Arguments for Him- that square circle.

[griggs1947]

What are your arguments for or against God? Are there personal reasons involved?
We modern rationalists find no empirical evidence for Him. And John Hick errs with his future empirical argument that the future state will show us God as that begs the question and has no empirical basis, any scriptures notwithstanding, else one again begs the question!
The empirical argument notes there are no empirical facts to evidence Him [ Atheist@ Evolve Blog].The atelic or teleonomic argument notes as the scientific evidence evinces no cosmic intent - teleology- involved behind natural causes and indeed contradicts them as they point to no planned outcomes. Evolution depends on no supernatural cause to do its job- just non-planning,directionless natural selections, the anti-chance agency of Nature and other natural processes.
Why seeing supernatural agency and intent happens? People, as science illuminates, see agency when there is none; here they see intent and designs when there are only teleonomy and patterns.Thus they make arguments requiring intent when there is none as in the cosmological, teleological and miracle arguments.Thus this argument like the ignostic-Ockham one pervades other naturalist arguments against Him.

 

[EverlastingMan]

I don't know that there are any empirical arguments for any sort of deity. One might point to miracles, but those could always be explained away--indeed a medical study of those who experienced "miracles" concluded that they had merely gone through rapid physical processes....So no real arguments against a diety. And just to hopefully make this thread interesting I will through out the following argument, I'm not sure that I agree with it:
But maybe, the question is not one of a deity, but rather of what deity. As whoever said it said, "if there was no god, we would have to invent him."
That is the basic characteristics of god are necessary to any explanation of the universe, and thus even atheists have a god of sorts.
For instance the Christian believes there is no power above the trinity, that the trinity is the alpha and the omega, that the trinity is the ultimate reality of sorts, that the trinity is eternal. To my knowledge all religions ascribe these characteristics to their god or gods.
Now take the athiest. He says the universe is eternal (collapsing and expanding in a rather beautiful cycle), that the universe is the ultimate reality and thus there is no power above or outside of it, and that the universe is really the begining and the end. 'Cause I mean thats all there is.
So then, in the barests of definitions we all agree there is a god. To the athiest it is the universe, to the theist something outside of the universe. A mere question of which is more absurd.
I suppose this argument is likely prone to all sorts of weakness and ripe with absurdities waiting to be expounded, but I haven't exactly thought it through.

 

[SithDoughnut]

But maybe, the question is not one of a deity, but rather of what deity. As whoever said it said, "if there was no god, we would have to invent him."

Not really. God is not the only ultimate answer out there.

Now take the athiest. He says the universe is eternal (collapsing and expanding in a rather beautiful cycle)

Not necessarily. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a God. It is nothing else. No other views or beliefs can be ascribed to atheism because atheism is nothing more.

The view you are describing here is one of the multiple views on the nature of the universe. It is not inherently atheistic, nor is it even related to atheism. I know that a lot of people like to describe atheism as if it is a belief system, with its own series of beliefs and traditions, but that is not the case. Atheists are as alike as theists are. There are some atheists and some theists who agree with your statement, and others who don't.

that the universe is the ultimate reality and thus there is no power above or outside of it

Again, not necessarily. It is perfectly possible to believe that the universe is entirely fake or a virtual construction and be an atheist.

and that the universe is really the begining and the end. 'Cause I mean thats all there is.

Depends on your definition of 'universe'.

So then, in the barests of definitions we all agree there is a god. To the athiest it is the universe, to the theist something outside of the universe. A mere question of which is more absurd.

I believe that the universe is all there is, and there is no higher power above it (i.e. a God). That does not make the universe God. The universe is not supernatural, it is not omnipotent or omniscient, it is not even sentient. It cannot be described as a higher power or a supreme being in any way - it is not even a being. The universe is not a God at all.

I suppose this argument is likely prone to all sorts of weakness and ripe with absurdities waiting to be expounded, but I haven't exactly thought it through.

My main issue with it is that you're treating the word 'God' as if it can be applied to everything. By doing that the word becomes meaningless and cannot be used an argument like this.

 

[tucker58]

What are your arguments for or against God? Are there personal reasons involved?
We modern rationalists find no empirical evidence for Him. And John Hick errs with his future empirical argument that the future state will show us God as that begs the question and has no empirical basis, any scriptures notwithstanding, else one again begs the question!
The empirical argument notes there are no empirical facts to evidence Him [ Atheist@ Evolve Blog].The atelic or teleonomic argument notes as the scientific evidence evinces no cosmic intent - teleology- involved behind natural causes and indeed contradicts them as they point to no planned outcomes. Evolution depends on no supernatural cause to do its job- just non-planning,directionless natural selections, the anti-chance agency of Nature and other natural processes.
Why seeing supernatural agency and intent happens? People, as science illuminates, see agency when there is none; here they see intent and designs when there are only teleonomy and patterns.Thus they make arguments requiring intent when there is none as in the cosmological, teleological and miracle arguments.Thus this argument like the ignostic-Ockham one pervades other naturalist arguments against Him.

I have acually personally experienced God. I have met Him and Jesus and the Holy Spirit personally. It was quite an experience and made a believer out of me .

Love,

tucker58

 

[EverlastingMan]

Not really. God is not the only ultimate answer out there.



