What are the best arguments for and against the Abrahamic deity?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What's a good argument for or against the deity of nominal Christianity, Judaism, Islam?

Robert:

Have you offered one that was not successful? If so, what was your argument?

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's a good argument for or against the deity of nominal Christianity, Judaism, Islam?

Worship or burn in hell forever and ever.

--Brant

not only good, but the best

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alternatively, live as if He didn't exist, in conscious independence, and He'll

greet you in Heaven, saying - THAT'S why I created you! Well done, my Son!!

(better than best: my version of "Smith's Wager".)

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's a good argument for or against the deity of nominal Christianity, Judaism, Islam?

I can't think of any a pro-deity "argument" that would stand up to rational scrutiny.

For arguments must be connected to reality; and the "reality" of religious scriptures is that they were written by humans.

What one can do is examine the historical background of the varius god concepts in the scriptures.

The Abrahamitic God is presented as an almighty potentate who can destroy and show mercy at will.

This is no surprise; the image of such a god was probably modeled after the real-life potentates the people back in those times had been familiar with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Lets look at the worship or go to hell argument. Worship Jahova or go to hell.... Which Jahova? Better still what if there is an Odin but no Jahova? Unlike other gods Jahova is a jealous god. But if your wrong about Jahova you get to go to the pagan hell.

The real question is does ANY god exist? Christians often say "Who created the world?" but that just begs the question who created god? If god needs no creator then why does the universe need a creator. Everyone claims their god to be real, yet none have proof that their god actually exists, other than heart burn after a spicy meal confirming the answer to your prayer. Digestion is not proof.

Further still. when the technology granting us immortality develops which do you choose, to die and maybe go to a heaven which might or might not exit? or to live forever?

And further still. Is heaven really all that great? Think about it for just a second, heaven is perfect, every bit of knowledge at your finger tips, it is impossible to want anything because your every desire is filled instantly. Sounds great right? Now really think about what that means for just a minute. sounds like eternally boarding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And further still. Is heaven really all that great? Think about it for just a second, heaven is perfect, every bit of knowledge at your finger tips, it is impossible to want anything because your every desire is filled instantly. Sounds great right? Now really think about what that means for just a minute. sounds like eternally boarding.

And boring also. I loath the thought of eternal existence. Once around is enough for me.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

A floating contradiction that sits outside the universe to dispense reality bending whims and punishing its inhabitants at will? Lovecraft did it better and with a lower body count.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And further still. Is heaven really all that great? Think about it for just a second, heaven is perfect, every bit of knowledge at your finger tips, it is impossible to want anything because your every desire is filled instantly. Sounds great right? Now really think about what that means for just a minute. sounds like eternally boarding.

And boring also.

Uttelrly boring, I agree. Nothing to discuss and debate anymore because all questions would have been answered. No conflicts of interest either because paradise is boringly confictless. The strive to continually improve onself and one's insights (the continuous challenge which has given me so much fulfillment in life) - no more need to become active there. Yawn! :D

I loath the thought of eternal existence. Once around is enough for me.

I too would feel 'doomed to eternal existence'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The real question is does ANY god exist? Christians often say "Who created the world?" but that just begs the question who created god? If god needs no creator then why does the universe need a creator.

Imo this "Occam's Razor" argument (entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate) is among the strongest to 'make the case' for atheism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And further still. Is heaven really all that great? Think about it for just a second, heaven is perfect, every bit of knowledge at your finger tips, it is impossible to want anything because your every desire is filled instantly. Sounds great right? Now really think about what that means for just a minute. sounds like eternally boarding.

And boring also.

Uttelrly boring, I agree. Nothing to discuss and debate anymore because all questions would have been answered. No conflicts of interest either because paradise is boringly confictless. The strive to continually improve onself and one's insights (the continuous challenge which has given me so much fulfillment in life) - no more need to become active there. Yawn! :D

I loath the thought of eternal existence. Once around is enough for me.

I too would feel 'doomed to eternal existence'.

X, I feel X-actly same.

As a kid I found it difficult to fall asleep, and at Xmas (no pun intended) impossible. Well, you would too if put to bed at 6:30 winter or summer. Anyway, as I pondered it w/ my Sunday Scool lessons of eternal life, I decided maybe if I was very, very dutiful, I would ask Lord to just let me sleep/die .

