Let's be honest

[arewethereyet]

Nah the abyss is far too polite to stare.

When I stare into the abyss, thr abyss pretends it wasn't looking, kinda shuffles its feet, and walks away embarrassed.

Smart move on the part of the abyss.  

[The Architect Of Fate]

Nah the abyss is far too polite to stare.

When I stare into the abyss, thr abyss pretends it wasn't looking, kinda shuffles its feet, and walks away embarrassed.

Well, they is kind of shy.

[Angrboda]

This thread has become abysmal.

[Thumpalumpacus]

OK, reaching out to my agnostic/atheist friends.  I'm very curious, genuinely interested, are there are "arguments" that theists have provided for proof of a God's existence (not even the Christian God), that you found compelling?  Or caused you to pause and perhaps say, there might be A God out there?

I found that when it's all broken down in most debates, an agnostic/atheist boils down to moral arguments/judgments against God, which in and of themselves does not disprove there being a God per se.  Just that they refuse to accept a God they find reprehensible.

No, even a Prime-Mover sort of god strikes me as very, very, very [...] unlikely to exist -- entirely apart from any proclaimed morals qualities. The fact that the Abrahamic god has qualities which implicitly contradict its proclaimed morality makes it that much easier to see through the tissue of nonsense.

So no, once I actually started thinking about the whole thing, I haven't found any religionist arguments compelling.

[Kingpin]

OK, reaching out to my agnostic/atheist friends.  I'm very curious, genuinely interested, are there are "arguments" that theists have provided for proof of a God's existence (not even the Christian God), that you found compelling?  Or caused you to pause and perhaps say, there might be A God out there?

I found that when it's all broken down in most debates, an agnostic/atheist boils down to moral arguments/judgments against God, which in and of themselves does not disprove there being a God per se.  Just that they refuse to accept a God they find reprehensible.

No, even a Prime-Mover sort of god strikes me as very, very, very [...] unlikely to exist -- entirely apart from any proclaimed morals qualities. The fact that the Abrahamic god has qualities which implicitly contradict its proclaimed morality makes it that much easier to see through the tissue of nonsense.

So no, once I actually started thinking about the whole thing, I haven't found any religionist arguments compelling.

We can address the confliction of perceived moral qualities later. As I'd honestly like to keep the God of the Bible and religion out of this discussion.

You mentioned a prime-mover.  For argument sake, we can call it the FSM.  An intelligent, spaceless, timeless, immaterial being if you will.  Not invoking any theology, quoiting the Bible, I believe there is sufficient evidence from science and logic to lead to the Prime Mover being VERY likely.  I find it fascinating that you mention you started thinking and came to the opposite conclusion, but that may be because of the religious arguments.  

To me the cosmological, teleological arguments are sufficient to lead me to this Prime Mover.  No question the universe (space, time, matter) had a beginning.  The fine tuning to make life possible is incredible.  It's not "chance and statistical probability", but design with purpose.  The bottom up theory (naturalism) is incredibly flawed and those that hold to it should question if they can trust any thoughts of their own mind (Charles Darwin espoused this argument too).

Lastly, if the Cosmo/Teleo argument point to a prime mover as the most plausible cause, the mover must also be personal.  Why?  To create something is a choice, it's rational to believe the prime mover is personal.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, yes yes yes. Anyone who believes in biology is a liar and a nut.

[Kingpin]

Yes, yes yes yes.  Anyone who believes in biology is a liar and a nut.

I fear you missed my point.  I don't deny biology, that's absurd.  I was quoting Darwin's own doubt in his theory of evolution:

"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy."

[Thumpalumpacus]

We can address the confliction of perceived moral qualities later. As I'd honestly like to keep the God of the Bible and religion out of this discussion.

Yeah, that part was speaking to the Big Three religions specifically, but my objections are more general.

You mentioned a prime-mover.  For argument sake, we can call it the FSM.  An intelligent, spaceless, timeless, immaterial being if you will.  Not invoking any theology, quoiting the Bible, I believe there is sufficient evidence from science and logic to lead to the Prime Mover being VERY likely.

You'll forgive me when I write that claims of having evidence without actually presenting said evidence is usually a warning that I'm going to need a crowbar to pry it out of you. What is this evidence you have? Be specific.

 

I find it fascinating that you mention you started thinking and came to the opposite conclusion, but that may be because of the religious arguments.  

