(April 8, 2018 at 5:29 pm)ShirkahnW Wrote: I am going to debate a theist over the existence of god soon. What are the best arguments you ever heard from theists? Any tips on what topic to avoid in such an discussion? 
Thanks in advance

My 2 cents, "None, really" to the first and to the second questions.

The best theistic arguments are literally any valid argument that labels stuff that we already know to exist as 'God', regardless of how utterly pointless that indeed is.

P1. By 'God' I mean 'the universe'.
P2. The universe exists.
C. Therefore God exists.

^*

If labeling the universe as 'God' and then believing in the universe would make me a pantheist, then I am a pantheist in every way besides the label, which basically means pantheism in that sense has absolutely no content, and yet I hold the same actual belief as the pantheist, and are therefore a pantheist, and therefore a theist, but I don't label myself that, because this specific form of 'theism' is identical to atheism in all actual content and therefore meaningless. It would mean that the only reason that that wasn't a logical contradiction is because both labels would then become equally meaningless. X and not X would become BLAH AND BLAH. And not blah would not be not blah if it is actual identical in content, and since blah exists, I am a blaher, but so what? It's all blah. Contradictory labels that refer to the same thing are so meaningless as for it to be completely meaningless that those labels are contradictory... because they are ontologically non-distinct.

Still, even an argument that is arguing for something completely devoid of any actual content is better than all the fallacious arguments, non-sequiturs and contradictions that other theistic positions have . That's how much theism sucks. Achieving nothing without making a logical error is still logically superior to achieving nothing whilst also making a logical error.

* So, that is an example of a completely trivially true and meaningless but nevertheless entirely logically valid argument for 'God'. There are no sound arguments for God.

One could get a piece of old wood, paint it, decorate it with flowers and put it in your backyard and call it "god".

(April 18, 2018 at 10:38 am)Jehanne Wrote: One could get a piece of old wood, paint it, decorate it with flowers and put it in your backyard and call it "god".

Exactly. It's pretty bad when that's as good as an argument for 'god' can get lol.

And more to the point, one could get a piece of old wood, paint it, decorate it with flowers put it in one's backyard and call it "non-god".

(April 18, 2018 at 1:30 am)robvalue Wrote: The criteria seems to be that things that didn't happen aren't meant to be taken literally. The more science advances, the more metaphorical the bible becomes. Funny that. It's the kind of confirmation bias people always have when they work backwords from conclusions.

You might be interested to know that Aquinas would agree. But he didn't seem to have a problem with that and even considered it a point in favor scriptural authority. Confirmation bias also applies when you assume that your position proves a negative when really it is just your perspective that fails to see the positive.

---

(April 18, 2018 at 9:04 am)Hammy Wrote: There are no sound arguments for God.

That's a positive claim. Prove it.

(April 18, 2018 at 2:43 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: ............he didn't seem to have a problem with that and even considered it a point in favor scriptural authority. 

(April 18, 2018 at 2:43 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(April 18, 2018 at 9:04 am)Hammy Wrote: There are no sound arguments for God.

That's a positive claim. Prove it.

It's not a positive claim it's a statement of what I think.

Why do I think it? Because I've never experienced any evidence of God. How am I supposed to prove that I haven't experienced it? I can't even prove that I experience anything. (Well, I can't prove it to anyone but myself).

And you gotta define God first. . . And that's not my job to do. So the onus is on you. Am I supposed to list all the gods I don't believe in? That's a very very long list... and not realistic to expect me to do. You only believe in one god, so define that.

The null hypothesis is no God. I am not saying that there is definitely no God, or that a lack of evidence of God means that there is definitely no God. I am not going to commit the argument from ignorance. To me, "X is true"= "I think X is true". It's silly to assume all statements are absolute by default. Absolute positions are so extreme they should almost never be made. Do you expect me to start 99% of my sentences with "I think[...]"? Bit excessive don't you think?

"X is true" is no more "I know X is true" than "I think X is true."

God knows how to reach me; his disciples are sadly lacking.

It should be trivial for god to demonstrate his existence. If I then rejected it one may have a case.

Silence is golden.

(April 18, 2018 at 10:38 am)Jehanne Wrote: One could get a piece of old wood, paint it, decorate it with flowers and put it in your backyard and call it "god".

That's pretty much what we did. 

(April 18, 2018 at 3:46 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(April 18, 2018 at 10:38 am)Jehanne Wrote: One could get a piece of old wood, paint it, decorate it with flowers and put it in your backyard and call it "god".

That's pretty much what we did. 

Who is we?

If the 'we' refers to primitive humans coming up with pseudo explanations I think it's more like one planting a tree, seeing it grow, wondering why trees grew all over the world even before humans were around to plant them, and then imagining that there is this magical gardener that must exist otherwise why else would there be so many trees, but must be magical otherwise he'd be incapable of being invisible, and must be invisible because otherwise we'd see him around planting trees.

Shitty explanations are even worse than non-explanations. Non-explanations are too meaningless to be logical errors or potentially harmful delusion conclusions. But shitty explanations can fuck shit up... and they are mistaken.

That's yet another thing I disagree with Daniel Dennett about. He seems to think that 'too confused to be false' is worse than false. Nope. It's certainly useless but logical errors are still worse. But then, it's no wonder he thinks otherwise, he makes a lot of them.