Best Theistic Arguments

[pocaracas]

The God of Classical Theism.

Based on everything known to us about space-time, can space-time be the god of Classical Theism?

[Neo-Scholastic]

That's like saying you don't accept the findings of physics because relativity and quantum mechanics haven't been fully reconciled OR punctuated versus gradual evolution.

And you accuse me of a disingenuous dodge? You dare to draw a parallel between the theory of relativity and the stories in your goat roasters handbook!!
The theory of relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics are so absolutely correct that they have been nailed to doors, but different doors. They are different aspects of the same physics that govern the workings of the universe. They are as accurate a description of how the world works as it is possible to get. 

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't accept evolutionary theory because it hasn't been fully explicated?

Fully explicated? You mean fully understood? That some people don't understand evolutionary theory does not mean its beyond understanding; it means some people refuse to, or are incapable of, understanding it.

Do you really want to find your arguments stimied by some creationist suggesting that evolution, broadly defined, cannot be true because there are multiple theories about abiogenesis and mutation mechanisms?

And once again you shoot yourself in the foot; for the millionth time abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. But then how could creationist ever understand this? And btw, abiogenesis is not a theory, (yet) it's a hypothesis.

Every field of inquiry has it's own internal disputes despite broad areas of agreement. Demanding full and complete specifications of God, like you're just, is nothing more than a disingenuous dodge.

You were asked to define 'God' and your reply was, and I quote:

The God of Classical Theism.

There is no classical theism. Not so long as it can mean whatever its many proponents think it means. Your turn...
Describe God in terms of classical theism and I'll find another proponent of the same school who disagrees.

Have fun debating with yourself.

[Jehanne]

NS,

If your arguments are so persuasive, why are people abandoning Christianity?

[The Valkyrie]

NS,

If your arguments are so persuasive, why are people abandoning Christianity?

They're not True Christians™.

[Neo-Scholastic]

NS,

If your arguments are so persuasive, why are people abandoning Christianity?

People do not find faith through the rational demonstrations of humans; but rather, by having their lives changed by the Holy Spirit. Our culture encourages people to look for sources of meaning other than the Divine and there are more avenues through which to do so.

[Aegon]

NS,

If your arguments are so persuasive, why are people abandoning Christianity?

People do not find faith through the rational demonstrations of humans; but rather, by having their lives changed by the Holy Spirit. Our culture encourages people to look for sources of meaning other than the Divine and there are more avenues through which to do so.

But what you call the "Holy Spirit" I could call... anything else, really. You just decided to look at whatever happened through Judeo-Christian lens, no?

[Jehanne]

NS,

If your arguments are so persuasive, why are people abandoning Christianity?

People do not find faith through the rational demonstrations of humans; but rather, by having their lives changed by the Holy Spirit. Our culture encourages people to look for sources of meaning other than the Divine and there are more avenues through which to do so.

Islamic clerics make the exact same sorts of appeals and arguments.

[GrandizerII]

And you accuse me of a disingenuous dodge? You dare to draw a parallel between the theory of relativity and the stories in your goat roasters handbook!!
The theory of relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics are so absolutely correct that they have been nailed to doors, but different doors. They are different aspects of the same physics that govern the workings of the universe. They are as accurate a description of how the world works as it is possible to get. 


Fully explicated? You mean fully understood? That some people don't understand evolutionary theory does not mean its beyond understanding; it means some people refuse to, or are incapable of, understanding it.


And once again you shoot yourself in the foot; for the millionth time abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. But then how could creationist ever understand this? And btw, abiogenesis is not a theory, (yet) it's a hypothesis.


You were asked to define 'God' and your reply was, and I quote:


There is no classical theism. Not so long as it can mean whatever its many proponents think it means. Your turn...
Describe God in terms of classical theism and I'll find another proponent of the same school who disagrees.

Have fun debating with yourself.

Wimp.

