Arguments for the Existence of God

[Dave Ellis]

"Right now"...yes.

k

 

[Ana the Ist]

Double post.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The brilliance of a sting, is that it only catches those who do not perceive it.

The brilliance of a straw man, is that only those who don't recognize it's a straw man think a good point was made.

 

[ScottA]

The brilliance of a straw man, is that only those who don't recognize it's a straw man think a good point was made.

The brilliance of a straw man, is that only those who don't recognize it's a straw man think a good point was made.

Ditto

 

[Ana the Ist]

It has been a long thread. I'll let "John" answer:

“[To] all my Atheist friends.

Let us stop sugar coating it. I know, it’s hard to come out and be blunt with the friendly Theists who frequent sites like this. However in your efforts to “play nice” and “be civil” you actually do them a great disservice.

We are Atheists. We believe that the Universe is a great uncaused, random accident. All life in the Universe past and future are the results of random chance acting on itself. While we acknowledge concepts like morality, politeness, civility seem to exist, we know they do not. Our highly evolved brains imagine that these things have a cause or a use, and they have in the past, they’ve allowed life to continue on this planet for a short blip of time. But make no mistake: all our dreams, loves, opinions, and desires are figments of our primordial imagination. They are fleeting electrical signals that fire across our synapses for a moment in time. They served some purpose in the past. They got us here. That’s it. All human achievement and plans for the future are the result of some ancient, evolved brain and accompanying chemical reactions that once served a survival purpose. Ex: I’ll marry and nurture children because my genes demand reproduction, I’ll create because creativity served a survival advantage to my ancient ape ancestors, I’ll build cities and laws because this allowed my ape grandfather time and peace to reproduce and protect his genes. My only directive is to obey my genes. Eat, sleep, reproduce, die. That is our bible.

We deride the Theists for having created myths and holy books. We imagine ourselves superior. But we too imagine there are reasons to obey laws, be polite, protect the weak etc. Rubbish. We are nurturing a new religion, one where we imagine that such conventions have any basis in reality. Have they allowed life to exist? Absolutely. But who cares? Outside of my greedy little gene’s need to reproduce, there is nothing in my world that stops me from killing you and reproducing with your wife. Only the fear that I might be incarcerated and thus be deprived of the opportunity to do the same with the next guy’s wife stops me. Some of my Atheist friends have fooled themselves into acting like the general population. They live in suburban homes, drive Toyota Camrys, attend school plays. But underneath they know the truth. They are a bag of DNA whose only purpose is to make more of themselves. So be nice if you want. Be involved, have polite conversations, be a model citizen. Just be aware that while technically an Atheist, you are an inferior one. You’re just a little bit less evolved, that’s all. When you are ready to join me, let me know, I’ll be reproducing with your wife.

I know it’s not PC to speak so bluntly about the ramifications of our beliefs, but in our discussions with Theists we sometimes tip toe around what we really know to be factual. Maybe it’s time we Atheists were a little more truthful and let the chips fall where they may. At least that’s what my genes are telling me to say.”

Source: http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/the-inevitable-consequence-of-an-atheistic-worldview/

Frankly, this anonymous "John" is an idiot and has no idea what he's talking about. It's not at all surprising though, that a christian propaganda website decided to use this quote for their purposes.

Once again, you've shown that you really don't understand the argument that you're advocating and instead choose to have others (this time anonymously) speak for you.
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/the-inevitable-consequence-of-an-atheistic-worldview/

 

[Ana the Ist]

It has been a long thread. I'll let "John" answer:

“[To] all my Atheist friends.

Let us stop sugar coating it. I know, it’s hard to come out and be blunt with the friendly Theists who frequent sites like this. However in your efforts to “play nice” and “be civil” you actually do them a great disservice.

We are Atheists. We believe that the Universe is a great uncaused, random accident. All life in the Universe past and future are the results of random chance acting on itself. While we acknowledge concepts like morality, politeness, civility seem to exist, we know they do not. Our highly evolved brains imagine that these things have a cause or a use, and they have in the past, they’ve allowed life to continue on this planet for a short blip of time. But make no mistake: all our dreams, loves, opinions, and desires are figments of our primordial imagination. They are fleeting electrical signals that fire across our synapses for a moment in time. They served some purpose in the past. They got us here. That’s it. All human achievement and plans for the future are the result of some ancient, evolved brain and accompanying chemical reactions that once served a survival purpose. Ex: I’ll marry and nurture children because my genes demand reproduction, I’ll create because creativity served a survival advantage to my ancient ape ancestors, I’ll build cities and laws because this allowed my ape grandfather time and peace to reproduce and protect his genes. My only directive is to obey my genes. Eat, sleep, reproduce, die. That is our bible.

