Looking for arguments for the existence of God

[McBell]

But Mestima my chips are down and I am pretty certain that I am on a winner, I am a Christian suggesting good arguments, I don’t think that I would get much value for money in that book, I just finished reading the City of God and bought Confession, so am pretty busy’ plus every now and then I have a go at understanding Aquinas Suma, that’s is book! I read the Bible and study it with may family, there is just no time or desire, but thanks anyway.

The thing is, you are not suggesting good arguments.
Your argument that Pascals Wager is even an argument shows that you lack basic understanding of what an argument actually is.
Pascals wager is not an argument.
Pascals wager is a 'safety net'.

Your loss.
It is a really good book.
And it describes rather well the beliefs of a great many people.

 

[emiliano]

The thing is, you are not suggesting good arguments.
Your argument that Pascals Wager is even an argument shows that you lack basic understanding of what an argument actually is.
Pascals wager is not an argument.
Pascals wager is a 'safety net'.

Your loss.
It is a really good book.
And it describes rather well the beliefs of a great many people.

Mestima,
It seem that a we are in disagreement on this one as well. I let you know the kind of book and the authors that are the type of book that I like to read, on Pascal’s woks, there are several arguments in it, eg. It states God is infinitely incomprehensible, thus we cannot make a decision to believe on the bases of knowledge, this is reasoned and then there is a conclusion, “it cannot be done by knowledge, once this is established there is another proposition “the a wager”, this is followed by another argument that follow the same path to a new conclusion that prove the advantages of believing that there is a God and eternal life, this followed by arguments on possibilities of gain or lost for taking the wager, if this book of your cannot recognised an argument, then sorry, thanks, but no thanks. I still maintain that although Aquinas arguments are far superior the wager ain’t bad, and is simpler.:shout
You live as though God exists.
If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.
You live as though God does not exist.
If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

 

[McBell]

Mestima,
It seem that a we are in disagreement on this one as well. I let you know the kind of book and the authors that are the type of book that I like to read, on Pascal’s woks, there are several arguments in it, eg. It states God is infinitely incomprehensible, thus we cannot make a decision to believe on the bases of knowledge, this is reasoned and then there is a conclusion, “it cannot be done by knowledge, once this is established there is another proposition “the a wager”, this is followed by another argument that follow the same path to a new conclusion that prove the advantages of believing that there is a God and eternal life, this followed by arguments on possibilities of gain or lost for taking the wager, if this book of your cannot recognised an argument, then sorry, thanks, but no thanks. I still maintain that although Aquinas arguments are far superior the wager ain’t bad, and is simpler.:shout
You live as though God exists.
If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.
You live as though God does not exist.
If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

I understand what what you are saying.
I just happen to disagree with it.
You seem to be unable to recognize the fact that Pascals Wager is not an argument for the existence of God.
That it is not an argument at all.

 

[camanintx]

I still maintain that although Aquinas arguments are far superior the wager ain’t bad, and is simpler.:shout
You live as though God exists.
If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.
You live as though God does not exist.
If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

Aren't you forgetting about the third, and most likely, outcome:

You live as though the wrong God exists.
​

Pascal's wager isn't looking so good anymore.

 

[logician]

Mestima,
It seem that a we are in disagreement on this one as well. I let you know the kind of book and the authors that are the type of book that I like to read, on Pascal’s woks, there are several arguments in it, eg. It states God is infinitely incomprehensible, thus we cannot make a decision to believe on the bases of knowledge, this is reasoned and then there is a conclusion, “it cannot be done by knowledge, once this is established there is another proposition “the a wager”, this is followed by another argument that follow the same path to a new conclusion that prove the advantages of believing that there is a God and eternal life, this followed by arguments on possibilities of gain or lost for taking the wager, if this book of your cannot recognised an argument, then sorry, thanks, but no thanks. I still maintain that although Aquinas arguments are far superior the wager ain’t bad, and is simpler.:shout
You live as though God exists.
If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.
You live as though God does not exist.
If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

The things never mentioned in these so-called wagers is that:

1. The wasted time and money worshipping whatever god you worship if it doesn't exist.
2. The loss of freethought and rationalism being constrained to a restrictive belief system - if this life is all you've got , that loss is priceless.

