Bad Arguments for God

[Judas BentHer]

Every argument for god is a bad argument.

Yes, but there are very common arguments such as Pascal's Wager, to which the more slippery theists will cling. I think atheists need to spend a lot more time on crap like that, because attacking the Bible and hypocrisy rarely works.

I agree. No theist is going to be persuaded by the facts so as to realize the absurdity of the myth they live their life to support, because the fear paradigm that keeps it all together has convinced them that if they think about it and then leave because they can no longer follow the lie, that their loving god will turn his vengeance upon them and they shall suffer hell.

I think a lot of theists are more like those who hold faith to what Pascal's wager describes, than they do to the faith itself. What can it hurt to live as if it might be true, As if faking it could fool a god that could exist., when after life there's no consequence if it wasn't and only reward if it was.

I believe there's a flying pink dinosaur in the trunk of my car that coughs up giant gold bricks the third Saturday of every month. I just wish she'd finally come out from hiding near the spare and reward me for my faith, given what gold is worth today.

[Spectrum]

Yes, but there are very common arguments such as Pascal's Wager

"Pascal's Wager" is an argument for their specific god not god in general. Ask some shitstain who is using it what he would do if he found himself facing Odin and Odin wants to know why he didn't die with a sword in his hand. They will quickly get off it while shrieking that Odin is false but their vision of the sky-daddy is real.

Pragmatically, we should worry about those specifics, as Christianity is the hugest problem child of religion.

[Minimalist]

I keep my sword by my bed just in case I feel the big one coming on. Compared to the boring xtian heaven Valhalla sounds like a rocking place!

[MilesTailsPrower]

I end up being sent metaphorically to hell. But that's just a good way to end an argument, not make one.

[Ace Otana]

Yes, but there are very common arguments such as Pascal's Wager

"Pascal's Wager" is an argument for their specific god not god in general. Ask some shitstain who is using it what he would do if he found himself facing Odin and Odin wants to know why he didn't die with a sword in his hand. They will quickly get off it while shrieking that Odin is false but their vision of the sky-daddy is real.

Which leads to special pleading. So very predictable. It's becoming routine.

Yes, but there are very common arguments such as Pascal's Wager, to which the more slippery theists will cling. I think atheists need to spend a lot more time on crap like that, because attacking the Bible and hypocrisy rarely works.

We don't have to spend any time on anything. Just call'em stupid or deluded...or both and be done with it.
Or just use Occam's Razer which seems to destroys every theist argument.

[Frosty]

All of the arguments for god are bad arguments, if there was a good argument for god there would be no atheists.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh I do love linking this website.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

[yoda55]

I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of poor and inconsistent arguments for the existence of God.
I wrote an article on my website which points out the flaws and incoherence of the teleological and cosmological arguments.
Check it out at http://www.blazingtruth.com/2011/07/god-...-universe/
Is there anything I missed? Discuss it below.
Thank you for your time,
D

Perhaps the logic used in the link should be re-examined:
teleological -
The lame quoted "discussion" (about scientist-discovery vs. Christian-argument) of gravity values... The problem with the quotation and your conclusion is that gravity (for any celestial body; earth in particular) are approximations. Gravity, as it exists, is EXACTLY what it needs to be. The numbers appearing in the quotation are the results of rounding errors, stemming from the mathematical approximation model used to generate it. Using a single value for gravity is incorrect (though convenient). Gravity varies over the entire earth, susceptible to terrain irregularities and non-uniform mineral deposits. The latest *approximation* to earth's shape is an oblate spheroid... Example of the problem - recite the value of Pi... No, don't approximate. Just start listing the decimal places.
Darwin's *theory* of evolution. Again, the human being (finite and fallible) is attempting to describe, through approximations, an exacting universe. The text is trying to contrast a God (omniscient, omni-present, omnipotent, etc.) against a thinking individual furthest from that. Is the latter *theory* been proven? No. As yet, claimants point to the lack of contradiction as justification for its "truth". But, the *theory* was postulated by an individual with no access to the very building block blueprints which cause a living organism to become what it is (DNA)... Be that as it may, just because the contradiction has not yet been uncovered does not validate the *theory* as FACT. Anyone with some knowledge of mathematics and logic should recognize that point.
Paleantologists (sp?) search through acres of dirt to determine a timeline. They use radioactive carbon dating as their tool to assign age to objects found. However, upheavals in geologics over the centuries have re-arranged the radioactive carbon material. And, by so doing yield a false reading to any sample. Unreliable tools contribute to errors in conclusions.
The statement made (assuming ID were true) points to the possibility of "at least one" god. That would be enough to debunk atheism (by its very definition).

