God doesn't exist: Post from an Atheist

[Uccisore]

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.

Yes, I know. My point was not that people should believe irrational things. My point was that you ought to cease your leap from “X is irrational to believe” to “X is false”. They are two different arguments altogether, requiring different kinds of support.

I have said it time and time again that I say that like I would say “Unicorns do no exist.”

So when you say “God doesn’t exist”, you really mean “God might exist, but I don’t think He does”. I don’t see how it’s my responsibility to know something like that. I’ll accept, though, that you’re conceeding God might exist, and we’ll move on to dicussing the rationality of believing in Him.

How did you come to the conclusion that God had these properties? Are these characteristics justafiable?

 Remember, you're dealing with a once-born Christian, not a twice-born.  Ask me how I [i]came[/i] to these conclusions, and you'll get a very unsatisfactory answer like, "My mommy told me so".  Ask me instead, why I [i]still[/i] believe these things, and you'll get something more palpable. 
 I still believe that God is omnipotent because of simplicity- distinguishing between an omnipotent GOd who created everything and a merely extremely powerful God who created everything seems arbitrary.  The first is more simple, and I've seen no compelling argument that there are specific capabilities beyond God, other than the logically impossible. 
  Omniscience seems to flow from omnipotence- it's difficult to see how a Being could be as powerful as possible without having as much knowledge as possible.  
  Omnibenevolence is a bit trickier- to say that God was morally culpable sometimes would imply a moral standard to which God was beholden, and I've never seen an argument for something like that. 

The likelyhood of BLANK existing where BLANK is replaced by different definition of God for each argument.

The arguments do not use different definitions for God. Rather, they each focus on a different property which God is alleged to posses, and attempt to show that there is something that has that property.

Let’s just say that the arguments aren’t conclusive.

I certainly agree with that.

[Marshall_McDaniel]

Thank you for your excellent post my real name. You say that ‘inherent good’ (in and of itself) exists because the lack thereof leads to an infinite regress, Interesting argument that i had not anticipated. Where is inherent good? Money can be good, but people frequently do evil things to attain it. Happiness can be considered good, but some people will say that they are happy because they kill people. Any attempt to ameliorate this argument will undoubtedly introduce other goods. For example, some will say that ‘non-contradictory’ happiness is an inherent good, but that allows two goods, namely integrity and happiness. You may say, however, that God is the inherent good, but that gets into my second main objection, mainly that it is arbitrary. I chose “Crucify all white people” for an extreme example, but i am sure that all of us can think of examples of the misuse of religion. Misuses which are irrefutable because God (and his will) can neither be proven nor disproven.

I welcome any attempt to prove to me that there are inherent, intrinsic goods as i believe that there will always be scenarios in which they are not.

Shalom,
Marshall

[my_real_name]

@Marshall McDaniel

Thank you for your excellent post my real name. You say that ‘inherent good’ (in and of itself) exists because the lack thereof leads to an infinite regress, Interesting argument that i had not anticipated. Where is inherent good? Money can be good, but people frequently do evil things to attain it. Happiness can be considered good, but some people will say that they are happy because they kill people. Any attempt to ameliorate this argument will undoubtedly introduce other goods. For example, some will say that ‘non-contradictory’ happiness is an inherent good, but that allows two goods, namely integrity and happiness. You may say, however, that God is the inherent good, but that gets into my second main objection, mainly that it is arbitrary. I chose “Crucify all white people” for an extreme example, but i am sure that all of us can think of examples of the misuse of religion. Misuses which are irrefutable because God (and his will) can neither be proven nor disproven.

I welcome any attempt to prove to me that there are inherent, intrinsic goods as i believe that there will always be scenarios in which they are not.

Okay, well, first money. It’s not a good in itself, but a utilitarian good. And yes people do sometimes do evil to try to get good. But that doesn’t mean the thing they are trying to get is also evil – it is a good end but the means are wrong.

