Argue the Opposite

[Paradoxum]

Perhaps it might be interesting to attempt to argue the opposite of our true position, in regards to the existence of God. ie: Atheists should argue for God, and theists against... and those unsure... do what you want.

I suspect the argues for God may end up doing best, since more atheists were probably Christian before, so they likely better understand the theist position. We'll see.

I'll start off giving five basic arguments for God then, and see if this works. Atheist, feel free to improve on my arguments, or add your own. Theist, feel free to counter the arguments, or present strong atheist arguments.

Kalam Cosmological (as I remember it)

1) Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2) The Universe has a beginning.
3) The Universe has a cause.
4) The cause must be timeless and immaterial and timeless.
5) The only things that fit this are abstract ideas and beings.
6) Abstract ideas can't cause a Universe to exist.
7) The Universe was caused by an immaterial timeless beings.
8) This being is God.

Teleological Argument

The laws of physics are just right for life to exist. The likelyhood of this happening by chance is comparable to a jumbo jet being constructed by a tornado in a junkyard.

This suggests the universe was designed to be as it is. The designer is God.

Moral Argument

1) Objective moral laws require a moral law giver.
2) There are moral laws.
3) There is a moral law giver; God.

Healings

When people are prayed for in the name of God, people are healed in radical ways. This proves God exists.

Religious experience

When I pray for others, sometimes I feel the presence of God... sometimes as a feeling of heat throughout my body. Not only this, but other people all felt it at the same time. Psychology can't account for use all feeling this at the same time.

God is likely the connections.


PS: Consider the historical evidence of Jesus' resurrection. Disciples died for their belief in the resurrection.

Edit: We need theists to argue against these.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Something exists.
Therefore one or more gods exist.

 

[durangodawood]

It is really really hard to argue the opposite of what you think makes good sense without devolving into parodies of those arguments.

 

[quatona]

God is The Greatest Conceivable Being. Hence there must be a God, by definition.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

It is really really hard to argue the opposite of what you think makes good sense without devolving into parodies of those arguments.

Indeed.

 

[Sayre]

God is The Greatest Conceivable Being. Hence there must be a God, by definition.

I let out a chuckle when I read this. The modal ontological argument is probably one of the strongest - but still not strong.

I think (and so sorry for repeating WLC) but that each of these arguments in and of themselves are not perfect and nor do they alone prove that God exists. They are all part of accumulating evidence for God.

 

[Sayre]

Alright let me play the game.

The problem of divine hiddenness.
The incompatability of the multifaceted nature of God.

 

[Noxot]

belief in god is just a way for humans to make themselves feel better and have less stress in this harsh reality. people need to be comforted that there is something greater than them that will fix everything and make everything better in the end. belief that there is a god is nothing more than the result of human history as they learn and grow and come to understand reality. it is an outdated belief that humans have grown accustomed to and thus many are unwilling to depart from such a belief. thus the idea of god persist in the human experience of reality even though it is just a bunch of mumbojumbo left over from our primitive ancestors. you can argue over concepts such as 'god' all day long, but all it is is the human imagination making up stories and proofs for something that is not real.

religion is just but one example of the divers ways humans have attempted to govern themselves. a 'god' is as real as caesar that claimed to be one... 'human' is all this 'god' is.

 

[durangodawood]

Indeed.

Sorry Paradoxum....I'm trying to figure out a way to make one of those arguments actually work.... and I cant.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I don't think that is really possible. Ignosticism and mysticism are kind of like evil twins, and have similar stuff going on for them.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Alright let me play the game.

The problem of divine hiddenness.

An unhidden god eliminates free-will; choosing God with free-will is what God wants.

The incompatability of the multifaceted nature of God.

You only say incompatible because God is incomprehensible--beyond our understanding.

 

[TillICollapse]

Science can take a hike.

[/thread]

 

[Chany]

Perhaps it might be interesting to attempt to argue the opposite of our true position, in regards to the existence of God. ie: Atheists should argue for God, and theists against... and those unsure... do what you want.

Um, what do I do?

 

[Paradoxum]

Alright let me play the game.

The problem of divine hiddenness.

God isn't hidden... he heals people and speaks to believers in personal ways. God himself has no body, so a lack of a form isn't hiddenness.

The incompatability of the multifaceted nature of God.

Please expand on this so I have something to argue against.

