(January 9, 2017 at 5:53 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Strongest argument for theism: Not applicable.

What do you consider the least lame argument for theism?

Any argument for theism that isn't the argument from design, the ontological argument or Pascal's wager. Those 3 all suck super hard. The rest are all still non-sequiturs but they're at least not as lame as those 3.

(January 9, 2017 at 5:53 pm)Alex K Wrote: Strongest against: Fine tuning, contrary to what some deniers say, several physical constants and combinations thereof cannot be changed by more than a tiny fraction without wreaking havoc on our universe's ability to support life.

Implying that God couldn't create us any other way, and was constrained by pre existing laws, negating the omnipotence and the designing. Which leaves very little 'god' remaining.

(January 9, 2017 at 8:23 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote:

(January 9, 2017 at 5:53 pm)Alex K Wrote: Strongest against: Fine tuning, contrary to what some deniers say, several physical constants and combinations thereof cannot be changed by more than a tiny fraction without wreaking havoc on our universe's ability to support life.

Implying that God couldn't create us any other way, and was constrained by pre existing laws, negating the omnipotence and the designing.

Exactly!

Fine tuning is not an argument for the existence of the god of classical theism.

Evidence of the god of classical theism would be to have a universe, that looks as if it shouldn't be able to support life, yet life would exist anyway.

The strongest argument for theism is to define "God" to be something that already exists. Then everyone is a theist. Since "God" means nothing in the first place, you're quite at liberty to do that.

What does that achieve? Nothing. But then theology on the whole achieves nothing either. It's just a complete waste of time, trying to talk things into existence.

(January 9, 2017 at 5:30 pm)Vast Vision Wrote: "The universe is intelligently designed." 
"There is no house popping out of nothing or as a result of an explosion, how does it count for the universe?"
"You can't see Bluetooth or the air too, so how is not seeing god an argument?"
"There is scientific knowledge recorded in the Quran which agrees with all the modern discoveries made about the universe"


Strong theistic arguments? There are none.

Welcome to the forum

(January 9, 2017 at 5:59 pm)Vast Vision Wrote: I cannot think of a weak atheistic argument spontaneously; I might be enlightened. 

What is atheism? The mere absence of belief in a world view for which there is no valid proof whatsoever. What theists believe to be a testament for the validity of their belief, has not to be one. I have never seen Atheists making statements theists often attribute to them.

---

(January 1, 2017 at 5:10 am)paulpabl Wrote: There's so much evil/pain/death in the world therefore no god.  Probably the worst argument for atheism I've heard.

How is this a weak argument based on the nature of the god probably most of us are thinking of? When the god who is said to be a merciful, all-loving and all-forgiving planer, causes such a massive amount of suffering in the world and is willing to bring down endless agony to those with nothing but a honest fallacy - the inability to recognize him in the creation, as the mind engineered by god himself would not allow so. 

Theistic response however is weak. As they say that god is not within the boundaries of logic and works in a way not understandable for humans, they admit, that their belief is irrational, since gods very actions are claimed to be irrational ("not bound by logic"). 

(January 9, 2017 at 5:53 pm)Alex K Wrote: Strongest against: Fine tuning, contrary to what some deniers say, several physical constants and combinations thereof cannot be changed by more than a tiny fraction without wreaking havoc on our universe's ability to support life.

The absence of a plausible explanation at this moment is no proof for the opposite view. Magic can never be a good answer. "I cannot comprehend how this works, it must be the work of a wizard!"

In response to the question addressed to me.

It's a weak argument because it assumes knowledge of God and God's methods of running the universe.

None of us have any evidence of God, God's nature, God's existence, God's methods.

So to say God doesn't exist because he wouldn't allow evil makes no sense.  How do you know God wouldn't allow evil?  How do you know he's merciful?  How do you know he isn't showing mercy and he offers tortured people some amazing heaven later.

If God is more intelligent than we are by a significant amount then it's plausable we wouldn't even begin to understand his methods.

It could be like when a human holds a feral cat down in order to extract a thorn from it's paw.  That cat has no forward planning, doesn't understand the concept of planned altruistic behavior beyond the emotions it feels perhaps towards it's own family members possibly.  As far as the cat's concerned this human is a threat and should be attacked at all times.

I haven't seen evidence so far that a being like this exists out there, that has created the universe and is more intelligent than humans.  But if a being like that did exist I'm not going to pretend I'd know all about how this being would go about bussiness. 

Saying God doesn't exist because bad things happen put's you in exactly the same boat as theists who say god exists because good things happen.  Sportsmen who think God helped them score the goal.  A muslim I know who said he knows God exists because water is so refreshing and nice.

(January 9, 2017 at 5:53 pm)Alex K Wrote:

(December 29, 2016 at 2:18 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I would like to hear what AF members think are the weakest arguments supporting their position and strongest arguments against it. Believers are invited to admit the skeptical objections they find most reasonable (even if they do not sway you) and critique the worst apologetics. Skeptics are invited to admit which apologetic seems most reasonable (even if they do not sway you) and critique the least valid objections. So I’ll start…

IMO the weakest apologetic is Pascal’s wager since it relies entirely on a specific cultural context.

IMO the most reasonable objection comes from Kant. He proposes that ‘being’ is not a proper predicate and therefore the saying that God’s essence is the same as His existence is problematic.

Among the weakest for: Theodicy, that may cast doubt that there is a loving God, but doesn't really make a case for atheism

Strongest against: Fine tuning, contrary to what some deniers say, several physical constants and combinations thereof cannot be changed by more than a tiny fraction without wreaking havoc on our universe's ability to support life.

But Alex don't you think this is somewhat analogous to the lucky puddle which just happens to find itself in a hole that fits it to a T?  I mean here we are sentient life looking around and remarking how conditions fit us to a T.

@everyone

I don't think it is completely like Douglas Adams' puddle, because as I see it, the universe could easily be set up such that no intelligent life can arise in it anywhere. For me, for the Anthropuddle principle to really work as an argument, there would have to be many universes to choose from. Sure, once we know we exist , the probability is 1 that the universe supports life, but the question remains why the universe is like that.

It does presuppose that the values could have deviated from what they are, and that Carbon based life is more important to the 'Tuner' than Silicon based life.
Indeed the SAP is being proven false by the observation of Extra-solar planetary systems. Part of the SAP states that the Age of the Universe is a factor, to within a few million years, however the existence of other planetary systems far older than our own demonstrates that the particular age of the Universe is not a requirement.
That leaves the 'Cosmological Constant' and the mass of a proton...
I'm having a hard time not seeing this as blatant Woo with no more credibility than ID.

(January 9, 2017 at 10:25 pm)paulpablo Wrote: It's a weak argument because it assumes knowledge of God and God's methods of running the universe.

Depends on the god we talk about. Aren't theists contradicting themselves, when they talk about god's positive attributes but suddenly claim that he works in mysterious ways not accessible for the human mind if something negative happens?

When religions tell us, that god loves his servants, gets mad at disobedience, forgives mistakes or punishes, plans and test things, those are completely human attributes and not those of a supreme being which we can't even begin to understand. Clearly, such a god is merely a reflection of the people who created this god. 

Those contradictions are often seen. For example, when Theists try to prove god scientifically while saying that god himself is not graspable with science. Their "logic" tells them, that a god created this universe, which cannot be grasped with that same logic. And that is why believing in god, in such a god, is irrational.