I also don’t think people kill to be happy. They might get on a power trip from it, but I’m not sure that’s achievement of happiness in itself. I think they would have a troubled conscience – i.e. not be happy. If they kill in war, they are acting on behalf of the state in protection of their country – which is valiant and necessary.

There are lots of inherent goods (imo) which are also ordered to other inherent goods. Virtue is good. Wisdom is good. (They fulfill our nature.) And, yes, in the end God is good because he has created us for Himself.

I’m not sure a misuse of religion is religion. If we are all tending towards God’s goodness – and thus our own – there should be no religious vice.

?

Un Chevalier Mal Fet

[Marshall_McDaniel]

Thanks for your response, my real name.

Okay, well, first money. It’s not a good in itself, but a utilitarian good. And yes people do sometimes do evil to try to get good. But that doesn’t mean the thing they are trying to get is also evil – it is a good end but the means are wrong.

Ok. You have pointed out to me that my example of people preforming evil to get money is a bad example and i accept that. I agree that money is not a good in itself, it is certainly subordinated to other goods within a man’s life. Money is a means to other ends and the person who accepts money as his only good is usually rightly considered shallow.

I also don’t think people kill to be happy. They might get on a power trip from it, but I’m not sure that’s achievement of happiness in itself. I think they would have a troubled conscience – i.e. not be happy. If they kill in war, they are acting on behalf of the state in protection of their country – which is valiant and necessary.

First we’ll talk about happiness. Happiness is an inner state. My example was merely intended to convey that that inner state may be attained by different people in different ways and that it can’t be taken as the sole good, a discussion of which, unfortunately, lies outside the confines of this conversation. A troubled conscience from killing other people in such an individual is my proof that there are goods other than happiness which must be considered, but you may agree with me on that. Killing in a just war and murder also goes further towards indicating that the good is different in different situations.

There are lots of inherent goods (imo) which are also ordered to other inherent goods. Virtue is good. Wisdom is good. (They fulfill our nature.) And, yes, in the end God is good because he has created us for Himself.

(Italics mine)

If inherent goods are ordered to other goods they are no longer sole goods in and of themselves.

God, the creator. They certainly go hand in hand for most people, but why should we necessarily consider God the creator? Perhaps (if he exists, which i still contest) he found the World ready-made, a turn-key solution.

I’m not sure a misuse of religion is religion. If we are all tending towards God’s goodness – and thus our own – there should be no religious vice.

“There should be no religious vice.” But the fact is that people of all walks of life including myself are prone to error, stupidity, and vice of every kind. I was saying that if God is considered the sole good, which is tantamount to fundamentalism, then this opens the door for vices of every kind. I would much rather have people that loved people irrespective of whether they love God or not. I guess the bottom line is that if any one thing is considered the sole good it opens the lid of Pandora’s box, letting loose every demon imaginable. Therefore one’s goods should be considered from within a balanced framework, ready to respond to situations of all kinds.

[my_real_name]

@Marshall McDaniel

First we’ll talk about happiness. Happiness is an inner state. My example was merely intended to convey that that inner state may be attained by different people in different ways and that it can’t be taken as the sole good, a discussion of which, unfortunately, lies outside the confines of this conversation. A troubled conscience from killing other people in such an individual is my proof that there are goods other than happiness which must be considered, but you may agree with me on that. Killing in a just war and murder also goes further towards indicating that the good is different in different situations.

First, in Aristotle and Aquinas, happiness consists in achieving your end.
Second, the end of an act is part of the act; just war and murder are different actions.

If inherent goods are ordered to other goods they are no longer sole goods in and of themselves.

Well, having two arms is a definite good, but then that good is also useful for doing other things. You want virtue to make you happy, but it can also help you understand God, a further good. So i think it might be right that you can be both.

God, the creator. They certainly go hand in hand for most people, but why should we necessarily consider God the creator? Perhaps (if he exists, which i still contest) he found the World ready-made, a turn-key solution.

