A Challenge To Believers And Non-Believers To Fess Up

[Minnesota]

.



What argument made by the other side do you find most compelling?




.

[technomage]

Why do I have the feeling that there will be a thundering silence...?

So I'll break that silence first: the most compelling counter-argument to my belief that I have ever faced is the Atheist assertion that the lack of objective evidence indicates that there is no God. I have absolutely no counter except to rely on my subjective experience (while acknowledging that my experience could be erroneous, or my interpretation could be wrong), and my faith.

As far as effective Christian counter-arguments ... well, frankly, I've yet to find one. And I'm not being insulting when I say that. Many Christian apologists have a presuppositional viewpoint--this frequently means that they have either not examined all of the evidence (especially evidence that is contrary to their claims), or have not been willing or able to evaluate the evidence.

Justin

PS: I notice that you didn't answer....

[Duder]

Minn -

Can you narrow the question down to a specific dispute, such as whether or not God exists, whether or not Christianity is the one true religion, or whether or not Jesus was resurrected on the third day for the remission of sin? There's a lot to argue about in religion - and the arguments for some claims are more compelling than the arguments for other claims.

[Gilgaron]

Probably the first cause stuff. Because even though a first cause may not be necessary, it certainly would appeal more to my brain. That's one reason I didn't think Flew's change of position was a big deal, I've stepped back and forth before. Less so recently than I used to, though.

[shunyadragon]

What argument made by the other side do you find most compelling?
.
Christian arguments are the least compelling, because they are simply based on the presupposition that what they believe is true. This is unbelievably shallow.

I believe the argument for God is convincing, but far from proven. The problem is the link between the arguments for God and those for the Biblical God of Judaism and Christianity is just not there. The Biblical God is such a Stone Age childish brute that there is nothing that would support this in the objective worldview today. Any narrow egocentric world view of God and revelation, whether Jewish, Christian, Moslem or whatever is simply absurd beyond belief in the face of what we know today, and in itself lends support to the atheist argument.

The atheist argument is better, and I can easily debate Christians using this argument.

The Baha'i worldview of God, which I believe, is more real for today's world and gives an adaquate explanation for the nature of the divine source as it is revealed through time in the human experience. IF there is a God it is the natural God reflected in the creation and the diverse evolving universal experience we witness in the history of existence and humanity.

The explanation for the diversity of the beliefs concerning God, the soul and the spiritual realms is simply how the human experience records revelation on their level of understanding at the time and place it was revealed.

The evidence in the Baha'i worldview consists of the cyclic purposeful nature of the history of humanity reflected in the progressive cyclic evolving nature of the universe. This can be witnessed in the events around the world in the human experience that occured simultaneously and cannot be easily explained by coincedence. The conclusion of this evidence is that the spiritual nature of humanity, like our universe, has a birth, a childhood and a progressively maturing nature that corresponds to the cyclic physical evolution of existence and humanity. Like our universe and solar system, there also is likely a death where our world will pass away making way for a new creation to follow.

IF there is a God, this is IT!

IF there is not, this was a wonderful glorious journey and a great story!

God is not a chess player with the white pieces.
God is the sea and we are the fishes.

[Superbug]

The most compelling argument is the big number of theists in the world. There must be something behind this phenomenon, though it's not necessarily a god.

[lee_merrill]

The most compelling atheist argument for me is .....

Just what I didn't say, we don't know for sure and cotton-pickin' certain.

Maybe that's the most compelling agnostic argument, actually.

To me, anyway...

Blessings,
Lee

[Minnesota]

Minn -

Can you narrow the question down to a specific dispute, such as whether or not God exists, whether or not Christianity is the one true religion, or whether or not Jesus was resurrected on the third day for the remission of sin? There's a lot to argue about in religion - and the arguments for some claims are more compelling than the arguments for other claims.
I purposely made the question a broad one so that people could address whatever position they saw to be in direct contrast to their own. I did not intend the thread to necessarily generate a debate.

[spiritmech]

For me the biggest issue against Christianity is the presence of evil everywhere. There was a time in my life that I was very angry with God because my life wasn't going the way I wanted it to. If He's that good of a God He should make us all happy, right?

So that was my biggest obstacle.
Steve

[Captain Ochre]

For me the biggest issue against Christianity is the presence of evil everywhere. There was a time in my life that I was very angry with God because my life wasn't going the way I wanted it to. If He's that good of a God He should make us all happy, right?

So that was my biggest obstacle.
Steve

Had to read your message to remember that you're correct.
The argument from evil is the most compelling challenge against Christian theism.
The argument is extraordinarily difficult to nail down, however, and Christians should never lose sight of the fact that the problem of evil is a big problem for any worldview. Some are great at handwaving the problem (Nihilism comes to mind), of course, even if they can't explain apparent evil.
So, even though the argument from evil is a daunting challenge, it's curiously also a reason to prefer a Christian-theistic worldview (IMO).

[Xmansmommy]

One of the biggest problems for me as a Christian is the contrast between the God of the OT and Jesus of the NT.

Justin, I'm curious why you would think there would be thundering silence? :eh:

I guess ultimately the argument I find most compelling is, those that have sought God and haven't found Him. Or at least not to thier satisfaction.

[salvationfound]

The biggest for me is that God allowed the creation of reality tv. You would
think he would bring a plague of locusts to all those castaways on Survivor.

[Solly]

For me the biggest issue against Christianity is the presence of evil everywhere.

Ditto. that is the challenge I find it most difficult to answer, esp when people don't want a theological tome in reply, but something snappy.

[Xmansmommy]

The biggest for me is that God allowed the creation of reality tv. You would
think he would bring a plague of locusts to all those castaways on Survivor.

:rofl:!!!!

[chsalvia]

For me, the most compelling argument for the existence of God is the "fine-tuning" argument based on cosmological constants. Yes - I know, it's not conclusive and there are many other explanations, but as far as theological arguments go it's probably the top one. At least, I can safely say that out of all the arguments for the existence of God, it's given me the most pause and the most to think about.

[Sacrificial Ram]

For me, the most compelling argument for the existence of God is the "fine-tuning" argument based on cosmological constants. Yes - I know, it's not conclusive and there are many other explanations, but as far as theological arguments go it's probably the top one. At least, I can safely say that out of all the arguments for the existence of God, it's given me the most pause and the most to think about.
The fine tuning arguement is probably the best, until you realise that life developed to fit the environment, and the environment did not develop to fit life.

[technomage]

The biggest for me is that God allowed the creation of reality tv. You would
think he would bring a plague of locusts to all those castaways on Survivor.
Ehh. Salvationfound, I think reality tv already falls under the "argument of evil." :wink:

[Pilgrim]

.



What argument made by the other side do you find most compelling?




.
For me the hardest thing to reconcile to my faith and the thing that athiests point out frequently is the simple fact that there is just a lot of pain in the world.

[Zeluvia]

I was quite willing to let everyone go do their own thing, whatever it was, and not bother anyone ...until...someone starting bombing abortion clinics and burning black churches, and they were allowed to call themselves Christians.

Now my most compelling arguement against Christianity is the same one I have against Judaism, and Islam...

They are historically a source of intolerance, hate, violence, division, superstition, ignorance, and the books of these have been used to defend slavery, discrimination, dis enfranchisement, murder, seizing property, dehumanization and instead of GROWING up, they continue to propagate all this mess of pure EVIL even in the face of scientific evidence that LIGHTENING isnt CAUSED by GOD !!

Those three religions are very clearly evil by Jesus Christ's own standard...Ye shall know the tree by the fruit it bears.

PS. move this to the Least compelling thread, OOPS !!

[Pilgrim]

I was quite willing to let everyone go do their own thing, whatever it was, and not bother anyone ...until...someone starting bombing abortion clinics and burning black churches, and they were allowed to call themselves Christians.

Now my most compelling arguement against Christianity is the same one I have against Judaism, and Islam...

They are historically a source of intolerance, hate, violence, division, superstition, ignorance, and the books of these have been used to defend slavery, discrimination, dis enfranchisement, murder, seizing property, dehumanization and instead of GROWING up, they continue to propagate all this mess of pure EVIL even in the face of scientific evidence that LIGHTENING isnt CAUSED by GOD !!

