Where Do We Come From?: The 7 Most Intriguing Philosophical Arguments for the Existence of God

[BridgeTheGap]

Nietzsche is famous for saying that God is dead, but news of The Almighty's demise may have been greatly exaggerated. Here are some of the most fascinating and provocative philosophical arguments for the existence of God.

To be clear, these are philosophical arguments. They're neither rooted in religious scripture nor any kind of scientific observation or fact. Many of these arguments, some of which date back thousands of years, serve as interesting intellectual exercises, teasing apart what we think we know about the universe and our place within it from what we think we're capable of knowing. Other arguments, like the last two listed, are attempts to reconcile questions that currently plague scientists and philosophers.

Now, none of these arguments make a definitive case for the existence of God, and many of them are (fairly) easily debunked or problematized (as I'll try to show). But at the very least, they offer considerable food for thought.

Finally, by "God" or "god," we're not talking about any specific religious deity. As this list shows, the term can encompass everything from a perfect, omnipotent being to something that can be considered even a bit banal.

http://www.alternet.org/belief/where-do-we-come-7-most-intriguing-philosophical-arguments-existence-god?page=0%2C0&akid=11514.260941.Y2pQrJ&rd=1&src=newsletter959266&t=11

[skepticscott]

1. To the addled and brain-dead they offer "food for thought"

But they are nothing more than people who already believe unalterably in the existence of "god" reasoning backwards to craft an argument that will end up where they actually started.

Why anyone would call arguments (not even evidence) that have all been debunked or discredited "food for thought" is a total mystery, unless they just had nothing better to fill time and column inches that day.

[Brettongarcia]

78. The author himself admits that many are "easily refuted" philosophically. And they have been

[stopbush]

135. The most-interesting question is actually "why is there something instead of nothing?"

The answer - as put by one scientist - "because 'nothing' is unstable."

[Brettongarcia]

165. Yeah, but... What is there in "nothing" that can be unstable?

[stopbush]

166. Lawrence Krauss addresses that question in his book, "A Universe From Nothing."

Physics, etc.

Worth a read.

[Jim__]

170. Krauss is talking about empty space.

He doesn't actually address Leibniz' question.

[stopbush]

171. Empty space?

Is there such a thing?

[Brettongarcia]

185. Maybe that's where your author is coming from: "space" implies certain presuppositions/things

But as for Leibniz - and real, actual "nothing"ness?

There is nothing whatsoever there, it would seem; by definition.

Nothing to be unstable/instable therefore.

Watch out for popularizations of contemporary Physics.

[Act_of_Reparation]

186. That's not really the thrust of Leibniz's argument

Leibniz posits everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, so the universe must have been caused somehow. Just at face value, this is a fairly bald-faced composition fallacy; Just because constituent pieces are dependent and caused does not mean the collection itself (the universe) is also dependent and caused.

Beyond that, Leibniz's principal of sufficient reason (PSR) -- the mechanism by which the whole argument operates -- isn't as self-evident as Leibniz presumed it to be.

[cbayer]

2. While I find the whole argument about the existence of god

to be pretty useless and unproductive, this could be an interesting basis for a class or discussion group.

That is as long as no one was really invested in proving anything one way or another.

My personal favorite is:

6) We're living in a computer simulation run by hacker gods

[trotsky]

14. There are many, many things that we cannot "(prove) one way or another"...

but that we still must have an answer to, in order to have laws and organized society.

For instance, is abortion murder?

[stopbush]

29. Abortion was not murder according to the early Catholic church.

They believed that the soul didn't enter the fetus until the 90 day mark in a process called "ensoulment." Up until then, the fetus was thought of being a vegetable. While abortion wasn't encouraged, there were no societal or religious strictures against it if performed in the first 90 days.

BTW - fully 25% of pregnancies in the USA do not come to term due to miscarriages etc. That's just a fact of biology. That 25% exists outside of abortions that are the result of a conscious decision/action on the part of the mother.

As "god" created man and designed the human body, it would seem that god is the biggest abortionist of all, as he designed the human body to "kill" 25% of fetuses naturally.

[trotsky]

36. They couldn't even prove it to themselves!

LOL!

[trotsky]

3. These are funny, thanks!

1) The very notion of an all-perfect being means God has to exist

I have a notion of the perfect pizza. I guess that means it must exist!

2) Something must have caused the Universe to exist

This is a very old, and very tired, and very discredited "argument" for gods. Among its many flaws, it assumes cause-and-effect relationships - which we can only know are a phenomenon inside our universe - also apply outside the universe itself. Not only is this a logical error, it disregards scientific discoveries like quantum mechanics that blow apart the whole idea that every effect must have a cause. Really sad to see this argument continue to be recycled - let alone be called "intriguing."

3) There has to be something rather than nothing

Nothing is more intriguing than an outright assertion born of the argument from ignorance, that's for sure!

4) Something had to have designed the Universe

And if that something existed, it would be the ultimate sadist. Our universe depends on decay, death, and destruction. Also we may want to have a word with the designer of the human appendix.

5) Consciousness proves that immaterial entities exist

Yay another assertion! We don't know, therefore THIS THEORY IS CORRECT! So silly.

6) We're living in a computer simulation run by hacker gods

Now we come to the only real intriguing part. Of course it involves deviating considerably from the classical understanding of what is meant by "god," but apparently that's close enough. Another thread in this group was started about this very idea so there's no point going into it here.

7) Aliens are our gods

Again, redefining what is meant by "gods." Far from intriguing, sorry to say.

[Goblinmonger]

6. As to your #1

I believe you showed me where that perfect pizza is made, my friend.

[trotsky]

13. LOL, that could quite possibly be true!

Perfection can't be far off from that, that's for sure!

[Goblinmonger]

16. I just recommended it to a friend heading to that area

We need to do that again soon.

[trotsky]

20. Agreed. n/t

[stopbush]

17. The computer simulation idea is just another example of religionist thinking

latching onto a contemporary object.

It's like writers of the Bible placing camels in their writing about times when camels weren't domesticated. "We have camels now, so Abraham musta had camels."

Let's face it, before the computer was invented, no one thought that we might all be living in a computer simulation.

Of course, #4 "something had to have designed the universe" leads us to the infinite regression, ie: if everything needs a designer, then who designed the designer?, ad infinitum...

[trotsky]

19. Good points! n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

57. The simulation conjecture has some pretty solid math and physics behind it.

What it isn't however, is a claim that a deity is involved. It is also pretty much nothing more than an amusement. The logical is unassailable if one accepts the assumptions, but the assumptions, while not unreasonable, lack any evidence. Once there is evidence of intelligent life elsewhere and sufficient computing power, then we should be concerned. Otherwise it isn't really important, if you are a sim in a vibrantly realistic simulation, that is no different than being a meat puppet in reality, to you anyway.

