Agnostic versus Atheist

[PRmerger]

Beats me.

How odd.

I’m giving you what I personally believe is the least worst argument for God. It’s a very bad argument indeed, but it’s head and shoulders above the rest.

So you don’t have a single argument professed by theologians/philosophers/apologists for God’s existence that you find the best of the worst…you just have considered an argument that no one has presented for God’s existence.*

Interesting…

*not as a sidebar

Surely you see how incredulous this is to Believers, yes?

NOT A SINGLE ATHEIST/AGNOSTIC can offer as evidence that he has even considered/reviewed/studied the arguments for God’s existence.

“There are no good reasons to believe in God’s existence!”

except…“I haven’t actually read any of the reasons!”

“Oh, and not a one of them have a single good thing about them!”

That, luv, is the mantra of a close minded fundamentalist.

I can tell you (and have done so many a time here on the CAFs) good things about the arguments and positions of Protestants, atheists, Muslims, homeschoolers, climate change deniers, prochoicers…

and that’s because I am…

educated…

and open-minded…

and a good debater.

NB: 'Tis true that I have nothing good to say about anti-vaxxers (oh wait–they do have a love for their child …6000 year old earthers (oh wait–they do have a love for their Bible)…

so I guess I just can see good in almost all folks and their positions.

#openminded
#notafundamentalist



Maybe the exceptions: white supremacists and holocaust deniers. And that’s because I’m NOT a fundamentalist about being open-minded.

 

[PRmerger]

I was being “cute”. The number of 666 is the mark of the “beast”. And the site I linked to made 666 “arguments” to support the existence of God. Go back and enjoy them. The way those “arguments” are presented is playful, tongue-in-cheek. But the arguments are taken from the apologist texts.

Oh. It really sounded like you were being uninformed about Catholicism.

Or that you forgot you were on a Catholic forum and thought you were on a Fundamentalist forum.

When you dialogue with these folks, you can bold the 666:

jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/what-does-666-mean/
jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Wicca%20&%20Witchcraft/666-what_does_it_mean.htm
av1611.org/666/whatis.html

Just for the record: knowledgeable Catholics see nothing sinister about the number 666.

It’s just a veiled reference for Nero.

And, let’s face it, there’s nothing spooky about a dead emperor, so no need to bold the 666 in future dialogues with Catholics, ok?

 

[PRmerger]

Again, folks, here’s the question that’s being posed. ^^

It’s a rational, rather meek, vanilla question, no?

Not sure why not a single atheist/agnostic is not able to offer his version of the best classical arguments for God’s existence.

One would have to conclude that what is being rejected is something that hasn’t even been considered.

“I’m against vaccines but I don’t even know what the basic principle is behind vaccinating! I’m just against them because…autism.”

(Co)incidentally (?), after posting my last post, I went on a run and listened to this podcast on my phone: catholic.com/radio/shows/arguments-for-and-against-the-existence-of-god-38751

The guest, philosopher Dr. Scott Sullivan, asked an atheist “Joseph” the very same question I ask here. And Joseph, a thoughtful, educated and open-minded atheist, was able to provide an answer. At 17:24.

An interesting discourse ensued.

Would that this was the model that was followed here.

The question I ask is a very, very, basic and APPROPRIATE question.

That no atheist/agnostic wishes to answer is telling. Quite telling indeed.

“There are no good reasons to believe in God’s existence!”

“But I can’t even articulate what the reasons are that have been presented!”

[SIGN1]How can one refute an argument that he doesn’t even know exists?[/SIGN1]

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Both 1 and 2 are not accurate definitions of dogmatism. Dogmatism is simply a rigid way of thinking, whether true or false.

You may disagree with my definition of ‘dogmatism’ but my description, ie having certainty on unproven matters, is still valid when applied to the behavior of Christians and atheists. The label I apply to my description is not important.

