Arguments for the Existence of God

[HitchSlap]

Wait a second... I can see some potential value in this.

For example, Christopher Hitchens views on Christianity being used to define all Christians.

Let's roll with this.

"[Christianity] ...is nonsense, it can't believed by a thinking person."
-Christopher Hitchens

 

[ScottA]

I'm trying to learn more about evidence and philosophical arguments for the existence of God. I've looked at the popular arguments used by Christian apologists (including the Kalam argument by William Craig), but I'm still not really convinced that the traditional God of monotheism exists.
Can anyone provide me with some arguments or evidence that will change my mind?
Thank you.

For the same reason you might like Lamb: 20,000,000 coyotes can't be wrong.

All kidding aside, there can be no empirical evidence within the closed circuit of the universe. God is not inside - but is outside...and you can't go outside to prove it to yourself.

It is as if we were all born into a large room that no one had ever been or seen outside of, making no expert knowledge possible by those who could not possible confirm anything. Under those circumstances, the only way that it would even be possible to know the truth - is if the information came in...from the outside. But...if you were the guy who received the note that was passed under the door...everyone else would call you crazy. And if there was another person every so often down through history that received a similar message...and they began to write it down and put it in a book...and they called it their "bible" - that would just be crazy...20,000,000 coyote crazy!

 

[Dave Ellis]

For the same reason you might like Lamb: 20,000,000 coyotes can't be wrong.

All kidding aside, there can be no empirical evidence within the closed circuit of the universe. God is not inside - but is outside...and you can't go outside to prove it to yourself.

It is as if we were all born into a large room that no one had ever been or seen outside of, making no expert knowledge possible by those who could not possible confirm anything. Under those circumstances, the only way that it would even be possible to know the truth - is if the information came in...from the outside. But...if you were the guy who received the note that was passed under the door...everyone else would call you crazy. And if there was another person every so often down through history that received a similar message...and they began to write it down and put it in a book...and they called it their "bible" - that would just be crazy...2,000,000 coyote crazy!

If you were trapped in that room, you would have no justifiable reason for believing anything about the world on the outside.

Belief in god is akin to making claims about the world outside that room that you can never demonstrate to be true. Therefore it's an inherently unjustified belief.

 

[ScottA]

If you were trapped in that room, you would have no justifiable reason for believing anything about the world on the outside.

Belief in god is akin to making claims about the world outside that room that you can never demonstrate to be true. Therefore it's an inherently unjustified belief.

And that explains your shortsighted perspective: you didn't finish reading the information about messages coming in from the outside.

 

[Dave Ellis]

And that explains your shortsighted perspective: you didn't finish reading the information about messages coming in from the outside.

I did read that part, however you have no possible way to justify the messages are accurate. Every message could be a lie about the outside world, and you have no way to know.

Therefore, it's still an inherently unjustified belief.

 

[ScottA]

I did read that part, however you have no possible way to justify the messages are accurate. Every message could be a lie about the outside world, and you have no way to know.

Therefore, it's still an inherently unjustified belief.

I happen to be a recipient of such information (from the outside). But I have no reason to justify what is self-justified already, to as many people as have also received it. The truth, on that grand scale, is also self-evident...no contest.

The only thing lacking here...is your own knowledge of it.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I happen to be a recipient of such information (from the outside). But I have no reason to justify what is self-justified already, to as many people as have also received it. The truth, on that grand scale, is also self-evident...no contest.

How exactly is it self justified or self evident?

The fact a lot of people believe in something doesn't make it true. That's known as the argument from popularity fallacy.

The only thing lacking here...is your own knowledge of it.

And your justification for claiming knowledge.

 

[ScottA]

How exactly is it self justified or self evident?

The fact a lot of people believe in something doesn't make it true. That's known as the argument from popularity fallacy.

I already said: I am a recipient of knowledge for outside. As for how it is self-evident...it is just as I already said also: such knowledge out weighs all other (internal) knowledge to a point of no contest.

And your justification for claiming knowledge.

Again, my justification is complete. It is your justification that is lacking - even if you do not know it. ... And forgive me, but you do not present yourself as someone who wants to take advise from someone who has been up ahead - but, rather, you seem to be stopped at this point on the journey and have decided to mock rather than press on.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I already said: I am a recipient of knowledge for outside. As for how it is self-evident...it is just as I already said also: such knowledge out weighs all other (internal) knowledge to a point of no contest.

How do you know your knowledge comes from the outside?

How do you know there even is an "outside"? Even that basic point has not been justified.

Again, my justification is complete. It is your justification that is lacking - even if you do not know it. ... And forgive me, but you do not present yourself as someone who wants to take advise from someone who has been up ahead - but, rather, you seem to be stopped at this point on the journey and have decided to mock rather than press on.

