Arguments for God You're Unlikely to Hear

[Copernicus]

If you want to present an honest argument that God exists, then do so. If you want to amuse people with a tongue-in-cheek post, then let people know that that you aren't being serious. I don't speak for others, but I really don't appreciate having my time wasted.

Were you looking for arguments for God that are convincing? You're not likely to get them from me because I don't know of any. Whenever you read anything you're never guaranteed that you're going to like it or find what you want.

Anyway, Ideologyhunter got my point right away. Although I do use some subtle humor in the OP, I'm very serious that Christian apologists have little of substance to offer when they argue for God's existence. If the Christian God really exists, then apologists could offer everything in the OP. Since apologists can't offer such clear and unambiguous evidence, they're not making their case for God, and his existence is then very questionable.

Got it?

Sure, after it was explained. Since you are a new member, I thought that you were a theist who wandered into here. Knowing theists who are that naive and make such stupid arguments, I decided to take your post at face value. If you want to all snicker at theists and the stupidity of their arguments, have at it. I've done that for such a long time that I've grown quite weary of it. Have fun. Life is short, so it is good to have a sense of humor, even if it can get a bit mean-spirited at times. Theists get a lot of yucks out of ridiculing atheists, too, so what's the harm?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Sure, after it was explained.

I tend to be perhaps a bit too subtle in my writing sometimes. It can be hard for me to tell what needs to be explained and what doesn't.

Since you are a new member, I thought that you were a theist who wandered into here. Knowing theists who are that naive and make such stupid arguments, I decided to take your post at face value.

Hmmm. So you thought I was a stupid theist. The arguments in the OP are only stupid in that no Christian who wants to keep his faith will make them. To do so would amount to a "religious suicide" killing off faith in the presence of stark disconfirmation of Christian beliefs as those arguments fail.

If you want to all snicker at theists and the stupidity of their arguments, have at it. I've done that for such a long time that I've grown quite weary of it. Have fun. Life is short, so it is good to have a sense of humor, even if it can get a bit mean-spirited at times. Theists get a lot of yucks out of ridiculing atheists, too, so what's the harm?

I wouldn't say that the arguments apologists make for God are stupid at all. Their arguments are rather clever considering what apologists have to work with. It's just that their arguments really don't support their beliefs much at all. If their beliefs were true, then far stronger arguments like those in the OP could be made.

 

[abaddon]

The arguments in the OP are only stupid in that no Christian who wants to keep his faith will make them.

In my 18 years at this board, I've seen arguments as stupid as those in the OP. So it wasn't obvious to me either that you were writing satire.

To do so would amount to a "religious suicide" killing off faith in the presence of stark disconfirmation of Christian beliefs as those arguments fail.

I don't see why. They weren't convinced by reason in the first place, so showing their arguments are unconvincing will not kill most theist's faith. IME, when proved wrong, most theists just repeat the defeated argument anyway. Or they turn up another equally lame argument. Fundie christians don't care so much how reason works, they care who seems authoritative to them. Since the atheist isn't considered an authority, he can't "disconfirm" the theist's argument in a way that'll register on the theist's brain.

If their beliefs were true, then far stronger arguments like those in the OP could be made.

Hence the reliance on weak aka 'stupid' arguments.

 

[steve_bank]

Yes, soldier is far to subtle and deep for a simpleton like me.

 

[none]

Yes, soldier is far to subtle and deep for a simpleton like me.

And there is God, you didn't even have to mention the surfacing of the letter j;;;;

 

[steve_bank]

Yes, soldier is far to subtle and deep for a simpleton like me.

And there is God, you didn't even have to mention the surfacing of the letter j;;;;

You went right over my head.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

In my 18 years at this board, I've seen arguments as stupid as those in the OP. So it wasn't obvious to me either that you were writing satire.

What's stupid about the arguments for God in the OP? It would be stupid to use them if God doesn't exist because evidence that strong is not available for him.

I don't see why. They weren't convinced by reason in the first place, so showing their arguments are unconvincing will not kill most theist's faith.

I see why using the OP's arguments would be a faith-killer for most Christians: Christian apologists don't dare use them because even if they don't kill the faith of the most irrational Christians, then more open, rational Christians not to mention the fence sitters would clearly see the falsehoods in Christian claims. And can you imagine what would result from an apologist claiming he can restore a limb before skeptics and on live TV?

IME, when proved wrong, most theists just repeat the defeated argument anyway. Or they turn up another equally lame argument. Fundie christians don't care so much how reason works, they care who seems authoritative to them. Since the atheist isn't considered an authority, he can't "disconfirm" the theist's argument in a way that'll register on the theist's brain.

The weaker arguments made by apologists are designed to be unfalsifiable. That way apologists can keep using them while taunting skeptics that those arguments have never been refuted. The OP's arguments are falsifiable, and that's why apologists don't use them.

