Let's have some fun. Play god's advocate. I thought this would be easier. Arguing for god is not easy, especially if you don't use the holy books. My best shot.

(A) I just feel god, in my heart.

I went like this for years until I admitted to myself that I was talking to myself. I was probably a result of childhood indoctrination. It' a weak argument.

(B) There has to be eternal "justice"; what is the point of being a good person. Why not just be a thief and do what ever you want to make yourself happy?

This is the best argument for god, I think. What "goes around-comes around" here on earth, but not always. Granted, it is just wishful thinking that fairness is somehow owed to us.

(C) Something had to create all this

I went with this for a while. Then I figured out that it is "small thinking" and an imposition of our limited life experience.

That's all I got. Take away the divinity of the holy books and its a hard sell. What is your best argument for the existence of god?

 

 

 

 

Views: 2145

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Since you have no clue about evidence for a multiverse, why did you bring it up ?

Because you brought it up, comparing it to a fairy tale. I still give you credit for that. There's very little evidence for a multiverse, except that it could explain creation. I prefer that scientific approach, because physicists are studying the possibility, and science has really, really good track record when it comes to eventually finding evidence for one theory or another. None of us would even be communicating like this if science and engineering hadn't happened.

Meanwhile, if you believe (as you said in another post) that all one needs is extrapolation to make a theory believable, check this out. There's a theory (called the fecund universe) that intelligent life from previous universes actually had some control over how their universe would end, and were able to intentionally set in motion the next Big Bang in such a way that the next universe created would be finely tuned for life. When did it start? Who knows, maybe a billion big bangs ago, when one of the universes just happened by chance to be finely tuned. Just extrapolate that, right? Sure, good luck. And we'll probably never know, because we probably can't survive more than one big bang cycle. WE DON'T KNOW! And so what if God did it? Science can't test that or know it for sure, either.

But more importantly, we don't claim to know, as theists do. We guess, we get an idea, we test it, we observe the result, we learn from it, and then we can even predict (better than before) how future tests will result. But theists can't even get past stage one, the idea stage. Meanwhile, whether science really get its theory right the first time or not, the point is that science gets it right eventually, in subsequent cycles of think, test, observe, learn, predict... and so on. Science just not just stop thinking and say "Never mind, God did it, no science to see here, move along...".

THAT is the difference between fairy tale, and science.

Because you brought it up, comparing it to a fairy tale.

Yes, but you brought it up as alternative for God.

There's very little evidence for a multiverse, except that it could explain creation.

Fairy tales could do it as well. Where is the difference ?

I prefer that scientific approach,

Thats not a scientific approach, its mere pseudoscience,

because physicists are studying the possibility, and science has really, really good track record when it comes to eventually finding evidence for one theory or another.

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever to back it up. Its actually not science at all. Its meta(fantasy)physics, with the only purpose to try to find a way to get God out of the equation.

And so what if God did it? Science can't test that or know it for sure, either.

Indeed, science cannot test historical events, i agree on that. Anyhow, why only stick to science , if we have philosophy and theology as well ?

But more importantly, we don't claim to know, as theists do.

Despite my faith is so strong, that i know, i do not argue this way. I just present reasons why i think theism has the best explanatory power for natural events.

We guess, we get an idea, we test it, we observe the result, we learn from it, and then we can even predict (better than before) how future tests will result. But theists can't even get past stage one,

you do a very basic flaw in your thinking. Its not operational science against theism. The debate is between a atheistic, and a theistic world view. Science per se is ( or should be ) neutral in this regard.

The debate is between a atheistic, and a theistic world view. Science per se is ( or should be ) neutral in this regard.

That is SO funny!

Science is disproving what religion is saying, and so, you feel it should be neutral, i.e., "Shut the hell up, Science!" - but if it were PROVING your nonsensical contentions, you'd be shouting it from the rooftops!

The debate is between a atheistic, and a theistic world view. Science per se is ( or should be ) neutral in this regard.

That's like saying the debate is between the serial killers and the people who got killed, the police should be neutral and stay out of it.

Indeed, science cannot test historical events, i agree on that.

We have photos and data from the Apollo moon landings, documents indicating troop movements from World War II, the fossil record of the evolution of life on earth, the tombs of the ancient Egyptians, ice cores from the antarctic, wrecks of Roman-era ships, and millions of other pieces of scientific evidence. We have scientific evidence to test events from the day before yesterday and events from the formation of the earth billions of years ago.

Of course science can test historical events. 

Pope- i just find it funny how he is so quick to demand evidence for the multiverse theory and yet is happy to postulate a god with no more evidence than what we there is for the multiverse theory .

If angelo is allowed to postulate ideas based solely upon conjectures, with no real evidence , then why the hell can we not do the same?

There is plenty of evidence for God, amongst it, religion experience, for example. Beside this, we have plenty of evidence, seeing intelligent minds creating a lot of things, like cars, airplanes etc. Why not extrapolate it and say, a intelligent mind created the universe ?

religion experience

Not evidence. If that was evidence than anyone can literally claim ANYTHING and you would have to believe them because they can claim "experience".

seeing intelligent minds creating a lot of things, like cars, airplanes etc.

Out of things that already exist, after much trial and error, not magic. This might help.

Why not extrapolate it and say, a intelligent mind created the universe ?

Because there is no evidence for it? Dude, where have you been for the duration of this thread? 

Because there is no evidence for it?

The existence of the universe CAN BE evidence for a creator. Its just a matter of preference, which explanation you think is more convincing.

The existence of the universe CAN BE evidence for a creator.

I personally think that the universe came into existence as a bi product of a unicorn, but not really a unicorn, because it is invisible, and not a real thing, so kind of ethereal, but not really, you know... Likem it just is... having sex with the void. After all, why else would the Milky Way be so... milky.

Prove me wrong.

That is what you sound like right now.

Here's the thing, Angelo... 
All testable, observable and credible evidence points to the universe and living things coming into existence without the need for an intelligent designer, or a god. Why do you, and other creationists have such a boner for adding that extra, obviously unnecessary factor onto an already immense question?

"but not really a unicorn, because it is invisible, and not a real thing"

You mean like a postulate?

All testable, observable and credible evidence points to the universe and living things coming into existence without the need for an intelligent designer,

what evidence is that ?

Why do you, and other creationists have such a boner for adding that extra, obviously unnecessary factor onto an already immense question?

Why is it obvious to you ? To me , its not.

RSS

Forum

In Defense of ‘Islamophobia’

Started by Brian Daurelle in Society. Last reply by Davis Goodman 1 hour ago. 48 Replies

Awe struck

Started by Davis Goodman in Small Talk. Last reply by Davis Goodman 2 hours ago. 26 Replies

The Shinto Flower among the Weeds of Religion

Started by Cato Rigas in Advice. Last reply by Ward Cressin 9 hours ago. 7 Replies

Blog Posts

A Life-Changing Confrontation

Posted by Belle Rose on October 23, 2014 at 2:55am 2 Comments

Life Condensed

Posted by Cato Rigas on October 19, 2014 at 8:30pm 3 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service