Jumpin said:
1. Then you and most people are incorrect about the definition as it is fairly clear. Atheism by definition is the belief that no Gods exist. If you do not assert that no Gods exist, you are not an atheist. Agnosticism is the belief that the knowledge of God is unknowable, so therefore that assertion is not made. Carl Sagan made the implication that Atheism was stupid, he himself was a firm agnostic and freethinker; and he certainly did not believe in a humanoid God. Perhaps you are actually an agnostic? I personally believe that agnosticism is probably the most rational philosophy at this time. 2. It's the simplest explanation, Occam's razor. I agree. Although if you feel that this means it is a false belief, then by definition that argument would commit the genetic fallacy; and would thus be invalid. 3. I believe I covered this in my last post.
Anyway, I still don't think you had any arguments against the Cosmological, Teleological, and Ontological arguments. To briefly highlight them: The Cosmological Argument Throughout much of modern history, it was believed by the atheist that the universe was eternal, and had no beginning. This, in the 20th century was refuted by evidence that shows that the universe is expanding - The Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory also states that time, matter, and space began approximately 13.7 million years ago, and has been expanding ever since. Since that beginning required a cause of its existence, that cause would have to be beyond the material world, beyond, time, and beyond space. That means that the beginning had to be one of two things, an abstract object such as numbers - or God. Since we know that abstract objects such as numbers can't create, that leaves God as the possibility. * If the Universe (space, time and matter) has a cause for existence, it must be God. Of course, all of this is dependent on the Big Bang Theory being true - currently it is widely accepted by nearly all of the scientific community to be accurate. Other philosophical theories (such as a multiverse, or the crunch) do not have any scientific evidence for them, and the "Big Crunch" has much evidence against it. This also just pushes the beginning back a step, and does not disprove the Cosmological argument.
The Teleological Argument String theory predicts that there are about 10 to the 500th power possibilities for a matter and life permitting Universe, - the odds are so incomprehensible that it is not by chance.
The Ontological Argument As conclusion, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that God exists. In light of what we know about the universe (scientifically speaking), it is irrational to conclude that God doesn't exist. However, it IS rational to conclude that human knowledge has not advanced far enough that our sciences are accurate - and again, this does not support atheism in the slightest, but it does support agnosticism. What are the arguments of atheism? I often see a lot of bigoted comments towards religions as "support" for atheism; but nothing really solid in the form of a well supported and logically sound argument. Agnosticism and theism are the two rational philosophies. Atheism takes a huge leap of faith. |
I'm not even gonna start to argue with you on those claims. A lot of them are just plain wrong. Especially the "fine tuning of the universe" argument. And I do not believe a god exists, but I'm not certain, I'm still an atheist. An agnostic atheist.
As conclusion, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that God exists. In light of what we know about the universe (scientifically speaking), it is irrational to conclude that God doesn't exist
There are an infinite possible number of interpretations of the idea of "god" and even of religion. Over a thousand different denominations of Christianity alone, all with their different beliefs on who or what god is. Surely it would be impossible to rule them all out. However if we zero in and examine a theistic claim about a specific god's nature or character, we can draw certain conclusions based on what we've learned about the world through the systematic observations and testing of reality known as science. Despite the theistic assertions that god cannot be caged by science, these specific claims made by the theist can be assessed. As our understanding of the world has increased through science, the gaps that god is able to inhabit have gotten smaller and smaller. With every additional piece of information we learn about the world, the more the constraints tighten on what a god could have or can do. This is perhaps best stated inStephen Hawking's a brief history of time.
Stephen Hawking in A brief history of time c.1988
With our current understanding of our place in the world through biology and astrophysics, we are able to make assessments about certain aspects or claims of god. We have mountains of empirical evidence that life is a result of evolution, not specific intentional creation by an omnipotent being as depicted in Genesis. We have mathematical evidence that Noah's ark could not have stayed afloat during a rainstorm of such capacity that earth's highest peaks were submerged. We have historical evidence that the Israelites were never enslaved by the Egyptians as depicted in Exodus. As it currently stands, our understanding of the universe places the necessity and likelihood of a god or gods to be on about the same footing as that of the tooth fairy.
