What are the best arguments in favor of theism and against atheism?

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

And how, in any way whatsoever, does that... "prove to yourself God exists:"

Well, this looks pretty different to Topix already. I may learn something here and i'm already more relaxed, just looking at the posts. These folks seem pretty nice and I'll bet there is a lot better moderation on this forum. As much as i have to be a beast on Topix, i can easily convert to a beauty in a more civil and relaxed environment.

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

Dear readers here, beware of posters who instead of addressing the issue in precise, concise, simple language immediately understood by literate folks, they are into parading their self-gratifying but irrelevant learning, with dropping terms like naturalism, or names like Hume.

What is this, a witch burning? That's pretty rude.
You have a discomforting style with examples of naked newborn women and a "i will lead you to certainty that God exists" and it's kind of weird.
I think of Paul the apostle at your words and get a wary, very distrustful feeling. Paul was obsessive, emotionally violent, and hateful towards all the kinds of people Jesus came to comfort. Also sounded like he had a sexual obsession as well in his ranting letters to the churches.
Definitely not a savory character and i feel Paul's presence in your words and demeanor.
YUCK.

 

[siti]

The mosquito shows no designer god exists

100% with you on that!

Dear readers here, beware of posters who instead of addressing the issue in precise, concise, simple language immediately understood by literate folks, they are into parading their self-gratifying but irrelevant learning, with dropping terms like naturalism, or names like Hume.

How can the concept of naturalism or the thoughts of Hume be irrelevant to a discussion on the topic of God's existence? Are we all obliged to write comments only in terms that will be readily understood by the most ignorant of believers?

So far I have seen only one actual argument presented - the so-called cosmological argument - everything else that has been said one way or another is just opinion - and much of that ill-informed and based on misunderstanding or biased prejudice against the supposed views of others. Pity really because it is an interesting topic. Even more of a pity because most of the believers here seem to be largely unaware of the philosophical heritage of their own faiths.

Anyway, here goes on the Cosmological (First Cause) Argument(s) (there are several versions).

Basically the arguments take the form:

Premise 1: Every effect (or everything that comes into existence) has a cause
Premise 2: No effect can be its own cause
Premise 3: There cannot be an infinite sequence of causes
Conclusion: Therefore there must be a first cause and this is what we call God (or the Creator)

The fundamental flaw in all cosmological arguments (IMHO) - seems to me that they all introduce an entirely arbitrary locating of the distinction between caused/uncaused, moved/unmoved etc. etc. that, in effect, makes the conclusion a denial of at least one (if not both) of the first two premises (special pleading fallacy), and the eternal creator conclusion is also effectively a denial of Premise 3 (special pleading fallacy again) except that you could (perhaps) argue that God is not an eternal sequence but just an eternal cause - but is there really a difference? So this argument is logically unsound.

In any case, even if the conclusion were sound one could easily replace "God" or "the Creator" with some other phrase like "the eternal multiverse" or "infinite potentiality" and it would have no bearing on the validity or otherwise of the argument and yet say nothing at all about the possible existence a mindful creator or God.

So the Cosmological argument doesn't work for me, but is one that many Christian and Muslim philosophers and theologians have, and continue, to put forth.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

Dear Lorgar, you have a very promising thread because you want to know in effect how to prove to yourself God exists.

My observation is that with atheists they don't want to know at all how to prove God exists, they just keep on and on with the declaration that there is no evidence, period - that is a sensible position, though.

But what is not sensible is that they will at all never want to talk about what is evidence, what is the the target of evidence, and how does evidence hit its target.

I am very excited to work with you so that you will come to the certainty that God exists.

First, tell me if you care at all, what do you think is the best argument from atheists that God does not exist/

I assume that you have read arguments socalled, from atheists on why there is no God.

If you tell me that you don't know any at all, and that is why you want to know how to prove to yourself Gold exists, very good: at least you want to know.

