Talk:Top ten arguments for the existence of God

NOTE: If you want to debate this, Please use this link and take it to the messageboard.

Argument from Popularity

Added a common name (Argumentum ad populum; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum) -Nuschi

Critique of Critique

Where are the critiques of the critiques? Will this site ever get deeper than this article?

In "6. First Cause Argument", you wrote, "And the refutations of these claims have also been present.", but you ought to know there are refutations of those "refutations". For example, "If everything that exists must have a cause, who created God?". The response is every effect has a cause not everything and infinite regression is impossible, therefore the First Cause is Eternal and Self-Existing (not self-created).

Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God (Peter Kreeft & Ronald K. Tacelli) http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/theistic_apologetics/kreeft-arguments.html

Pile's comment

We've taken much of the discussion to the Freethought messageboards. --Pile 16:45, 10 April 2008 (CDT)

Umm...okay

I wish someone would revert this talk page back to the way it was already. If we just let this site be scarred by the work of trolls, what does that say about us?

In response to the "critique of critiques," you have simply proved that God is time and energy. Problem solved. I have seen absolutely no convincing proof that any deity like the Christian God exists. (Not to mention...why should there only be one eternal and everlasting thing? That seems to be a hidden premise in this argument.)

Some Christian apologists say that if examined deeply enough, all the "wrong" religions will be logically inconsistent. If that is the case, why haven't they invalidated even a single religion? Christians have been making cases for their God for about 2000 years now. In fact, it is the Bible which contains inconsistencies when examined deeply enough! If Gautama Buddha had said that other religions were self-refuting the way these Christians do, I would be more inclined to believe him.

I see your point, but I also think it's illuminating to see how theists think.--Pile 10:53, 11 April 2008 (CDT)

Some thoughts

I feel the need to correct you on some points.

1. Nobody is born an atheist. Children are born without knowledge of the concept of God and therefore are unable to make a decision regarding His existence. 2. The burden of proof actually does lie upon the atheist. Or rather, the burden of disproof. Logic dictates that the only method of argumentation which leads to certain conclusions is deduction. This is why all arguments for the existence of God are invalid. Not because they are somehow objectively not compelling, but because they are inductive arguments which provide only vague probabilities. 3. Disbelief in God is actually the same as belief in the non-existence of God. It's the same statement. The worldview you are actually supposing to have is agnosticism: uncertainty on the subject of the existence of God. Certainty either way makes it a belief. 4. Early on you say: "there is no indisputable, tangible evidence of the existence of any God"? So you want indisputable tangible evidence? Who decides what is undisputable? You? Me? So what you're saying is that for some reason you can depend on the reliability of your mind, observations, and analysis. Why is that exactly? You simply accept such things as an act of faith. Simply put, your faith rests entirely on your own perception, which is subjective. This is what makes debate difficult. Certainty in anything is ultimately impossible to "prove" since you have to start with certainty in something else to prove it (infinite regress), and ultimately it is a matter of subjective opinion which assumptions are properly basic. So don't criticize theists for being unable to prove their faith to your satisfaction, if indeed that is the expectation. Furthermore, tangible and indisputable evidence is a contradiction. To be indisputable, it has to be purely abstract and philosophical, otherwise it leaves room for subjective interpretation. Let's say, for example, God comes down and talks to us all. Maybe we were all hallucinating as you said. Maybe it was a dream. Maybe we were in the matrix. Maybe our memory is wrong. It is not possible to form "indisputable" evidence. I think before even debating about the evidence, we need to debate about the basic assumptions we are making, since the evidence is shifted based on those assumptions, and we may disagree for good reason (I know, subjective again right?).

One last thing I would like to point out: "This most famous argument for God is also the easiest to completely deflate. If anything sufficiently complicated must have a creator, then who created God? It's as simple as that. However, when you point out this flaw in theist logic, they commit another logical fallacy: special pleading to claim that God is the exception to the rule and doesn't need to have a creator." You're missing the point here. There is a certain state of complexity which seems absurd without assuming it was designed. It is not a fallacy to exclude God from this principle. As long as we are discussing objects that exist in time and space, they are dependent and we have to trace them back to some origin (this is similar to what the first cause argument is getting at). The origin, of course, cannot be nothing, nor can it be something simple. Nor can it exist in time and space since those things didn't exist. It must be complex and self contained. God is both of those things, which makes God a very intuitive answer to the problem. It would be more of a stretch to suggest that lack of complex structure would produce a complex structure.

taken to the messageboard

I've posted your comments on the messageboard here: http://forum.freethoughtpedia.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=55 I think it's more appropriate to address there - so if you (or anybody else) wants to comment, go to the url above.--Pile 12:30, 19 July 2008 (CDT)

Minor Suggestion

Please remove the following sentence from the article. "It doesn't though." It's in the Pascal's Wager section.

Another minor suggestion

In the third paragraph of the critique of the Argument from Ignorance, there's a misplaced apostrophe in "peoples'". It should be "people's".

TAG

The transcendental argument for the existence of God is not the same as the ontological argument.

William James & Pascal's Wager

I suggest you add William James's argument to the critique of Pascal's Wager - He said that there are so many religions, any side you pick will not be a safe bet by the Wager. And if the Wager is the case, anytime anybody says something might happened you must listen to them, no matter how improbable. For example, if it were summer and somebody said "Wear a coat because it might become winter right now", you would have to wear a coat.