Does he go to church on Sunday? 
Why, specifically, do you believe in God?
For convenience, i have edited this post to present my own arguments for the non-existence of the Christian God.
Hey, Uccisore! Long time no see. Have a good summer?
You can read my initial argument on the first page. The argument got elaborated through the posts.
Yeah, been doing ok. I find myself in an interesting situation with regards to your argument: I’ve believed in God since before I was old enough to rationally examine my beliefs. So, coming of age with that belief already entrenched, in order to change my mind, I’d have to find strong evidence for the truth of atheism- perhaps some argument that God doesn’t exist or some such. I don’t find the arguments compelling enough to move me from my theistic ways. What’s my evidence for theism? Nothing you’d consider aboslute- anecdotal things about how I’ve lived my life, things I’ve seen and things I’ve felt that I attribute to the Holy Spirit and such like.
Now, I could come up with some other explanation besides God for my experiences. But, being a theist, and having seen no convincing argument that theism is false, why should I?
Why?
I remind you that you cannot have a proof for the non-existence of something, with exception of contradictory things. There is no proof for the non-existence of fairies. (phrygianslave, fairies, not the idea of fairies 
)
It is because there is no proof for God or any compelling argument for God that God does not exist. As much as the theist trys to argue, the burden of proof is theirs.
Because you’re suffering from circular reasoning. Maybe I didn’t convince you that God does not exist but it should be under question. And because it is under question you shouldn’t attribute phenomena you do not understand to the God of Gaps. It is because of this Great Unknown that one should not place attributes to this Unknown and even less give it the name of God.
I say this: tell me why you don’t find my argument convincing. Afterward, if you are willing, let me know how you define God and give me an argument for him.
Mr McDaniel says:
How d’ya like this?
Sed contra what the Angelic Doctor says: –
newadvent.org/summa/100604.htm
Whether all things are good by the divine goodness?
Objection 1. It seems that all things are good by the divine goodness. For Augustine says (De Trin. viii), “This and that are good; take away this and that, and see good itself if thou canst; and so thou shalt see God, good not by any other good, but the good of every good.” But everything is good by its own good; therefore everything is good by that very good which is God.
Objection 2. Further, as Boethius says (De Hebdom.), all things are called good, accordingly as they are directed to God, and this is by reason of the divine goodness; therefore all things are good by the divine goodness.
On the contrary, All things are good, inasmuch as they have being. But they are not called beings through the divine being, but through their own being; therefore all things are not good by the divine goodness, but by their own goodness.
I answer that, As regards relative things, we must admit extrinsic denomination; as, a thing is denominated “placed” from “place,” and “measured” from “measure.” But as regards absolute things opinions differ. Plato held the existence of separate ideas (84, 4) of all things, and that individuals were denominated by them as participating in the separate ideas; for instance, that Socrates is called man according to the separate idea of man. Now just as he laid down separate ideas of man and horse which he called absolute man and absolute horse, so likewise he laid down separate ideas of “being” and of “one,” and these he called absolute being and absolute oneness; and by participation of these, everything was called “being” or “one”; and what was thus absolute being and absolute one, he said was the supreme good. And because good is convertible with being, as one is also; he called God the absolute good, from whom all things are called good by way of participation.
Although this opinion appears to be unreasonable in affirming separate ideas of natural things as subsisting of themselves–as Aristotle argues in many ways–still, it is absolutely true that there is first something which is essentially being and essentially good, which we call God, as appears from what is shown above (2, 3), and Aristotle agrees with this. Hence from the first being, essentially such, and good, everything can be called good and a being, inasmuch as it participates in it by way of a certain assimilation which is far removed and defective; as appears from the above (4, 3).
Everything is therefore called good from the divine goodness, as from the first exemplary effective and final principle of all goodness. Nevertheless, everything is called good by reason of the similitude of the divine goodness belonging to it, which is formally its own goodness, whereby it is denominated good. And so of all things there is one goodness, and yet many goodnesses.
This is a sufficient Reply to the Objections.
So it seems things are both good in themselves, and by the Divine participation.
Vale bono!
Hallo all,
I have deleted the posts of ‘LKHERO’ - please don’t respond to his Postings.
