And so the topic for this thread is: Are there any theists out there who think that they have any argument in favor of their belief that hasn't already been refuted over and over?

Though, as the Sun only has 4.5billion years worth of fuel remaining, we're gonna be waiting in the dark.

It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

 

Well Mike, if it's settled we surely won't have this conversation right? We have seen many arguments that doesn't fit your "answers" and as Dean said with wisdom, we will wait in the dark until it happen... well, just until 2012.

 

Once the waters remain in calm and the spirit moved over it. Then Mike create a thread and chaos was created...

Funny, I never wrote the word arrogant, in fact all I did was answer the question you put forth.

I also did not write anything about taking offense....lot of words being put in my mouth it seems.

Are you sure you want this discussion to end?

 

Moving on, please...

My understanding aside, I'm convinced you'd like nothing better than for it to continue.

And yes, for many people, this debate will never be over, no matter how many times the Theistic arguments are debunked. That's just how our society currently is. 

And nothing more than someone telling he's won 

 

 

Yes.

Science doesn't purport to and cannot settle the issue of how the space and time began, so I'm free to take any stance on it that I want really. I find the existence of a "god" who created it to be somehow more comforting, so I chose to believe in that.

Which "god", or more accurately whose?

I don't know, my God? I find some parts of the Judeo-Christian God appeal, but ultimately unlikely. I wouldn't claim to know any of the specifics of the situation.

So, simply because science can't yet give us all the answers, we should just choose to believe in myths and fairy tales to fill in the gaps? 

I'm not saying god doesn't exist-- what I am saying, however, is that I have yet to hear a convincing argument for the existence of one. Meanwhile, science can be proven time and again in the areas it HAS uncovered so far. Why should I choose to believe is something completely non-scientific just because science hasn't answered it all yet? You don't stick a completely misshapen jigsaw piece into an incomplete puzzle and expect it to fit, do you? Science is just an ever-growing puzzle which is always going to be missing a piece or two along the way. It doesn't mean we should just stick anything at all within the gaps as placeholders until the real piece is found. 

Whether or not the thought of a god comforts you is irrelevant when it comes to the truth. I would much rather know the truth and be sad than be diluted and happy. But hey, that's just me. 

Indeed. Ultimately, both stances come down to this: something had to have always been there. 

Believers say that God created everything. Okay, but who created God? And if God too 'always was', then why not just skip a step and stick with the scientific perspective? We KNOW we came from somewhere, but we don't know if some being created us, or not. Even though both viewpoints come down to a seemingly impossible origin, the God theory is still the least likely of any other conceivable possibility. What's more, we have no scientific evidence that yet backs up such a concept. It's amazing to me how so many people (including myself, once upon a time) are able to disregard all of that completely just so they can keep believing in their 'man in the sky' idea.

I'm assuming the creator is uncreated, as you're assuming time and space are uncreated. Why would you angrily fight against a personal belief of mine that in no way effects the life of anybody, including myself honestly. What you're pushing isn't science. It's outside the realm of science. 

Maybe I missed something, but . . . what is so wrong with Mike wanting this to continue? The Christian thread is still alive and kicking, so I don't really think it's fair for us non-believers to not have a place of our own, as well. 

Isn't this the crux of the problem?

You're not pursuing any truth yourself. Its a period of time which is unobservable to us. I'm not rejecting science at all. If science comes up with a better explanation (or any) I would be happy to adopt it. I don't really need to be lectured on science for the record so you know.

Couldn't this continue in one of the several threads Mike started on this topic?

No. Because what science does explain, we can 100% prove. Religion or belief in a deity cannot be proven at all. In fact, the bible itself has been disproved scientifically and historically over and over again. That's assuming you're a christian, of course. If you simply believe in 'god' as a vague, spiritual concept, you're on even more shaky ground, since nothing at all exists that can prove your own personal view of what god may be. 

And I didn't say people used science's inability to explain it all as a reason to 'disbelieve it'. I said that folks choose to fill in the gaps science has yet to explain with nonsense. If anybody here actually 'disbelieves' in Science, that person is obviously ignorant. 

 

Sorry, I haven't heard anything conclusive from those who think and claim that they can be conclusive. At least Theist, we don't want to conclude anything, we just believe and hope we are right...

I have no doubt that you know just as much about science as I (probably more). I was not lecturing you on science itself. I'm simply trying to show you how ridiculous it is to even worry about the stuff science hasn't yet answered. What does it matter if we don't yet know exactly how we all got here? If you're searching for the answer, but can't yet find it, I don't see the point in making something up, or buying into a notion that someone else made up. 

But hey, I didn't come into this to fight or argue. Only to debate. You and I have never gotten along very well, so I'm not going to push this anymore. Believe in whatever you want; nothing is stopping you. 

You completely missed the point of my entire post. Good job. 

