Best argument against god

[arfa brane]

That is not evidence of the existence of god. That is evidence that people believed in a god. Huge difference.

So what you meant to say is that thousands of years of evidence that people believed in a god is not evidence of the existence of a god?

And writings like the OT were simply mythology?

Mythology doesn't cut it, because there is zero evidence for the existence of any of the mythical gods, apart from historical events like the Crusades, in which people (on both sides) believed there was plenty of evidence?

Or, you meant to say events like the Crusades were based on belief in mythology, whereas there is zero evidence that myths are real?

 

[Believe]

So what you meant to say is that thousands of years of evidence that people believed ina god is not evidence of the existence of a god?

And writings like the OT were simply mythology?

I believe in God but I also believe that the OT is pretty much mythology, why would anyone who doesn't believe in God think its anything else?

Sure they have found some of the old sites (sodom and gomorrah), but some of them are legends. We know this because we find some of the same stories (noah/great flood) in legends from other civilizations that are even older then the bible (Sumerian). For example the Noah story is most likely a retelling of the filling of the Mediterranean basin.

 

[arfa brane]

Why is the OT "pretty much mythology" and why do you believe that?

Are myths important because we can dismiss them, or are they important because we can't dismiss them?

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

I think they can be bases in fact when it comes to myths . More than we typically give credit to. I think the flood event was a series of tsunamis over a period of 100s of years . 12,000 years ago My city of Missoula was a flood event and am sure it equated to tsunamis in the pacific ocean felt far and wide . Any coastal people for several miles inland would have been affected . I think if this event happened in the scab lands of Washington state and washed out the ocean in tsunami forms that the same type of even could have been occurring at other locations in the world simultaneously. It is said that the Lake Missoula event happened 40 to a 100 times before the event stopped happening . A wall of water washing out to sea from the collapse of huge ice dams that created some of the biggest fresh water supplies ever to be . It washes huge boulders many many miles and scrub the land raw . That is why the area is called " The Scab Lands "
Google it . It is a real event

 

[wynn]

Brilliant!
Kind of like there is no difference whether you do or do not treat a disease.

Try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who has not yet come to their religion, but considers doing so, and is perplexed by the multitude of options:
On the grounds of what do you believe that a person's choice in religious is relevant?


Personally, when I think of the possibility that the Abrahamic religions may be right, I become apathetic. With them in the group of options, the very concept of the choice of religion becomes meaningless, as to try to adhere to the Abrahamic religions is hell, and one is guaranteed hell if one doesn't choose (one of) them. So from that perspective, any religious choice results in hell.

I don't understand how to deal with the possibility of eternal damnation, or how to get myself to be willing to risk eternal damnation.

 

[Mr MacGillivray]

What is the best argument against God you've ever heard?

The best argument against God is that there exists none for god.

 

[keith1]

OR perhaps our world is only actually small potatoes. If your only alive on this world for 80 years and you spend another 10,000,000 years in the after life which would you focus on?

Then all you require to negate your belief, is a genetic vaccination that allows you to live to be 10,000,000 years. Your limiters seem as suspect as your beliefs.

If (a) God came along and bailed us out every time we messed up we would still be living in caves and relying on it for everything.

Then a god that promises to bail us out in the afterlife promises us 10,000,000 years of living in caves. oona zug zug.

 

[river]

What is the best argument against God you've ever heard?

god is fallible

If you are an atheist, and don't mind sharing, what is the single biggest reason you don't believe in the Christian god.

biggest reason , because in the end he enslaves Humanity

 

[wynn]

And LG lets us down again!

 

[Believe]

Then all you require to negate your belief, is a genetic vaccination that allows you to live to be 10,000,000 years. Your limiters seem as suspect as your beliefs.


Then a god that promises to bail us out in the afterlife promises us 10,000,000 years of living in caves. oona zug zug.

And my beliefs are suspect because....? You have no basis to question what I do and do not believe, besides just being an asshole that is.

 

[keith1]

And my beliefs are suspect because....? You have no basis to question what I do and do not believe, besides just being an asshole that is.

Your beliefs are suspect because I shot down their believable rationale. I have every basis to question what you do, and do not believe. By your ability to name-call, you further my suspicions you are not capable of competent debate.

 

[Socratic Spelunker]

I hope chimpkin will forgive me for jumping in.

This one is largely a response to the teleological argument (argument from design) and is probably most easily expressed in terms of the watchmaker analogy. Dawkins is essentially saying that the watchmaker (God) is necessarily even more complex (or ordered or perfect) than the watch (the universe), and therefore it is even more improbable that God has just been sitting around forever (without a creator).

I'll admit I have not read dawkins book, though I have been meaning too, but I still don't understand why a creator MUST be more complex than the creation.

 

[SciWriter]

The simpleton and wrong-direction concept of a Highest and Fundamental Intelligence accounting for the universe and our life in it through this Intelligence’s thinking, planning, creation, and ongoing maintenance is an utter failure of an idea because this Intelligence itself has to then be Irreducibly Complex, which even by the Creationist’s own arguments cannot be so and thus must then all the more have INTELLIGENCE behind it, and then even more, ad infinitum.

As such it can never be, but the real reason is that complexity’s parts must ever precede a system’s by a long way and so one has identified the complete wrong end of the spectrum (complexity) as being fundamental rather than the simplest of the components. Thus the dead end and the absolute non showing of the concept which couldn’t even be more wrong than it is.

 

[Socratic Spelunker]

I didnt get a word of that. I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm serious, I'm really not too familiar with the nuances of this argument. Can I get it in simple terms, please?

 

[kx000]

There is no argument for or against God. These threads are getting old quick.

 

[Big Chiller]

The simpleton and wrong-direction concept of a Highest and Fundamental Intelligence accounting for the universe and our life in it through this Intelligence’s thinking, planning, creation, and ongoing maintenance is an utter failure of an idea because this Intelligence itself has to then be Irreducibly Complex, which even by the Creationist’s own arguments cannot be so and thus must then all the more have INTELLIGENCE behind it, and then even more, ad infinitum.

As such it can never be, but the real reason is that complexity’s parts must ever precede a system’s by a long way and so one has identified the complete wrong end of the spectrum (complexity) as being fundamental rather than the simplest of the components. Thus the dead end and the absolute non showing of the concept which couldn’t even be more wrong than it is.

This argument of yours is based on your premise that the greatest complexity leads to the greatest being. On the contrary the greatest being is simply categorically incomparable to anything in the universe and also not subject to any physical laws.

 

[leopold]

let me take a stab at this:
god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.
that one sentence alone will smash an all powerful supernatural being that is full of love and compassion for humanity, all you need to do is take one look around you.

 

[SciWriter]

This argument of yours is based on your premise that the greatest complexity leads to the greatest being. On the contrary the greatest being is simply categorically incomparable to anything in the universe and also not subject to any physical laws.

A Being is still a system of mind, no matter what the constituents it is dependent on.

There is no choice in ‘choosing’ an absolute truth, for it is but a philosophy with all the questions left out: a deception.

 

[Big Chiller]

I don't know what you mean by a system of mind, sounds like an assertion. It just seems to me that you've lost your mind.

 

[Socratic Spelunker]

There is no argument for or against God. These threads are getting old quick.

Actually, there are plenty of arguments in both comps. Whether or not any of them are any good is another matter.

I want to hear the argument regardless of its merit. I'm not trying to drum up drama. I'm actually just looking for ideas for an ongoing project.

Can someone please explain why a Creator MUST be more complex than its Creation.