Total Posts:115|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Most plausible argument for God's existence?

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 10:02:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I want know what you believe is the most plausible argument for God's existence. If you don't believe that any arguments for God are plausible or have any merit whatsoever that's fine too.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 10:10:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 10:02:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I want know what you believe is the most plausible argument for God's existence. If you don't believe that any arguments for God are plausible or have any merit whatsoever that's fine too.

Dogs. Dogs are awesome. My evidence: Dog is God spelled backwards.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Thanksfornotraping
Posts: 238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 10:11:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
There is no rational argument for God. God can only be experienced. If you haven't had a revelation as to the existence of God, no amount of talking can get one to know for sure that there is a God or Gods. One may believe in a God without proof, as many do, but that belief is not proof of any Gods.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 10:12:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 10:02:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I want know what you believe is the most plausible argument for God's existence. If you don't believe that any arguments for God are plausible or have any merit whatsoever that's fine too.

That one... the second one. Yep, that's it.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 10:15:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 10:11:28 AM, Thanksfornotraping wrote:
There is no rational argument for God. God can only be experienced. If you haven't had a revelation as to the existence of God, no amount of talking can get one to know for sure that there is a God or Gods. One may believe in a God without proof, as many do, but that belief is not proof of any Gods.

He sounds a bit like the pink elephant of ethanol fame, or the colors, the colors, man. Can't you see the colors? (of LSD)
Is God more, or less real than a hallucination? Why?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 10:18:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
But you truly believe that absolutely no plausible argument for God exists? I understand that you don't agree with the sentiment.
Thanksfornotraping
Posts: 238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 10:23:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 10:15:38 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:11:28 AM, Thanksfornotraping wrote:
There is no rational argument for God. God can only be experienced. If you haven't had a revelation as to the existence of God, no amount of talking can get one to know for sure that there is a God or Gods. One may believe in a God without proof, as many do, but that belief is not proof of any Gods.

He sounds a bit like the pink elephant of ethanol fame, or the colors, the colors, man. Can't you see the colors? (of LSD)
Is God more, or less real than a hallucination? Why?

Much more real than a hallucination. Now I can't speak for other people, but my experience was momentary, profound, very emotional, and it gave me (my) absolute proof that a God exists, and that we are all made from God (as in we're perfect).
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 10:25:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 10:02:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I want know what you believe is the most plausible argument for God's existence. If you don't believe that any arguments for God are plausible or have any merit whatsoever that's fine too.

None, since I am an ignostic to some extent (that i in ignostic was not a typo) means that all arguments for or against God are meaningless until a well-defined definition of God is given.

When a well-defined definition of God is given, then no, none, for a multitude of reasons.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 10:27:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 10:23:55 AM, Thanksfornotraping wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:15:38 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:11:28 AM, Thanksfornotraping wrote:
There is no rational argument for God. God can only be experienced. If you haven't had a revelation as to the existence of God, no amount of talking can get one to know for sure that there is a God or Gods. One may believe in a God without proof, as many do, but that belief is not proof of any Gods.

He sounds a bit like the pink elephant of ethanol fame, or the colors, the colors, man. Can't you see the colors? (of LSD)
Is God more, or less real than a hallucination? Why?

Much more real than a hallucination. Now I can't speak for other people, but my experience was momentary, profound, very emotional, and it gave me (my) absolute proof that a God exists, and that we are all made from God (as in we're perfect).

How many hallucinations have you had?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 10:29:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 10:25:10 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:02:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I want know what you believe is the most plausible argument for God's existence. If you don't believe that any arguments for God are plausible or have any merit whatsoever that's fine too.

None, since I am an ignostic to some extent (that i in ignostic was not a typo) means that all arguments for or against God are meaningless until a well-defined definition of God is given.

When a well-defined definition of God is given, then no, none, for a multitude of reasons.

But what if the arguments themselves logically determine the characteristics of God?
Thanksfornotraping
Posts: 238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 10:31:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 10:27:16 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:23:55 AM, Thanksfornotraping wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:15:38 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:11:28 AM, Thanksfornotraping wrote:
There is no rational argument for God. God can only be experienced. If you haven't had a revelation as to the existence of God, no amount of talking can get one to know for sure that there is a God or Gods. One may believe in a God without proof, as many do, but that belief is not proof of any Gods.