[longship]

41. Indeed. Here's my answers to those.

1. That's Anselm's ontological argument, which is little more than rhetorical legerdemain. That's so eleventh century!

2. Fine. Then what caused God? And yes, then there's quantum field theory...

3. Why is there something rather than nothing? Richard Feynman answered that one in three words: "Nothing is unstable."

4. The universe does not look designed, and certainly not designed for life. Nature raw in tooth and claw... And supernovae, and gamma ray bursts, and worlds in collision, and coronal mass ejections -- the fucking universe is truly trying to kill us all! It always does in the end. Always! In other words, not a very good design.

5. All modern neurology attests to the fact that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain and stops when the brain stops. There is not one smidgen of data that shows that there's a ghost in the machine. "What about out of the body experiences?" Neurologists can reliably trigger them in anybody using drugs, or (now) cranial magnetic stimulation. The same for all the other arguments.

6. Are you nucking futs? Or are you just making shit up now? Or maybe too much LSD...

7. The Jesus was an alien ploy again. Right! Now about that LSD...

[SheilaT]

128. Even if number 5 is true,

consciousness proves that immaterial entities exist, that proves absolutely nothing about the existence of God, or gods.

Personally, I happen to believe that my consciousness will survive my bodily death. But I don't at all believe in a traditional God. Conversely, it may well be that God does exist but that human consciousness still does not survive death. It's certainly possible that if God exists, he/she/it/they are supremely selfish and have created a Universe in which nothing can compete with them, and it's done by having it so that consciousness is only temporary.

I think perhaps a huge part of the God problem is that God is perceived as being very human, a crabby, sometimes indulgent tribal patriarch, and the defenders of the God concept never seem to get beyond that way of thinking.

[Warren Stupidity]

130. There is pretty much zero evidence that

consciousness is immaterial. I suspect that within a few years proof that it is instead profoundly material will be obvious to everyone.

[edhopper]

132. A single confirmed example

of consciousness existed outside the brain would be nice.

Until then it seems the brain/mind model holds.

[Warren Stupidity]

133. Like I said, wait for it.

In fact it may already have happened. Obviously I am speculating, but I'm not alone in thinking that we are at the cusp of machine consciousness.

I wonder how the faithy crowd will deal with that carve out from their increasingly small space for rational god arguments.

[edhopper]

134. The trouble with AI

as many SciFi stories have shown us. Is we can't be sure if the machine is truly self aware or just mimicking self awareness so that we can't tell if it is or not.

[Warren Stupidity]

137. i cant be sure of you either, thus the turing test.

If you can't tell the difference, it is conscious.

[edhopper]

142. perhaps

I think I am conscious, therefore I am
we have not yet met the entity that can take conciuosness.
Only it will know if it is self aware. It could say it is, but it might be lying.

[Warren Stupidity]

147. A hypothetical. Aliens arrive at planet earth.

They have vastly superior technology, which they provide to us enabling us to resolve our energy and climate problems, and opening up interstellar communication and transportation. They are clearly intelligent beings, but they kind of look like squids and share none of our evolutionary history. They are accepted as conscious beings. About a year after their arrival it becomes known that in fact they are self replicating machines, that there are some remaining intelligent life forms on their home planet, but for the most part their civilization has evolved into one populated by fully manufactured beings. Are they suddenly not conscious because being machines "they might be lying"?

What does "being a machine" have to do with consciousness at all?

[edhopper]

149. I don't doubt that machines can gain consciousness

Your alien squid machines would be self aware. I was thinking more about technology closer to our own.
HAL in 2001 was conscious. I just think a computer program could be developed that would behave almost identically to a self aware being.
To mimic a Turing response. But would it have conscious thoughts and "think" in a Cartesian sense?
I wasn't nay-saying intelligent machines, I was bringing up the problem of knowing if it truly was a conscious entity.
You only know I am conscious because you feel your consciousness in your mind/brain and know I am a member of your species.
Could we really get inside the "head" of an AI machine to know?

[SheilaT]

136. But imagine what a joke it would be on the God believers

if somehow we found out that God exists and denies any kind of spiritual immortality to everything else.

[rug]

4. I see the scurrying has already started.

[Goblinmonger]

7. Do you really think these are "intriguing"?

Because they are pretty laughable, in my opinion, as far as being something to make me go "hmmmm, never thought of that."

[rug]

8. They are for the most part thoughtful and old arguments.

I wouldn't use the word intriguing.

I definitely think the word "laughable" is a poor counter to them.

[Goblinmonger]

9. Here's the most laughable one

"Well, I can come up with it in my mind so it must exist."

That doesn't even rise to the level of thoughtful. That's just childish. William S. Burroughs thought up some crazy shit, but that doesn't mean there are creatures that excrete addictive fluid from penises on their heads.

[rug]

10. You should read Anselm's original argument then.

Argumentum ad ridiculum is called a fallacy for a reason.

[Goblinmonger]

11. You should really read Gaunilo then.

Because even a contemporary of Anselm saw the flaws pretty clearly.

[rug]

12. Flaws do not make an argument laughable.

Gaunilo the monk's own criticisms themselves have been roundly criticized.

It's what makes it a debate not a punchline.

[Brettongarcia]

81. Most philosophers today would call them "semantic." They play on oddities of words; "equivocation"

Ambiguity in the meaning of words leads to odd conclusions and dead ends and "word games."

To most philosophers today, the religious use of Philosophy looks like a goldmine of semantic word tricks, and logical fallacies.

Philosophy today is almost 800 years past Aquinas; 1,000 years more advanced than Anselm; 2,300 years beyond Plato.

But religious defenders are still quoting them. Living in the past, and the era of ignorance.

Unfortunately, religious schools taught them that these old philosophers were still relevant.

[rug]

82. Epicurus, then, must no longer be relevant.

[edhopper]

85. I got to go with you on this one rug

I think Aristotle and Plato are still relevant, as well as Epicurus. That Aquinas is so easily refuted makes him less worth reading, not the age of his writings.

[Brettongarcia]

122. Epicurus they say, did not believe in God. He's one of the better ancient philosophers

In fact, he expressed an early version of what is currently regarded as the most famous and telling argument against the existence of God. The Problem of Evil argument:

"Epicurus, founder of Epicureanism, did not believe in God, saying that 'if he is willing to prevent evil but not able, he is not omnipotent. If he is able but not willing, he is malevolent. If he is both able and willing, then there would be no evil. And if he is neither, then he is not a God.' Epicureans also believed that all knowledge comes to us through our senses and that 'the highest good is pleasure', so the happiest life is one in which all pain is avoided. This DOES NOT mean sensual pleasure, it means things like not falling out with anyone and avoiding all forms of unpleasantness."

