Total Posts:110|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Best atheological/theistical arguments

Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 11:10:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What are the best atheological/theological arguments for and against God?
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 11:26:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 11:10:08 PM, Microsuck wrote:
What are the best atheological/theological arguments for and against God?

PoE, Teleological argument which is actually an argument against God, euthyphro dilemma....

But thats not where the fun is at. The fun, is when the arguments for God, fail.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 12:24:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are no good theological arguments.

The problem of evil is bulletproof.

I also like the Pawnbroker Parable, also known as the argument from bad arguments, and only partly because it is my own contribution.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 12:33:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Look at the two types of arguments.

Atheological
Theistical


Atheological has the word logical in it.
Theistical has the letters s, h, i and t in it.

Check mate Theists.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 12:35:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/3/2012 12:33:05 AM, tvellalott wrote:
Look at the two types of arguments.

Atheological
Theistical


Atheological has the word logical in it.
Theistical has the letters s, h, i and t in it.

Check mate Theists.

Gotta love this line of logic.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 12:38:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think these theist God arguements are a Fad.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 12:44:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/3/2012 12:33:05 AM, tvellalott wrote:
Look at the two types of arguments.

Atheological
Theistical


Atheological has the word logical in it.
Theistical has the letters s, h, i and t in it.

Check mate Theists.

Sigged.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 12:47:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/3/2012 12:33:05 AM, tvellalott wrote:
Look at the two types of arguments.

Atheological
Theistical


Atheological has the word logical in it.
Theistical has the letters s, h, i and t in it.

Check mate Theists.

Win.
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 12:48:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/3/2012 12:46:16 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
You can look at the debate that THEBOMB and I had. I thought that the argument I presented was particularly sound.

Thanks. I'll read it thisafternoon. From what i read, it may be self defeating. I'm not 100% sure.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,759
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 12:57:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/3/2012 12:33:05 AM, tvellalott wrote:
Look at the two types of arguments.

Atheological
Theistical


Atheological has the word logical in it.
Theistical has the letters s, h, i and t in it.

Check mate Theists.

The atheological critique of religion -- it is an
inferior way of knowing -- is the flip side of a naive and untenable
positivism. Both positions are predicated on faith, neither can be proven epistemically superior to the other.
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,759
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 1:02:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Best atheist argument says we create meaning, best theist argument says everything is inherently meaningful. Both sides seem equally convincing to me.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 1:12:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/3/2012 1:02:03 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
Best atheist argument says we create meaning, best theist argument says everything is inherently meaningful. Both sides seem equally convincing to me.

How could that possibly be the best atheist argument.

However, the problem here, is that both the atheist and theist agree that we can and do create meaning. Which means that the Theist accepts the atheistic argument, that we create meaning in our lives. Therefore, the atheist argument is true, and the theist argument is not.
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 1:27:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Thomistic cosmological argument
Leibnizian cosmological argument
Kalam cosmological argument
Moral argument
Ontological argument
Teleological argument
Argument from reason/logic
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 2:36:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/3/2012 12:57:31 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 4/3/2012 12:33:05 AM, tvellalott wrote:
Look at the two types of arguments.

Atheological
Theistical


Atheological has the word logical in it.
Theistical has the letters s, h, i and t in it.

Check mate Theists.

The atheological critique of religion -- it is an
inferior way of knowing -- is the flip side of a naive and untenable
positivism. Both positions are predicated on faith, neither can be proven epistemically superior to the other.

no there not..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 2:46:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Honestly in Canada there is non of this mixing of logic with supernatural. At least its no popular. Nor it is in most of the word. I couldn't believe how populat

They shouldn even get of the ground even the most simplistic arguments should refute them

Simple ones as such. You are a natural human, with natura human knowledge. So anyclaim of supernatural immediatly begs the question. THe Theist should have to prove such supernatural knowledge is possible. Good luck with that.

Another simple one as all observances are in the universe, therefore any speaking about outside begs the question.

Ontological argument is simple, I have a definition of perfect unicorn. part of its definition is perfection so it must exist!!???