Okay, here goes, how to prove to yourself God exists:

1. Do you at all have any concept of God?

You know, if you don't have any concept of God at all, then and bear with me, you are being irrational i.e. unreasonable to ask how to prove to yourself God exists; why you irrational?

Simple, because as you don't have any concept of God at all, you will not know He is present to you, even though He is just beside you or even all over you inside and outside.

Take this illustration: If you don't know what is a woman, even though one is facing you all naked like an infant just born, totally naked, and you are not blind, will you know that it is a woman facing you - I assume you are a guy, i.e. male.

So, in just 50 words or less, tell me what is your concept of God if you have one at all, even how crude.

You see, I intend to guide you step by step to come to the certainty that God exists, so if you cooperate you will certainly come to the truth, the fact, and the logic that God exists.

Don't run away now.

Hmm alright, I suppose it would depend if we are talking monotheistic god or polytheistic gods.
For monotheism I would see god as someone who guides people and helps them to help themselves rather than simply answering prayers left and right. A God of change and one that wishes for people to better themselves.

 

[Milton Platt]

What arguments do you believe point to there being a God or gods and why do you think this makes more sense than the idea that there are no gods? I am personally a non-believer but I would greatly like to hear arguments against this position and possibly find a religion that at least makes sense.

I would like to hear actual arguments though. Lets keep off saying "ATheism is just dumb!" and the reverse. People come to their own beliefs for a large variety of reasons and you shouldn't just call them dumb for having said beliefs. Even if you think the beliefs themselves are pretty dumb.

Last thing, if you favor monotheism or polytheism or pantheism or non theism please be sure to include specifics of why you favor one version over another.

False equivalency there.....All atheists do not claim that there are no gods. Most, probably, simply are saying that theists have not met their burden of proof. They do not think theists have any convincing evidence to support their claim.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

False equivalency there.....All atheists do not claim that there are no gods. Most, probably, simply are saying that theists have not met their burden of proof. They do not think theists have any convincing evidence to support their claim.

You know Milton not to be rude but I am fairly certain none of that needed to be said. We've all heard it before and a minor 'mistake" in my post really isn't that relevant.
Though now I am curious as to what arguments you'd use against the concept of theism as a whole.

 

[Milton Platt]

You know Milton not to be rude but I am fairly certain none of that needed to be said. We've all heard it before and a minor 'mistake" in my post really isn't that relevant.
Though now I am curious as to what arguments you'd use against the concept of theism as a whole.

No rudeness there at all. Frankness is underrated by many but appreciated by myself. I do think it is important not to lump all atheists into one group just as it is important not to lump all theists into one group.

And my argument against theism is simply that the burden of proof has not been met for me with regard to any of the 1000+ gods that have been asserted to exist at one time or another. I am an atheist, but not "militant" about it. I believe anyone can believe whatever they want as long as it does not impact me.

 

[Sanmario]

Well. Christine, you want me to prove but you don't want to tell me what is your concept of God.

 

[Sanmario]

No one seems to be keen on the concept of God, but they will insist that there is no proof of God from folks like myself.

That is very illogical.

Okay, here is the concept of God which is found in all three major religions of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

When you have that concept of God, and you deny Him to exist, then you are hitting the correct God, the one who in fact exists, corresponding to the concept of God, which is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

And where is the proof? It is everywhere where there is causation, like the whole universe is caused to come to existence, you and I are caused to come to existence, to wit: everything with a beginning: that is the evidence making up the proof for the existence of God, corresponding to the concept of God as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Dear Christine, I like to exchange thoughts with you, so tell me, what are your objections to my proof for the existence of God, on the evidence which is the event of causation everywhere in existence.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

No one seems to be keen on the concept of God, but they will insist that there is no proof of God from folks like myself.

That is very illogical.

