I honestly can’t think of a “best” argument for theism when all of the arguments are bad ones.
I’m baffled by Zagadka’s objection to the “there’s no proof” position of the atheists. Faith is not, in and of itself, and argument. And arguments based on faith have the very real problem that they are impossible to explain to those without faith, because they require no evidence, and hence there is no real room for debate.
Really, if theists do not simply default to a dogmatic position imposed by a religious faith, they base their arguments on the “fact” that the world is simply too complex/beautiful/whatever to explain without intelligent design, and hence a deity of some sort must exist. Unfortunately, there are a number of at least plausible arguments against intelligent design that have nothing to do with personal impressions; they’re based on hard evidence, and the theories informed by this evidence can make successful predictions, some of them successful to the point of hubris. Where faith has offered up only a steady stream of tautology and denial, empiricists have enjoyed one conceptual victory after another, with no indication than any question that can be asked about our universe and its origins cannot in principle be answered without havint to resort to evoking a diety.
Theists, if they do not demand outright belief a priori, claim what can be experienced is simply too wonderful to deny God. Skeptical inquiry has demonstrated this is not necessarily so. And any god worth the title ought to be necessary. So far, there isn’t a shred of evidence to support the necessity of a higher power, so, unfortunately for the theists, there isn’t a single good argument in their favor, beyond the fact their beliefs make them feel good. To the skeptic, self-affirmation is not evidence; in fact, it’s always cause for suspition, as it clouds judgement.
Well, it’s not really the thread for that, is it? It’s a thread for atheists and theists to give what they consider the best (or the least bad, at any rate) argument the “other side” has to offer.
The topic of the existence of God, and various permutations and variations thereof, has come up, oh, once or twice before in this forum. You could start with a search. If you really like, you could start a “hit me with your best shot, atheists” thread–I’m pretty sure we’ve had some arguments between atheists and non-Abrahamic-monotheistic believers before, but it is somewhat out of the run of the more usual atheists vs. Christians debates.
Why would there be empirical proof of the supernatural? As I said, god exists on an emotional, spiritual plane. You saying there is “no proof” for god is like saying there is no proof for love.
Seriously, I almost feel bad about some atheists inability to look outside what they can see, or experience outside of what they can touch.
Just as an example, you can image the brain of a person in love, and a person who isn’t, and see differences in metabolic activity. Human emotions are phenomena that result from the physiology and biochemistry of the neurons (and associated cells) that make up our brains, and it’s possible to describe and manipulate brain chemistry. For instance, the drug ecstacy gives people what they describe as, at times, a feeling of great love and empathy for those around them. Love isn’t “supernatural”, it’s a result of human biology. As such, there actually is proof of love.
So I don’t think the God/love analogy is very effective.
Okay. How’s’about “there is no proof and a lot of evil things have been done in the name of religion”?
I find religion itself to be a morally neutral concept, with good and evil (however one chooses to define them) existing only in its application. Want to build a hospital? Good. Want to burn heretics at the stake? Evil.
In any case, you flatter yourself with the claim that atheists are instantly and universally hostile to you personally. Notwithstanding rare extremists like the late Madelyn O’Hair, who I suspect would have bitchslapped you on general principle, the hostility you perceive is likely a response to your own initial hostility.
I see no honest attempt here to listen to anything an atheist has to say, though I thought I’d give it a shot just for kicks.
The best arguments I’ve encountered for theism are the ontological ones. They’re very intriguing. I don’t find them convincing (if I did, I would no longer be an atheist) but they are the cleverest arguments for theism that I’ve encountered.
The worst arguments I’ve heard for theism are probably the arguments from ignorance. That is, someone will say, “Nobody can scientifically explain X; therefore, God must be responsible for X.”
“There’s no proof [of God’s existence]” and “all religion is evil” are two very different statements, and you’re the only one in this thread who has equated the two.
Neverminding that religion is true or false, it is merely a tool with which either good or evil can be done. Thus, it is not a negative thing, and can be used to accomplish much good.
Which, of course, was argued against. Don’t say that they are removed and no one argued it, because they have.
If you mean this thread, I posted to it repeatedly, as you well know.
Based on my perception of your insincerity. I do not believe you are interested in giving serious consideration to any atheist viewpoint and are instead using this thread as a springboard for criticizing atheists. You’ll have to prove otherwise before I bother offering up serious “proofs” of any kind.
I’ll volunteer a simple one for free, though. If a brain scan could prove the existence of “love”, a similar brain scan might be able to prove existence of belief in the existence of God. Proof of the existence of belief is not equivalent to proof of the existance of God, unless you wish to define belief as equivalent to existence.
As for me…I’m generally inclined to be spiritual but I have bouts of skepticism/agnosticism/atheism/whathaveyou. There was an argument I heard when I was in a more skeptical mood in favor of, if not God, then at least spirituality, that intrigued me: if all we are is a bunch of chemical reactions, what point is there in, for example, being moral? There is no meaning inherent in chemical reactions; therefore how can there be meaning to life?
I suppose that’s a bit like the Argument from Morality, but I think it’s framed differently than in MEBuckner’s post. It’s not a question of moral absolutes, theistic or otherwise, but a question of the very existence of something like morality, or meaning, in the first place.