Then why is he God? This is like the gods of myth, products of the universe.
But the philosophic God is defined as the Creator.

“There should be no religious vice.” But the fact is that people of all walks of life including myself are prone to error, stupidity, and vice of every kind. I was saying that if God is considered the sole good, which is tantamount to fundamentalism, then this opens the door for vices of every kind. I would much rather have people that loved people irrespective of whether they love God or not. I guess the bottom line is that if any one thing is considered the sole good it opens the lid of Pandora’s box, letting loose every demon imaginable. Therefore one’s goods should be considered from within a balanced framework, ready to respond to situations of all kinds.

Well, you don’t have this problem if you acknowledge things which are “good in themselves”. And loving your neighbor is not only a divine commandment, but (imo) is is one of the noblest things you can do. (The noble, being defined as that which is desirable in itself.)

?

Un Chevalier Mal Fet

[Jub_Jub]

The definition of good is whatever you define it as.

[my_real_name]

@Jub Jub

The definition of good is whatever you define it as.

Now, i was wondering why you would say such a silly sounding thing. Is good horse? Is good rock? Is good death?

It must be since all beings are good in themselves (Aquinas); and we only know things that are. Thus many things are desirable, in themselves or for other things. But can we see why things are called “good”?

It may be hard to see his point, but that’s one of the great things about studying philosophy – you can learn to think in new and useful ways!

Yours cordially,
Un Chevalier Mal Fet

By the way, do you go to Georgia State, perhaps? If so, do you know how they decide who gets to take classes through their college, in France or Germany?

[Jub_Jub]

Now, i was wondering why you would say such a silly sounding thing. Is good horse? Is good rock? Is good death?

Yes…rocks, horses and death are all good. Why because I said so and what I percieve as being true is all that matters to me. It’s all a matter of perspective!

That’s what’s ironic about Philosophy. No one is right or wrong. Everything is up for interpretation. It’s all subjective, but it’s still interesting to hear what others have to say!

I wonder what goes through the mind of an ant when I run over them with a lawn mower?

Georgia State…no. My daughter is trying to get in though! I believe you can apply online.

[hombre08107]

BeenaJain, firstly, don’t compare fundamental beliefs to faith. Secondly, intuition can be dangerous, especially when fueled by conditioning.

Uccisore, you wrote:

My point was that you ought to cease your leap from “X is irrational to believe” to “X is false”. They are two different arguments altogether, requiring different kinds of support.

I understand your point. As an atheist agnostic I would not try to prove that God cannot exist. At first glance it sounds very reasuring for the theist to know this but it suffers from a flaw. Using skeptisism there is not one being, with exception of the contradictiory, that you can prove false. Using this logic you could defend God, Dracula, and fairies alike.

So when you say “God doesn’t exist”, you really mean “God might exist, but I don’t think He does”.

Would you stop that? That’s the second time you do that. What I “really mean” is that God, in most definitions, might exist, but it would be ignorant to think he does. There are so many possibilities of what can exist outside of our reality. One of them is nothingness. Who are we to claim knowledge of what is transendent to us? All we should know is that we don’t know and put belief in nothing, that is to say, to not believe in anything because we don’t know. Atheist Agnostisism.

Remember, you’re dealing with a once-born Christian, not a twice-born. Ask me how I came to these conclusions, and you’ll get a very unsatisfactory answer like, “My mommy told me so”. Ask me instead, why I still believe these things, and you’ll get something more palpable.

Don’t you see the problem here? You have been conditioned to believe in God. Today, though, you say that it is not conditioning but observation that is responsible for your belief. What you do not seem to understand is that it is because you have been conditioned to believe in God that you experience God.

It’s like a lost love. Ever had the experience of thinking you saw someone you onced loved on the streets to look closer and find that it wasn’t her? God is like that but the lost love is created by our minds. The embodiment of the infinite and the unknown fueled by conditioning and our desire to believe in him.

