Top Ten Arguments for the existence of God easily deflated.
 

Sorry not to write my own material but I would like people to read this (especially theists) and tell me their thoughts on this list.
Top ten arguments for the existence of God - FreeThoughtPedia
Personally I thought it made many good articulate points without being distractingly bias.

The content of these "arguments" is incredibly obvious stuff, nothing truly enlightening or thought provoking, this is all stuff I knew already.

I think the Simpsons asked it best, the ultimate god stumper...... Can god heat up a burrito so hot that even he himself can't eat it?

More thought-provoking then anything I read in that link.

Really? Must be because I am constantly surrounded by Theists. I didn't expect many people to be atheists.
In order for this thread not to be a complete failure here is a very funny video about the bible.

I'm a theist and I know most of this. It just doesn't bother me personally. I think that there is nigh point in arguing about it, people are too hard headed about their beliefs no amount of 'evidence' is going to change that. The only thing that can change a person's belief system is life experience, personal ideals, and self reflection.

I don't tend to read much into this stuff but I have a flatmate who's well into it, so he relays me his findings every now and again. I think it's fairly trivial to find the flaws in most of these arguments (and despite this, yes, they are the most common!), but I will say that I've always found that criticism of Pascal's Wager interesting because I went through the same thought process as a kid, as I'm sure many of you have. That is to say, I decided I may as well believe in God since a relatively small cost in time would eliminate the possibility of ending up in hell if God does exist (and I'm not a risky gambler). Then I soon realised the flaws with that approach...

Most of these arguments pertain to the traditional image of god, ie. the finger wagging idiot from the bible. I think people are just downright confused by the word 'god' at this stage.

like every other religious 'debate' i've ever seen it still boils down to a very simple premise.

do you choose to believe in something or do you choose to believe in nothing.

whichever side of that divide you choose to be on is irrelevant, as neither can be infallibly proven; being able to accept your decision without the burden of proof while respecting another individual's choice to hold an opposing view is.

that last bit seems to be the biggest challenge to most of the biggest 'thinkers' i've ever had to deal with.

Well said, Dave. Couldn't have said it any better myself.

Well I understand there are morally no problems with believing in God or not believing in God. I agree with the agnostic point of view but I also think people should try to use raw logic to question their own beliefs, sometimes people are so driven by the communal and the unproven benefits they treat their beliefs as fact. Also the list is really referring to a Christian God, I really should have pointed that out.

that's kind of my point though, belief and fact are not one and the same, most importantly - they don't need to be.

seems to me the entire fundamental of an actual belief is that it doesn't need to be substantiated by a fact. to force a belief through logical functions made to establish facts seems inherently counter productive. i do definitely agree that one should continue questioning their beliefs to make sure they accurately reflect the person they've grown to be at this point in the game though.

ultimately though, people need to recognize that the only person who benefit from their beliefs are themselves. there's no wrong, no right, just what one chooses to believe as an explanation for why we're here and what happens to us when we're not anymore.

to get defensive or argumentative about religion shows doubt in the individual's fundamental belief; to preach and proselytize displays uncertainty in the righteousness of said belief.

I don't agree with that. You assume religion has no power in this world other than internally which is not true. Religious influences is a major factor for the well being of humanity and can act in a very negative way. To argue against what I consider illogical beliefs is not so much to limit what people can feel for themselves it is more because of the moral pressure and guidelines most religions feel the need to outline.

but at that point you're missing the last half of my previous statement.

if you're not doing it for yourself you're not doing it for the right reasons (personal spiritual fulfillment). if it's from social or moral pressure then it's no longer a pure belief and you'd better believe someone higher up in that organization recognizes that fact and doesn't give a crap so long as their interests are served. that's no longer religion though, that's the use of religion as a tool for coercion and manipulation. it's not its intent.

i've also seen and read multiple reports on the correlation between very controlling religious environments and educational levels. they don't co-exist.

i could use a hammer to bludgeon a person to death, as a tool it was never intended to be a weapon, but i chose to use it that way. so why do all tools get the bad rap? when it's the individual human who is the evil one.

You're right that beliefs and facts are not the same, but beliefs that aren't substantiated by facts or reason are often going to be false beliefs, are they not? I can say "I believe it is cold outside" in July when the sun is shining, and say the same thing in January as it snows... clearly the belief is more likely true in January as it snows, so long as you're in the northern hemisphere of course. Similarly, you might believe the sun orbits the earth - but upon closer inspection of the facts, might alter that to believe the earth in fact orbits the sun.