Agnosticism is a rigid way of thinking, and, depending on the subject matter, the agnostic’s position might be true or false.

Agnosticism simply involves avoiding dogmatism. **There are plenty of ways this can be done consistently towards an issue, but it all boils down to not mixing uncertainties (beliefs, biases, opinion, dogma, religious faith, secular faith) with certainties (knowledge derived from science and logical inference). ** I can’t stress this any more.

If anything, agnostics are more open to a wider variety of things than Atheists and Christians since we’re (agnostics) are not bogged down with worldviews like materialism, supernaturalism, etc. I have views that’s more aligned to atheism on some issues and to Christianity on other issues, so I’m used to frustrating both sides!

And why is agnosticism not a dogmatism? Or do you doubt that agnosticism is true?

Agnosticism makes no claims nor does it involve any beliefs so therefore it can not be said to be true or false. It’s more of like an applied principle and agnostics are those who practice it. Perhaps you can say that the principle or the way of thinking (as opposed to a viewpoint or claim) is good or bad but I see no reason why avoiding dogmatism would be bad.

The authentic agnostic would doubt agnosticism.

Agnosticism is not about doubting everything or claiming to be ignorant of everything. That is a misconception. Agnosticism simply involves doubting dogmatic (or unproven) assertions/viewpoints. Thomas Huxley coined the word ‘agnostic’ and only doubted metaphysical claims but he accepted knowledge that was based on science and sound logic.

In my experience, there is no debating an agnostic that gets anywhere because the agnostic has a fallback position on every debate: he will contest the view that you can ever be sure of anything.

I won’t say anything against your experience except that it doesn’t apply to all agnostics.

Yes, there are many things in life, we cannot be sure of. But there are also many things in life we ought to be sure of if we value our sanity.

I agree.

My main gripe against atheists and Christians is that they tend to mix in their uncertainties with their certainties. This is to be expected when Christians rely so much on their worldview or when both sides are dogmatic, and in some cases almost militant, in their views.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As far as religion is concerned, if you are an agnostic you are just as dogmatic as the religious person. You are dogmatic about your inability to know. It is a rigid position that is as rigid as any other kind of dogmatism.

Straddling the fence can be painful, especially if you are wearing spurs.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

In my experience, there is no debating an agnostic that gets anywhere because the agnostic has a fallback position on every debate: he will contest the view that you can ever be sure of anything.

I don’t take any pride on being a fence-sitter nor do I intend on remaining one for the rest of my life if I can help it. All that would convince me and presumably most others is good evidence and/or logic for God’s existence.

 

[PRmerger]

But please don’t tell me that God and Christianity are separate arguments.

Well, sometimes they are. Sometimes they aren’t.

Enuff already of the God of Philosophers.

Why should this be true?

People are brought up as Christians and therefore believe in God. I personally know scores of Christians. In fact, when growing up, I didn’t know anyone who WASN’T a Christian.

And not a single one, to the very best of my knowledge, became a Christian because they studied theological or philosophical arguments. Not a single one. I literally didn’t know, or know now, anyone who could iterate a philosophical argument for God. I would put a lot of money on none of them knowing who Anselm or Aquinas was (with the exception of the clergy I knew).

Even those clergy,mInwould be willing to bet, came to Christianity via their upbringing. And THEN learnt the arguments that purported to uphold their existing beliefs.

So, yeah. Lots of people believe in God. Best argument there is. And whar a shocker…

All of the above, while probably true (although I will point you to some men and women who did indeed study their way into belief. Here’s one) for all the folks you personally know…it’s a nonsequitur.

You still need to examine the arguments for God, and then explain why they fail.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t take any pride on being a fence-sitter nor do I intend on remaining one for the rest of my life if I can help it. All that would convince me and presumably most others is good evidence and/or logic for God’s existence.

Then you need to examine the evidence.

Give us, in your own words, one argument that you’ve found compelling, and why it failed.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

…] the agnostic has a fallback position on every debate: he will contest the view that you can ever be sure of anything.

