Where are the arguments for god?

291 posts / 0 new
Last post
cranky47's picture
@cognostic

@cognostic

"But there is no quick fix for stupid."

Indeed, stupidity isn't a crime. Nor is purblind ignorance or industrial strength cognitive dissonance, although perhaps they should be------for it seems to me, those things are the biggest causes of fear and its ugly sister, hate.

Sorry, I guess I have a flair for the bleedin' obvious. I tend to get a bit introspective at Xmas, my least favourite time of year

You and yours stay safe over the holidays .

Ybe's picture
Ok, it is Christmas eve day,

Ok, it is Christmas eve day, : ) ... so I thought to see what atheists are about during this time. And I happen on this Question "Where are the arguments for god? " And well I have a question, about the question.

What is the definition of G that arguments are to be given for?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Ybe - What is the definition

Ybe - What is the definition of G that arguments are to be given for?

Well that is a whole other problem. In my experience, most theists won't offer one; and those that do often contradict each other.

David Killens's picture
@ Ybe

@ Ybe

"What is the definition of G that arguments are to be given for?"

You are the theist who has a belief in a god, and if you desire to have a conversation on any god, first YOU must provide a definition of your god. If not, we will be talking apples and oranges without any progress.

p.s. I do wish you a Merry Christmas and happy New Year, happiness and prosperity for you and your loved ones.

Sheldon's picture
Ybe "What is the definition

Ybe "What is the definition of G that arguments are to be given for?"

A credible argument would need to accurately define a deity it was arguing for,, and not just assume characteristics in the biased fashion religious apologetics do. An example of this woeful flaw in apologetic arguments would be using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, say the origins of the universe, and assuming what was necessary based on us not having contrary arguments, then simply assuming a deity has those characteristics, and making the absurd assertion from there that voila, a deity is "necessary" for our universe to exist.

NB An accurate definition of deity by necessity would have to be supported by objective evidence, else one could argue literally anything into existence by simply assuming characteristics about the very thing you are arguing for, which is of course a begging the question fallacy as well.

Ybe's picture
The OP asked "Where are the

The OP asked "Where are the arguments for god? "

I am asking for clarification. What is the definition for the G ...she... wants arguments for?
If a definition for what is meant by god small g, then arguments would be fairly wasted.
Ex. She could say the "small" g definition could be g is a picture of a small figure reading a book with a red hat, white beard blue top sitting on what looks like a commode.

That would be something you might be in a better position : ) to argue.

I am not asking for arguments for g.

And thanks for your p.s. I wish you the best this season of cheer also and to us one and all.

David Killens's picture
The OP was a sock puppet. And

The OP was a sock puppet. And the question was designed to provoke a response, so the OP was also a troll.

But please understand, that as an atheist, I am not convinced a god exists, and I do not see any benefits religion can confer to modern society. In ancient times, religion did serve a useful purpose, in keeping neighboring communities from constant warfare because a common religion offer a method of communication and identity between communities. I am sure you disagree (and you have the right to do so) but my personal opinion is that religion (and the belief in a god or gods) is just a parasite on modern society, and any positive functions religion may do can be better served by secular methods.

Ybe's picture
Oh, so no person to really to

Oh, so no person to really to answer or get a definition?

Now, you "not convinced a god exists"? Do you have an adequate definition for your little g (god) ? Well we all have opinions, some would say in my opinion As are right others Ts are right. R

But without a definition of what you mean by g I might be of the same opinion. Ex gnome g exists in one sense, but not in another.

To discuss your assertion to see if there is agreement or not, we would have to know:
1) your definition is adequate enough to be able to at least know we are understanding one another, or not.
2] any opinion you form/have formed is based on proper reason/ing
3) That you give a reason other than opinion(s) that can confirm (by your way of thinking) that you should have ever state your
opinion.

Thanks for sharing your opinion it was nicely said.

But one might have an absolutely sound reason that (opinion giving) is parasitical to society and any positive functions of (opinion giving) may seem to have would be better served by making statements that necessarily true.

David Killens's picture
@ Ybe

@ Ybe

"Oh, so no person to really to answer or get a definition? "

As I previously stated, you are the theist, thus you must provide a definition of your god. How can one expect someone (an atheist) to define something they lack a belief in?

If you really desire for me to offer a definition of a god, it is "an imaginary creature, just like Spider Man or Harry Potter."