[possibletarian]

The 'lives changed by the holy spirit' or ''by the grace of Allah'' or by ''insert your religions spirits and deities here'' always amuses me somewhat. It's a rebranding of personal experience which is often cited as evidence.

They don't however give any credence whatsoever to the 'personal experience' of the majority of the world that don't subscribe to their belief.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well then, by your own admission, when I say "God exists" that's not a positive claim either; it's just something I think.

Correct. Now my question is: Do you know that God exists? And if not, how certain are you? And if so, what evidence do you have, and how probable do you consider Him to be?

Basically you're saying there's nothing to debate; which it basically true. There can only be debate when both parties take a stance, which you are unwilling to do.

I stopped debating God's existence years ago here on AF. I've made a lot of friends here so I mostly just stay for the community. I'm happy to shoot down shitty arguments for God (or indeed, against God... I like to shoot down shitty arguments in general).... but let's face it, God so defined is so unfalsifable that there can't be any evidence against Him. But nor can there be anything for Him. What you and I disagree on is how parsimonious this God position is. As far as I am concerned the null-hypothesis is non God... and to believe in God rationally requires extraordinary evidence. But I'm not claiming that anyone is claiming anything unless they claim to be claiming something.

And you gotta define God first. . . And that's not my job to do. So the onus is on you.

The God of Classical Theism. Your turn...

Okay in that case the onus is still on you as far as I am concerened. Why do you believe in that which there by definition can never be any evidence of? Do you consider the God of classical theism to be so elegant and simple that it is more parsimonious than the non-existence of God? Because if so that is what we fundamentally disagree on then, I think. What the null hypothesis is.

I am yet to find any sound arguments for God, to be more clear on my belief. I am not saying that there aren't any out there, I just haven't found any yet.

For me the most respectable position for theism is not an argument but Kant's position that he honestly just has to take it all on faith... and that reason leaves no room for faith... because as irrational as that position is.... at least he's honest.

Although maybe not, maybe he was a secret atheist. I am not familiar with quite how difficult it would be to come out as an atheist in Kant's time and country, and what the penalty for heresy was back then, if any.

---

There can only be debate when both parties take a stance, which you are unwilling to do.

I'm more than happy to claim that you have never, to my knowledge, given me any valid reasons to believe that the God of classical theism exists.

I strongly dislike Daniel Dennett's approach to philosophical problems in general, and I especially detest his pragmatism (I consider pragmatism to be rather like the paradox of hedonism: Ironically less useful when sought directly, like pleasure is less pleasurable when sought directly)... and am by no means a fan of Dennett... but I think he got this exactly right:

"Now you've got a real problem, since the rest of us don't know the mind of God. We can't share your direct line so you're going to have to do the best you can in a secular discussion about what the right thing to do is. Are you up to the task of explaining to the rest of us, who don't have your hotline to God, why you're right?" - Daniel Dennett in an interview with Charlie Rose

So that's what I put to you, Neo.

Like LadyForCamus here at AF I am one of those weird atheists who confesses that they actually wishes a God did exist. A good one, I mean. I'm not sure the God of classical theism sounds so good. If you're talking the one Aquianus argues for that is simply all good all powerful all knowing... then sure. If such a being somehow exists in a non-contradictory way, great. The God of the Bible doesn't look like that to me... but if I'm misunderstanding then maybe you can try to help. What I especially can't seem to understand is not only why you think such a God exists at all, but why does scriputure have anything to do it, how does reason get from classical theism to scripture? And why one book and not another? Any why a book at all? And what about all the horrible bits? It seems to me that you would, at the end of the day, have to take it on faith if you're going to adhere to any specific book or follow and specific religion. And I don't know how you even get to the point that a perfect being is necessary. I believe logic is perfect logically speaking, and is absolute, and exists... in some sense. Or rather is identical to the totality of perfect existence. Perfect logically speaking. But how you get to absolute goodness and absolute knowledge and a mind.... where does that even come from? You seem to think that Aquianus's arguments are sound... but they're not and many of them aren't even valid...