Best Theistic Arguments

[Edwardo Piet]

The best argument for God is the pantheistic one which says that God is the Universe

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.

[surreptitious57]

AS AN ATHEIST YOU DO MAKE A CLAIM BY SAYING THAT THERE IS NO CREATOR

As an atheist I say there is no evidence for a creator rather than there is no creator
But I think that the lack of evidence makes the existence of said creator less likely

If there is no creator then life must come from non life

Life and non life are not fixed states but instead points on a spectrum
A creator is not required in order for biology to come from chemistry

All of existence is transition because everything is in a constant state of motion
The transition from non life to life is but just one point on this eternal spectrum
And so it is therefore no more or no less important than any other one really is
It is only human beings who think some events are more important than others

[*Deidre*]

I think from identifying as an atheist and debating with theists, and now returning to belief, having been on either ''side,'' my advice would be to just simply accept that you both will be coming at the argument, in entirely different ways. You will be seeking material evidence, or some type of objective evidence, whereas the theist/believer will be coming at the argument from the approach, that much of what they believe comes from faith. From believing in things unseen, and unproven. Unproven in a secular way. To many Christians for example, the Bible is a type of proof of their beliefs, but that will never be the case for an atheist...so these debates can be trying for the atheist and theist alike, since they both approach their arguments from different angles.

There are historical accounts of philosophers and scientists who have believed in the existence of a god, but their opinions still wouldn't serve as objective proof. So, the challenge that you both have is to establish what will be considered valid points of reference to debate with, not necessarily what you're debating about.

[Little Rik]

You are not answering the question.

AS AN ATHEIST YOU DO MAKE A CLAIM BY SAYING THAT THERE IS NO CREATOR right?
If there is no creator then life must come from non life, right?  

Where is the non life yog?  

CAN YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION ONCE AND FOR ALL?

So what you're saying is that you believe that both your worldview and mine are based on dogma and therefore they are both wrong.  Is that correct?

INCORRECT yog.


Yours are just dreams, guesses, fantasies and a lot of BS.




You have no evidence of whatsoever.

NONE AT ALL, so obviously only yours ideas are dogmas.

I on the other hand base my statements on evidence.
NDEs are evidence.
That life come from previous life is also evidence.
That everything is made of vibrations is not only stated by yoga but also from the cream of scientists.

You see the difference yog?  

---

AS AN ATHEIST YOU DO MAKE A CLAIM BY SAYING THAT THERE IS NO CREATOR

As an atheist I say there is no evidence for a creator rather than there is no creator
But I think that the lack of evidence makes the existence of said creator less likely

If there is no creator then life must come from non life

Life and non life are not fixed states but instead points on a spectrum
A creator is not required in order for biology to come from chemistry

All of existence is transition because everything is in a constant state of motion
The transition from non life to life is but just one point on this eternal spectrum
And so it is therefore no more or no less important than any other one really is
It is only human beings who think some events are more important than others

You fail very badly mate.  

By saying.............The transition from non life to life...........you already pretend that a non life exist, right?

Where on earth is the non life Surr?

Where is the evidence that a non life exist?
That is exactly the question that i keep on asking to yog and that she keep on avoiding.  

Can't you see that atheism is based only on guesses and dreams?  

[Edwardo Piet]

Where is the evidence that a non life exist?

Would you call a rock 'life'?

If you're gonna say "Where is the evidence for the non-experiential?" then you actually have a point.

If by the non-life you mean the non-biological then there's actually plenty of evidence for it.

[Angrboda]

[Cecelia]

The best Theistic arguments are the ones that use a total misunderstanding of science against people who aren't experts in the field who can rebut it and explain properly how they're misusing the science.

[Little Rik]

[Angrboda]

[Edwardo Piet]

 

Little Rik/LR



I am doing this to get your attention

I replied to you as well but you only responded to Jor

That's jaw-drop, not Jor-drop, by the way, (by the way why do you call her "Yog"? That always confuses me!)

I responded to you in a post already. Why will you not get back to me?

I also have a question for you. What do you mean by "life"? Do you mean anything biological or made or DNA? Or do you mean anything that is conscious regardless of whether it is biological or made of DNA?

Thank you for your time

---

The best Theistic arguments are the ones that use a total misunderstanding of science against people who aren't experts in the field who can rebut it and explain properly how they're misusing the science.

Sure if by "best" we mean "most sophistic"