"2] any opinion you form/have formed is based on proper reason/ing"

The above statement I do not agree on. For example, in an election, two sane, rational, and well informed people can vote for different candidates. Each can offer valid reasoning for their choices, yet each chose differently.

This form of "proper" reasoning can be biased.

Ybe's picture
I see, your definition of g =

I see, your definition of g = imaginary creature.
Confusing, your statement "must provide a definition of your god." becomes you must provide a definition of your imaginary creature.

On 2) its not an election its an, either or, Ex it is true that your g > is or isn't.
to which I might say in my opinion your g is not real. The reason for my bias? Its part of your definition.

So, you ask me to provide a definition of my "imaginary creature" presupposes your opinion which would not be validated just because you say other people have valid reasoning in voting.

I need to more than, my reasoning is valid, because I say my reasoning is valid (or their reasoning is valid, because I say their reasoning is valid).

In other words, no use giving an argument to someone if they can't substantiate they reason "properly".

David Killens's picture
@ Ybe

@ Ybe

I have been patient with you, but now it stops. Although there was never any necessity for me to provide my definition of a god, it is time for you to stop selling bullshit and start being honest.

Please offer your definition of the god you believe in.

If you can not be honest and frank, then the conversation is at an impasse by your own creation.

Sheldon's picture
I'm confused why you would

I'm confused why you would think atheists would try to define any deity. Do have accurate definitions for all the things you don't believe exists? How does that even work?

As for arguments for a deity, I would assume that any theist making these, would need to accurately define the deity they are arguing for, else the argument would be woeful. Unsurprisingly I have yet to see an argument that does this, they simply make blind unevidenced assertions.

We could save some time here, and you could accurately define the deity you believe exists, and demonstrate some evidence to support those assertions. And or offer some objective evidence for it's existence.

Ybe's picture
I was only asking

I was only asking clarification to original OP question of what they meant by the word god.

It's like saying what do you mean by deity, what is your definition of deity.

Time could be saved, yes. Even more time could be saved if any one theist or atheist defines their terms and show that they reason rightly. Ex I reason rightly because I say so would not work as that would be the same as saying G is because I say so.

Do you agree?

cranky47's picture
@ybe

@ybe

"Do you agree?"

No

Not up to an atheist to define anything.

The word atheist comes from the Greeks; a= not/without theos; god IE without/no god

The arrogant members of the abrahamic religions assume it means THEIR god, even though many cannot define him/her/it

I can only speak for myself; To me, 'atheist' means disbelief in any and all gods whose existence is supernatural and has not been proved.

I found the articles cited below on line .It is my opinion that each definition is correct. BUT that there are quite probably many other definitions which are also correct to different believers.

Consequently, any believer who wants to talk about god with me, needs to define his understanding of the word .

For me, religious belief is about faith, not facts or reason. Other may believe "six impossible things before breakfast "***if they like . I require proof. Exactly what form that proof should take is not my problem; it is the believer who makes the claim, therefore, it is the believer who has the burden of proof, not I.

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

JUDAISM

"According to the rationalist stream of Judaism articulated by Maimonides, which later came to dominate much of official traditional Jewish thought, God is understood as the absolute one, indivisible, and incomparable being who is the ultimate cause of all existence. Traditional interpretations of Judaism generally emphasize that God is personal yet also transcendent, while some modern interpretations of Judaism emphasize that God is a force or ideal.[2]"

"In modern articulations of traditional Judaism, God has been speculated to be the eternal, omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe, and the source of morality.[citation needed] God has the power to intervene in the world. Maimonides describes God in this fashion: "The foundation of all foundations and the pillar of wisdom is to know that there is a Primary Being who brought into being all existence. All the beings of the heavens, the earth, and what is between them came into existence only from the truth of His being."[11]

"-----Jews often describe God as omniscient,[12] although some prominent medieval Jewish philosophers held that God does not have complete foreknowledge of human acts. Gersonides, for example, argued that God knows the choices open to each individual, but that God does not know the choices that an individual will make.[13] Abraham ibn Daud believed that God was not omniscient or omnipotent with respect to human action.[14] -----"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Judaism

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))

CHRISTIANITY:

" God in Christianity is the eternal being who created and preserves all things. Christians believe God to be both transcendent (wholly independent of, and removed from, the material universe) and immanent (involved in the world).[1][2] Christian teachings of the immanence and involvement of God and his love for humanity exclude the belief that God is of the same substance as the created universe[3] but accept that God's divine nature was hypostatically united to human nature in the person of Jesus Christ, in an event known as the Incarnation.

