Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Arguments for the Existence of God

HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 8:22:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
All right, fellow atheists, I would like to ask you which is the most convincing argument in favor of the existence of god. And by god I don't wish to mean the sort of ancient tribal god of the Christians or the Greeks, but something more like a designer, the god of the deists if you will, we could call it, an architect (to avoid the use of the word "creator").
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
Scaffold-Cane
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 9:10:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
'Convincing' is difficult for me to qualify since my best means of determining the truth of something is with logic and reason. Were I given a 'convincing' argument, I wouldn't be atheist.

That being said though, a simple redefinition of God so that he might appeal to both parties is easy enough to do:

If I were to ask a fellow atheist (imagining s/he is reasonable) if they believe in my god if I define my god as the color orange, they would say yes (they simply wouldn't attribute any supernatural capabilities to the color orange). Fair enough. If I asked the same atheist if they view omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipotence as supernatural qualities, they would most likely say yes.

If I were to ask a theist the exact same questions, their responses should be identical. So this is where a bit of bait and switch could be of use. Define God as nature (pantheistically if you will). Suddenly on the existence of God, everyone is on the same page. Atheists agree that it is reasonable to believe nature exists, God for these purposes, and most would agree that nature can be described using the terms omnipotence, omniscient, and omnipresent (for indeed nature is everywhere, contains within it all-power, and is the source of all-knowledge). This is trivial to the theist (as long as they aren't arguing for the anthropomorphic God, but that's another debate altogether).

What you get here is an atheist thinking it is reasonable to believe in a God which has been given supernatural qualities, those qualities simply being redefined to fit into nature since all we do not know about nature could be given a supernatural explanation, which still necessarily fits within the bounds of nature. Which, obviously, brings into question the use of 'supernatural', which I believe to be wholly irrelevant since "all mysteries ever solved turned out to be not-magic", for all intents and purposes supernatural is simply a subset of natural and is strictly contained outside of our understanding of nature.

So that's the closest I'd be willing to say I believe in God as is, which begs the difference between pantheism and atheism (and agnosticism, honestly), but that's a different discussion entirely.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 9:49:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't find any of them to be the least bit convincing. I do find the ontological argument to be the worst, out of the arguments that seem to be popular anyway.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 10:00:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
To have come across literally dozens of definitions of 'God', most of them are mutually exclusive to each other. So the title should be 'Existsnce of A God'

The most amusing thing is most theists are religious, yet the only arguments they have are not for their own God. Seems absurd.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:24:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 9:10:41 PM, Scaffold-Cane wrote:
'Convincing' is difficult for me to qualify since my best means of determining the truth of something is with logic and reason. Were I given a 'convincing' argument, I wouldn't be atheist.

You are right, I apologize for my poor choice of words.

That being said though, a simple redefinition of God so that he might appeal to both parties is easy enough to do:

If I were to ask a fellow atheist (imagining s/he is reasonable) if they believe in my god if I define my god as the color orange, they would say yes (they simply wouldn't attribute any supernatural capabilities to the color orange). Fair enough. If I asked the same atheist if they view omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipotence as supernatural qualities, they would most likely say yes.

If I were to ask a theist the exact same questions, their responses should be identical. So this is where a bit of bait and switch could be of use. Define God as nature (pantheistically if you will). Suddenly on the existence of God, everyone is on the same page. Atheists agree that it is reasonable to believe nature exists, God for these purposes, and most would agree that nature can be described using the terms omnipotence, omniscient, and omnipresent (for indeed nature is everywhere, contains within it all-power, and is the source of all-knowledge). This is trivial to the theist (as long as they aren't arguing for the anthropomorphic God, but that's another debate altogether).

What you get here is an atheist thinking it is reasonable to believe in a God which has been given supernatural qualities, those qualities simply being redefined to fit into nature since all we do not know about nature could be given a supernatural explanation, which still necessarily fits within the bounds of nature. Which, obviously, brings into question the use of 'supernatural', which I believe to be wholly irrelevant since "all mysteries ever solved turned out to be not-magic", for all intents and purposes supernatural is simply a subset of natural and is strictly contained outside of our understanding of nature.

So that's the closest I'd be willing to say I believe in God as is, which begs the difference between pantheism and atheism (and agnosticism, honestly), but that's a different discussion entirely.

Pantheism is, of course, a reasonable position, but I tend to see pantheism as nothing more than "sexed up atheism," to quote Dawkins; and I know that quite a few theists see it that way.