If their beliefs were true, then far stronger arguments like those in the OP could be made.

Hence the reliance on weak aka 'stupid' arguments.

Their arguments are not stupid although their arguments are weak. A weak man can survive a battle with a strong man if he's clever enough not to rely on strength but on trickery. That's the basis for Christian apologetics. Apologists know that weak arguments that can survive scrutiny are far better than strong arguments for a real God that will fail because God isn't real.

 

[Learner]

Their arguments are not stupid although their arguments are weak. A weak man can survive a battle with a strong man if he's clever enough not to rely on strength but on trickery. That's the basis for Christian apologetics. Apologists know that weak arguments that can survive scrutiny are far better than strong arguments for a real God that will fail because God isn't real.

Unknown Soldier, when you were a Christian, did you use the method of trickery as you describe when you debated atheists? Did you dare use any of the arguments in the OP?


I would be looking forward to the thread "Arguments for God you are LIKELY to hear," should one come up.

 

[Jarhyn]

Their arguments are not stupid although their arguments are weak. A weak man can survive a battle with a strong man if he's clever enough not to rely on strength but on trickery. That's the basis for Christian apologetics. Apologists know that weak arguments that can survive scrutiny are far better than strong arguments for a real God that will fail because God isn't real.

Unknown Soldier, when you were a Christian, did you use the method of trickery as you describe when you debated atheists? Did you dare use any of the arguments in the OP?


I would be looking forward to the thread "Arguments for God you are LIKELY to hear," should one come up.

I can't speak for U.S., but I can speak for me.

Do you really think that people would rush in here as they do with their KCA adjustments if they weren't tricked by them? The thing is, all this activity happens within the layer of society that "debates" rather than "discusses" and which bandies arguments based on social rather than critical factors.

Often, those most attached are those who want to be "intellectuals" and who are intertwined with religion. The actual intellectuals end up filtering out the religion, and then the rest... Well, they collectively bang their heads on keyboards until they churn out the most effective arguments at evading the bullshit detector.

These days, it's almost like a game "this religious person posted this screed they think proves god. Find the fallac(y/ies)".

As soon as you dig out the fallacy though, the whole thing inevitably falls apart.

Oftentimes the most annoying ones are where the whole thing is built on a giant circular fallacy, made large so as to obscure one's ability to see the whole shape and thus know it's circularity.

 

[Learner]

Their arguments are not stupid although their arguments are weak. A weak man can survive a battle with a strong man if he's clever enough not to rely on strength but on trickery. That's the basis for Christian apologetics. Apologists know that weak arguments that can survive scrutiny are far better than strong arguments for a real God that will fail because God isn't real.

Unknown Soldier, when you were a Christian, did you use the method of trickery as you describe when you debated atheists? Did you dare use any of the arguments in the OP?


I would be looking forward to the thread "Arguments for God you are LIKELY to hear," should one come up.

I can't speak for U.S., but I can speak for me.

Do you really think that people would rush in here as they do with their KCA adjustments if they weren't tricked by them? The thing is, all this activity happens within the layer of society that "debates" rather than "discusses" and which bandies arguments based on social rather than critical factors.

Strangely, in response to 'debates rather than discussion'... you are preaching to the converted i.e. you also don't speak for me as described in the characterization, in your post quoted above.

Anyway.. there is space enough, and space should be allowed where appropiate for these places to be specificly as debates - if two people mutually agree to certain criteria of terms etc.. Not that this should automatically be in all discussions (I know you would accept that0. Besides, our new forum friend, Universal Soldier, seems to be fine with this.

Often, those most attached are those who want to be "intellectuals" and who are intertwined with religion. The actual intellectuals end up filtering out the religion, and then the rest... Well, they collectively bang their heads on keyboards until they churn out the most effective arguments at evading the bullshit detector.

I could also agree, in that I say (and have said) that those"professing to be wise, intellectuals" making their arguments with disengenious language, analogious to lawyers arguing through some technicality-language method.

These days, it's almost like a game "this religious person posted this screed they think proves god. Find the fallac(y/ies)".

As soon as you dig out the fallacy though, the whole thing inevitably falls apart.

Yes again I can agree with the 'game' aspect, but I don't think you realize (if not in some denial) the "want to be intellectuals..." in a game scenario, sounds like ONLY Christians can methodcally play that game, according to you.

Oftentimes the most annoying ones are where the whole thing is built on a giant circular fallacy, made large so as to obscure one's ability to see the whole shape and thus know it's circularity.

I won't argue this being your point of view.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but curiously, I vaguely remember having some impression some time back, that you weren't atheist, more agnostic or spiritual, something along those lines.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Maybe the thread should be "arguments you wish you'd never heard"?

