Attention Theists! Present your best argument for the existence of God!

[Zen Badger]

God's existence can't be known. Bomb proof.

If gods existence cannot be known(i.e proven) then the only logical conclusion is that he doesn't exist.

Same as unicorns, trolls, Russells teapot and Jesus.

Lacking knowledge about P does not mean you can conclude logically that ~P, it simply means you have no knowledge that P... It doesn't even say anything about whether or not your beleifs are justified, for example; I don't have knowledge that my cellphone will cease to function in about a week but I believe it will because of numerous flaws that I have encountered recently that seem to be very typical indicators of Nokia failures - My belief that my phone will cease to function is justified despite my not knowing.

But you have demonstrable indications that your phone will fail. (Nokias are rubbish)

My point being that god might well exist, along with unicorns, trolls etc. but belief without evidence is, well, unfounded.

There could be a planet circling a blue giant in M33 in Andromeda.

Statisically this is very likely, but without evidence will you believe this, or state it to be the case?

[KichigaiNeko]

http://www.google.com.au/ig?hl=en&source=iglk

http://www.gnu.org/software/ispell/ispell.html

There ya go....two!!! Yay! Go me.

[thesummerqueen]

Cultures that haven't been ass-whipped by monotheistic religions don't have a problem with people living in homosexual relationships.

You know how left-handedness is considered "normal" now but for years people worked it out of their children? My grandparents tried to beat it out of my dad, though that's an extreme case. People can choose what the 'norm' is just as much as nature does.

I should think the overwhelming amount of homosexual people, despite the taboos against it through the ages, would be a point on the chalkboard towards there being something more at work here than just a quirk. Human sexuality isn't cut and dry.

I've yet to hear an argument from anyone, ANYONE, against homosexuality not being normal or it being a 'wrong' in some way that actually had any sort of validity for why they should stop...other than the speaker's own squick.

I'm against people fucking children because they're taking advantage of a minor who hasn't developed into a person capable of making their own decisions and weighing consequences properly. Other than that, I have no good argument against any way you decide to get your jollies as long as you're not hurting someone else.

[Ashendant]

I'm against people fucking children because they're taking advantage of a minor who hasn't developed into a person capable of making their own decisions and weighing consequences properly. Other than that, I have no good argument against any way you decide to get your jollies as long as you're not hurting someone else.

There's only two real limits that should be set on sexuality sapience(because otherwise it's bestiality) and maturity(there are real immature people that shouldn't have sex and children)

[DeistPaladin]

There's only two real limits that should be set on sexuality sapience(because otherwise it's bestiality) and maturity(there are real immature people that shouldn't have sex and children)

...and of course consent.

[fr0d0]

What is it specifically about theism is it that makes sense to you as opposed to naturalism?

I'm generally for a pragmatically useful belief, so all good to you for finding something that's personally helpful, however I really doubt that you have attained some level of happiness (or increased the potential thereof) that can't be attained by non-theists.

I don't exactly see what you're getting at with love being an argument for God... Firstly, love is a phenomenon that is experienced the same in either worldview, it's only the mechanics of it that changes. Secondly, love does not always trump hate and negativity every time no matter how much you might want it to be that case. I know already that you're set on belief in a posthumous justice to resolve the imablances, is that what you're getting at?

Naturalism is neutral, where theism is a focus on the positive. I personally understand that to be a preferable outlook. In naturalism I'm subject to life wherever it may take me; where in theism I aspire to more. I choose to interpret natural as divine.

I can only relate my own experience where happiness in the two places is very different. I couldn't have achieved that in any other way I could imagine. The closest I could clone to my theism would still be a poorer copy of my theism. Your experience may be different. If that were indeed true, I'd expect it to be essentially the same. If there were a better way of attaining that I'd jump at it and abandon my current position. I don't see how anyone wouldn't.

Love in a naturalist worldview is limited to the personal, where in a theistic worldview it has to be external as well. The whole experience of life is related to an external force for good.

I just think that generally, love is the stronger force. Yes in the detail that's not true, but theoretically. Posthumous justice might explain any discrepancies in the detail.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I'm old.


I'm never happy.

Really? You poor old bastard.


It's true,that these days I rarely say "I'm so happy I could just shit", but most days I'm happy just to wake up.

Last week I was massively relieved because the person love most in the world was not harmed by cyclone Yasi.

I have far more in my life about which to be grateful and content than otherwise,regardless of what my acerbic persona here might imply.

[theVOID]

God's existence can't be known. Bomb proof.

If gods existence cannot be known(i.e proven) then the only logical conclusion is that he doesn't exist.

