Open invitation: best arguments for God

[Rye]

All abrahamic faiths have had pantheistic philosophers at some point and not all pantheistic "classical" gods are Brahma. In fact, pantheism is even compatible with atheism, since a natural universe being the source of religious experience doesn't contradict atheism anywhere.

I'd like to see how those philosophers reconcile the pantheistic definition of god with the narrative of the Torah/Bible/Koran which makes explicit that we're dealing with a single distinct entity.

It's not especially difficult; the god of the Bible is considered to be omnipresent and immanent in most branches of Christianity, and Judaism had similar ideas, the god in kabbalah, for instance. There's several points of the OT where God is described in monistic terms, i.e. it is good and evil, it is everything and everywhere, and in the NT is described as the alpha and the omega. Similarly, more liberal interpretations allow for the more local, interventionist god of the Bible to be an entirely mythical representation of the concept, to teach morals or to serve other cultural purposes.

Also, out of curiosity, which other religions are pantheistic?

Spinozan pantheism, scientific pantheism, various neopagan religions, animist and other "primitive" religions frequently have more nature-based beliefs.

Lastly... if you believe in no God but believe the universe is god, you have a contradiction, so technically pantheism is compatible with the naturalist worldview, not the atheistic one. I don't care for pantheism myself, its too redundant to be worthwhile.

Not really. The "theism" part isn't actually key to its definition, going by the descriptions of Spinoza, Einstein et al. Einstein used "God" metaphorically all the time to refer to natural process and the religious reverence he had for it.

[Formless]

In any case, if a christian is using pantheism as his definition of god, he's conceding a lot of ground. For example, he can no longer say that morals come from God without committing a de facto naturalistic fallacy. You can also start to really hammer them on their religious doctrines and force them into taking a far less literalistic view of the bible. Rhetorically, that's a debate you can win.

[Samuel]

Maybe evolution makes perfect sence in your country but in mine I still come across many people who actually think it is stupid and I cant fight them because I dont know much about it myself. Do any off you know where a can find good definition and defence of evolution in simple English? It is my second lenguage and I still have some problems with bilological words.

Living things vary. Some have traits that make them more likely to survive and mate. These traits are heritable. Over time they displace traits that do not give such an advantage.

There is more to it (sexual selection, genetic drift), but that is natural selection in a nutshell and it is the basis of evolution.

with them usually taking the "I can imagine it, so it must be possible" stance, no matter how many invisible pink unicorns living under pillows I throw at them.

You can get far by accepting their premises and shooting them back at them. For example, you can imagine they are actually x and insist on it unless they prove otherwise. And keep changing the required proof or make it untestable. If they disagree tell them "we will just have to agree to disagree".

By god do you mean the Christian one or any form of god or gods?

Any and all.

Introducing...the argument from coincidence!

Actually that can be used to argue any conspiracy theory.

[CarsonPalmer]

In any case, if a christian is using pantheism as his definition of god, he's conceding a lot of ground. For example, he can no longer say that morals come from God without committing a de facto naturalistic fallacy. You can also start to really hammer them on their religious doctrines and force them into taking a far less literalistic view of the bible. Rhetorically, that's a debate you can win.

If a Christian is using a pantheistic definition of God, he's probably not holding firm to too many bothersome religious doctrines or taking a very literalistic view of the Bible. You'd be occupying undefended ground.

[Formless]

In any case, if a christian is using pantheism as his definition of god, he's conceding a lot of ground. For example, he can no longer say that morals come from God without committing a de facto naturalistic fallacy. You can also start to really hammer them on their religious doctrines and force them into taking a far less literalistic view of the bible. Rhetorically, that's a debate you can win.

If a Christian is using a pantheistic definition of God, he's probably not holding firm to too many bothersome religious doctrines or taking a very literalistic view of the Bible. You'd be occupying undefended ground.

You say "probably": what are you basing this on? I've seen lots and lots of ways christians try and rationalize/compartmentalize their beliefs. I've employed quite a few in the past myself (see; god of the gaps rationalization).

[Simon_Jester]

The eight year old test only matters to someone who is dedicated to rational inquiry. These arguments aren't targeted at that kind of person, they're targeted at the already pious who are wavering in their faith and need some kind of moral booster to keep them willfully blind. So they are rhetorically effective because they can convince their intended audience, not because they actually hold up to scrutiny or baffle the guy they are arguing with.