Is There Definitive 100% Set In Stone Proof Of God? No, And That Is The Proof
I have just realized that we theists are looking at this all wrong.

There is no such thing as "Proof of God" where one can use an example and say, "That Proves God!"

The proof for God lies in the fact there is no proof of God.
.....
Ask yourself this simple question, "If the Christian God is real, and He isn't willing to provide us with evidence, what would we expect to see?"

The answer is, "Exactly what we see right now."

god exists because evolution would have given me eyes in the back of my head if there really were such a thing

[When pressed to give non-believers sound proof of God's existance]

OK, here you go:
1) Jesus proved his authority by his resurrection from the dead.
2) Jesus affirmed that the Lord made all of creation.
= Therefore, everything is proof of God.

But I can flip this around Catsangel and say how can someone believe in a dinosaur and NOT believe in God. The proof for the so called dinosaur is in a bone somebody supposedly dug up. The proof for God's existence is the fact that we are here. Otherwise, where did we come from?

 

[Learner]

"Maybe the thread should be "arguments you wish you'd never heard"?

Got to admit..
Keith's has wit..

 

[Keith&Co.]

"Maybe the thread should be "arguments you wish you'd never heard"?

Got to admit..
Keith's has wit..

The first one's from Self-Mutation. So, really, my post is lack-wit.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Unknown Soldier, when you were a Christian, did you use the method of trickery as you describe when you debated atheists?

I never used deliberate deception when defending or evangelizing Christianity. However, the arguments for God that I was parroting turned out to be based on trickery or at least on stubborn delusion. Once I was aware of the falsehoods in those arguments, I immediately stopped using them. So trickery in apologetics comes into play when the apologist is aware of the fallacies in his arguments yet continues to use them.

Did you dare use any of the arguments in the OP?

No. Of course I didn't use them although I said that I believed that some day I would be able to use them when God finally got going.

I would be looking forward to the thread "Arguments for God you are LIKELY to hear," should one come up.

Hmmm. That sounds like a good idea. Here's one to start:

The Argument from the Miraculous Demonstrations on the Part of Other People At Other Times and Places:
Miracles have been demonstrated by other people in other parts of the world! Just look at all the testimonies to those miracles. Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they don't happen.

And another:

The Argument From Testing Prayer:
Prayer has great power--assuming the right conditions are met. If you don't meet all those conditions, then don't blame God when your prayer doesn't pan out.

 

[atrib]

I could also agree, in that I say (and have said) that those"professing to be wise, intellectuals" making their arguments with disengenious language, analogious to lawyers arguing through some technicality-language method.

What the fuck is the technicality-language method? Are you talking about instances where atheists use facts and logic to make their case? And people who cite sources for the facts they are asserting so you can independently verify the facts for yourself? Why would such behavior be considered disingenuous?

Also, can you point to a few examples of atheists "professing to be wise intellectuals"? I haven't heard anyone on these forums making such a claim, and I think you are making up shit again. Doesn't Biblegod have a commandment against people making up shit?

 

[Keith&Co.]

What the fuck is the technicality-language method?

Wasn't that when Clinton argued about the definition of 'Is'?

 

[Jarhyn]

I can't speak for U.S., but I can speak for me.

Do you really think that people would rush in here as they do with their KCA adjustments if they weren't tricked by them? The thing is, all this activity happens within the layer of society that "debates" rather than "discusses" and which bandies arguments based on social rather than critical factors.

Strangely, in response to 'debates rather than discussion'... you are preaching to the converted i.e. you also don't speak for me as described in the characterization, in your post quoted above.

Anyway.. there is space enough, and space should be allowed where appropiate for these places to be specificly as debates - if two people mutually agree to certain criteria of terms etc.. Not that this should automatically be in all discussions (I know you would accept that0. Besides, our new forum friend, Universal Soldier, seems to be fine with this.

Often, those most attached are those who want to be "intellectuals" and who are intertwined with religion. The actual intellectuals end up filtering out the religion, and then the rest... Well, they collectively bang their heads on keyboards until they churn out the most effective arguments at evading the bullshit detector.

I could also agree, in that I say (and have said) that those"professing to be wise, intellectuals" making their arguments with disengenious language, analogious to lawyers arguing through some technicality-language method.

These days, it's almost like a game "this religious person posted this screed they think proves god. Find the fallac(y/ies)".

As soon as you dig out the fallacy though, the whole thing inevitably falls apart.

Yes again I can agree with the 'game' aspect, but I don't think you realize (if not in some denial) the "want to be intellectuals..." in a game scenario, sounds like ONLY Christians can methodcally play that game, according to you.

Oftentimes the most annoying ones are where the whole thing is built on a giant circular fallacy, made large so as to obscure one's ability to see the whole shape and thus know it's circularity.