 

[emiliano]

The things never mentioned in these so-called wagers is that:

1. The wasted time and money worshipping whatever god you worship if it doesn't exist.
2. The loss of freethought and rationalism being constrained to a restrictive belief system - if this life is all you've got , that loss is priceless.

On the first one, like all rational being Christians are in the pursuit of happiness, worshiping God is a tremendous joy to us, so it is actually priceless to us, we are happy when we meet with other like minded people, we love and care for one another, we help each other, we have a shoulder to cry on at any time, we have friends that are better than a brothers whenever we need one, if we need somebody to listen to us when we have the need, there is somebody, if we need somebody to go and minister hope to our loved one, there is somebody, so it is not a waste at all.
Number two, you have not thought this one through, free thought? Our thought are not free, rationalism? Anybody that think that absolute freedom is possible in a society in not using reason, reality is that human are and must be control by a set of rules to remain civilised, restriction are imposed so as control that you freedom does not affect somebody’s else freedom, when I think of one’s loses in the unlikely event of there is no God or eternal life, things like: I think of the vds that I would have missed, the coronaries ailments, diabetes, slow and painful death at the hand of cancer, the betrayal that I didn’t commit or were subjected to, the shame that I didn’t cause or was the subject of. All in all I don’t put a great deal of value on that, Do you?:shout

 

[emiliano]

How about St. Anselm of Canterbury proofs in the Proslogion? The ontological proofs.
It can be read on line here Medieval Sourcebook: Anselm (1033-1109): Proslogium

 

[logician]

On the first one, like all rational being Christians are in the pursuit of happiness, worshiping God is a tremendous joy to us, so it is actually priceless to us, we are happy when we meet with other like minded people, we love and care for one another, we help each other, we have a shoulder to cry on at any time, we have friends that are better than a brothers whenever we need one, if we need somebody to listen to us when we have the need, there is somebody, if we need somebody to go and minister hope to our loved one, there is somebody, so it is not a waste at all.
Number two, you have not thought this one through, free thought? Our thought are not free, rationalism? Anybody that think that absolute freedom is possible in a society in not using reason, reality is that human are and must be control by a set of rules to remain civilised, restriction are imposed so as control that you freedom does not affect somebody’s else freedom, when I think of one’s loses in the unlikely event of there is no God or eternal life, things like: I think of the vds that I would have missed, the coronaries ailments, diabetes, slow and painful death at the hand of cancer, the betrayal that I didn’t commit or were subjected to, the shame that I didn’t cause or was the subject of. All in all I don’t put a great deal of value on that, Do you?:shout

" Freethought holds that individuals should neither accept nor reject ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason. Thus, freethinkers strive to build their beliefs on the basis of facts, scientific inquiry, and logical principles, independent of any factual/logical fallicies intellectually-limiting effects of authority, cognitive bias, conventional wisodm, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianisn, tradition, urban legend, and all other dogmatic or otherwise fallacious principlesAs such, when applied to religion, the philosophy of freethought holds that, given presently-known facts, established scientific theories, and logical principles, there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of supernatural phenomena."

This is what I'm talking about when I say freethought.

I don't think Christianity on the whole is quite the "love-in" that you describe, maybe it is for you. In any case Aquinas' arguments are unfounded and misleading, and certainly don't refute the atheist lifestyle and belief.

 

[emiliano]

freethinkers strive to build their beliefs on the basis of facts, scientific inquiry, and logical principles, independent of any factual/logical fallicies intellectually-limiting effects of authority, cognitive bias, conventional wisodm, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianisn, tradition, urban legend, and all other dogmatic or otherwise fallacious principlesAs such, when applied to religion, the philosophy of freethought holds that, given presently-known facts, established scientific theories, and logical principles, there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of supernatural phenomena."

What I mean is that the so called free though is not so free, if it has a many dogmas a we have in religion, surely you realised that when you say “given presently-known facts” this implies that is been accepted in the same manner that religious people accepts dogmas, that even science is dogmatic, and is governed by present trends so it is dependant on present knowledge, most of the present thought of people are not really free as they are accepted or changed by the latest thinkers in vogue. One day day we will all know that there is God.

