Arguments regarding God

Why do you value yours?

I think I have been largely fortunate, although there have been a few ups and downs it has been mostly ups, so life for the most part has been pretty agreeable.

Procreational sex is what it is.

Recreational sex is the alternative.

Both stem from the same basic instinct.

Which is not something that we cannot control.

We can attempt to suppress it.

But it will out eventually.

As the Priest said to the Altar Boy.

What’s agreeable about it?

The list is legion for it is many.

Well in that case what’s ONE agreeable thing about it?

You ask a lot of questions that seem to be without any purpose.

The purpose behind these questions is to put emphasis on my belief that none of these things matter without God validating it (E.g. your life) I thought it would be more beneficial for you to say it then me but you keep diverging to something else.

Okay, but I still don’t see the point.

I’m not sure you can justify a value to it

One thing about me is I’m very uncomfortable with not having closure so maybe for most people they can be satisfied without digging deep within themselves to ask these philosophical questions and having no answers at all but I’m not wired like that, I need everything to make sense in order to find purpose in it, no pun intended.

That doesn’t mean I can’t perceive beauty, be in awe of existence and take pleasure in it, or alternatively see tragedy and feel compassion for those who suffer.

Actually it does from a logical standpoint because the reasons as to why remain.

-> @Tarik

One thing about me is I’m very uncomfortable with not having closure so maybe for most people they can be satisfied without digging deep within themselves to ask these philosophical questions and having no answers at all but I’m not wired like that, I need everything to make sense in order to find purpose in it, no pun intended.

I think there is a basic difference between us. From what you say you seek a meaning to life and it would seem you have found the answer in God and if this gives you fulfilment that is fine.

 

My perspective is different. I see no meaning in life, for me life is short and pointless and I have no need for God. That doesn’t mean I can’t perceive beauty, be in awe of existence and take pleasure in it, or alternatively see tragedy and feel compassion for those who suffer.

Pleasure in existence and beauty is driven by emotion not logic.

Is it truly better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all?

Again, I don’t really see the purpose of the question.

Death doesn’t bother me, it is inevitable and when it comes I won’t be there, but until then I will try to enjoy life.

It made me think of that quote because I took it to mean that even though you’ve loved and will lose life it’s better than the alternative of not loving life.

For it to be better to have loved and lost you would need be aware of having loved and lost, in death there is no such awareness.

--> @Shila

It would appear Tarik  is wired to use an opiate.

• The teleological argument, based on a fine-tuned universe
  
• Perhaps something like this, or versions of the simulation hypothesis -- just broadly based on the idea of a “superintelligence”
  

• The notion of God is prima facie absurd (or invokes tons of ad hoc assumptions), and naturalism can explain most observable phenomena 
  
• Generally, God tends to be defined as a mind that created the universe/space-time, but minds are a process that -- to our knowledge -- only exist within space-time/seem to require time to even be coherent 
  
• The universe probably doesn’t have an external/original “cause” of existence, insofar as (1) an efficient cause requires time, and it’s unclear whether simultaneous causation is even possible and (2) philosophers and theoretical physicists seem to converge on a B-theory of time, under which the universe probably doesn’t have a meaningful “origin”
  

--> @Benjamin

I’d say the strongest arguments for God are:

• The teleological argument, based on a fine-tuned universe
  
• Perhaps something like this, or versions of the simulation hypothesis -- just broadly based on the idea of a “superintelligence”
  

I also think there are good arguments for believing that God exists, regardless of the truth-value of God’s existence (e.g. that God’s existence is an irresolvable question, and faith makes life happier/more meaningful in some cases, so it might be good to have faith). And some arguments that I find pretty uncompelling of this nature, like Pascal’s wager, might still be compelling for some people. 

Maybe there’s some strength to arguments from religious experience, though I personally am pretty uncompelled by them. I find most cosmological and ontological arguments plain silly -- I’d rate them as two of the weakest categories of arguments for God’s existence in the popular/academic discourse. For instance, I’m not even remotely compelled by the kalam cosmological argument.

I’d say the strongest arguments against God are (I can’t quite pick two, so I’m going with three):

• The notion of God is prima facie absurd (or invokes tons of ad hoc assumptions), and naturalism can explain most observable phenomena 
  
• Generally, God tends to be defined as a mind that created the universe/space-time, but minds are a process that -- to our knowledge -- only exist within space-time/seem to require time to even be coherent 
  
• The universe probably doesn’t have an external/original “cause” of existence, insofar as (1) an efficient cause requires time, and it’s unclear whether simultaneous causation is even possible and (2) philosophers and theoretical physicists seem to converge on a B-theory of time, under which the universe probably doesn’t have a meaningful “origin”
  

And I think there’s reasonably compelling arguments against particular definitions of God. For instance, I think -- though this is pretty extensively debated in academic philosophy -- the problem of suffering makes it unlikely that God is simultaneously all-knowing, all-powerful, and benevolent. But that’s not really evidence against some version of God existing. 

You have built a compelling case for both for and against God. So you would hardly be blamed for picking either side.

But your remain undecided so if either position is proven right you have nothing to gain having remained on the fence.

What is even more surprising is you are from India a country which has a god for every occasion. For you  to walk away unconvinced of your own heritage smacks of betrayal.

--> @Shila

You have built a compelling case for both for and against God. So you would hardly be blamed for picking either side.

But your remain undecided so if either position is proven right you have nothing to gain having remained on the fence.

The post asked for our thoughts on the best arguments on both sides. So I didn’t think my specific opinion was relevant.

For what it’s worth, I’m a strong atheist (in that I think God probably doesn’t exist). I still have respect for people who choose to have faith in God, though, and I’m unclear about whether religion is net positive for society (it seems quite plausible to me that it is). 

What is even more surprising is you are from India a country which has a god for every occasion. For you  to walk away unconvinced of your own heritage smacks of betrayal.

I don’t think disagreeing with your heritage constitutes betrayal. 

I have no idea what your last sentence means. 

Polytheist-Witch: The Indians still mostly view God as one being with many faces. They believe God can manifest into different aspects so that they can address certain issues. They don't necessarily believe that there are thousands of gods it's thousands of faces for one God.

For an Indian to believe that god probably doesn’t exist is no different than the British who did not believe the Indian gods exists and invaded India. They were probably met by Indians Ike you who agreed with the British and let them in.

--> @Shila

For an Indian to believe that god probably doesn’t exist is no different than the British who did not believe the Indian gods exists and invaded India. They were probably met by Indians Ike you who agreed with the British and let them in.

This is just a silly opinion. The problem with British colonialism was the colonialism, not the rejection of some particular god’s existence. 

Disagreeing with the religion you’re born into is normal and acceptable.