I still believe that God is omnipotent because of simplicity- distinguishing between an omnipotent GOd who created everything and a merely extremely powerful God who created everything seems arbitrary. The first is more simple, and I’ve seen no compelling argument that there are specific capabilities beyond God, other than the logically impossible.
Omniscience seems to flow from omnipotence- it’s difficult to see how a Being could be as powerful as possible without having as much knowledge as possible.

A bare-bones definition of a theistic God would be “The maximally-powerful, maximally-knowledgeable Person responsible for the existence of Nature”.

Being God is believed to be a being which possesses the properties of omnipotence and omniscience and is the being responsible for the creation of the universe. So what is the argument for such a being? So being God is omniscient because being God is omnipotent. And being God is omnipotent why? Because being God created the universe? How do we know that being God created the universe? Things are just not fitting in here.

Why does this Big Unknown have to be one guy? What’s wrong with polytheism?! How do you know that the being who created the universe is the same guy who manages it? How do you know that someone is managing the universe? Why can’t the creator be dead while the universe still exists? Why can’t the universe be a cause of some effect outside our reality that is not intelligent?

(Some parts of this post seems hostile. Please take nothing to heart.)

[hombre08107]

The arguments do not use different definitions for God. Rather, they each focus on a different property which God is alleged to posses, and attempt to show that there is something that has that property.

I think that a thread about the arguments would be a great thing to start sometime. Unfortunately, I personally don’t have the time to argue the three arguments. I can’t wait for it, though.

[my_real_name]

[message deleted]

[Uccisore]

skeptisism there is not one being, with exception of the contradictiory, that you can prove false.

  This is true. If we both agree that the concept of God is probably not self-contradictory, then the only other way for you to proceed is to suggest that belief in God is not rational, whether He exists or not.  

All we should know is that we don’t know and put belief in nothing, that is to say, to not believe in anything because we don’t know. Atheist Agnostisism.

But you need to argue for this. It’s apparent that you don’t know- atheism may be the most rational stance for you. But by what logic do you make this a statement about ‘we’?

You have been conditioned to believe in God.

We’re all conditioned to believe certain things as children. I don’t see it as a problem, I see it as a universal unavoidable situation.

What you do not seem to understand is that it is because you have been conditioned to believe in God that you experience God.

And this is just an empty reach on your part: For one, it has nothing to do  with philosophy, and is more of a psychological claim, and for two, you have no grounds on which to make it. You haven't even asked me what my experiences of God are like, and you already know where they come from?  That would be bad science, bad psychology, and it's certainly bad philosophy. 
 Lastly, whether you intended so or not, this is finally a positive claim on your part. You have a burden of proof now. 

What’s wrong with polytheism?!

Again, I would say simplicity. Multiple beings cannot be omnipotent and omniscient, I'm fairly certain.  Positing that it took many beings to create the universe instead of one would be a needless complexity without some special reason to suppose it.  That's just a philosophical reason.  There are sociological reasons I'm not a polytheist, too:  I haven't met any polytheists that actually seem interested in objective truth, or doing philosophy like we're doing here.  Theism seems to be the religion of truth seekers, time and again. 

The rest of your questions can mostly be answered by an appeal to simplicity as well, save for one: 

Why can’t the universe be a cause of some effect outside our reality that is not intelligent?

I believe the argument from Design makes it more likely than not that this isn't the case: The existence of order in general, and other minds in particular, make it likely that something like a mind is behind our origins.  More to the point, I don't think methodological naturalism has any ground to stand on.  People here who know me know my favorite philosopher is Alvin Plantinga, and he his argument against naturalism is what I"m referring to here. If you aren't familiar, let me know and I'll sum it up briefly.

[hombre08107]

But by what logic do you make this a statement about ‘we’?

By the lack of argument, science, or evidence for any version of God’s existence.

We’re all conditioned to believe certain things as children. I don’t see it as a problem, I see it as a universal unavoidable situation.

I see it as a universal problem. Your conditioning is taking away from your objective reasoning. Instead of asking the rational “why should I believe in God?” you ask “why should I go against what Mom taught me?”.