Elements of old philosophy are useful. But? Those of us raised by religious schools need to be aware that such schools typically taught mostly old, still-pious philosophy ... and not the modern rebuttals.

I've read all of Plato; it only amounts to about 1,400 pages or so. It's good mental exercise. The Socratic method is still useful. But few contemporary philosophers are Platonists. And they have lots of good reasons for that.

[hrmjustin]

5. Interesting read.

I hope there is more than this life.

[stopbush]

15. Why?

[cbayer]

18. Did you read it? Did you find it interesting?

[stopbush]

21. I did read it. These are old and hackneyed arguments that can be dismissed with

very little intellectual vigor.

So, no - I didn't find it interesting. The assertion that they are interesting arguments reflects a lack of depth on the part of the person making the assertion.

[cbayer]

24. The author acknowledges that many can be easily dismissed,

but some of them I, like hrmjustin, found interesting.

As I said above, I think it would be fun to have discussions around them, but only with people that weren't invested in being right one way or the other.

Are you saying that hrmjustin and I have a lack of depth? Perhaps it is your lack of interest that reflects a lack of depth.

[stopbush]

26. The author says many can be easily dismissed, I say all can be easily dismissed.

One would hope that the religionists could come up with something that post-dates Aquinas.

[cbayer]

30. I think the alien and hackers theories probably post-date Aquinas.

Perhaps you did not actually read the article?

Anyway, discussing the existence of god makes for a fun party game if all are good sports and not one is invested in being right.

But it would be incredibly tedious and fruitless if those criteria were not met.

I feel rather certain it would not appeal to you at all.

[stopbush]

34. But those aren't religious ideas, are they?

Unless you redefine god to mean anything you wish it to mean, aliens and computer simulations aren't religious ideas.

[cbayer]

37. That's the point of the article.

You apparently have defined god. Share?

[stopbush]

46. Here ya go:

God is often conceived as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith. In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe. In deism, God is the creator (but not the sustainer) of the universe. In pantheism, God is the universe itself. The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. Monotheism is the belief in the existence of one God or in the oneness of God. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent". - Source, Wikipedia

The point being that god isn't a widget, at least if words are to have any meaning.

[cbayer]

49. So an uncited picking from wikipedia is what you base your definition of god on?

Maybe god is a widget and wikipedia is simplistic garbage when it comes to this?

[stopbush]

52. Playing games, are we?

Why not cite Wikipedia if it provides a decent answer?

If you prefer, here's the dictionary definition (source: Merriam-Webster). Let me know where and how it differs in substance from the Wiki citation:

god noun \ˈgäd also ˈgȯd\
God: the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe

: a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions

: a person and especially a man who is greatly loved or admired

Full Definition of GOD

1
capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2
: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3
: a person or thing of supreme value
4
: a powerful ruler

Now, perhaps you can tell me how aliens or computer simulations fit that definition.

[cbayer]

55. Perhaps playing games and I think the clock has just run out.

Interesting though that someone who seem so firmly embedded in their lack of belief of something is so invested in defining that thing that they don't believe in.

See you next time.

[stopbush]

60. Wow. You believe a few casual posts in an internet discussion group

equates to being "invested" in something.

I wonder if you'd make the same remark had this discuss been about trickle-down economics. I think not, because that wouldn't have rattled your religious bones.

It's funny - you ask questions of me, and I give you the respect of answering your questions and taking the time to formulate a serious response, and my thanks for that is "the clock has just run out."

Taking our toys and heading home, are we? You may say you're not a believer, but you've picked up some of their more-odious traits along the way.

[cbayer]

87. Nothing personal, I was just really done for the day.

And needed to get dinner done.

I enjoyed talking with you stop bush. I think we kept it civil and refrained from making it personal.

That's not always easy to do when discussing things like this, particularly when we are coming from very different positions.

Economics puts me to sleep and religion really is the subject I am most interested in when it comes to politics, so your point is probably quite valid.

We all have odious traits, I am sure. You have picked up yours and I have picked up mine, but I will again remark on the overall civility of our conversation.

I hope we will have the opportunity to do it again.

[stopbush]

97. Fair enough. No offense taken.

We'll chat again.

[rug]

69. One would hope that the anti-religionists could come up with anything - anything - new.

[stopbush]

73. They did. It's called science.

[rug]

80. Actually, science is completely mute on religion.

The ones making noise are simply adopting it to buttress old philosophical arguments against religion.

If I'm wrong, I'd love to see the experiment designed to disprove religion, starting with the description of the subject, the parameters of the experiment, and the methodology used to test the hypothesis.

[edhopper]

83. Science also works in collecting evidence for phenomena

Theories like evolution and continental drift don't call for experiments, they call for observations that verify or negate the premiss. Relativity was confirmed by the observation of an eclipse.
To date I have not seen a single observation that verifies the theory of God.

[rug]

84. To date I have not seen a single experiment to test the theory of God.

I doubt any scientist worth his salt would waste his time.

[edhopper]

86. How did you not understand my post

that experiment is not the only tool of science.

The Hubble Telescope is not an experiment , it is a tool for observation which can then confirm theories.

[rug]

88. I did, quite well.

You do understand experimentation is controlled observation, don't you?

[edhopper]

90. Yes

If God is real than he should have some impact on the Universe that would be different than explained by natural phenomena. There has never been such and observation, Occam's Razor would dictate not to add a layer of explanation (God) onto something that is easier to explain. But you know this and just ignore this oft stated reality.

The hypothesis is "God exists" (not "God does not exist&quot could you give me one observable event that would signify this is correct?

[rug]

92. If you can give me one experiment to test that hypothesis.

The point, ed, is that the arguments for and against god(s) are philosophical and ideological, not scientific.

I'll repeat: science is mute on the existence of god(s).

[edhopper]

93. Only if you maintain that

no god has ever had an impact on the physical Universe.

[rug]

94. If you want to take that route you must design the experiment.

Some religious assertions have been tested but the results are limited to the claim tested. That doesn't prevent people from extrapolating those results into an ideological framework. That is not science.

[edhopper]

98. Since i see no evidence for the existence of God

I ask those who postulate there is a God to give an example that might show God has had a single impact on the physical Universe. Then I could design an objective observation to confirm or negate this.
But if it is maintained that God has no observable impact on the Universe, I fall to Epicurus;

"Then why call him God?"

[cbayer]

100. There is no such example other than what an

individual feels they have experienced. You know that.

In the same vein, you could not provide a single example that shows that god does not exist, imo.

This is not a question than can be answered using any kind of scientific method that we now know of.

Why some choose to call what they believe in God is entirely individual. You and Epicurus can call it anything you want.