He sounds a bit like the pink elephant of ethanol fame, or the colors, the colors, man. Can't you see the colors? (of LSD)
Is God more, or less real than a hallucination? Why?

Much more real than a hallucination. Now I can't speak for other people, but my experience was momentary, profound, very emotional, and it gave me (my) absolute proof that a God exists, and that we are all made from God (as in we're perfect).

How many hallucinations have you had?

A few- many times when I've been sick growing up (usually a high grade fever) and every time I did 'shrooms. They were 100% different than my revelation experience.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 10:34:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 10:29:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:25:10 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:02:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I want know what you believe is the most plausible argument for God's existence. If you don't believe that any arguments for God are plausible or have any merit whatsoever that's fine too.

None, since I am an ignostic to some extent (that i in ignostic was not a typo) means that all arguments for or against God are meaningless until a well-defined definition of God is given.

When a well-defined definition of God is given, then no, none, for a multitude of reasons.

But what if the arguments themselves logically determine the characteristics of God?

That's irrelevant to ignosticism/non-cognitivism. For example, you can tack on as many secondary attributes as you want to a meaningless primary nature, the concept still remains meaningless.

For example, take a wiboo-waboo (some made-up concept), we get no closer to a meaningful concept if we tack on attributes like weight, colour, smell, size, substance, etc. It just remains an overall meaningless concept.

In any case I am not familiar with the arguments you are referring to. God has virtually infinite flexibility in how he can be defined and act, and given this is used substantially by apologists is a pretty clear red flag that these are just post hoc justifications for something they already believe to exist.
Thanksfornotraping
Posts: 238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 10:36:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 10:29:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:25:10 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:02:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I want know what you believe is the most plausible argument for God's existence. If you don't believe that any arguments for God are plausible or have any merit whatsoever that's fine too.

None, since I am an ignostic to some extent (that i in ignostic was not a typo) means that all arguments for or against God are meaningless until a well-defined definition of God is given.

When a well-defined definition of God is given, then no, none, for a multitude of reasons.

But what if the arguments themselves logically determine the characteristics of God?

Such as??? You'd be the first person on earth to logically prove a God exists just from logic alone...
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 10:40:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The main argument for God's existence is that a majority of trolls here have stopped posting.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 10:43:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 10:27:16 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:23:55 AM, Thanksfornotraping wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:15:38 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:11:28 AM, Thanksfornotraping wrote:
There is no rational argument for God. God can only be experienced. If you haven't had a revelation as to the existence of God, no amount of talking can get one to know for sure that there is a God or Gods. One may believe in a God without proof, as many do, but that belief is not proof of any Gods.

He sounds a bit like the pink elephant of ethanol fame, or the colors, the colors, man. Can't you see the colors? (of LSD)
Is God more, or less real than a hallucination? Why?

Much more real than a hallucination. Now I can't speak for other people, but my experience was momentary, profound, very emotional, and it gave me (my) absolute proof that a God exists, and that we are all made from God (as in we're perfect).

How many hallucinations have you had?

How do you know it's a hallucination? Have you studied the cases where God has appeared to people and disproved them? If you have not, well, you're no more justified in assuming that this person had a hallucination than I am assuming Barrack Obama is a hallucination because I've never seen him except through tv.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 10:45:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 10:02:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I want know what you believe is the most plausible argument for God's existence. If you don't believe that any arguments for God are plausible or have any merit whatsoever that's fine too.

A good one is cows and sheep. I mean, you expect me to believe cows and sheep survived through the jurassic period without being eaten and thus dying out? Only God could have made cows and sheep.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 10:52:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 10:02:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I want know what you believe is the most plausible argument for God's existence. If you don't believe that any arguments for God are plausible or have any merit whatsoever that's fine too.

One need not even have to cater to beliefs, one can use known facts to argue for a gods existence. That isn't the point. A god needs to show himself to all of us in order for us to accept it's existence.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 11:51:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 10:43:24 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:27:16 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:23:55 AM, Thanksfornotraping wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:15:38 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:11:28 AM, Thanksfornotraping wrote:
There is no rational argument for God. God can only be experienced. If you haven't had a revelation as to the existence of God, no amount of talking can get one to know for sure that there is a God or Gods. One may believe in a God without proof, as many do, but that belief is not proof of any Gods.

