Atheists...what is the best argument for the existence of God? (1 Viewer)

[Brennan77]

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?

 

[Brennan77]

Of course it does.

From my point of view, at their most basic, all gods from all religions from the beginning of time are the exact same thing: a supernatural explanation of something that can't/couldn't be explained.

However, depending on the religion, arguments vary. Have you ever discussed religion with a devout Muslim? Their arguments for their version of Yahweh, their one and only creator god, are the worst.

Christians, on the other hand, are more creative and better articulated, and normally they don't try to stab you

But I am generalizing...



One, two, three, twenty... being the 3-in-one Yahweh, the Aesir, Ik Onkar... it doesn't matter to me. Again, to me, they all are ancient supernatural explanations of things that can't/couldn't be explained.



For the 3rd time, in my opinion, the question of the possibility of a god is the least bad, regardless of which god is being discussed.

So for you most if not all arguments for God are equally bad because they are all supernatural explanations for natural phenomenon in need of explanation?

Would it surprise you if I told you that the majority of classic arguments for theism don't function in this way?

 

[SystemShock]

So for you most if not all arguments for God are equally bad because they are all supernatural explanations for natural phenomenon in need of explanation?

Would it surprise you if I told you that the majority of classic arguments for theism don't function in this way?

It wouldn't surprise me if you told me that, but at their core, they all argue for the existence of an ultimate being who created everything, regardless of the attributes given to this being: all good, all powerful, immutable, etc...

 

[JimEverett]

That's a subject worth exploring. I don't deny that that disconnect exists in practice. But I also don't think it exists necessarily. The Catholic tradition for example insists that faith and reason go together. That said, as much as I personally find the intellectual element compelling, and I always have, it's not the whole story at all.

Do you find the perceived gulf to be necessary in principle?

Fwiw, Thomas Aquinas was a man committed to prayer every bit as much as he was committed to intellectual pursuit. He ceased writing after experiencing a heavenly vision while saying mass. "Such things have been revealed to me that all that I have written seems to me as so much straw. Now I await the end of my life."

I am not sure if the gulf is necessary. But I tend to think the theoretical is rather useless. I mean I am not there yet, but definitely moving in that direction.

For example - suppose that tomorrow incontrovertible facts are found/discovered that show that God is not all-powerful. Or, suppose it is discovered that Jesus of Nazareth never actually walked the earth. Would that somehow discredit the experience of God that you or others have had? I tend to think it would have no impact on the experiences I have had. At the same time, I guess there is an argument that experience is closely tied into the metaphysical entities/attributes theologians and philosophers have ascribed to God that it is impossible to have one without the other.

 

[MT15]

I have had some personal experiences that make me think there very well may be a Supreme Being. But then again, I am not an atheist. I am more properly anti-religion, actually.

 

[Brennan77]

I am not sure if the gulf is necessary. But I tend to think the theoretical is rather useless. I mean I am not there yet, but definitely moving in that direction.

For example - suppose that tomorrow incontrovertible facts are found/discovered that show that God is not all-powerful. Or, suppose it is discovered that Jesus of Nazareth never actually walked the earth. Would that somehow discredit the experience of God that you or others have had? I tend to think it would have no impact on the experiences I have had. At the same time, I guess there is an argument that experience is closely tied into the metaphysical entities/attributes theologians and philosophers have ascribed to God that it is impossible to have one without the other.

Thanks for the response. I'm not sure if your questions were rhetorical but I'll respond. From the way I understand the subject, if God were shown to not be omnipotent, then that would not be God. The reasoning that leads to understanding omnipotence as an attribute of what we mean when we say God is not arbitrary and cannot be put aside without fundamentally changing the question. That's why the question of proving this god vs that god as it relates to speaking of God is nearly nonsensical and such a stumbling block to discussion. There can only be one God who is. There can only be one Being who is purely actual from which all other being flows.

As it pertains to Christianity, the literal historicity of Jesus of Nazereth is non-negotiable. If I were to find definitively that he did not exist and did not suffer death and rise again, then I would no longer be Christian. Interestingly, that does not necessarily mean that I would no longer believe in God.

 

[JimEverett]

Thanks for the response. I'm not sure if your questions were rhetorical but I'll respond. From the way I understand the subject, if God were shown to not be omnipotent, then that would not be God. The reasoning that leads to understanding omnipotence as an attribute of what we mean when we say God is not arbitrary and cannot be put aside without fundamentally changing the question. That's why the question of proving this god vs that god as it relates to speaking of God is nearly nonsensical and such a stumbling block to discussion. There can only be one God who is. There can only be one Being who is purely actual from which all other being flows.

As it pertains to Christianity, the literal historicity of Jesus of Nazereth is non-negotiable. If I were to find definitively that he did not exist and did not suffer death and rise again, then I would no longer be Christian. Interestingly, that does not necessarily mean that I would no longer believe in God.