That's why I tried to framed the argument in terms of an Architect, a deistic god, if you will, instead of in terms of a theistic god.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
Scaffold-Cane
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:31:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 7:24:44 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
That being said though, a simple redefinition of God so that he might appeal to both parties is easy enough to do:

If I were to ask a fellow atheist (imagining s/he is reasonable) if they believe in my god if I define my god as the color orange, they would say yes (they simply wouldn't attribute any supernatural capabilities to the color orange). Fair enough. If I asked the same atheist if they view omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipotence as supernatural qualities, they would most likely say yes.

If I were to ask a theist the exact same questions, their responses should be identical. So this is where a bit of bait and switch could be of use. Define God as nature (pantheistically if you will). Suddenly on the existence of God, everyone is on the same page. Atheists agree that it is reasonable to believe nature exists, God for these purposes, and most would agree that nature can be described using the terms omnipotence, omniscient, and omnipresent (for indeed nature is everywhere, contains within it all-power, and is the source of all-knowledge). This is trivial to the theist (as long as they aren't arguing for the anthropomorphic God, but that's another debate altogether).

What you get here is an atheist thinking it is reasonable to believe in a God which has been given supernatural qualities, those qualities simply being redefined to fit into nature since all we do not know about nature could be given a supernatural explanation, which still necessarily fits within the bounds of nature. Which, obviously, brings into question the use of 'supernatural', which I believe to be wholly irrelevant since "all mysteries ever solved turned out to be not-magic", for all intents and purposes supernatural is simply a subset of natural and is strictly contained outside of our understanding of nature.

So that's the closest I'd be willing to say I believe in God as is, which begs the difference between pantheism and atheism (and agnosticism, honestly), but that's a different discussion entirely.

Pantheism is, of course, a reasonable position, but I tend to see pantheism as nothing more than "sexed up atheism," to quote Dawkins; and I know that quite a few theists see it that way.

That's why I tried to framed the argument in terms of an Architect, a deistic god, if you will, instead of in terms of a theistic god.

Oh, I totally agree. In all technicality, I identify as Naturalistic Pantheist. When I'm asked, though, I just say atheist. They are more or less the same thing with the former simply explaining EVERYTHING ('supernatural' included) has being a subset of nature rather than simply remaining skeptical on the existence of the supernatural.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:31:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 9:49:00 PM, Double_R wrote:
I don't find any of them to be the least bit convincing. I do find the ontological argument to be the worst, out of the arguments that seem to be popular anyway.

I guess you mean Anselm's ontological argument? Yes I also find that one to be the worse, it is actually quite easy to rebut. The greatest thing of which I can conceive that exists both in my mind and in reality would have to be the universe.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:37:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 10:00:25 PM, Envisage wrote:
To have come across literally dozens of definitions of 'God', most of them are mutually exclusive to each other. So the title should be 'Existsnce of A God'

That's why I defined it in the OP as a deistic "architect."

The most amusing thing is most theists are religious, yet the only arguments they have are not for their own God. Seems absurd.

Again, we are not talking about what theists think, we are talking about deism.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:39:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 7:31:44 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/7/2014 9:49:00 PM, Double_R wrote:
I don't find any of them to be the least bit convincing. I do find the ontological argument to be the worst, out of the arguments that seem to be popular anyway.

I guess you mean Anselm's ontological argument? Yes I also find that one to be the worse, it is actually quite easy to rebut. The greatest thing of which I can conceive that exists both in my mind and in reality would have to be the universe.

The universe simply means "everything that exists". So why can't God and the universe be synonymous, given that God is by definition omnipresent.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:40:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 7:31:13 PM, Scaffold-Cane wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:24:44 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
That being said though, a simple redefinition of God so that he might appeal to both parties is easy enough to do:

If I were to ask a fellow atheist (imagining s/he is reasonable) if they believe in my god if I define my god as the color orange, they would say yes (they simply wouldn't attribute any supernatural capabilities to the color orange). Fair enough. If I asked the same atheist if they view omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipotence as supernatural qualities, they would most likely say yes.

If I were to ask a theist the exact same questions, their responses should be identical. So this is where a bit of bait and switch could be of use. Define God as nature (pantheistically if you will). Suddenly on the existence of God, everyone is on the same page. Atheists agree that it is reasonable to believe nature exists, God for these purposes, and most would agree that nature can be described using the terms omnipotence, omniscient, and omnipresent (for indeed nature is everywhere, contains within it all-power, and is the source of all-knowledge). This is trivial to the theist (as long as they aren't arguing for the anthropomorphic God, but that's another debate altogether).