Those three religions are very clearly evil by Jesus Christ's own standard...Ye shall know the tree by the fruit it bears.

PS. move this to the Least compelling thread, OOPS !!
Now that you have told us your reason for not believing join in the fun and actually fess up to which arguments from the other side have ever sounded good to you.

By the way, those arguments you posed seemed to me to have more to do with basic human nature than anthing else. Don't confuse the cup for the contents it holds.

[technomage]

Justin, I'm curious why you would think there would be thundering silence? :eh:
Are you kidding? Get a bunch of argumentative types to admit what arguments they can't counter? :hehe:


I guess ultimately the argument I find most compelling is, those that have sought God and haven't found Him. Or at least not to thier satisfaction.
Or those who believe they have, and even show "fruits" that their "opponenets" cannot deny ... and yet call their God by different names. That was one thing that constantly got me in my days as a Christian.

And I notice that Minn still hasn't answered, unless I completely missed it.

[salvationfound]

Yeah Justin that's why I merely answered with a joke answer. Minn started
this thread and its not fair for him to ask others and not answer himself.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Well, I'd say that the problem of evil is the biggest, but I do believe there is a reasonable answer for it.

I used to believe that if human evolution were true, then Christianity is false. But now I don't think that anymore. I think the evolutionists have a strong case for evolution.

I think what makes the case for Christianity for me is the historicity of Christ and His resurrection. And since He affirmed the OT by His referring to it, I take the Bible as truth.

[Tickle Me Goody]

.





What argument made by the other side do you find most compelling?






.

Some of the apparently "nasty" things decreed by God in the OT.

Is Minn going to answer his own question? (or did he already and I missed it?)

[Jayrok]

Most compelling? If all the christian martyrs really died preaching til the end and believing Jesus would/will come back.. They must have believed something.

On the other hand, I still haven't found solid physical evidence that those guys really did die violently for their faith. Being persecuted or made fun of is one thing, but burning at the stake or something similar for a belief is different.. I'm not sure if Paul really died professing to the grave. He took every opportunity to save his skin while he was alive

[btboy500]

I consider the argument from nonbelief slightly more convincing than the problem of evil.



Christian arguments are the least compelling, because they are simply based on the presupposition that what they believe is true. This is unbelievably shallow.


That is quite the generalization.



The fine tuning arguement is probably the best, until you realise that life developed to fit the environment, and the environment did not develop to fit life.


Except that some values affect carbon and hydrogen distrobution, drastically effecting the possibility of life coming into being(and surely life must be atleast existent in order to evolve).

[steamer]

I'd have to go with the first cause argument as most compelling. It is the main reason I'm an agnostic and not an athiest. I do not see the slightest possibility of knowing what it is that might have been around "before" the universe in order to cause the universe, but it seems that it must have been as etheral as mind and not so bulky as matter in order to exist without time or space. How will we ever know?

[Superbug]

IMO, the fine-tuning argument is like when you hit the corner of a table and later you ask yourself if the incident was designed because the table hit you at the exact place that hurts now.

[Minnesota]

And I notice that Minn still hasn't answered, unless I completely missed it.
:nc:


Yeah Justin that's why I merely answered with a joke answer. Minn started
this thread and its not fair for him to ask others and not answer himself.
:shy:

Is Minn going to answer his own question? (or did he already and I missed it?)
:brood:










:hmph: Oh, okay.



As an agnostic, which is essentially a denial that there IS a god (as well as that there IS NOT a god), I would have to say that the most compelling argument that a god would likely exist is the commonality and inexplicably of near death experiences, which point to a supernatural realm, something necessary for the existence of a supreme being. So, given the possibility of such a landscape, the possibility of a supreme being also gains currency.

[lee_merrill]

Three cheers for Minn!

:joy::bravo::joy:

And hoppy hollydays to his tiger...

Blessings,
Lee

[Tickle Me Goody]

IMO, the fine-tuning argument is like when you hit the corner of a table and later you ask yourself if the incident was designed because the table hit you at the exact place that hurts now.
It is an exercise in conditional probabilites.

Q: Given that you tell someone that your hand hurts, what is the probabilty that it was caused by your hitting the corner of that table?

A: Could be anything from 0 to 1.0

Q: Given that you exist, what is the probability that this universe is uniquely (out of all possible universes) able to allow you to exist?

A: Turns out to be close to 1.0

It takes a considerable amount of thinking to deal with this observation.

gg

[technomage]

:nc:

:shy:

:brood:










:hmph: Oh, okay.



As an agnostic, which is essentially a denial that there IS a god (as well as that there IS NOT a god), I would have to say that the most compelling argument that a god would likely exist is the commonality and inexplicably of near death experiences, which point to a supernatural realm, something necessary for the existence of a supreme being. So, given the possibility of such a landscape, the possibility of a supreme being also gains currency.
Hmm. Cool.

And I LOVE the setup! :lol:

[salvationfound]

Thanks Minn for answering, so I guess its only fair that I answer.

ummmm....I guess the biggest crisis for my faith was the virgin birth. I mean
unlike the resurrection we don't have the witnesses like Peter and Paul
writing about it. But then I realized the virgin birth wasn't the central
message of Christianity. The death and resurrection is. If the evidence
proved to me that Jesus did rise from the dead then why is it so much harder
to accept the virgin birth story? So if I've come to the conclusion that
Jesus did rise from the dead then I should believe the rest of the story as
well.

[sharvey]

I am really not sure what philosophical term there is for it but as a christian, who is easily plagued by doubts the most effective argument or tactic for me has to be the:


"We know so little about ancient Palistine, Yet despite this you are building your belief system on something that is so incomplete".


That is, you will get one skeptic who brings up some manuscript or argument who claims that it smashes christianity, but then somebody else comes along and then slowly dismantles them. However after their rebuttal has gone out then somebody refutes them, etc...

In software industry this tactic is called FUD, which stands for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. and is used by Microsoft (amongst others) to maintain their cliental. However it can also be used to prevent someone from fully embracing one particular philosophy or belief system.


Kind Regards
Simon Harvey

[Sacrificial Ram]

Well, I'd say that the problem of evil is the biggest, but I do believe there is a reasonable answer for it.

I used to believe that if human evolution were true, then Christianity is false. But now I don't think that anymore. I think the evolutionists have a strong case for evolution.

I think what makes the case for Christianity for me is the historicity of Christ and His resurrection. And since He affirmed the OT by His referring to it, I take the Bible as truth.
I am glad you are able to see evidence for science, and not lose your faith.
While I personally disagree with you about the historicity of Christ, and of the resurrection, that is entirely a different matter.

[Mark Little]

What argument made by the other side do you find most compelling?Most compelling? I don't think there is one, however there is one concept that is superficially attractive - eternal life in heaven.

However, this must be tempered by the conclusion that if satan is a fallen angel, it can't be all that good. If he and (one-third of ??) the angels decided that they could do a better job, it clear that heaven isn't as stupendously blissful as we are led to believe.

[HRG_new]

The religious experiences (whether near-death or not) that many people claim to have.

HRG.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I moved this thread here as it seemed much more geared to a less confrontational, conversational style than apologetics, and this will keep it that way.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Most compelling? I don't think there is one, however there is one concept that is superficially attractive - eternal life in heaven.

However, this must be tempered by the conclusion that if satan is a fallen angel, it can't be all that good. If he and (one-third of ??) the angels decided that they could do a better job, it clear that heaven isn't as stupendously blissful as we are led to believe.

Can you think of a senario where a group of people leaving does not mean there is something wrong with what they were leaving but rather something wrong with them? Is it always the case that all disgruntled people are right?

[Jawa Man]

For me it is as my brother says, "Sure, you may prove Christianity in court, but even guilty men have been set free and innocent men imprisoned." He once told me this as an example. Let's say I'm blind and I stick my hand underneath running water. It's boiling hot, but as we know, when something is really hot it can feel really cold. I could easily make a mistake because I can't see it. Just like I can't see God. I realize my experiences with God could just be all from my mind, maybe something in me playing the God role. So maybe my whole experience is entirely from me.

I don't believe this argument is true, though, because I would then have to question the Civil War, the Revolution, even World War 2 since I never saw it. If I wanted to go even farther, I'd have to question whether there's an invisible wall approaching to smack into me. Basically, I'm admitting that what I find the most compelling argument is that it is not 100%, but requires at least some faith.