Even if there are several arguments for the existence of god, we have to understand that these do not entail a belief beyond what is argued for. For example, the Cosmological Argument may postulate the need for a cause, which can be called "god." However we must not assume that it is in any way an argument for the Christian god, a god who answers prayers and counts the number of hair on ones head. In fact most of their arguments only strengthen the Deistic view. Christian and Muslim apologists are good defenders of Diesm but cannot aptly justify the specifics of their beliefs.
Many argue not for the existence of the entity known as "God," but rather for the "God-Shaped Hole" humans are said to possess. The God-Shaped Hole or "God part of the Brain" is a non-clinical Psychological term used to define a cluster of neurons that develop supernatural or otherworldly experiences, suggesting ultimately that humans are mistakenly wired into a belief in God.
Any argument from the side of the Christians must be first verified by themselves in a call for proof. The Bible itself has many determining statements by which we can see that evidence and signs are essential to belief. How can one lay a claim to faith with out the slightest shard of evidence.
Empirical arguments depend on empirical data in order to prove their conclusions.
- The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the deity called God as described in scriptures—such as the Jewish Tanakh, theChristian Bible, the Muslim Qur'an, Hindu Vedas, the Book of Mormon or the Baha'i Aqdas—by identifying apparent contradictions between different scriptures, within a single scripture, or between scripture and known facts. To be effective this argument requires the other side to hold that its scriptural record is inerrant, or at least to assert that a proper understanding of scripture gives rise to knowledge of God's existence.
- The problem of evil contests the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god should not permit the existence of evil or suffering. The theist responses are called theodicies.
- The destiny of the unevangelized, by which persons who have never even heard of a particular revelation might be harshly punished for not following its dictates.
- The argument from poor design contests the idea that God created life on the basis that lifeforms, including humans, seem to exhibit poor design.
- The argument from nonbelief contests the existence of an omnipotent God who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers.
- The argument from parsimony (using Occam's razor) contends that since natural (non-supernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religionand belief in gods,[36] the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon.
- The analogy of Russell's teapot argues that the burden of proof for the existence of God lies with the theist rather than the atheist.
Deductive arguments attempt to prove their conclusions by deductive reasoning from true premises.
- The Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit is a counter-argument to the argument from design. The argument from design claims that a complex or ordered structure must be designed. However, a god that is responsible for the creation of a universe would be at least as complicated as the universe that it creates.[why?]Therefore, it too must require a designer. And its designer would require a designer also, ad infinitum. The argument for the existence of god is then a logical fallacy with or without the use of special pleading. The Ultimate 747 gambit points out that God does not provide an origin of complexity, it simply assumes that complexity always existed. It also states that design fails to account for complexity, which natural selection can explain.
- The omnipotence paradox suggests that the concept of an omnipotent entity is logically contradictory, from considering a question like: "Can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it?" or "If God is all powerful, could God create a being more powerful than himself?"
- The problem of hell is the idea that eternal damnation for actions committed in a finite existence contradicts God's omnibenevolence or omnipresence.
- The argument from free will contests the existence of an omniscient god who has free will—or has allotted the same freedom to his creations—by arguing that the two properties are contradictory. According to the argument, if God already knows the future, then humanity is destined to corroborate with his knowledge of the future and not have true free will to deviate from it. Therefore our free will contradicts an omniscient god. Another argument attacks the existence of an omniscient god who has free will directly in arguing that the will of God himself would be bound to follow whatever God foreknows himself doing throughout eternity.
- A counter-argument against the Cosmological argument ("chicken or the egg") takes its assumption that things cannot exist without creators and applies it to God, setting up an infinite regress. This attacks the premise that the universe is the second cause (after God, who is claimed to be the first cause).
- Theological noncognitivism, as used in literature, usually seeks to disprove the god-concept by showing that it is unverifiable by scientific tests.