Okay, here is the concept of God which is found in all three major religions of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

When you have that concept of God, and you deny Him to exist, then you are hitting the correct God, the one who in fact exists, corresponding to the concept of God, which is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

And where is the proof? It is everywhere where there is causation, like the whole universe is caused to come to existence, you and I are caused to come to existence, to wit: everything with a beginning: that is the evidence making up the proof for the existence of God, corresponding to the concept of God as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Dear Christine, I like to exchange thoughts with you, so tell me, what are your objections to my proof for the existence of God, on the evidence which is the event of causation everywhere in existence.

You could say the thing you are using as evidence isn't actually evidence for one. Also all three major religions? You realize Hinduism, Buddhism,jainism,various indigenous faiths ect are all larger than Judaism right? Heck I think even Sikhism is larger than Judaism. Did you mean all 3 major Abrahamic religions? Because then I have to say there are more than 3 Abrahamic religions. Baha'i is also in there. The Hanif are in there, noahides are in there if you want to count them as a separate faith to Judaism.

 

[Blackdog22]

What arguments do you believe point to there being a God or gods and why do you think this makes more sense than the idea that there are no gods? I am personally a non-believer but I would greatly like to hear arguments against this position and possibly find a religion that at least makes sense.

I would like to hear actual arguments though. Lets keep off saying "ATheism is just dumb!" and the reverse. People come to their own beliefs for a large variety of reasons and you shouldn't just call them dumb for having said beliefs. Even if you think the beliefs themselves are pretty dumb.

Last thing, if you favor monotheism or polytheism or pantheism or non theism please be sure to include specifics of why you favor one version over another.

I would first start that it completely depends on the definition of the word God/gods someone is using. This is half the reason things like this become difficult to argue because people tend to just make up variations of their own God/gods to try to force him to fit with how they themselves think. He essentially appears to be nothing more than their own personal feelings, beliefs, and subconcious. That would be one point why I don't believe Gods exist. If there was a God he would only be one and it would be known, not a mixed bowl of ideas that are obviously just being made up on the fly.

Another argument I could make is that a God would be substantially more unlikely than the Universe existing by most properties given to him. Now sometimes people change these properties to the point that God is nothing more than a fart in the wind, in which case, why should I care or call it a God?

Third reason, absolutely no evidence for any existence of Gods. Sure you can go with testimony and personal experience, but when one guys "talk" with God leads him to believe he should stand in front of a congregation of thousands of people to explain why being gay is an awful sin and another pastors testimony from talking to God leads him to believe that God accepts gays just fine, then it doesn't take the most brilliant mind to realize these people are just talking to themselves, have some form of mental disorder or are so stupid they mistaken their own subconcious thoughts in moments of silence as an eternal God being.

Fourthly, and this generally only applies to the Abrahamic God is the characterics given to him are logically impossible. Therefore he logically makes no sense. You might as well tell me circles can also be squares, with a straight face, and expect me to not at the least smirk at you, or call you an idiot if im having a bad day.

All the factors we have point to there being absolutely no reason for a God. He answers no questions, he only adds to them. His talks with people are clearly nonsense and usually found in the mentally insane like Paul who was, on multiple occasions, referred to as insane in the Bible itself where people wouldn't want him coming to their towns because they were very iffy about it, just like you would be with a schizhophrenic.

I have yet to see anyone offer anything substantial to rebuttal these real life issues and in the end it comes to "faith". In which case, terrorists have faith, thats not a winning point. Its more of a passive way of giving up because many believers dont enjoy answering these questions.

 

[omega2xx]

So you won't answer the question but instead pose another, irrelevant question to divert from the fact that you don't know your own bible

Your statement show you do not understand the Bible.

However, if you want an a answer to your irrelevant question i suggest you first learn some quantum string/m theory.

String theory is metaphysics not physics. I suggest you first learn about the need to have a perfect vacuum and is it possible to have one.

 

[ChristineM]

Well. Christine, you want me to prove but you don't want to tell me what is your concept of God.

I have already stated my concept of god, e=mc2, you exist therefore omnipotent god's can't, end of story

Now all you have to do is prove Einstein wrong.

 

[ChristineM]

No one seems to be keen on the concept of God, but they will insist that there is no proof of God from folks like myself.