[Zeluvia]

Okay to be totally fair, I do think human's DO have a spiritual NEED... and most religions try to answer this need and at the core, I think its a GOOD thing.

And sorry, the basic premise of Christianity is that you can only be saved by grace, not by works, and that man alone Cannot create a utopian world, because we are born in sin. In fact, mankind being able to sort out his own problems is considered to be a direct lie by Satan, and along with the world federation, the universal religion, and us all sharing one language, and a world economic system, signs of the end of the world.

I reject this limiting concept of mankinds potential, and think applying a demented book written while someone was in exile and scared of Rome and trying to apply it to a much larger world situation now is...well...demented !!

[Jawa Man]

Aren't we leaving the topic of the OP by arguing against the opposing position? (Edit: Wow... I just thought "opposing position" is where we get our word "opposition" from!)

[Mark Little]

Can you think of a senario where a group of people leaving does not mean there is something wrong with what they were leaving but rather something wrong with them?If a large percentage of your country's population think that something is so bad that they need to emigrate, these is a reasonable case to assume that something is wrong. When a large slice of the population of heaven decides that it is better to leave the divine face of God, then the same doubt applies.
Is it always the case that all disgruntled people are right?No, but even in the secular world, when a large slice of the population decides to leave, it is an indication that all is not well.

[guacamole]

Hrm... For some reason I didn't see this thread before... oh well, it's never stopped me from shooting my mouth off in the past!

There are seriously few intellectual arguments that make me doubt. The ideas of God and belief in God satisfy whatever limited intellectuality I have completely. I do not doubt based on the arguments of men. To be sure, there are compelling arguments, however I find that they don't make me doubt as much as they challenge me to think about things in a different way. That's not to say that I am unshakeable, that I don't have doubts. Please, I realize that I'm no iron clad fortress of the mind and soul. At times, I realize that I am more in love with the ideas of God and belief in God than I am necessarily with God and belief in God. And that, for whatever strange, mental defect I posess, causes me doubt. I'm sure that sounds almost non-sensical, and frankly, quite foolish, and it probably is so, but let me try and explain.

I think there is a difference between believing in God and believing in the idea of God. On apologetics forums we defend or attack the idea of God or the idea of not-God. We take it and disect it, examine it for logical flaws, consider whether the composition is consistent or contradictory. But at the end of the day, there are no winners and losers, (except for some egos -I'm not preaching at anyone, I include myself in that indictment). For all our vaunted exultations and pronouncements, I find my activities here, clad in as much spirituality and intellectuality, are a recreation, a filling in of the blank time in our otherwise lives (that's not to say that there aren't things being discussed here of any worth, May it never be, I've read things here that have already deeply affected me). The reason I say this is precisely because of the difference between being involved in working out the Idea of God/Not God and living the logical extension of the idea with any meaning. That's to say, talk is cheap.

Yes, I like to hear the sound of my own voice in my head as I type, I'm getting to it.

Here's the key. I often hear Atheists and agnostics argue that they cannot choose to believe in God. I don't buy it. I have to choose to believe again every day that there is a God, that he loves me, and that he is capable of taking care of this fine world we have. I wake up some mornings and feel like a child of God, redeemed, protected, and vibrant. I wake up some mornings and feel possessed by the idea of God. I can't shake it off. I can't fathom why, for the life of me you stubborn nonbelievers won't see the logic. More often than not however, I wake up some mornings and feel that if I don't get to the bathroom in approximately four seconds or less it's going to be the beginning of a bad day. Some days anything other than the immanent carnal reality might as well not exist for all I think. I think about my day and realize that for all for all my dedication to the ideas Theism and Christ, the fact is that in the moment to moment reality of my life it didn't make a single bit of practical difference that I believe in God and that I believe he was Jesus of Nazareth. For all pragmatic purposes I might as well have been an atheist. That gets to me. I arrive at the end of the day and think, "What on earth was I doing today. What difference did God and Christ make in my life today. What difference did I make for God and Christ today." I find at times that I can answer in no way anything affirmative, and I wonder, "If it doesn't even make a practical difference, is it even worth believing at all?" The first time that happened, I realized the difference between being invested in the idea of God, and believing in God, and that if I'm not careful I tend more toward the former and less toward the latter.

Yes. This has been overly long, maudlin and self-indulgent. But Minnesota asked, and for some reason you read to the end of it. Thanks for reading.

Guac.

[Thedonhopeless]

K don't think I am jokign when I say the following, i am dead serious:

Someone brought it to my attention that how can there be a God, when snorign exsists?

Yea yea laugh, as I did, but he went on: Snoring is absoluteley useless! It is worse then unfair death and all that because atleast those can be given some sort of theological arguements..but snoring is totally useless, and pure evil! It doesn't edify, it doesn't teach anyone anything, it doesn't make you closer to God, it doesn't do anything whatsoever, yet it tears apart friendships, marriages, and people's sanity! For no other reason! noone learns anything from this, its just pure evil, no good at all comes from it. How can God let such a thing slip through the cracks? And if he created it, then he must be truly demented.

If snorign exsists, God cannot, for snoring has to be a natural unplanned mistake of random genetic code, that wa shis final analasys.

pretty compelling actually if you think about it.


About Christians and presuppositions that God autmatically exsists..and thats how they approach every debate. Well this is true to soem degree, but its true to all poitns of view aswell. like the presupposition that God can never exsist. NOt everyone approaches things so narrowly, but many do in all catagories. Don't single out christians here.

[rach12]

As an agnostic, which is essentially a denial that there IS a god (as well as that there IS NOT a god), I would have to say that the most compelling argument that a god would likely exist is the commonality and inexplicably of near death experiences, which point to a supernatural realm, something necessary for the existence of a supreme being. So, given the possibility of such a landscape, the possibility of a supreme being also gains currency.
For me, it's something similar.

I have not yet been able to completely rule out the 'supernatural' world - in the form of spirits, NDEs, paranormal activity, etc. I put supernatural in quotes because I don't actually believe there is anything that is beyond the explanation of science or beyond the natural world. I just think we have not the knowledge to explain those things at this point in time.

However, even if we do in someway find that this 'supernatural' world exists, to me it would not necessarily point to a god, but I think it would be a step in the right direction.

[kofh2u]

Thanks Minn for answering, so I guess its only fair that I answer.

ummmm....I guess the biggest crisis for my faith was the virgin birth. I mean unlike the resurrection we don't have the witnesses like Peter and Paul writing about it. But then I realized the virgin birth wasn't the central message of Christianity. The death and resurrection is. If the evidence proved to me that Jesus did rise from the dead then why is it so much harder to accept the virgin birth story? So if I've come to the conclusion that
Jesus did rise from the dead then I should believe the rest of the story as well.

Is 32:4 Even the hotheads among them will be full of sense and
understanding, and those who stammer in uncertainty will speak out plainly.


The questions you ponder are mute today.

You ask:
" If the evidence proved to me that Jesus did rise from the dead then why is it so much harder to accept the virgin birth story? So if I've come to the conclusion that Jesus did rise from the dead then I should believe the rest of the story as well."

Everyone does believe that through genetics, the blueprint of our own genetic coding rest in the gehenna of the Human Gene Pool. We are assured "resurrection" ultimately.

Unless, by our collective self-centered behavior, we throw ourselves backward, towards an extinction so possible and so survival dependent upon our behavior.

If the message of Jesus' immediate resurrection is only symbolic of our own, and if death is to be no more, we are in ourselves a personal continuum, we are a mental Book of Life, capable of "remembering" the thoughts the entire phylogenetic record of our species.

Jesus asks us, "are we ready for the self judgement in such anawakening?"

He asks us, is our eternal, ancient Conscience clean and baptized in the blood of remission from the ancient crimes recorded on the "hard drive" of our Unconscious Memory?

Revelation 21:4-5 And God shall wipe away, (in their awakened Unconscious Mind), all tears from their eyes, (for life is a continuum from one generation to the next living generation); and (in genetic memories of prior existences held in our Unconscious Mind) there shall be no more death, neither sorrow (for we, individually, are part of a living continuum of our own pasts), nor crying (for we are happy in these revelations), neither shall there be any more pain (as circumvented by hypnosis today): for the former things (in Modern Homo sapiens life experience) are passed away.
And he, (the ancient, phylogenetic, Collective Unconscious Mind), that sat upon the throne (of the Homoiousian sapiens' brain) said, Behold, (in this way) I make all things (in human experience) new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true (rational, and scientifically feasible) and (worthy of) faithful (belief).

