I think I've heard every theist argument.

[MelBrooksfan]

Unfortunately, I can't think of an example of a "word game" proof of god.

To expand on the Thomas Aquinas note of earlier: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas3.html

 

[Jon.]

King Merv is, of course, more correct than I was in stating the ontological argument. My first refutation would not work for that version; however, my second would work. It all depends on your definition of "greater", which is so vague as to be functionally meaningless.

 

[Azure]

That's an extreme version of god-of-the-gaps, I think. In any case, it's an argument from ignorance.

Here are some examples, followed by quick refutations.

Fideism: You don't need a reason to believe in god, just have faith.
Refutation: That's meaningless gibberish.

God-of-the-gaps: We only know what was happening 1/4 of a second after the big bang, so god was before that. Wait a minute, now we know what happened 1 Planck time after the big bang? Then god was before that.
Refutation: Non sequitur plus moving goalpost.

Argument for morality: Without god, how can you justify being a moral person?
Refutation: Morality is independent of god's words (Dawkins does a wonderful demonstration of this).

Fine-tuner: If the charge of the electron were 0.00000001% more or less than it actually is, we would never have come into existence, therefore god must have chosen that exact value so that we could exist.
Refutation: Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Unfortunately, I can't think of an example of a "word game" proof of god.

So are you going to prove/disprove the existence of God, or are we done here?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think there are very few theists who actually buy any of the mentioned "proofs"--except maybe the obvious non-proof "fideism". Really, most believers say it's a matter of faith and not something provable or testable.

The bigger question, "why do you believe anything in particular?" is of greater concern. As refutations of Pascal's Wager, fideism, God of the gaps, etc. point out, there is not a dichotomy between atheism and belief in a particular God (Judeo-Christian, for example), but an infinity of supernatural beliefs you could espouse. I don't understand how someone who accepts ANYthing on faith can filter out any other nutty belief as being nonsense.

There was a story maybe a year ago of a psycho with a 666 tattoo who claimed he is a new incarnation of Jesus Christ. Conventional religions quickly poo-pooed his claim, but I never heard any reasonable explanation of how they can accept the absurd beliefs they have and reject his claim.

 

[aggle-rithm]

God can be defined as "that being, no greater than which anything exists." A being which exists is greater than a being which doesn't exist, therefore God must exist in order to satisfy the definition.

This argument was brought up on the excellent Australian mini-series, "Brides of Christ" (well, it was set in Australia, don't know if it was produced there). One of the novices, upon being told this argument, said it was a pile of rubbish. She was told to shut up.

 

[Azure]

I think there are very few theists who actually buy any of the mentioned "proofs"--except maybe the obvious non-proof "fideism". Really, most believers say it's a matter of faith and not something provable or testable.

I don't.

Like you said, to me it is a matter of faith.

Anyone who has faith...and believes these 'proofs' has by definition no faith at all.

 

[KingMerv00]

So I could understand better.

Ah. Go forth now enlightened.

 

[KingMerv00]

I don't.

Like you said, to me it is a matter of faith.

Anyone who has faith...and believes these 'proofs' has by definition no faith at all.

Everyone implicitly rejects fideism in their everyday life. I know of no one who believes that the bus will be on time from faith alone.

Why apply faith only to religion?

 

[Azure]

Everyone implicitly rejects fideism in their everyday life. I know of no one who believes that the bus will be on time from faith alone.

Why apply faith only to religion?

Don't you think that is a invalid comparison since most of us will 'see' the bus arrive on time many times...but still, don't we 'trust' or have 'faith' that the bus will arrive on time again, since we don't actually 'know' that it will?

Sorta like trusting that your drinking water won't be contaminated with all sorts of nasty stuff. Don't really know if you can apply faith there...although my world religions teacher gave us a very good article where the author mentioned that based on a survey....many people had faith in certain unknowns during their life. And not all of it was religious either, or supernatural.

We've never seen God....which is why faith only applies to religion.

Basically, if you believe in the supernatural, you must have faith.

 

[KingMerv00]

Don't you think that is a invalid comparison since most of us will 'see' the bus arrive on time many times...but still, don't we 'trust' or have 'faith' that the bus will arrive on time again, since we don't actually 'know' that it will?

Sorta like trusting that your drinking water won't be contaminated with all sorts of nasty stuff. Don't really know if you can apply faith there...although my world religions teacher gave us a very good article where the author mentioned that based on a survey....many people had faith in certain unknowns during their life. And not all of it was religious either, or supernatural.

We've never seen God....which is why faith only applies to religion.

Basically, if you believe in the supernatural, you must have faith.

Perhaps I'll change my argument then.

On what basis do you reject an infinite number of alternative supernatural beliefs? If someone believes in the FSM, why are they wrong? If I have faith that I am the new messiah, are my beliefs valid? I'm sure you don't believe everything simultaneously.

It doesn't bother you at all that your premise and conclusion are one in the same?

 

[Jon.]

Don't you think that is a invalid comparison since most of us will 'see' the bus arrive on time many times...but still, don't we 'trust' or have 'faith' that the bus will arrive on time again, since we don't actually 'know' that it will?

Sorta like trusting that your drinking water won't be contaminated with all sorts of nasty stuff. Don't really know if you can apply faith there...although my world religions teacher gave us a very good article where the author mentioned that based on a survey....many people had faith in certain unknowns during their life. And not all of it was religious either, or supernatural.

We've never seen God....which is why faith only applies to religion.

Basically, if you believe in the supernatural, you must have faith.

If you believe in anything for which there is no evidence, you must have faith.

