Best Theistic Arguments

[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...