What are the 2 best arguments for and against God? This is a question of subjective opinion, and I am curious to hear your thoughts whoever you are.
Arguments regarding God
Posts
Total:
210
-->
@Benjamin
Hmmm, I'd say the Kalam and the teleological argument on the belief side and the problem of evil and the argument from divine hiddeness on the non-belief side.
-->
@Benjamin
The fact that no argument for god doesn't have serious flaws.
-->
@Benjamin
What are the 2 best arguments for and against God? This is a question of subjective opinion, and I am curious to hear your thoughts whoever you are.
The best argument for God is the argument from intelligent processes (my own argument). NOT, the argument from intelligent design....design and processes invoke different things, the term "design" forces skeptics to focus on the imperfection of such a "design" whereas if you get people to look at how obvious it is that the processes of the universe correlate with intelligent productions then it is very easy to correlate those processes with thought and intelligence by what they produce as a whole. We're not looking for perfection so no need to invoke design but function. The universe is nothing short of a succession of processes that create desired outcomes, that is, outcomes that benefit and sustain that which produces effects as if they knew what needed to be achieved hence....intelligence. This goes without saying that an intelligent agency (God) is a perfect match for what we observe in the universe. And to believe that inanimate forces could somehow generate such processes as if they had minds is really quite absurd.
I don't think there is a good argument against God, unless of course one argues from just one source of religious dogma, then their rebuttals are limited to just one source of information. For example the argument from the problem of suffering is easily dealt with by Karma yet most people won't admit it because one, either they haven't thoroughly thought it through or they think it should be taught by the Bible and if it hasn't then it doesn't qualify lol. The problem of evil is also dealt with when a person fully understands duality and free will in such an environment as the one we are experiencing. The argument from why there are many paths of religious thought and observation is easily dealt with when one understands the full scope of creation and that many, many countless societies exist outside the physical world that a soul can experience and sojourn...which is also the beauty and variety of creation as a whole. I can go on an on but honestly, there is no decent argument that can support that God does not exist. That's my opinion of course, which is substantiated by my own arguments if they are taken as they logically follow in any discussion.
-->
@Benjamin
There is no scientific evidence indicating that God exists. We all know that. For example:
- God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.
- None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either.
- God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.
- The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone.
- The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God.
- When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers."
- Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God.
As Albert Einstein once said, “The word 'God' is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change this.”
-->
@Benjamin
The one's I don't remember unless I read up and refresh myself on the topic, which are not the one's I'm going to give.
For God
There's a feeling in this life, an underlying meaning, it can't end in nothing.
Seeing God's workings in existence.
Against God
I don't see him, and believe any time in the past I thought there was something to see, was an illusion.
Lot of contradictions, in various ways.
-->
@Sum1hugme
The fact that no argument for god doesn't have serious flaws.
And you know this how?
-->
@Benjamin
The two best arguments for God are "life & death" and "crime & justice".
The two best arguments against God are evolution and the pedophiliac priests.
-->
@Timid8967
I can see the appeal of believing because of "life & death" and "crime & justice".
Though I still think them illusions for believing in God.
But seems to me easy enough for a number of religious believers to accept evolution, and continue to believe.
Some see allegory in the Bible, or man's attempts to describe as best he 'can Gods world, rather than the literal word of God.
Regarding pedophiliac priests., the Bible is 'rife of people who did not follow Gods will, even if they were Kings, priests, his chosen people.
Though if you mean the The Problem of Evil argument, I suppose I'd understand that as case for some atheists.
. . .
@NoOneINParticular
I kind of wish Benjamin had said 'which God or denomination.
Though I assume he meant the Abrahamic idea and history of God.
-->
@FLRW
We all know that
We? Your pocket mouse? I'm suspicious that he knows more than you think.
By the numbers:
There is no scientific evidence indicating that God exists. We all know that. For example:
- God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth. Got to get around more.
- None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either. Ditto
- God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone. His communication is one-on-one. Unfortunately, the reply is often considered one-on-none, but that would be on you, wouldn't it?.
- The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone. Got to meet more people.
- The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God. Right, God did not write a single jot or tittle, but that does not discount it. Censorship is so easy, most fall into that trap. That's on you.
- When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers." Apparently, then, your knowledge of statistics [mine is pretty good] is lacking data, asks the wrong questions, asks too many questions, has a lousy moe and confidence level, asks loaded questions with an agenda, and does not have a sufficient sample size. All of that are necessary cautions in taking accurate, data-specific polls. Most polls do not consider these important factors.
- Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God. You're really expecting a response when you've already shut his mouth and gagged him?
-->
@Lemming
I can see the appeal of believing because of "life & death" and "crime & justice".Though I still think them illusions for believing in God.But seems to me easy enough for a number of religious believers to accept evolution, and continue to believe.Some see allegory in the Bible, or man's attempts to describe as best he 'can Gods world, rather than the literal word of God.Regarding pedophiliac priests., the Bible is 'rife of people who did not follow Gods will, even if they were Kings, priests, his chosen people.Though if you mean the The Problem of Evil argument, I suppose I'd understand that as case for some atheists.