We deride the Theists for having created myths and holy books. We imagine ourselves superior. But we too imagine there are reasons to obey laws, be polite, protect the weak etc. Rubbish. We are nurturing a new religion, one where we imagine that such conventions have any basis in reality. Have they allowed life to exist? Absolutely. But who cares? Outside of my greedy little gene’s need to reproduce, there is nothing in my world that stops me from killing you and reproducing with your wife. Only the fear that I might be incarcerated and thus be deprived of the opportunity to do the same with the next guy’s wife stops me. Some of my Atheist friends have fooled themselves into acting like the general population. They live in suburban homes, drive Toyota Camrys, attend school plays. But underneath they know the truth. They are a bag of DNA whose only purpose is to make more of themselves. So be nice if you want. Be involved, have polite conversations, be a model citizen. Just be aware that while technically an Atheist, you are an inferior one. You’re just a little bit less evolved, that’s all. When you are ready to join me, let me know, I’ll be reproducing with your wife.

I know it’s not PC to speak so bluntly about the ramifications of our beliefs, but in our discussions with Theists we sometimes tip toe around what we really know to be factual. Maybe it’s time we Atheists were a little more truthful and let the chips fall where they may. At least that’s what my genes are telling me to say.”

Source: http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/the-inevitable-consequence-of-an-atheistic-worldview/

Here's a statement from Louise M Anthony, a Harvard grad Professor of Philosophy...

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/good-minus-god/?_r=0

If you care to read it, not only does she think atheists are moral and possess morality...but it needs no theistic sources whatsoever.

Now that we've both shown that philosophers have opinions on the morality of atheists...can you actually make an argument for your position? Or do you need to have others make it for you because it's subject matter that's simply over your head?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ditto

Wonderful, I'm glad at least you can see that your "sting" analogy is useless here.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'll let "John" answer

Why should I care what "John" thinks? Does that cherry you picked taste good to you?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

How does theism fix epistemological issues? For example, we know, for a fact, that our faculties are faulty. This fact would hold true whether theism is true or not.

I like this question!

How did we come to know that fact if indeed our faculties are faulty?

It seems our faculties are perfect for determining what's true, but we didn't make our faculties ourselves, either God did or nature did.

What purpose does nature have in making beings with perfect faculties for determining what's true? ...There would be no purpose, no reason, no meaning.

If we are the result natural processes then there is no reason for why or how we can determine true things, which means the true things we do determine are meaningless.

What purpose does God have in making beings with perfect faculties for determining what's true? ...if God is infinite then there would be an infinite amount of reasons for doing so which equals life with infinite meaning or simply eternal life from God.

 

[HitchSlap]

I like this question!

How did we come to know that fact if indeed our faculties are faulty?

It seems our faculties are perfect for determining what's true, but we didn't make our faculties ourselves, either God did or nature did.

What purpose does nature have in making beings with perfect faculties for determining what's true? ...There would be no purpose, no reason, no meaning.

If we are the result natural processes then there is no reason for why or how we can determine true things, which means the true things we do determine are meaningless.

What purpose does God have in making beings with perfect faculties for determining what's true? ...if God is infinite then there would be an infinite amount of reasons for doing so which equals life with infinite meaning or simply eternal life from God.

Which brings us right back to one of the first questions I ever asked you, one that you never have answered.

How would you know if you were wrong?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I like this question!
How did we come to know that fact if indeed our faculties are faulty?

Objective evidence. The kind of research that isn't dependend on our faculties. Or at the very least, minimizes the dependence thereof.

For example... my faculties might inform me that I am breathing clean air and that everything is a-okay. But at the same time, a technological device might inform me that I'm actually being bombarded by lethal amounts of radiation instead.

It seems our faculties are perfect for determining what's true

They aren't, which is why independend verifiable evidence always trumps testimony.

, but we didn't make our faculties ourselves, either God did or nature did.

Our faculties evolved.

What purpose does nature have in making beings with perfect faculties for determining what's true?

That's a backward question.
Evolution is not a pre-planned phenomena.

It rather is an inevitable process of "self optimisation" on the population level, which is unavoidable when you have systems that reproduce with variation and that are in competition for limited resources.

...There would be no purpose, no reason, no meaning.

Idd. Eventhough in hindsight, we could say that the reason is simply becoming better at surviving and reproducing. But it's a bottom up process - there's no plan or "intent" or whatever. There's just reproduction with variation, competition and the inevitable outcome thereof: evolution (or extinction).

If we are the result natural processes then there is no reason for why or how we can determine true things, which means the true things we do determine are meaningless.