[edhopper]

104. No, I don't "know that"

That is only under your definition of a vague God, immersed in uncertainty, that might only exist in some spiritual realm with no objective presence.
Billions of believers think God is very real and has an impact on the World. I ask for an example that we could observe.

[cbayer]

107. Yes, I would say that if there was a god, "he" would be pretty vague,

and very difficult to describe, and that "he" might only exist is some spiritual realm with no presence that we have the capacity to see or understand (which would make it hard to be objective).

Humans must anthropomorphize their concepts of god in order to share their thoughts or develop their stories or explain their experiences in regards to what they perceive as their god.

That would not make that god any less real, imo.

There are no examples that one can observe. What do you hope to gain by asking such a silly question?

Generally, discussions about the existence or non-existence of god are fruitless, circular and very boring. Many people believe. Others do not. I don't care whether one believes or not, as long as they don't take the position that they know the truth and/or demand that others prove or disprove god's existence to their satisfaction.

That is very, very tedious.

You don't believe. That's great. The more important question is whether you feel you have to be right about that, and therefore everyone else has to be wrong.

[edhopper]

110. The problem is

you won't even admit that believers who contend there is a very active God, with definite attributions of who he is and what he does aren't wrong either.

[cbayer]

111. I won't admit what?

I don't give a shit what people believe as long as their belief don't impinge on the rights of or harm others.

If they want to believe in an active god with definite attributions, who am I to say whether they are right or wrong?

And who are you to say it?

Finally, why would you even care if it doesn't infringe on others in any way? Just so you can feel you are right?

[edhopper]

112. because to think that

people's religious beliefs don't have a major impact on their actions is naive.
Didn't you just tell someone they were silly for bringing up Zues and Odin.
Or do you think we have to accept that those gods might have exited too?

[cbayer]

113. Of course their religious beliefs may have a major impact on their actions.

And if those actions are good, consistent with the things I value and likely to promote causes I believe in, I think that's great.

But if those beliefs are none of those things and lead to harming others, than I don't think that's so great.

I don't think you have to accept any gods that may or may not have existed. I don't care.

But I do care if your beliefs lead you to discriminate against or attack others simply because they are believers.

[rug]

101. Epicurus' argument against god is entirely philosophical.

There is not one shred of science in it.

[edhopper]

103. I quote him

not to reiterate his argument but to apply it to this discussion. If a God has no effect on the physical Universe, then "why call him God".

Guess you didn't get the implication.

[rug]

105. No I don't see the implication, if the intent is to relate his paradox in some fashion to science.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

[edhopper]

106. It's what I implied

you did not infer it from my post.

To paraphrase, If someone maintains that a God does not have any effect on the physical Universe, why call him God?

You see I ask a different question, just use Epi's tag line.

If God does have a physical effect, an example would be appreciated.

[rug]

108. By that I take it you mean within recorded history.

Because of course the notion of a god who is the Creator means everything is the effect of god.

What you suggest is the Deist view. Why indeed call it god? I can see why some would hold the view the god created all and let it run on its own but it raises more theological questions than it answers.

Personally, I'll limit myself to an answer you'll find unsatisfactory. Leaving aside the shibboleths of resurrection, reincarnation, miracles and the rest, I am comfortable with seeing the universe itself as an effect of God.

[edhopper]

109. and that would leave me with my view

That God would be an unnecessary construct to place on top of any explanation of how the Universe works.

[rug]

114. Which leaves me with my view that religion does not exist to explain how the universe works.

Circle completed.

[edhopper]

116. But why does God exist?

[rug]

117. If I ever see him that will be my first question.

My second question will be, why the hell did he create clams?

[stopbush]

96. Suggested reading: "God - The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger.

Just one of the books written by a scientist (a particle physicist in Stenger's case) which is hardly mute on the subject of what science has to say about religion.

[rug]

102. At least two of the eight attributes in his "Scientific God Model" game the results.

He's a professor of philosophy as well as of physics. I put this polemic in the former category.

[stopbush]

118. And what would those two attributes be?

I ask because after I posted, I went back and reread that book today (it's under 260 pages of reading). I'd like to go back a reread that section after you let me know what those two attributes are.

I have the paperback version, which includes a few rewritten passages that Stenger says he did to add clarity and to address some common reactions he got from people on the first edition. Which version did you read? Hardback or revised paperback?

[rug]

119. Three and eight, pages 42-43.

It's online.

http://www.slideshare.net/antoniochavezss/victor-stenger-god-the-failed-hypothesis-how-science-shows-that-god-does-not-exist

Six is questionable also.

I don't see a scientific frame at all in his model.

He sets up philosophical and theological parameters and what he chooses to use as a datum is not a given at all. The worst one is number eight which guarantees his conclusion, even without a gloss of astrophysics.

[stopbush]

120. Those aren't Stenger's parameters, per se. They're the parameters that are common to

Last edited Sun Feb 23, 2014, 12:18 AM - Edit history (1)

how religionists define god.

Stenger sets up this particular model as a frame of reference that posits god as he is imagined by the major religions, as opposed to people who might say god is an alien being, etc.

He admits that "the scientific argument against the existence of God will be a modified form of the lack-of-evidence model." I would think you'd have more problems with that than with the defining of attributes.

I think you need to read the whole book to see what he does with that model. I'm getting the feeling that your familiarity with the book begins and ends with pages 42-43.

[rug]

121. No, that model is precisely what he attempts to disprove over the next 200 pages.

"The observable effects that such a God may be expected to have are still testable by the normal, objective processes of science."

I'm getting the feeling that somebody doesn't understand the concept of God.

[edhopper]

123. Could you give your definition then

You must agree that some see God as an anthropomorphic being that has a hand in the daily lives of men. Others that God started the whole thing and then went absent. Is he just the gestalt of the consciousness of thinking minds or the physical laws of the Universe as Einstein put it?


What exactly doesn't he understand?

[rug]

125. Simply, it is transcendent.

What he is doing in this book is testing, and refuting for the most part, particular religious claims by subjecting those claims to scientific examination. That is not hard to do.

Where I think he goes off is by limiting his inquiry to those anthropomorphic claims. The problem is that's really as far as science can go here.

The theological speculation on what god is, assuming there is one (and it can only be an assumption), is varied. Some hold the effect of god is the universe itself. Some hold specific, dramatic intervention such as the Nativity, enlightenment under the Bodhi Tree, or the recitation of the Quran by Gabriel to Mohammed. These beliefs rest on the premise that a god who created all also is able to interact with his creation according to its will, as it will. This is a far cry from asserting a prayer has the effect of altering the outcome of a high school football game. That is bastardized magic. Others simply feel the effect of God in others.

In any event, these are essentially philosophical questions not scientific questions and are not apt for an honest scientific inquiry.