I'm sorry you think that me asking you to justify your beliefs counts as mocking, but it simply isn't. If you have good reasons to believe what you do, then it should be easy to demonstrate their truth. That's all I'm asking you to do.

Basically your argument boils down to "this is true because I believe it".... Well, I don't care what you believe, I care what you can demonstrate. Until you can demonstrate, then your beliefs are not justified.

 

[devolved]

And that explains your shortsighted perspective: you didn't finish reading the information about messages coming in from the outside.

Why would the reception of these messages be so selective and inconsistent?

 

[ScottA]

How do you know your knowledge comes from the outside?

How do you know there even is an "outside"? Even that basic point has not been justified.

Good questions.

Because I was taken outside and given the opportunity to look back.

If you have good reasons to believe what you do, then it should be easy to demonstrate their truth. That's all I'm asking you to do.

That is a fallacy...the same fallacy which I explained with the example of being inside and outside. And, it is not easy, but impossible to demonstrate the outside from the inside - except by example...which I have done.

But there are plenty of examples: the internet is a good example. It is a completely "created" universe...without internal matter, but unbeknownst to all the little pixel characters...a cartoon rock landing on your head, hurts, bleeds real-to-life blood, but none of it even real.

 

[ScottA]

Why would the reception of these messages be so selective and inconsistent?

Simple answer, or complex?

Simple answer: Need to know.

Complex answer: History is a story told via the media of time, and selectively releasing information helps in the unfolding saga, to carry forward the plot, for the sake of the big finish.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

God is a reasonable explanation for what we are experiencing
-do you have another one?
-would like to hear it

This claim is in dire need of support.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why would you think that one person's opinion represents all opinions?

Pure convenience. He can cherrypick as he wishes.

 

[Davian]

For the same reason you might like Lamb: 20,000,000 coyotes can't be wrong.

All kidding aside, there can be no empirical evidence within the closed circuit of the universe. God is not inside - but is outside...and you can't go outside to prove it to yourself.

Coincidently, there can be no empirical evidence for an imaginary world that exists only in your head.

 

[Davian]

And that explains your shortsighted perspective: you didn't finish reading the information about messages coming in from the outside.

Do you hear voices?

 

[Ana the Ist]

For an explanation of basal assumptions and evidentialism, see the preview of Mitch Stokes's A Shot of Faith to the Head on Google Books.

Your reply here doesn't answer my post....

"You certainly haven't made any such connection between the assumptions and absurdity. If you think that connection is there....let's hear it."

Are you capable of showing that connection?

 

[devolved]

Good questions.

Because I was taken outside and given the opportunity to look back.
That is a fallacy...the same fallacy which I explained with the example of being inside and outside. And, it is not easy, but impossible to demonstrate the outside from the inside - except by example...which I have done.

But there are plenty of examples: the internet is a good example. It is a completely "created" universe...without internal matter, but unbeknownst to all the little pixel characters...a cartoon rock landing on your head, hurts, bleeds real-to-life blood, but none of it even real.

Internet is a simulation and all of it exists in our reality. It exists as a state of matter that transmits that state to our brain.

When you are talking about being taken outside... what are the circumstances? You realize that there are hundreds of alien abduction stories and there are viable psychological explanstion for these when it comes to how our brains handle narcosis.

My father was also claiming to "fly outside" during his surgery and vlaimed to be given some information... but none of it came true or was true... not surprisingly. If there was some super human information passed down, I'd think it would be in a form of something we could actually use... and not the revelation type of cryptic stuff which unfolds no history and moves nothing at all.

 

[devolved]

But...if you were the guy who received the note that was passed under the door...everyone else would call you crazy. And if there was another person every so often down through history that received a similar message...and they began to write it down and put it in a book...and they called it their "bible" - that would just be crazy...20,000,000 coyote crazy!

Perhaps not crazy... but not very uselful. If there's no way to demonstarte outside, and there's no way to veryfy whether you messages are true or not... how useful are these?

Comic books are fun just like any fantasy fiction. Perhaps it can relate some moral reality through a metaphor.... but as something tha actually impacts history. I think what we actually know seems to have a far greater impact.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Good questions.

Because I was taken outside and given the opportunity to look back.

Really... So you were taken into some supernatural realm by god, and you had a chance to look around? What does that mean that you were taken "outside"

That is a fallacy...the same fallacy which I explained with the example of being inside and outside. And, it is not easy, but impossible to demonstrate the outside from the inside - except by example...which I have done.

It is? Which fallacy, and how did I commit it? You can't just dismiss an argument by saying "that's a fallacy". You have to show what and where.

And no, you haven't demonstrated a single thing. You've just been arguing by assertion so far, without backing up your claims.

But there are plenty of examples: the internet is a good example. It is a completely "created" universe...without internal matter, but unbeknownst to all the little pixel characters...a cartoon rock landing on your head, hurts, bleeds real-to-life blood, but none of it even real.

How is that in the least bit relevant to this argument?