BTW - my question was not rhetorical. I thought it was an interesting way of expressing my point of view. I can understand you saying that if it were proven Jesus did not exist then that would mean you were no longer a Christian but would not mean you did not believe in God. I think that is similar to me saying that any particular attribute or historical fact that was proven untrue would not and could not "disprove" my experience of God (the omnipotence-point notwithsanding).
I do think the point about omnipotence is one that shows how experience and the philosophical/theological concepts can influence each other. To use philosophical terms - "God is omnipotent" is an analytic truth or is true "a priori" While I don't "believe" those distinctions (analytic vs. synthetic or a priori vs. a posteriori) I do think most people do and the sort of theological concepts held to be necessary aspect of God can influence exactly how people experience God.
Sort of similar to what we see with respect to unobservables in science and within scientific theories themselves.

 

[Heathen]

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?

The fact that the question is non-falsifiable

 

[Heathen]

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.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

I think both pro and anti god questions reach a convergence point at infinity
Infinity makes the question moot
I would say none of us - but maybe it’s very very few of us - can perceive infinity
We are able to fathom an infinite god and thus we put limits (wants, agendas) on a concept of the very very big - we anthropomorphize vastness

There is probably godinfinity but we are incapable of understanding such a thing

 

[JimEverett]

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.

Not that I agree (or disagree) but this reminds me of an issue I had with Christianity - the 1st commandment commands you to love God. That always seemed weird to me - even at a younger age it seemed weird that you could will yourself to love someone or even something.

 

[SystemShock]

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.

You don't have to get that far in the Bible. That whole Eden story, the idea of original sin, how depraved is that?

 

[Heathen]

You don't have to get that far in the Bible. That whole Eden story, the idea of original sin, how depraved is that?

Or the fact that Eve had sex with her son Seth to start the propagation of the human race.

One of those things that gradually became less cool over time I suppose.

 

[SystemShock]

Or the fact that Eve had sex with her son Seth to start the propagation of the human race.

One of those things that gradually became less cool over time I suppose.

The mere idea that pregnancy is a punishment from God, to all women, ever, because Eve, who if you think about it, would've had the mind of a child, and didn't know right from wrong - and how could have she, if she didn't have a concept of what good and evil was - was tricked into eating a fruit she was told not to eat. How morally bankrupt is that?

 

[Brennan77]

The fact that the question is non-falsifiable

In which way? Empirically?

 

[Brennan77]

Not that I agree (or disagree) but this reminds me of an issue I had with Christianity - the 1st commandment commands you to love God. That always seemed weird to me - even at a younger age it seemed weird that you could will yourself to love someone or even something.

That depends on how you understand love.

On the subject of loving God with all your heart and soul, Aquinas said the following...
"There is a twofold principle of love: for love can come about by passion or by the judgment of reason: out of passion when a man does not even know how to live without the thing he loves, and by reason insofar as he loves as reason dictates. He says therefore that he loves with his whole heart who loves with his flesh, and he loves with his soul who loves by the judgment of reason. And we ought to love God in both ways: with our flesh as the heart is moved with feeling for God in our flesh, whence it says in Psalm 83:3: “My heart and my flesh have exulted in the living God.” "

Ideally speaking, the two ways of love would always coincide and cooperate. But anyone who has been married or has children knows that we are flawed beings and the desires of our heart do not always match what our reason tells us is the proper object of our love. Put another way, sometimes we love through right action even when we do not feel like doing so.

There's a phrase from the rite of mass that comes to mind. It's an exchange from the opening of the Eucharistic Prayer. It may help to imagine this moment as the preparation for communion, which is analogous to the marital embrace. It is the source and summit of the Christian life. It begins...

Priest: The Lord be with you.
People: And with your spirit.
Priest: Lift up your hearts.
People: We lift them up to the Lord.
Priest: Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.
People: It is right and just.

This has always stuck out to me. We don't simply lift up our hearts and give thanks because it feels like the thing to do, though of course it may and it'd be nice if that were always the case. We lift up our hearts and give thanks because it is right and just in the order of being itself.

Another example might be the command to love your enemies. Anyone can love their families and friends. But a true test of love is to love those who you do not feel like loving.

In short, I don't think it's that weird of an idea to will yourself to love someone. We do it all the time. And if we don't we live very superficial, narcissistic, and unfulfilled lives.

 

[Brennan77]

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.

I've always found this to be an interesting argument in the sense that it appeals to an abstract, metaphysical and objective understanding of the concept of good/evil.

 

[Brennan77]

But anyway, I think we are beginning to digress. The idea of this thread is not to list the reasons we do not believe in God or to complain about certain aspects of Christian thought. It's to answer the question of what we find most compelling in a position you might ultimately disagree with or are uncertain about. It's an exercise in steel manning the opposition, as it were.

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.

 

[Heathen]

I've always found this to be an interesting argument in the sense that it appeals to an abstract, metaphysical and objective understanding of the concept of good/evil.

Please do explain.