He sounds a bit like the pink elephant of ethanol fame, or the colors, the colors, man. Can't you see the colors? (of LSD)
Is God more, or less real than a hallucination? Why?

Much more real than a hallucination. Now I can't speak for other people, but my experience was momentary, profound, very emotional, and it gave me (my) absolute proof that a God exists, and that we are all made from God (as in we're perfect).

How many hallucinations have you had?

How do you know it's a hallucination? Have you studied the cases where God has appeared to people and disproved them? If you have not, well, you're no more justified in assuming that this person had a hallucination than I am assuming Barrack Obama is a hallucination because I've never seen him except through tv.

Where did I say it was a hallucination?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 12:03:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 10:34:45 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:29:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:25:10 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:02:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I want know what you believe is the most plausible argument for God's existence. If you don't believe that any arguments for God are plausible or have any merit whatsoever that's fine too.

None, since I am an ignostic to some extent (that i in ignostic was not a typo) means that all arguments for or against God are meaningless until a well-defined definition of God is given.

When a well-defined definition of God is given, then no, none, for a multitude of reasons.

But what if the arguments themselves logically determine the characteristics of God?

That's irrelevant to ignosticism/non-cognitivism. For example, you can tack on as many secondary attributes as you want to a meaningless primary nature, the concept still remains meaningless.

For example, take a wiboo-waboo (some made-up concept), we get no closer to a meaningful concept if we tack on attributes like weight, colour, smell, size, substance, etc. It just remains an overall meaningless concept.

In any case I am not familiar with the arguments you are referring to. God has virtually infinite flexibility in how he can be defined and act, and given this is used substantially by apologists is a pretty clear red flag that these are just post hoc justifications for something they already believe to exist.

I think that arguments showing that an intelligent designer is more likely than not are stong enough arguments for God. The intelligent designer may be a "wiboo-waboo" but the designer himself would still be God
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 12:06:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What's the point in going over arguments for God's existence when theists almost without fail do not believe that God exists because of those arguments?

Even if it was proven beyond any possible doubt that god played no part in the creation of the universe, it is unlikely that there will be many people who stop believing God exists. God will just get redefined and the ounce of trimmed to meet the requirements of that day and age.

It has happened time and time over history, the God of thunder, lightning, tides and mountains are not trimmed to another area of ignorance, I see no reason for this trend to stop continuing.

How does one argue against a God who is poorly defined, with virtually infinite flexibility over what it can be/do?

William Craig for example, believes. God exists because of personal experience, and has even stated that if his pet argument, the KCA was conclusively refuted (to him), he would s believe God exists. The same is true of a lot of apologists, and also a lot of theists in general. Hence all these arguments for God's existance seem to be mostly post hoc exercises in ambiguity and mental masturbation.

/rant
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 12:12:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 12:03:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:34:45 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:29:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:25:10 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:02:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I want know what you believe is the most plausible argument for God's existence. If you don't believe that any arguments for God are plausible or have any merit whatsoever that's fine too.

None, since I am an ignostic to some extent (that i in ignostic was not a typo) means that all arguments for or against God are meaningless until a well-defined definition of God is given.

When a well-defined definition of God is given, then no, none, for a multitude of reasons.

But what if the arguments themselves logically determine the characteristics of God?

That's irrelevant to ignosticism/non-cognitivism. For example, you can tack on as many secondary attributes as you want to a meaningless primary nature, the concept still remains meaningless.

For example, take a wiboo-waboo (some made-up concept), we get no closer to a meaningful concept if we tack on attributes like weight, colour, smell, size, substance, etc. It just remains an overall meaningless concept.

In any case I am not familiar with the arguments you are referring to. God has virtually infinite flexibility in how he can be defined and act, and given this is used substantially by apologists is a pretty clear red flag that these are just post hoc justifications for something they already believe to exist.

I think that arguments showing that an intelligent designer is more likely than not are stong enough arguments for God. The intelligent designer may be a "wiboo-waboo" but the designer himself would still be God

Well, a designer implies consciousness, and intelligence, and purpose. So that goes some way towards establishing a primary nature of God (and thereby making him cognitive), however doing so results in serious epistemic issues. I would recommend checking out my debate vs ChristisExemplar for a more complete breakdown of my reasons why.