That's complete nonsense. There not being a bottom down plan, does not mean that the result will be nonsensical.

There are still criteria in place.
Faculties that work well enough will always win over faculties that work less or not at all.

In evolution, we expect features and faculties wich aid survival and reproduction.
Faculties that are well enough are entirely within these expectations.
Faculties that are flawless are not - because well enough is "good enough" to survive and reproduce.

In fact, in a very real way, certain "faulty" aspects are actually BETTER for the purpose of survival and reproduction.

A well known example is "the false positive", which, unsurprisingly, is among the most common cognitive errors that humans are known to make.

You might have heared the example before, but for clarity I'll share it again.
Suppose you are an early hominid nomad on the plains of Africa. You hear a noise in the bushes. Is it a dangerous predator? Or is it just the wind shaking the leaves of the bush?

Those who assume up front that it is a dangerous predator (= the false positive), run like hell. Those that assume it is the wind, do not. Those that aren't sure and investigate the bush, don't run either.

If it IS a dangerous predator, both the one that assumes it is wind and the one that approaches the bush to investigate are dead.

The one that runs, and thus is prone to act on his false positive, always lives.

This is just one example. I need just one as well, to show that flawed faculties (upto a certain point) can actually increase your chances of survival.

What purpose does God have in making beings with perfect faculties for determining what's true?

Who knows... it is a meaningless question anyway, because our faculties are demonstrably not perfect.

...if God is infinite then there would be an infinite amount of reasons for doing so which equals life with infinite meaning or simply eternal life from God.

Nice attempt at an emotional argument.

 

[Chriliman]

Which brings us right back to one of the first questions I ever asked you, one that you never have answered.

How would you know if you were wrong?

If I'm a result of natural processes then it doesn't matter if I'm wrong or right.

If I'm a result of God's creation then I'd trust Him before I'd trust myself because He obviously knows better than I do.

 

[HitchSlap]

If I'm a result of natural processes then it doesn't matter if I'm wrong or right.

Of course it matters. Don't be ridiculous.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If I'm a result of natural processes then it doesn't matter if I'm wrong or right.

Why wouldn't it matter? Your beliefs shape your actions, which have real consequences, both for you and for others. So it does matter whether you are wrong or right. Presumably you don't cross the street thinking, "If I'm a result of natural processes, then it doesn't matter if I'm wrong or right about the likelihood of oncoming traffic." No, you look both ways before crossing.

 

[Chriliman]

Objective evidence. The kind of research that isn't dependend on our faculties. Or at the very least, minimizes the dependence thereof.

For example... my faculties might inform me that I am breathing clean air and that everything is a-okay. But at the same time, a technological device might inform me that I'm actually being bombarded by lethal amounts of radiation instead.

You're still relying on your faulty faculties to determine that what the tech is telling you is actually true. So either our faculties are too faulty to even determine what's true or we can actually determine what's true despite the faults in our faculties.

I think the latter is true, otherwise why even try to determine what's true?

 

[HitchSlap]

You're still relying on your faulty faculties to determine that what the tech is telling you is actually true. So either our faculties are too faulty to even determine what's true or we can actually determine what's true despite the faults in our faculties.

I think the latter is true, otherwise why even try to determine what's true?

Because I like to believe as many true things as pssible.

 

[Chriliman]

Why wouldn't it matter? Your beliefs shape your actions, which have real consequences, both for you and for others. So it does matter whether you are wrong or right. Presumably you don't cross the street thinking, "If I'm a result of natural processes, then it doesn't matter if I'm wrong or right about the likelihood of oncoming traffic." No, you look both ways before crossing.

I'm not the one saying that it's true that there is no plan or purpose for the existence of life on earth.

I think there is a plan and a purpose and this is why things matter.

If there is no plan or purpose for the existence of life on earth, then why do our actions matter? We could all go extinct from a nuclear disaster and it literally would not matter to anyone after we're all dead.

Sure, before everyone dies the person responsible for the disaster could be punished, but what's the point after everyone is dead? No point.

 

[Chriliman]

Because I like to believe as many true things as pssible.

That's fine

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm not the one saying that it's true that there is no plan or purpose for the existence of life on earth.

I think there is a plan and a purpose and this is why things matter.

If there is no plan or purpose for the existence of life on earth, then why do our actions matter? We could all go extinct from a nuclear disaster and it literally would not matter to anyone after we're all dead.

Sure, before everyone dies the person responsible for the disaster could be punished, but what's the point after everyone is dead? No point.

It seems that you've answered your own conundrum. We're alive. We're not indifferent. And we care.

 

[HitchSlap]

That's fine

Because reality exists.