I don't know why you think either life or death is an illusion.
BTW I don't believe in god, yet life is either a random accident of amazing impossibilities or it was designed. Death seems fundamentally opposed to the notion of life. It strikes me odd that given the enormous odds against life, that death somehow managed to survive.
I did not use the problem of evil argument because it is not a good argument against god. I used so called priests of god because if god's best people are like that - then obviously he does not exist.
it is true that some religious people follow evolution - yet that is a matter for them. For me - it my subjective position that evolution proves god is a myth.
-->
@Timid8967
Well sure, "life & death" organisms live, and organisms die,
It's how people of faith in a life hereafter, 'look at life and death, that is an illusion in my eyes.
Also are semantic thoughts for even how materialists perceive "life & death", but I don't care to discuss that, confusing, long winded, off topic.
Existence 'looks to have been around a 'long time, and appears to take place over a large amount of space.
It doesn't surprise me that improbable event's happen.
Though 'why or 'how is there anything, boggles me a bit.
Well, I feel doubt that even if God 'did exist, that he 'chooses all self/church appointed priests of God.
Seems to me,
"many are called, but few are chosen."
Matthew 22:14
King James Version
So regarding evolution, what is it 'about evolution, that you arrive at your subjective position that evolution proves god is a myth.
-->
@Benjamin
Which GOD?...What GOD?....Who's GOD?
For:
1. GOD principle sound.
2. Existence, evolution and purpose.
And against: (Assuming the Abrahamic vision).
1. Floaty about bloke that landed atop a mountain somewhere in the Arabian Peninsula....Not quite so sound.
2. Abraham....As high as a kite.... Use of mind affecting stimulants, was/is not regionally uncommon.
-->
@Benjamin
What are the 2 best arguments for and against God?
Can you be a little more clear. Are you asking arguments for the existence of god? Or are you asking for arguments about the nature and personality of god?
-->
@Timid8967
I did not use the problem of evil argument because it is not a good argument against god. I used so called priests of god because if god's best people are like that [paedophiles]- then obviously he does not exist.
So simply put then, that fact that there are hundreds if not thousands of paedophile priests, that is enough to convince you that there is no god?
it is true that some religious people follow evolution - yet that is a matter for them. For me - it my subjective position that evolution proves god is a myth.
So on which is your non belief of god based then? Is your disbelief in god based on or influenced by your personal feelings, tastes, or opinions , or by the fact that "many of god's good people" are paedophiles? Or both?
-->
@Stephen
I think you are trying to pick a fight. zeus only knows why.
the opening poster asked our subjective opinions.
What are the 2 best arguments for and against God? This is a question of subjective opinion, and I am curious to hear your thoughts whoever you are.https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6115/post-links/265096
I gave two of what I thought were subjective reasons for god and then two which I subjectively thought proved him not.
You pick up on the fact that I say evil is not a good reason but the existence of pedophile priests subjectively are a good reason to disprove god. ?????
This somehow brought about your "questioning me".
I also provided evolution as a good reason as well.
I never suggested that it was an either / or position. I never suggested or hinted it was a one is better than the other position. I merely produced two subjective reasons why god does not exist. I think there are many other reasons as well.
-->
@Lemming
So regarding evolution, what is it 'about evolution, that you arrive at your subjective position that evolution proves god is a myth.
Because if god used evolution then god is cruel. evolution is the survival of the fittest or the strongest. It is about pursuing life - no matter what - to the detriment of everything else.
evolution is cruel by nature. yes, it has beautiful aspects. yet it inevitably leads to death. the gods that are said to exist - are admittedly varied - and some do belong in the ordinary chain of life philosophies - but the big three religions use god as the ultimate source of life.
evolution may not disprove the roman gods or the greek gods or the gods of the indians or the gods of the more ancient peoples - but it certainly disproves the jewish, muslim and christian god. who all are ultimately the same.
the big three religions - and thier god is the source of life and good and loving life - evolution seeks life - but ends in death, - for life to succeed something needs to keep dying. change and mutation and adaption require death - for the strongest to survive - means the weak has to die.
evolution is true - and eats at the heart of gods of love. and of life. for a god of life to use evolution is inconsistent.
-->
@Timid8967
Evolution is the inevitable development of matter, presumably to it's conclusion.
Species and their survival is only a part thereof.
I regard GOD as the conclusion and therefore a possible beginning/re-initiation.....Though I do not believe this.
-->
@Timid8967
Interesting thoughts regarding evolution, I can't say I recall hearing bantered around much.
More often I read people arguing against young Earth creationism, when they bring up evolution and religion.
As though a person can't believe in the scientific existence of evolution and God, at the same time.
Though I mention the 'fact of evolution, rather than the moral question, you raise.
-->
@Timid8967
I never suggested or hinted it was a one is better than the other position. I merely produced two subjective reasons why god does not exist. I think there are many other reasons as well.
And I have simply highlighted "pedophiles and evolution" as being YOUR reasons that you believe their is no god. ("among other things") is all I am asking?
So are you saying that because of those two highlighted above reasons (and others) proves to you there is no god in your eyes? That is a yes or no question.