Same as unicorns, trolls, Russells teapot and Jesus.

Lacking knowledge about P does not mean you can conclude logically that ~P, it simply means you have no knowledge that P... It doesn't even say anything about whether or not your beleifs are justified, for example; I don't have knowledge that my cellphone will cease to function in about a week but I believe it will because of numerous flaws that I have encountered recently that seem to be very typical indicators of Nokia failures - My belief that my phone will cease to function is justified despite my not knowing.

But you have demonstrable indications that your phone will fail. (Nokias are rubbish)

I have a justification for belief but not knowledge. And besides, my Nokia has been going strong for about 5 years now, that trumps any of the phones that my friends have by a few years.

My point being that god might well exist, along with unicorns, trolls etc. but belief without evidence is, well, unfounded.

Right, but that is completely different than saying "the only logical conclusion is that he does not exist". That was the whole problem with your post.

There could be a planet circling a blue giant in M33 in Andromeda. Statisically this is very likely, but without evidence will you believe this, or state it to be the case?

I'm not sure of the specifics for that star system, but given the chances of at least one planet orbiting a star seem to be about 4:1 in favor I could consider that a good reason to believe (justification) but that too has absolutely nothing to do with knowledge - No probabilistic estimates could ever be considered knowledge in my opinion, not even a 99.9999% chance, the best you could say is that it is extremely likely that the event in question will happen but you could never say you know that event will happen.

---

Naturalism is neutral, where theism is a focus on the positive. I personally understand that to be a preferable outlook. In naturalism I'm subject to life wherever it may take me; where in theism I aspire to more. I choose to interpret natural as divine.

These are not questions of personal preference though Fr0ds, they are questions about the fundamental nature of reality - such things are completely aside from which option seems more 'positive' to us - Unless you mean theism as a 'positive proposition' as opposed to naturalism as a tentative conclusion in which case I gota wonder why you think that making a positive claim about reality makes the proposition it's self better, after all belief in Tinkerbell is a positive belief, I hardly think you would state that belief to be better for the individual than a lack of belief in Tinkerbell...

You might aspire to more beyond the natural life we have, but that again has no impact on whether or not it is true, you could find that you have wasted a good portion of your time partaking in this train of thought only to find it does not exist, in that sense your aspirations may have lead you in the wrong direction resulting in your time being spent inefficiently, however your subjective satisfaction in the belief may make up for any opportunity cost (the opportunity to live as reality is and the satisfaction that can bring), in that case I couldn't say theism is any worse for the individual under a naturalistic context.

I can only relate my own experience where happiness in the two places is very different.

There is also the opportunity to study the relevant statistics which paint a picture that is significantly different, such as the World Peace Index and similar endeavors. I'm not saying that this negates your own subjective experience in any way, but it could well be that your problems before finding theism could have been resolved by other measures and experiences, you'll probably never know but if it works for you and you value subjective satisfaction over being objective as possible in forming beliefs then why the hell not.

I couldn't have achieved that in any other way I could imagine. The closest I could clone to my theism would still be a poorer copy of my theism. Your experience may be different. If that were indeed true, I'd expect it to be essentially the same. If there were a better way of attaining that I'd jump at it and abandon my current position. I don't see how anyone wouldn't.

You would abandon your theism if you believed that another position would make your happier/expand your potential for happiness? That is truly the point at which we diverge, I couldn't make myself seek happiness over truth in any circumstance.

Love in a naturalist worldview is limited to the personal, where in a theistic worldview it has to be external as well. The whole experience of life is related to an external force for good.

Of course that is the conceptual difference, however the experience of such emotions are identical, a theist has no more capacity to experience these things than a naturalist does - That may well be something you would expect in some theistic worldviews, it could almost act as a falsification in some circumstances.

I just think that generally, love is the stronger force. Yes in the detail that's not true, but theoretically. Posthumous justice might explain any discrepancies in the detail.

I would agree that it is a stronger 'force' so far as humans generally seem more inclined to love than violence (at least in out culture) for whatever reasons (almost certainly evolutionary from a naturalist position).

[Welsh cake]

Plus, It would be interesting to see if anyone has a more original argument than Deist Paladin's argument from homosexuality

NEVER! I remain king of this hill! Come try to knock me off if you can!

Is that the Queer Duck theory of religion?

Forget proving the existence of God for one minute, someone please explain to me why that duck has teeth.

[Ashendant]

There's only two real limits that should be set on sexuality sapience(because otherwise it's bestiality) and maturity(there are real immature people that shouldn't have sex and children)

...and of course consent.

yes of course can't believe i forgot about that one