But the ontological argument was seriously presented as a logical proof. It fails its intended purpose, and as rhetoric it's no better than any of a thousand other equally daft arguments. A good rhetorician can make almost anything sound palatable; that says more about the quality of the rhetoric than it does about the quality of the argument as rhetoric.

Living things vary. Some have traits that make them more likely to survive and mate. These traits are heritable. Over time they displace traits that do not give such an advantage.

There is more to it (sexual selection, genetic drift), but that is natural selection in a nutshell and it is the basis of evolution.

Or:

Living things make copies of themselves, unless they die first. Living things that are more likely to die don't get to make copies. Wait long enough, and there won't be any of them left; the only ones left will be the ones who had an advantage back in the early days.

Which is even more grossly oversimplified, but arguably even easier to understand.

[Formless]

The eight year old test only matters to someone who is dedicated to rational inquiry. These arguments aren't targeted at that kind of person, they're targeted at the already pious who are wavering in their faith and need some kind of moral booster to keep them willfully blind. So they are rhetorically effective because they can convince their intended audience, not because they actually hold up to scrutiny or baffle the guy they are arguing with.

But the ontological argument was seriously presented as a logical proof. It fails its intended purpose, and as rhetoric it's no better than any of a thousand other equally daft arguments. A good rhetorician can make almost anything sound palatable; that says more about the quality of the rhetoric than it does about the quality of the argument as rhetoric.

Look at who and where the Ontological argument came from. Religious people living in religious times. VERY religious times. And it still gets brought up occasionally as one of the Classic Three (Cosmological, ID, and Ontological arguments for god respectively). That it does not sound palatable to you personally is immaterial as to whether or not it is rhetorically effective: that its intended audience still thinks it's anything but a load of crap tells you it is.

Personal anecdote time: I was once in a general philosophy class and the subject of God was of course one of the items in the curriculum. Of the three arguments for god, the ontological one was the one everyone found the most confusing-- and also the hardest to pin down what exactly was wrong with it as stated. (they didn't have you're gift for summarizing an argument to highlight its absurdity, you see) It was only when the instructor added the words "IF god has these properties, then he must therefor exist" that people understood. And that wasn't even the strongest rebuttal you could use on it! Its that confusion of ideas, that subtly dishonest sleight of hand where epistemology is swapped with ontology semantics under the table to prove the point, that makes it rhetorically effective. If you state it the way you did then no one buys it; when you wrap it in flowery language and write it down as a logical proof you bamboozle people and make yourself look smarter than them. Its a classic bullshit artist technique: if all the smart people have left the room in frustration, you've won!

[RazorOutlaw]

But the ontological argument was seriously presented as a logical proof. It fails its intended purpose, and as rhetoric it's no better than any of a thousand other equally daft arguments. A good rhetorician can make almost anything sound palatable; that says more about the quality of the rhetoric than it does about the quality of the argument as rhetoric.

I can't disagree that a rhetorician would make a bad argument seem better. Looking back to what I read in "Masterpieces of World Philosophy", I would suggest that it's the before and after of St. Anslem's argument, where he establishes arguments for other Catholic concepts, that make the ontological argument seem OK at first. But you did make me feel very fucking stupid (Thank you very much ) for even thinking the argument could be considered "the most convincing". I was raised Catholic so it's easier, and more dangerous in a way, for me to accept some of what St. Anslem laid out because it's so familiar.

Its that confusion of ideas, that subtle dishonesty of mixing ontology semantics with epistemology to prove the existence of something, that makes it rhetorically effective. If you state it the way you do then no one buys it; when you wrap it in flowery language and write it down as a logical proof you bamboozle people and make yourself look smarter than them.

I've seen people attack the ontological argument this way before, and I was driven to the point of thinking "I don't think I grasp this enough to disagree with it." Even reading a summarized, "explained" version of the argument I was still left scratching my head. It was as if the editor had been borrowing completely from Monoslogion and Proslogion, that's how dense it was to me. This experience lead me to believe that A) there might be more to the argument than I know and B) somebody could actually buy this argument despite it being so weird.

[Formless]

You know, I forgot one argument that is damn near rhetorically perfect: the Appeal to the Afterlife. You afraid to die? God will save you. Therefor, he must exist or he couldn't save you. You must believe in him or he wont save you.

It's so predatory in its emotionally manipulative nature its delightfully disgusting.

[adam_grif]

The Ontological Argument is convincing for as long as it takes to get your head around what the fuck it's actually saying, at which point you realize how stupid it is. Generally speaking, most people have a lot of trouble doing this. I'm definitely agreeing with Formless on it being the most confusing argument for God.