Link to post
Share on other sites

The real question is does ANY god exist? Christians often say "Who created the world?" but that just begs the question who created god? If god needs no creator then why does the universe need a creator.

Imo this "Occam's Razor" argument (entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate) is among the strongest to 'make the case' for atheism.

The real question is does ANY god exist? Christians often say "Who created the world?" but that just begs the question who created god? If god needs no creator then why does the universe need a creator.

Imo this "Occam's Razor" argument (entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate) is among the strongest to 'make the case' for atheism.

No case that I see.

Such epistemological statements against god's existence mean nothing, convince nobody.

All they do is admit the premise of the possibility of god.

Anyway, if god existed, he'd be beyond logic, past comprehension.

How does Mr Occam explain that with his simplicity theory?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The real question is does ANY god exist? Christians often say "Who created the world?" but that just begs the question who created god? If god needs no creator then why does the universe need a creator.

Imo this "Occam's Razor" argument (entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate) is among the strongest to 'make the case' for atheism.

The real question is does ANY god exist? Christians often say "Who created the world?" but that just begs the question who created god? If god needs no creator then why does the universe need a creator.

Imo this "Occam's Razor" argument (entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate) is among the strongest to 'make the case' for atheism.

No case that I see.

Such epistemological statements against god's existence mean nothing, convince nobody.

All they do is admit the premise of the possibility of god.

Anyway, if god existed, he'd be beyond logic, past comprehension.

How does Mr Occam explain that with his simplicity theory?

It does have the advantage of destroying "the universe must have had a creator" argument.

"Anyway, if god existed, he'd be beyond logic, past comprehension." This is actually the best argument against the existence of God.

Question: If the idea of a "God" hadn't yet been invented do you think anyone in this era would think it necessary to invent "Him"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Such epistemological statements against god's existence mean nothing, convince nobody.

All they do is admit the premise of the possibility of god.

No, they merely check the theists' "The unverse needs a creator because everything that exists has a cause" premise and collapse it by thinking it through radically.

How does Mr Occam explain that with his simplicity theory?

Mr Occam was a theist.

The term 'Occam's razor' was coined several centuries later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's a good argument for or against the deity of nominal Christianity, Judaism, Islam?

There is no logical necessity for such a deity to exist. And there is no empirical evidence to support the existence of such a deity.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

The real question is does ANY god exist? Christians often say "Who created the world?" but that just begs the question who created god? If god needs no creator then why does the universe need a creator.

Imo this "Occam's Razor" argument (entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate) is among the strongest to 'make the case' for atheism.

The real question is does ANY god exist? Christians often say "Who created the world?" but that just begs the question who created god? If god needs no creator then why does the universe need a creator.

Imo this "Occam's Razor" argument (entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate) is among the strongest to 'make the case' for atheism.

No case that I see.

Such epistemological statements against god's existence mean nothing, convince nobody.

All they do is admit the premise of the possibility of god.

Anyway, if god existed, he'd be beyond logic, past comprehension.

How does Mr Occam explain that with his simplicity theory?

Why would god be beyond logic? or beyond comprehension? If humans made a sentient species would we be beyond comprehension to them? Further an irrational God could not create a rational universe, and rational universes are the only kind which can exist. This does not mean that the universe with our laws is the only kind that can exist, only that it must be rational.

While the existence of god as defined by the Abrahamic faiths is impossible, I find it quite plausible that god could be a six armed reptilian scientist who says "Lets see what happens when...", such a definition does not require god to be omniscient nor omnipotent, and it is much more rational than the belief in a mystical god.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's still rationalizing to create god in our own image, whether one views

him as rational scientist - or stern Father.

By definition, any god is supernatural, therefore mystical, therefore beyond

understanding.

Which removes him from our perceptualizing, conceptualizing - or logic.

I'm interested if you are deist, by the way, Theodore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The real question is does ANY god exist? Christians often say "Who created the world?" but that just begs the question who created god? If god needs no creator then why does the universe need a creator.

Imo this "Occam's Razor" argument (entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate) is among the strongest to 'make the case' for atheism.

The real question is does ANY god exist? Christians often say "Who created the world?" but that just begs the question who created god? If god needs no creator then why does the universe need a creator.