Sounds like you are speaking of Radical Skepticism.

 

[Tomdstone]

Give us, in your own words, one argument that you’ve found compelling, and why it failed.

Here is an argument that is sometimes given. It is proven that God exists and that He is omnipotent and omniscient and all Perfect. Presumably then, God has no needs or desires. If God is all Perfect and has no needs, no wants and no desires, then why would He want to create a universe with so many imperfections and so much evil?

 

[Tomdstone]

Give us, in your own words, one argument that you’ve found compelling, and why it failed.

Kalam argument:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The Universe began to exist.
Therefore, the Universe has a cause of its existence.
Therefore God exists.
…
This argument fails on several counts:

1. The universe may be cyclical in nature, and so may extend in time infinitely in both directions.
2. We see causes all around us and most everything does have a cause. But there is a question about whether or not everything must have a cause. For example, subatomic particles have a random structure.
3. The cause of the universe could be another previous universe, etc., cyclically as in #1.
4. Even if the universe did have a cause, there is no proof that the cause was God, an omniscient and omnipotent being.

 

[Tomdstone]

Then you need to examine the evidence.

Give us, in your own words, one argument that you’ve found compelling, and why it failed.

Here is another:
…three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.

-W.L Craig “Contemporary Cosmology and the Beginning of the Universe”
The argument is that inflationary models of the universe will reach a boundary in the past –which means that the universe does not extend infinitely into the past and therefore the universe has a beginning.
…
the problem with this argument is that one of the assumptions made in these types of
theorems is that the energy-momentum tensor obeys the weak energy condition. But this condition is very possibly violated by quantum effects in inflationary models

 

[Bradski]

All of the above, while probably true (although I will point you to some men and women who did indeed study their way into belief. Here’s one) for all the folks you personally know…it’s a nonsequitur.

You still need to examine the arguments for God, and then explain why they fail.

How does this work? You ask me for the argument I consider to be the best for God/Christianity (one and the same thing) and when I give it, you tell me it’s not acceptable.

What you are actually asking is for me to give a philosophical answer so that you can use tried and tested arguments for whatever that answer is to show how I am wrong. Tombstone gave you three so you can have a chat with him. I’ll join in now and then.

And I didn’t raise any of them because you wanted to know what I considered to be the best. I gave it. It’s churlish to then complain that it was one you didn’t want.

So here it is again: gazillions of people have believed for thousands of years. People have actually died for this belief (seem to remember someone using that aspect of it before). Surely you cannot deny that simply because of this simple fact there must be something to it.

Hmmm. Pause for thought. That actually is a good point. I mean, can literally ALL these people be wrong? Literally every single person? How is that even possible?

So it’s by far the best argument I know. And it’s a shockingly bad one as well. Hence, the least worst best argument there is.

And why point to Augustine as an example of someone who came to Christianity via a philosophical route only? His mother was a Christian when he was born for heaven’s sake and his father became one before Augustine was 16. That’s a very bad example indeed. I could have used it myself as a great example of someone who was born into a Christian household and then studied to find out, after the fact, why he believed.

 

[PRmerger]

How does this work? You ask me for the argument I consider to be the best for God/Christianity (one and the same thing) and when I give it, you tell me it’s not acceptable.

Oh, no!

I thank you for being the one and only atheist/agnostic to do so.

Thank you.

However, it’s proof indeed that you haven’t read or digested or considered the arguments for God.

You’ve presented an argument that no one even presents. Kind of weird, but…thank you.

Kind of like an anti-vaxxer saying, “I reject all the science that supports vaccine efficacy. It’s bad science”.

And when you ask, “What is the best science you’ve seen on this, and why do you reject it?” he responds with, “The fact that fish don’t get vaccinated and they have such short lives”.

Yeah. We all know this guy hasn’t really studied the reasons to vaccinate.