Also, can you argue against the points I made in the first post, or other arguments made for God?

belief in god is just a way for humans to make themselves feel better and have less stress in this harsh reality. people need to be comforted that there is something greater than them that will fix everything and make everything better in the end. belief that there is a god is nothing more than the result of human history as they learn and grow and come to understand reality. it is an outdated belief that humans have grown accustomed to and thus many are unwilling to depart from such a belief. thus the idea of god persist in the human experience of reality even though it is just a bunch of mumbojumbo left over from our primitive ancestors. you can argue over concepts such as 'god' all day long, but all it is is the human imagination making up stories and proofs for something that is not real.

religion is just but one example of the divers ways humans have attempted to govern themselves. a 'god' is as real as caesar that claimed to be one... 'human' is all this 'god' is.

The emotional help from God doesn't prove that it is merely an emotional crutch. My life isn't particularly hard, and I accept science while also acknowledging the existence of God.

I believe because there is good evidence and reason to believe in God, such as those reasons given in the first post. Can you argue against those points?

Sorry Paradoxum....I'm trying to figure out a way to make one of those arguments actually work.... and I cant.

I can't help you. I just try to remember how I would have argued when I believed.

Um, what do I do?

We need more arguments against God, so can you do that?

 

[TillICollapse]

I can't help you. I just try to remember how I would have argued when I believed.

When you believed, what would you say was your absolute, best evidence, that you personally drew on as some kind of "proof" ? IOW, when you looked at this one thing, you said to yourself, "This just HAS to be something ...." ?

And I'm asking in seriousness, not parody

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Perhaps it might be interesting to attempt to argue the opposite of our true position, in regards to the existence of God. ie: Atheists should argue for God, and theists against... and those unsure... do what you want.

I suspect the argues for God may end up doing best, since more atheists were probably Christian before, so they likely better understand the theist position. We'll see.

I'll start off giving five basic arguments for God then, and see if this works. Atheist, feel free to improve on my arguments, or add your own. Theist, feel free to counter the arguments, or present strong atheist arguments.

Kalam Cosmological (as I remember it)

1) Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2) The Universe has a beginning.
3) The Universe has a cause.
4) The cause must be timeless and immaterial and timeless.
5) The only things that fit this are abstract ideas and beings.
6) Abstract ideas can't cause a Universe to exist.
7) The Universe was caused by an immaterial timeless beings.
8) This being is God.

Teleological Argument

The laws of physics are just right for life to exist. The likelyhood of this happening by chance is comparable to a jumbo jet being constructed by a tornado in a junkyard.

This suggests the universe was designed to be as it is. The designer is God.

Moral Argument

1) Objective moral laws require a moral law giver.
2) There are moral laws.
3) There is a moral law giver; God.

Healings

When people are prayed for in the name of God, people are healed in radical ways. This proves God exists.

Religious experience

When I pray for others, sometimes I feel the presence of God... sometimes as a feeling of heat throughout my body. Not only this, but other people all felt it at the same time. Psychology can't account for use all feeling this at the same time.

God is likely the connections.


PS: Consider the historical evidence of Jesus' resurrection. Disciples died for their belief in the resurrection.

Edit: We need theists to argue against these.

Nothing good can come from this...

 

[quatona]

I let out a chuckle when I read this. The modal ontological argument is probably one of the strongest - but still not strong.

I think (and so sorry for repeating WLC) but that each of these arguments in and of themselves are not perfect and nor do they alone prove that God exists. They are all part of accumulating evidence for God.

I´m tempted to address this post - but this is not the purpose of this thread.

 

[Paradoxum]

When you believed, what would you say was your absolute, best evidence, that you personally drew on as some kind of "proof" ? IOW, when you looked at this one thing, you said to yourself, "This just HAS to be something ...." ?

And I'm asking in seriousness, not parody

Well I think I used arguments like those in my first post here. How strongly I rated the arguments might have depended on when you asked me.

I think perhaps the one I found the most convincing, and made God seem almost certainly real, was healings. Instant or near instant healings.

Nothing good can come from this...

Why??

 

[Chany]

We need more arguments against God, so can you do that?

Is it against the Christian God, a monotheistic version of God, or the concept of divinity in general?

 

[TillICollapse]

Well I think I used arguments like those in my first post here. How strongly I rated the arguments might have depended on when you asked me.

I think perhaps the one I found the most convincing, and made God seem almost certainly real, was healings. Instant or near instant healings.

So you saw healings and/or near instant healings ? If so, please feel free to tell

I wasn't asking so much about your arguments, rather, something you've seen or experienced personally in your life that you were like, "THAT is proof !" or perhaps near proof, etc.