I'm thinking about posting this to a few more religious forums, but I'd just like to hear what people have to say on here.
So, playing Devil's Advocate, and hopefully without a bunch of straw man replies, what is the best argument for God you've heard? And, if you really can't stand it, why is that argument not good enough?
My favorite is Descartes' Ontological argument- but since I don't have a clear and distinct perception of God, this one still isn't enough for me.
Excited to hear replies!
Who said anything about perfect?
What if he's just a neglectful, forgetful or sadistic god?
I mean, the gods of the Bible weren't exactly nice.
There's a HUGE difference between religious gods and the philosophical concept of God. For most philosophers, whether they argue for or against the existence of God, they've all agreed on the definition of God as being "perfect." That's what any remotely logic-based argument about God is talking about. Not the loosely defined, humanoid god(s) of various religions and traditions. You could almost just call philosophical god by a completely different word, such is the difference in connotation.
I don't have a favorite, but I'll step up and play Devil's Advocate (God's Advocate?) with the reason why I am not militantly atheist.
I do not "buy" the notion of gods, or any of the other religious trappings (and in fact, I believe that gods do not exist), but there's a place in my mind that acknowledges the possibility of a god.
And the reason is that just as none of the proof that God exists is actually proof, neither is any of the proof that he doesn't exist actually proof. Science does not kill God.
As an example; evolution is a fact. It can even be observed happening. But this does not disprove God. A creator may be behind the machine, molding the creation, making adjustments. Evolution may be God's doing.
God as defined by Christianity is certainly too full of contradictions to be true (Ex. if he's "perfect", then his creations wouldn't need the tweaking of evolution), but there exists a concept of God that does not violate anything that we currently "know" about our reality.
And that's the only thing that keeps me from shifting to 100% certainty that he doesn't exist.
Daniel, the only problem with your hypothesis is: where did god come from? Theists insist that something cannot come from nothing, yet their god(s) apparently did just that.
And not only that, your hypothesis assumes that the god may be the designer, driving evolution; 'moulding the creation.' If we follow that through to its logical conclusion then that god must be supremely intelligent. Where did that intelligence come from? Well it must have been designed. Ah...so who/what designed the designer? An even greater intellect? You can see where that leaves us; needing infinite designers...
In devil's advocate mode, that might explain god's attitude, perhaps he's just a junior god, having tantrums and throwing his toys out of the celestial pram. Perhaps he has the attention span of a celestial gnat; made the universe and populated the earth then got bored and threw that aside for something else more shiny, like I did with the Sinclair ZX Spectrum in the 80s!
Of course. you highlight some very true problems with God as defined by man.
It is possible to conceive of a different sort of god than the way he's been presented to us. Maybe he is imperfect, or maybe he is some sort of cosmic tinkerer, and he's forgotten this particular project. Or maybe he's just some non-conscious "force" that produced everything we see, and controls how all of the gears turn (oh wait, that's called physics...)
Yes, definitely, though. Man's concepts of God (especially the Christian one) are so full of holes that they're easily rejected.
But that doesn't mean that "god" must not exist. Incredibly, astoundingly, enormously, highly, very unlikely? Yes. Perhaps entirely unnecessary and irrelevant to the system we observe? Probably. Impossible? Nope.
Devil's advocate for god argument.I would have to say the argument of a god existence would be we are only known planet that has life of a complex organic nature.If something didn't create life We would not exist in state we exist in.
if i were to believe in such silly things as god this would be my argument.
I don’t think Descartes had a clear perception of god either. Most of his ideas on the perfect being are based on metaphysical assumptions. Like many theists the presupposition that a god exists is already framed in their mind. Not just a deist god, but one with a specific name!! Anyway I do like to argue the Ontological argument, even KCA at times. but another time.
I don’t really have a best argument for a god existing. I suppose if I lived 500 years ago and you asked me the same question it may have seemed almost self-evident that a god did exist. Now that we are in a more enlightened age of scientific discovery I can hardly think of a question that the term god would be a good answer to. God is no longer a concept that we need to consider. To me “God” is becoming part of our history and no longer required. Really - I cannot think of one argument for it.
"God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance, that gets smaller and smaller as time goes on."
-- Neil Degrasse Tyson --
The same one that implies leprechauns exist!
I wracked my puny brain and could only come up with "Pascal's Wager." But, since I am 100% certain that God does not exist, it is not applicable to me.
There really isnt' any good argument for the existence of god, there is no evidence.
Just whatever you say don't use the whole "Everything around you is proof of god". Because its not proof of god, its proof of a logical fallacy and an argument from ignorance. Because it takes a claim and gives an answer (a dishonest answer), without explaining how one gets from A to B to C to D.
A being the claim, B being the data proving the claim, C Being the Conclusion and D that conclusion being the ultimate answer. It just simply starts with A and skips right over to D. Its lazy and dishonest.
I never advocate for any god, especially the one with the upper case g, under any of its many guises, so I suppose I must opt out of this line of reasoning. I'm a highly visible atheist in Decatur, Texas, out in the open is best.