Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The most convincing theistic argument The most convincing theistic argument

01-05-2010 , 02:13 PM
What, in your opinion, is the most convincing argument that religious apologetics put forth?

Note that I'm not saying that you have to agree with such an argument, but more along the lines of it being more logical or better than others. For example, I think that the cosmological argument (that something caused the universe to exist, and this first cause must be god) is better than Pascal's Wager (a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose) - despite that, however, I am not convinced by either argument.
The most convincing theistic argument Quote
01-05-2010 , 02:48 PM
I haven't actually even ever heard anyone mention this, but the fact that so few genes code sooooo many features is pretty mind-boggling to me. Forget-about fine-tuned universe, someone used WinRAR on the whole thing on top of that.

If you somehow made me forget all the knowledge about molecular biology and made me guess the number of genes people have based on the complexity of the organism I would say something like, "oh you know, probably something ridiculous like ten million billion or something, in any case I'd be REALLY surprised if the number was less than a few billion." Well guess what, it's only like 30 thousand, and I'm really REALLY surprised!

Of course, in no way would this actually lead to being used to "deduce" the existence of a "god" if it wasn't for the belief in the existence of a god already being there long before and people trying to find rational justification for it. It only creates an illusion of creation, much like an eye or a wing does, though I have to say to me it's the most powerful illusion and something that people could quite sincerely and honestly without deluding themselves at all think of it as a rational argument for the existence of god, even though it would be due to an error in their thinking process (no rational argument actually exists for a god at all, let alone one anyone would want to believe in). I guess people with anthropocentrist boxed thinking could possibly even make such a deduction if it wasn't for a preexisting strong emotional need to do so, but such people would probably be unable to appreciate the mind-bogglingness of the fact in the first place.

Obviously appeal to emotions is by far the most effective "argument".

Last edited by Vantek; 01-05-2010 at 03:02 PM.
The most convincing theistic argument Quote
01-05-2010 , 02:49 PM
no arguement is convincing to the rational skeptic...only observable evidence.
The most convincing theistic argument Quote
01-05-2010 , 03:09 PM
I actually think the cosmological argument is pretty weak.
The obvious question is, so what caused god? And we are right back where we started.

The best apologetics argument in my opinion is bringing up Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot in response to critique of the atrocities religion has perpetrated.
I have a feeling I am quite alone in liking this argument, but I do think it helps the theist show, that evil is a general human trait that is not removed by getting rid of religion.
The most convincing theistic argument Quote
01-05-2010 , 03:29 PM
Quote:
The obvious question is, so what caused god? And we are right back where we started.
grrrrr
The most convincing theistic argument Quote
01-05-2010 , 03:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibninjas
grrrrr
I know you don't like it, but it's a valid point to make when the very reason for introducing God is that everything needs a cause.
The most convincing theistic argument Quote
01-05-2010 , 03:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vantek
If you somehow made me forget all the knowledge about molecular biology and made me guess the number of genes people have based on the complexity of the organism I would say something like, "oh you know, probably something ridiculous like ten million billion or something, in any case I'd be REALLY surprised if the number was less than a few billion." Well guess what, it's only like 30 thousand, and I'm really REALLY surprised!


except protien-coding genes may not be the whole story. the amount of "junk" DNA is more impressive, and may be partially responsible for the complexity of the phenotype in ways that we haven't discovered yet.
The most convincing theistic argument Quote
01-05-2010 , 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofants
I know you don't like it, but it's a valid point to make when the very reason for introducing God is that everything needs a cause.
It's not even close to valid. And the argument is not that everything needs a cause.
The most convincing theistic argument Quote
01-05-2010 , 04:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofants
I know you don't like it, but it's a valid point to make when the very reason for introducing God is that everything needs a cause.
This has a very simple (OK, not simple) solution. Cause and effect can regress infinitely, which clearly doesn't solve the problem of the first cause. Logically the first cause must be exempt from a cause itself, else there's no defined origin and thus we continue backwards indefinitely. Ergo, God defined as the first cause (or prime mover) must have no cause.
The most convincing theistic argument Quote
01-05-2010 , 04:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibninjas
It's not even close to valid.
Is too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibninjas
And the argument is not that everything needs a cause.
Most things we debate here, I am able to understand my opponent’s side of the argument just fine, but simply disagrees.
When it comes to the cosmological argument though, I simply don´t understand how you can see god’s creation as less problematic than that of the universe.
You are creating the same problem you invoke god to fix.
The most convincing theistic argument Quote
01-05-2010 , 04:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by skalf
Is too.
lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by skalf
Most things we debate here, I am able to understand my opponent’s side of the argument just fine, but simply disagrees.
When it comes to the cosmological argument though, I simply don´t understand how you can see god’s creation as less problematic than that of the universe.
You are creating the same problem you invoke god to fix.
The argument is that "what ever begins to exist has a cause". The argument is based around the idea that the universe began to exist. This is where most of the atheists here disagree.