It's perfectly fine for one person to believe whatever they want, regardless of whether it's even remotely based on reason - if you wanna believe the moon is made of cheese, fair enough. But when a set of beliefs have a major impact in the world we live in, then surely it is important to use logic and reason to try and find out whether or not the beliefs have value, and should hold sway in our world. Look at slavery - it was acceptable to believe that some groups of people could be kept as slaves until not long ago, and now that's regarded as immoral.

When these false or immoral beliefs manifest themselves as they have done, for example, on 9/11 (I say false beliefs, I am of course assuming that these men do not get 72 virgins in "paradise" after killing innocent people), then I think you could argue that it is anything but counter productive to use logic and reason when determining and analysing your own beliefs, and indeed the beliefs of particular groups of people in our societies.

I get what you're saying about coercion, but when so many people are evidently being manipulated in the name of religion, I think you need to start asking questions about the nature of what it really is they believe in, regardless of the fact that there are many people who may practice the same religion and are perfectly peaceful and decent human beings.

Are you saying the moon is not made of cheese? I'm going to have to go and rethink some of my core beliefs!

haha I'm sorry man... although you never know! I say keep the faith ;)

That's what I did with Santa, but I quickly lost my faith when I was about 10 and the girls in my school started ridiculing me! They can change yer beliefs easier than anyone, girls can... :(

but those are quantifiable examples on relative issues. some people DO find it cold outside in July regardless of hemisphere. Lateralus talked about visiting a glacier and having to bundle up in a giant parka while other tourists were out in t-shirts. is her belief that it was cold wrong?

with religion there's no way to prove either side of the coin, so i don't see how it's possible for any belief to be false. it's just what one chooses to believe in, not right, not wrong, just what you believe in.

again the rest of your post goes back to the simple example i made about the hammer. it's the fear of death and the unknown that feeds the darkness in the hearts of men, religion is simply the tool they use to control that darkness in others.


as for the comment about being manipulated in the name of religion. i agree that questions need to be asked about what they believe in and why they choose the path they follow, but i really don't think it has much to do with honest spiritual development.

just like the way the hippies are now leading the war on drugs, people who get suckered into something bogus tend to be very defensive about establishing the legitimacy of their situation to save their ego's face.

Beautiful.

Belief in something that cannot be proven is not the only way to spiritual enlightenment. We should not delude our self on purpose because that stops progression of our own understanding.

true, but belief in your own ever evolving independent understanding of life trumps ANYTHING anyone can ever posted on youtube, printed in a book, or preached to a choir.

As a Christian this didn't really bother me, because the believe in God is done so in faith. I can't prove he exists, but what's important for me is that he does inside me.

I'm such a heathen for thinking what I just thought.


But yea, I have no problem with people who believe what they believe for the betterment of themselves. I do have a problem when people extend that belief to other people, like their own children, and it becomes an issue of safety and control. And religious organizations taking advantage of faith, for profit.

But if you truly believed in your religion wouldn't you believe it was for the benefit of others if they followed it therefore inclining you to pressure others into others? I just don't agree with such rigid ethics and morals of organized religion. Morality should be developed much like a science to maximize the well being of humanity. It may be hard to get pure data for something like this but there are certain things we can rule off quickly: things along the line of promoted violence or unprovable beliefs preventing stem cell research.

Why?

^ because i'm the one who's got to die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life the way i want to.

also...

depends on why you're religious in the first place. if it's because you're looking for the right answer and think you've found it in the teachings and practices of X religion then yeah proselytizing would make sense, but i'd still think you were an idiot, not because you believe in a deity but because you believe that it's somehow 'right'.

on the other hand, if you're religious because you've contemplated your self to a point that happens to be in line with an organized religion's dogma then i can't see why you'd be expecting others to reap the same rewards and benefits without having traveled your path. which just loops back to that Hendrix quote i started with.

Would some one really believe in something they did not think was right? Your last part seems more inclined with spirituality rather than religion. Religion can be used for finding ones spirituality and help them find a sense of happiness beyond traditional things but no one doing true introspective self realization internally will ever be in line with organized religious dogma. There are many things can cloud this sense of internal resonation.