I would reject vaccinations too if that’s what I used as a pro-vaccine argument.

But, yes, you’re right: I should have thanked you earlier for responding to my question.

 

[PRmerger]

Here is an argument that is sometimes given. It is proven that God exists and that He is omnipotent and omniscient and all Perfect. Presumably then, God has no needs or desires. If God is all Perfect and has no needs, no wants and no desires, then why would He want to create a universe with so many imperfections and so much evil?

He didn’t do that.

Adam and Eve did.

Free will.

That’s a good that’s at the top of the list.

 

[PRmerger]

Kalam argument:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The Universe began to exist.
Therefore, the Universe has a cause of its existence.
Therefore God exists.
…
This argument fails on several counts:

1. The universe may be cyclical in nature, and so may extend in time infinitely in both directions.

Firstly, what evidence do you have for the “cyclical” nature of the universe.

Secondly, you do know that proposing that the universe extends in time infinitely in the past is logically absurd, right?

1. We see causes all around us and most everything does have a cause. But there is a question about whether or not everything must have a cause. For example, subatomic particles have a random structure.

Subatomic particles have no cause?

They come from nothing?
Evidence for this, please.

1. The cause of the universe could be another previous universe, etc., cyclically as in #1

.

Then this just pushes the question back. What caused *this *universe?

1. Even if the universe did have a cause, there is no proof that the cause was God, an omniscient and omnipotent being.

So some other immaterial thing created the universe? Like numbers?

You’re proposing that something like numbers created the universe?

Do you have any examples of immaterial things creating something? Anything at all.

 

[Bradski]

However, it’s proof indeed that you haven’t read or digested or considered the arguments for God.

I know them all. They suffer in comparison to the one I gave. If I were presenting the case for Christianity, it would be the first one I’d use.

You can’t ask me for what I consider to be the best and then reject my answer. Don’t you think it has any weight at all? Not everyone is in to philosophical reasons for their belief. As I said, hardly anyone comes to Christianity (including you) via that route.

 

[Solmyr]

As I said above, the God of Philosophers is incompletely known.

That is an understatement. I did not ask for a perfect picture of God, I was asking about what you believe about God.

So I will cut you some slack. WHAT is believed is the question. And what do those words you use MEAN? There is a plethora of word which allegedly “describe” God. And when one scratches those words, all of a sudden they don’t mean what they say.

Aquinas certainly recognized this, and so the God of Revelation completes our understanding of what or who God is, and even that is not complete, since to know God as he is we have to be in heaven with him.

Again, we are talking about YOUR understanding of God, and the understanding of those theologians and philosophers who assert that there is a God. Who or what is that God, who is supposed to exist?

The GIF-queen keeps on nagging about the “best argument” for God and why it fails? She can’t or won’t give a coherent definition of God.

**So it looks like that neither of you has any idea what you are speaking of. **

 

[Solmyr]

Hmmm. Pause for thought. That actually is a good point. I mean, can literally ALL these people be wrong? Literally every single person? How is that even possible?

There was a great poster I have seen a long time ago. It depicted a beautifully laid-out table, with crystals and china and silverware. On the plate there was a steaming pile of excrement. The caption said: “One billion flies can’t all be wrong! Why don’t you taste it, too?”

 

[Solmyr]

NOT A SINGLE ATHEIST/AGNOSTIC can offer as evidence that he has even considered/reviewed/studied the arguments for God’s existence.

That is of course a pile of bovine waste-product. Where did you collect the information about all the thought processes and all publications of all the atheists/agnostics? Let me use your favorite cop-out: “Evidence please”.

I have never seen even one theologian / philosopher who gave a coherent definition of God. Enumerating the alleged attributes, and give a precise definition what those mean. Of course you might have information which I don’t have.

Mind you, it is not the question if those attributes correctly describe God. The problem is the definition itself. Does it make sense? Are the attributes meaningful and free of internal contradiction?