cosmological -
The rule of "cause and effect" is a quality of the universe which we occupy. The logic error is trying to confine a god within a very universe he made. The universe (of the Judeo-Christian god) didn't exist prior to the creatione event - it was made and set into motion by the creation event. Therefore, that god wasn't subject to the rules of that universe - the rules didn't exist and that god is not bound by them.
This universe is subject to a LAW of entropy. That supposes a beginning at the opposite end of that spectrum. If the 'big bang' is a human attempt to explain the beginning of all universal matter, then there's a glitch. Science claims that the *theory* is discontinous with the Singularity which pre-dated it. The *theory* has not been able to bridge the gap between the two. A Singularity is a static condition of a 0-D system. Flow of energy from kinetic to potential (and recirculation back, in this universe) requires a sink to collect the potential. It happens that the Singularity kinetic source would have to co-exist with the potential sink... Does that contradict? Yes. The Singularity (by accident) cannot give birth to a 4-D universe, behaving by the rules we see. So, science has a contradiction problem with the *theory* of 'big bang', and another explanation for the universe is still out there.
Another idea to contemplate - human beings were not present at the beginning. There are no witnesses. As the universe beginning pre-dates human existence, humans do NOT have the answers. So, rejecting a possibility out-of-hand is to emphasize the statistical error problem. Too few observations runs the risk of Type II error (embracing falshood, accepting something as true when it is not). Going in the other direction of too many observations runs the risk of Type I error (rejecting truth, ignoring something when it it true).

To ignore the answer that a god exists, out-of-hand, is to risk a rude awakening (with consequences that have lasting effects) - so ends the atheist, no option of mercy. Keeping an open mind, and seeking truth, permits mercy to be granted.

[The Grand Nudger]

Tel: If we granted those that wished to use a teleological argument every false premise, we would still be able to ask "Which God?". Debunk atheism at your leisure.

Cos: There is no cosmological argument that is not completely circular. Kalam is said to be an improvement, but it was merely an attempt to avoid circular reasoning by restating it's premise.
(which it failed to do, in that it cannot offer anything other than god as a "thing which did not begin to exist". In other words, it still begins with "God Exists")

[Ant]

I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of poor and inconsistent arguments for the existence of God.
I wrote an article on my website which points out the flaws and incoherence of the teleological and cosmological arguments.
Check it out at http://www.blazingtruth.com/2011/07/god-...-universe/
Is there anything I missed? Discuss it below.
Thank you for your time,
D

