Gun to my head, I'd say that our approach consists of tests of our theories/theoretical frameworks using logic to formulate experimental paradigms (including the combinatorics of experiments) and logic to test them (including statistical analysis, discriminant analysis, etc.), and both theory and logic to interpret the findings. It works differently for different experimental paradigms, many of which are particular to particular sciences. But there is no singular "method". This is laughably and ridiculously misinformed. Even such broad works as Probability Theory: The Logic of Science which attempts to formulate all scientific inquiry within a particular approach doesn't even hope to begin to define scientific inquiry in terms of singular method. This notion is laughable. Methods in biological are foreign to particle physicists, medical research is almost wholly unique to medicinal research, and there is more similarity between computational neuroscience & climate science then there is between nanotechnology and particle physics (and more between nanotechnology and neuroscience than between particle physics and climate science).

For all your bluster, only one of us has cited any actual research, any actual scholarship, any actual peer-reviewed sources, etc. That would be me. You apparently feel that bluster makes for a defensible argument.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

We should NEVER have that !

Not if we want a scientifically literature public:
"the myth of the existence of “The Scientific Method” is propagated in many high school and introductory college level science textbooks (e.g., Emiliani, Knight, & Handwerker, 1989; Hewitt, 1998; Hill & Petrucci, 1996). In fact, as one participant noted, “The Scientific Method” is often “drilled” into students’ heads."
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2006). Over and over and over again: College students' views of nature of science. In Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science (Vol. 25 of Science & Technology Education Library) (pp. 389-425). Springer

"Perhaps the central fallacy is that there exists an entity called 'science' about which sweeping generalizations can be made; for example, that science is characterized by the scientific method"
Bauer, H. H. (1994). Scientific literacy and the myth of the scientific method. University of Illinois Press.

At your level, though, you might want to check out simpler texts such as
Numbers, R. L., & Kampourakis, K. (2015). Newton's Apple and Other Myths about Science. Harvard University Press.
(in particular, Chap. 24: "Myth 24: That the “scientific method” accurately reflects what scientists actually do")

 

[ChristineES]

But faith in something doesn't mean that the something in question actually exists.

Anyway, I would never try to say that religious faith doesn't exist.

I had said that the faith itself exists, not what we might have faith in. It isn't whether it really exists, but whether you, I, or someone else believes it exists is really what it's all about.

 

[NewChapter]

No, that's how the definition of the word atheist works.



I have no god. Zeus is just as real as the god of Abraham.

Love (the God of Abraham) is real, Zeus is not. The end.

 

[Blastcat]

Love (the God of Abraham) is real, Zeus is not. The end.

People mistakenly think that just because they BELIEVE something, it's real.
What an imaginary life that must be!

 

[NewChapter]

People mistakenly think that just because they BELIEVE something, it's real.
What an imaginary life that must be!

You're saying that Love is not real lol?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I am an agnostic atheist. That means that while I don't believe in God, I don't say that I know for a fact that he doesn't exist. I am perfectly willing to change my position, but I will need some good evidence.

So, what do you think is the most convincing argument for the existence of God? I'm pretty sure I've heard them all. If you post an argument that I've rejected, I'll try to explain why I have rejected it.

I spent several decades with that same position. What finally changed it was not challenging others' beliefs, that's easy, but my own; recognizing my own beliefs as such- that there is no 'default' answer.

You need good evidence, so what do you consider the best argument for the spontaneous, naturalistic mechanism that produced the universe, everything you see around you?

 

[JustWondering]

Love (the God of Abraham) is real, Zeus is not. The end.

First off, love is an emotion, that originates in our brain, which is a physical organ located in our skull. Love is not a invisible man sitting in the sky obsessing over every little thing humanity does while deciding what horrible punishments to give to some and tickets to his magical afterlife amusement park to others.

Second, simply claiming your very invisible, intangible god actually exists doesn't cut it. If YOUR god is real, prove it.

 

[NewChapter]

First off, love is an emotion, that originates in our brain, which is a physical organ located in our skull. Love is not a invisible man sitting in the sky obsessing over every little thing humanity does while deciding what horrible punishments to give to some and tickets to his magical afterlife amusement park to others.