What you get here is an atheist thinking it is reasonable to believe in a God which has been given supernatural qualities, those qualities simply being redefined to fit into nature since all we do not know about nature could be given a supernatural explanation, which still necessarily fits within the bounds of nature. Which, obviously, brings into question the use of 'supernatural', which I believe to be wholly irrelevant since "all mysteries ever solved turned out to be not-magic", for all intents and purposes supernatural is simply a subset of natural and is strictly contained outside of our understanding of nature.

So that's the closest I'd be willing to say I believe in God as is, which begs the difference between pantheism and atheism (and agnosticism, honestly), but that's a different discussion entirely.

Pantheism is, of course, a reasonable position, but I tend to see pantheism as nothing more than "sexed up atheism," to quote Dawkins; and I know that quite a few theists see it that way.

That's why I tried to framed the argument in terms of an Architect, a deistic god, if you will, instead of in terms of a theistic god.

Oh, I totally agree. In all technicality, I identify as Naturalistic Pantheist. When I'm asked, though, I just say atheist. They are more or less the same thing with the former simply explaining EVERYTHING ('supernatural' included) has being a subset of nature rather than simply remaining skeptical on the existence of the supernatural.

It's nice to come across a fellow pantheist every now and then, may I presume that you're an admirer of Spinoza as well?
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:42:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 7:39:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:31:44 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/7/2014 9:49:00 PM, Double_R wrote:
I don't find any of them to be the least bit convincing. I do find the ontological argument to be the worst, out of the arguments that seem to be popular anyway.

I guess you mean Anselm's ontological argument? Yes I also find that one to be the worse, it is actually quite easy to rebut. The greatest thing of which I can conceive that exists both in my mind and in reality would have to be the universe.

The universe simply means "everything that exists". So why can't God and the universe be synonymous, given that God is by definition omnipresent.

That would be the pantheistic position, which is acceptable and reasonable, but Anselm was not a pantheist and he would probably have regarded it as unavowed atheism.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:46:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 7:42:45 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:39:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:31:44 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/7/2014 9:49:00 PM, Double_R wrote:
I don't find any of them to be the least bit convincing. I do find the ontological argument to be the worst, out of the arguments that seem to be popular anyway.

I guess you mean Anselm's ontological argument? Yes I also find that one to be the worse, it is actually quite easy to rebut. The greatest thing of which I can conceive that exists both in my mind and in reality would have to be the universe.

The universe simply means "everything that exists". So why can't God and the universe be synonymous, given that God is by definition omnipresent.

That would be the pantheistic position, which is acceptable and reasonable, but Anselm was not a pantheist and he would probably have regarded it as unavowed atheism.

Anyone who believes that God is omnipresent believes that God and the universe are synonymous. You're simply used to equating "universe" with "purely naturalistic universe". You have no basis on which to do that.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:50:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 7:46:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:42:45 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:39:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:31:44 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/7/2014 9:49:00 PM, Double_R wrote:
I don't find any of them to be the least bit convincing. I do find the ontological argument to be the worst, out of the arguments that seem to be popular anyway.

I guess you mean Anselm's ontological argument? Yes I also find that one to be the worse, it is actually quite easy to rebut. The greatest thing of which I can conceive that exists both in my mind and in reality would have to be the universe.

The universe simply means "everything that exists". So why can't God and the universe be synonymous, given that God is by definition omnipresent.

That would be the pantheistic position, which is acceptable and reasonable, but Anselm was not a pantheist and he would probably have regarded it as unavowed atheism.

Anyone who believes that God is omnipresent believes that God and the universe are synonymous. You're simply used to equating "universe" with "purely naturalistic universe". You have no basis on which to do that.

Seeing how I only have evidence of a purely naturalistic universe I don't see why I should not assume that it is solely naturalistic, I don't see a bridge on which to cross over to the side of the supernatural.

And no, not everyone who believes that God is omnipresent will say that God=universe. The churches and theologians of old, and most of them today, have been very adamant on this point. After all, Spinoza was condemned as a heretic for saying precisely that.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:55:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 7:50:53 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:46:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:42:45 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:39:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:31:44 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/7/2014 9:49:00 PM, Double_R wrote:
I don't find any of them to be the least bit convincing. I do find the ontological argument to be the worst, out of the arguments that seem to be popular anyway.