@ Gravity Slips sorry this is a little off topic but I love your avatar.

this is the ENTIRE challenge of a faithful belief - remember, just because it's not 'right' doesn't mean it's 'wrong'.

i don't think it's possible to find individual spirituality if you've already made the choice to associate yourself with an organized religion. it becomes more of a thing about believing in something because you do, or believing in something because you're told to.

if you're just learning the basic tenets of various religions to use them as metaphysical stepping stones to glean varying perspectives on existence that's one thing. on the other hand, if you've already gone through the ceremonies and rites to become a full member of X religion and continue to actively practice it i don't really see how you'd really continue to expand freely from the greater confines of that religion's scope.

i also think people are more likely to find themselves leaning towards the fundamentals of X religion through contemplation (which can be a very hard pill to swallow) than they are to find spiritual satisfaction by diligently attending religious services.

That's exactly what I am saying.

excellent :beer:

the basic problem of causality is summed up as chicken/egg. aristotle says: causality implies a first cause, and since this first cause is the origin of the entire universe let's go ahead and call it God. the atheist responds: but what about God? doesn't he need a cause too? causality implies it... the theologian responds: but God is outside space and time, and therefore not subject to causality. the atheist responds: but God needs to be inside space and time to be the first cause.

the atheist has it easy since he's responding to claims made by the theologian. so now we can turn on the atheist and ask: if there is no first cause, how does causality work? as far as i can see, there are three possible responses here. the first is to do away with causality altogether, and say that it implies an absurdity (regression ad infinitum) and hence should be abandoned. this causes some serious problems, since most of our thinking is based on causality. i would suggest that a thinking not based in causality would probably be enlightenment (because there is no past or future) or at least what meditation aims at. the second possibility is that causality is a closed loop, that the big bang is the result of a big crunch or some other such device. however, if we postulate a universe in which the beginning is the end (alpha=omega) which is eternal, and in which everything comes from and returns to a single point, isn't this basically the worldview most religions have sponsored? (specifically the tao te ching, the kaballah, and hinduism). the third possibility is an infinite (linear) sequence of causes and effects, but this raises the question of how a universe with no beginning and no end could generate cycles with beginnings and endings, and what force is counteracting entropy. buckminster fuller and teilhard de chardin have both postulated a force counteracting entropy, which bucky called syntropy. syntropy is the tendency of matter to crystallize (evolve) and form structures, the most "complex" or "evolved" of which is probably the human mind. hence, the human mind should be able to introduce new energy into the universe to counteract the energy lost by friction. and isn't this essentially the function of religion: to introduce a unifying principle (love) which undoes the differences between people that cause friction? and the structure of syntropy (something out of nothing) is essentially the paradox of love: the more you give away the more you have.

so, to go back to the conversation in the first paragraph, the theologian can now say: God is the first cause and final effect, which puts him inside of space and time. however, since any given moment apart from the singularity is either a movement away from or toward the singularity, God is also outside of space and time, as that which they are moving toward/away from.

ultimately, the atheist will hopefully find that rather than standing for a threat to their personal identity, God really stands for the unity which underlies all the processes in the universe which bring us joy: meaning (signifier=signified) love (self=other) beauty (permanence=impermanence) etc

To say God is the cause of events that occur naturally is what bothers me. Rational thought neglect is what bothers me.
I can see why it's comforting to have an entity control, create, and supervise everything in existance, but I just can't bring myself to believe it. Every time I argue about religion vs. atheism with my friends and I say something like "So God created us, then who created God? Because he can't exist without being created", they always say something along the lines of "God is beyond our understanding". Why is it easier to accept religion than common sense and science that is atleast provable on some level?
Just so people know, I don't deny the existance of a deity, I just think it's improbable.

^ i think the improbability lies in the fact that most people try to define God using the same means they use to define themselves and their body - the old man on a throne in the clouds effect.

i'm definitely with CA on this one. God isn't some dude, it's a state of being and awareness that transcends and permeates anything and everything, if you can get over yourself.

Fixed the typo in the thread title because it was starting to bug me.

I agree with this. I think our vision of a God needing our love and embodying a loving nature goes to show how man made many Godly figures really are. How would we know a God would need love? Giving an omnipotent being human qualities seems quite ridiculous to me.

