Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

[BigBallinStalin]

What is the best argument for God?


Go forth and be productive. Tap into the division of labor! Quote from the best theologian and/or the best philosopher!


Let's have ourselves a jolly good show.


(or am I asking for too much from a faith-based system which insists that true knowledge can only be revealed, and that knowledge gained through reason--if contradictory--must be discarded cuz religion-God-Bible-and-stuff?)

[crispybits]

Argument for why one would be a good idea or argument for why one has to/has not to exist?

[john9blue]

most arguments for god have weaknesses. most arguments against those arguments have weaknesses too. it's an undecided question. there you go

[ManBungalow]

Why do we care?

[AndyDufresne]

--Andy

[nietzsche]

most arguments for god have weaknesses. most arguments against those arguments have weaknesses too. it's an undecided question. there you go

I'm picking this quote because you are my twin.

argument- a collection of words, using premises and logic.
god- some notion of something that created all that is. and tat rule us. and that will punish us if we misbehave.
arguments against arguments- collection of words, using premises and logic against other collection of words using premises and logic.


I have no answers.

It all starts with the premises you choose to start. That premise might be biased, might be truthful to the majority, might be just plain wrong, according to the majority. Then you use logic, which is the easy part.

Why do we care about god? Why does our experience calls for an omnipotent all-loving creator? Why people continue to seek him and find him? Why we (those who do not believe in a creator) take the time to refute the words typed by those defending god? Why are we bothered so much to do it? Why those who believe in him need so much to prove it to us? Are we (atheists) as wrong as them (believers) in getting in these discussions?

In the answer to these questions lie the most important lesson about us. By understanding and using that truth we can all better our lives.

Benedict de Spinoza, the same philosopher whose metaphysics are the base of the metaphysics of science, had a pantheistic view. And what is science but observation, testing and replication of what already is. Science doesn't write what it is, it merely describes it. So what atheist basing his grounds of science can do is only wait for believers to create their arguments and point to the flaws. And then they will point to the flaws in our refuting. And it all gets very boring and i wonder why don't we better jack off.


And finally, it all began with a belief.

Most modern atheist chose to believe in what they believe because it seems the truth. Because it's cool to be an atheist, it's all a web of beliefs and that fitted well in us. Believers, most likely, started with religious parents, and then the easiest road. However it started, there's no more validity to one belief or another, for they are the same, beliefs.

[AAFitz]

The best and only real argument for God, is that he could be there.

[AAFitz]

The best and only real argument for God, is that he* could be there.

*he=some force that created much if not all of what we see. Many variations and definitions are possible.

[crispybits]

Why do we care about god? Why does our experience calls for an omnipotent all-loving creator? Why people continue to seek him and find him? Why we (those who do not believe in a creator) take the time to refute the words typed by those defending god? Why are we bothered so much to do it? Why those who believe in him need so much to prove it to us? Are we (atheists) as wrong as them (believers) in getting in these discussions?

That's kinda the crux of the whole thing there. There's a group of people who for whatever reason(s) believe that life, the universe and everything has a purpose in a way we could say that me cooking my dinner has a purpose. There is a reason WHY all this is happening. Then there's another group of people that see that as a totally malformed question. We don't ask "what was the purpose of this earthquake or that hurricane or the fact it's sunny today instead of rainy". Nature simply is what it is, and purpose is a human construct much like justice or beauty.

Given human nature is to anthropomorphise things that aren't remotely human-like, and to see patterns in random sequences, I believe that the theists are on shaky ground using purely a priori synthetic "experience" to justify their belief, but that's their call if they want to waste their time and energy doing that. My problem is when they try to use their imaginary authority to influence my life, or in a broader sense when they brainwash children to follow their belief systems before they are old enough to understand what is happening and what they are being told to think. That's why I spend my time arguing against it.

[Ray Rider]

(or am I asking for too much from a faith-based system which insists that true knowledge can only be revealed, and that knowledge gained through reason--if contradictory--must be discarded cuz religion-God-Bible-and-stuff?)

Never heard that before...what church did you go to?

Why do we care about god? Why does our experience calls for an omnipotent all-loving creator? Why people continue to seek him and find him? Why we (those who do not believe in a creator) take the time to refute the words typed by those defending god? Why are we bothered so much to do it? Why those who believe in him need so much to prove it to us?

Just to pick out a couple of things, if you felt that you knew for certain that there was a massive tsunami coming that was going to wipe out your city, would you not speak to your neighbours and everyone around you to warn them of the impending disaster, and especially of how to avoid it? Would it not be extremely heartless and uncaring not to do so?