[exile]

I think the fine-tuning argument is stronger than that. If you model the big bang and change the speed of light, gravitational constant and other variables slightly, you end up with a kind of thin soup rather than galaxies and stars.

I ever change my mind and start believing in God then this will be the argument that convinces me (though of course it would only make me a Deist like Tom Paine)

[Undomiel]

Hrm, probably suffering on a massive scale and no relief from it regardless of prayers, would be the only thing that would come near to shaking my faith (and paradoxically, it's one of the things that convinces me that an Afterlife is absolutely necessary). For example, the 100 MILLION females that have been killed in China, India and North Africa since 1982 or thereabouts (this doesn't take into account death due to natural causes, war, and doesn't mention the thousands of women who were killed by the Taliban in Afghanistan), with no end in site. They are starved, mistreated, malnourished, killed after they are born in a variety of horrific ways, aborted from first trimester all the way up to partial birth, sent off to orphanges by the hundreds of thousands, and presumably caring humans (especially men who are in power and should know better), write it off as necessary evil or the preferred alternative.

[Heathen Dawn]

The most compelling argument for atheism in my mind is the Problem of Evil. It keeps bothering me sometimes even though I don’t believe in omnimax. I think despair of the Gods because of all the evil in the world is the only good reason for atheism. My way out of this is to state that the evil in the world is all the more reason to believe in the Gods (would be unbearable, evil without Gods to help).

[Tickle Me Goody]

The most compelling argument for atheism in my mind is the Problem of Evil. It keeps bothering me sometimes even though I don’t believe in omnimax. I think despair of the Gods because of all the evil in the world is the only good reason for atheism. My way out of this is to state that the evil in the world is all the more reason to believe in the Gods (would be unbearable, evil without Gods to help).
Cool website :cool:------ but try "On Whom is the Burden of proof"

Otherwise LGM will getcha.

[shunyadragon]

The most compelling argument for atheism in my mind is the Problem of Evil. It keeps bothering me sometimes even though I don’t believe in omnimax. I think despair of the Gods because of all the evil in the world is the only good reason for atheism. My way out of this is to state that the evil in the world is all the more reason to believe in the Gods (would be unbearable, evil without Gods to help).
The problem of evil exists more of Judeo/Christian/Islamic concept likely created over time as a control mechanism. Most Jews would likely shrug their shoulders and say what evil? Many Moslems do not give evil a capital 'E'. The Baha'i Faith believes in an omnipotent unknowable God and considers evil to be essentially non-existent, and a creation of human fears and the desire for a scapegoat.

The bottom line is the concept of 'Evil' with a capital 'E' is likely a result of a power and mind-control conspiracy issue of Orthodox Christianity and nothing more. In reality there are no Santa Clauses, Easter Bunnies, Boggiemen, monsters in the closet, or Evil Devils, demons or the fire pit of hell.

[Tickle Me Goody]

The problem of evil exists more of Judeo/Christian/Islamic concept likely created over time as a control mechanism. Most Jews would likely shrug their shoulders and say what evil? Many Moslems do not give evil a capital 'E'. The Baha'i Faith believes in an omnipotent unknowable God and considers evil to be essentially non-existent, and a creation of human fears and the desire for a scapegoat.

The bottom line is the concept of 'Evil' with a capital 'E' is likely a result of a power and mind-control conspiracy issue of Orthodox Christianity and nothing more. In reality there are no Santa Clauses, Easter Bunnies, Boggiemen, monsters in the closet, or Evil Devils, demons or the fire pit of hell.
What was your answer to the original question?

[Heathen Dawn]

The Baha'i Faith believes in an omnipotent unknowable God and considers evil to be essentially non-existent, and a creation of human fears and the desire for a scapegoat.

If I understand correctly then the Baha’i faith has the same attitude as Buddhism towards evil: a creation of the human mind. And would it be correct to assume the Baha’i faith administers the same cure as Buddhism, namely to curb the attachments of the human mind so as to take the storms of life easily?

[Jin-Roh]

Christian arguments are the least compelling, because they are simply based on the presupposition that what they believe is true. This is unbelievably shallow.

Shunya, how often do people argue for something without the presupposition that what they believe is true? :sigh:

Anyway, for me arguments I find most compelling lean more towards issues of Epistemology. I don't find hard-core empiricism very troubling, but I don't think I've resolved every "how do you know things" question in my head yet.

The suffering issue is another thing that I sometimes have touble with, but I when I hear it, it seems to be more of an issue of the heart than the brain.

[sandlewood]

After reading this thread I was particularly struck in noticing that no Christians cited lack of objective evidence as a compelling reason.

[TrinityKicker]

After reading this thread I was particularly struck in noticing that no Christians cited lack of objective evidence as a compelling reason.That's because there is no shortage of objective evidence. Objective people are rare, but objective evidence is all over the place.

So, are you going to answer the question?

[Meh_Gerbil]

Here are some things that I find troubling:

1: It makes me mad that Evolution has about a 100 million dollars being thrown at it by very, very credible scientists while Creationist efforts are often carried out by hacks. Makes it hard to maintain YEC beliefs when Creationists are often unstudied, dishonest, and frankly, quite goofy.

2: The lack of outright verifiable miracles in the modern church is troubling at times. It seems to me that G_d would really help things along a bit if shysters would get struck dead (Benny Hinn) -- sheesh. I know that sounds terrible, but the world doesn't need hucksters pumping old women for money on TV.

Sheesh.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Here are some things that I find troubling:

1: It makes me mad that Evolution has about a 100 million dollars being thrown at it by very, very credible scientists while Creationist efforts are often carried out by hacks. Makes it hard to maintain YEC beliefs when Creationists are often unstudied, dishonest, and frankly, quite goofy.



That is a good thing to realise about the promoters of YEC. The 'often'
is a bit understated though.




2: The lack of outright verifiable miracles in the modern church is troubling at times. It seems to me that G_d would really help things along a bit if shysters would get struck dead (Benny Hinn) -- sheesh. I know that sounds terrible, but the world doesn't need hucksters pumping old women for money on TV
.

The lack of verifiable miracles would not bother me if I was a believer, but the frauds, and con artists would. What also would bother me is that so many people are naive enought to be taken in by the frauds and cons.

[Meh_Gerbil]

The lack of verifiable miracles would not bother me if I was a believer, but the frauds, and con artists would. What also would bother me is that so many people are naive enought to be taken in by the frauds and cons.

I couldn't agree more.

Sometimes I wonder if the Biblical prescription to stone mediums and witches is so bad after all -- to be honest, you'd whack 100,000 con artists preying on weak people for every bonafide medium you'd whack who was genuine and trying to be helpful.

Granted, the same probably applies to modern preachers.

[shunyadragon]

The most compelling argument for atheism in my mind is the Problem of Evil. It keeps bothering me sometimes even though I don’t believe in omnimax. I think despair of the Gods because of all the evil in the world is the only good reason for atheism. My way out of this is to state that the evil in the world is all the more reason to believe in the Gods (would be unbearable, evil without Gods to help).

You have the Baha'i view that evil does not exist. Existence was and is being created without a heaven, hell or evil. Many if not most Jews do not even believe this ancient nonesense.

The Christian world view is based on the meme's of mythology and fear.

[Meh_Gerbil]

You have the Baha'i view that evil does not exist. Existence was and is being created without a heaven, hell or evil. Many if not most Jews do not even believe this ancient nonesense.

The Christian world view is based on the meme's of mythology and fear.

Shunya, take your stupid drum and go beat it elsewhere -- we are trying to have a converstion here that includes something other than your cheap shots.

Answer the original OP or go away please.

[Peter Kirby]

I am currently thinking of two, related arguments, the first without a cognitive or verificationist bent (i.e., choosing to be religious because it is true) and the latter that can be turned into one.

The first one is basically Schleiermacher's argument that a complete and fulfilled life includes the religious dimension of life.