The logical argument from God is simply circular. For it uses logic to assert God then God to assert logic.

I don't know when these simple argument were all off a sudden just ignored.!!?

Again they are all appeals to ignorance. Where 'we don't know is the best explanation'
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 2:48:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 11:26:11 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/2/2012 11:10:08 PM, Microsuck wrote:
What are the best atheological/theological arguments for and against God?

PoE, Teleological argument which is actually an argument against God, euthyphro dilemma....

But thats not where the fun is at. The fun, is when the arguments for God, fail.

How does the Teleological argument go?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 2:51:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Don't be fooled!! All arguments against God were actually put there BY God to test our skepticism!
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 12:12:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/3/2012 2:48:28 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/2/2012 11:26:11 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/2/2012 11:10:08 PM, Microsuck wrote:
What are the best atheological/theological arguments for and against God?

PoE, Teleological argument which is actually an argument against God, euthyphro dilemma....

But thats not where the fun is at. The fun, is when the arguments for God, fail.

How does the Teleological argument go?

Teleological argument is the argument from design, and ties in with the Anthropic principle. Its the argument where things that appear designed, must have a designer.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 12:16:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 11:10:08 PM, Microsuck wrote:
What are the best atheological/theological arguments for and against God?

Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. Can't explain that!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 12:19:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/3/2012 1:02:03 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
Best atheist argument says we create meaning, best theist argument says everything is inherently meaningful. Both sides seem equally convincing to me.

Wtf? That has nothing to do with whether God exists. God can exist with meaningless existence and existence could be meaningful without God.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 1:18:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 11:26:11 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/2/2012 11:10:08 PM, Microsuck wrote:
What are the best atheological/theological arguments for and against God?

PoE, Teleological argument which is actually an argument against God, euthyphro dilemma....

But thats not where the fun is at. The fun, is when the arguments for God, fail.

How is the teleological argument an argument against God?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 1:18:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Argument from Quantum Physics

P1: The God-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent – all-observing – being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
P2: Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
P3: An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
P4: We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.
C: Therefore, God cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)

Modified Argument from the Universe (I crafted this argument)

P1: If God exists, he is the creator of the Universe (whole of existence). 
P2: If God exists, he is omnipresent/infinite. 
P3: A composite entity cannot be the cause of its components. (Axiom) 
P4: God pervades all things. (P2) 
P5: The Universe is a part (component) of God. (P4) 
P6: God could not have possibly created the Universe. (P3, P5) 
Conclusion: Therefore it is impossible for God to exist. (P1, P2, P6)

Further explanation of the above:

Contention 1: The existence of a whole system cannot precede the existence of the parts that it consists of. If the "whole system" (in this case God) added more parts to himself, then he is not actually a whole system, he would be incomplete. God's nature doesn't allow him to be an incomplete being. 

Contention 2: Modifying himself is a form of "construction," not "creation." In philosophy, there's a distinction; "construction" is making something from pre-existing materials and "creation" is making something from nothing, ex nihilo. My first premise says, if God exists he is a creator.

Contention 3: P3 is an axiom. It's called the Principle of Limitation: For every composite phenomena A, A cannot be the cause of its components. 

.
.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 1:34:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Btw, the logical and evidential argument from evil are overrated and so is the argument from divine hiddenness.

The best theological argument is this.

The Argument from Contingency

(1) Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.
(2) The universe exists contingently.
(3) The universe has a reason for its existence.
(4) If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,759
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 1:35:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/3/2012 12:19:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/3/2012 1:02:03 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
Best atheist argument says we create meaning, best theist argument says everything is inherently meaningful. Both sides seem equally convincing to me.

Wtf? That has nothing to do with whether God exists. God can exist with meaningless existence and existence could be meaningful without God.

I disagree. Meaning requires intentions, so either meaning comes from God (the physical world has meaning given to it by God) or meaning comes from humans (the physical world only has meaning in relation to humans). I doubt anyone will agree with me, but to me, these are the strongest arguments for and against God's existence.
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,759
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 1:37:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/3/2012 1:34:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Btw, the logical and evidential argument from evil are overrated and so is the argument from divine hiddenness.