I guess you mean Anselm's ontological argument? Yes I also find that one to be the worse, it is actually quite easy to rebut. The greatest thing of which I can conceive that exists both in my mind and in reality would have to be the universe.

The universe simply means "everything that exists". So why can't God and the universe be synonymous, given that God is by definition omnipresent.

That would be the pantheistic position, which is acceptable and reasonable, but Anselm was not a pantheist and he would probably have regarded it as unavowed atheism.

Anyone who believes that God is omnipresent believes that God and the universe are synonymous. You're simply used to equating "universe" with "purely naturalistic universe". You have no basis on which to do that.

Seeing how I only have evidence of a purely naturalistic universe I don't see why I should not assume that it is solely naturalistic, I don't see a bridge on which to cross over to the side of the supernatural.

You're missing the point. If God were to exist, God would be the universe. I'm not saying that if you believe in the universe, you believe in God.


And no, not everyone who believes that God is omnipresent will say that God=universe. The churches and theologians of old, and most of them today, have been very adamant on this point. After all, Spinoza was condemned as a heretic for saying precisely that.

That's because I'm defining "universe" in its most general sense i.e., as everything that exists, while they probably defined it in a narrower sense which precluded the universe's supraphysical dimension.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 8:03:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 7:55:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:50:53 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:46:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:42:45 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:39:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:31:44 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/7/2014 9:49:00 PM, Double_R wrote:
I don't find any of them to be the least bit convincing. I do find the ontological argument to be the worst, out of the arguments that seem to be popular anyway.

I guess you mean Anselm's ontological argument? Yes I also find that one to be the worse, it is actually quite easy to rebut. The greatest thing of which I can conceive that exists both in my mind and in reality would have to be the universe.

The universe simply means "everything that exists". So why can't God and the universe be synonymous, given that God is by definition omnipresent.

That would be the pantheistic position, which is acceptable and reasonable, but Anselm was not a pantheist and he would probably have regarded it as unavowed atheism.

Anyone who believes that God is omnipresent believes that God and the universe are synonymous. You're simply used to equating "universe" with "purely naturalistic universe". You have no basis on which to do that.

Seeing how I only have evidence of a purely naturalistic universe I don't see why I should not assume that it is solely naturalistic, I don't see a bridge on which to cross over to the side of the supernatural.


You're missing the point. If God were to exist, God would be the universe. I'm not saying that if you believe in the universe, you believe in God.

Yes, if one assumes that god exists then god is the same thing as the universe.

And no, not everyone who believes that God is omnipresent will say that God=universe. The churches and theologians of old, and most of them today, have been very adamant on this point. After all, Spinoza was condemned as a heretic for saying precisely that.


That's because I'm defining "universe" in its most general sense i.e., as everything that exists, while they probably defined it in a narrower sense which precluded the universe's supraphysical dimension.

Actually, Spinoza defined the "universe" precisely in those terms, as everything that exists, physical matter and mental states included, they still denounced him as a secret atheist.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 8:11:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 8:03:11 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:55:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:50:53 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:46:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:42:45 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:39:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:31:44 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/7/2014 9:49:00 PM, Double_R wrote:
I don't find any of them to be the least bit convincing. I do find the ontological argument to be the worst, out of the arguments that seem to be popular anyway.

I guess you mean Anselm's ontological argument? Yes I also find that one to be the worse, it is actually quite easy to rebut. The greatest thing of which I can conceive that exists both in my mind and in reality would have to be the universe.

The universe simply means "everything that exists". So why can't God and the universe be synonymous, given that God is by definition omnipresent.

That would be the pantheistic position, which is acceptable and reasonable, but Anselm was not a pantheist and he would probably have regarded it as unavowed atheism.

Anyone who believes that God is omnipresent believes that God and the universe are synonymous. You're simply used to equating "universe" with "purely naturalistic universe". You have no basis on which to do that.

Seeing how I only have evidence of a purely naturalistic universe I don't see why I should not assume that it is solely naturalistic, I don't see a bridge on which to cross over to the side of the supernatural.


You're missing the point. If God were to exist, God would be the universe. I'm not saying that if you believe in the universe, you believe in God.

Yes, if one assumes that god exists then god is the same thing as the universe.

