I think philosophical arguments about reality are weak . Philosophers for centuries asked "What is mind?" and never came close to discovering a synapse or neurotransmitter. It took the scientific method  to do that. Philosophy is better used for moral argument and we do not require gods for that. All moral precepts can be argued without religious assumptions.

Best atheistic argument about morality: 

Name one good or noble thing that can not be accomplished without religion!

Philosophical arguments are as valid as their logic is.

Strongest theist argument: for me is first cause (but only in so far as you would name any non-natural cause 'god'), although, I consider a natural first cause most likely at this point in time.

Weakest theist argument: Anything that assigns attributes to 'god', or implies that 'god' is anything other than the first cause.

Strongest atheist argument: I don't think there is such a thing as an atheist argument is there? Aren't these just counters to theistic arguments, rather than actual arguments for atheism (which to me would mean an argument that there is no 'god')?

I think the most compelling counter against a god that is anything other than simply first cause is the problem of free will.

Weakest is probably around first cause, because there really is no evidence, so it really comes down to what you find most compelling.

A pet peeve of mine though is when an atheist rubbishes the bible as a product of man, but then quotes passages to show that God is immoral. If the bible is a steaming pile of made up crap (which I believe it is) then you can't really use it as a basis of the truth of God's attributes.


Sent from my ALE-L21 using Tapatalk

(January 10, 2017 at 1:11 am)Alex K Wrote: @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.

I've always assumed stuff just has a way that it happens to be and when all the stuff that is interacts with all the other stuff that is, we get the universe.  The universe seems more Jackson Pollock than representational to me.

(January 10, 2017 at 9:18 am)Whateverist Wrote:

(January 10, 2017 at 1:11 am)Alex K Wrote: @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.

I've always assumed stuff just has a way that it happens to be and when all the stuff that is interacts with all the other stuff that is, we get the universe.  The universe seems more Jackson Pollock than representational to me.

I think I'm not high enough to understand Can you elaborate what you mean by stuff interacting with stuff?

(January 10, 2017 at 9:10 am)ukatheist Wrote: Strongest theist argument: for me is first cause (but only in so far as you would name any non-natural cause 'god'), although, I consider a natural first cause most likely at this point in time.

To me that one is very weak because I don't see a reason why causation should apply to entire universes as a whole when it barely even applies within ours.

Quote:Weakest theist argument: Anything that assigns attributes to 'god', or implies that 'god' is anything other than the first cause.

Strongest atheist argument: I don't think there is such a thing as an atheist argument is there? Aren't these just counters to theistic arguments, rather than actual arguments for atheism (which to me would mean an argument that there is no 'god')?

I think the most compelling counter against a god that is anything other than simply first cause is the problem of free will.

Weakest is probably around first cause, because there really is no evidence, so it really comes down to what you find most compelling.

A pet peeve of mine though is when an atheist rubbishes the bible as a product of man, but then quotes passages to show that God is immoral. If the bible is a steaming pile of made up crap (which I believe it is) then you can't really use it as a basis of the truth of God's attributes.

But pointing to the bible can certainly be used to show how the premises of Christianity are inconsistent, no? That way you can attack Christianity using the bible even if you don't think it's true. Like I said above, dismantling the Christian God doesn't prove atheism though...

(January 10, 2017 at 8:17 am)Vast Vision Wrote:

(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.

But I'm not a theist so the descriptions of god you're talking about mean nothing to me.

Theists saying good things happen therefore god is equally illogical to me as bad things happen therefore no god.

Of all the things in the bible and religious expressions, God working in mysterious ways isn't that objectionable.  If there was a God I'd expect him to work in a way I can't begin to comprehend.

(January 10, 2017 at 8:19 am)chimp3 Wrote: I think philosophical arguments about reality are weak . Philosophers for centuries asked "What is mind?" and never came close to discovering a synapse or neurotransmitter. It took the scientific method  to do that.

Actually Emanuel Swedenborg outlined the first neural theory. (But then again he made that discovery before turning mystic)

(January 10, 2017 at 10:14 am)paulpablo Wrote: But I'm not a theist so the descriptions of god you're talking about mean nothing to me.

It only makes sense to argue against a god as imagined by theists; primarily the christian and islamic god as this is the majority.

Another weak argument that comes into my mind is the argument from authority. Thinking that the fact that there are religious scientists would somehow represent a valid argument for religion. Quoting religious scientists is one of the first things many theists do in a debate.

(January 10, 2017 at 10:11 am)Alex K Wrote: To me that one is very weak because I don't see a reason why causation should apply to entire universes as a whole when it barely even applies within ours.

I'll admit science is not really my thing, but the reason I think it is the strongest is because we know the universe exists, but will probably never know how with any certainty (and that includes whether the universe even had an ultimate start). I think it will in time become the final hiding place of the God of the gaps (I think abiogenesis will be the fatal blow to any religion with an interactive God), and therefore strongest because I don't think it will be ever be possible to disprove 'goddidit', even if it is improbable.

Quote:But pointing to the bible can certainly be used to show how the premises of Christianity are inconsistent, no? That way you can attack Christianity using the bible even if you don't think it's true. Like I said above, dismantling the Christian God doesn't prove atheism though...

Yes agreed, useful when showing inconsistency within religion, but not for disproving a deity, even the Christian god.