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: 2202

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Why is more possible than fairy tales ? What scientific evidence is  there to propose it as a reasonable possibility ?

Ok, I went in over my head. I'm not familiar enough with evidence supporting multiverse theory. But there are millions of other examples of valuable products of the scientific method. Did a fairy tale predict that gravity bends light waves, or that there's a Higgs Boson? How to cure cancer? Can fairy tales explain or treat schizophrenia? That's a good example of what science doesn't know enough about, yet is still able to make a positive difference in treatment. What good has belief in God done for understanding and treating schizophrenia? There are too many similar examples (sans multiverse theory) to list.

Sure, science has a lot of answers in regard of many things. But what we discuss here, is if there are good reasons and arguments for Gods existence. As long as atheists are not able to come up with better explanations for our existence, i think, yes : there are good reasons to believe in God. Since you have no clue about evidence for a multiverse, why did you bring it up ? Just because others said so ?! Not a good basis for your espistemology, in my view......

You did not read the Hawkins link that Archaeopteryx posted or that would not be the question you ask.  Here it is again.  I don't know to what level you are already educated so I don't know what level of knowledge or information you are seeking.

However, I think you need to be researching physicists papers for physics questions - the article linked (courtesy of Arch) is a very simple one - however it could give you guidance if you really are searching for knowledge. 

Here at TA, you're likely to get our opinions.  Proper research should take you to knowledge and information, but to do this you need to have a seriously open mind.  Unless you at least temporarily put your beliefs on hold, you won't be able to do this.

As kOrsan put it, we are not here to convert you to think differently.  That's your problem and your dilemma - if you even see it as one.

I have not read Hawkins paper, simply because its out of question. It was argued that the universe is not finely tuned. I showed what Hawkins had to say in this regard. Its quit common scientific knowledge, admitted by mainstream scientists, that the universe IS finely tuned for life. So deny this isnt the smartest thing in my view.

I have not read Hawkins paper, simply because its out of question.

Let's be honest here. "I have not read Hawkins' paper, simply because it goes against what I am trying to argue."

There, much better.

Let's be honest here. "I have not read Hawkins' paper, simply because it goes against what I am trying to argue."

There, much better.

No, i have not read Hawkins, because its a complete waste of time to read philosophy coming from a astrophysicist.

So does that mean we shouldn't take you seriously because it is "science" coming from the non-official mouthpiece of William Lane Craig? Thanks for the advice! Probably the first and only sensible thing you will ever say here.

Surely you've come to realize by now, that we don't think very much of your view.

@Angelo - you said:-

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

The Hawkins article covers just that.  You need to learn not to ask questions if you are too scared or obstinate to look at answers.

"the matter is that you made the assertion that the universe is not finely tuned. After i quoted Hawkins, do you still want to hold that position ?"

"Neither have i brought the question up in regard of why."

"I have not read Hawkins paper, simply because its out of question. It was argued that the universe is not finely tuned. I showed what Hawkins had to say in this regard. Its quit common scientific knowledge, admitted by mainstream scientists, that the universe IS finely tuned for life. So deny this isnt the smartest thing in my view."

I suggest that more careful attention be paid to the difference in writing styles here - we have the Parrot, whose English, while much better than my Brazilian Portuguese, lacks sophistication, then we have the Mentor, whose English is impeccable - at least I ain't peckin' it --

 we have the Parrot, whose English, while much better than my Brazilian Portuguese, lacks sophistication, then we have the Mentor, whose English is impeccable 

He's one short of a holy trinity!

I think he's short a lot more than that!

RSS

Events

Services we love!

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service