And this is just an empty reach on your part: For one, it has nothing to do with philosophy, and is more of a psychological claim, and for two, you have no grounds on which to make it. You haven’t even asked me what my experiences of God are like, and you already know where they come from? That would be bad science, bad psychology, and it’s certainly bad philosophy.

I disagree. I have a past with Christianity and I undertand what it’s like to see His face everywhere, especially in the beautiful. I woke up.

Lastly, whether you intended so or not, this is finally a positive claim on your part. You have a burden of proof now.

You would be right. You’re catching on.

What’s wrong with polytheism?!

Again, I would say simplicity.

So you believe in one God because you don’t want to deal with the idea of many Gods? You’re going to have to explain more than that.

Multiple beings cannot be omnipotent and omniscient, I’m fairly certain.

Why not? From the perspective of our reality I see no reason not to. And besides, why does beign God have to be omnipotent and omniscient?

Positing that it took many beings to create the universe instead of one would be a needless complexity without some special reason to suppose it.

But there is a reason. What’s wrong with the idea of two or three or a community of Gods responsible for and managing reality?

There are sociological reasons I’m not a polytheist, too: I haven’t met any polytheists that actually seem interested in objective truth, or doing philosophy like we’re doing here.

So a part of why you’re not a polytheist is because none of the cool kids are doing it? Because it’s not popular?

The rest of your questions can mostly be answered by an appeal to simplicity as well

Simplicity?! What ever gave you the idea that what transends outside of reality is simple?! So you’re telling me that the Great Unknown has these qualities because they are simple?!

Do you see my point? Stop giving the Great Unknown properties, qualities, or characteristics. You know that you have no good argument for these qualities. You said it yourself, they’re there because they’re simple. If a God existed I would doubt that it would be at all that simple.

I believe the argument from Design makes it more likely than not that this isn’t the case: The existence of order in general, and other minds in particular, make it likely that something like a mind is behind our origins. More to the point, I don’t think methodological naturalism has any ground to stand on. People here who know me know my favorite philosopher is Alvin Plantinga, and he his argument against naturalism is what I"m referring to here. If you aren’t familiar, let me know and I’ll sum it up briefly.

You could sum it up if you wanted. Personally, I’m not into positive atheism. It’s just another way of claiming knowledge of the unknown. Nevertheless, I see positive atheism as a possibility. As much a possibility as God or Gods.

[jade11]

@BurNinG

Your entire theory is flawed in this: you believe there is no God, because there is no evidence of Him anywhere. That’s the same as me saying that you have no brain because I see no evidence of it anywhere. (note: that was not meant as a flame, i appreciate your tactful post) I’ve never touched or seen, or smelled, or heard your brain, so it can’t possibly exist. It’s completey irrational and childish to think of such a thing. My point is, you can’t assume something doesn’t exist simply because you have no sensory perception of it.

This argument is flawed because we know that his brain exist because it created the ideas that he posted in the forum.

[Marshall_McDaniel]

Thanks for responding my real name.

First, in Aristotle and Aquinas, happiness consists in achieving your end.
Second, the end of an act is part of the act; just war and murder are different actions.

Eudaimonia, i almost mentioned that. The Greeks considered it not only happiness, but also prosperity and well-being, “achieving your end”; That pretty much nails it. I’m reminded of Bob’s post on self actualization which might have been in this thread. Healthy egoism is a good, but rare thing.

The end of an act is part of an act. but a moral action also includes: motivation, perceived consequences, actual consequences for oneself and others. I’m pretty much a consequentialist as opposed to a deontologist. If a man breaks into my house intending to kill me i am at that point inclined to value my life more than his.

If inherent goods are ordered to other goods they are no longer sole goods in and of themselves.

Well, having two arms is a definite good, but then that good is also useful for doing other things. You want virtue to make you happy, but it can also help you understand God, a further good. So i think it might be right that you can be both.