Pascal's Wager is often employed very successfully, and most people never see the problem with it i.e. that it's only logical if the two possibilities are No God and Christian God, except that the whole point of the argument is that we don't have any certain knowledge, so any and all gods are equally likely, including ones that people have never thought of before, such as gods that send you to hell for believing in them.

[SirNitram]

Well, this is likely not a good argument, but I figure I should throw it up and see how it's slaughtered.

Gladly.

1) Universe exists. We can all agree on this.
2) The Universe began. We currently have no conception of how this could happen, and it would indeed provoke the feelings of awe, amazement, and beyond-the-beleivable to see the answer, that people associate with God.
3) Any cause, must therefore be God. Being a great pillar of fire on a mountain in the middle of the desert is not required. Water into wine is far less impressive than sunlight into wine, which is a result of this hypothesized 'God'.

1) IF the cause turns out to be intelligent scientists preforming experiments with a particle accelerator (thus meaning our universe is nested in another one like a matryoshka doll), would we therefor have to call these beings gods? And would we therefor have to call ourselves gods if we managed to do just that using the LHC? Note that this is no small question, as one of the goals of the LHC and other particle accelerator experiments (iirc) is to simulate the early universe-- we could in theory end up making a miniature universe within our universe this way.

Then someone at CERN needs to scribble 'A God Am I' somewhere on the LHC. Because yes, that would fit. It would even fit if one of the CERN scientists created this universe(Remember, causality isn't working in this question.).

2) who created god? To tie this with the previous point, if it turns out that god is a cosmic scientist not unlike ourselves, could it be that they are the result of similar experiments, and that its turtles all the way down like a fractal?

This requires proof of multiple universes.

3) building from the last two points, clearly God as a term has no explanatory power. It could refer to scientists experimenting with a particle accelerator or a massive supercomputer simulation or an author writing a novel of our lives or of course outright magic. The last part is the most damning, IMO, since "a wizard did it" is generally considered poor form in science, to say the least. So we're back where we started-- "we don't know." And that is arguably fine. Better to have no explanation than a wrong explanation.

The explanation is less important to my belief system than the pursuit of the reality. If I'm wrong, throw out the bad stuff and restart.

4) notice that this god does not have to be like the Abrahamic god-- in fact, as my particle accelerator hypothesis shows, we can't even be certain that there is only one god we're talking about here. In fact we aren't any closer to answering the question "who is god? Which religion is the right one?" It might not even be a sentient, sapient being-- would we really want to call an automatic process "god?" That sounds like you're stretching the term till it has no meaning at all.

I'm fine with calling the universe, as it is, God. It evokes the correct sensations from me at least.

5) modern physics suggests that time is an intrinsic property of the universe-- that is, nothing can cause the universe in the first place because time itself started when the universe started. So as incomprehensible as it is to a human mind, the question "what created the universe" itself may be meaningless.

Oh, definitely. It can also mean that causality is fucked; any cause can occour after the event, or be the event itself.

There you go! Five problems with your proposition. Enjoy!

I'm actually OK with all of them, save that I don't beleive we can get turtles all the way down. No information to suggest there's other universes, thus other scientists. If the creator is, say, in CERN at the LHC, then that's it.. He creates the universe, and the universe exists. Closed loop.

[Formless]

Oh, I see. You've defined god as being whatever caused the universe... even if this means that logically since the universe is either its own case or has no cause you would in effect have to consider the universe itself as being God (thus making your beliefs pantheistic, and from my perspective redundant as anything but a metaphor) and/or you would also have to concede that we humans are potential gods as well. At this point now that you have established that your god exists by fiat of the definition, I must ask... so what? This definition leads to no greater truths or understanding of the universe. It stretches the word so thin as to make it meaningless.

[Channel72]

The Ontological Argument is one of the worst arguments for theism, simply because most people don't even understand it. I've never actually seen it used as a serious argument in a modern debate. But don't worry, Christian apologists have come up with an even more ridiculous argument: The Transcendental Argument for God (TAG). This argument bypasses all the usual fuss and simply proclaims that logic cannot exist unless God exists (also for some reason God = Christian God), therefore atheism is self-refuting. Strangely, many apologists I've interacted with believe this is an incredibly powerful argument.