God is not defined as beginning to exist. Something has to be eternal. Since the Universe is not eternal (according to the argument) then it necessitates a cause.

As I said before, if we were living in a static universe then this argument would not exist.
The most convincing theistic argument Quote
01-05-2010 , 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardball47
This has a very simple (OK, not simple) solution. Cause and effect can regress infinitely, which clearly doesn't solve the problem of the first cause. Logically the first cause must be exempt from a cause itself, else there's no defined origin and thus we continue backwards indefinitely. Ergo, God defined as the first cause (or prime mover) must have no cause.
I don´t think that works. If you just get to define God as first cause, I define the big bang as first cause.
A second problem I see is why do we get to define something that gets us out of the infinite regress? The earnest answer is we do not know what started the universe, and the infinite regress gets us to that point.
Sure we can define God as the first cause, but the problem with that is that it really does not explain anything, it just gives up trying.
We just rename our ignorance and call it God.
The most convincing theistic argument Quote
01-05-2010 , 04:35 PM
Quote:
I don´t think that works. If you just get to define God as first cause, I define the big bang as first cause.
First off, the big bang is a description. In other words it is the effect. And we are not just defining God as the first cause. God being the first cause is a deduction.

Quote:
A second problem I see is why do we get to define something that gets us out of the infinite regress? The earnest answer is we do not know what started the universe, and the infinite regress gets us to that point.
What? The argument is based on the fact that an infinite regress is impossible.

Quote:
Sure we can define God as the first cause, but the problem with that is that it really does not explain anything, it just gives up trying.
Again, What? God is the deduction, not a priori knowledge.

I will look for the full cosmo argument in formal logic. Maybe that will help you understand why your objections don't make any sense.
The most convincing theistic argument Quote
01-05-2010 , 04:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibninjas
lol



The argument is that "what ever begins to exist has a cause". The argument is based around the idea that the universe began to exist. This is where most of the atheists here disagree.

God is not defined as beginning to exist. Something has to be eternal. Since the Universe is not eternal (according to the argument) then it necessitates a cause.

As I said before, if we were living in a static universe then this argument would not exist.
Bolded is my major problem; I do not see the justification for making God exempt from "whatever begins to exist has a cause".
You say "Something has to be eternal". Well yes for you to be right., but that is just assuming the conclusion.
The basic problem with the cosmological argument is that it essentially says: for me to be right A has to be true, since I know I am right, A is true.
The most convincing theistic argument Quote
01-05-2010 , 04:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibninjas
First off, the big bang is a description. In other words it is the effect. And we are not just defining God as the first cause. God being the first cause is a deduction.
I disagree, and it still does not explain why God is exempt from answering to the problem that rules out a naturalistic explanation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibninjas
I will look for the full cosmo argument in formal logic. Maybe that will help you understand why your objections don't make any sense.
That’s pretty condescending, my arguments make a lot of sense, whether you agree with them or not. It is not like the cosmological argument is universally agreed upon. Quite a few people have questioned why the first cause gets such preferential treatment.
The most convincing theistic argument Quote
01-05-2010 , 05:06 PM
I have never heard an argument for the existence of a deity which did not contain a logical fallacy. As far as I know, none exist.
The most convincing theistic argument Quote
01-05-2010 , 05:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by skalf
Bolded is my major problem; I do not see the justification for making God exempt from "whatever begins to exist has a cause".
That is not the argument. "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" applies to everything. God did not begin to exist. He always was.
The most convincing theistic argument Quote
01-05-2010 , 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlmitnick
What, in your opinion, is the most convincing argument that religious apologetics put forth?
The hardest to refute argument is - God personally spoke to me. The rest are laughably bad.
The most convincing theistic argument Quote
01-05-2010 , 05:14 PM
here is a more full version of the KCA

Code:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of 
   its existence.