The second one is the one that C. S. Lewis develops on occasion, to wit, "If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

[shunyadragon]

What argument made by the other side do you find most compelling?







My point is that the question of Evil from the atheist point of view is not compeling at all when there is a viable alternative worldview of God.

The atheist point of view is strongest in their argument for the lack of evidence for the existence of God, and in the case of Christianity, a lack of out side corraborating evidence for Jesus Christ's life, and no significant miracles in recent history to demonstrate the miraculous claims of Christian beliefs.

[Cleanthes]

As a non-Christian theist, I find Isaiah 53 to be the most compelling of all the messianic prophecies use to support Jesus as the Messiah.

[Darth Executor]

The only compelling "argument" atheists make to me is the temptation of freedom. I am sometimes haunted by the thoughts of "what if God doesn't exist and I could be spending this time plundering villages, taking virgins as my wives and living the high life". I guess this is what caused lucifer's downfall, and it only makes sense. Then again, it's no match for my experiences which blow the idea of atheism right out of my mind.

[Paul Brand]

There are a few things that challenge my beliefs:
1)Numerous divisions in the church.
2)Certain historical events that were responsible by the church.
3)I guess my current views on creation are different than they once were. There is still some tension between presuppositions about God I once held, and those that I now hold. The tactics used by many YECers are highly questionable. Though I no longer consider myself a YECer, I still feel tension with the issue, and the people who hold to such a position.
4)The respectful and loving attitude of Mormons. I know this one is odd, but I find the evidence for Mormonism to be very uncompelling, yet they seem to exemplify the characteristics of Christ better than most Christians. Our Holy Spirit seems to be lacking in either i)power, or ii)faithful followers.
5)The character of God in the OT often seems different than what is presented in our current day church culture. Having said that, the character of Christ is often different than what is presented in current day church culture.
6)Abuses within the charismatic movement. False prophets, false healers, etc.

Having said that, there are numerous reasons why I believe Christianity is rational, some of them have been mentioned by some atheists/agnostics on this forum (fine tuned nature of the cosmos, Kalam argument). In addition, I find fulfilled prophecies through Christ comepelling, William Lane Craig's research on the resurrection of Christ, the wisdom of Jesus and the apostle Paul, testimony of miracles by others, and that I seem to have a consistent understanding of reality through the Scriptures.

[Peter Kirby]

I am currently thinking of two, related arguments, the first without a cognitive or verificationist bent (i.e., choosing to be religious because it is true) and the latter that can be turned into one.

The first one is basically Schleiermacher's argument that a complete and fulfilled life includes the religious dimension of life.

The second one is the one that C. S. Lewis develops on occasion, to wit, "If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."

Hmmm....

It seems that I am the only one who proposed a noncognitive reason for switching sides.

I guess I'm the only one here with a non-logical side of my positions on religion. :smile:

Here is Wittgenstein's account of the resurrection (courtesy my friend Paul):

"What inclines me to believe in Christ's Resurrection? It is as though I play with the thought. - If he did not rise from the dead, then he decomposed in the grave like any other man. He is dead and decomposed. In that case he is a teacher like any other and can no longer help; and once more we are orphaned and alone. And must content ourselves with wisdom and speculation. We are as it were in a hell, where we can only dream, and as it were cut off from heaven by a roof. But if I am to be really saved - then I need certainty - not wisdom, dreams, speculation - and this certainty is faith. And faith is faith in what my heart, my soul needs, not my speculative intelligence. For it is my soul, with its passions, as it were with its flesh and blood, that must be saved, not my abstract mind."

To quote Paul himself now: "This claim was made on several occasions: in response to Malcolm's quoting Kierkegaard ('How can it be that Christ does not exist, since i know that He has saved me?'), Wittgenstein declared 'you see! It isn't a question of proving anything!' He distrusted and disapproved of any attempt to prove the existence of God, asserting even that none of the usual proofs could bring about belief:"

Quote of Wittgenstein:
"A proof of God's existence should really be something by which one could convince oneself of God's existence. But i think that believers who have provided such proofs, have wanted to give their 'belief' an intellectual analysis and foundation, although they themselves would never have come to believe through such proofs. Perhaps one could 'convince someone of God's existence' through a certain kind of upbringing, by shaping his life in such and such a way.

"Life can educate one to a belief in God. And also experiences can do this; but not visions and other forms of sense experience which show us the 'existence of this being' - but, e.g. sufferings of various kinds. These neither show us God in the way a sense impression shows us an object, nor do they give rise to conjectures about him. Experiences, thoughts, - life can force this concept on us."

So, I guess my question is this...

Does anyone else have a real attraction to the beliefs (that you don't hold)?

best,
Peter Kirby

[Doug Shaver]

.



What argument made by the other side do you find most compelling?




.

For me, I suppose that would be the fine-tuning argument. It's the only one that I find even a little bit challenging.

[Jin-Roh]

6)Abuses within the charismatic movement. False prophets, false healers, etc.

:doh: Sheesh, how could I forgot about that. Charismania nearly killed my faith about two years ago.

[shunyadragon]

The only compelling "argument" atheists make to me is the temptation of freedom. I am sometimes haunted by the thoughts of "what if God doesn't exist and I could be spending this time plundering villages, taking virgins as my wives and living the high life".

Sounds very Biblical, or graphically descriptive of the mischief of Christians over the past several thousand years.



I guess this is what caused lucifer's downfall, and it only makes sense. Then again, it's no match for my experiences which blow the idea of atheism right out of my mind.

Lucifer's supposed downfall was not related to the above. Like our very human history he ploted for power to form his own church.

[shunyadragon]

As a non-Christian theist, I find Isaiah 53 to be the most compelling of all the messianic prophecies use to support Jesus as the Messiah.

As a non-Christian theist I find it the least compelling if taken in the traditional Christian view to referring specifically to the messiah, Jesus Christ.

I prefer to take the context of Isaiah more as a whole. Within this context it may be interpreted as referring to the Jewish people and/or the messiahs of the world.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

The problem of evil is the most understandable reason for someone to not be a Christian.

As I went through this thread, a quote occurred to me.

The best evidence for Christianity is the lives of Christians. The worst evidence for Christianity is the lives of Christians.

Now I really think the best is to be found in the resurrection. Even if everyone is a hypocrite, that won't prove Christ rose from the dead, but I do understand that some people might not even look at that possibility if Christians aren't living the changed life. Yes. I fall short there also. Please don't look to me as the pinnacle of faith. I will let you down at times. Look to Christ only.

[shunyadragon]

Hmmm....

It seems that I am the only one who proposed a noncognitive reason for switching sides.

I guess I'm the only one here with a non-logical side of my positions on religion. :smile:

Here is Wittgenstein's account of the resurrection (courtesy my friend Paul):

"What inclines me to believe in Christ's Resurrection? It is as though I play with the thought. - If he did not rise from the dead, then he decomposed in the grave like any other man. He is dead and decomposed. In that case he is a teacher like any other and can no longer help; and once more we are orphaned and alone. And must content ourselves with wisdom and speculation. We are as it were in a hell, where we can only dream, and as it were cut off from heaven by a roof. But if I am to be really saved - then I need certainty - not wisdom, dreams, speculation - and this certainty is faith. And faith is faith in what my heart, my soul needs, not my speculative intelligence. For it is my soul, with its passions, as it were with its flesh and blood, that must be saved, not my abstract mind."

To quote Paul himself now: "This claim was made on several occasions: in response to Malcolm's quoting Kierkegaard ('How can it be that Christ does not exist, since i know that He has saved me?'), Wittgenstein declared 'you see! It isn't a question of proving anything!' He distrusted and disapproved of any attempt to prove the existence of God, asserting even that none of the usual proofs could bring about belief:"

Quote of Wittgenstein:
"A proof of God's existence should really be something by which one could convince oneself of God's existence. But i think that believers who have provided such proofs, have wanted to give their 'belief' an intellectual analysis and foundation, although they themselves would never have come to believe through such proofs. Perhaps one could 'convince someone of God's existence' through a certain kind of upbringing, by shaping his life in such and such a way.

"Life can educate one to a belief in God. And also experiences can do this; but not visions and other forms of sense experience which show us the 'existence of this being' - but, e.g. sufferings of various kinds. These neither show us God in the way a sense impression shows us an object, nor do they give rise to conjectures about him. Experiences, thoughts, - life can force this concept on us."

