Brennan77
Well-known member
Offline
If you use the term atheist to describe yourself, I invite you to answer this question. Even though you disagree, what do you find the most compelling argument in favor of the existence of God?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In which way? Empirically?
One observation I'd make is that there's been little to no mention of classical arguments for the existence of God. So there seems to be a disconnect in the way a theist might argue for the existence of God and the perceptions and views of those who hold to atheistic views. And it's not just a difference of conclusions. It's a difference in form.
I’ve never thought of it that way. Very much enjoyed that POV. Thanks for the post.Just speaking more generally as an atheist, even if I grant you that the christian god is the only true god (or even exists), the moral dilemma means that I'd never follow he/it as their morals do not in any way align with what I view as just.
Let's just assume for simplicity that everything in the Bible that people claimed that god did was false or just a 'parable' as people like to say when the more distasteful stories arise...
Creating humans and then forcing them to worship you under a pretense that not doing so will result in eternal torture is the epitome of evil. The very definition of the master/slave relationship.
There is no disconnect. Classical arguments, modern arguments, ancient arguments... at their core, they argue for an all powerful supernatural being who created everything. And really, the more elaborate the argument for a deity (any deity), the more attempts at injecting logic into it, the more fallacies one can find.
If there is a disconnect, is that a theist would hold those arguments as absolute truth, and no matter the argument, it'll lead to a "my god exists" conclusion, even when shown the fallacy in the argument. There really isn't anything compelling about classical arguments, unless you want to believe they are.
I already did, like 4 times on this thread.So, can you name one argument for the existence of God that is less bad than others?
There are a few classical arguments. Pick one, and I'll elaborate.You're not really engaging any particular line of reasoning but are dismissing them all as equally incorrect based on the conclusion.
To clarify, based on the evidence, I have adopted the default position, godS don't exist. And I never said you can't discuss anything.I understand you have already concluded that God does not and can not exist. But that surely doesn't mean we can't discuss the means by which we reach our conclusions.
Well, yes, one is better than the other... still, Aquina's argument for motion isn't original. It's a rephrasing of the Kalam, which is a rephrasing of Aristotle's unmoved mover, which I read somewhere, he used to prove Zeus existed. Of the 3 phrasings, I think the original Kalam (not the one peddled by William Craig) is the simplest one, and therefore the "least bad" of them, because of its simplicity, but then the leap from it to what theists think of "god", that is a huge leap.For instance, I believe in God. I believe that this can be shown through means of reason and observation alone. But I also believe that Anselm's ontological argument isn't as solid as Aquinas' argument from motion. Both arguments make the same conclusion that God exists, but one is better than the other. Surely you can make the same distinctions even though you disagree with the conclusions.
Forgive me. I haven't seen anything like an argument be laid out by you. Re-reading, you seem to think there would be a small chance that it's possible a god of some sort exists in an alternate universe or something is the least bad argument. But I don't really follow that very well. Maybe I just misunderstand.I already did, like 4 times on this thread.
The point was that you'd pick one to discuss. If you'd rather not, that's cool.There are a few classical arguments. Pick one, and I'll elaborate.
Well, yes, one is better than the other... still, Aquina's argument for motion isn't original. It's a rephrasing of the Kalam, which is a rephrasing of Aristotle's unmoved mover, which I read somewhere, he used to prove Zeus existed. Of the 3 phrasings, I think the original Kalam (not the one peddled by William Craig) is the simplest one, and therefore the "least bad" of them, because of its simplicity,
but then the leap from it to what theists think of "god", that is a huge leap.
You asked me which argument I thought was the "less bad". And I told you (now for the 5th time) the one that simply asks about the possibility of the existence of a god; is it possible, however infinitesimally, that a god exists somewhere in the unknown universe/another dimension? Frankly, I don't know what's so difficult to understand.Forgive me. I haven't seen anything like an argument be laid out by you. Re-reading, you seem to think there would be a small chance that it's possible a god of some sort exists in an alternate universe or something is the least bad argument. But I don't really follow that very well. Maybe I just misunderstand.
You didn't specify that I had to pick a classical argument.The point was that you'd pick one to discuss. If you'd rather not, that's cool.
When did I say you weren't allow to discuss anything?Ok. So we ARE able to discuss qualitative differences in arguments. It seemed to me you were saying that that was not possible and that all were equally bad.
Of course not.That said, originality is not an indicator of truth.
Aquinas pulled heavily from others and referenced his sources when doing so. His does pull from Aristotle. And to that point, Aristotle, I do not believe, argued literally for any of the polytheistic gods. Most consider him to be monotheistic as I understand it. Regardless, it's important to understand his context within a polytheistic culture/worldview establishing the philosophical foundations for monotheism.
While it may be related, I don't think Aquinas' argument from motion is a rephrasing of the Kalam at all, at least not as I understand it. I'm most familiar with Craig's formulation and don't know any distinctions from older sources though. Can you share the difference between the two and why you think it's the least bad?
FWIW, I don't personally like the Kalam cosmological argument. It hinges upon data which cannot be proven philosophically and may never be discovered scientifically. Aquinas was not comfortable with the formulation.
I was born into Catholicism, and I can tell you what I thought at the time, what the people around me thought of God, and I can probably reference some Baptists, some Mormons, and some Krishnas, but I can't tell what theists in general think of God, beyond "God" being the creator of all things.In the context of this thread, what do you think theists think of God?
Let's take the simplicity of the Kalam, and for the sake of argument, let's say I accept the premise of the Kalam. Now you tell me, how do you get from that premise, to Yahweh?And what leaps specifically are being made?