I was just wondering. I mean I have definitely heard a lot of BAD arguments that try to prove god exists, the bible is true, etc etc.


We've all heard the many faulty arguments containing fallacies and nonsense before.


But I can't think of any argument which makes logical sense that does support the existence of god, accuracy of the bible, or the justification of a religion before.


Please bring up one, I am interested to hear a good argument from a theist standpoint.



Views: 131

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


my previous reply was meant to be a response to E Nigma.


I will get back to you Fred on this long post you just made. Got some studying to do for Philosophy :] and physics hehe.

I don't think that E meant you weren't open minded; he was just explaining that he added "so far" to show he wasn't dogmatic.  I have no doubt you are open minded, that is proved by the fact that you posed this question.  Clearly, you did so to find out if there were some argument you didn't know about.  Close minded people don't actively seek out arguments contrary to their position.

@ Mo

I was replying to E Nigma not Fred.

"...God is a kind of cultural "social seed" within the brain/mind of the believer and works more like Music or ideas or like political ideologies than religious tradition alone."


Very well said. It's an idea that brings people together, for better or for worse, but we can also say that about most things so I won't hold it against religion. I started a thread several days ago hoping to find a good argument for religion as well, but I must have not been clear because a lot of people responded with "why" religion is good rather than provide evidence of religion. I am pretty convinced that I have heard the majority of reasons for the existence of a god, but I was hoping someone would offer a new argument they might have heard.


As far as Angie goes, she is definitely more rational than most religious people I've come across. Atleast she is willing to be open minded on the subject and change her views as evidence (or experiences) presents itself (atleast that's what she says). I don't know her, but from reading her posts she is an intelligent person who forms her thoughts well. Even though she couldn't provide her personal arguments for God's existence, the majority of what she said gives me the impression she is on the fence and still making sense of the issue. Maybe her experiences were personal in nature and she didn't want to reveal the details in a public forum.


But I highly doubt there will ever be scientific evidence for the existence of God. In fact, when I'm involved in a conversation with Christians and I've made them look silly for using the Bible as a reference, they will usually turn to personal experiences as a last resort. Sometimes it does make me feel bad because it's like telling a child that Santa Claus doesn't exist. If they believe it and it makes them happy, why bother? In today's society, religion isn't as prevalent in making decisions anyway, so why start an all out war against your family and friends just to prove you're right? I'm talking about everyday people just living their lives, paying bills, going to work, buying groceries, etc. They don't think about Jesus when deciding what to make for dinner or if they should refinance their house. I find that the topic is better left alone with people you're close with. If no one is getting hurt, why stir the pot?

@Be Rational

Many people are getting hurt. There's a reason when we grow up we accept the fact Santa Claus does not exist.


That is why religious people need to 'grow up'. Religion is a thing of the ancient past. We as a human race in recent years have grown an extensive source of knowledge pertaining to science and technology to dismiss the reasoning of a 'god' existing. 


"Science flies you to the moon, Religion flies you into buildings."


Strong quote indeed. Very inappropriate, honestly. Only reason I posted it was to counter you saying, "If no one is getting hurt, why stir the pot?' This is only one of many reasons to stir the pot.


--That being said, that quote is just a witty set of words meant to provoke emotion (in both religious and non-religious peoples). It definitely can be countered in many ways; it doesn't make any valid point. The way I look at it is it's just a joke. It made me laugh, so I posted it. :]



How is your post relevant to what I posted? You keep replying to my posts that are messages to other people. Please be more aware of who I'm addressing.


Anyways, I will still reply to you.


Okay I don't understand why you are still addressing my initial question. Is it that hard to comprehend? What I'm asking for is a GOOD LOGICAL argument.


'm gonna give you a basic course in Philosophy: Critical Thinking.

-An argument is an attempt to provide reasons for thinking one or more belief(s) is true.

-An argument consists of two [basic] parts - Premise(s) and Conclusion.

-Both the premises and conclusion must only consist of Statements - a claim that can be either true OR false. 


In order to have a [basic] good argument, you must satisfy two conditions - 

1) All PREMISES MUST BE TRUE (and relevant to conclusion)

2) The argument must have a proper form (structure).


So in other words, I'm asking for an argument which contains true premises and a good form.


Logic does not have many meanings. Look it up in a dictionary. There are NO "gods of philosophy". What are you even talking about dude. I define logic as CORRECT REASONING. Seriously. Don't try to twist my statement because you can't decide what the meaning of logic is. EVERYONE ON THIS EARTH, regardless of religious status, believe in logic.


