I think I've heard every theist argument.

[Jon.]

You don't know either.

I choose to believe it was God, especially given the perfect circumstances of our planet.

"Choose" to believe? I think there's a whole thread about that. "Perfect" circumstances - yes, for us, but that's not surprising, considered we evolved here. Have you ever read Douglas Adams' tale of the puddle?

Odds are very good? Remote, to say the least.

Given one planet, yes, very remote. Given the number of planets in the universe, not remote at all. In fact, almost unavoidable.

Well he could do like Xenu did and stack us into volcano's and blow up up with hydrogen bombs.

Why wasteful? I never said there were no other planets with lifeforms.

??? I don't see your point here.

I never balked at it. Just seems stupid to suddenly attribute gender to the essence of God. Again, WOULD a supernatural being have a gender?

I'm not attributing gender, but you said it was roughly along the lines of the Christian God. The Christian God is always described as male. I wonder why you are reluctant to include this part. Why is it "stupid" to attribute gender to God?

If God would have left 'scientific' evidence...where would faith go?

If God had left scientific evidence, there would be no need for faith. Every rational person would believe in God. How would this be a bad thing?

 

[Lonewulf]

If God had left scientific evidence, there would be no need for faith. Every rational person would believe in God. How would this be a bad thing?

Humans say faith is a good thing, and preferable to evidence in God's existance.

Therefore, faith is good.

Therefore, God must desire faith.

Therefore, God would have left no scientific evidence.

Ahhh, yes, it makes so much sense. No, actually, it doesn't.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

Humans say faith is a good thing, and preferable to evidence in God's existance.

Therefore, faith is good.

Therefore, God must desire faith.

Therefore, God would have left no scientific evidence.

Ahhh, yes, it makes so much sense. No, actually, it doesn't.

Nominated.

 

[blobru]

EDIT: I have to say, I agree with your initial comment. There is no point in trying to prove/disprove God.

Except exercise.

It's interesting that you also mention free will.

A theist might argue thus:

This First Cause / God thing seems very hard to imagine, but---
Our individual experience of free will is direct and very hard to deny.
For there to be such a thing as free will, the will has to transcend cause-and-effect.
If the will enacts without prior cause, it becomes a first cause.
So we have direct experience of a transcendent first cause, our own free will.
For the universe to exist, it must cause itself; i.e., have a transcendent first cause.
Our experience of free will is evidence of transcendent first cause.
Free will is a property of conscious beings, so this transcendent first cause which created the universe must also be the property of a conscious being.
Therefore the universe was created by a conscious Being (or beings): God (or gods).

This is a First Cause argument, but from analogy with our direct experience of free will: our intuition of a transcendent first cause.
Sort of First Cause meets existentialism.
Not exactly the new type OP was asking for, but a fresh coat of paint at least...

 

[Azure]

In short, you believe in something without any adequate reason for doing so. Okay.

Is there anything else that can be believed in without any adequate reason for doing so?

If you want to call it 'without reason' go ahead.

Define "Free Will"? From my perception, we are capable of making choices, there is no doubt about that. But I am a determinist, in that I think of the universe in terms of cause and effect, instead of complete randomness.

Oh, so we're alike there.

I also don't think everything is 'random'...hence my belief in a deity.

As for Free Will? I look at it this way. Do I have a choice right now whether or not I should respond to you?

If I do...I have free will. I could very well ignore your post too.

Do I believe in fate? Kinda hard to say...I think God knows what choices we will make, but he doesn't influence our being to make certain choices.

Where do thoughts or decisions come from? Is it something in the body, or without? In this universe or without?

I firmly believe YOU make your 'own' thoughts and decisions.

So no, I don't think the universe, OR God controls you in such a manner.

 

[Azure]

"Choose" to believe? I think there's a whole thread about that. "Perfect" circumstances - yes, for us, but that's not surprising, considered we evolved here. Have you ever read Douglas Adams' tale of the puddle?

No. I'll have to find time for that.

Given one planet, yes, very remote. Given the number of planets in the universe, not remote at all. In fact, almost unavoidable.

Given the number of planets...I think an educated estimate is somewhere around 10 planets having a chance of sustaining life. According to Eskeptic...and the point they make about the movie 'A privileged planet.'

??? I don't see your point here.

Unless I misunderstood...you said it is 'wasteful' for God to put us on one planet...and leave the rest of the universe without life.

I made a stupid comment about Scientology...and asked why it was wasteful if other planets with a certain kind of lifeforms might also exist.

I'm not attributing gender, but you said it was roughly along the lines of the Christian God. The Christian God is always described as male. I wonder why you are reluctant to include this part. Why is it "stupid" to attribute gender to God?

If you attribute gender to a God...to me it has human characteristics. And suddenly, it is not so much a God anymore.

God, as a humanized figure, usually taking the form of a man, has often appeared as a character in various works of fiction such as movies, books, and television shows. Though depictions vary, God is usually portrayed as wise, old sage, with a patient and calm personality. In cartoons God is usually depicted as a caricature of Michelangelo's classic painting.

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

In popular culture of course....perhaps to make God more personal? I still can't figure out how a supernatural being could be either a male or a female.

If God had left scientific evidence, there would be no need for faith. Every rational person would believe in God. How would this be a bad thing?

Well then we'd all agree...and how boring would that be?

 

[Lonewulf]

If you want to call it 'without reason' go ahead.

Okay. It's without reason, then, and has no reason to be taken seriously. Done.

Oh, so we're alike there.

I also don't think everything is 'random'...hence my belief in a deity.

There does not have to be a deity for non-randomness.

As for Free Will? I look at it this way. Do I have a choice right now whether or not I should respond to you?

If I do...I have free will. I could very well ignore your post too.