Other versions of TAG argue that since logic applies everywhere, independent of humanity or even the physical universe, it demonstrates that logic exists in some kind of extra-universal, transcendent mind (i.e. God.) However, in the same way that the old Ontological Argument conflates the conceptual with the physical, TAG conflates logic, which is merely a formal system developed by humans, with some sort of externally-imposed universal law.

[Simon_Jester]

The Ontological Argument is one of the worst arguments for theism, simply because most people don't even understand it.

Once you understand it, I think it's hard to promote it with a straight face unless you're either:
-The sort of person who believes in unicorns, or
-Such a good liar that there are other, far more effective ways for you to do the job.

But yeah, I agree with Formless: the Ontological Argument may not be the most rhetorically effective argument for the existence of God, and it's certainly not the most convincing one, but it's the most confusing one, hands down. Which can be used to rhetorical effect: "This person who has a bigger vocabulary than me says that God exists. Therefore, God exists."

[SirNitram]

Oh, I see. You've defined god as being whatever caused the universe... even if this means that logically since the universe is either its own case or has no cause you would in effect have to consider the universe itself as being God (thus making your beliefs pantheistic, and from my perspective redundant as anything but a metaphor) and/or you would also have to concede that we humans are potential gods as well. At this point now that you have established that your god exists by fiat of the definition, I must ask... so what? This definition leads to no greater truths or understanding of the universe. It stretches the word so thin as to make it meaningless.

Greater truths are not what I seek from religion. I have science for that. I simply wish a God which causes me the feelings of awe and amazement.. And I get it from my outlook. You may be disdainful of what I want out of my irrational beliefs, but the nature of irrational beliefs means they don't need rational answers or explanations.

[Formless]

Oh, I see. You've defined god as being whatever caused the universe... even if this means that logically since the universe is either its own case or has no cause you would in effect have to consider the universe itself as being God (thus making your beliefs pantheistic, and from my perspective redundant as anything but a metaphor) and/or you would also have to concede that we humans are potential gods as well. At this point now that you have established that your god exists by fiat of the definition, I must ask... so what? This definition leads to no greater truths or understanding of the universe. It stretches the word so thin as to make it meaningless.

Greater truths are not what I seek from religion. I have science for that. I simply wish a God which causes me the feelings of awe and amazement.. And I get it from my outlook. You may be disdainful of what I want out of my irrational beliefs, but the nature of irrational beliefs means they don't need rational answers or explanations.

Hmm... I see. I get feelings of awe and amazement without the need to label that feeling "god." I call that feeling "wonder," and for me it comes in part from science-- it always has. But for me, if god is just a label, I have plenty of other labels I can use. An infinite supply no less, since there are always labels that haven't been invented yet.

[Samuel]

The Ontological Argument is one of the worst arguments for theism, simply because most people don't even understand it. I've never actually seen it used as a serious argument in a modern debate. But don't worry, Christian apologists have come up with an even more ridiculous argument: The Transcendental Argument for God (TAG). This argument bypasses all the usual fuss and simply proclaims that logic cannot exist unless God exists (also for some reason God = Christian God), therefore atheism is self-refuting. Strangely, many apologists I've interacted with believe this is an incredibly powerful argument.

Other versions of TAG argue that since logic applies everywhere, independent of humanity or even the physical universe, it demonstrates that logic exists in some kind of extra-universal, transcendent mind (i.e. God.) However, in the same way that the old Ontological Argument conflates the conceptual with the physical, TAG conflates logic, which is merely a formal system developed by humans, with some sort of externally-imposed universal law.

I think logic is a property of the universe and doesn't exist indepently. I can't test this as I don't have any other universes I could check to see if this holds true though.

[TheManWithNoName]

Perhaps the most annoying thing I see when arguing is one of the following:

"Science doesn't deal with the supernatural."

"God's omnipotence means he's not subject to...*insert something here, like natural laws, logic etc*." (or, "He's outside of our universe, so...")

It seems that whenever I get into an argument, it always boils down to that. As soon as these statements are made, the idiots then get what they see as essentially a free pass to make up any bullshit they want to justify their presupposed conclusions. Of course, none of them ever have any evidence of their ridiculous mechanisms and claims. They just spout bullshit claim after bullshit claim, expecting you to somehow take it all seriously, as if it holds water as a credible view. When I point out directly contradictory scientific evidence to their claims, they then throw out the "science doesn't deal with the supernatural" statement and carry on, acting like they essentially nullify my argument. It's really annoying, and always seems to give them a one-up rhetorically in the eyes of the audience. What do I do in that case?