So, I guess my question is this...

Does anyone else have a real attraction to the beliefs (that you don't hold)?

best,
Peter Kirby

I will provide some comments here, but this does require a little more thought. For switching sides I find little compelling in these arguments. They lack 'force' from the outside in that most of the arguments come from believers, who in turn were raised with in the western Christian paradym, despite possible youthful wanderings by some in other philosophies, they basically came back to the fold and justify their belief from within as Wittgenstein illudes to.

The atheist perspective is attractive because it is not grounded in the presuppositions of the subjective circular beliefs in God, but since I still believe in God I do not find it totally compelling.

[Rani]

For some time the most compelling arguement I have had against my faith was the paganistic similarities. For the most part a lot of the claims can be countered, but some I am without any reply. Beyond this one must ask what makes Christianity unique in relation to these similarities, what concepts and ideologies have only been explored in Christianity that have never been explored in other faiths.

My own personal experiences have solidified my faith so as to not waver from it, but the ties between Paganism and Christianity does pose a problem in relation to my apologietics.

[Augusta]

After reading this thread I was particularly struck in noticing that no Christians cited lack of objective evidence as a compelling reason.

That kind of fits what came to my mind. . . but I would word it as the lack of extraordinary objective evidence. In an acronym, ECREE.

[shunyadragon]

That kind of fits what came to my mind. . . but I would word it as the lack of extraordinary objective evidence. In an acronym, ECREE.

I disagree, the evidence need not be the extreme requirements of ECREE required by many skeptics. It need be only objective evidence that could be falsified. ECREE is also misrepresented to a certain degree as unreasonable. It would only be unreasonable in the extreme since.

When I evaluate the evidence, I find evidence for Christianity in a general since, but the evidence is almost completely lacking to support the exclusive traditional theology of Christianity when viewed from today's perpective.

[Cleombrotus]

.



What argument made by the other side do you find most compelling?




.


I have never heard an argument for the other side, compelling or otherwise, even though I have made attempts to elicit them from non-believers in TWeb and elsewhere.

When one considers that all such "arguments" are simply objections to what I believe, and not arguments on their own merits, they become evidence for what I believe.

There have been questions raised which I did not have the answer to, but I distinquish them from arguments for non-belief.


Regards,
Cleombrotus

[Doug Shaver]

When one considers that all such "arguments" are simply objections to what I believe, and not arguments on their own merits, they become evidence for what I believe.



Regards,
Cleombrotus

I don't understand. What is the difference between an objection to a belief and an argument against the belief?

[Cleombrotus]

I don't understand. What is the difference between an objection to a belief and an argument against the belief?

There is no difference.

However, I did not say "arguments against a belief". What I said was "arguments on their own merits".

You take it for granted that the idea of atheism is an argument against the idea of God, but when you hear a Christian making his case for Jesus Christ, for example, you do not take it for granted that he is making an argument against atheism, at least not in a direct way. He is usually engaged in presenting various evidences which he believes are compelling reasons for belief. These evidences are presented on their own merits. The listener can either regard them as compelling evidences or not as he sees fit, but the idea that the Christian is opposing anything besides unbelief does not enter into the picture unless he makes it the theme of his argument, as when he might be arguing for belief in Jesus as opposed to another belief, such as Islam. If you, for example, take away the idea of "no God" or "No Muhammad" from the presentation of his "arguments", his "arguments" suffer no loss of validity.

However, when one takes away the idea of "God" from the atheists "arguments", they immediately become invalid questions.

Take, for example, the problem of evil. The atheist likes to argue that if there is a God and if He is all good as some propose, then He cannot allow evil and therefore He cannot possibly exist, since evil quite obviousy exists. Putting aside for the moment that the argument is a childish one, consider what happens to the argument of the problem of evil if there is no God. If there is no God, there is no such thing as evil or good since they are simply human constructs, that is, names we have given certain ideas and practices. These things we call evil and good are simply the workings out of natural selection and survival but have no intrinsic value or morality. So the question of the problem of evil becomes an invalid question and the atheist has shot himslf in the foot, once again.

You see? He needs God to even argue against God.

Therefore, the only recourse the atheist has is in making objections to God. He cannot offer any compelling reason to believe there is no God on its own merits. At least, I have yet to hear one. If anyone has one, I will be delighted to hear it.

One cannot argue for "no God". One can only object to the ideas for God.

Does that help?

Cleombrotus

[Abhorsen]

There is no difference.

However, I did not say "arguments against a belief". What I said was "arguments on their own merits".

You take it for granted that the idea of atheism is an argument against the idea of God, but when you hear a Christian making his case for Jesus Christ, for example, you do not take it for granted that he is making an argument against atheism, at least not in a direct way. He is usually engaged in presenting various evidences which he believes are compelling reasons for belief. These evidences are presented on their own merits. The listener can either regard them as compelling evidences or not as he sees fit, but the idea that the Christian is opposing anything besides unbelief does not enter into the picture unless he makes it the theme of his argument, as when he might be arguing for belief in Jesus as opposed to another belief, such as Islam. If you, for example, take away the idea of "no God" or "No Muhammad" from the presentation of his "arguments", his "arguments" suffer no loss of validity.

However, when one takes away the idea of "God" from the atheists "arguments", they immediately become invalid questions.

Take, for example, the problem of evil. The atheist likes to argue that if there is a God and if He is all good as some propose, then He cannot allow evil and therefore He cannot possibly exist, since evil quite obviousy exists. Putting aside for the moment that the argument is a childish one, consider what happens to the argument of the problem of evil if there is no God. If there is no God, there is no such thing as evil or good since they are simply human constructs, that is, names we have given certain ideas and practices. These things we call evil and good are simply the workings out of natural selection and survival but have no intrinsic value or morality. So the question of the problem of evil becomes an invalid question and the atheist has shot himslf in the foot, once again.

You see? He needs God to even argue against God.

Therefore, the only recourse the atheist has is in making objections to God. He cannot offer any compelling reason to believe there is no God on its own merits. At least, I have yet to hear one. If anyone has one, I will be delighted to hear it.

One cannot argue for "no God". One can only object to the ideas for God.

Does that help?

Cleombrotus
Yes. That helps to confuse me further. There does not need to be any proof of no God. If I am not wearing shoes--I don't have to prove I'm not wearing shoes. I do have to prove it to you if I am wearing shoes (by letting you look at my feet). If I am not wearing shoes and you don't believe me then you are welcome to look for yourself at my feet. If you are trying to tell me there are shoes--then of course you need to show me the shoes. The theists are the ones that need to do the proving. Until it is proven there is nothing. And of course nothing doesn't need to be proven. It is just the absence of anything. I hate writing sentences like that. It just makes my head hurt.

[Abhorsen]

.



What argument made by the other side do you find most compelling?




.
Let's start by saying that I am closer to an atheist than any other catagory with a title. But I would say that I am just continually questioning. I personally have never heard a really good argument for the existence of God. But at the same time I cannot completely count it out. Here is my reasoning. The human mind is a finite structure. It can process a whole lot of info but there is a limit. For instance, the human mind cannot really understand infinite amounts of time. Even if there was a sudden beginning to our universe there still existed at least time before that beginning of the universe as we know it. I understand time to be infinite. But I cannot really understand infinity. It is just beyond the capablilities of my brain. I understand what the word means but I can't understand what it is like or what it takes to be infinite. I have ruled out a God that has a hand in our lives or even our creation. To me that just doesn't seem likely. However, admitting that my brain just simply cannot conceive certain things (like infinity) I must admit that there could possbly be other things that my brain cannot comprehend (nor can anyones in my opinion). Does anyone else share similar ideas?

[Abhorsen]

In metaphysics, one does not speak of "proof"; one speaks of "credibilty".

If your head hurts, perhaps it's a sign that you're not all the way gone yet and it's trying to tell you something.

Disputation and rebuttal are not the only way that ideas are propounded.

Try again, Socrates. Keep in mind the OP.
What you basically said (if I understood you correctly) is that a person cannot argue against God without refer to God in the argument. Therefore accepting God--at least long enough to try to disprove God. Is that right?

[Cleombrotus]

What you basically said (if I understood you correctly) is that a person cannot argue against God without refer to God in the argument. Therefore accepting God--at least long enough to try to disprove God. Is that right?