Perhaps the logic used in the link should be re-examined:
teleological -
The lame quoted "discussion" (about scientist-discovery vs. Christian-argument) of gravity values... The problem with the quotation and your conclusion is that gravity (for any celestial body; earth in particular) are approximations. Gravity, as it exists, is EXACTLY what it needs to be. The numbers appearing in the quotation are the results of rounding errors, stemming from the mathematical approximation model used to generate it. Using a single value for gravity is incorrect (though convenient). Gravity varies over the entire earth, susceptible to terrain irregularities and non-uniform mineral deposits. The latest *approximation* to earth's shape is an oblate spheroid... Example of the problem - recite the value of Pi... No, don't approximate. Just start listing the decimal places.
Darwin's *theory* of evolution. Again, the human being (finite and fallible) is attempting to describe, through approximations, an exacting universe. The text is trying to contrast a God (omniscient, omni-present, omnipotent, etc.) against a thinking individual furthest from that. Is the latter *theory* been proven? No. As yet, claimants point to the lack of contradiction as justification for its "truth". But, the *theory* was postulated by an individual with no access to the very building block blueprints which cause a living organism to become what it is (DNA)... Be that as it may, just because the contradiction has not yet been uncovered does not validate the *theory* as FACT. Anyone with some knowledge of mathematics and logic should recognize that point.
Paleantologists (sp?) search through acres of dirt to determine a timeline. They use radioactive carbon dating as their tool to assign age to objects found. However, upheavals in geologics over the centuries have re-arranged the radioactive carbon material. And, by so doing yield a false reading to any sample. Unreliable tools contribute to errors in conclusions.
The statement made (assuming ID were true) points to the possibility of "at least one" god. That would be enough to debunk atheism (by its very definition).

cosmological -
The rule of "cause and effect" is a quality of the universe which we occupy. The logic error is trying to confine a god within a very universe he made. The universe (of the Judeo-Christian god) didn't exist prior to the creatione event - it was made and set into motion by the creation event. Therefore, that god wasn't subject to the rules of that universe - the rules didn't exist and that god is not bound by them.
This universe is subject to a LAW of entropy. That supposes a beginning at the opposite end of that spectrum. If the 'big bang' is a human attempt to explain the beginning of all universal matter, then there's a glitch. Science claims that the *theory* is discontinous with the Singularity which pre-dated it. The *theory* has not been able to bridge the gap between the two. A Singularity is a static condition of a 0-D system. Flow of energy from kinetic to potential (and recirculation back, in this universe) requires a sink to collect the potential. It happens that the Singularity kinetic source would have to co-exist with the potential sink... Does that contradict? Yes. The Singularity (by accident) cannot give birth to a 4-D universe, behaving by the rules we see. So, science has a contradiction problem with the *theory* of 'big bang', and another explanation for the universe is still out there.
Another idea to contemplate - human beings were not present at the beginning. There are no witnesses. As the universe beginning pre-dates human existence, humans do NOT have the answers. So, rejecting a possibility out-of-hand is to emphasize the statistical error problem. Too few observations runs the risk of Type II error (embracing falshood, accepting something as true when it is not). Going in the other direction of too many observations runs the risk of Type I error (rejecting truth, ignoring something when it it true).

To ignore the answer that a god exists, out-of-hand, is to risk a rude awakening (with consequences that have lasting effects) - so ends the atheist, no option of mercy. Keeping an open mind, and seeking truth, permits mercy to be granted.

Unlearn you must!

Teleological

You’re quite right: Science does not *prove* anything, nor does it claim to. Scientists are happy to say, “We don’t know the answer.” That is their motivation to do science, to find as many answers as they can. Religionists, however, arrogantly say, “We do know the answer, and it is God.” But that answer tells us precisely nothing about how the world and the cosmos works.

Science continually seeks to falsify or validate hypotheses, hypotheses which are based on empirical evidence and have empirically testable predictions, to build theories and models that provide the best description of how the world and the cosmos works in light of our current state of empirical knowledge. All theories and models — and scientific “laws” — are, indeed, in principle tentative and may be revised or discarded in light of new empirical evidence. Hence, science does only approach “the Truth” asymptotically. However, some theories (e.g. evolution, quantum theory, gravity) are so comprehensively validated by empirical evidence, that to regard them as untrue, to expect that they might be wholly contradicted by some new evidence, is irrational. (Note also that some old models are still valid within certain bounds. Newtonian gravitation is still an applicable model for most quotidian purposes.)

