[atheists/theists] what's the best argument you've encountered against...

I think there’s a massive difference between the emotional position someone takes towards something and the existence of that something.

I don’t think any atheists here are saying they don’t know any good arguments for liking god, or liking the idea of the existence in god. They’re saying (if I can be presumptuous enough to speak for them all for a moment) that they have never heard a really good argument for the truth of the proposition “god exists”.

Zagadka, I agree with you. However, not all theists do. There are most definitely theists who believe that God is proven objectively. Also, I don’t think your analogy is apt. The issue at hand is whether God exists, not whether we like God. I can objectively prove that music exists, so what I said is not “like” arguing whether I like music. I don’t dis-like God; I simply lack belief in God.

To actually answer the OP-

Theist here- best argument against- “The existence of evil against a God Who is All-Good & All-Powerful”

My counterargument- Without the existence of an Absolute Good (aka God), “evil” has no substantial significance. Without the hope of fairness in the Afterlife (and thus, a good powerful God who can guarantee such fairness), despair & nihilism are completely logical life-choices (one may logically choose against these also, but they are just matters of preference.)

But didn’t God create all? And if so, didn’t God create the evil (if evil exists, it must be part of “all”, correct)? And if so, would that not ipso-facto render God not “all-good”?

They don’t. So, let’s say that a theist believes something because of their feelings and personal experiences, but they don’t pretend that it’ll be proof enough for anyone else. It’s just that they’re going to believe. Should they be told that their feelings and experiences don’t count for anything, or that what they experienced didn’t really happen? And if so, why?

Theist here. Again, the single most powerful argument against the existence of God is the oldest one: if there’s a God who loves us, why does he allow so much suffering.

A tough question, one I can’t answer… but you’ll note that it’s NOT a thoughtful rational, logical objection to religion. It’s a purely emotional one. And it’s one you’re as likely to hear from a high school dropout as from a Ph. D.

Apart from that onr BIG one, I have never heard an intelligent (let alone compelling) argument from an atheist. Now, that’s odd, in one sense, because most of the atheists I’ve known have been very intelligent people. But even the smartest of them rarely seem to come up with more reasoned, articulate “arguments” than “Oh come on, it’s bullbleep, it’s all bullbleep! How can you not see that???”

I think there are two reasons for this: first, few of them take religion seriously enough (or give theists enough credit for intelligence) to bother making intelligent, cogent, non-insulting arguments.

Second, and more importantly, almost NOBODY, on either side, made his decision rationally. Non-believers may WANT to think they made a wholly thoughtful, rational decision, but my experience tells me that theists and atheists alike make their decisions about God on the gut level, and only LATER do they trry to use logic to bolster the irrational decision they’ve already made.

Just to illustrate a point: look back at all the posts in this thread by atheists. Do you see reasoned, logical arguments? I haven’t. I’ve seen a few clever quips, sure, but nothing that suggests atheists have thought out their positions more thoroughly or given the matter any more thought than theists have.

Deistic theist here.

I’m in the “The universe is too spiffy not to have been created” camp. Please note: I am not ignorant of physics, math, chemistry, etc. I have a degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, and had to take a lot of “hard” science courses. I understood the material and got good grades (except for my third semester of physics–got a “B” in that, and never could get an intuitive understanding of quantum mechanics and such). I believe that the science I learned was true.

Science doesn’t contradict my beliefs–I think the rules that underly the universe are as beautiful as birds and trees and such, and twice as impressive. Yes, it’s possible that the law of large numbers is at work, and that it’s all a perfect set of coincidences. But if I see a really nice impressionist painting hanging in an art gallery, I’m inclined to believe that someone created it, and that it wasn’t created in, say, a room with a million monkeys painting 24/7 non-stop for a few millenia. Obviously this analogy isn’t completely fair, and I don’t think any less of non-ignorant atheists then I do of non-ignorant theists.

As for the “personal God” thing, I’m not really sure exactly what I believe. Ask again later. :slight_smile:

As a former theist and now avowed atheist, the most convincing theistic argument was a direct personal experience of God.

I have since satisfied myself that this profound and powerful experience could have had a physical explanation. However, I believe I am quite a rare breed in this respect: Few atheists “let go” enough in order to have one of these experiences (and so feel that there is nothing important to explain), and once you do have one you’re highly likely to become (or stay) theist.

What are you talking about? The atheists have presented logical debate but the theists have restrained themselves to “I feel it, therefore it’s real.”

First,“feelings” are not an argument. People subjectively feel and believe all manner of things that turn out to be false. I beleive my wife is faithful, wqhile secretly she’s cheating on me. My “feeling” is contradicted by the facts. Moreover, people of different faiths have equaslly strong “feelings” that their beliefs are true, but that can’t be so becuase the tenets of their faiths are mutually contradictory. So let’s stop using feelings as a substitute ofr logic, OK?

Now, can I prove beyond a shadow of a doubt thazt there is an invisible being in the room right now? Obviously, I can’t, but then I don’t need to–I merely need to demonstrate that your reasons for belief are invalid.

Let’s take Christianity, the religion most of us grew up with. Christians base their faith on the Bible as a testament to God’s working in our world. It has already been amply demonstrated in other threads that not only does the Bible contradict itself (two different and mutually contradictory creation stories, two different and mutually contradictory geneologies for Joseph, the father of Jesus, just to name two of many), but that it is also refuted by archeology, geology, astronomy, and physics. Faith based on a literal reading of the Bible hasn’t got a leg to stand on.