Imo this "Occam's Razor" argument (entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate) is among the strongest to 'make the case' for atheism.

No case that I see.

Such epistemological statements against god's existence mean nothing, convince nobody.

All they do is admit the premise of the possibility of god.

Anyway, if god existed, he'd be beyond logic, past comprehension.

How does Mr Occam explain that with his simplicity theory?

It does have the advantage of destroying "the universe must have had a creator" argument.

"Anyway, if god existed, he'd be beyond logic, past comprehension." This is actually the best argument against the existence of God.

Question: If the idea of a "God" hadn't yet been invented do you think anyone in this era would think it necessary to invent "Him"?

Now THIS is the absorbing question, Mikee. You mean, given mankind's knowledge

we should have evolved from primitive philosophies and mysticism?

I lean heavily to the "yes" side. I think it will always be in man's 'make-up' to pursue

the easy way: received knowledge, (or revelation) for 'meaning of life', ethics,etc - rather than

effortful, independent thinking.

Man tends towards intrinsicism, in short.

Psychologically too, life is confusing, and there's great comfort in accepting a deity who has

a Plan- and ultimately a Home - for each of us, I guess.

Theists seem to have no problems justifying scientific findings into religion - so I

don't think any new contradictions would put them off.

So, yes: If God had not already been invented, man would invent him now, I believe.

(A few thoughts I've had, but there's a lot more to explore here.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

All the idea of "God" does is reflect and re-enforce patriarchy in newly emergent agricultural societies centered in the Middle East.

--Brant

the rest is inertia, elaboration and follow-through

Link to post
Share on other sites

The real question is does ANY god exist? Christians often say "Who created the world?" but that just begs the question who created god? If god needs no creator then why does the universe need a creator.

Imo this "Occam's Razor" argument (entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate) is among the strongest to 'make the case' for atheism.

The real question is does ANY god exist? Christians often say "Who created the world?" but that just begs the question who created god? If god needs no creator then why does the universe need a creator.

Imo this "Occam's Razor" argument (entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate) is among the strongest to 'make the case' for atheism.

No case that I see.

Such epistemological statements against god's existence mean nothing, convince nobody.

All they do is admit the premise of the possibility of god.

Anyway, if god existed, he'd be beyond logic, past comprehension.

How does Mr Occam explain that with his simplicity theory?

It does have the advantage of destroying "the universe must have had a creator" argument.

"Anyway, if god existed, he'd be beyond logic, past comprehension." This is actually the best argument against the existence of God.

Question: If the idea of a "God" hadn't yet been invented do you think anyone in this era would think it necessary to invent "Him"?

Now THIS is the absorbing question, Mikee. You mean, given mankind's knowledge

we should have evolved from primitive philosophies and mysticism?

I lean heavily to the "yes" side. I think it will always be in man's 'make-up' to pursue

the easy way: received knowledge, (or revelation) for 'meaning of life', ethics,etc - rather than

effortful, independent thinking.

Man tends towards intrinsicism, in short.

Psychologically too, life is confusing, and there's great comfort in accepting a deity who has

a Plan- and ultimately a Home - for each of us, I guess.

Theists seem to have no problems justifying scientific findings into religion - so I

don't think any new contradictions would put them off.

So, yes: If God had not already been invented, man would invent him now, I believe.

(A few thoughts I've had, but there's a lot more to explore here.)

If the basis for belief in God is fear of the unknown when scientists and technologists remove the unknown, and thus the fear of it, there will no longer be a basis for supernatural belief. "God" will no longer be necessary. Or are you suggesting that there will always be the unknown, and no matter how safe and secure and predictable man's life becomes there will always be fear of the unknown causing some to reach for the "God" security blanket? (The "why am I here" angst.)

Regarding my own "comfort zone": The universe without a god makes sense to me. My motivation, my morals, the value of my life to me is precious. I like being an "accident" of nature, on my own to make of my life what I will, what I'm capable of. I like that my sense of morality is internal, driven by my own nature. My life would feel meaningless to me if I were an experiment of some external being, "God", subject to arbitrary rules of morality and being judged against them. I would feel no different than rocks or dirt. If there were a God, any eternal existence for me would be hell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now