Early Christian views of God were expressed in the Pauline epistles and the early creeds, which proclaimed one God and the divinity of Jesus, almost in the same breath as in 1 Corinthians (8:5-6): "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many 'gods' and many 'lords'), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."[4][5][6] "Although the Judeo-Christian sect of the Ebionites protested against this apotheosis of Jesus,[7] the great mass of Gentile Christians accepted it."[8] This began to differentiate the Gentile Christian views of God from traditional Jewish teachings of the time.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Christianity

0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

ISLAM

" The One true God is a reflection of the unique concept that Islam associates with God. To a Muslim, Allah is the Almighty Creator and Sustainer of the universe, Who is similar to nothing, and nothing is comparable to Him. The Prophet Muhammad was asked by his contemporaries about Allah; the answer came directly from God Himself in the form of a short chapter of the Qur'an, which is considered to be the essence of the unity or the motto of monotheism. This is chapter 112, which reads:“ In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Say (O Muhammad), He is God, the One God, the Everlasting Refuge, who has not begotten, nor has been begotten, and equal to Him is not anyone”.

On the other hand, God is also Just. Hence, evildoers and sinners must have their share of punishment, and the virtuous must have God's bounties and favors. Actually, God's attribute of Mercy has full manifestation in His attribute of Justice. People suffering throughout their lives for His sake should not receive similar treatment from their Lord as people who oppress and exploit others their whole lives. Expecting similar treatment for them would amount to negating the very belief in the accountability of man in the Hereafter and thereby negate all the incentives for a moral and virtuous life in this world. The following Qur'anic verses are very clear and straightforward in this respect.

Verily, for the Righteous are gardens of Delight, in the Presence of their Lord. Shall We then treat the people of Faith like the people of Sin? What is the matter with you? How judge you? "

http://www.sultan.org/articles/god.html

***" "Through The Looking- glass And What Alice Found There" Lewis Carroll., 1871

Cognostic's picture
@Atheist defining terms:

@Atheist defining terms:

"I do not believe in God or gods." I have never seen a God or god adequately defined to warrant belief. Belief is allocated to the degree of evidence provided. Were it adequately defined, I would be a believer. Possibly not a worshiper; however, with an adequately defined god, we would all know it existed. It is not my job to define your god.

Sheldon's picture
Not sure I understand what

@Ybe

Not sure I understand what you mean. You are a theist, which means you believe a deity, exists. As an atheist I can define any deity, obviously. It's like me saying I believe mermaids exist, then asking you define a mermaid for me.

My lack of belief in anxiety isvpreficayed on ths same rationale as my lack of belief in all other claims I disbelieve, that either no, or insufficient objective evidence can be demonstrated to support that belief. Arguments can range from compelling to irrational, where they contain or are based on know logical fallacies, I've yet to see an argument for any deity that did not use known logical fallacies. Though admittedly I'm no philosopher.

Cognostic's picture
@Ybe: I have never heard a

@Ybe: I have never heard a theist adequately describe their god. Not even once.

Ybe's picture
How could you be sure if you

How could you be sure if you heard or never heard an adequate one? Do you know an adequate one to say that it what an adequate one is?

I am looking for what definition the OP means by "g" adequate or not. Right now there is nothing for me to really grasp about what was said. I do not know if the OP is was a theist or atheist I was just looking at the question and trying to see if there could be an argument to give to answer the question.

Right now without a definition the question seems obscure.

I haven't read past posts just was intrigued by the Question.

Cognostic's picture
@Ybe: How could "YOU" be

@Ybe: How could "YOU" be sure. Note the focus of the question you ask.

It's a fucking god. If god wanted me to believe I would believe. An adequate definition, by definition, would be one that caused me to believe. (That definition would be adequate for me, not necessarily everyone else.)

What use is the OPs definition if it is inadequate. It just becomes another inadequate definition heaped on the pile of inadequate definitions. Either there is an adequate definition of a god, one that convinces anyone listening to it, or there is not. (The bar may be high but so is the claim.)