Second, simply claiming your very invisible, intangible god actually exists doesn't cut it. If YOUR god is real, prove it.

Look sir/ma'am, if the Bible has talking animals in it and it does, then some of the Bible is allegorical. According to the Bible, Love is an action(s.) Emotions are not what "Love" in the Bible means. If God is Love, then Love being characterized as a man is an allegory.

 

[JustWondering]

Look sir/ma'am, if the Bible has talking animals in it and it does, then some of the Bible is allegorical. According to the Bible, Love is an action(s.) Emotions are not what "Love" in the Bible means. If God is Love, then Love being characterized as a man is an allegory.

Everything in the bible is ancient mythology. Just like all the stories about Zeus are ancient mythology. You dismiss Zeus without a second thought, but you have yet to show why anyone should humor the claims made in YOUR preferred book of mythology. Why is your invisible, intangible god plausible and the invisible, intangible Zeus implausible?

 

[NewChapter]

Everything in the bible is ancient mythology. Just like all the stories about Zeus are ancient mythology. You dismiss Zeus without a second thought, but you have yet to show why anyone should humor the claims made in YOUR preferred book of mythology. Why is your invisible, intangible god plausible and the invisible, intangible Zeus implausible?

Gonna be putting you on ignore Sir/Ma'am.

Hope you enjoy the site.

Noah

 

[JustWondering]

Gonna be putting you on ignore Sir/Ma'am.

Hope you enjoy the site.

Noah

Seems to be a trend for you. You can't handle a debate so you fold like a cheap lawn chair and put the person handing your backside to you on ignore. Oh well.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If that is how you feel then that is your business, but your god Zeus obviously has no power (the meaning of "god" is having power,) whereas Love, the God of Abraham obviously to those who can see is the All-Powerful Force in this universe.

Objectively, what is the difference between the two?
Not by personal preference in the god you worship, but the difference in how one is true and how one is false.

You have the Aranian godess Prende who is the goddess of love. The god of Abraam is also love.

Mythology doesnt need to be false. It is "

A mythology is a collection of myths or stories about a specific person, culture, religion, or any group with shared beliefs. Most people don’t consider mythology to be entirely true, but they still take it seriously."

For example, Hindu have their mythology that cradles their religion so does Judaism and so forth.

Human sacrifice cant be the unique qualifer becaue the Aztecs used human sacrifice to please their gods for prosperty as Abram did for his god ot of obedience and devotion.

There is a lot of mythology in the Bible. I find christianity is the only religion that denies that. All other religions even Abrahamic acknowledge the truth within the mythology their beliefs come from.

sw

 

[NewChapter]

Objectively, what is the difference between the two?
Not by personal preference in the god you worship, but the difference in how one is true and how one is false.

You have the Aranian godess Prende who is the goddess of love. The god of Abraam is also love...

I think that the God of Abraham reveals Himself when He pleases.

 

[Tiberius]

That was part of my point yes. When I said it really is just an argument. One can make an argument for anything.

I think its probably the best theism has going for it, not because of any truth, but because its aesthetically pleasing. It makes people feel like the universe has something solid and concrete it stands on, rather than being a chaotic vortex in flux.

What good is an argument that has no truth?

 

[Tiberius]

I already did that. There are many decades worth of arguments on this, and I provided you with links to summaries (including my own), summaries in my posts, and citations. You asked me to summarize an entire post (and ignored at least one other). So I provided as much summarization as is possible. If you don't want summaries, read and respond to the entire post.

I have limited time, and I don't have the time to read through list of all your posts and summaries. I was hoping you could provide a short explanation of a few sentences.

Read all the studies you ignored because they were from "social sciences" (where the paradigm was begat) and the posts and links I've already provided. Or do as you did and ask for more summaries. You either want the REAL (detailed) answer, or not. Asking for me to "sum up the problem" with entire scientific paradigms that have existed for decades in "a few sentences" is ludicrous nonsense. Either do your homework, or don't. We'll proceed in either case (or won't, as the case may be).

If you are going to tell me there is a flaw in physics, and then back it up with a bunch of examples from psychiatry, I'm not going to be very convinced.