Shalom
Bob
Would you delete my postings directed at him also? Danke.
Bitteschön
Shalom
Bob
Well, to use your argument on the first post of this thread as an example, many arguments against the existence of God are extremely anecdotal- Your argument seems to boil down to "I have not been convinced of God's existence, therefore God does not exist". How, as a theist, can I be compelled by that?
The problem of evil deserves it’s own thread- I’d like to talk about it though.
If there is no proof of the non-existence of God forthcoming, it becomes increasingly likely that the concept of God it as least consistant, even if it’s no true.
This is the kind of thing I’m talking about. That there is no absolute proof for the exitence of God does not mean God doesn’t exist. At most, it means it is irrational to believe in God. There are many things that exist which are irrational to believe in.
The second part of your argument, that there are no compelling arguments for the existence of God, is largely just a matter of opinion. It seems you have not been convinced by the theistic arguments you have heard. Nevertheless, many people have, and the arguments are at least strong enough that people still feel the need to debunk or defend them regularly. That ‘there are no compelling arguments’ is not a statement you can make lightly, unless you’re just expressing a matter of taste.
The burden of proof is on whoever is trying to prove something. If you bust into a church, intend on convincing the parishoners that God doesn’t exist, simply saying “Present your evidence, and if I’m not convinced, you all must become atheists!” is not good enough. Unfortunately, that’s exactly the tactic many atheists take- you initiate a discussion, demand people to present their proof, and either claim triumph because you aren’t convinced, or claim triumph because you are ignored.
Certainly, if I were trying to convince you of the existence of God, assuming that He did exist in my argument would be circular. What you seem to be saying here is, that because you have presented yourself as someone who does not believe in God, that now I have an obligation in
my private reasoning with myself to no longer believe that certain experiences were caused by God- presumably until I’ve come up with an argument satisfactory to you. I’m afraid I can’t agree with that, and it goes back to my original complaint- the mere fact that you don’t believe in God does not compel me.
A bare-bones definition of a theistic God would be "The maximally-powerful, maximally-knowledgeable Person responsible for the existence of Nature". Is that enough, or do you want more detail?
As far as an argument for His existence, I don't believe there is any formal, absolute proof. I find the ontological and cosmological arguments to be compelling enough to count as [i]evidence[/i] however. Most of the rest of 'what I got' is anecdotal.
Uccisore
Great post!
The good only attains it’s state in relation to other things (i.e. good for something). Nothing is good in and of itself (i.e. “the good of every good”; else you get that arbitrary nature of good that I alluded to earlier). This statement in and of itself assumes that God exists and that he is good. The former could be allowed for the sake of argument, but the latter begins to build on an already shaky foundation. Many have believed in evil God(s) and have we even considered the notion of indifferent God(s)?
I disagree with the premises, “All things are called good, accordingly as they are directed to God.” Maybe it is God’s will that I crucify all white people. It can’t be proven or disproven. The moral agent is given carte blanche. (s)he can do what (s)he will and say that it is God’s will. (Reasons similar to this are why we have many religions). Once again it is naturally assumed that God is good without any corroborating proof. Maybe you could show me Boethius’ other arguments which support this. I have read his consolation of philosophy but remember little of it.
This passage, quoted verbatim from the Website you mentioned, has more to do with the relationship between the singular good (God) and the many ‘goodnesses’ and builds upon the previous passages to which I have already proffered some objections.
Thank you for the compliment.
Uccisore: i applaud your apologetics and bow to your level-headedness.
Mr. McDaniel:
I thought it strange that you took more issue with the objections and not the body of the article, I thought the body more answered your question. But I guess half of the answer uses premises in the objections, so let’s go there.
In your answer to the first objection, you say “Nothing is good in itself”. This leads to an infinite regress. Surely practical goods are ordered to higher goods – and if nothing were good in itself there would be nothing to order practical goods to.
Here is why TA says God is good: “God is the supreme good simply, and not only as existing in any genus or order of things. For good is attributed to God, as was said in the preceding article, inasmuch as all desired perfections flow from Him as from the first cause.” And things are good because goodness is convertible with being. (Here TA defines goodness as “being under the aspect of the desirable.”)
That is, we know God is good because all goods come from Him.
