Arguments for the Existence of God

[victorinus]

How is that less reasonable than explanation that I gave? Both reasonably explain what I wish for and why I wish for it.

Explain why you think that my wish of winning the lottery is less reasonable than my wish for God to exist.

wanting to get rich is reasonable but it doesn't address your answer to why you want God to exist
-you want God to exist because it gives meaning and purpose to the life you are living
-without God, you do not have a reasonable explanation for what we are doing here

 

[ToddNotTodd]

wanting to get rich is reasonable but it doesn't address your answer to why you want God to exist
-you want God to exist because it gives meaning and purpose to the life you are living
-without God, you do not have a reasonable explanation for what we are doing here

I give myself meaning and purpose. And that's all I find necessary. A desire for a god's existence would have nothing to do with meaning or purpose, for me...

 

[victorinus]

Yes. I'm looking for a Reasonable Explanation for what I experience,

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

 

[victorinus]

I give myself meaning and purpose. And that's all I find necessary. A desire for a god's existence would have nothing to do with meaning or purpose, for me...

fine
-so what are you doing here?

 

[devolved]

wanting to get rich is reasonable but it doesn't address your answer to why you want God to exist
-you want God to exist because it gives meaning and purpose to the life you are living
-without God, you do not have a reasonable explanation for what we are doing here

What if I want God to exist in order to get rich? Would that be ok?

 

[victorinus]

What if I want God to exist in order to get rich? Would that be ok?

no

 

[devolved]

no

Why not? It combines both of my reasonable wishes into one big wish?

 

[HitchSlap]

fine
-so what are you doing here?

Jesus told him too?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

fine
-so what are you doing here?

Here on this site? Arguing mainly. Trying to understand why people believe things without what I consider good evidence.

Why?

 

[Mediaeval]

Why, even for a second, would you assume "atheism" necessarily precludes any meaning for life?

Provine was an atheist, so perhaps he noticed the lack of meaning from firsthand experience.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Provine was an atheist, so perhaps he noticed the lack of meaning from firsthand experience.

You mean "his lack of meaning", unless you're suggesting that he sets the standards for conclusions about atheism.

 

[HitchSlap]

Provine was an atheist, so perhaps he noticed the lack of meaning from firsthand experience.

So what.

 

[Mediaeval]

So what.

Why would Provine's experience be less authoritative and valid than yours? Or do the results of both experiences, though contradictory, have equal truth value?

 

[Mediaeval]

I'm not sure what you mean by that.



"Ultimate standard of truth"?

By that, do you mean reality?



By "unproven" basal assumptions....do you mean assumptions which are and have always been consistently observable and demonstrable"?



I disagree.



Maybe you haven't heard of this....but we already worked out these assumptions. We used them to develop a methodology known as science. We use science to learn things about reality.



I don't think that there's anything about these basal assumptions that leads to absurdity. You certainly haven't made any such connection between the assumptions and absurdity. If you think that connection is there....let's hear it.

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.

 

[Mediaeval]

You mean "his lack of meaning", unless you're suggesting that he sets the standards for conclusions about atheism.

Who does set the standards for conclusions about atheism and how conclusive are his standards?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Why would Provine's experience be less authoritative and valid than yours? Or do the results of both experiences, though contradictory, have equal truth value?

Because if his intention was to suggest that atheism equals a meaningless life, then he's demonstrably wrong.

That's why.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Why would Provine's experience be less authoritative and valid than yours? Or do the results of both experiences, though contradictory, have equal truth value?

Because he's wrong?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Who does set the standards for conclusions about atheism and how conclusive are his standards?

"Atheism" has a definition. This definition has nothing to do with the definition of the word "meaning". Drawing conclusions tying the two is demonstrably incorrect.

Everyone has the ability to say correct things in regards to any subject, as well as the ability to say incorrect things.

It's not terribly difficult.

 

[HitchSlap]

Why would Provine's experience be less authoritative and valid than yours? Or do the results of both experiences, though contradictory, have equal truth value?

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

 

[Dave Ellis]

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

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

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