For me, the big one is something from nothing. Removing creation from the universe goes a long way to removing god. I don't understand the math but Krauss' bold claim is intriguing. I don't think he's achieved consensus on it but I look forward to the scientific and theological discussion.

[edhopper]

126. Yes, something from nothing is an interesting question

but doesn't placing a God at the causation point just set back the question of where God came from, did he spring from nothing? Where did he exist before the Universe was created? If he existed, then there wasn't nothing. If he always was, then it wasn't something from nothing.
And of course we don't know where the Universe bubbled up from 15 billion years ago, so we don't know if it was something from nothing. And there isn't anything to point to an intelligence orchestrating any of it.

[rug]

127. Those are the questions I find compelling.

Either the universe always existed - which, true or not, is dissatisfying in so many ways (at least until some serious questions are answered) - or it was caused by something utterly outside human and natural experience. That is the ultimate question of theism. Why it did so is the ultimate question of religion.

[edhopper]

131. When you say outside natural experience

I take it that you mean outside anything we have seen so far or that happens in the Universe as it is.
Not that it necessarily wasn't a natural phenomena.

Though some scientist have postulated how the Universe came into being.

[rug]

138. It is that but it's also something so far outside physical laws as to be unreachable.

The counter to that is that the nature of all existence will, or at least can be known.

I think that's unlikely and frankly smacks of millennialism.

[edhopper]

140. I actually think

the nature of all existence can be known. That is, the possibility exist that it can. Not to say it will be, or that it is humanly feasible to do so. But not impossible in the absract.

[stopbush]

129. Let's back up a bit in this discussion.

Last edited Sat Feb 22, 2014, 03:56 PM - Edit history (4)

You remarked that the anti-religionists need to come up with something new.

I replied that they have - it's called science.

You said that science is completely mute on the subject of religion.

I gave you a reference to Stenger's book.

Stenger cites other scientists who believe that science need not be mute on the subject of religion. The notes at the end of each chapter reference a library of scientific pondering on the question of religion. You seem to be hung up on the model Stenger provided in the first chapter, but his book actually doesn't stick to a discussion of that model for a lot of its pages.

But I'll stipulate that you don't find Stenger convincing.

What about Stephen Hawking in his book, The Grand Design, wherein he states in no uncertain scientifically grounded terms that there is no god? (BTW - I noticed how you attempted to knock Stenger's cred as a scientist by noting that he is "also a philosopher." Can we expect a similar ploy aimed at Hawking?) Is Hawking mute on the subject?

What about Richard Dawkins in his numerous books that touch on religion from a scientific viewpoint?

What about Lawrence Krauss and his A Universe From Nothing? You said you find that intriguing. Do you find it compelling?

Not all scientists agree with Stephen Jay Gould's assessment that science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria. They are quite comfortable overlapping the two and weighing in on religious matters from a scientific perspective.

Scientists may have been mute on the subject of religion in the past, but that is no longer the case.

Science - it turns out - hasn't really been silent on the topic of religion. Not in the least. It just took a few people with the interest and the spine to tackle the subject as scientists.

[rug]

139. Stenger's position as a philosoper is a fact, not a ploy.

Do you find that fact insulting to him?

My stated opinion was that his book relied on philosophy more than science.

Spare me the effort and show me precisely where Hawkings made the assertion "wherein he states in no uncertain scientifically grounded terms that there is no god."

As to Dawkins, his writings on religion are that of a polemicist convincing to those who share his polemic.

As to Krauss, I find his assertion compelling but, as I've stated, I neither know nor am dazzled by the math behind it to to determine if his answer is as compelling as his assertion. The validity of it will be shown or discarded in due course.

Is their any other authority you appeal to?

[stopbush]

143. All I'm doing is providing you with citations of scientists who believe

that science has something to say about religion, which is opposite of the claim you made.

That you disagree with - apparently - all of them doesn't change the fact that they themselves have no problem challenging religion on what they believe to be scientific grounds.

You're shooting the messenger.

From what you wrote above, you haven't read the Hawking book I mentioned. You'll have to take my word for it that Hawking says there's no god, and I trust you'll read the book in due course. When you do get around reading Hawking, check out pgs 171-172. (Or view this "Grand Design" vid:

)

I am puzzled how you can not be "dazzled by the math" behind Krauss' book when you admit that you don't know the math behind his book ("I neither know nor am dazzled by the math behind it...)". That's just strange.

Also strange is your idea that I am appealing to authority, when all I'm doing is providing info that challenges your statement that science is mute on the subject of religion.

[rug]

144. Your puzzlement is unnecessary.

You imply the math must either be understood or be accepted. Leaving aside whether you understand his math and physics, I do not accept his conclusions (or bow to them in dazzlement) simply because he claims they support his claim. As I said, I'll wait to see if his math holds up after others trained in it examine it.

What you have done is produce "scientists who believe that science has something to say about religion", not demonstrated that science itself is an apt tool to determine if god(s) exist.

Regarding Hawking, I understand him to hold there is no need for a god to explain the universe. "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." I know that he does not believe in a god or the afterlife.

That is not the same thing you say he said. I'll ask you a second time: produce the quote or link to that.

And yes, you are appealing to authority:

Stenger says so.

Dawkins says so.

Hawking says so.

Krauss says so.

You cannot dispute Krauss because he knows the math and you don't. Therefore, to not accept his conclusions is "strange".

You haven't read The Grand Design. I can't discuss it until you do.

As I said originally. Nothing new. Not a thing.

[edhopper]

145. "As I said, I'll wait to see if his math holds up after others trained in it examine it. "

Were you saying this for irony?
You do realize you are appealing to authority?

[rug]

146. Peer review is not an appeal to authority.

[edhopper]

148. So why wouldn't a professor of both particle physics

and philosophy be dismissed as a mere appeal to authority rather than someone with knowledge and expertise in both?

[rug]

151. When the number of names dropped reaches four, it's a safe bet there's an appeal to authority.

[edhopper]

153. That sounds rather arbitrary

And you said science is mute on the subject.
He listed four prominent scientist who aren't (and their are many more) in response to his reply, you decide that four scientist amount to appeal to authority. But that is what your statement lead to.

Do you see how in this instance this response was appropriate and germane? And far from this fallacy you want to tag it with.

[rug]

156. Those scientists are not mute on the subject; science itself is.

[edhopper]

157. Says you

the non-scientist.
But the scientists say otherwise.

I think I'll appeal to authority on this one.

[rug]

158. And thus this subthread reaches its nadir.

Nyah, nyah.

[Brettongarcia]

174. Here's an easy experiment to disprove the existence of the Christian God:

Much of the Bible, or much of traditional Christianity, traditionally asserted many physical - and therefore, testable - claims.