In your answer to the second objection, are there any mainline religions that want to “crucify all white people?”
newadvent.org/summa/104902.htm
[By the way, I downloaded off the internet a paper which explains the sacrificing Isaac event in Genesis wonderfully. I can send you a copy or explain it here if you’d like. (The paper’s no longer on the internet.)]
Now, you said, if i remember, these are reasons you don’t believe in a Christian God. This is a philosophic God, but also the God of the scholastic philosophers. The point of the Christian God is a personal relationship with a Mediator between God and man. We could argue Scripture, but in the end, i don’t know if i could “prove” Scripture’s validity; it’s a matter of personal acceptance.
Vale bene,
Un Chevalier Mal Fet
Good post. I see you’re still using your skeptic arguments. I warn you, though, that your direction will prove to be futile. I know your sophism all too well.
Incorrect. My argument is more like, “the belief in God is irrational and not fundamental therefore God does not exist.”
Star Wars was very consistant. Nevertheless, I’m not worried about Darth Vader’s reign in the future.
It is not absolute proof that I’m waiting for. I don’t exactly believe in Descarte super-knowledge but there is no reasonable proof of any God.
So if the idea of the existence of God were irrational you would believe in him?
Really? Besides fundamental beliefs please tell me of irrational beliefs that compare to the irrational belief if God.
Matter of taste?! The arrogance of the theist will never cease to surprise me. You guys seriously think that you have a rational argument for a transendent being?
You don’t seem to understand how this works. I’m not trying to prove the non-existence of God. If anything, I’m trying to prove that you, or anyone, has no proof for the existence of any God.
Wrong. I’m saying as a rational man you should question these experiences from a rational perspective. Whether or not you wish to believe in God while rationalizing is up to you.
I have a question. In your post you hinted at stating that the belief in God was irrational. Do you believe that the belief in God is irrational?
Yes!! In order to have a good discussion about God it would be important to have a good understanding of what you mean by God.
So you believe in God out of irrational faith? Why do you believe in your God? Is it rational or irrational?
Evidence? Where is the science or empiricism in these laughable arguments? Kant destroys both of them. The ontological argument is a joke; a poor attemp at word play. Unfortunately, the idea of God and God are two very different things. As for the consmological argument, firstly, it reduces God to the single attribute “the first cause”, and secondly, the laws of causality do not work outside of reality.
I would discuss more but I don’t know what your God is.
Hi Uccisore,
I liked this one:
Shalom
Bob
Thank you, Bob, hombre, and your real name for your kind words.
I think there’s an error here, I address it just below:
The classic example is this: It is irrational to believe at any given moment that there an even number of ducks in the world. It is also irrational to believe at any given moment that there is an odd number of ducks in the world. Reason being, in either case you have just a 50% chance of being right, and no evidence or other way to verify your belief. Neverthess, at any given moment, one of these two beliefs is true.
Another example would if if I had a firm belief that you had brown hair. This would be irrational, because I have never seen you before, or heard anything about what you may look like. Nevertheless, it may be true that you have brown hair- in fact, it’s not terribly unlikely.
So we can see that there are true facts about the world that are nonethesless irrational to believe, either by anyone at any time (like the believe about the number of ducks), or by certain people under certain conditions (like my belief about your hair). Thus it is important to distinguish between “X is irrational to believe” and “X is false”.
I’m not certain how your incredulity is supposed to affect me.
I understand. You want me to parade my evidence before you for your scrutiny, so that you can debunk it all, and thereby claim some sort of victory or proof. The problem with this is twofold- First, if you promote no ideas of your own, then you risk nothing. You can always claim victory, either because you had the superior argument, or because you are confident that you will find it sooner or later. In short, you’re building up your case for atheism on the basis of your own willpower to ‘win’ internet conversations. Second, you approach suggests that atheism can only exist within the holes you find in a theist’s arguments. Doesn’t it worry you that this falls into the Christian mindset that atheism is a problem that needs to be fixed, as opposed to part of a unique world-view?
I believe it depends on the individual. Depending on how you were raised, the experiences you have had, and the arguments you have heard, it may or may be rational for you to believe in God. I am not aware of any argument that shows it to be rational or irrational for everybody to believe.