I think we agree on that. That’s why i mentioned the part about a balanced framework of virtues. Something like a virtue theory of ethics (Aristotle), but maybe not so centered on the individual, although it is true that you must be able to help yourself before you can help others.

God, the creator. They certainly go hand in hand for most people, but why should we necessarily consider God the creator? Perhaps (if he exists, which i still contest) he found the World ready-made, a turn-key solution.

Then why is he God? This is like the gods of myth, products of the universe.
But the philosophic God is defined as the Creator.

Finally, there are Atheistic religions (Greek: without god). These have no creator god as such (although there may be spirits and other exotic entities). Buddhism is an example (the Buddha is a human who has reached enlightenment), Jainism (with its Tirthankas, or teachers), Confucianism, Taoism (these last two are more philosophies than god-driven religions).

source: krysstal.com/wgods.html

I would say that Confucianism and Taoism are Philosphical religions which don’t center around the creation myth. God and creator are not the same entity for a lot of earth’s people, recall that 1 in 5 people are Chinese and probably represent one of the above (including Buddhism).

“There should be no religious vice.” But the fact is that people of all walks of life including myself are prone to error, stupidity, and vice of every kind. I was saying that if God is considered the sole good, which is tantamount to fundamentalism, then this opens the door for vices of every kind. I would much rather have people that loved people irrespective of whether they love God or not. I guess the bottom line is that if any one thing is considered the sole good it opens the lid of Pandora’s box, letting loose every demon imaginable. Therefore one’s goods should be considered from within a balanced framework, ready to respond to situations of all kinds.

Well, you don’t have this problem if you acknowledge things which are “good in themselves”. And loving your neighbor is not only a divine commandment, but (imo) is is one of the noblest things you can do. (The noble, being defined as that which is desirable in itself.)

I couldn’t agree more with the part about loving your neighbor but even that can cause one to lose one’s center. As i said earlier, “I would much rather have people that loved people irrespective of whether they love God or not.” The golden rule is a great thing. It just frequently gets embellished with a lot of other stuff that we don’t need. Don’t get me wrong, There are some things that are very excellent virtues and still not inherent goods, like honesty, integrity, happiness, courage. The Greeks had their lists, the Buddhists had their lists, but neither one sacrificed all of his virtues to one and they all had lists.Some people only start with one virtue yet discover all of the others through that one. Just because there is not one ‘summum bonum’ does not mean that we don’t use the candidates as general rules in our lives. The concept of one ruler has even gone out of our political lives. We now have many teachers, many rulers, we have learned to drink from many cups. Jesus didn’t just stay on a mountaintop talking to his God. He visited people of all walks of life: prostitutes, tax collectors, rulers. He tried to give each person exactly what s/he needed. The greeks had a profound sense of civic responsibility, as well as physical training in addition to wisdom, temperance, courage, and justice. Then there are the four noble truths of Buddhism. Even if one virtue is predominant in one’s life, there are still other virtues subordinated to that one. Humanity is too large and sovereign a kingdom to consign it to one King.

[Uccisore]

By the lack of argument, science, or evidence for any version of God’s existence.

  There are arguments, and there is evidence. You fail to be convinced by them.  Whether that is some failing on your part, or on the part of the evidence itself is unclear. What is clear is that leaping from "No evidence has been presented to me which convinces me of the existence of God" to "Nobody anywhere has any evidence or argument for the existence of God" is spurious at best.  

Your conditioning is taking away from your objective reasoning.

Feh. If religious people were the only one's conditioned, or if religion was the only thing people were conditioned about, then you might be on to something.  However, before we come to our individual ages of reason, the fact is nearly everything we learn is from conditioning. That goes for you as well as me.  Yes, it so happens that belief in God is one of the beliefs I got that way.  However, since then, I've examined it, and found alternatives lacking. 

I have a past with Christianity and I undertand what it’s like to see His face everywhere, especially in the beautiful. I woke up.

