Your list of failed arguments are based on a preconception of god, the loving all-knowing and creator god. You create a god and then use arguments to show that this god probably does not exist. What about a incompetent god or an evil god or an immoral god...., you get the point. I personally have came to the conclusion that if a god (or gods) exist it is pointless to debate about it. Even if a god came down and said "hey I'm your god" how would we know this to be true? A powerful being can look like a god to us but how can we be sure. The only way to know is to have the same knowledge as the being who presents itself as god.
Are there any decent arguments for God's existence which do not fall prey to the argument from ignorance fallacy? (i.e. God of the gaps)
by Psychotic Parrot 120 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Psychotic Parrot
What? Did you read the arguments? They are not arguments that i created, they are the most common arguments used for the existence of God, & most of them only apply to a general deity type God, re-read them & i defy you to find more than a couple of references to a loving, personal God in there. The God they refer to is the creator of the universe, which is what the vast majority of ideas of God all over the world are, a creator God. And then there is the onotological argument which deals with an all powerful being.
-
Anti-Christ
Sorry I know you did not invent the arguments they are the ones who are the most used what I should of said is the arguments you listed. But I think you miss my point or that I did not explain it clearly enough. I'll try again. Most arguments are based on the Judeo -Christian god and I find that this alone is a good argument against his existence. Why would it be this god over all the other possibilities and beliefs? Why not argue on Hindu gods or Shinto gods, native american etc.. It is more political then religious.
-
Deputy Dog
psycho
Deputy Dog,
It may not seem like it from your perspective, but that is simply what the words mean, there's no way around that.
Sorry, but, I don't accept that. You don't define terms for everyone, only for yourself.
For most of us:
American Heritage Dictionary Definition of agnostic - NOUN:
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
3. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
American Heritage Dictionary Definition of Atheist - NOUN: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
It appears to most rational people that you have a conflicted worldview. You startout with a presupposition, "I am an atheist ..." then you say "... because i have no belief in God. I am an agnostic because i am intellectually neutral on the matter "
Which is it? Have a little courage and intellectual honesty.
And if you feel the evidence supports your position then you may as well go ahead & claim gnosticism.
The concept of God is transcendent, so I think I've represented myself honestly when I said "I assume there is a God. On an intellectual level, I see the evidence as supporting, that assumption."
I'd rather remain open to the possibility that actually, the evidence doesn't particularly point either way at this point.
How can you claim to be neutral and disbelieve or deny at the same time.
-
JWoods
Sorry, but after five pages I still have no clear idea what the logic, purpose, or intent of this thread was.
However, what I think I have seen here is an outward anger from the original poster toward people who choose to believe in God.
I have always thought that this "activist-evangalistic atheism" is a rather ugly thing. If there is no God, and an atheist is so sure of it, then what is the point of trying to enforce this belief system on others? Should not a true atheist just be neutral in religious matters, provided that the religion is doing no harm to others and teaches a generally beneficial code?
I am a non-religious agnostic, but I have always had the feeling that to try to force that philosophy onto religionists is to cheapen its message.
BTW - atheism and agnosticism are not the same thing.
-
Psychotic Parrot
Anti-Christ,
Why not argue on Hindu gods or Shinto gods, native american etc.. It is more political then religious.
It is the Abrahamic God that is being forced on people in this day & age & in these parts of the world, if it were the above mentioned Gods who were being forced on people then it would be those Gods that i would be addressing.
Deputy Dog,
All i can is that you seem to be misunderstanding the difference between knowledge & belief, there's little more i can do for you on this one. But i think it's fair to say that while courage is not the issue here, i am certainly the more intellectually honest of the two of us, simply for not assuming that there is a God merely on the basis of gaps in our current scientific understanding of the universe. Those gaps being the 'evidence' that you speak of which points to God.
When you ask "Which is it?", I feel a little embarrassed for you, it can be & indeed IS both. There is a difference between knowledge & belief & the dictionary quotes you posted do not seem to refute that, although i'm a little dubious on those definitions as one of them refers to 'true atheism' which i think is a sign that whoever wrote that definition was a tad ill-informed. I've seen other dictionaries give very different definitions of both of those words. I might have another look around online later on though to back that up as i don't want you to take my word for it.
