Best argument FOR God that you've heard....

It seems that most atheists guess there are no gods.

It seems YOU guess there are no gods.

No it doesn't...and I am not in denial.

 

You are exempting god from needing a cause in order to avoid infinite aggression.

 

Until anyone, ANYWHERE somehow manages to provide even one piece of verifiable evidence that any of the thousands of "Gods" are anything more than human created societal control mechanisms I will continue to "Guess" they are all inaccurate representations of the concept it represents.

 

Thanks Mother Nature.

 

Way to go.

I also guess that way. (Not often I do that, but it was a chance to agree with you.)

Nice to know we are both guessing in the same direction.

 

Exactly. These folks take it to the nth degree and say something can't come from nothing.
Well, maybe something always existed? What is this that always existed? God, energy, nothing, something, universe, another universe.
The possibilities are near infinite. Until the solution is known.

 

I am not believing in nothing when I correctly say that I do not know how life or the universe began. I need no convincing argument to hold this position. If someone claims knowledge it is they who must provide evidence.

Overall, it seems a bit strange to falsely claim knowledge simply to avoid acknowledging the limitations of our knowledge. And imo that dynamic underlies most claims about god: Our ignorance about life and morality causes anxiety... belief in god relieves that anxiety... regardless of wheather god exists or not.

Therefore I propose that religion fulfills the role of opiate of the anxiety of the masses

 

AMEN! Well said.

Exactly.

Yeah, but with a caveat.

"That dynamic" also underlies most claims or assertions that there are no gods...or that "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are."

We do not know if what we humans call "the universe" is a creation or not. If it is (one of the two possibilities) things lean toward "therefore there is a creator of some kind"...if not, it leans in the other direction.

WE DO NOT KNOW.

Could be. Religion (which I see as something apart from whether or not there are gods) does have positive functions in the human predicament as well as the obvious negative ones.

 

Yes, we do not know about god .....or not god

We ALSO do not know about wheather god may be the abrahamic jewish god, or the trinity Christian god, or the Muslim god, or the Hindi or the Buddhist god, or something entirely different. We don't know if god cares wheather we believe in him. We don't know if god had a plan, or simply set up rules for our universe as a gigantic ant farm. We just don't know

But what we seem to know is that the universe operates according to natural laws which seem to underlie all that we see around us. We still are ignorant of many of these laws. But as far as I can tell, there is scant reason to believe in something outside the natural laws. And for that reason it seems to me very much less likely that there there is some supernatural first cause

Yes, but this is an argument from pragmatism
The Mormon religion appears to be effective in forming good communities for its member
But that does not make their strange ideas "right".... just practical

 

The argument leads inexorably to the conclusion that something (not necessarily God(hint hint))must exist necessarily. To call the conclusion of a sound argument special pleading is the height of absurdity.

 

Exactly to the letter as I previously predicted Frank, you haven't addressed the assertion just reverted back to repeating the dogma. Basically, you have nothing. Thanks for the confirmation.

 

Topic- Best argument for God that you've heard
---------------------------------------------------------------

That's easy! It's IMPOSSIBLE to think divine creatures like this could have formed by pure random chance..




And look at this printed circuit board that's been intricately wired up.
Haha fooled you, it's not a pc board at all, it's the retina of the eye, but who the heck wired it up?-

 

Assuming a necessary being is just that, a baseless assumption. When god is inserted as the necessary being, it is special pleading because you are exempting your god from the rules.

 

Thanks, Father God.

 

No problem, William.

I've got plenty...you cannot handle it...so you are pretending I've got nothing.

Hey...sometimes it goes this way during Internet discussions.

 

It's not an assumption. It's the conclusion of the argument. If you can't recognize the difference, I don't think anyone can help you.

 

Had you actually presented an argument rather that opinion without data to confirm validity it would have a basis for conclusion, as it stands any endgame is to be found only in your own mind. This is not your fault or doing, it is the inevitable result of debating for a cause that has no data to back it up.

 

WTF are you talking about?

 

Of course it's an assumption. There is no evidence we are contingent beings or that a necessary being exists.

The conclusion is based on an assumption, as I just pointed out.

 

You're getting there. Close. It's Father Time.
Mother Nature works the nature all around us, Father Time, ages it and eventually gives it a different look.
Like trees dying and decaying.
Look all around you, Nature. Away from a large man made concrete city of course.

 

then neither do you.

The devil believes God exists, but he's the biggest loser there ever was or will be.

 

Okay, now you're saying something different. That the existence of all parts of nature we haven't seen is contingent definitely is an assumption. Thomas didn't try to hide that. He admitted it in his formulation of premise 2. I find it a reasonable assumption because all that we have observed (we're into induction now) of nature is contingent in its existence. If you don't want to grant premise 2, that's fine; but the proper objection, then, would be that the argument is based on an uncertain premise, not that it entails special pleading.

That a necessary being exists is not an assumption; it is the conclusion, and it does follow from the premises.

 

A conclusion to one, is not a conclusion to another. Unless the evidence presented is agreed to be accurate between said parties.
I don't think anyone has given any evidence for something. And impossible to give evidence for a non existent thing.

So, if not agreed upon, it's an assumption.

- - - Updated - - -

Santa believes god exists to. So there is no point to either statement.

 

The conclusion of a deductive argument is not debatable. It's like a math problem. It either follows from its premises or it doesn't. Some deductions require no empirical evidence whatsoever., See Descartes' Discourse On Method, or Principles of Philosophy.

 

.....That.