|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Aug 23, 2019 18:45:18 GMT
What do you think is the worst argument to support God`s existence?
|
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Aug 23, 2019 18:47:41 GMT
Because I said so, because I was enlightened to see the signs, and I was spiritually awakened, and the Bible was written as the word of God and therefore totally legit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Aug 23, 2019 18:50:51 GMT
What do you think is the worst argument to support God`s existence? He answered my prayer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Catman on Aug 23, 2019 18:56:37 GMT
Science cannot explain X therefore God.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Aug 23, 2019 19:28:04 GMT
I don't think any of them are particularly good, but the Fine Tuned Argument in particular has been one of the more terrible ones I've heard. Anyone with even a basic understanding of biolgoical evolotuion/adaptation can debunk that one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2019 19:45:56 GMT
What do you think is the worst argument to support God`s existence? It's a bit of a hard question, because one can always construct a stupid argument for anything. "I support democratic government, because it begins with a D and I like that letter." So I'm going to assume you're asking for the worst argument that theists or apologists generally use. I've more than once heard variations of "I would prefer it if god did exist, so that means he must." It's not usually said so bluntly - it's usually worded more like "I wouldn't want to live in a universe where god didn't exist," or "well if there's no god then there could be people who do evil and get away with it," or "if there's no god then there couldn't be objective morality." In each case the arguer presents some negative but entirely possible consequence of there not being a god, then acts as though it means there must be a god. A couple of others would be the Kalam cosmological argument, which only really works if you bake some assumptions into it and pretend they absolutely are/have to be true (and not well even then). And Pascal's wager, which is just plain dumb. (Hint : if your argument can apply equally to the existence of Santa, you're onto a loser.) And then there's the first cause argument, which is nothing but a bit of special pleading. I could go on... I mean, I'm an atheist so I pretty much have to think that ALL the arguments to support god's existence are bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Aug 23, 2019 20:44:49 GMT
What do you think is the worst argument to support God`s existence? It's a bit of a hard question, because one can always construct a stupid argument for anything. "I support democratic government, because it begins with a D and I like that letter." So I'm going to assume you're asking for the worst argument that theists or apologists generally use. I've more than once heard variations of "I would prefer it if god did exist, so that means he must." It's not usually said so bluntly - it's usually worded more like "I wouldn't want to live in a universe where god didn't exist," or "well if there's no god then there could be people who do evil and get away with it," or "if there's no god then there couldn't be objective morality." In each case the arguer presents some negative but entirely possible consequence of there not being a god, then acts as though it means there must be a god. A couple of others would be the Kalam cosmological argument, which only really works if you bake some assumptions into it and pretend they absolutely are/have to be true (and not well even then). And Pascal's wager, which is just plain dumb. (Hint : if your argument can apply equally to the existence of Santa, you're onto a loser.) And then there's the first cause argument, which is nothing but a bit of special pleading. I could go on... I mean, I'm an atheist so I pretty much have to think that ALL the arguments to support god's existence are bad. Actually, I think the OP's question is better put to theists. An honest person knows that weak arguments are sometimes offered for their own side, and that honest person doesn't employ them. I'd be interested to know which are the arguments for God that a theist thinks are weak.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Aug 23, 2019 23:28:36 GMT
What do you think is the worst argument to support God`s existence? "The proof is all around you, just open your eyes" A close second is any argument that starts with "atheists believe...". You can almost guarantee the rest of that sentence is a strawman.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Aug 24, 2019 2:05:00 GMT
 - "I know God exists because I feel His love" 
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Aug 24, 2019 2:05:41 GMT
What do you think is the worst argument to support God`s existence?
This one is pretty lame, too. 
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 24, 2019 5:32:25 GMT
The need for a circular argument because there is no real alternative.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 24, 2019 7:34:58 GMT
"You can't prove God doesn't exist."
Not sure if it's the worst argument, but it's a pretty bad one IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Aug 24, 2019 23:46:14 GMT
The daughter of Hope and Fear, tries to explain to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.
-Ambrose Bierce
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Aug 26, 2019 14:43:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Aug 26, 2019 14:44:30 GMT
I don't think any of them are particularly good, but the Fine Tuned Argument in particular has been one of the more terrible ones I've heard. Anyone with even a basic understanding of biolgoical evolotuion/adaptation can debunk that one. How would you present the argument from fine-tuning? What do you understand it to be?