I’m not sure what point you were trying to make by noting that Darwin wasn’t aware of DNA. Darwin wasn’t even aware of Mendel’s foundational work on genetics, yet in Origin he reasoned that there must be some such mechanism. Thus, the emergence of genetic theory, and the later discovery of DNA, only goes to validate Darwin’s prediction and corroborate the theory. In fact: “The evidence of evolution pours in, not only from geology, paleontology, biogeography, and anatomy (Darwin’s chief sources), but from molecular biology and every other branch of the life sciences. To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant — inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write.” (Daniel Dennett)

Your criticisms of carbon dating are simply naïve. This is just another religionist canard. The limits of the reliability of carbon dating are well understood. Furthermore, scientists use a variety of other, quite independent tools to date geographic strata. And, guess what? Within error bars, they agree!

Why should we assume ID is true? It has no explanatory power, it makes no empirically testable predictions, and there is no empirical evidence that even suggests that ID is a better description of how the world works. It is not even a sound hypothesis, let alone a theory.

Cosmological

Much of what you say here – “the universe is subject to a LAW of entropy”, “a 4-D universe”, “kinetic and potential energy” – demonstrates your naïvety about physics in general and cosmology in particular. For example, from Sean Carroll: “It was Boltzmann who long ago realized that the Second Law [of Thermodynamics], which says that the entropy of a closed system never decreases, isn’t quite an absolute ‘law.’ It’s just a statement of overwhelming probability: there are so many more ways to be high-entropy (chaotic, disorderly) than to be low-entropy (arranged, orderly) that almost anything a system might do will move it toward higher entropy. But not absolutely anything; we can imagine very, very unlikely events in which entropy actually goes down. In fact we can do better than just imagine: this has been observed in the lab.” [My emphasis.]

Yes, Big Bang theory is a human attempt to explain the beginning of the universe (not just all universal matter) – and actually, it does it rather well. Just like the other theories mentioned above, it is so comprehensively validated by empirical evidence, that to regard it as untrue is irrational. Yes, it is an incomplete theory, but there is no glitch like the one you describe. The total energy of the universe is zero: The energy of all matter (which includes rest energy as well as kinetic energy) and radiation, all dark matter and dark energy, is offset by the “potential” energy of gravity. This is very well understood (see Hawking and Mlodinow’s The Grand Design for a popular account). Victor Stenger and others have argued that physics demands that there is something rather than nothing since nothing is highly unstable, so it seems to be almost inevitable that the universe exists.

But it didn’t come from a singularity: A singularity is unphysical and is in fact ruled out by quantum theory. (It really exists only in “classical” versions of the Big Bang theory.) Even if it did exist, it is logically invalid to say that it “pre-dated” the universe. (What is North of the North pole?)

And of course human beings were not present at the beginning. But there are witnesses – us! – and we do have at least some answers! A huge number of astrophysical observations that have been made in a human lifetime – most famously the motion of galaxies and the cosmic microwave background radiation – predicted and subsequently validated the theory.

(Allow me a tu quoque: Where was Moses when God said fiat lux!?)

On keeping an open mind

Scientists do not ignore the “answer” that a god exists, out-of-hand. (And clearly you do not mean all scientists as some scientists do have faith in a deity.) Yet, quite simply, there is not one shred of empirical evidence that one does, nor is one necessary to explain how the world works. Laplace (early C19): “Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.” Ingersoll (1872): “‘But,’ says the religionist, ‘you cannot explain everything; you cannot understand everything; and that which you cannot explain, that which you do not comprehend, is my God.’ We are explaining more every day. We are understanding more every day; consequently your God is growing smaller every day.” (And think how much smaller God is now than he was Ingersoll’s day!)

If any “supernatural” entity exists and intercedes in the natural world, then it must have natural effects that are amenable to scientific inquiry. The fact that we see no evidence for such effects anywhere in the world or cosmos, at any time, does not falsify the hypothesis, but makes holding the hypothesis valid irrational. This applies equally to ghosts, fairies, Thor, Zeus, the Abrahamic God, Santa Claus, and so on.

Thus, scientists do not ignore the “answer,” they just see it as a baseless one.

/@