[Formless]

Tell them that by its very definition, the supernatural is impossible. Argue against the very idea that anything can be called supernatural and exist in this universe. They want to have it both ways: all things we can observe conform to the laws of nature, but these things we call "supernatural" can exist and not conform to them... because we say so. Its a Special Pleading fallacy.

[Liberty]

Perhaps the most annoying thing I see when arguing is one of the following:

"Science doesn't deal with the supernatural."

I hate this too. And this is an argument I used to use. I would say, "Science can't deal with the supernatural by definition, but that doesn't mean that the supernatural is not true. Let's imagine for a moment that Christianity is all true, etc. Well, if science cannot deal with the supernatural, then if Christianity is true, science does not actually lead to truth, because it can't. Therefore, taking a strictly scientific approach is flawed."

There are two problems with this. First, science can test the predictions religion makes. Does prayer work? Double blind study. Do Christians get sick less often? Do a study. Etc. Of course, the religionists can keep saying things like "well, god wouldn't reveal his existence in an actual study, so he intentionally didn't let prayer work in that case." Or, "God wants to test Christians through sickness, that's why they still get sick." Etc. However, the more conditions they add the more bizarre their beliefs become. And also, they become completely unfalsifiable. But that leads to my second point.

Second, if religion is completely unfalsifiable, then how do we know which one is true? Why not Allah, or Zeus?

[Samuel]

"well, god wouldn't reveal his existence in an actual study, so he intentionally didn't let prayer work in that case."

Than the mortality rates should be different.

"God wants to test Christians through sickness, that's why they still get sick."

We can check that to. God would only test Christians who beliefs are wavering. So there should be a higher instance of illness in Christians who are in urban centers versus those in rural centers and those in an open community versus those in a closed community.

They want to have it both ways: all things we can observe conform to the laws of nature, but these things we call "supernatural" can exist and not conform to them... because we say so.

I think a better way to put it is that if the supernatural exists the laws of nature are wrong and they will be changed until it is no longer supernatural.

[Simon_Jester]

We can check that to. God would only test Christians who beliefs are wavering. So there should be a higher instance of illness in Christians who are in urban centers versus those in rural centers and those in an open community versus those in a closed community.

There's a confounding variable, though: Christians whose beliefs are wavering may be experiencing psychological stress- remember the suicide case in this thread?

Since stress is always correlated with illness, wavering Christians may get sick more often than non-waverers anyway. Of course, so will wavering Jews, wavering Muslims, wavering worshippers of Zeus, and so on.

[Samuel]

So wavering Christians should get sick more than those of other faiths.

[Channel72]

It seems that whenever I get into an argument, it always boils down to that. As soon as these statements are made, the idiots then get what they see as essentially a free pass to make up any bullshit they want to justify their presupposed conclusions. Of course, none of them ever have any evidence of their ridiculous mechanisms and claims. They just spout bullshit claim after bullshit claim, expecting you to somehow take it all seriously, as if it holds water as a credible view. When I point out directly contradictory scientific evidence to their claims, they then throw out the "science doesn't deal with the supernatural" statement and carry on, acting like they essentially nullify my argument. It's really annoying, and always seems to give them a one-up rhetorically in the eyes of the audience. What do I do in that case?

In practice, Christian apologists only resort to this nonsense when they are losing an argument. For example, I can't tell you how many times I've seen arguments about the Great Flood proceed in the following manner:

1) Christian apologist presents some kind of empirical evidence to demonstrate the Noahic Flood occurred.
2) Atheist demonstrates that the presented evidence is bullshit, and then proceeds to scientifically explain why the Flood as described in the Bible is scientifically impossible. (Mainly because the amount of water necessary to flood the entire planet up to the tallest mountain was well beyond the boundaries of plausibility.)
3) Christian simply shrugs and claims God magicked the water into existence.

So in other words, Christians implicitly recognize the superiority and polemical power of empirical, scientific evidence, because they use it whenever it suits them. But then they always retreat behind the wall of the Supernatural when presented with empirical evidence which is unfavorable to their position.

[Darth Wong]

Perhaps the most annoying thing I see when arguing is one of the following:

"Science doesn't deal with the supernatural."

Suggested answers:

1) "It doesn't deal with voodoo either; does that mean we should take voodoo seriously?

2) "That's because science deals with evidence, and there's zero evidence for the supernatural".

3) "Actually, if God were real, he would be part of nature, since nature encompasses everything out there that we didn't invent. Unless, of course, you're admitting that we humans invented God, thus making him unnatural."