Not necessarily. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a God. It is nothing else. No other views or beliefs can be ascribed to atheism because atheism is nothing more.

The view you are describing here is one of the multiple views on the nature of the universe. It is not inherently atheistic, nor is it even related to atheism. I know that a lot of people like to describe atheism as if it is a belief system, with its own series of beliefs and traditions, but that is not the case. Atheists are as alike as theists are. There are some atheists and some theists who agree with your statement, and others who don't.

True. But I would guess that more or less the same break down could be applied to alternate views. Not many of which I am familiar with, but I would bet a couple bucks on it.

Again, not necessarily. It is perfectly possible to believe that the universe is entirely fake or a virtual construction and be an atheist.

True again. But in this case I think it would be even easier to see how it could be broken down such that the athiest who thinks that the universe is all an illusion of his creation how he could be ascribing somewhat god-like charateristics to himself.

I believe that the universe is all there is, and there is no higher power above it (i.e. a God). That does not make the universe God. The universe is not supernatural, it is not omnipotent or omniscient, it is not even sentient. It cannot be described as a higher power or a supreme being in any way - it is not even a being. The universe is not a God at all.

While I would agree the universe is not supernatural, if the universe is all there is then the universe taken as awhole is most definitely omnipotent. Not necessarily omniscient as that would require sentience, which last attribute is certainly not required for deity as many pagan religions have deities that hardly seem sentient at all.
As to it not being a being, that is I suppose true. It is however entity, and I should think that good enough.

My main issue with it is that you're treating the word 'God' as if it can be applied to everything. By doing that the word becomes meaningless and cannot be used an argument like this.

Like I said, I haven't really thought it through. And I am somewhat inclined to agree with you. I suppose my argument does little more than show that some attributes generally ascribed to a deity are so necessary for any explanation of the universe that they must be foisted upon something, whether the universe itself or the individual or any other thing is of little consequence. In some sense I would hold that does indeed make whatever that thing may be a god, they do afterall share some basic attributes. But I can see your point that this is all nonsense because it perverts the word god, as god is generally not defined merely as the bag of attributes with which I am dealing.

 

[SithDoughnut]

True. But I would guess that more or less the same break down could be applied to alternate views. Not many of which I am familiar with, but I would bet a couple bucks on it.

I'd bet more. I'm in agreement with you there. Atheism is the opposite to theism after all, and think of all the different groups of theists out there.

True again. But in this case I think it would be even easier to see how it could be broken down such that the athiest who thinks that the universe is all an illusion of his creation how he could be ascribing somewhat god-like charateristics to himself.

Of course. I wouldn't call that a trait of atheism however.

While I would agree the universe is not supernatural, if the universe is all there is then the universe taken as awhole is most definitely omnipotent.

The universe cannot be omnipotent because it is bound by natural laws. It is limited in what it can do - which is why scientists can use these laws to predict how the universe works. If it was omnipotent, it wouldn't be limited in this way.

Not necessarily omniscient as that would require sentience, which last attribute is certainly not required for deity as many pagan religions have deities that hardly seem sentient at all.

Good point. However, the difference is still there in that even the pagan gods have some form of sentience - how can you use your powers if you are not even thinking?

As to it not being a being, that is I suppose true. It is however entity, and I should think that good enough.

That depends on how far you are willing to stretch the meaning of the word 'god'. I would never call the universe a god, because I don't think it fits the description. If nothing else, gods are required to be supernatural, which the universe cannot be.

Like I said, I haven't really thought it through. And I am somewhat inclined to agree with you. I suppose my argument does little more than show that some attributes generally ascribed to a deity are so necessary for any explanation of the universe that they must be foisted upon something, whether the universe itself or the individual or any other thing is of little consequence. In some sense I would hold that does indeed make whatever that thing may be a god, they do afterall share some basic attributes. But I can see your point that this is all nonsense because it perverts the word god, as god is generally not defined merely as the bag of attributes with which I am dealing.

That makes sense. It's not as if your points are completely invalid - there are many people who have decided that the universe is a god of sorts. It's just that I don't think you can say that atheists think in the same way. I could be wrong, but if someone does believe the universe is a god, how can they be an atheist?

 

[Penumbra]

What are your arguments for or against God? Are there personal reasons involved?

Objective Arguments:
When it comes to objective arguments, I don't necessarily have arguments against the existence of any deities, but I have yet to see convincing arguments in favor of them. In the case that something cannot be demonstrated to exist or not exist, whether it's Zeus, Yahweh, or Russell's teapot, I don't typically see a reason to believe in it.

Subjective Arguments:
The history of our planet and life on it don't mesh well with any religious explanation I've ever heard. Life as a result of cruel survival of the fittest shows a universe that is neither caring nor compassionate, but instead favors strength, luck, or just cold hard reality. I see no way to reconcile what exists with a benevolent deity. In addition, from reading numerous religious texts and learning deeply about a variety of religions, I see none that stand out, none that sound spectacular.

Personal Experience:
My personal experience tells me that either there are no deities, or there are no deities listening to or responding to prayer. I was raised Catholic and upon a long and painful deconversion, I often prayed for a sign or communication or something, since Christians love to go around and say that all you have to do is knock and the door will be opened, but I received no response and stopped being religious.

I don't just believe things without reason to anymore.

-Lyn