• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is the best argument for an atheist?

strikeviperMKII

strikeviperMKII

Well-Known Member
ButTheCatCameBack said:
It doesn't take repetitive, dodgy post after post to relay that concept. Also if this was started as some sort of thing of you taking up the position of believing in God then it behooves you to provide some definitions so they can be, if nothing else, compared against the standard definitions. And the discussion can then move forward.

Otherwise..
Click to expand...

I am asking you to provide the definitions. Not the other way around. You have claimed something, so I am asking you all the details of that claim.

If anything, I have claimed that God is not science, and you have proven that already.
 
Gloone

Gloone

Well-Known Member
I think StrikevipreMK has made some good points. It only proves that science cannot prove god exists. Science has it flaws otherwise people who are so caught up with science wouldn’t waste their time asking for an explanation, because they would already have it. The explanation for God has been around for 1,000s of years. If you want a better one, do some research.
 
M

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Gloone said:
I think StrikevipreMK has made some good points. It only proves that science cannot prove god exists. Science has it flaws otherwise people who are so caught up with science wouldn’t waste their time asking for an explanation, because they would already have it. The explanation for God has been around for 1,000s of years. If you want a better one, do some research.
Click to expand...

Well, the thing is that it's true that gods are ultimately outside the realm of science -- for the most part. For instance we can justifiably say that no god exists which caused a global flood, since science has thoroughly demonstrated there was no such thing.

"A god which caused a global flood is inconsistent with the evidence" is a true statement, but that doesn't mean that we can say that science has falsified gods linked to such stories (say, the god of the Bible) if theists assert that the global flood story is somehow only metaphorical or that the flood was local. But we can indeed say that any god-concept that involves causing an actual, literal, global flood doesn't exist according to the evidence.

As for other proofs for gods, since many of their characteristics are metaphysical in nature then obviously any evidences for them will also be metaphysical. This involves ontological, teleological, transcendental and epistemic argumentation.

Teleology doesn't work very well because "the appearance of design" can be demonstrably emulated through natural processes. It's a pretty insufficient justifier.

My transcendental argument takes a wrecking ball of sorts to any attempts at transcendental theistic arguments, though I can feasibly imagine a good transcendental argument for a god's existence working alongside this.

Epistemic (or epistemological) arguments for theism are almost always presuppositional and irrational, but I'd be willing to give my ear to a rational epistemic case for theism.

Ontological arguments depend on the outcome of my transcendental argument, which hasn't been demonstrated false yet.

There's a lot of room for theists to work with, if they'd only get to it and make it available to those of us who are interested... It's difficult for me to play devil's advocate and attempt to justify theism myself, else I'd have ended up accidently making myself a theist from all the time I've spent trying to do it just for the sake of it.
 
Last edited:
Wotan

Wotan

Active Member
Gloone said:
@ MM - That just made my head hurt. I will try to make sense of it later. :help:
Click to expand...

Frankly, I would be embarrassed if that were the case for me. And ashamed to admit it publicly.

There is nothing she has posted that isn't either a well know argument or it follows from HER premises. As she has pointed out she set up her definition of "god" precisely because it can be so easily shot down.

There is really nothing all that profound new or even complex about her argument. As anyone who has read Hume and Kant and B. Russell can attest.

It has always struck me as both sad and revealing that theists rarely - if ever advance REAL arguments for a first cause and an objective moral order. An intuitive case can be made for SOME kind of transcendental order. But theists are so-o-o-o hung up on this "moral judgment" that they rarely get passed "God'll gitcya for dat."
 
B

ButTheCatCameBack

Active Member
strikevipreMKII said:
I am asking you to provide the definitions. Not the other way around. You have claimed something, so I am asking you all the details of that claim.

If anything, I have claimed that God is not science, and you have proven that already.
Click to expand...

Actually....I have not. Someone else asked you. Also if you claim that "God is not science." Which is a nonsensical statement anyway. I assume you mean something like, "Science cannot provide evidence of God." then YOU are making a statement. One you are proposing a supernatural universe vs the natural universe of science. You're claiming you have a definition of what a "God" is. Otherwise you might as well claim that a "Blaggersplatgphan is not science."

At this point it just looks like attempts to dodge the issue. I fully expect something ridiculous like someone mentioning hot dogs and you going, "Define "hot dog"."
 
Gloone

Gloone

Well-Known Member
Wotan said:
Frankly, I would be embarrassed if that were the case for me. And ashamed to admit it publicly.

There is nothing she has posted that isn't either a well know argument or it follows from HER premises. As she has pointed out she set up her definition of "god" precisely because it can be so easily shot down.