Ybe's picture
Nice to hear the opinions,

Nice to hear the opinions, but i am getting tired. Sorry for any errors in my last post.

Sheldon's picture
@Ybe

@Ybe

I'm confused why you would think atheists would try to define any deity. Do have accurate definitions for all the things you don't believe exists? How does that even work?

As for arguments for a deity, I would assume that any theist making these, would need to accurately define the deity they are arguing for, else the argument would be woeful. Unsurprisingly I have yet to see an argument that does this, they simply make blind unevidenced assertions.

We could save some time here, and you could accurately define the deity you believe exists, and demonstrate some evidence to support those assertions. And or offer some objective evidence for it's existence.

bumped...

Sheldon's picture
Ybe "How could you be sure

Ybe "How could you be sure if you heard or never heard an adequate one? Do you know an adequate one to say that it what an adequate one is?"

The corollary of that of course is that no theist could be sure if their own definitions are adequate. The idea they testing these in a way atheists can't, just sounds like bias and rhetoric to me.

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity? If not then I don't believe it exists, and that is an unbiased open minded standard, as I apply not just to all deities, but to all claims. If an argument for a deity makes assumptions, or is based on known logical fallacies then likewise I disbelieve it's claims.

Try this, tell us which deity(s) you believe is/are real, then give your three best reasons for believing this?

Ybe's picture
I read Where are the

I read Where are the arguments for god?
In all my time looking over theological arguments for god, I haven't seen one that proved His existence at all.

My question was, "What is the definition of G that arguments are to be given for?"

I have not asserted g, I asked what g the OP was asserting for which he she/he was looking arguments about.

David K > asserted he was an atheist and was not convinced a g exists and that the OP was not real (I guess) > asserts I am a theist and must give a definition for my G" and then offers an opinion. using the words god which I asked his definition of the words he used. later he says his definition of a god, is "an imaginary creature".

He offered his opinions on religion and belief in g or gs as being parasites to society.

I made a post which I wished to explain that logic reason is better than opinions. (but wasn't written to well). Then I signed off because I realized it was late and I was tired which I could see affected my post.

Hope everyone has had a Great Christmas and the New Year will be a good one too.

David Killens's picture
@ Ybe

@ Ybe

"logic reason is better than opinions"

I agree. But either method is not conclusive proof. Opinions are opinions, and history has many examples of very convincing logical proofs that have proven false.

Ybe, you seem to have the opinion that somehow some of us had a full understanding of what the OP intended. We have just as much information as you would have if you read all the posts. I don't know what the OP was thinking or their intentions.

I am still waiting for you to offer your definition on what you believe your god is.

Tommy's picture
Everything is not meant for

Everything is not meant for everyone.
People, who understand God, do not need any proof.
If you need proof then, obviously, you are not meant to know God.
So, if I were you, I would stop bothering about it and continue living my life the way I have been so far

Cognostic's picture
@Tommy: We are not the ones

@Tommy: We are not the ones running to Christian sights to tell them to continue in their stupidity. Opinions they say are like assholes, every theist has one and they all stink.

Tommy's picture
What did I say that triggered

What did I say that triggered you?
I am just trying to put the questioner's mind at rest.
And I am doing it in such a rational manner.
Is that a very un- atheistic thing to do?

David Killens's picture
@ Tommy

@ Tommy

"And I am doing it in such a rational manner."

No, you are not. You are attempting to solve a mystery by appealing to a bigger and more complicated mystery.

"Is that a very un- atheistic thing to do?"

Do you even understand what the definition of an atheist is?

Tin-Man's picture
@Tommy Re: "Is that a very

@Tommy Re: "Is that a very un- atheistic thing to do?"

Oh, yeah. I forgot. David reminded me. Uh, what in the world does that statement even mean??? Please explain, because I cannot make any sense out of it.

Sheldon's picture
"People, who understand God,

"People, who understand God, do not need any proof.
If you need proof then, obviously, you are not meant to know God."

Circular reasoning, and its vapid rhetoric anyway, as theists who believe in entirely different religions make this claim. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

As for worrying about it, I can't speak for other atheists, but I'm no more worried about deities being real than I am about unicorns or mermaids. I only comment on theistic beliefs because they can be pernicious and affect us all in this life. I have a vested interest in that after all. It also seems odd to me that anyone would seek out atheists to tell them not to worry about believing in any deity.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.