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: 2137

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

@Angelo, Fairy Tale is fiction, while a multiverse is a proposed, scientific possibility,Big difference.

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

It seems to me Angelo, that you are trying to blend science and religion.  Science tries to find out "How" and religion tries to establish "Why".  From a science perspective, we need to understand "How".  Science doesn't try to address "Why".  From a religious perspective, the intent is to attribute the "Why".  When religion tries to answer the "How" it fails miserably.  Science doesn't even try to answer the "Why".

The problem is that science is flexible and self-correcting based on evidence.  Religion is set down in writings and traditions, and is inflexible in that it does not seek to self-correct based on evidence.  Where it does correct, is based on emotions and human morals, ie the abolition of slavery. (I have heard the claim that morals are 'taught' by religion, but if that were true, I would have no morals as I was raised in an atheist household.  I know that is not true)

To keep these two processes in line with each other is like standing with one foot on a static base and one foot on a moving base.  Of course there will be a lot of floundering, because of that alone.  There are many religions,and they are all in conflict with each other.  If one is true, the others are not true.  Shouting louder, killing people or in other ways adopting bullying behaviour doesn't solve this quandary.

The huge difference is that the question "How" is a logical one.  The question "Why" is an emotional one.  The more "How" we understand, the more we can produce vaccines, save lives, and hopefully curtail our pollutive tendencies for the environment.  There seems to be no new input for the question "Why" - all the texts are centuries old and based on 'tribal' emotions.  This means the conflict between the two is increasing constantly.

Finally, if there is a super-being, is it Allah, Vishnu, Jesus or Yahweh?  Or Odin, Zeus or Ra?  Which religion is more credible than the others?  None of them adapt to the new questions science raises.  This is why there is a growing conflict.  You see the conflict as resolvable although you find it hard to do so with logic, but atheists see the question is not even ready to be asked, as it's still changing and will do for the foreseeable future.

When religion tries to answer the "How" it fails miserably.

The question is : What mechanism was involved to create the universe, and life. As explained previously, there are 3 alternatives : design, chance, and physical necessity.

What you need to address, is, why you think one of the alternatives to design, aka, chance, or physical necessity, or both, do explain all that exists better. Good luck with that !!

You appear to have missed my point, with respect Angelo.  I'm not trying to explain why.  I just know that until we know 'what' and 'how', 'why' doesn't come into it.

Can you attempt to address my last paragraph?  It's the only question I've asked you.

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

You appear to have missed my point, with respect Angelo.  I'm not trying to explain why. I just know that until we know 'what' and 'how', 'why' doesn't come into it.

That's the sound of incisive.

What you need to address, is, why you think one of the alternatives to design, aka, chance, or physical necessity, or both, do explain all that exists better. 

The reason chance and necessity explain things better is because we observe these in every day life. We see things adapting and changing based on necessity.

You are proposing that a external entity, that you claim is not a creature, or who know what did it. You have no testable or observable evidence to show for it, and you ignore the thousands of other entities that have been claimed to do the same yours does. 

That is why design fails. It thrives on ignorance instead of tests and research, Angelo.

You say god did it, I say the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it, or Odin did it. I have just as much proof as you do for your god. Who is right?

We are willing to reach a point at which we can say "I don't know" and then explore further, discarding any hypothesis that doesn't fit. You on the other hand are stuck on one answer and refuse to take all others into account. You made up your mind "God did it!" and no matter what you come across, you will twist it to fit your definition of that god.

We see no need to add this extra problem to the question until there is evidence to necessitate this extra problem. You are making a conclusion and then working on the formula to fit your desired conclusion and ignore the alternatives. That's not how investigation works and that's not how an honest person should operate.

You say that nothing can come from nothing, and that the universe can't just have been there, but then you claim that the "facts" show that god was always there. How is that? Where are these facts? Why isn't the scientific world aware of them? 

I think you are wasting your time here, Angelo. If you posses some greater scientific insight than, oh, every reputable scientist in the world, you best be emailing them and telling them how things really work.

The reason chance and necessity explain things better is because we observe these in every day life. We see things adapting and changing based on necessity.

What necessity would there be to be a universe , rather than none ? The fine tuning of the universe shows us, how exactly tuned the fundamental parameters , like the atomic forces , or the cosmological constant, must be, in order a universe even to exist. Such precise fine-tuning to happen by chance are exeedengly small. Why then should chance be a good explanation ?

You are proposing that a external entity, that you claim is not a creature, or who know what did it. You have no testable or observable evidence to show for it, and you ignore the thousands of other entities that have been claimed to do the same yours does.

Do you have testable or observable evidence for chance ? I propose just a intelligent designer. Which one , of which religion, is not on debate right now.

Such precise fine-tuning to happen by chance are exeedengly small. Why then should chance be a good explanation ? 

Because there is evidence to support it? The chances of there being a omnipotent, omnipresent, non-creature, non-magic invisible sky wizard, unicorn, or whatever the hell your definition of your god is, is a hell of a lot smaller than chance, it is non existent.

Do you have testable or observable evidence for chance ?

I propose just a intelligent designer. Which one , of which religion, is not on debate right now.

Except that it is, Angelo. You did not propose just any intelligent designer. You proposed "god" with a capital G, meaning the Christian god. Now, will you say that the Christian god could possibly not exist, and stick to your now "any intelligent designer" argument, or will you stay pious and true to your fable?

When he was here last time, I all but begged everyone to ignore him, but you know us --

"there are 3 alternatives"

Who says there are only three. The only LOGICAL answer is "We Don't Know". Science is getting closer and closer to showing what happened at the "beginning". But IMHO they will NEVER be able to demonstrate scientifically either How or Why the universe came into being (assuming that ever actually happened). Assigning values to the possibilities of various options is meaningless. Once you admit we don't know, we're left with only one real question: How could a reasonable person jump from one pico-pico-second from the big bang to, "see, there MUST be a BEING in existence which caused this all to happen". And after making the greatest possible logical jump, they look back and don't ever SEE the huge chasm they've just leapt over.

He didn't watch any of the videos, he didn't read the Hawking article, and he's not interested in any of our logic - he came here to spout his nonsense, and as long as we respond to him, he's going to continue doing the exact same thing. He, or someone else using the "Angelo" account, does this every Fall.

"there are 3 alternatives : design, chance, and physical necessity."

Why, Angelo? Why not four? Five? Who makes that decision, Angelo? You? When you set the terms, you control the debate, is that it? Is that what you've been taught?

RSS

Blog Posts

Aftermath

Posted by Belle Rose on September 20, 2014 at 2:42am 0 Comments

PI = 4

Posted by _Robert_ on September 16, 2014 at 8:53pm 5 Comments

Ads

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