RE: Theists: What is the most compelling argument you have heard for Atheism?
March 27, 2017 at 10:11 am
(March 27, 2017 at 9:43 am)SteveII Wrote:(March 25, 2017 at 8:46 am)Whateverist Wrote: Hey, they're your beliefs, your rationale and your thresholds. You could tighten them up or make them a lot looser and my opinion would matter just as little. They only have to please you.
But I have a question for you. Why do you assume in your "natural theology arguments" that all these functions are performed by just one being? [1] All of them assume that external agency is required, something I find more dubious than satisfactory in explanatory power. But even if you hang on to a tinkering mega-agency as being required for a-c, why couldn't d-e be explained by evolution or as unintended by products of a-c? [2]
Funny how the impulse to keep it simple by attributing it all to just one omni-agent doesn't go even further and leave out the middleMan altogether. Instead of everything is just so because it is the will of God - where the will of God just is the will of God, you could have everything is just so because the universe just is the way it is. Simpler still. [3]
1. The arguments are not conclusive on their own. They are part of a cumulative argument for the existence of God. Separating them out and positing different entities is an unreasonable step (there is no reason).
2. You would have to develop the entire argument. Perhaps I will start a thread soon on (d). (E) has been beat to death recently and I have no interest in bringing that topic up again anytime soon.
3. The universe's existence and fine tuning being a brute fact is not simplicity. It defies all reasoning with no explanation (or hope of one). That does not sit well with most people.
No it is not an argument for your God or any God claim of any religion. If this was a neutral argument it would be a tool everyone could use regardless of label. Now take this list of tripe and subtract your pet god claim and insert that of another and ASK YOURSELF if your own words you use here would work placing someone else's claim into this "formula".
It is not a universal formula, it is your own word salad mental masturbation. Every religion has members who create these word salads. If your argument here only proves your god, well how convenient isn't it? That is not objective it is merely you trying to convince yourself. Things in reality that are provable facts don't require apology, this is not an argument based on empirical data and peer review, it is a sales pitch you have convinced yourself of, nothing more.
"Got it right" is all this says, and so what, this is a claim, not evidence, none of this is evidence.