No. Not necessarily.

Keep in mind that my argument is that all arguments put forth by atheists, thus far, have to do with raising objections to ideas already proposed by Theists. However, unlike your hypothesis that the burden of proof lies with the Theist, untill the question of God's existence is answered satisfactorily (not necessarily conclusively) the only burden required is that of the question.

The atheist who argues, as you just have, that the burden of proof lies with the Theist is only on solid ground when the Theist has been the first to put forth his idea as the conclusive answer to the question.

Now, supposing that two neutral observers were trying to decide the answer to the question, with neither one proposing a position as defintive but allowing that, since there are only two possible answers to the question each one of them would take a position and would independently of the other, come up with credible evidences for his position with the resulting position with the most credible evidences being the one they would give their allegiance to.

Given that scenario, try to think of a credible answer to the idea that there is no God, that has not yet heard any arguments for the idea of the existence of a God.

Good luck.

Cleombrotus

[Cleombrotus]

Yes. That helps to confuse me further. There does not need to be any proof of no God. If I am not wearing shoes--I don't have to prove I'm not wearing shoes. I do have to prove it to you if I am wearing shoes (by letting you look at my feet). If I am not wearing shoes and you don't believe me then you are welcome to look for yourself at my feet. If you are trying to tell me there are shoes--then of course you need to show me the shoes. The theists are the ones that need to do the proving. Until it is proven there is nothing. And of course nothing doesn't need to be proven. It is just the absence of anything. I hate writing sentences like that. It just makes my head hurt.


In metaphysics one does not speak of "proof"; one speaks of "credibilty".

If your head hurts perhaps it's a sign that you're not all the way gone yet and it's trying to tell you something.

Disputation and rebuttal are not the only way that ideas are propounded.

Try again, Socrates. Keep in mind the OP.

[Abhorsen]

No. Not necessarily.

Keep in mind that my argument is that all arguments put forth by atheists, thus far, have to do with raising objections to ideas already proposed by Theists. However, unlike your hypothesis that the burden of proof lies with the Theist, untill the question of God's existence is answered satisfactorily (not necessarily conclusively) the only burden required is that of the question.

The atheist who argues, as you just have, that the burden of proof lies with the Theist is only on solid ground when the Theist has been the first to put forth his idea as the conclusive answer to the question.

Now, supposing that two neutral observers were trying to decide the answer to the question, with neither one proposing a position as defintive but allowing that, since there are only two possible answers to the question each one of them would take a position and would independently of the other, come up with credible evidences for his position with the resulting position with the most credible evidences being the one they would give their allegiance to.

Given that scenario, try to think of a credible answer to the idea that there is no God, that has not yet heard any arguments for the idea of the existence of a God.

Good luck.

Cleombrotus
OK. How about if we take your scenario and pretend the two individuals are trying to either prove or disprove the existance of unicorns. They have 1 week (just to avoid the idea of spending eternity looking) to come to their conclusion. So person number one decides to look for unicorn evidence and number two decides to look for evidence disproving unicorns. Number one buys a plane ticket to Madagascar and number two finds a nice shade tree and enjoys the nice fall day. After one week they meet again and number one says "where's your evidence that unicorns don't exist"? Number two says "man I haven't found squat that says they didn't exist. Therefore--I have no choice but to claim that they don't exist". Number one says "that's funny I haven't found squat that says they do exist". Therefore--I should claim that they don't exist. But man--I really want unicorns to exist. You know what? I'm just gonna say they exist anyway."

[Cleombrotus]

OK. How about if we take your scenario and pretend the two individuals are trying to either prove or disprove the existance of unicorns. They have 1 week (just to avoid the idea of spending eternity looking) to come to their conclusion. So person number one decides to look for unicorn evidence and number two decides to look for evidence disproving unicorns. Number one buys a plane ticket to Madagascar and number two finds a nice shade tree and enjoys the nice fall day. After one week they meet again and number one says "where's your evidence that unicorns don't exist"? Number two says "man I haven't found squat that says they didn't exist. Therefore--I have no choice but to claim that they don't exist". Number one says "that's funny I haven't found squat that says they do exist". Therefore--I should claim that they don't exist. But man--I really want unicorns to exist. You know what? I'm just gonna say they exist anyway."


Do you know what a false analogy is? And what causes it to be classifed as false?

But more to the point: do you notice that you took my example, which was clearly given as an illustration clarifying a point and not as an argument, and turned it into an argument instead ?

Ask yourself, what is the motivation for doing that, since there was no need?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

The most compelling argument I've encountered has come from the atheists, that being that science has already provided suitable explanations for natural cause and process behind many of the phenomena that were previously attributed only supernatural explanations, and that although there is still much that science hasn't answered, we are constantly learning new things, so we can't say with certainty that we won't have some of those answers tomorrow, or next week, or in the next hundred years, and so on.

I've never encountered a compelling argument from a theist of any stripe, including pagan theists (my own kind). The reason for that is that when you strip down even the very best of their arguments to their most basic root, accepting that root as more than just a theory, an idea or a myth requires faith. Now, I have no problem with faith, I have plenty of it ... with regard to certain things. But for me to accept your presuppositions would require me to have faith in the same things as you, and no theist (Christian or otherwise) has been able to provide a convincing argument for why their presuppositions should replace my own.

[Abhorsen]

Do you know what a false analogy is? And what causes it to be classifed as false?

But more to the point: do you notice that you took my example, which was clearly given as an illustration clarifying a point and not as an argument, and turned it into an argument instead ?

Ask yourself, what is the motivation for doing that, since there was no need?

OK Cleombrotus. I do know what a false analogy is, but I wasn't trying to make a direct analogy as much an analogy to the argument. I suppose what you are saying is that I don't have an argument on my own. I only have an argument when you present your theist stance. I totally agree with you about that. I would not try to argue that God doesn't exist if there wasn't someone out there saying he/she/it did. I still fail to see how this solidifies your belief in God (just because someone is willing to argue against it). The main ingredient missing which made my analogy false was the blind faith required to believe in God. Something you seem to have plenty of and I am lacking. I would be curious to know where your blind faith comes from. I hope it isn't derived entirely from people arguing against the existence of God. I truley believe that a person should use anything he/she can wrap their hands/mind/heart around to make their life as fulfilling and happy as possible. Even if it is a false faith or a misconception. It really doesn't matter in the end. If you live a happy and content life blindly following the words of other men/women telling you what you need to do to find everlasting bliss you should do it eagerly. Look at it this way. If you are right about God and religion then you are all set. If I am right then you are just as well off as me in the end. The only way I will fair better than you is if some other intolerant religion happens to be correct. Some wacked out God that says all other theists and pegans are damned but athiests are cool even though they don't believe in me.
Peace of mind to you,
Abhorsen

[Doug Shaver]

One cannot argue for "no God". One can only object to the ideas for God.

Does that help?

You have made your position clearer. I appreciate your patience.



You take it for granted that the idea of atheism is an argument against the idea of God

Some atheists might do that. I do not. To me, the idea of atheism is not an argument against anything. To me, atheism is the absence of theism, nothing more and nothing less. As it happens, I do happen to have some arguments rebutting all the arguments that I have so far heard in favor of theism, but atheism itself is not an argument. It's just the default position in the absence of a good justification for theism.



when you hear a Christian making his case for Jesus Christ, for example, you do not take it for granted that he is making an argument against atheism, at least not in a direct way. He is usually engaged in presenting various evidences which he believes are compelling reasons for belief.

I agree.



The atheist likes to argue that . . .

You seem to suppose that all atheists think alike. That is not a valid supposition.




. . . if there is a God and if He is all good as some propose, then He cannot allow evil and therefore He cannot possibly exist, since evil quite obviousy exists.

That is a common argument against a particular conception of God, yes. And, it is a popular conception. It is not the only one, though.



Putting aside for the moment that the argument is a childish one

I don't see what makes it so. However, if you're willing to debate the argument's overall merits, we don't need to go off on that tangent.



If there is no God, there is no such thing as evil or good since they are simply human constructs

Either that is a non sequitur or you're begging a question. That they are human constructs does not imply their nonexistence. It could, just possibly, imply that they have no objective existence, but that does not mean they are not real. Beauty is a human construct, too, but I don't know many people who argue for the nonexistence of beauty.



that is, names we have given certain ideas and practices.