@At Cardboard.
Don't you think it is possible that we can be unified with out a delusional sense of higher purpose or is it really useful for unifying the human race at all? I understand there are many benefits of security in feeling like you really believe, especially among a community. But this interpretation of things we cannot fully understand and making claims we cannot prove has separated people for a very long time. This is because people do not subject their beliefs to true criticism and non-superficial common ground cannot be made among people with very conflicting beliefs.

Also thanks Janszoon.

Sam Harris as smart as he is is still an obnoxious bigoted c*nthole who just makes all athiests look like obnoxious bigoted c*ntholes. So many athiests act in such a smug way and choose guys like him and Richard Dawkins as their defacto messiah and then they wonder why more people don't join their cause? Pfft.

yes and no. i don't see why the omnipotent can't have emotions or qualities but that they would be on such a different scale and perspective than what we're used to considering. i don't think it's so much of an issue of why would God need love, but why would God not be affected by the same emotions that shape us?

Haha Don't worry I don't blindly follow him. He has his ups and downs. He is very unrealistic and very ignorant when it comes to the actual religious fundamentalism and religious moderates he is against. He still makes some good points however but are often overshadowed by his unrealistic outlook on the Muslim world. I think him mentioning 9/11 so much in his arguments really weakens them.

Why would something with the ability to manipulate everything including itself need petty mind tricks to keep it happy?

i don't think it's a matter of lower purpose or higher purpose, it's just... purpose. i have defined love in the most abstract terms possible, as the phenomena of two becoming one. when a bee unites with a flower to extract its nectar and pollinate it, that's love as much as it is love when you see someone begging for money and feel their distress and decide to help them out. it's a universal force, one that applies to all beings, and which ultimately is Being. because every thing that lives is dependent on all the other things that exist... often people look at nature and say how amazing it is that this species or that is so well adapted to another and in a sense it is amazing, but at the same time it is simply the miracle of existence: nothing exists on its own, everything has evolved interdependently with all other things. everything is connected because everything is energy redistributing itself and trying to find a state of equilibrium. socrates believed that the root of evil was ignorance (as did the buddha) because it is only out of ignorance that we believe that we are separate from the rest of existence, and strive for our own ends at the expense of others'. it is only by setting our sights to the whole, and recognizing that there is a unity underlying all this diversity that we can participate constructively in existence. this incredibly simple truth can manifest in many different ways to many different people based on their understanding of the universe, and it's only by focusing on this superficial diversity that we lose the utter simplicity of love that grounds it all. one person might see visions of angels and devils and another might think of it in terms of resonating geometries, but ultimately it's all the same. the sorts of things i'm discussing are only "incomprehensible" because it's like asking "what's the meaning of meaning?" it's only a problem because you've made it one, the meaning of meaning is meaning and we all know what that means :P

God can be a man because anything that empties itself of itself can be fully filled with love, and God can be an equilateral triangle because this symbolizes a state of perfect harmony in which all forces are fully themselves but also balanced and cancel each other out, and God can be a Void because this represents what cannot be represented, the paradox of existence: a no-thing that becomes everything in which somethings emerge only to return to the bliss of no-thing-ness. those last two are tricky to understand, and i think one of the models of hinduism makes it easier to intuit: they posit three gods, Brahma (creator), Vishnu (preserver), and Shiva (destroyer). these are the three manifestations of being itself, it has a beginning a middle and an end. because the three counterbalance each other perfectly, they imply a static nothingness which is at the same time a dynamic everythingness, and this is Brahman (the ultimate, the Godhead) who is the dreamer and the dream, the paradox which is forever beyond our reach and yet at the root of everything.

in hinduism these three Gods form the divine syllable, AUM (a is brahma, u is vishnu, m is shiva) and this parallels Genesis, in which God is accompanied in eternity by the Logos, the eternal word, which is creation--a mirror/manifestation of God, but nonetheless separate. hare krishna sects believe that buddha, christ, and krishna were all manifestations of vishnu, and this makes perfect sense since they all sustain creation while at the same time pointing beyond creation back to the source.

i think that perhaps the most important thing to remember is that ultimately it's a matter of your personal relationship with God, not about your relationship with this religious institution or that, or this political or religious conflict or that. those are all worldly matters that persist precisely because we keep trying to offer final solutions to them. when our primary concern is God we will learn to only be involved in the world to the extent that we can reasonably expect to bring love into it and so can truthfully say...

God, grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
And wisdom to know the difference.