-->
@Stephen
Yes.
-->
@Timid8967
I never suggested or hinted it was a one is better than the other position. I merely produced two subjective reasons why god does not exist. I think there are many other reasons as well.And I have simply highlighted "pedophiles and evolution" as being YOUR reasons that you believe their is no god. ("among other things") is all I am asking?So are you saying that because of those two highlighted above reasons (and others) proves to you there is no god in your eyes? That is a yes or no question.Yes.
I see and it is these and (other things) are how you go about "Proving god is a lie"? Yet I see not a single mention of "evolution or paedophiles priests"in your opening post in your own thread titled Proving god is a lie https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6079-proving-god-is-a-lieNot a single mention !?
In fact, you do not mention "evolution or paedophiles priests" throughout the whole of your thread? NOT ONCE!!!
Why is that?
What you do say instead is, that it is the "we" & the "us" atheist and non theists, that should take the burden of proof for the non existence of god onto our shoulders. So I am simply wondering why it is that YOU in your own thread, and as part a YOUR OWN "provocativeness" and YOU taking the "bull by the horns"somehow forgot to mention "evolution or paedophiles priests" as part of the reasons that you believe and prove that "god is a myth and doesn't exist"?
-->
@Benjamin
What are the 2 best arguments for and against God? This is a question of subjective opinion, and I am curious to hear your thoughts whoever you are.
I don't feel you an argue gods exist or not but I like to discuss peoples views and relationships with gods. Religious and spiritual experiences are personal not scientific. Discussing religion or gods or spirituality is just a social exercise. I would not argue for the God of Abraham as He seems douchey based on the text.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
A study published in the journal Neuropsychologia has shown that religious fundamentalism is, in part, the result of a functional impairment in a brain region known as the prefrontal cortex. The findings suggest that damage to particular areas of the prefrontal cortex indirectly promotes religious fundamentalism by diminishing cognitive flexibility and openness—a psychology term that describes a personality trait which involves dimensions like curiosity, creativity, and open-mindedness.
-->
@FLRW
Already posted a response to this one before. Now can you link to what I asked for?
-->
@Tarik
Inductively
-->
@Sum1hugme
Can you elaborate on that rather than being so vague?
-->
@Stephen
What part of I am going to put these words aside and start again, don't you understand?
You seem bent on analyzing every one of my words. I have attempted to explain. You just ignore my explanations so why would I care to provide anymore.
You are obviously so "deep" in your own way that nothing I add can persuade you one way or the other. So stop.
-->
@Timid8967
I never suggested or hinted it was a one is better than the other position. I merely produced two subjective reasons why god does not exist. I think there are many other reasons as well.And I have simply highlighted "pedophiles and evolution" as being YOUR reasons that you believe their is no god. ("among other things") is all I am asking?So are you saying that because of those two highlighted above reasons (and others) proves to you there is no god in your eyes? That is a yes or no question.Yes.I see and it is these and (other things) are how you go about "Proving god is a lie"? Yet I see not a single mention of "evolution or paedophiles priests"in your opening post in your own thread titled Proving god is a lie https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6079-proving-god-is-a-lieNot a single mention !?In fact, you do not mention "evolution or paedophiles priests" throughout the whole of your thread? NOT ONCE!!!Why is that?What you do say instead is, that it is the "we" & the "us" atheist and non theists, that should take the burden of proof for the non existence of god onto our shoulders. So I am simply wondering why it is that YOU in your own thread, and as part a YOUR OWN "proactiveness" and YOU taking the "bull by the horns"somehow forgot to mention "evolution or paedophiles priests" as part of the reasons that you believe and prove that "god is a myth and doesn't exist"?What part of I am going to put these words aside and start again, don't you understand?
Well you see, I have pointed out yet another inconsistency of yours that simply makes no sense. I want you to clear it up for us as your "new self".
And why you should be annoyed about it is something that I find rather puzzling? Are you now saying then that your " new self" is in disagreement with your "old self"?
Is your "new self" not interested in proving god is a lie any longer. And is your "new self" saying that the burden of proof is no longer on the shoulders of the atheist and the non theist to prove that god does not exists?
You must understand that my questions spring from what you say and have said, and not what I have said.
-->
@Stephen
Stop talking in circles - - your questions spring from a paranoia that I am someone else. You are delusional. But that is fine. And who said I was annoyed?
You really are just amusing the rest of us with your "off track" nonsense.
And whatever I say or think or change my mind is my business - not yours. Unlike you, I don't know it all. I am prepared to learn and change and adapt as new information comes to hand. You on the other hand - could never possibly change or learn anything new - you are unteachable - another word for a "know it all".
why don't you start answering the questions of the string topic - not trying to turn me upside in a tactic to find goblins under a mushroom.
The argument is about god - not about whether I am a fraud or not.
Until you return to the topic at hand in respect to what is being asked - I will refuse to engage with you. Only when you engage with a topic will I answer or respond to you.
I will not continue down your little rabbit holes to give air to your delusions.
If you ask questions that are relevant then we will have a happy relationship, otherwise I AM NOT INTERESTED.