Yes, but we have not given them arbitrarily. Capriciously, maybe, but not arbitrarily. We have reasons for assigning moral values to certain ideas and practices. People differ in the reasons they rely on, but they all have their reasons.



So the question of the problem of evil becomes an invalid question and the atheist has shot himslf in the foot, once again.

Oh, my foot is still in fine shape, thank you very much.

[Cleombrotus]

OK Cleombrotus. I do know what a false analogy is, but I wasn't trying to make a direct analogy as much an analogy to the argument. I suppose what you are saying is that I don't have an argument on my own. I only have an argument when you present your theist stance. I totally agree with you about that.

OK,



I would not try to argue that God doesn't exist if there wasn't someone out there saying he/she/it did.

But that is entirely the point. The theist does not have to make his argument on the basis of an opposing argument; only the atheist does. But he cannot make an argument without objecting to what the theist has previously asserted. And that should cause you to question the validity of the position, if you are an objective observer.

But, more importantly, I would ask you to ask yourself, "Why am I arguing for something of which I cannot possibly know is true? Why is it so important to me that I disprove the opposite?"




I still fail to see how this solidifies your belief in God (just because someone is willing to argue against it).

No, I believe the evidence for God's existence is self-evident and does not require argument. Others may not see it that way. But the fact that the arguments are merely objections and not arguments on their own merits solidifies my belief in Jesus, as God, since the patterns are always the same, just as He exposed while here on earth. It is a bit esoteric and I do not expect you to understand this, but I mention it by way of explanation and clarification.



The main ingredient missing which made my analogy false was the blind faith required to believe in God. Something you seem to have plenty of and I am lacking. I would be curious to know where your blind faith comes from. I hope it isn't derived entirely from people arguing against the existence of God.

What makes an analogy "false" is when the two parts of the analogy occupy different realms of existence. A person may not believe that a personal God exists, but the "idea" is a valid one. Comparing that idea to, say, the Easter Bunny, or unicorns, which no one in their right minds thinks exist, and which occupy the realm of fantasy, and attempting to show a logical equivalency in the argument, is a false analogy.

A blind faith is a faith which is based on an idea with absolutely no basis in reality. You may not agree, but the presence of the anthropocentric nature of the universe is evidence (I did not say "proof") of an intelligent agent. One may conclude this and would not be accused of having "blind" faith. It is the one who asserts that there is no God who would be making his stand on the evidence of blind faith.

Understand that having faith that there exists a God is not the same thing as having faith in that God. That would require substantially more evidence.



I believe that a person should use anything he/she can wrap their hands/mind/heart around to make their life as fulfilling and happy as possible. Even if it is a false faith or a misconception. It really doesn't matter in the end. If you live a happy and content life blindly following the words of other men/women telling you what you need to do to find everlasting bliss you should do it eagerly. Look at it this way. If you are right about God and religion then you are all set. If I am right then you are just as well off as me in the end. The only way I will fair better than you is if some other intolerant religion happens to be correct. Some wacked out God that says all other theists and pegans are damned but athiests are cool even though they don't believe in me.

What we believe is the truth is immaterial; what is the truth is what is important and it is encumbent upon all of us, while we have breath, to seek it out.


Peace of mind to you,
Abhorsen


Regards,
Cleombrotus

[Cleombrotus]

One cannot argue for "no God". One can only object to the ideas for God.

Does that help?

You have made your position clearer. I appreciate your patience.



You take it for granted that the idea of atheism is an argument against the idea of God

Some atheists might do that. I do not. To me, the idea of atheism is not an argument against anything. To me, atheism is the absence of theism, nothing more and nothing less. As it happens, I do happen to have some arguments rebutting all the arguments that I have so far heard in favor of theism, but atheism itself is not an argument. It's just the default position in the absence of a good justification for theism.



when you hear a Christian making his case for Jesus Christ, for example, you do not take it for granted that he is making an argument against atheism, at least not in a direct way. He is usually engaged in presenting various evidences which he believes are compelling reasons for belief.

I agree.



The atheist likes to argue that . . .

You seem to suppose that all atheists think alike. That is not a valid supposition.




. . . if there is a God and if He is all good as some propose, then He cannot allow evil and therefore He cannot possibly exist, since evil quite obviousy exists.

That is a common argument against a particular conception of God, yes. And, it is a popular conception. It is not the only one, though.



Putting aside for the moment that the argument is a childish one

I don't see what makes it so. However, if you're willing to debate the argument's overall merits, we don't need to go off on that tangent.



If there is no God, there is no such thing as evil or good since they are simply human constructs

Either that is a non sequitur or you're begging a question. That they are human constructs does not imply their nonexistence. It could, just possibly, imply that they have no objective existence, but that does not mean they are not real. Beauty is a human construct, too, but I don't know many people who argue for the nonexistence of beauty.



that is, names we have given certain ideas and practices.

Yes, but we have not given them arbitrarily. Capriciously, maybe, but not arbitrarily. We have reasons for assigning moral values to certain ideas and practices. People differ in the reasons they rely on, but they all have their reasons.



So the question of the problem of evil becomes an invalid question and the atheist has shot himslf in the foot, once again.

Oh, my foot is still in fine shape, thank you very much.

Well, I did not wish to argue the merits or non-merits of the problem-of-evil argument. And in order to avoid straying far from the point, I will not do so now. I thought it obvious that I was using it simply as an illustration of said point. I could have used any one of a myriad of arguments and they would all fall into the category of "objection" and under the conditions I have stated, they would all end up similarly.

Additionally, my point goes more to the idea of atheism than to the individual atheist's thinking. On some level it is a denial of God's existence; either directly as in "There is no God" or by default (as you call it) as in "I do not believe there is a God". Either way, the position of atheism is one which cannot be arrived at by any means other than through objection. Unless you are confusing atheism with honest scepticism.

You may not like this state of affairs and you are welcome to make of it what you will, but the fact remains that it is so. If you can think of an argument for the non-existence of God that does not rely on objection I would be pleased to entertain it.

P.S. I find it illuminating that the thrust of your response, and in particular, your last statement identifies you as an atheist, while your signature identifies you as a theist. Curious.

[Doug Shaver]

your signature identifies you as a theist. Curious.
I didn't even notice that Bahai logo. I don't know how it got there, but I've changed it now.


Unless you are confusing atheism with honest scepticism.
I know the difference between atheism and skepticism, be it honest or disingenuous.


the position of atheism is one which cannot be arrived at by any means other than through objection.
And I see no way to arrive at your position except by assuming that you know how atheists think better than atheist themselves know how they think. l'm constantly amazed at how many theists presume to know better than I do what is going on inside my own head.

[Cleombrotus]

And I see no way to arrive at your position except by assuming that you know how atheists think better than atheist themselves know how they think. l'm constantly amazed at how many theists presume to know better than I do what is going on inside my own head.


You're taking this too personally. It's not about you; it's about an idea and how it is established.

[Doug Shaver]

You're taking this too personally. It's not about you; it's about an idea and how it is established.

Ideas have no existence apart from the people who hold them. If you say that an idea A cannot be reached except through a train of thought B, then you are saying that anyone who holds A must think B. If it is a fact that some people who hold A do not think B, then your assertion is falsified.

[Cleombrotus]

doug,

I have decided that it's time for me to move on from TWeb but I see from my e-mail notification that you have responded after some time and feel that I at least owe you the courtesy of a reply. If you wish to continue this dialogue I will reply but after that I have to move on.

Regards,
Cleombrotus


Ideas have no existence apart from the people who hold them. If you say that an idea A cannot be reached except through a train of thought B, then you are saying that anyone who holds A must think B. If it is a fact that some people who hold A do not think B, then your assertion is falsified.


I disagree with your opening statement. When all of us are dead and gone Pythagoream's Theorem will still be operative, for example, even though there will not be any human being present to perceive it. In our discussion it is assumed that the atheist is a sentient being and has arrived at his conclusion through a process of contemplation and not through the method of blind faith, which is the only way that idea A can be arrived at that does not go through the process of train of thought B, that of objection.

Again, if you can demonstrate or explain any other train I will be happy to entertain it.