|
Post by 🌵 on Apr 22, 2017 14:08:07 GMT
Have you ever encountered an argument for god that has made you pause any wonder if such a being might exist?
Similarly, believers, what is the most persuasive against god? Has any argument made you doubt your beliefs?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 22, 2017 14:15:26 GMT
Have you ever encountered an argument for god that has made you pause any wonder if such a being might exist? Similarly, believers, what is the most persuasive against god? Has any argument made you doubt your beliefs? In my opinion as a neutral observer... The most persuasive argument FOR God is the fact that something came from nothing. Since that doesn't seem like a natural process, and cannot be explained scientifically, a supernatural explanation doesn't seem unreasonable. The most persuasive argument AGAINST God is the lack of evidence for his existence. If God really existed and wanted us to know about him, why does he not simply reveal himself?
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 22, 2017 14:58:38 GMT
Well I am a naturalistic pantheist who does not believe in a personal god. My conception of god is unique. The only argument that could convert to atheism is the scientific argument against determinism as my belief in a god hinges on that.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 22, 2017 15:01:15 GMT
I was under the impression stuff like this had to be lab tested & Dawkins approved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2017 15:19:27 GMT
Have you ever encountered an argument for god that has made you pause any wonder if such a being might exist? No.
|
|
|
Post by Catman on Apr 22, 2017 15:42:24 GMT
Nothing comes to mind.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Apr 22, 2017 16:30:40 GMT
Not really. I can understand why a lot of other people still believe in God, but I've personally never found any argument in favor of his existence to be all that convincing.
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Apr 23, 2017 13:51:21 GMT
The most persuasive argument FOR God is the fact that something came from nothing. Since that doesn't seem like a natural process, and cannot be explained scientifically, a supernatural explanation doesn't seem unreasonable. I've never been moved by that argument. First, I don't see any justification for the premise that something came from nothing - it's possible that something has always existed. Second, I think the appropriate answer to "why did something come from nothing?" is simply: "why not?" I just don't see what the problem is here. Why shouldn't something have come from nothing?
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Apr 23, 2017 13:52:24 GMT
Well I am a naturalistic pantheist who does not believe in a personal god. My conception of god is unique. The only argument that could convert to atheism is the scientific argument against determinism as my belief in a god hinges on that. Could you explain this in a bit more detail? How is your belief in god connected to determinism?
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Apr 23, 2017 13:53:06 GMT
I was under the impression stuff like this had to be lab tested & Dawkins approved. I'm not sure what your point is here, but I've never really cared for Dawkins's work on philosophy of religion.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 23, 2017 13:54:20 GMT
I was under the impression stuff like this had to be lab tested & Dawkins approved. I'm not sure what your point is here, but I've never really cared for Dawkins's work on philosophy of religion. My point is that nothing but the Almighty smacking them in the face would do and even then they would be skeptical. Probably think it was just a run of the mill Independence Day like alien which is far more realistic.