For example? Jesus was pictured working what countless churches took as very physical miracles: Jesus countless preachers assured us, really, actually, literally, physically walked on water. And furthermore, John 14.12 ff was read to us in churches, as promising that those of us who trust and follow our preachers and their "God," will get "all" the "works" or wonders that Jesus did, and "greater things than these.

Since many very physical claims were made by nearly all the major churches or denominations, we can use science to test their physical promises. So let's do it.

Try this simple experiment (as in effect, many scientists did): pray to God for the power to literally, physically, walk on water. A power the Bible and certainly many churches once promised. Then try to walk on the surface of your backyard pool; or a puddle of water.

And observe the results.

Many claim that Christianity is not testable. But the fact is that much of traditional Christianity made very, very large, very very physical promises and claims. Claims that can be tested empirically, very easily. And? When we try them out, those promises fail.

[Next? To be sure, to try to finesse its obvious material, physical falsity, religious apologists next tried to advance a more spiritual, allegorical reading of God. But as it will turn out? That "higher," better, allegedly invulnerable re-definition, has many problems on its own. Like say, The Problem of Evil.]

Many scientists saw this immediately. So why didn't they confront Christians and tell them?

Consider how much Christians like to burn heretics.

[hrmjustin]

22. It is interesting to see why people might believe in God.

[stopbush]

23. My experience has been that ultimately, belief in god is a conceit.

Take, for instance, the idea that something must have created the universe. The argument against that is that if everything needed to be created, then who created the creator? That's called an infinite regression.

The conceit of religion enters the picture when the religionist answers, "but god is god (BTW - that would be HIS god, not any of them phony gods out there. You know, the REAL god). God always was, so he didn't need to be created." Of course, that answer destroys the original argument that everything needs a creator.

And, if god didn't need to have a creator to be created, then why did the universe need a creator/designer? Answer - it didn't.

[hrmjustin]

25. Well the question of how did God get created is an interesting question.

I don't know and leave it as a mystery of faith.

[stopbush]

27. I think we all know how god was created: evolution.

1. Chemical reactions in the primordial ooze create amino acids (Miller-Urey)
2. Billions of years of evolution
3. Man's brain evolves to the point where he can think abstractly
4. Man's brain can't figure everything out about the natural world, so
5. Some kinda super thingey musta done it. Surprise! The super thigey looks and acts a lot like man.
6. God.

God exists in the minds of man and nowhere else.

That's the funny thing: god's existence depends on man, not the other way around.

[hrmjustin]

28. We disagree but that makes life interesting.

[stopbush]

32. Why do you hope there is something beyond this life?

And why would you hope for the afterlife as depicted in the Bible? After all, the Bible talks of heaven as a kingdom, not a democracy. There are no votes in heaven.

I don't get how people living in a democracy - even a representative democracy - can long to spend an eternity in a kingdom where - let's face it - you're basically a serf (at least if we're to believe the Biblical image of heaven).

[hrmjustin]

35. Is that how you view our beliefs?

I have never met a Christian with a view of heaven as you described.

I have faith tgere is more hard to explain. I find it hard to believe there is no God.

[cbayer]

38. Me neither. It's a fairy tale apparently created by some who reject it.

Ironic, no?

[hrmjustin]

39. Yes it is ironic.

[stopbush]

42. How do you as a Christian reconcile Jesus saying that he will condemn to eternal hellfire

any person who does not confess him as lord & savior? He says that many times in the NT. There is no equivocation. One of Tertullian's "joys of heaven" was that believers in heaven got to look down on the damned in hell and rejoice that it wasn't them in the fire.

If god is so great and magnificent, how could he condemn any human being for anything? It's like a human being deciding to squish an ant because the ant didn't get good grades.

According to the Book of Common Prayer, we're unworthy to pick up the crumbs that fall from the master's table. That's worse than what the dogs were allowed to do in the story of Jesus and the Canaanite woman.

I agree that most Christians' view of heaven is different than mine, but that's because they cherry pick the Bible and toss out the things that they find offensive.

[hrmjustin]

44. I pray that prayer in the BCP everytime I am about to receive communion.

I am not worthy to pick up the crumbs off the Lord's Table.

I don't believe in hell. I believe almost all of us if not all get to heaven.

[stopbush]

61. Glad you don't believe in hell, but Jesus certainly did.

Was he wrong? I suppose he was. After all, he believed that diseases were caused by evil spirits, and we now know that that was bullpucky.

Makes ya kinda wonder about the whole "god incarnate" trope, doesn't it?

[hrmjustin]

62. I think that is all a matter of interpretation.

There was a book that name escapes me that was in competition with the book of revelation that had Jesus saying we all make it to heaven.

A good number of bishops wanted that book in the bible but it it did not get there.

[stopbush]

63. That would be the Gospel of Thomas.

It's possible that some of that book made its way into Revelation. Many early church leaders considered it to be heretical.

But you're correct in saying that there is no final judgement in the Gospel of Thomas.

[hrmjustin]

64. That is one of them but thats not the one I was thinking of.

I am sorry I just can't remember the name.

[stopbush]

65. Most likely some other Gnostic tome. Many of them agree on basics like the "no hell" meme.

Thomas just sprang to my mind as it has one of the more-storied histories.

BTW - I see that you're a Mets fan. And yet, you don't believe in hell.

Yankees fan here.

[hrmjustin]

66. Lol the mets are purgatory.

[cbayer]

45. Certainly you can provide citations for your claim that Jesus said that.

Your view is different, but that is because you have cherry picked the bible in order to embrace the things you find offensive.

[stopbush]

50. Of course I can provide citations.

Matthew 25:41-46 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

John 3:18, 36 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already .... He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.

[cbayer]

53. I can see how you could could come to the conclusion that you did

if one were to cherry pick (god forbid).

There is also a great deal about redemption and forgiveness.

And, as usual, the bible is chock full of contradictions, so no one knows what really might have been said or not said.

But you did provide citations, and for that I thank you.

[cbayer]

31. "God exists in the minds of man and nowhere else" - talk about conceit.

[stopbush]

33. Try these:

"Zeus exists in the minds of man and nowhere else."

"Anubis exists in the minds of man and nowhere else."

"Odin exists in the minds of man and nowhere else."

"Sol Invictus exists in the minds of man and nowhere else."

"Fairies exist in the minds of man and nowhere else."

"Werewolves exist in the minds of man and nowhere else."

Are those conceits as well?

Oh, wait...you mean the REAL god.

[cbayer]

40. Try this: There is no god because it doesn't exist

in my mind.

Now there is a conceit.

You think you know the truth? You are no closer to it than any believer.

[stopbush]

43. The difference between me and believers (like you) is that you disbelieve in only ONE fewer gods

than do I.