And no, not everyone who believes that God is omnipresent will say that God=universe. The churches and theologians of old, and most of them today, have been very adamant on this point. After all, Spinoza was condemned as a heretic for saying precisely that.


That's because I'm defining "universe" in its most general sense i.e., as everything that exists, while they probably defined it in a narrower sense which precluded the universe's supraphysical dimension.

Actually, Spinoza defined the "universe" precisely in those terms, as everything that exists, physical matter and mental states included, they still denounced him as a secret atheist.

That's because Spinoza's "God" lacked many of the qualities traditionally associated with the God concept. In any case, history is irrelevant to whether or not one's conception of a personal God can coincide with one's conception of the "universe", which is my main point.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 8:12:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 8:03:11 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:55:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:


You're missing the point. If God were to exist, God would be the universe. I'm not saying that if you believe in the universe, you believe in God.

Yes, if one assumes that god exists then god is the same thing as the universe.


Thus, "God" and "the universe" are not mutually exclusive terms, and your argument falls apart.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 4:12:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 8:11:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/8/2014 8:03:11 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:55:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:50:53 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:46:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:42:45 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:39:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:31:44 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/7/2014 9:49:00 PM, Double_R wrote:
I don't find any of them to be the least bit convincing. I do find the ontological argument to be the worst, out of the arguments that seem to be popular anyway.

I guess you mean Anselm's ontological argument? Yes I also find that one to be the worse, it is actually quite easy to rebut. The greatest thing of which I can conceive that exists both in my mind and in reality would have to be the universe.

The universe simply means "everything that exists". So why can't God and the universe be synonymous, given that God is by definition omnipresent.

That would be the pantheistic position, which is acceptable and reasonable, but Anselm was not a pantheist and he would probably have regarded it as unavowed atheism.

Anyone who believes that God is omnipresent believes that God and the universe are synonymous. You're simply used to equating "universe" with "purely naturalistic universe". You have no basis on which to do that.

Seeing how I only have evidence of a purely naturalistic universe I don't see why I should not assume that it is solely naturalistic, I don't see a bridge on which to cross over to the side of the supernatural.


You're missing the point. If God were to exist, God would be the universe. I'm not saying that if you believe in the universe, you believe in God.

Yes, if one assumes that god exists then god is the same thing as the universe.

And no, not everyone who believes that God is omnipresent will say that God=universe. The churches and theologians of old, and most of them today, have been very adamant on this point. After all, Spinoza was condemned as a heretic for saying precisely that.


That's because I'm defining "universe" in its most general sense i.e., as everything that exists, while they probably defined it in a narrower sense which precluded the universe's supraphysical dimension.

Actually, Spinoza defined the "universe" precisely in those terms, as everything that exists, physical matter and mental states included, they still denounced him as a secret atheist.

That's because Spinoza's "God" lacked many of the qualities traditionally associated with the God concept. In any case, history is irrelevant to whether or not one's conception of a personal God can coincide with one's conception of the "universe", which is my main point.

I only brought up the history bit in order to give some context, though I also said that very many contemporary theologians would regard defining God as the Cosmos as being tantamount to atheism.

To the main point: the attributes that Spinoza's god lacked were those of omnibenevolence and of personal interaction with humans, because he reasoned that if God is Everything that exists, or if he is omnipresent, then he cannot be a personal omnibenevolent god. I have to say that I agree with him.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 4:15:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 8:12:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/8/2014 8:03:11 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:55:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:


You're missing the point. If God were to exist, God would be the universe. I'm not saying that if you believe in the universe, you believe in God.

Yes, if one assumes that god exists then god is the same thing as the universe.


Thus, "God" and "the universe" are not mutually exclusive terms, and your argument falls apart.

Except that I was not arguing that god and the universe are mutually exclusive, if you define god as being everything that exists you fall into the pantheist position. I was not arguing against that position, I was arguing against the theistic god of Anselm, and I wanted to hear good arguments in favor of deism.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 4:26:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 4:15:19 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 8:12:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/8/2014 8:03:11 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:55:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:


You're missing the point. If God were to exist, God would be the universe. I'm not saying that if you believe in the universe, you believe in God.

Yes, if one assumes that god exists then god is the same thing as the universe.


Thus, "God" and "the universe" are not mutually exclusive terms, and your argument falls apart.

Except that I was not arguing that god and the universe are mutually exclusive, if you define god as being everything that exists you fall into the pantheist position. I was not arguing against that position, I was arguing against the theistic god of Anselm, and I wanted to hear good arguments in favor of deism.