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Apr 23, 2017 13:58:43 GMT
I'm not sure what your point is here, but I've never really cared for Dawkins's work on philosophy of religion. My point is that nothing but the Almighty smacking them in the face would do and even then they would be skeptical. Would do for what? Would do for converting them to theism? Well, obviously I'm not asking nonbelievers for arguments that they find persuasive enough to convert them to theism. If they felt that there were any such arguments, they would already be theists. I'm only asking for arguments that have given them pause, that have challenged their non-belief. To say that no nonbeliever has ever felt challenged by an argument for theism is obviously absurd.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 23, 2017 14:15:19 GMT
I'm not sure what your point is here, but I've never really cared for Dawkins's work on philosophy of religion. His "work" on philosophy of religion is nothing more, and was never supposed to be anything more, than a high level introduction to the basics for an educated lay audience that was not yet familiar with the topic. And yet, the state of theological apologetics is so wretched that even on such an introductory level, I don't think anyone can successfully refute his arguments.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 23, 2017 14:21:57 GMT
My point is that nothing but the Almighty smacking them in the face would do and even then they would be skeptical. Would do for what? Would do for converting them to theism? Well, obviously I'm not asking nonbelievers for arguments that they find persuasive enough to convert them to theism. If they felt that there were any such arguments, they would already be theists. I'm only asking for arguments that have given them pause, that have challenged their non-belief. To say that no nonbeliever has ever felt challenged by an argument for theism is obviously absurd. "Would do" is the phrase. So what I'm saying is the most persuasive argument for God would be him wasting his time to manifest for them.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 23, 2017 14:24:52 GMT
I'm not sure what your point is here, but I've never really cared for Dawkins's work on philosophy of religion. His "work" on philosophy of religion is nothing more, and was never supposed to be anything more, than a high level introduction to the basics for an educated lay audience that was not yet familiar with the topic. And yet, the state of theological apologetics is so wretched that even on such an introductory level, I don't think anyone can successfully refute his arguments. Hsis arguments are ridiculously easy to refute and is done so often. He is in no way a religious scholar and probably wasn't the greatest scientist out there. His philosophy is simply built on preaching to the choir so that they can finally have the ability to at least pretend to know what they are talking about. You give them a spaghetti monster and squeal in delight as ifg that was a slam dunk when really it just convinced them of what they were already convinced about.
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Apr 23, 2017 14:26:28 GMT
I'm not sure what your point is here, but I've never really cared for Dawkins's work on philosophy of religion. His "work" on philosophy of religion is nothing more, and was never supposed to be anything more, than a high level introduction to the basics for an educated lay audience that was not yet familiar with the topic. And yet, the state of theological apologetics is so wretched that even on such an introductory level, I don't think anyone can successfully refute his arguments. Why do you use scarequotes there? Whatever it was supposed to be, I wasn't particularly keen on it (I'm referring to The God Delusion). I recall thinking it was relatively easy to find flaws in his arguments, but it was a while ago that I read it, so I can't give any specifics.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 23, 2017 14:30:02 GMT
I suppose "Well you don't know for certain!" would be the least terrible argument, but that one has already been refuted countless times anyways, so even that one falls rather flat.
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Apr 23, 2017 14:31:53 GMT
I suppose "Well you don't know for certain!" would be the least terrible argument, but that one has already been refuted countless times anyways, so even that one falls rather flat. I'm not sure I understand you. How exactly is this argument supposed to work? Is it "you don't know for certain that there is no god, therefore there is a god"? That's obviously a terrible argument, surely there are arguments for god better than that.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 23, 2017 14:32:54 GMT
His "work" on philosophy of religion is nothing more, and was never supposed to be anything more, than a high level introduction to the basics for an educated lay audience that was not yet familiar with the topic. And yet, the state of theological apologetics is so wretched that even on such an introductory level, I don't think anyone can successfully refute his arguments. Hsis arguments are ridiculously easy to refute and is done so often. He is in no way a religious scholar and probably wasn't the greatest scientist out there. His philosophy is simply built on preaching to the choir so that they can finally have the ability to at least pretend to know what they are talking about. You give them a spaghetti monster and squeal in delight as ifg that was a slam dunk when really it just convinced them of what they were already convinced about. "You give them a spaghetti monster and squeal in delight as ifg that was a slam dunk"
Not really, I've yet to even hear anyone bring up the spaghetti monster in recent years.
"Hsis arguments are ridiculously easy to refute and is done so often."
Examples?
"He is in no way a religious scholar"
I don't think he ever claimed to be a religious scholar.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 23, 2017 14:33:38 GMT
I suppose "Well you don't know for certain!" would be the least terrible argument, but that one has already been refuted countless times anyways, so even that one falls rather flat. I'm not sure I understand you. How exactly is this argument supposed to work? Is it "you don't know for certain that there is no god, therefore there is a god"? That's obviously a terrible argument, surely there are arguments for god better than that. I'm not quite sure why you are trying to force the point. It seems the question was asked and answered numerous times with a big fat No. That would be the logical response to the question except for concrete physical proof as described by me.
|
|