That is very illogical.

Okay, here is the concept of God which is found in all three major religions of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

When you have that concept of God, and you deny Him to exist, then you are hitting the correct God, the one who in fact exists, corresponding to the concept of God, which is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

And where is the proof? It is everywhere where there is causation, like the whole universe is caused to come to existence, you and I are caused to come to existence, to wit: everything with a beginning: that is the evidence making up the proof for the existence of God, corresponding to the concept of God as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Dear Christine, I like to exchange thoughts with you, so tell me, what are your objections to my proof for the existence of God, on the evidence which is the event of causation everywhere in existence.

A concept is not a proof. An idea is not proof. Faith is not proof.

I have no objections you your faith, but I they are just thoughts, ideas, You've proved nothing.

You have little idea about causation, rather you are relating causation to what you want it to be in order to justify your faith. Please note that the laws of thermodynamics, including causation did not begin to coalesce as we know them now until 10e-34 of a second after the bb event.

I.e the laws you claim are responsible for the universe did not exist until after the universe formed.

 

[ChristineM]

Your statement show you do not understand the Bible.



String theory is metaphysics not physics. I suggest you first learn about the need to have a perfect vacuum and is it possible to have one.

Actually i have researched and understand the bible better than most Christians, i have assisted in cataloguing and compiling data about the bible (new testament,) that has been used in at least 5 books that i know on the subject. As far as the ot is concerned, maybe you haven't actually read it.

Nope, string and m theory are quantum physics. Unless of course you can provide validated proof of your objectional claim.

Whether it is possible to obtain a perfect vacuum is moot in this universe. To have a space without dimensions and through which photons cannot pass represents an impossible scenario in a multidimensional space which contains light.

As to pre universe, your conjecture is noted and chuckled at.

 

[ChristineM]

Your statement show you do not understand the Bible.



String theory is metaphysics not physics. I suggest you first learn about the need to have a perfect vacuum and is it possible to have one.

And still you refuse to answer the question... Interesting...

 

[ratiocinator]

Nope, string and m theory are quantum physics.

Quantum mechanics (and more generally quantum field theory) are well tested science. String theory is merely hypothesis.

 

[ratiocinator]

I've just read through this entire thread and have not seen anything like a convincing argument for any god.

It is true that a definition is required, but that is down to those who propose the existence of a god/some gods. I consider myself to be an atheist because I have never been presented with a definition and argument for any gods that isn't obviously flawed (leaving aside some odd definitions of 'god' that are pretty much synonymous with the universe or a physical object).

I cannot rule out that, in the whole of reality, there might exist something that would fit somebody's definition of a god, but is there nobody who can provide any evidence or reasoning to take the notion out of the merely possible (along with all sorts of other unfalsifiable mythology) and into the probable?

 

[viole]

The shorter the time period over which we make a measurement, the more uncertain is the value of the energy. This explains the existence of virtual particles. They can spontaneioulsly appear out of empty space, but over only a limited amount of time. One virtual particle has positive energy and one has negative energy, so the average energy remains zero.

Virtual particles can come from nothing (empty space). Physicists have speculated that the big bang was a quantum fluctuation, effectively creating our universe.

Almost.

They both have positive energy. If their balance were nil, they could remain for ever. And that is what happens near a gravitational source, e.g. a black hole. If their existence is compensated by a source of negative energy, the balance might get to zero and so, they can stay. That is the essence of Hawking black hole radiation.

But if their balance is positive, then they must return their loan in a time that is short enough to satisfy Eisenberg indetermination principle about energy values. And they can do that only by disappearing soon after.

And that is why our Universe is long term stable. Its total energy, and therefore mass, is zero.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ChristineM]

Quantum mechanics (and more generally quantum field theory) are well tested science. String theory is merely hypothesis.

String theory and m theory are theoretical frameworks that describe how one dimensional strings propagate through multidimensional dimensional space, they are theories of quantum gravity.