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Aug 26, 2019 17:35:33 GMT
I don't think any of them are particularly good, but the Fine Tuned Argument in particular has been one of the more terrible ones I've heard. Anyone with even a basic understanding of biolgoical evolotuion/adaptation can debunk that one. How would you present the argument from fine-tuning? What do you understand it to be? ""Look how the Earth is perfectly suited for humans! This has to be the work of an intelligent designer!". Anyone that vaguely understands evolution knows organisms slowly adapt to their environment over time. As Douglas Adams put it: "Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!”
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Aug 26, 2019 19:12:12 GMT
How would you present the argument from fine-tuning? What do you understand it to be? ""Look how the Earth is perfectly suited for humans! This has to be the work of an intelligent designer!". Anyone that vaguely understands evolution knows organisms slowly adapt to their environment over time. As Douglas Adams put it: "Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!” That's not my understanding of the argument from fine tuning...at least not entirely.
It isn't that the earth is perfectly suited for humans, it's that the universe is the way it is, at all.
Check out the video at this site.
This site provides more on that.
I'm not posting this because I am convinced by it, but because to me, anyways, it's a deeper question. Why does the universe look the way it does at all...with protons, electrons and neutrons, elements, stars and planets? Without a couple dozen constants being what they are to a very high level of precision, physicists conjecture that the universe would have none of these recognizable structures. It's not that there wouldn't be life on earth...there'd be no earth at all. So it's more than just the "earth seems nicely adapted for the life that evolved here" but that matter/energy exists at all.
Even though I'm not convinced by this, I do struggle to explain that conundrum. The best I can do is just assume there is an explanation of some sort that doesn't involve an intelligent creator.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2019 0:56:42 GMT
Why does the universe look the way it does at all...with protons, electrons and neutrons, elements, stars and planets? Without a couple dozen constants being what they are to a very high level of precision, physicists conjecture that the universe would have none of these recognizable structures. One can imagine a universe full of some sort of galactic-scale hyper-intelligent quark clouds, musing that "if the physical constants had been just a little different, why the universe wouldn't exist in any recognisable form at all! Everything would be condensed into weird collections of particles, clumping up in super-dense lumps of... let's call it ' matter', shall we? Why, quark clouds wouldn't be possible and life as we know it couldn't exist at all! There must be some kind of design to this..." In other words, marvelling that the universe turned out the way it did presumes that the way it turned out is somehow special and better than other ways, rather than just different. And hell, for that matter is there any reason at all to suppose that any of the physical constants even could have been any different?
|
|
|
|
Post by itsmagic on Aug 27, 2019 4:29:43 GMT
Why does the universe look the way it does at all...with protons, electrons and neutrons, elements, stars and planets? Without a couple dozen constants being what they are to a very high level of precision, physicists conjecture that the universe would have none of these recognizable structures. One can imagine a universe full of some sort of galactic-scale hyper-intelligent quark clouds, musing that "if the physical constants had been just a little different, why the universe wouldn't exist in any recognisable form at all! Everything would be condensed into weird collections of particles, clumping up in super-dense lumps of... let's call it ' matter', shall we? Why, quark clouds wouldn't be possible and life as we know it couldn't exist at all! There must be some kind of design to this..." In other words, marvelling that the universe turned out the way it did presumes that the way it turned out is somehow special and better than other ways, rather than just different. And hell, for that matter is there any reason at all to suppose that any of the physical constants even could have been any different?
just to give you scale. the number of protons in the Known universe is about 10^80. the fine tuning is on the order of 10^120 !!!
behold the hand of God
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 27, 2019 5:56:41 GMT
One can imagine a universe full of some sort of galactic-scale hyper-intelligent quark clouds, musing that "if the physical constants had been just a little different, why the universe wouldn't exist in any recognisable form at all! Everything would be condensed into weird collections of particles, clumping up in super-dense lumps of... let's call it ' matter', shall we? Why, quark clouds wouldn't be possible and life as we know it couldn't exist at all! There must be some kind of design to this..." In other words, marvelling that the universe turned out the way it did presumes that the way it turned out is somehow special and better than other ways, rather than just different. And hell, for that matter is there any reason at all to suppose that any of the physical constants even could have been any different?
just to give you scale. the number of protons in the Known universe is about 10^80. the fine tuning is on the order of 10^120 !!!
behold the hand of God
No matter the scale of the numbers, it is still the same old bog standard boring 'God of the Gaps' argument!
|
|