Where did the decision come from? Specifically, what process made that decision?

Do I believe in fate? Kinda hard to say...I think God knows what choices we will make, but he doesn't influence our being to make certain choices.

Since any argument here will be under presumption of an unproven God, there is no reason for me to debate it.

I firmly believe YOU make your 'own' thoughts and decisions.

Thoughts and decisions based on what? Particularly, thoughts and decisions that come from where?

So no, I don't think the universe, OR God controls you in such a manner.

But what does control your mind? If your mind is based on your brain, it is based on a physical construct. A construct that is filled with limitations, and is powered by an electrochemical process. There are some things you can control, and some you can't. You cannot choose to be manic-depressive, you cannot choose to be bipolar, you cannot choose to have chronic depression, and you cannot choose certain emotional states of being.

"Choices", as they occur, do not have a 50/50 chance everytime they're made; there's always a finite number of choices.

 

[Lonewulf]

Well then we'd all agree...and how boring would that be?

If you think it's boring to have evidence of a deity, then you're bored easily. Perhaps a lack of imagination.

 

[PixyMisa]

Given the number of planets...I think an educated estimate is somewhere around 10 planets having a chance of sustaining life. According to Eskeptic...and the point they make about the movie 'A privileged planet.'

Ten?! Where the heck did that number come from?

There are on the order of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the observable universe. Planets seem to be pretty common. Our solar system alone has somewhere between 8 and, oh, 20, discovered so far. (Including 2005FY₉, Easterbunny.)

Let's assume that 90% of stars don't have planetary systems; that the average planetary system has 10 planets; and that 90% of those are automatically unable to sustain life simply due to temperature (too hot - organic molecules decompose; too cold - necessary chemical reactions don't work).

That leaves us with 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets with the right general conditions. What happened to the other 999,999,999,999,999,999,990?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

KingMerv, Do you frequently read apologist books old or new? Do you actively attempt to go out and seek arguments in support of the existence of a God? Or do you simply sit here and wait for dull theists to come and peddle their fallacious arguments so you can refute them and then claim you've "head every theistic argument"?

 

[KingMerv00]

KingMerv, Do you frequently read apologist books old or new? Do you actively attempt to go out and seek arguments in support of the existence of a God? Or do you simply sit here and wait for dull theists to come and peddle their fallacious arguments so you can refute them and then claim you've "head every theistic argument"?

I do try to read apologists but I find it difficult. I start to read and they bring up the same dozen or so debunked arguments. It gets tiresome.

I started this thread in hopes of finding more. Do you know any? I'd be very happy hear of new ones.

No luck so far. Azure is arguing a combination of fideism and fine tuning.

 

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

And your "nothing" is better than your neighbor's "nothing" how?

Did I say it was better?

You didn't but it is implied. You believe in YOUR "nothing" and not your neighbor's "nothing". That means you must find the qualities of your "nothing" to be better than his "nothing".

 

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00 [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]
You didn't but it is implied. You believe in YOUR "nothing" and not your neighbor's "nothing". That means you must find the qualities of your "nothing" to be better than his "nothing".

Maybe he flipped a coin? Would God be heads or tails?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I do try to read apologists but I find it difficult. I start to read and they bring up the same dozen or so debunked arguments. It gets tiresome.

I started this thread in hopes of finding more. Do you know any? I'd be very happy hear of new ones.

No luck so far. Azure is arguing a combination of fideism and fine tuning.

I can post a thread with some more novel arguments if you want.

 

[KingMerv00]

I can post a thread with some more novel arguments if you want.

Yes. That would be very helpful.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yes. That would be very helpful.

I posted a thread up for you in this section. Tell me if you've heard those arguments before.

 

[Beerina]

Pascal's Wager: There are two possible outcomes: There either is a god, or there isn't. If you believe in god and it turns out that there isn't, you've lost nothing more than the atheist. If you're an atheist and there really is a god, you have lost considerably. Therefore it is a 'safer bet' to simply believe in god.

Technically, Pascal's Wager isn't a proof of God. It's a heuristic designed to, in theory, optimize your existence over the long run. It actually accepts that God might very well not exist.

 

[Beerina]

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 is definitely a word game. Here is one refutation.

Well, per your examples, that definition if flawed in that the greatest thing that exists, even if it is a garden slug, becomes "god" since nothing greater exists.

The philosophical arguments often rotate around a slightly different definition though, "that beyond which nothing greater is possible."

And that definition, too, fails. Thanks to transfinite mathematics, we know there is no such thing as a greatest infinity -- there are infinitely large sets that are infinitely larger than other infinitely large sets (no 1 to 1 mapping both ways exists.)

So if a god is just an infinitely large bag of abilities, it's possible that there are not just other gods more powerful (their bags are larger) but there are infinitely more powerful gods who are to them what they are to a mortal. And thos gods could have still larger gods. And thanks to transfinite mathematics, we know this chain can never stop since there is no largest set that such that no infinitely larger set exists.

So the entire concept of God that modern monotheisms tout is flawed logically. But that god was always just the result of "my god is tougher than your god" game of one-upsmanship over the millenia.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Personally, I have never felt that a concept of god can be proven/disproven (never much cared to try either), but have done a little bit of reading on the whole "hard-wired" bit.

It would be easy to prove god exists if there was evidence, sort of like proving that canada exists is not that hard.

 

[Darth Rotor]

What about "Arguement from moral touchstone," or whatever it is called: The assertion that if god doesn't exist, we'd all become murderous barbarians.

Hobbes, or R. E. Howard, styled barbarians?

"In [the state of nature] there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequentially no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities which may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving and removing things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; No account of Time; No Arts; No Letters; No Society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short" (Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan )

DR