 

[crystalonyx]

What I mean is that the so called free though is not so free, if it has a many dogmas a we have in religion, surely you realised that when you say “given presently-known facts” this implies that is been accepted in the same manner that religious people accepts dogmas, that even science is dogmatic, and is governed by present trends so it is dependant on present knowledge, most of the present thought of people are not really free as they are accepted or changed by the latest thinkers in vogue. One day day we will all know that there is God.

Untrue, dogmatic science is not scence. ANd the last sentence is simply false.

 

[Willamena]

Mestemia believers believe that God is omniscient, He does not need your counselling, we are finite being, God is infinite.

Well, except for the believers who believe differently.

 

[dingdongknockknock]

Sometime you just know stuff.

For example, I'm assuming you know what salt tastes like, but can you explain how you know?

I double that. Now your question is sortof like why do you believe in the toothfairy when ur little??

 

[McBell]

Well, except for the believers who believe differently.

{sarcasm}
WHAT!?!?!
There are people who believe differently than emiliano?!
{/sarcasm}

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I am an atheist. I am having bigger and bigger problems with understanding how anyone intelligent and educated can believe in for example (taking mainstream Christianity) a supernatural superpowerful entity simultaneously monitoring over 6 billion people's actions and thoughts, caring what these 6,6 billion people do and think, and compare it to his own 10 moral commandements. How do you arrive at the conclusion that this is the most plausible explanation for everything around you?

I am not trying to insult anyone, the point is that I seriously don't understand what arguments convinced religious intellectuals to believe in one of the organized religions.

I'm not an atheist and I sympathize with your dismay. Science has no right to tell theology what to believe, but it has the duty, I think, to tell theology where it can't go. It sounds you are miffed by educated and intelligent people who go there anyway. So am I.

I hope you understand that the same science that strengthened atheism's hand has also opened the door to new possibilities to new understandings. God isn't going away, but getting a make-over. Dawkins and his ilk--and yes, even you--are doing God a favor by helping to move the old, institutionalized religions out of the way in order to make room for the "new and improved God-concepts."

 

[logician]

Religion is actually going TOWARDS fundamentalism now, as liberal denominations are dying out. What does this mean. Simply that OLD-TIME religion is reacting strongly to the fact that it will have no place in a future society, and is retreating to its "you believe this or else" philosophy, to keep the questioners out of power.

Scientific reality and discovery will eventually win the day, but these things take time, and there always be some backlash religions as holdouts.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Religion is actually going TOWARDS fundamentalism now, as liberal denominations are dying out. What does this mean. Simply that OLD-TIME religion is reacting strongly to the fact that it will have no place in a future society, and is retreating to its "you believe this or else" philosophy, to keep the questioners out of power.

Scientific reality and discovery will eventually win the day, but these things take time, and there always be some backlash religions as holdouts.

It seems to me that movement towards religious fundamentalism is motivated by the same sense of desperation that motivates Dawkins et al to attack them. Neither want to let go of their core belief: the former ecclesiastical authoritarianism and the latter Newtonian/Cartesian mechanism. You are right, "Scientific reality and discovery will eventually win the day," but not in the way you might think.

 

[logician]

It seems to me that movement towards religious fundamentalism is motivated by the same sense of desperation that motivates Dawkins et al to attack them. Neither want to let go of their core belief: the former ecclesiastical authoritarianism and the latter Newtonian/Cartesian mechanism. You are right, "Scientific reality and discovery will eventually win the day," but not in the way you might think.

Newton is way in the distant past, even Einstein is old news, new scientific discoveries will overwhelm the myths of the past, whether homo sapiens can survive the emotional upheaval remains to be seen.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Newton is way in the distant past, even Einstein is old news, new scientific discoveries will overwhelm the myths of the past, whether homo sapiens can survive the emotional upheaval remains to be seen.

I can't disagree there.

 

[Random]

..."Scientific reality and discovery will eventually win the day," but not in the way you might think.

So true. Furballs.

 

[kai]

Newton is way in the distant past, even Einstein is old news, new scientific discoveries will overwhelm the myths of the past, whether homo sapiens can survive the emotional upheaval remains to be seen.

oh i think homo sapiens can survive almost anything that science crops up, look at the difference in stone tools to lasers ,from mans first flight to walking on the moon
from Yuri Gagarin to jean-luc picard we are made of stern stuff :yes: