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

Users who are viewing this thread

    Brennan77

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Apr 30, 2019
    Messages
    126
    Reaction score
    152
    Age
    42
    Location
    New Orleans
    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?
     
    In which way? Empirically?

    Simply, the argument for the existence of a singular god (specifically the christian god for most Americans) is a concept that cannot be disproven in any sense. That is really the best argument that theists have, in my opinion.

    Consider this: As an atheist, clearly it would be foolish to state 'there is no (insert name here) god' just as it would be foolish of me to state that I know there aren't invisible octopus fairies. Invisible octopus fairies sounds silly when compared to the concept of a god. But why?

    Context.

    It sounds outrageous to make that comparison, but it should be noted that context of the human mind and what is relative to that is important here.
    Clearly one scenario holds more meaning because of historical context and the likelihood for human beings to think a homo sapiens living after death is more likely than an invisible, flying cephalopod, but the method by which we evaluate stories and supposed happenings and supernatural beings remains.

    In the end, I can disprove neither.
     
    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.

    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.
     
    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 never thought of it that way. Very much enjoyed that POV. Thanks for the post.
    And ftr, I believe in God but have many issues with the Bible and don’t believe in organized religion. Unless it’s for the friendship and fellowship I guess. Raised southern Baptist.
     
    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.

    So, can you name one argument for the existence of God that is less bad than others?

    You're not really engaging any particular line of reasoning but are dismissing them all as equally incorrect based on the conclusion. 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.

    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.
     
    So, can you name one argument for the existence of God that is less bad than others?
    I already did, like 4 times on this thread.

    You're not really engaging any particular line of reasoning but are dismissing them all as equally incorrect based on the conclusion.
    There are a few classical arguments. Pick one, and I'll elaborate.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.
     
    I already did, like 4 times on this thread.
    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.

    There are a few classical arguments. Pick one, and I'll elaborate.
    The point was that you'd pick one to discuss. If you'd rather not, that's cool.

    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,

    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.

    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.

    Also, I find most traditional arguments to be pretty simple. Yes, they involve subtlety of language. But none are very complex or involve many steps to reach conclusions.

    but then the leap from it to what theists think of "god", that is a huge leap.

    In the context of this thread, what do you think theists think of God? And what leaps specifically are being made?
     
    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 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.

    The point was that you'd pick one to discuss. If you'd rather not, that's cool.
    You didn't specify that I had to pick a classical argument.

    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.
    When did I say you weren't allow to discuss anything?
    Didn't I present an argument (as simplistic as it may be) as one I consider the "least bad"?

    That said, originality is not an indicator of truth.
    Of course not.

    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.

    The original Kalam argument:
    Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
    The universe began to exist.
    Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

    Aquinas' argument from motion:
    Things move. Since nothing moves itself, everything that is moved must be moved by another. If that which causes the motion is itself being moved, then it must be moved by another. This process cannot go on to infinity. Therefore, there must exist a first unmoved mover, which all people call God.

    You don't see the similarity? Aquinas' argument is more wordy, but at its core, it is the same argument: something had to start everything.

    In the context of this thread, what do you think theists think of God?
    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.

    And what leaps specifically are being made?
    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?
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Back
    Top Bottom