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 4:29:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 4:15:19 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 8:12:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/8/2014 8:03:11 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:55:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:


You're missing the point. If God were to exist, God would be the universe. I'm not saying that if you believe in the universe, you believe in God.

Yes, if one assumes that god exists then god is the same thing as the universe.


Thus, "God" and "the universe" are not mutually exclusive terms, and your argument falls apart.

Except that I was not arguing that god and the universe are mutually exclusive, if you define god as being everything that exists you fall into the pantheist position. I was not arguing against that position, I was arguing against the theistic god of Anselm, and I wanted to hear good arguments in favor of deism.

You said that "the greatest thing I can think of would have to be the universe". Although the greatest being would coincide with the universe, certain "universes" would be greater than others. God is simply "the greatest possible universe" i.e., a universe that is in complete control of itself.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 8:41:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think the best way to argue for God is to argue for Monistic Idealism, and then show why Solipsism isn't the best model for Idealism. Theism is implied at that point..
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 6:12:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 4:29:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/9/2014 4:15:19 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 8:12:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/8/2014 8:03:11 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:55:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:


You're missing the point. If God were to exist, God would be the universe. I'm not saying that if you believe in the universe, you believe in God.

Yes, if one assumes that god exists then god is the same thing as the universe.


Thus, "God" and "the universe" are not mutually exclusive terms, and your argument falls apart.

Except that I was not arguing that god and the universe are mutually exclusive, if you define god as being everything that exists you fall into the pantheist position. I was not arguing against that position, I was arguing against the theistic god of Anselm, and I wanted to hear good arguments in favor of deism.

You said that "the greatest thing I can think of would have to be the universe". Although the greatest being would coincide with the universe, certain "universes" would be greater than others. God is simply "the greatest possible universe" i.e., a universe that is in complete control of itself.

Well, that is another way to formulate my initial argument, the only universe of which I can conceive is the one we have, I cannot really conceive of any other possible universe, so my reply to Anselm stands, as it takes a pantheistic position.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 6:31:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 8:41:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I think the best way to argue for God is to argue for Monistic Idealism, and then show why Solipsism isn't the best model for Idealism. Theism is implied at that point..

I don't find Monistic Idealism particularly convincing.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 6:37:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 6:31:38 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/9/2014 8:41:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I think the best way to argue for God is to argue for Monistic Idealism, and then show why Solipsism isn't the best model for Idealism. Theism is implied at that point..

I don't find Monistic Idealism particularly convincing.

Any reason why?
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 6:52:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 4:26:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/9/2014 4:15:19 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 8:12:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/8/2014 8:03:11 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 7:55:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:


You're missing the point. If God were to exist, God would be the universe. I'm not saying that if you believe in the universe, you believe in God.

Yes, if one assumes that god exists then god is the same thing as the universe.


Thus, "God" and "the universe" are not mutually exclusive terms, and your argument falls apart.

Except that I was not arguing that god and the universe are mutually exclusive, if you define god as being everything that exists you fall into the pantheist position. I was not arguing against that position, I was arguing against the theistic god of Anselm, and I wanted to hear good arguments in favor of deism.

http://www.debate.org...

On this forum you seem to be arguing in favor of a concept of God that is, to me at least, a bit too elastic; it can be a pantheistic god, a deistic god, or a theistic god. I can agree with everything you said on your OP in that forum without abandoning the pantheistic position.

http://www.debate.org...

All right, on your first argument your definition of god is again a rather pantheistic one, and based on some speculation, most of the rest of your argument follows the same trend, there is nothing that anyone can actually disagree with because for most of your argument your definition of god is synonymous with reality and the universe (i.e. it is pantheistic).

I would have to say that the weakest part of your argument is precisely when you try to make your pantheistic god a theistic or panentheistic god by trying to prove that god (the universe) is the source of objective morality; an argument that is rather unconvincing, and easily refuted.

Consider this, if god is everything that exists, then it follows logically that you and I are both a part of god, since we exist, but it also means that Jeffrey Dahmer and Charles Manson are a part of god, along with their actions, and their minds. I am going to go ahead and presume that we are both good people, but Dahmer and Manson are objectively evil people, and yet we are, all four of us. parts of god. From this it follows that god is also evil, since everything evil is a part of him. Therefore god is not omnibenevolent, because if he was evil wouldn't exist.