Let’s see…I also believe that God is morally perfect, but that may just be an extension of his omniscience, and not a unique property, I’m uncertain of that. Those are about the only properties I would insist on God having- there are other things I believe about Him, such as, that God has acted in history, but I wouldn’t consider that to be proper for His definition.
No, I have always believed in God, from before I knew what ‘rationality’ was. Since I’ve started my inquiries, though, I still believe that the preponderence of the evidence supports theism- I just don’t think it’s absolutely conclusive.
They are not scientific or empirical arguments, so I would not expect to find that sort of evidence in them. Rather, they (when properly forumlated) are inductive arguments showing the likelyhood of God existing.
I'm rusty on my Kant, but what I believe he criticized was the classical, deductive form of the arguments proposed by Anselm and Aquinas (or was it Augustine, I always forget). Again, I agree the arguments aren't conclusive, I said they provide evidence.
As far as your personal criticisms of the ontological and cosmological arguments, they could each be a thread unto themselves. Do you wish to discuss them in depth?
Oh, and RE: Darth Vader’s future reign, Star Wars took place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. 
You’re making huge mistakes here. If anything, the analogy reflects my position. First, the chance that God exists is not as simple as a 50-50 chance. More importantly, though, it is because the choice of believing in an even or odd number of ducks in the world is irrational that one should not put such a belief on a choice. It is true that in the example, at any given moment, one of those two beliefs is true but that is no reason to believe in odd or to believe in even.
While the analogy suggests that the belief in atheism is just as strong as theism, atheism would be the rational choice. If someone told me to believe in either even or odd i wouldn’t believe in either. And that’s what atheist agnostisism is; to not believe in God because belief in him is irrational and not fundamental.
You misunderstand what I mean when I say “God does not exist.” I have said it time and time again that I say that like I would say “Unicorns do no exist.” Like God there is a chance that unicorns could exist outside our knowledge. Nevertheless, I find no problem in saying unicorns do not exist. In the same respect, I find no problem in saying that God does not exist.
Yes. That would be how these things work.
I have a question. How did you come to the conclusion that God had these properties? Are these characteristics justafiable?
Wrong. The likelyhood of BLANK existing where BLANK is replaced by different definition of God for each argument. From perfection to first cause to architect.
I’m glad you asked that question. You’re right in saying that they belong on threads unto themselves. Let’s just say that the arguments aren’t conclusive.
Hey!
I can’t see my mind but I know it exists.
I can’t see my thoughts but I know they exist.
I can’t see the spirit but I know something like that exists.
I can’t see telepathy but I know that it exists.
I can’t verify this person lied to me but I know that he lied.
How do I know all of the above because I perceive it and my intuition tells me. Remember Murphy said, “What is difficult to understand is intuitively obvious?” Sometimes I feel God made intuition mostly to intuition that He’s there and so we be humane in general. I’m not kidding!
And as far as this blasphemy thing is concerned. Look! I’ll just call God a MORON right now! Who cries blasphemy? If you’re not God then how the hell can you do that? As far as I know logically, only God can say, “Hey! Why did you call me a moron?” But who the hell are you to cry blasphemy my dear 'cause you’re not God. If you do that my dear, I’ll say that YOU are pretending to be God because you cry blasphemy and not me sullying the name of God 'cause God never cried blasphemy! As such, if I was in the time of Christ, I’d have have nailed every single one of those Roman government officials who nailed Christ to the cross and I’d have made Christ watch the show whether He liked it or not. It would not have been His choice, it would be mine alone, baby!!!
Mr Hombre,
I have argued previously on these boards, and i think with some success, that Kant’s epistemology is in error and therefore his arguments against Aquinas’ proofs are ineffective. We can duscuss this if you wish. Basically, believing we don’t know some things (Kant) reduces to the position that we know nothing (Witgenstein) [after whom everything is “word play”], and if that’s wrong, then we do potentially know things (Rahner). Moreover, by examination of knowledge of universals, we can show the mind is at least partly immaterial.
As to your argument against cosmological arguments, I don’t see what’s wrong with proving a thing through it’s properties – especially when you prove God’s existence from effect to cause, and I don’t know what you mean “outside of reality” as reality is surely everything. Please advise.
Yours cordially,
my real name