2.The universe began to exist.
  2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of 
   an actual infinite:
    2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
    2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events 
      is an actual infinite.
    2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress 
      of events cannot exist.
  2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the 
      formation of an actual infinite by 
      successive addition:
    2.21 A collection formed by successive 
      addition cannot be actually infinite.
    2.22 The temporal series of past events is 
      a collection formed by successive addition.
    2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past 
      events cannot be actually infinite.
  2.3 Confirmation based on the expansion of 
      the universe.
  2.4 Confirmation based on the thermodynamic 
      properties of the universe.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its 
   existence.

4. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then 
   an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, 
   who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, 
   immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously 
   powerful and intelligent.
  4.1 Argument that the cause of the universe is a 
   personal Creator:
    4.11 The universe was brought into being either 
      by a mechanically operating set of necessary and 
      sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent.
    4.12 The universe could not have been brought into 
      being by a mechanically operating set of necessary 
      and sufficient conditions.
    4.13 Therefore, the universe was brought into being 
      by a personal, free agent.
  4.2 Argument that the Creator sans creation 
      is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, 
      timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and 
      intelligent:
    4.21 The Creator is uncaused.
      4.211 An infinite temporal regress of causes cannot 
        exist. (2.13, 2.23)
    4.22 The Creator is beginningless.
      4.221 Whatever is uncaused does not begin to 
        exist. (1)
    4.23 The Creator is changeless.
      4.231 An infinite temporal regress of changes 
        cannot exist. (2.13, 2.23)
    4.24 The Creator is immaterial.
      4.241 Whatever is material involves change on 
        the atomic and molecular levels, but the Creator 
        is changeless. (4.23)
    4.25 The Creator is timeless.
      4.251 In the complete absence of change, time does
        not exist, and the Creator is changeless. (4.23)
    4.26 The Creator is spaceless.
      4.261 Whatever is immaterial and timeless cannot 
        be spatial, and the Creator is immaterial and 
        timeless (4.24, 4.25)
    4.27 The Creator is enormously powerful.
      4.271 He brought the universe into being out of 
        nothing. (3)
    4.28 The Creator is enormously intelligent.
      4.281 The initial conditions of the universe 
        involve incomprehensible fine-tuning that points 
        to intelligent design.

5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the 
   universe exists, who sans creation is "beginningless," 
   changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and 
   enormously powerful and intelligent.
The most convincing theistic argument Quote
01-05-2010 , 05:38 PM
the least convincing argument for Christianity - Christians
The most convincing theistic argument Quote
01-05-2010 , 05:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibninjas
here is a more full version of the KCA

Code:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of 
   its existence.

2.The universe began to exist.
  2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of 
   an actual infinite:
    2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
    2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events 
      is an actual infinite.
    2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress 
      of events cannot exist.
  2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the 
      formation of an actual infinite by 
      successive addition:
    2.21 A collection formed by successive 
      addition cannot be actually infinite.
    2.22 The temporal series of past events is 
      a collection formed by successive addition.
    2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past 
      events cannot be actually infinite.
  2.3 Confirmation based on the expansion of 
      the universe.
  2.4 Confirmation based on the thermodynamic 
      properties of the universe.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its 
   existence.

4. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then 
   an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, 
   who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, 
   immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously 
   powerful and intelligent.
  4.1 Argument that the cause of the universe is a 
   personal Creator:
    4.11 The universe was brought into being either 
      by a mechanically operating set of necessary and 
      sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent.
    4.12 The universe could not have been brought into 
      being by a mechanically operating set of necessary 
      and sufficient conditions.
    4.13 Therefore, the universe was brought into being 
      by a personal, free agent.
  4.2 Argument that the Creator sans creation 
      is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, 
      timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and 
      intelligent:
    4.21 The Creator is uncaused.
      4.211 An infinite temporal regress of causes cannot 
        exist. (2.13, 2.23)
    4.22 The Creator is beginningless.
      4.221 Whatever is uncaused does not begin to 
        exist. (1)
    4.23 The Creator is changeless.
      4.231 An infinite temporal regress of changes 
        cannot exist. (2.13, 2.23)
    4.24 The Creator is immaterial.
      4.241 Whatever is material involves change on 
        the atomic and molecular levels, but the Creator 
        is changeless. (4.23)
    4.25 The Creator is timeless.
      4.251 In the complete absence of change, time does
        not exist, and the Creator is changeless. (4.23)
    4.26 The Creator is spaceless.
      4.261 Whatever is immaterial and timeless cannot 
        be spatial, and the Creator is immaterial and 
        timeless (4.24, 4.25)
    4.27 The Creator is enormously powerful.
      4.271 He brought the universe into being out of 
        nothing. (3)
    4.28 The Creator is enormously intelligent.
      4.281 The initial conditions of the universe 
        involve incomprehensible fine-tuning that points 
        to intelligent design.

5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the 
   universe exists, who sans creation is "beginningless," 
   changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and 
   enormously powerful and intelligent.
Neither 1 nor 2 are necessarily true.
With regards to number 4.12, wouldn’t the multiverse hypothesis make it possible?
4.21 is important, because without it, we must give an explanation for Gods existence, which would give up his explanatory power in this context.
4.21 is only supported by 4.211, I do not see how it logically follows.
4.24 argues that God is immaterial, but provides no argument, for what immaterial existence of a sentient being is even supposed to mean, nor how one would interact directly with the physical world.
The most convincing theistic argument Quote
01-05-2010 , 06:11 PM
Quote:
Neither 1 nor 2 are necessarily true.
I think that you will find that it will be hard to argue that #1 is not necessarily true. #2 is what most of the atheists here argue against.

Quote:
With regards to number 4.12, wouldn’t the multiverse hypothesis make it possible?
A multiverse would put you into an infinite regress of universes.

Quote:
4.21 is important, because without it, we must give an explanation for Gods existence, which would give up his explanatory power in this context.
We did not just decide that God is uncaused. But that whatever created the universe must be uncaused. This argument is developing a definition of what attributes God must have in order to qualify as the initial cause.

Quote:
4.21 is only supported by 4.211, I do not see how it logically follows.
It logically follows because whatever did cause the universe could not have itself been cause otherwise you would end up in an infinite regress.

Quote:
4.24 argues that God is immaterial, but provides no argument, for what immaterial existence of a sentient being is even supposed to mean, nor how one would interact directly with the physical world.
It does give an argument. God must be immaterial because a material being would involves change at the molecular level. I don't know that I actually get this one though.
The most convincing theistic argument Quote
01-05-2010 , 06:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by skalf
Neither 1 nor 2 are necessarily true.
With regards to number 4.12, wouldn’t the multiverse hypothesis make it possible?
4.21 is important, because without it, we must give an explanation for Gods existence, which would give up his explanatory power in this context.
4.21 is only supported by 4.211, I do not see how it logically follows.
4.24 argues that God is immaterial, but provides no argument, for what immaterial existence of a sentient being is even supposed to mean, nor how one would interact directly with the physical world.
Skalf, we had a thread on this a while back. You have just scratched the surface of the problems with the argument. It fails at premise 1. Even granting premise 1 and 2, it fails to prove its conclusion.
The most convincing theistic argument Quote
01-05-2010 , 06:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddi
The hardest to refute argument is - God personally spoke to me. The rest are laughably bad.
personal anecdotes have no logical weight. why did this one person have this experience compared to millions of others? it's not logical nor is it a solid foundation for an argument. besides, how on earth are you supposed to argue against one? you can't, it's like "cool story bro" and you get on with the argument. every debate i've ever had with a christian had, at some point, a personal "god did x for/to me" moment during it and i immediately dismissed it.
The most convincing theistic argument Quote
01-05-2010 , 06:49 PM
Reality is merely an illusion, although a very persistent one. -a. einstein
The most convincing theistic argument Quote

      
m