The best theological argument is this.


The Argument from Contingency

(1) Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.
(2) The universe exists contingently.
(3) The universe has a reason for its existence.
(4) If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Argument from Contingency seems like a weaker version of the argument I'm pushing. Your argument implies a "reason" or meaning to existence, but is based on the fact that the universe exists contingently. P2 is hard to prove, whereas my argument simply states meaning is necessary, and does not require proof of P2, only P1.
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,759
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 1:39:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/3/2012 1:18:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Argument from Quantum Physics

P1: The God-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent – all-observing – being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
P2: Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
P3: An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
P4: We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.
C: Therefore, God cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)

Modified Argument from the Universe (I crafted this argument)

P1: If God exists, he is the creator of the Universe (whole of existence). 
P2: If God exists, he is omnipresent/infinite. 
P3: A composite entity cannot be the cause of its components. (Axiom) 
P4: God pervades all things. (P2) 
P5: The Universe is a part (component) of God. (P4) 
P6: God could not have possibly created the Universe. (P3, P5) 
Conclusion: Therefore it is impossible for God to exist. (P1, P2, P6)

Further explanation of the above:

Contention 1: The existence of a whole system cannot precede the existence of the parts that it consists of. If the "whole system" (in this case God) added more parts to himself, then he is not actually a whole system, he would be incomplete. God's nature doesn't allow him to be an incomplete being. 

Contention 2: Modifying himself is a form of "construction," not "creation." In philosophy, there's a distinction; "construction" is making something from pre-existing materials and "creation" is making something from nothing, ex nihilo. My first premise says, if God exists he is a creator.

Contention 3: P3 is an axiom. It's called the Principle of Limitation: For every composite phenomena A, A cannot be the cause of its components. 



.
.
.
.
.

I agree QM makes for a really strong argument against God's existence, if you accept the existence of things we cannot see. But if we believe things we cannot see, why not accept the existence of God? Quantum physics argument cuts both ways.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 1:48:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/3/2012 1:37:12 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 4/3/2012 1:34:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Btw, the logical and evidential argument from evil are overrated and so is the argument from divine hiddenness.

The best theological argument is this.


The Argument from Contingency

(1) Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.
(2) The universe exists contingently.
(3) The universe has a reason for its existence.
(4) If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Argument from Contingency seems like a weaker version of the argument I'm pushing. Your argument implies a "reason" or meaning to existence, but is based on the fact that the universe exists contingently. P2 is hard to prove, whereas my argument simply states meaning is necessary, and does not require proof of P2, only P1.

Utterly false. Reason =/= meaning. Go read the dictionary. "Reason" in the context of my argument means "cause" not "meaning."

What you provided is a non-argument. You said "Best atheist argument says we create meaning, best theist argument says everything is inherently meaningful." This is an existentialist and nihilist issue, neither having much to do with whether God exists. It doesn't matter if we create meaning or if existence is inherently meaningful.

If you believe you have an argument, lets see it in syllogistic form.

.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 2:00:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/3/2012 1:39:25 PM FourTrouble wrote:

I agree QM makes for a really strong argument against God's existence, if you accept the existence of things we cannot see.

Scientists can observe quantum phenomenon and can test it. Hadron Collider is one example, the double slit experiment another.

But if we believe things we cannot see, why not accept the existence of God? Quantum physics argument cuts both ways.

Are you seriously comparing quantum physics to God? There's a reason quantum physics is a science and theres no science of God. QM is observable, mathematically testable, and blatantly real. Subatomic particles exist, our reality is made of it. God, no.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 2:06:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/3/2012 1:39:25 PM, FourTrouble wrote:

I agree QM makes for a really strong argument against God's existence, if you accept the existence of things we cannot see. But if we believe things we cannot see, why not accept the existence of God? Quantum physics argument cuts both ways.

Because one is the most accurate scientific theory ever, the other is the sum result of the ramblings of neolithic goat herders.