I am an agnostic atheist, i don't know whether there is a God or not, but i do not believe that there is. That is not to say however that i actively believe that there is not one, that is different.
P.S. Anyway, we're arguing semantics here, it's pointless. None of this refutes anything i've said & you know what, none of this refutes anything you've said either. Both our points still stand & thus we might as well drop this little issue, it's an irrelevent tangent as far as i'm concerned.
JWoods,
Once again, someone brings up this 'anger' that people keep pointing out, this non existent anger which is obviously so easy to talk about & saves everyone the time of addressing the actual arguments. Anyway, my advice to you is to read my posts & not just other people's responses to them, which appears to be what you have done. I have no anger towards those who believe in God, only those who put words in my mouth, which i've already gone into. And you are now one of those people, since this post you just made put several words in my mouth. This thread has simply been for the purposing of showing that the arguments for the existence of God do not prove he exists, as many apologists claim, but merely posit the possiblity of God.
Also, "activist-evangalistic atheism" does indeed sound very ugly, but thankfully, it does not exist, so we can sleep safely in our beds tonight.
BTW - atheism and agnosticism are not the same thing.
That is absolutley correct, they are not the same thing, & i don't believe a single person in this thread has claimed that they are. But thanks anyway for correcting a mistake which no one made. Atheism & agnosticism are indeed two very different things, BUT they are not mutually exclusive, do you understand what i mean by that?
If there is no God, and an atheist is so sure of it, then what is the point of trying to enforce this belief system on others?
Yep, you haven't read a single thing that i've written. And to correct this would be the 4th time this thread i've done so, so i shall not bother. Well done for being such a master of misrepresentation.
A+
-
not a captive
I knew better than to say anything here, parrot. I have only indecent observations on the existence of God, no arguments. I don't hear God arguing about his existence and so I don't think I have anything that would compel you.
I am remembering all I can of evidence and miracles that he was present at various times in Bible accounts--and what is astonishing is how often no one was moved by even a great event. Public or private.
I don't know what that means. But, then do you? Really?
-
JWoods
Atheism & agnosticism are two very different things, BUT they are not mutually exclusive, do you understand what i mean by that?
They are mutually exclusive in the simple idea that you either claim to know there is no God, or, you claim to not know if there is a God.
"activist-evangalistic atheism" does indeed sound very ugly, but thankfully, it does not exist, so we can sleep safely in our beds tonight.
What? You simply cannot be saying that people like Madaline Murray O'Hair or the anti-pledge of allegiance atheist father in San Francisco are NOT being both activists and evangalists for their cause??? Atheism is as much a religious belief system to them as Jesus is to the Southern Baptists - and they are just as public and in your face about their belief as Billy Graham or the Witnesses ever were.
-
Psychotic Parrot
not a captive,
Sorry, could you perhaps elaborate on what you're saying, i'm not quite following you. I am interested in what you're saying.
JWoods,
They are mutually exclusive in the simple idea that you either claim to know there is no God, or, you claim to not know if there is a God.
What does that change? Someone can occupy either of those positions & still claim to believe in a God. The former is a gnostic & the latter is an agnostic, but either of those people can be a theist or an atheist. So i don't see what you're trying to say here, they are not mutually exclusive. But as i've said to Deputy Dog already, this is pure semantics, nothing more.
What? You simply cannot be saying that people like Madaline Murray O'Hair or the anti-pledge of allegiance atheist father in San Francisco are NOT being both activists and evangalists for their cause??? Atheism is as much a religious belief system to them as Jesus is to the Southern Baptists - and they are just as public and in your face about their belief as Billy Graham or the Witnesses ever were.
You know what? I'm going to concede this point to you. However, i don't identify with any of those people, so please don't lump me in with them, we are very different, perhaps not polar opposites, but certainly not the same, & you bringing it up in this thread was a pointless diversionary tactic.
-
Deputy Dog
Psycho
...i don't know whether there is a God or not, but i do not believe that there is.
Is that a "neutral" statement?
Looks like you're leaning to most rational people.