For such a believer, the problems, as I see them, are two:

First, how do you decide what to believe in? There are dozens, if not hundreds, of different varieties of Christianity alone. Then there are all the other faiths in the world. At some point, you are applying your judgment and saying that one of these is "better" than the others, and is your judgment not human and therefore fallible?

This applies not only to established religions (Buddhism, Islam, etc.) but also to modern cults. If you believe that Jesus died on the cross, was resurrected and then went directly to heaven, and that he will return, how can you dismiss the claims of the innumerable madmen who have said they are that returned Jesus? More importantly, how will you know the returned Jesus when (if) he does return?

Second, any proposition that can be advanced without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. This leaves the impartial observer unable to assess the validity of any faith-based claims.

 

[KingMerv00]

If you believe in anything for which there is no evidence, you must have faith.

For such a believer, the problems, as I see them, are two:

First, how do you decide what to believe in? There are dozens, if not hundreds, of different varieties of Christianity alone. Then there are all the other faiths in the world. At some point, you are applying your judgment and saying that one of these is "better" than the others, and is your judgment not human and therefore fallible?

This applies not only to established religions (Buddhism, Islam, etc.) but also to modern cults. If you believe that Jesus died on the cross, was resurrected and then went directly to heaven, and that he will return, how can you dismiss the claims of the innumerable madmen who have said they are that returned Jesus? More importantly, how will you know the returned Jesus when (if) he does return?

I totally ninja'd you.

Just to expand...If fideism is allowed then contradictory statements can be equally valid. One person can have faith Jesus was the only Son of God while another my believe that Rick is the the only Son of God. If they use faith they are both equally "right".

 

[Jon.]

I totally ninja'd you.

Only because my post is longer and more thought-out.

 

[Azure]

Perhaps I'll change my argument then.

On what basis do you reject an infinite number of alternative supernatural beliefs? If someone believes in the FSM, why are they wrong? If I have faith that I am the new messiah, are my beliefs valid? I'm sure you don't believe everything simultaneously.

It doesn't bother you at all that your premise and conclusion are one in the same?

People can believe whatever they want...that is their prerogative.

I choose to have faith that God exists.

And even though some people think I should be...I am NOT fundamental in my belief.

An open mind is an enlightened mind. Works both ways you know.

 

[Azure]

I totally ninja'd you.

Just to expand...If fideism is allowed then contradictory statements can be equally valid. One person can have faith Jesus was the only Son of God while another my believe that Rick is the the only Son of God. If they use faith they are both equally "right".

Sure.

Just like some idiots believe that Xenu brought billions of people to planet earth, stacked them in volcano's, and blew them up with Hydrogen bombs.

Among these advanced teachings, one episode revealed to those who reach OT level III is the story of Xenu and his Galactic Confederacy. Xenu (sometimes Xemu) is introduced as an alien ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living. Scientologists believe the alien souls continue to do this today, causing a variety of physical ill-effects in modern-day humans. Hubbard called these clustered spirits "Body Thetans", and the advanced levels place considerable emphasis on isolating them and neutralizing their ill effects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

You do realize that there are people who are spiritual, but not religious?

 

[Azure]

If you believe in anything for which there is no evidence, you must have faith.

Absolutely. Which is why the whole idea of 'proof' that God exists is a fallacy.

This applies not only to established religions (Buddhism, Islam, etc.) but also to modern cults. If you believe that Jesus died on the cross, was resurrected and then went directly to heaven, and that he will return, how can you dismiss the claims of the innumerable madmen who have said they are that returned Jesus? More importantly, how will you know the returned Jesus when (if) he does return?

I really don't know. There have been man madmen through history who have tried to esteem themselves as God.

How do you know? Probably through faith.

 

[Jon.]

You do realize that there are people who are spiritual, but not religious?

What does that mean and how does it relate to the discussion of believing in things on faith, in spite of a lack of evidence?

 

[Azure]

What does that mean and how does it relate to the discussion of believing in things on faith, in spite of a lack of evidence?

One of the biggest knocks atheists have on people that believe in God, is their 'religious' views.

You CAN believe in God...and not be religious. I call such people theists.

They simply believe that there is something greater than themselves.

So this statement...

This applies not only to established religions (Buddhism, Islam, etc.) but also to modern cults. If you believe that Jesus died on the cross, was resurrected and then went directly to heaven, and that he will return, how can you dismiss the claims of the innumerable madmen who have said they are that returned Jesus? More importantly, how will you know the returned Jesus when (if) he does return?

Would not apply to them.

 

[KingMerv00]

People can believe whatever they want...that is their prerogative.

I choose to have faith that God exists.

And even though some people think I should be...I am NOT fundamental in my belief.

That doesn't answer my question though. On what basis do you reject an infinite number of alternative supernatural beliefs? What about faith-based contradictory statments?

An open mind is an enlightened mind.

This isn't always true.

Works both ways you know.

My mind is very open. I believe all sorts of counter-intuitive ideas. Evolution, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics...

I started this thread in hopes of hearing more arguments for the existance of God. It made me sad that the debate was so easily finished. I absolutely love when my beliefs are challenged...it helps me to get closer to the truth.

I am ready to believe in God. I just need a reason.

 

[Jon.]

One of the biggest knocks atheists have on people that believe in God, is their 'religious' views.

You CAN believe in God...and not be religious. I call such people theists.

Well, then you have a much narrower definition of theism than most people.

They simply believe that there is something greater than themselves.

So this statement...



Would not apply to them.

Except that they would still not be in a position to dismiss anybody else's claim without exposing their own claims (such as they may be) to the same dismissal.