Ahh. So instead of a pure shot in the dark, your claims about what’s going on in my mind are based on anecdotal evidence from a single test case. Hardly better. Look, your case for the lack of existence of God breaks down to the following:

1.) I fail to be convinced by any of the arguments for theism which have been presented to me.
2.) Everybody who has experiences they attribute to God are wrong- I know this because I had experiences I attributed to God, and have since changed my mind about them.

Don’t you see how these are personal arguments which have absolutely zero ability to influence anybody else? As they stand, they hardly warrant a critical response in terms of philosophy- they are more like expressions of your personal character and taste.

So you believe in one God because you don’t want to deal with the idea of many Gods?

No, I don’t believe in polytheism because the idea of multiple omnipotent Beings seems like a logical impossibility to me, and because I see no good reason to suppose multiple Creators. It sounds arbitrary.

And besides, why does beign God have to be omnipotent and omniscient?

I already answered that- simplicity.  The notion of a Being that can do anything logically possible is simpler than a Being with a long list of things it can and cannot do. If you are believing in something that created the Universe, Omnipotence is the simpler option.  Besides, now you're getting into the whole idea of conditioned beliefs.  What reason have I to suddenly suppose that God is merely 'very powerful', or that there are 2 gods, or 78? I suppose I could be convinced of those things if there were an argument. 

What’s wrong with the idea of two or three or a community of Gods responsible for and managing reality?

Maybe nothing, maybe quite a bit. What does it matter?  For all I know, my car was stolen in the night and isn't in my driveway. There's no reason why that [i]can't[/i] be true.  Does the existence of that plausible idea mean that I ought to stop believing I have a car in the driveway until I go check? I don't think so. Aside from an appeal to general skepticism, I don't see what all this "Maybe X, Maybe Z" has to do with anything.  

So a part of why you’re not a polytheist is because none of the cool kids are doing it?

I’ll stand by the words I used. You can hear them however you want.

Stop giving the Great Unknown properties, qualities, or characteristics.

 If I take you correctly, you're saying that because there are other explanations for my experiences, and other possibilities besides theism, that I ought to refrain from having the beliefs I do. It's a fair point, and a common one- if I have no strong argument against polytheism, then I ought not believe theism so strongly. 
 But, it's also true that for any set of evidence, for any subject (not just religion), there are an infinite number of explanations that satisfy that evidence.  Principals like simplicity are the only ways we have to choose from them.  I don't see anything in your argument that makes it a special attack on religion, as opposed to a general appeal to universal skepticism.

[CyruxMafia]

hombre08107 your ideas are evidence of social brainwashing our society breeds people like you only because they are easier to control and manipulate. In my philosophy class all i hear is that Science killed the “Gods” because they were non-existent in the first place. Well thats basically the logic of every athiest but what you ATHEISTS!!! have not even slightly debated or COMPREHENDED in the least bit is that God has always been present throughout history. There are 3 major religions formed on the basis of that one God and there are countless Prophets from that one God which have continually appeared through out time. Stop being a sheep like the helpless scatterd masses and realize the finite truth. That there is a God and people like you are the problem in this world, People who do bad things and act in a bad way have no respect for the rule of Law ordained by the Almighty Creator of the Earth. NO EXEPTIONS!!! So you and the terrorist can sit and enjoin in the lack of respect that you give to God’s will. k?

[hombre08107]

CyruxMafia, you’re really bad at this. If you want someone to heed your crying then go to your mom. It’s not my fault that you are unable to defend your God in your philosophy class. That’s your problem. It is not my problem either that you worship figments of your imagination.

Uccisor, you’re really good at this. Excellent post. You wrote:

There are arguments, and there is evidence.

Nothing remotely close to justify the existence of the God of natural theism or Christianity. You must surely admit that your justifications are mostly faith-based.

On a side note, before we start the thread for the arguments for God, do you believe in any other argument for God besides the teleological, the cosmological, and the ontological arguments?