Moreover, other tenets of faith, such as the existence of a soul, have been disproven by modern medicine. It has been demonstrated by neurologists that the personality is shaped by brain chemistry and that the mind is merely a by-product of the workings of the brain. When the brain is damaged, the mind is also damaged. No brain means no mind, and so no part of the personality can survive the death of the brain. No personal survival after death = no soul.

Now maybe a liberal Christian’s faith does not depend on the literal truth of the Bible or life after death, but he still has to come up with a satisfactory reconciliation of an omnimax deity with the problem of evil, which has never yet been done.

Now perhqaps after that, you can shrug your shoulders and say, “I still believe.” Fine, but just admit that you have no good reason to believe and no evidence that will convince anyone else.

Have you noticed what thread you’re in? :confused:

Have you noticed what thread you’re in?

I do not believe in good lies. It’s just a feeling I have.

Nicely put. And I concur - the problem of evil is the best argument against theism I have encountered. And FriarTed has succinctly made the refutation. If there is no God, there is no such thing as evil. The word is a meaningless noise.

The most common counter-refutation is to accuse theists of saying that atheists are bad people. Which is a strawman. If there is no God, then neither atheists nor theists are bad - there is no such thing as bad.

And, unfortunately for atheists, neither is anything in the universe bad - not suffering, not lack of happiness, not harm to others - nothing is bad. Nothing. And therefore their argument fails.

AFAICT, in order to have a morality, atheists are forced to make an act of faith, and pick something out to base their morality on. And, almost by definition, faith cannot be explained to someone else. Because explaining it means that the other person doesn’t have the same frame of reference.

Maybe it would be helpful to frame the question of morality as some do the question of theism.

Assume there is no such thing as morality. Prove to me that it exists as a meaningful concept.

Regards,
Shodan

That’s news to me.

The performance of an engine can be controlled by what kind of lubricant is put in; that doesn’t disprove the existence of a driver.

Complete non-sequitur. In no definition of the word “bad” have I ever seen “stuff God doesn’t like”.

It’s pretty simple to find a basis for morality. Good is what makes the world better, ie causes its inhabitants to enjoy themselves more. Bad is the opposite. God doesn’t enter into it.

gobear

No. Modern medicine has proposed physical explanations. Even if these had passed lots of important, difficults tests of falsifiability (which they haven’t, and likely will not for decades if not centuries) this would still not disprove anything. Shodan:

No: evil, “bad” and indeed morality in general can still be couched in terms of entities which supervene on the physical, such as human suffering. Evil could thus be “that which causes suffering”.

A good start. You have made an assertion. On what do you base this? What basis do you have for stating that your standard as above has real validity?

For instance, you assert that the Good means “whatever causes people to enjoy themselves”. If gobear is correct, happiness is nothing more than a pattern of electrical impulses in certain areas of space (human brains). On what basis do you conclude that those electrical patterns are “better” than, say, turning on a light bulb? Would you agree that someone else, who believes that the Good consists of electrical patterns, has just as valid a claim on being moral when he claims that turning out light bulbs is a moral evil?

In other words, you have made an assertion, just as theists make an assertion about the existence of God. Now produce the proof of your assertion.

Why is it true that happiness is “good”? What rational justification can you give for choosing that standard, instead of something else (or nothing at all)?

Regards,
Shodan

So…“good” acts make the world more good, and “bad” acts make the world more bad? :wink:

Or is your idea of morality sort of a combination of hedonism and utilitarianism- that we should pursue that which produces the most enjoyment for the most people? Would such a definition of morality consider things like say, voyeurism, to be immoral (assuming the peeper isn’t spotted)? Would I have a moral obligation to lie if it would allow me to avoid discomfort- particularly if the lie would cause no direct harm to others?

I don’t deny that there may be secular conceptions of morality which make perfect sense- and “Good is what […] causes [the world’s] inhaitants to enjoy themselves more” may in fact be one of them. But I do find some of the particulars to be a bit troublesome, but maybe with some clarification…?

The eyewitness accounts of the evangelists, (the authors of the gospels). Something happened. Grown men organised their lives around those events.

The inconsistencies in the narratives don’t bother me. They seem accounted for by the circumstances. An encounter with the divine is an intelligble explanation.

Shodan, again,All an atheist can do is provide a feasible explanation for every aspect of the universe - they cannot prove that it is theexplanation, only that further entities are unnecessary.

Morality cannot be proven, but an explanation of those phenomenon described by the term “morality” certainly can be given in terms of eg. neurological stress indicators.

I’m neither an atheist to the exclusion of being a theist nor a theist to the exclusion of being an atheist. (I’m fairly consistent on this board about presenting myself as an unorthodox theist because of the relative willingness and ability of the audience to think beyond simplistics).

The best arguments against theism generally take the form “Explain to me what is gained by utilizing this ‘God’ concept. Isn’t the world sufficient explicable in other terms, and, where not, not much improved upon by the introduction of this notion that’s just going to get you sidetracked into a discussion of whether or not you’re referring to a nonreal phenomenon?”

The best arguments against atheism generally take the form “Define for me this ‘God’ in which you do not believe and which you say does not exist. What do you mean by ‘God’ when you use the term? Surely you recognize the silliness of asserting that this English monosyllable cannot be used by anyone, at any time, to refer to anything that isn’t spurious?”

Total hijack, but did you ever wonder how parsimonous explanations hold up in the face of biological redundancy? Can we really trust parsimony? It is not a matter of redundancy being a bad idea, obviously we can give plenty of reasons why redundancy in a biological organism is a “good idea”. But it is not, to my estimation, all that parsimonous.