Are we (atheists) as wrong as them (believers) in getting in these discussions?

Since when is it "wrong" to engage in a discussion? On the contrary, I think it's beneficial to both sides to debate with those who disagree or else we'll all stay within our own little clique of people who think like us, and before you know it we'll all start thinking those who disagree are inhuman unthinking monsters out to destroy the world. Dialogue bridges the gap between opposing worldviews and allows us to see things (a little bit, anyway) from another person's perspective.

Believers, most likely, started with religious parents, and then the easiest road. However it started, there's no more validity to one belief or another, for they are the same, beliefs.

I would disagree; I know of plenty of people who turned to Christianity from atheism or other religions. Actually some of them are the strongest proponents of Christianity. Btw your last sentence reminded me of the Life of Pi movie...although I disagreed with the philosophy throughout the story, it was still a pretty good movie!

[2dimes]

or am I asking for too much from a faith-based system which insists that true knowledge can only be revealed,

Maybe. All my really good stuff can even be argued as good luck by myself and I was the one that experienced it first hand.

[jonesthecurl]

The best and only real argument for God, is that he could be there.

Well, I left a bunch of voicemails and he never answered.

[Maugena]

Best argument for god?
@Stoicism
-The universe and god are one.

I'd say that's the most sensible argument. (If that can be called an argument...)

Not that I believe that... because I don't.

[chang50]

The best and only real argument for God, is that he could be there.

And the only excuse for a loving personal God is that he doesn't exist.

[Gillipig]

ERROR....Firefox can not find a value for the search term "Best argument for god"

[AAFitz]

The best and only real argument for God, is that he could be there.

Well, I left a bunch of voicemails and he never answered.

You called the wrong line. His phone number is pi.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Why we (those who do not believe in a creator) take the time to refute the words typed by those defending god? Why are we bothered so much to do it? Why those who believe in him need so much to prove it to us? Are we (atheists) as wrong as them (believers) in getting in these discussions?

Well, Ray answered half of this pretty well, here's Hitchens' answer to the other half:


Anyway, @ the OP.

Here's the best argument I can conjure up for a deistic god. It's gonna be a creative/fun one.

1. We have seen that very simple rules can give rise to incredible complexity. The classic example of this is the game of life
If you've never heard of it check out the following video. It explains the 4 simple rules that govern this universe and shows what complexity can arise from them.


2. Thanks to the exponential growth in computing power we've been able to run ever more complex and realistic simulations of various things, including the evolution of the early universe.
Here's what one of the most recent ones, the MilleniumXXL did:

In 2010, the 'Millennium XXL' simulation (MXXL) was performed, this time using a much larger cube (over 10 billion light years on a side), and 6720^3 particles each representing 7 billion times the mass of the sun. The MXXL spans a cosmological volume 216 and 27,000 times the size of the Millennium and the MS-II simulation boxes, respectively. Cosmologists use the MXXL simulation to study the distribution of galaxies and dark matter halos on very large scales and how the rarest and most massive structures in the universe came about.

3. Now, the big assumption. Based on 1. and 2. I'm gonna say it's not completely unbelievable to me that some day we may be able to create a simulated environment of comparable complexity to our universe

4. If 3. holds then some of our simulated universes should be able of developing complex patterns on their own, including the complex pattern known as intelligent life. This of course means that some smaller subset of these simulated universes will have the capability of creating simulated universes of their own.

5. This means we are looking at a potentially very long chain of universes down, that are simulations within simulations within simulations. Each of these universes has the same vantage point as us: they see many universes down, but none up. In this scenario it is very unlikely that we are the head of the chain. We are likely stuck somewhere in the middle.

Therefore there is a deistic pantheon of gods and they're all programmers.

Further this would just prove that the old joke:

show

is wrong.

[john9blue]

so what you're saying is that it's programmers all the way down? that argument has never really appealed to me simply because particles cannot (from what we know) be infinitely small, and therefore it can't really be an infinite chain downwards unless we can simulate particles to be smaller than they actually are, or simulate space to be bigger than it actually is.

[Haggis_McMutton]

so what you're saying is that it's programmers all the way down? that argument has never really appealed to me simply because particles cannot (from what we know) be infinitely small, and therefore it can't really be an infinite chain downwards unless we can simulate particles to be smaller than they actually are, or simulate space to be bigger than it actually is.

The infinite chain is problematic. But we don't need the infinite chain. Even if from our vantage point we can only go 20 simulations deep before the 20th simulation is too simplistic to give rise to intelligent life, well even that would put the chances that we're on top at about what? 2% ?