Yet you imagine that somewhere in that disbelief in one fewer gods than I lies "the truth."

Amazing.

[cbayer]

48. I'm not a believer, but I understand why you might label

anyone who doesn't agree with you as one. It fits your narrative.

The "one fewer god" argument is so old and stale…. and meaningless.

Amazing.

[stopbush]

58. Actually, the "one fewer god" argument is a great argument that never goes out of style.

That's because it's simple and truthful. Indeed, one would think that it's just the kind of ripe-for-discussion topic you'd love to discuss.

Your terming it to be "meaningless" is yet another conceit on full display.

[okasha]

152. Wrong.

It means even less to polytheists or indigenous traditionals than it does to other non-atheists.

Why do the anti-religion posters on this group automatically assume that anyone not an atheist is a monotheist and/or a Christian? A rather narrow vision, no?

[edhopper]

154. So you don't understand the

saying? When atheist say Zeus or Odin, they obviously know that some religions are polytheistic.
That any believer, does not believe in any other God (or Gods) than their own is the point.
"One fewer God" is not meant literally, it is idiomatic.

[skepticscott]

155. We don't "automatically assume" that

Why do the religious posters on this group have to invent shit out of thin air and use falsehoods like this to try to make their arguments viable? You're just one of many who do that, okasha, but it's endemic among the religionistas here. It's not hard to see why. It's all you have, when truth and rationality are not on your side.

[stopbush]

160. Just playing the percentages, my dear.

It's actually a pretty inclusive vision considering the make up of believers in this country, most of whom are Christians.

[okasha]

187. And it would be just playing the percentages

to refer to you as a patriarchal sexist, since you address a woman you don't know familiarly and dismissively as your "dear."

No go, sweetie.

(See how that works?)

[cbayer]

163. No, it's just another piece of dogmatic tripe pulled from the usual play books.

Conversation is so much more interesting when people actual use original ideas rather than parroting back the same things they have all read.

Atheism is no belief in god or gods. Theism is belief in god or gods. The statement about "one less god" is on it's face flat out wrong.

But it sounds so darn clever if you don't stop to think about it.

[skepticscott]

164. Says the room's champion

of parroting other people's ideas as their own OPs. When was the last times one of your endless string of OPs contained a single original thought of your own, cbayer, as opposed to a cut-and-paste of some HuffPo style hack who you think (pretty much always incorrectly) supports your little agenda?

And out of all the gods humans have ever worshipped or believed in, Christians believe in 1 and don't believe in the rest. Atheists believe in 0. Last time I checked, 0 is "one less" than 1, your rather lame and snarky dismissal notwithstanding. And even those religious believers who have more than one god in their pantheon lack belief in many, many more gods than they believe in, which is the real underlying point (not surprisingly, missed by you completely).

[stopbush]

167. Anybody taking the "religion" side in these arguments can't really demand original ideas

from the other side, can they?

I mean, what new idea has any religion had in the past 1500 years or so?

[edhopper]

168. L. Ron was pretty

good with Scientology. Maybe not original as far as Scifi goes, but pretty original for religion.

[stopbush]

172. And just as valid as any other religion, if we're to be honest about it.

[cbayer]

169. What exactly do you think the "religion side" is?

Do you think someone like myself that supports both believers and non-believers has taken the religion side?

If you are unable to see that religion has offered any new ideas in the last 1500 years, you have really missed the boat (and just in the last 50 years, the american AA civil rights movement and the VN anti-war movements). This is not to say that these ideas haven't also come from non-believer groups, but much of the activism came from religious groups.

[stopbush]

173. Activism isn't exactly an idea, let alone a new idea.

You're playing whack-a mole.

You commented that there was nothing new about the argument that non-believers believe in one less god than do believers. I assume you made that comment as a reflection on atheists making arguments against religious belief.

Now, you're heading off into the weeds by bringing up political activism by religious types. What does that have to do with their religion coming up with the idea that they should be activists? You even admit that the ideas that served to activate them have come from non-religious groups.

Check your history - many of the activists on the forefront of the civil rights movement were non-believers. Nobody is negating the fact that religious groups eventually took up the cause. Every bit helps. But the civil rights movement in this country did not arise out of the churches, revisionist history be damned.

Same thing with support to end the Vietnam War. I was in high school back then, and I can assure you that there was nothing religious about the initial movement to end the war. In fact, my recollection is that religious groups were toeing the pro-government line for much of the initial activism against the war. Again, nobody is discounting the fact that religious groups eventually getting involved wasn't helpful and welcome.

What you have yet to provide is an example of a new idea that has arisen over the past 1500 years that can be sourced back to religion. Try again.

[cbayer]

175. And I can assure you that my experience was very different than yours when

it came to the VN war.

It's not a freaking contest. There are religious and non-religious groups doing good works, sometimes independently sometimes through coalitions. There were religious and non-religious groups involved in OWS, in the GLBT civil right movement, etc.

Why would I need to provide an example of a new idea? Many of the standard ideas seem to be working just fine. What exactly are you look for?

[stopbush]

177. What are YOU looking for? Apparently, you want it both ways.

When it comes to religion, you say, "many of the standard ideas seem to be working just fine."

When it comes to non-believers offering rejoinders to religion (ie: belief in one fewer god), you complain there's nothing new in expressing such an idea, standard though it is.

[cbayer]

178. I am looking for common ground instead of the same old tired arguments

that atheism is better than theism or vice versa.

What I am not looking for is trite "rejoinders" that are really meaningless and accomplish nothing but to divide.

[stopbush]

179. There's your problem. There really is no common ground between religion and atheism.

We'll have to find common ground elsewhere, like in the fact that we're both Democrats. That should be enough for two people whose sole reason for interaction in this life is that they both post on DU.

[cbayer]

180. Of course there is.

Believers and non-believers on this site have much more in common than they do differences.

If you are male and I am female, but we both share common values and political goals, we share common ground in many ways.

Any attempt on the part of one group to marginalize, denigrate or obliterate the other harms our shared goals.

[stopbush]

181. True, but that common ground is found outside of our religious belief or non-belief.

That's my point.

[cbayer]

182. No necessarily. Some religious people are on that ground because

of their religious beliefs. That's ok by me. What is there possibly to gain by trying to dismiss or undermine their beliefs if they are putting them behind goals we share?

[stopbush]

183. I find that sad, ie: that people would need to turn to religion

to embrace "good" things that are available to them as their birthright. That is to say, the basic goodness that resides in each and every one of us is a result of our evolution, not the "gift" of some supernatural being.

As Steven Weinberg said, “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

[cbayer]

184. Sad? Somehow I doubt that, and I also doubt that they need your pity.

I don't care where people get it. If they support civil rights and fight against social injustice, it really doesn't matter to me what the source is.