We use logic to EXPLAIN. Explain ANYTHING. I'm not even trying to say this in a philosophical point of view. .....


I'm getting real frustrated trying to explain this to you, it's really hard to get this point across when I'm not talking to you in person. I hope you understand what I'm saying.


Now that I have defined what a 'good argument' is and what I refer to logic as, I hope you address my question accurately now. 


you asked me this "Aaron. Are you really sure of that the majority of believers are very logical philosophers and would they even know what it means to say that a god exists in the philosophic logical sense of the word exists?"


My answer is that I believe people dont have to be "philosophers" to have logic. I explain this earlier in my post. EVERY HUMAN ON THIS EARTH HAS LOGIC. You do not have to be a philosopher. Every human has the ability to explain things the way they see it.


And your Music analogy is just really....... not a good analogy...sorry. Analogies are not always reliable in arguments. They can be classified as Inductive Reasoning.




Part 2 reply to Fred:


It's ALL about being logical Fred. That's what all HUMANS STRIVE FOR. As I mentioned in my previous post, being logical just means creating an EXPLANATION. When we were ancient "cavemen" we tried explaining things. Like why fire was so warm and kept us warm in the cold. Now that we have grown more knowledge we have the capability of EXPLAINING fire and it's warmth.


You keep trying to use the terms "heart" and "body" and "what people feel inside".

Fred quite frankly these do not exist. All our feelings come from the brain. All our physical and mental perceptions of the world come from chemicals in the brain reacting. Our consciousness is a result of our brain sending signals to every other part of our body. There is no feelings from the heart, no having "connected bodies", No feelings "on the inside". These feelings do not exist because we don't have evidence to prove this. It's a metaphorical thing rather than real science. We know what the heart really does for the body -pump blood, it isn't the source for "feelings" or "love".  


What you speak of is just too abstract to take as facts. 


I don't see how this is relevant to the question, "Is there a good argument for religion?"


I don't see how your post is a direct response to my previous post either.

Earlier you talk about the "feelings from the heart and the body" yet you don't reply to my counterargument that I posted.


You are just redirecting the argument like you have been doing this whole thread.


I do not know what you are trying to defend here. Your explanations are unclear and abstract and when I counter your arguments you don't address my counterarguments and just start a new topic by redirection.


If you claim to be "Atheist" then just drop the argument. All I asked for was a good argument for religion and if your answer is No then stop replying. If on the other hand your answer is Yes then I still havn't received a good reason from you in all your combined previous posts. 


Also don't say "crazy and ridiculous from an atheist point of view" to me. I used to be Catholic and I know how it feels to be religious, as well as defend religion. I know how it feels to have faith.  So don't say I'm unable to understand their beliefs. 


You're just not making sense to me. This is just a real bad miscommunication because I have no idea what you're trying to say yet you obviously aren't getting my message.

I think the question would be better posed (and less anachronistic) if it was "Is there a good argument for religion in today's society?" The answer would be no. However, simply because there are no good reasons now, does not mean that there never were any good reasons. Religion had its chance to explain the universe and for a good number of years and it was fine at what it did. Humans had no understanding of science or the natural world so claims of supernatural origins were fine. Questioning is part of the human experience and religion fit into that experience however faulty the answers might be. However, nowadays we have a much better understanding of the universe so there is no real reason to live your life based on those same faulty conclusions.


Good point. Same reason I don't believe in a higher figure AS OF NOW. Just like Richard Dawkins would say, I definitely won't dismiss the possibility of a higher being.


-I'm Atheist in the sense that I believe fairies don't exist because well there is no evidence or proof or a logical argument supporting they exist. Therefore I conclude they do not exist.

-I'm Agnostic in the sense that I cannot claim evidence for fairies' existence DOES NOT exist. It just hasn't been found or proven yet. Therefore, I will not claim I most certainly absolutely claim they do not exist, but at the same time I will not conclude they do exist.


----If the evidence is brought forward to me I am definitely willing to change my views.... And that is how science works! We always look for answers and are willing to admit our mistakes, should future evidence, research, or technology prove us wrong in the future!

"My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race. I cannot, however, deny that it has made some contributions to civilization. It helped in early days to fix the calendar, and it caused Egyptian priests to chronicle eclipses with such care that in time they became able to predict them. These two services I am prepared to acknowledge, but I do not know of any others."

Bertrand Russell in “Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?”
The answer is NONE. I have never found any good argument for any religion. I hope you can find a good argument in your fishing expedition. Good luck, Aaron


© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service