new thread for old RE: Atheists, what do you believe is the best argument for the existence of a deity?

[Cinjin]

There's a new thread in there somewhere so don't take my lack of response now as a no response; just that you and i both know a full and proper response will need more time than I can give at present.

The thread you speak of is the Objective vs Subjective Morality thread. We've had many of them. Trust me, you will lose. Christianity has lost this battle many times over. The atrocities that continue to be attributed to your "faith" far outweigh the small amount of good that comes out of it.

[Annik]

The thread you speak of is the Objective vs Subjective Morality thread. We've had many of them. Trust me, you will lose. Christianity has lost this battle many times over. The atrocities that continue to be attributed to your "faith" far outweigh the small amount of good that comes out of it.

Especially since what is considered moral by Christians has vastly changed since the religion's inception.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

In regards to the OP of the original thread, I'd say the transcendental argument for the existence of God is probably one of the strongest. It's a huge mind fuck.

[Simon Moon]

In regards to the OP of the original thread, I'd say the transcendental argument for the existence of God is probably one of the strongest. It's a huge mind fuck.

How are you using the phrase "probably one of the best"?

It just takes a while to unpack. But once that is done, it is just as fallacious as any of the others.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

In regards to the OP of the original thread, I'd say the transcendental argument for the existence of God is probably one of the strongest. It's a huge mind fuck.

How are you using the phrase "probably one of the best"?

It just takes a while to unpack. But once that is done, it is just as fallacious as any of the others.

I'm using it comparatively to all the others. Sure, it can be taken apart but it's still confusing as hell especially if you've never heard it before.

[pocaracas]

In regards to the OP of the original thread, I'd say the transcendental argument for the existence of God is probably one of the strongest. It's a huge mind fuck.

I just googled that argument, because I had never heard of it.... and landed in carm territory. Looks like a mindfuck, but, as all, once you discover the trick, it's easy.
Correct me if I'm wrong on my findings: The arguments states that logic absolutes exist, regardless of the Universe's existence. The only thing that exists out of the Universe is god, so the atheist position is automatically nullified because it will have to reject these logic absolutes.
Logic exists, so a god must exist (place your favorite deity in here).

Here's something else that exists regardless of the Universe: Math.

This argument seems to be defining god as logic or math or some other abstract thing...
Another convenient redefinition of god to baffle atheists.

What is god?
God is love?
god is any other emotion? (satan is hate, clealy! )
In the beginning there was the word, and the word was god... god is a word?
god is logic?
god is math?

Someone, please, define the entity properly!!

Carrying on, if you accept that logical absolutes exist, then you accept that something out of the Universe, something transcendental, exists. "That something can only be god", because only god can exist out of the Universe.
Something doesn't quite add up here, right?
First you have logical absolutes out of the Universe, fine, no problem with that..... and then, MAGIC POOOF, god is also out of the Universe and is the cause of these logical absolutes.

Again, we land on the old question: what caused god?

Why not skip a step and maintain that logical absolutes, math and the like have no cause? They have always been as they are and always will be.
And they are not god.
Why should something inanimate be such an entity?

[The Grand Nudger]

If by "strong" we meant "takes the least amount of bullshit to utter in polite company" - the argument from faith, which is what all arguments for the existence of any god have always been in any case. A person who has the integrity to own their faith on it's own terms for what it is, without any pretense of what it is not will not compel me to believe, true, but while they may not compel me to believe, they also won't compel me to consider them as much more than a person of faith.......and the list of adjectives could be much more colorful after all.

[paulpablo]

If you were alive and an apostle of Jesus Christ and you watched him die on the cross and then met him again a few days later and chatted with him in the company of others and later again watched Jesus ascend into the sky. Could any evidence anyone try to give you that it didn't happen convince you otherwise, would you face death and still not change your mind?

Was this part your original question? i found it difficult to pick out what the actual question was in the first post

Ill answer this question anyway, yes id believe he was the son of god and die for him. Im guessing id have little to no education since this is around the time of christ, i wouldnt know anything i know now, and ive had witnessed two mirracles. Id probably already believe in god anyway and also believe the earth was flat and so on. But yes people could probably tell me later hey Paul we just slipped some drugs into your drink and made you halucinate, or tell me it was an elaborate trick and id probably stop believing.

[Mark 13:13]

If you were alive and an apostle of Jesus Christ and you watched him die on the cross and then met him again a few days later and chatted with him in the company of others and later again watched Jesus ascend into the sky. Could any evidence anyone try to give you that it didn't happen convince you otherwise, would you face death and still not change your mind?

Was this part your original question? i found it difficult to pick out what the actual question was in the first post

Ill answer this question anyway, yes id believe he was the son of god and die for him. Im guessing id have little to no education since this is around the time of christ, i wouldnt know anything i know now, and ive had witnessed two mirracles. Id probably already believe in god anyway and also believe the earth was flat and so on.

the question I had answered was what is the best evidence of the existance of GOD? and I had responded Personal experience and this evidence though subjective will always trump any other when it comes to an individual. And someone had disagreed so I used the analogy above to try to demonstrate my point. As far as your answer goes its the honest answer that I believe anyone would give. To give that answer does not mean you believe in God but just shows you accept the power of personal experience even over Logic. The only caveat being if someone could shake your personal experience by convincing you that you imagined it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Personal experience may be convincing to the individual who has had (or believes they have had) the experience...but that doesn't actually make it "good evidence" bud. Gorillas in the frame.