Yes, it so happens that belief in God is one of the beliefs I got that way. However, since then, I’ve examined it, and found alternatives lacking.

What is your defense against my skeptic argument?

No, I don’t believe in polytheism because the idea of multiple omnipotent Beings seems like a logical impossibility to me

I’ll ask a second time. Why does it seem logically impossible? What’s so impossible about the idea that two or more beings exist transcendently in a super-reality have equal control over our reality? Personally, it sounds more likely than one guy doing the job himself. Just think of how many people it took to create the pseudo-sub-realty of The Sims.

and because I see no good reason to suppose multiple Creators. It sounds arbitrary.

Are you joking? We have no way of knowing how many creators there are if there are any. There is as little reason to suppose one creator over multiple creators. My point is that there is no argument for monotheism over polytheism.

Theists often think that transcendent intelligence and cause implies a single supreme being. My argument is that it doesn’t necessarily a single supreme being. Personally, I find the design argument convincing. I personally think that the idea of intelligence transcendent of our reality that is in some way responsible for our reality is very plausable. Well, to a certain degree at least. I wouldn’t be surprised if there turned out to be nothing behind those doors of transcendence. Do I believe that this intelligence comes from a single being which is all all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and eternal? Of course not. There is as much evidence for polytheism as there is for monotheism. As for the all-everything bit? Here’s a fun question: If there was an intelligent first cause, why should we believe that it is perfect in this reality and in his reality?

And besides, why does beign God have to be omnipotent and omniscient?

I already answered that- simplicity. The notion of a Being that can do anything logically possible is simpler than a Being with a long list of things it can and cannot do. If you are believing in something that created the Universe, Omnipotence is the simpler option.

At one point man believed that the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was the center of the universe. They were wrong. Simplicity is no argument. Personally, I find the idea of a fallible intelligent first cause more plausible than a perfect one. There is, of course, no reason to believe that so I suspend my belief.

For all I know, my car was stolen in the night and isn’t in my driveway. There’s no reason why that can’t be true. Does the existence of that plausible idea mean that I ought to stop believing I have a car in the driveway until I go check? I don’t think so.

Your analogy is a failure. You believe your car has not been stolen because of probability and statistics. Unfortunately, the existence of a single, perfect, intelligent first cause has no such probability. The fact that this probability does not exist is yet another reason so suspend belief.

If I take you correctly, you’re saying that because there are other explanations for my experiences, and other possibilities besides theism, that I ought to refrain from having the beliefs I do. It’s a fair point, and a common one- if I have no strong argument against polytheism, then I ought not believe theism so strongly.

Mostly, yes.

But, it’s also true that for any set of evidence, for any subject (not just religion), there are an infinite number of explanations that satisfy that evidence. Principals like simplicity are the only ways we have to choose from them. I don’t see anything in your argument that makes it a special attack on religion, as opposed to a general appeal to universal skepticism.

Any subject? Do you mean, perhaps, any science? I do not see where simplicity applies to besides science. Furthermore, I do not see how the simplifying the Great Unknown to a single, perfect, intelligent first cause compares to any other simplification in any subject. I’m going to have to ask you to further explain your point.

[CyruxMafia]

Defend my God? Against what? Ignorance is your problem and science is no God to be hold; since science itself bows before the almighty creator! You say that I should defend my God when it is who has yet to defend you ignorance.

BEHOLD!!!

http://sultan.org/articles/QScience.html

SLAVE OF GOD

Humble yourself before the knowledge of your Lord!

Kick not dirt upon the path of the righteous…

[hombre08107]

CyruxMafia, you’re a retard. Obviously, I’ve made some argument that has compelled you. How else can I explain your poor excuse for a flame. Surely you possess some mental handicap.

science itself bows before the almighty creator!

LoL

BEHOLD!!!

sultan.org/articles/QScience.html

Hahahaha

Do you fall for every practice of sophistry?

CyruxMafia, you’re out of your element. You have no frame of reference. You’re like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know…