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

There are a plethora of different arguments for intelligent design, so I am unfamiliar with the ones you are talking about. I have done many debates against biological intelligent design, but none against cosmological intelligent design. All run into pretty much the same problems however, which is usually an ignorance of the Anthropic principle.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 12:13:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 10:31:15 AM, Thanksfornotraping wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:27:16 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:23:55 AM, Thanksfornotraping wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:15:38 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:11:28 AM, Thanksfornotraping wrote:
There is no rational argument for God. God can only be experienced. If you haven't had a revelation as to the existence of God, no amount of talking can get one to know for sure that there is a God or Gods. One may believe in a God without proof, as many do, but that belief is not proof of any Gods.

He sounds a bit like the pink elephant of ethanol fame, or the colors, the colors, man. Can't you see the colors? (of LSD)
Is God more, or less real than a hallucination? Why?

Much more real than a hallucination. Now I can't speak for other people, but my experience was momentary, profound, very emotional, and it gave me (my) absolute proof that a God exists, and that we are all made from God (as in we're perfect).

How many hallucinations have you had?

A few- many times when I've been sick growing up (usually a high grade fever) and every time I did 'shrooms. They were 100% different than my revelation experience.
Were your febrile hallucinations the same as those from the shrooms?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 12:13:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 10:10:44 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:02:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I want know what you believe is the most plausible argument for God's existence. If you don't believe that any arguments for God are plausible or have any merit whatsoever that's fine too.

Dogs. Dogs are awesome. My evidence: Dog is God spelled backwards.

Wow, ummm, I never considered that! Ok, I'm a theist now! ;-p
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 12:19:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 10:45:26 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 11/11/2014 10:02:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I want know what you believe is the most plausible argument for God's existence. If you don't believe that any arguments for God are plausible or have any merit whatsoever that's fine too.

A good one is cows and sheep. I mean, you expect me to believe cows and sheep survived through the jurassic period without being eaten and thus dying out? Only God could have made cows and sheep.

*Double face palm*
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 12:22:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Note that even if these philosophical arguments for. God actually worked, it still bewilders me that most theists who forward these arguments are not Deists, but denominational theists, who believe in Christianity, Islam, etc.

Its a very long way to go from a God which a philosophical argument may affirm to actually getting to a religious God. A much longer way. I daresay than going from atheism to deism.

If theists that generally defend such arguments really were convinced by them, then I would not expect them to remain in the religion they grew up with (generally).
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 12:26:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 12:21:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Simply put, God is the inevitable conclusion of a reality self-contained with respect to explanation.

It would seem more that God is a way to escape the self-contained nature of reality.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 12:27:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 12:22:22 PM, Envisage wrote:
Note that even if these philosophical arguments for. God actually worked, it still bewilders me that most theists who forward these arguments are not Deists, but denominational theists, who believe in Christianity, Islam, etc.

Its a very long way to go from a God which a philosophical argument may affirm to actually getting to a religious God. A much longer way. I daresay than going from atheism to deism.

If theists that generally defend such arguments really were convinced by them, then I would not expect them to remain in the religion they grew up with (generally).

I'm a non-denominational theist but the reason I believe theism is more accurate than deism is because I think there is overwhelming evidence of objective morality. If purpose driven behavior is indefinitely good/evil in real time it follows that a God is necessary to ground such indefinite good/evil purpose-driven behavior.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 12:27:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 12:22:22 PM, Envisage wrote:
Note that even if these philosophical arguments for. God actually worked, it still bewilders me that most theists who forward these arguments are not Deists, but denominational theists, who believe in Christianity, Islam, etc.

Its a very long way to go from a God which a philosophical argument may affirm to actually getting to a religious God. A much longer way. I daresay than going from atheism to deism.

If theists that generally defend such arguments really were convinced by them, then I would not expect them to remain in the religion they grew up with (generally).

A rather profound observation.

+1
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 12:28:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 12:26:24 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/11/2014 12:21:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Simply put, God is the inevitable conclusion of a reality self-contained with respect to explanation.

It would seem more that God is a way to escape the self-contained nature of reality.

Actually, the self-contained nature of reality implies God.