I would argue that not everyone is basically good, though I think most people are. If some people reach their goodness innately, that's great. If others find it or have it reinforced through their religion, I think that's great as well.

Basically good people are capable of doing evil things with or without religion, regardless of what Weinberg says.

[Warren Stupidity]

59. Oh stop it.

Just because you've found somebody new doesn't mean your bag of tricks isn't old.

[longship]

51. Aha!! Got you here, my friend!!!

Atheists don't profess nonexistence of god because it doesn't exist in their mind. The profess it because of lack of evidence. And all the so-called proofs of existence are either circular Bible told me so kind of thing, or are these low grade arguments, like the ontological argument, or prime designer, or argument from God as the origin of good (and evil?), etc. These discussions with a believer usually end up at Pascal's wager at some point. I have a simple answer to that one. What if it isn't your God? Oopsie!

That's just thinking it through a bit and not taking things on the say so of another person or persons. It is certainly not conceit.

I find it peculiar that anybody would think that anybody would be convinced by any of them. Why can't they just say that it's faith and be done with it? (Many do, and I'm fine with that.)

And you know that I don't care what others believe. I care how they act.

And I do love discussions on these things. You know I couldn't stay away from this one.

[cbayer]

54. Good points all, but this was a specific response to this specific person

who is making some really unsupportable and ridiculous statements about his knowledge of the lack of existence of a god.

I know that you do not share his position, and that most atheists don't share it either.

[longship]

56. I know that.

Just couldn't help tweaking a bit. All in fun. Hence, this -->

Hope you're well.

[skepticscott]

89. How arrogant of you

to presume that you speak for "most atheists". You don't, cbayer. Why you would pretend that you can, when you've upbraided others here for what you claim is the presumption to speak for others is hubris and hypocrisy. Speak for yourself, and leave others opinions to them.

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. It sounds like you take Anselm's ontological argument seriously

- that the existence of a concept in some people's mind is evidence for an ideal form of it, independent of the people with the conception of it. This seems to require us to say none of us can imagine anything that doesn't have a true separate existence.

[skepticscott]

91. Except that no one says that, cbayer. It's just something else you made up

People who don't believe in the existence of any "god" are talking about an existence independent of any single observer or believer. Obviously, they know that even the gods for which there is no good evidence in real life still exist in the imagination of their believers. Obviously. So why you think that anyone but a few here who will swallow anything would believe you is quite a mystery.

[trotsky]

47. Can you prove that statement is wrong?

If not, you have no right to mock.

[rug]

68. Do you find death desirable?

[stopbush]

74. I find it to be the natural order of things. There's no getting around it.

Fantasizing that there's some afterlife that delivers a get-out-of-jail-free card to believers is, well, childish. It I want to wallow in fantasy, I'll visit Disneyland, not a church.

We've got one life, and it's here. Might as well make the most of it.

BTW - I'll let you in on a secret: you're going to die some day, just like the rest of us. Doesn't matter if you desire it or fear it, it's gonna happen.

[rug]

77. Why do you question why people have different reactions to the fact of death?

Your criticism is simply a criticism of religious belief, most likely for the usual reasons, no evidence, etc.

That's a circular discussion in any event.

Moving past that, the religious reaction to the fact of death is profound, whether it's correct or not.

Compaing it to Disneyland is, well, childish.

[stopbush]

95. I didn't compare death to Disneyland. I compared belief in an afterlife to Disneyland.

Sorry you missed that.

My criticism of religious belief has little to do with lack of evidence.

[Deep13]

67. Our parents. Next. nt

[struggle4progress]

70. I suppose it might be interesting to unpack these arguments, to see the underlying mechanisms,

but I doubt any of them really goes very far towards the goal it promises

The ontological argument, for example, has always seemed to me just Platonism: "My ideas are perceptions of objects in another realm"

[goldent]

71. Still a great topic for philosophy

often studied in introductory university courses. A good introduction to abstract thinking, which is not that familiar incoming freshman.

[DetlefK]

76. Those are absolutely pathetic arguments and here are their rebuttals:

1.
The argument fails to prove the lemma that "existence" is a necessary precondition of "perfection".
I always remember burgers as better-tasting than the burger I'm actually eating. -> Imaginary burgers are better than existing burgers. -> God doesn't exist.

2.
The argument fails to prove the lemma that the first cause has to be an entity.
Also: While a causal loop cannot exist in a universe with linear time, we don't live in a universe with linear time. Gravity can deform space-time and inside a Black Hole (between the event horizon and the singularity) space and time even switch roles.

3.
Virtual particles are something AND nothing. -> Existence is no necessary condition to influence existing things.

4.
The argument fails to prove the lemma that the universe is of purpose.
The antrophic principle disregards the existence or possible existence of any other life-form in the universe than humans.

5.
Consciousness proves immaterial entities, even though we don't know what consciousness actually is? I've read that neurologists compare consciousness to a virtual reality or a user-interface our brain is running to connect its processes to the outside-world.

6.
This is no argument, just a hypothesis and the excuse that anything really, really powerful can be defined as "God". There is a quote by Charles Manson that would fit perfectly in here.

7.
This is just a hypothesis as well, with the same excuse, but this time the creators are aliens, which might be referred to as "God" for the sake of smuggling the word "God" into the text.

[Iggo]

99. Sense.

You're making it.

[BridgeTheGap]

79. When philosophy entertains this question, has it left the realm of philosophy?

Is it a philosophical question at all? "I think, therefore I am."

[Jim__]

115. I would say it's definitely a philosophical question.

When I type definition philosophy into google, here's what I get:

phi·los·o·phy
fəˈläsəfē/
noun: philosophy

1. the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline.

The question, where do we come from? certainly seems to fit under the fundamental nature of reality and existence.

[edhopper]

124. I think of philosophy

not as "Why are we here?" or "Where do we Come from?"

More of "What do we do with it now?"

[MellowDem]

159. None of these are intriguing...

In fact, they're downright boring. Any belief based on presuppositions is boring. There's nothing to discuss with that position.

[AtheistCrusader]

161. These are incredibly antiquated questions/answers.

Especially the 'from nothing' argument.

Anyhoo, the whole thing begs a question. Why do we ask 'where do we come from' in the first place? Presupposes a 'from' to have been.

[groovedaddy]

162. God is love...so it says

but clearly, you can believe in love and not in God, right? As long as you believe in love, no other belief is necessary.

[unblock]

176. at least some of these can be equally used to "prove" that god doesn't exist

for instance, something must have caused the universe to exist, therefore god?
well, if god exists, then something must have caused god to exist, therefore god is just a man-made concept.

the world is so beautiful and works so well that something must have designed it?
hardly, the world is so bizarre and random that it couldn't possibly have been created by a perfect being.

etc.