I recently heard this compelling argument for the existence of god and want to know what you all think about it. The argument goes like this:

If there is no god and the world is an accident, if everything about people, including what they think and feel, is just the chance combination of molecules and is explained in terms of chemistry and physical laws, why be rational? On the basis of atheism, weeds grow because they are weeds and minds do just whatever they do. People act like they are free to think about different kinds of ideas and then choose the best one. On the basis of atheism, that's impossible. Our minds are just a bunch of atoms vibrating and will do whatever they have been programmed to do. If there is no god and the physical world is all there is, there is no logical basis for logic. But people, including atheists, do trust reason and logic even though they have no reason to assume that it works.

Any input you have is appreciated. 

Views: 735

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Not compelling at all. By combining several classical arguments, perhaps it seems to hold water..

But, no.

 -INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND THE FINE-TUNED UNIVERSE

-ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE

-THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Here are the Refutations:

http://www.argumentsforatheism.com/arguments_god.html

Maybe I missed something, but I didn't see anything in the link that really addressed what I posted. 

Start with this one...Your implication is that complexity has to have a purpose, right?

The Teleological Argument (also popularly known as the Argument from Design) is perhaps the most popular argument for the existence of God today. It suggests that the order and complexity in the world implies a being that created it with a specific purpose (such as the creation of life) in mind.

That isn't the implication that I got from it. To me, it seems like it's saying that without a god, there is no reason to think we have free will and can choose certain ideas over others. But I also don't feel like I completely grasp what the argument is saying and that's why I posted it, to get different opinions on it.

Well, that's a weak argument as well because first you have to prove we have free will. Good luck with that. Good luck even defining free will. Personally because we feel we can control our actions we think It exists, yet I have no idea where my thoughts come from.

It's amazing how specific and detailed all the religions are on god. He did this miracle or he commanded that. Right down to what threads you should or should not combine in making clothing. But then the proof of god is something so unprovable and abstract as "free will".

Compelling for which god? Thor? Zeus? Vishnu? Yahweh? Allah? Jesus?

I don't think it addresses which god, although the person I heard it from was talking about Jesus, who by the way claimed to be Yahweh.

And how does this friend of yours tie Jesus and/or Yaweh to the paragraph? How is he/she certain that it is not referring to Allah? Or Cthulhu, Zeus, Osiris, or the Wizad of Oz?

Like I said, the argument doesn't address a specific god, I think the point of it is just to try and show there is a god. As far as I know, the paragraph isn't directly tied to Jesus.

"If there were no God, we should have to invent Him.

So...we invented Him."

adams and eves

RSS

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service