I won't argue this being your point of view.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but curiously, I vaguely remember having some impression some time back, that you weren't atheist, more agnostic or spiritual, something along those lines.

I'm not "spiritual" or "agnostic". I am not a "theist". I am a gnostic. Not a "gnostic ____" just simply a "gnostic".

Once upon a time I was agnostic, and before that I was an atheist. Now, I am something else.

As it is, christians most reliably play the game, mostly because they want to prove God and IF there is a God who is infinitely capable, this would be a contradiction to that capability, and their "god" would disappear in a puff of logic, and this provides a really good hint that no matter whether God "exists" or not, simple logical proofs won't get you to him.

The only way in fact to prove whether there is a God that walks in the universe would be to reverse engineer the words of creation and then see if the universe has undergone a delta from the block universe predicted from that algorithmic seed.

And that only proves so much as "no god has not touched the universe YET"

 

[Learner]

"Maybe the thread should be "arguments you wish you'd never heard"?

Got to admit..
Keith's has wit..

The first one's from Self-Mutation. So, really, my post is lack-wit.

I liked the headline.

 

[Learner]

I never used deliberate deception when defending or evangelizing Christianity. However, the arguments for God that I was parroting turned out to be based on trickery or at least on stubborn delusion. Once I was aware of the falsehoods in those arguments, I immediately stopped using them. So trickery in apologetics comes into play when the apologist is aware of the fallacies in his arguments yet continues to use them.

Here's the funny thing. I also was almost caught in a similar situation as you describe, only in my case I was arguing against theists. Similarly but from the opposite end to your experience - as Jarhyn highlights: I was also parroting from some of the atheists who were more about being in the top debating leagues than having discussions, hence I know what you mean by 'trickery'.

Example: The questioner asks and insists the answer be either a 'yes or no' to certain questions, and when answered, this wouldn't really give a clear contextual representation, making his side/ position clear. The questioner insisting for (technical) answers that really have no real explanatory context, like getting a criminal off the hook in court via technicality even if certain evidences or witnesses say otherwise. IOWs being dishonest or disengenous coz the winning... regardless of what's true, by any means, is the game!

No. Of course I didn't use them although I said that I believed that some day I would be able to use them when God finally got going.

I think 'when God finally gets going,' people will have different ideas when that'll be.

When God gets going, I suppose for many believers, that'll be the Revelation bit.

I would be looking forward to the thread "Arguments for God you are LIKELY to hear," should one come up.

Hmmm. That sounds like a good idea. Here's one to start:

The Argument from the Miraculous Demonstrations on the Part of Other People At Other Times and Places:
Miracles have been demonstrated by other people in other parts of the world! Just look at all the testimonies to those miracles. Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they don't happen.

Ok so if there were actually miracles and someone wrote about them, it would still fit the above. Wouldn't necessarily say this is the needed proof. And being that miracles are one-off's, or one-night-only shows, in concept can't be repeated at will, just like that for scientific study, so therefore, technically, they "definitely" don't happen. Logically lovely.

And another:

The Argument From Testing Prayer:
Prayer has great power--assuming the right conditions are met. If you don't meet all those conditions, then don't blame God when your prayer doesn't pan out.

Maybe you can put that with the 'God knows best' argument (if there is one).

 

[Learner]

I could also agree, in that I say (and have said) that those"professing to be wise, intellectuals" making their arguments with disengenious language, analogious to lawyers arguing through some technicality-language method.

What the fuck is the technicality-language method? Are you talking about instances where atheists use facts and logic to make their case? And people who cite sources for

the facts they are asserting so you can independently verify the facts for yourself? Why would such behavior be considered disingenuous?

I couldn't think of a better wording at the time, lacking articulation, sorry about that. What I meant more or less, is what I say in post #39 (Example: the questioner..). But Irony will have it... I said this about you on another thread somewhere.

What the fuck is the technicality-language method? Are you talking about instances where atheists use facts and logic to make their case? And people who cite sources for the facts they are asserting so you can independently verify the facts for yourself? Why would such behavior be considered disingenuous?

Also, can you point to a few examples of atheists "professing to be wise intellectuals"? I haven't heard anyone on these forums making such a claim, and I think you are making up shit again. Doesn't Biblegod have a commandment against people making up shit?

Could be the "language" I was talking about..

So you have never heard anyone making such a claim, from their own mouths? Was that verbatim? Like for example: "I the atheist, proffess (and declare) to be wise and profess that I'm also an intellectual."

Surprise... I've never heard that claim either!! It is only MY opinion, I take from MY experience! I absolutely know (as you do) you won't expect me to answer in that particular way, as you're asking.


Ok, the commandment against making up crap. There is a verse for your assertions and mine if you must: Take the beam out of your own eye then you can take the speck out of the other persons eye .