[jonesthecurl]

The best and only real argument for God, is that he could be there.

Well, I left a bunch of voicemails and he never answered.

You called the wrong line. His phone number is pi.

OK
[starts dialing...]

[john9blue]

so what you're saying is that it's programmers all the way down? that argument has never really appealed to me simply because particles cannot (from what we know) be infinitely small, and therefore it can't really be an infinite chain downwards unless we can simulate particles to be smaller than they actually are, or simulate space to be bigger than it actually is.

The infinite chain is problematic. But we don't need the infinite chain. Even if from our vantage point we can only go 20 simulations deep before the 20th simulation is too simplistic to give rise to intelligent life, well even that would put the chances that we're on top at about what? 2% ?

if there is a bottom then there is probably a top

[_sabotage_]

God is all things, all places and all times.

Science is the study of all things, in all places at all times.

Semantics.

We will never know the source of either. The big bang, where did it come from, where did god come from? Eventually both questions will lead to the answer nothing.

So from nothing we have everything.

We then have the choice, do we call everything god or the universe? Will this be based on belief passed down, on analysis followed by decision or self interest?

I would say that it is all self interest. If we choose to believe what we are told, then it because we think it is for the best. If we come to the conclusion that everything came from nothing, and that we can choose to call it phenomenon or god, it will again be based on self interest.

So what is the choice we make as regards to self interest?

On the one side, if we say we believe in god, we are saying that we have a purpose. We were put here for a reason and it doesn't end with our death. Our life should reflect this. On the other hand, if we say there is no god, we say that we are here due to trillions of tiny acts that the universe has manifest within the properties of matter that happened to create us. When we die that is the end of us and we are no more.

In the first instance, we must recognize that if we were put here by god and for a purpose and that life doesn't end, then we must accept that everyone was put here for a purpose, god is within them and their life won't end in death as well. This would then require us to treat each other well.

In the second, we say we were put here by the cohesive nature of matter, we are not equal as some matter produces better combinations than others and its up to us to dominate through our advantages and by doing so make the human race stronger. But to what end? On the individual level, it is to gain more of the good things than those weaker than us, to rule the weak, to show our natural matter given greatness.

On the god side, we feel that earth is a stepping stone to becoming more in tuned with the universe in preparation for eternity. Those who couldn't grasp our eternal nature will be confined by their ideology and attachment to earthly goods or suffer the guilt of their negative actions towards others. Those who did grasp our eternal nature will be in harmony with the universe and have tranquility.

On the atheist side, we are in an eternal struggle against weaker matter which we will play a small part in and then fade out.

Which self interest then determines the decision?

It would seem that a believer of either could have the same altruistic actions. Atheists could be kind to their brethren in the hopes to make the race stronger by having stronger weakest links. But what of this strong race? What is its ultimate goal? If it doesn't have one, then aren't we just swayed by the moment? Are we just here to ensure we don't die? And beyond that, to ensure that by not dying, our species doesn't die?

My question is which actions does the choice justify, what interest justify the choice, and what is the final purpose?

[Haggis_McMutton]

so what you're saying is that it's programmers all the way down? that argument has never really appealed to me simply because particles cannot (from what we know) be infinitely small, and therefore it can't really be an infinite chain downwards unless we can simulate particles to be smaller than they actually are, or simulate space to be bigger than it actually is.

The infinite chain is problematic. But we don't need the infinite chain. Even if from our vantage point we can only go 20 simulations deep before the 20th simulation is too simplistic to give rise to intelligent life, well even that would put the chances that we're on top at about what? 2% ?

if there is a bottom then there is probably a top

Yeah, but the chance that we're the top is small.

[Haggis_McMutton]

In the first instance, we must recognize that if we were put here by god and for a purpose and that life doesn't end, then we must accept that everyone was put here for a purpose, god is within them and their life won't end in death as well. This would then require us to treat each other well.

10,000 years of history refute this point.

[john9blue]

so what you're saying is that it's programmers all the way down? that argument has never really appealed to me simply because particles cannot (from what we know) be infinitely small, and therefore it can't really be an infinite chain downwards unless we can simulate particles to be smaller than they actually are, or simulate space to be bigger than it actually is.

The infinite chain is problematic. But we don't need the infinite chain. Even if from our vantage point we can only go 20 simulations deep before the 20th simulation is too simplistic to give rise to intelligent life, well even that would put the chances that we're on top at about what? 2% ?

if there is a bottom then there is probably a top

Yeah, but the chance that we're the top is small.

but the ultimate question of origin remains unanswered