Not so. It's because a being outside of time and space would probably have a hard time living inside time and space.

To me the cosmological, teleological arguments are sufficient to lead me to this Prime Mover.  No question the universe (space, time, matter) had a beginning. 

That hasn't been resolved as a matter of fact. The Big Bang seems to have initiated this incarnation of our Universe, but there's no saying that it wasn't simply a reorganization of the same energy in a previous incarnation.

The fine tuning to make life possible is incredible.  It's not "chance and statistical probability", but design with purpose.

This is where you're taking leave of your senses. The vast, vast majority of this universe is so hostile to life that you would instantaneously die in 99.99999999999%+ of all locales. The fact that we evolved on Earth is precisely why we are adapted to its conditions, and precisely why we seem to have a harder time of it on, say, the Moon, which would just as soon kill you as to show you some "fine-tuning".

In short, this is the puddle of water marveling at how exquisitely the pothole is shaped to fit the water exactly.

 

The bottom up theory (naturalism) is incredibly flawed and those that hold to it should question if they can trust any thoughts of their own mind (Charles Darwin espoused this argument too).

Or so you say. Is this another one of those "I've got evidence but I'm not showing it" moments? How is it that a naturalistic outlook produces so many predictable effects, while blind faith produces precious little except schism and war?

Lastly, if the Cosmo/Teleo argument point to a prime mover as the most plausible cause, the mover must also be personal.  Why?  To create something is a choice, it's rational to believe the prime mover is personal.

That's a non sequitur. What if an AI program chooses to create a piece of music? Is it now a person?

In essence, you've waved away scientific knowledge with a sweeping gesture, and supplanted it with your own personal feelings. I'm unconvinced and unimpressed; this is just more of the same stuff I've been hearing from believers for thirty years, shorn of the Christian overlay in order to sound more rational.

It doesn't.

I'm not interested in discussing this any further with you unless and until you present evidence and/or rational support for your claims. Until then, have a great day.

[Mister Agenda]

I became a devout United Pentecostal when I was very young, did the whole speaking in tongues thing, and got baptized at 14. In a fit of devotion I resolved to read the Bible cover-to-cover. First I read the KJV, and then I read the Living Bible to make sure the King's English hadn't confused me. It had not, and the moral issues the Bible raised made me stop being a Christian. I basically had too high an opinion of God to believe the Bible was written by him or was inspired by him. So I was an agnostic theist for about 20-ish years, I believed there had to be some sort of God to at least get things rolling.

Of course, until I was well in my 20s I also believed in alien visitations, cryptids, ESP, spirits, and telekinesis. When a couple of teenagers broke the Duke Universtiy ESP protocols, which I thought had scientifically proven the existence of ESP, I started to become more skeptical. Gradually over the years I stopped taking that stuff seriously, but though I grew more skeptical towards God as well, I still didn't have the imagination to conceive of a godless universe.

Then I finally finished college in my mid-30s and learned some cosmology and logic. When I finally had the tools to rationally evaluate arguments and evidence, my belief in any version of God fell away. I took some religon courses too and found none of the arguments that were supposed to persuade me God is real stood up to scrutiny. At this point I think I've heard all of them. At first I used to be very interested in finding a new argument that would change my mind, but was always disappointed and can't summon much hope that someone will ever present such an argument, and I've come to think you can't prove the existence of something that way, anyway. If anything, all the flawed apologetics I've encountered have only convinced me that my position is the most reasonable one to take.

There may be 500 arguments for the existence of God, but you only need one that actually works. The moral issue is one of the things that makes the Abrahamic God have contradictory proposed attributes; but no god I've ever heard proposed meets a reasonable burden of proof. The very best anyone seems to manage for a captial C Creator is the God of deism; who has no contradictory attributes and only suffers from a lack of a good reason to think it's really real.

[Mister Agenda]

Yes, yes yes yes.  Anyone who believes in biology is a liar and a nut.

I fear you missed my point.  I don't deny biology, that's absurd.  I was quoting Darwin's own doubt in his theory of evolution:

"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy."

We know our perceptions and reasoning are biased and flawed due to our evolutionary heritage. Fortunately we have come up with a method that allows us to realty-check our perceptions and reasoning; compensation for those limitations in a vast number of cases. And we've learned a lot about how, exactly, our perceptions and reasoning are biased and flawed.