Another way to respond to the argument of omnibenevolence is by pointing out that it is inconsistent of god to condemn killing as evil and yet make the act of killing a necessary aspect of life, even one of the methods by which life evolves. The same goes for pretty much every other act that is objectively evil; expropriation, rape, torture, etc.

P.S. I found it rather cheap of your opponent in that debate to accuse you of plagiarism, I don't think that any rational person should expect that every argument in this site comes, as if from the head of Zeus, from the minds of people in this site.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 8:21:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 8:22:11 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
All right, fellow atheists, I would like to ask you which is the most convincing argument in favor of the existence of god. And by god I don't wish to mean the sort of ancient tribal god of the Christians or the Greeks, but something more like a designer, the god of the deists if you will, we could call it, an architect (to avoid the use of the word "creator").

People that see nature as God itself, are pretty difficult to convince that God does not exist (i think this would be pantheists). But there's not "convincing argument" for, say the biblical God. That God is a joke to the intelect and you don't believe in him based on "convincing arguments" because there's none. You simply use faith.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 7:22:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 8:21:04 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/7/2014 8:22:11 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
All right, fellow atheists, I would like to ask you which is the most convincing argument in favor of the existence of god. And by god I don't wish to mean the sort of ancient tribal god of the Christians or the Greeks, but something more like a designer, the god of the deists if you will, we could call it, an architect (to avoid the use of the word "creator").

People that see nature as God itself, are pretty difficult to convince that God does not exist (i think this would be pantheists). But there's not "convincing argument" for, say the biblical God. That God is a joke to the intelect and you don't believe in him based on "convincing arguments" because there's none. You simply use faith.

That's why I specified that I was looking for arguments in favor of a deistic god, not a theistic one. I wanted to see if any fellow atheists had come across an argument that was sound (I should have used that word instead of convinving) and reasonable in favor of a deistic god. And pantheism is atheism.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 7:51:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 7:22:21 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/10/2014 8:21:04 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/7/2014 8:22:11 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
All right, fellow atheists, I would like to ask you which is the most convincing argument in favor of the existence of god. And by god I don't wish to mean the sort of ancient tribal god of the Christians or the Greeks, but something more like a designer, the god of the deists if you will, we could call it, an architect (to avoid the use of the word "creator").

People that see nature as God itself, are pretty difficult to convince that God does not exist (i think this would be pantheists). But there's not "convincing argument" for, say the biblical God. That God is a joke to the intelect and you don't believe in him based on "convincing arguments" because there's none. You simply use faith.

That's why I specified that I was looking for arguments in favor of a deistic god, not a theistic one. I wanted to see if any fellow atheists had come across an argument that was sound (I should have used that word instead of convinving) and reasonable in favor of a deistic god. And pantheism is atheism.

If I found an argument for god sound I would be a theist.

Also pantheism =/= atheism pantheism believes god = the universe! and the universe is in some sense intelligent! that's diametrically opposed to atheism.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 7:54:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 7:51:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/11/2014 7:22:21 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/10/2014 8:21:04 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/7/2014 8:22:11 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
All right, fellow atheists, I would like to ask you which is the most convincing argument in favor of the existence of god. And by god I don't wish to mean the sort of ancient tribal god of the Christians or the Greeks, but something more like a designer, the god of the deists if you will, we could call it, an architect (to avoid the use of the word "creator").

People that see nature as God itself, are pretty difficult to convince that God does not exist (i think this would be pantheists). But there's not "convincing argument" for, say the biblical God. That God is a joke to the intelect and you don't believe in him based on "convincing arguments" because there's none. You simply use faith.

That's why I specified that I was looking for arguments in favor of a deistic god, not a theistic one. I wanted to see if any fellow atheists had come across an argument that was sound (I should have used that word instead of convinving) and reasonable in favor of a deistic god. And pantheism is atheism.

If I found an argument for god sound I would be a theist.

Not necessarily, one can recognize an argument as sound and still reject it on another basis. An argument in favor of an architect that was sound and which one accepted would only lead one to the deist position, not theism. They are quite different.

Also pantheism =/= atheism pantheism believes god = the universe! and the universe is in some sense intelligent! that's diametrically opposed to atheism.

I just see it as sexed up atheism. Atheism is the rejection of a creator, and of a personal one at that. But pantheism is quite compatible with atheism. If you define God as Nature, the way Spinoza did, you're not defining it in a theistic way, anymore than defining God as the human emotion "love" is theistic.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.