There is really nothing all that profound new or even complex about her argument. As anyone who has read Hume and Kant and B. Russell can attest.

It has always struck me as both sad and revealing that theists rarely - if ever advance REAL arguments for a first cause and an objective moral order. An intuitive case can be made for SOME kind of transcendental order. But theists are so-o-o-o hung up on this "moral judgment" that they rarely get passed "God'll gitcya for dat."
Click to expand...
Like I said, if i get around to it, I will read up on some of the stuff she mentioned and see if it makes any sense to me. If you can to elaborate go right ahead, otherwise a book of checks and balances does me no good.
 
Wotan

Wotan

Active Member
Gloone said:
Like I said, if i get around to it, I will read up on some of the stuff she mentioned and see if it makes any sense to me. If you can to elaborate go right ahead, otherwise a book of checks and balances does me no good.
Click to expand...

There are those who are PROUDLY ignorant.:rolleyes:
 
T

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
strikevipreMKII said:
They asked me to prove that God exists, I didn't ask myself. If I want to prove it to them, I have to know what they mean by 'exists'. Otherwise, I could just make up my own definition and say God existing means that the sun shines in the daytime.
By your logic, if I was a civil engineer, and a client asked me for a building, I could then define 'building' as a cardboard box, and give them that. This is ridiculous, as the definition of building would be in the instructions. They'd want so many stories, so many feet wide, so many feet long, so many elevators, stairs, bathrooms etc.
But, with the 'prove God exists' no such parameters exist in the instructions. So I'm asking what exist means, so I cover all my bases.
Click to expand...

Thats why I asked you to define existence, because obviously when you make a statement like god exists, you're not using the conventional definition of existence.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Gloone said:
I think StrikevipreMK has made some good points. It only proves that science cannot prove god exists. Science has it flaws otherwise people who are so caught up with science wouldn’t waste their time asking for an explanation, because they would already have it. The explanation for God has been around for 1,000s of years. If you want a better one, do some research.
Click to expand...

Science cannot prove that God exists or not. Science isn't about God; it's about the natural world. Of course, if your God interacts with the natural world in a specific way, then science can look at that claim.
 
tumbleweed41

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
tumbleweed41 said:
Empiricism is the basic practice of science. Science relies on direct experience or observation to describe or explain phenomenon. All explanations must be replicable or repeatable and all answers must be predictive and falsifiable. Science describes the real and observable world.
Science does not rely on dreams, or visions, or faith in revealed revelations or supernatural beings as a basis for knowledge.
Science can nether prove nor disprove God, since God is generally believed to be transcendent (i.e. existing beyond nature and therefor beyond potential observation).
As there is no empirical evidence for God, or any transcendent being(s), it is perfectly reasonable to withhold belief in such a being(s) unless such evidence is produced and verified.
The OP complains that Atheists always want "Proof of God" in order to accept God's existence. When it comes down to it, this is all any reasonable person needs to accept something as true. Empirical evidence.
Click to expand...

strikevipreMKII said:
All you've proven is that God is not science. If you want to postulate that science equals reality, and therefore say that because God is not science, God is not reality, be my guest.
Click to expand...
No, I did not prove anything. I gave you a thorough explanation of how empirical evidence relates to the real world. God, being transcendent, cannot be proven using empirical evidence.
strikevipreMKII said:
The first part, I agree with. God is not science, and never will be science. The second...well, that's already not true, so I don't know why you want to try and make it so.
Click to expand...
Explain what is not true in my statement.
 
Gloone

Gloone

Well-Known Member
Autodidact said:
Science cannot prove that God exists or not. Science isn't about God; it's about the natural world. Of course, if your God interacts with the natural world in a specific way, then science can look at that claim.
Click to expand...
I don't see why you would need science for something like that though. Maybe its just me and other people see it differently.
 
jonman122

jonman122

Active Member
Gloone said:
Well actually its Objective, subjective is just how you see it if you don't have objective evidence.
Click to expand...

no, subjective evidence is just what you believe yourself. empirical or objective evidence is what you can SHOW to others to prove to them your evidence is true.

say you said ghosts exists but you had no proof, but you figure that you've seen ghosts. thats subjective.

say you saw a barbell fall 10 feet and bounce a little, you can recreate that bouncing whenever you want by dropping a barbell from 10 feet, so you can show anyone you want that a barbell will bounce. this is objective evidence.

make sense to you?

definition for objective evidence: information which can be proven true, based on facts that substantiate the change being made. The evidence must not be circumstantial but must be obtained through observation, measurement, test or other means.

definition of subjective evidence: evidence that you cannot evaluate -- you have to simply accept what the person says or reject it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top