Atheists: Which arguments for the existence of God do you find the most compelling / closest to being convincing?
For me, it would be the idea that life on earth originated by implantation by superior beings. This wouldn’t involve omniscience or omnipotence, and wouldn’t involve creation of the universe, but it could plausibly explain how life came to exist on our planet. As close to “God” as I can get.
I don’t think one can be intellectually argued into such a belief, Pascal-style. I think it comes a priori, and everything else around it is an elaboration and rationalisation of that indefinable a priori feeling.
I don’t have that feeling, don’t feel the need for it, and hence don’t find the elaborated expression of religion convincing as anything other than an expression of someone else’s feelings. It’s art (often very beautiful and moving, but none the less human-created art), not science, emotionally satisfying narrative, not intellectually convincing explanation.
I never came close to being convinced by any theistic argument. The teapot argument works pretty well for me: Whatever is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and the burden of proof is upon the believers.
I’m still waiting for a coherent definition of God, then I’ll look at the arguments…
…the Modal Ontological Proof looked good for all of the 35 seconds it took me to read it, before I actually started thinking about it, so that’s the one that’s technically come closest.
Argh… Ninja’d by PatrickLondon I was just going to say, much less elegantly, what he said. I’ve always seen religion as an art form. Imagine the biggest sing-along ever! It can be a pretty song, sung by lots of sincere people. There’s no harm in singing a song. Enjoy it! It’s the next step that’s the tricky bit. For some reason, people want to go from the worship / belief stage to interaction with the physical world. If the God in question is not available to manifest His/Her Glory in the physical world, well, it’s up to us to get the job done. In fact, people’s feeble attempts at exactly this step have been the cause of a great deal of trouble. (Crusades, 9/11 and so forth)
Would you really want to live in a world where there were Gods? Imagine that Thor really existed. What would the implications of that be? The differences in our daily lives would be just staggering if Quetzalcoatl turned up a few times each year.
I’m not sure that there is an argument that could convince me that God(s) exist. Batman or Papa Smurf might be interesting to imagine. One might even write a very nice song about one or both of them. But, what sort of argument would it take for you to accept the reality of Batman or Papa Smurf?
What would be required? I suppose it would take something like Quetzalcoatl meeting with our government & inquiring as to the pitiful number of sacrifices that we’ve sent His direction in the past century or so.
I think it would have to be magical ability to the extent that the power needed for it to be a trick of some kind would be godly anyway. That would be for a deity/deities that don’t have required other traits as those that are the focus for religion usually do. For those I’d need things like the Problem of Evil solved to my satisfaction - which is eminently doable depending on the god, of course.
The 1 km high granite letters suspended in the air spelling out “GOD WAS HERE”.
Oh wait…
I think the fine tune argument is probably the best one. As far as I know, it’s probably the biggest reason why some physicists are deists.
I don’t think compelling arguments exist for anything more specific, i.e. particular denominations.
If there was one, we wouldn’t be Atheists.
Who created these superior beings then? A superior, superior race of beings? Then who created them? And even if superior beings did seed the life on Earth, are they anything like the all powerful, all knowing Judea-Christian God or just beings who happen to be a half billion or so years ahead on the evolutionary trail?
About hope that I hold for their being a God is that someone is out there who flipped the switch starting the Big Bang. Not likely.
So where did the aliens come from?
I don’t think it’s possible to have a compelling “theistic” argument about the existence of God or some other higher, and yet undetectable intelligence.
Science does a pretty good job of explaining how the world works. Contrary to how some theists would have you believe, science is not a “belief system” akin to religion. It is a framework for developing theories about how the universe works through observation and repeatable experimentation. So really you can have whatever belief in God that you want, but it can’t contradict what we can observe with science.
The fact that every so often something I’m absolutely certain of turns out to not be the case. And that at a guess higher number of intelligent people, (by straight head count), are religous in some way than not. (However that’s a constuct of the world being overwhelmingly religiouse, and the average intelligence of an atheist would be way way higher than the average intelligence of a religious person)
Faith is what’s needed–not compelling arguments.
A few well-aimed lightning bolts targeting the loudest, most political of the Religious Right would catch my interest…
none, nothing even remotely passes the sniff test.
The “something from nothing” explanation fails at the first hurdle (if gods can arise from nothing then so can the universe)
The fine tuning argument has been suggest as well and I suppose that if this were the one and only universe ever then it may hold water.
However, we have no idea how many universes preceded this one and how many will come after and no idea whether any of the fine tuning criteria are actually free to vary at all.
We could be existing in the ten-trillionth iteration of the universe, all with slightly different variables and different outcomes. Marvelling at the fine tuning in this universe that gives rise to us is as nonsensical as rolling a ten-trillion-sided die ten trillion times and being amazed when you roll a six.
So no, none of the arguments are compelling and most don’t even deserve the description
of “argument”
My guess would be the opposite, that the more educated and intelligent the person, the less likely they are to believe in a god.
and a quick trawl of the web pops up an article that seems to support this.
You didn’t really read what I said. As an atheist of course I agree that religious people are less intelligent than atheists. However if you were to take Earth’s 7 billion people, mark 2.33bn as “dumb”, 2.33bn as “avearge” and 2.33bn as “smart”, there would be more religous than non-religous in all three categories. Just because atheists are more intelligent than religous people, which is almost certainly true, doesn’t mean that there aren’t more “intelligent religous people” than “intelligent atheists” by head count.
That’s not the opposite of the sentence you quoted; and it agrees with the sentence that follows it.
I find that article confusing, because it doesn’t make a clear distinction between religious belief and religious involvement.
There’s no conceivable rational argument that would convince me concerning the existence of a particular god/gods/etc. Any argument that would purport to prove that Jehovah is the one true God or some such would either be intrinsically flawed (e.g., by being circular: Since The Bible is the Word of God …) or be equally applicable to Hinduism, Norse religion, Lakota Shamanism, etc.
The only thing that intrigues me in the “there seems to be something else going on” department is free will. And that is double weak. First, while it sure seems I have free will, that is hardly provable. Secondly, if free will were provable, that only goes a little way in establishing some sort of extra-physical concept.
Oh, and I’m not an atheist. But that’s because of something else.
None.
You are right, I skim-read it, apologies.
still, I think the numbers may not be as straightforward as you suppose. And certainly not when you throw levels of education into the mix as well.
This is a finger in the air supposition but if you were able to create a single intelligence level/education level index for all populations, then split the population into smaller percentile bands, (0-5%, 5-10% etc) I suspect that at some point towards the top that range the numbers would begin to favour the non-religious.