That sort of thinking is very contrary to the rational human I believe. Before science enters a realm traditionally philosophers have probed those issues and developed their own pseudo-scientific theories. There's nothing wrong with that.  My point isn't that science has not gone there, but that it is outside the realm of science. I could be proven wrong on that fact of course, but that would be shocking. 

I'm not trying to start a fight as well, push all you want. If my views aren't challenged they won't be refined.

 

Oh, I miss the point again...!!!

 

I don't see much difference between this kind of thread and the equally offensive ''Do Women Like Prog?'' sort of threads, which always seem to get closed.

Well, there are plenty of human traits that naturally lead us to do things such as question, but that is why Science exists, in a lot of ways. Yes, philosophers questioned things first, but it ultimately led to science taking it all a step further and proving/disproving our notions on how everything in the universe works, and while something as practical and no-nonsense as science is may never approach the question of life with the same romantic spin on it the philosophers do, I still consider the two linked in many ways. Science is merely picking up where philosophy left off (in certain areas!), and as you said, there used to be pseudo-science on things before real science came along and defined it. But once the real answers were revealed in such cases, the scientific explanation grew to be accepted. 

Let me put it to you this way: do you honestly believe in your heart that God (in any form) will someday be proved to be real? If so, I think it's fair to say that science would be the only way such a case could realistically be made. However, if you don't believe god will ever be proved, you would also have to admit that it would be as a result of science never uncovering it. To me, if science cannot prove something, it isn't true. That's probably too one-dimensional of me, but there it is. You belong to the school of thought where you choose to personally believe in something else until science comes along and disproves it. I belong to the school of thought in which I admit that I have no idea what is out there until smarter people explain it to me. And I'm okay with that. (Admitting that you in fact know not much of anything at all ties into the socratic method of thought, of course. There's some philosophy, for ya )

I love philosophy. I find it very interesting and have often toyed with the idea of studying it academically and perhaps practicing it professionally. There is nothing wrong with looking at the world from such a perspective, but I accept philosophy as a bunch of ideas, notions and mindsets. Philosophy and science go hand-in-hand these days, anyway. You don't see Ken Wilber denying evolution to be true (at least, i don't think he would say such a thing). He does feel that modern science is 'narrow' and 'limiting', but at the same time, philosophy is still about asking questions, while science is about answering them. Perhaps I'm all wrong and ignorant, but that seems to be what it comes down to. 

David Hume apparently proved mathematically that the typical questions philosophers ask are impossible to answer logically or scientifically. So in that sense, I suppose you are right: this type of stuff IS outside the realm of science. From a skeptic's point of view, I guess that means asking these types of questions (does God exist?) are pointless. If all a person wants is hard evidence, then I agree with that. I used to be much more open to things, but I got tired of all the uncertainty and contradictions. I still don't see the logical point of choosing to believe in a sky god simply because science has yet to come up with all the answers. From a philosophical standpoint it makes sense, but from a practical one, it does not. To me, anyway. 

I'm sorry to get so hung up on the philosophy point, as I probably botched it all anyhow. But since you brought it up, i felt like talking about it. 

How is discussing rationality over superstition anything AT ALL like making sexist assumptions?

I'm not trying to offend you, here, but it's very obvious that English is not your first language, and it's honestly making it difficult for me to communicate with you. I already explained my case against everything you're trying to argue against me with, and since you obviously didn't grasp it before, I wouldn't be able to rephrase it any better a second time. Maybe someone here with more patience/better ways with words could try and explain our position more clearly to you. I'm sorry, but I honestly can't explain my position any clearer than I already have. If you honestly can't see the sense in my position, then debating further isn't going to help. 

 

For clarity, I didn't ask the thread to be closed. However, I think this thread can only go one way.

 

Re this comment in your earlier post: Christians claim to know what happens when we die - but can they provide any good reason that they're right? I think you're misrepresenting Christians who do not claim to know, but to believe... and therefore don't in fact need any good reason.  

Well, then as soon as you've said that, you've already one, haven't you? Because that's foolproof. ''We don't need to have a good reason. We just believe it.'' Well, fine, but then don't in the same breath try and debate me in here and expect to be taken seriously. 

Believers who debate non-believers must feel like they DO in fact have a good reason to believe, otherwise they wouldn't feel the need to debate. Likewise, if someone jumps into this thread and starts arguing with us, it must be because they think they can somehow explain why they believe what they do. Otherwise, what would be the point in joining the conversation?

 

(Quote=the llama73)

I think this is a rather insulting thread, and this is coming from an agnostic. Obviously theists don't believe their arguments have been thoroughly refuted. Your basic premise in your opening question is "I'm right and you're wrong so what do you think about that?" It doesn't seem like you want to have a real conversation, you just want to make fun of people you view as stupid.

All the logic and science in the world is not going to convince a theist that he is wrong, but it's not an issue which is governed by logic. It is one that comes from personal experience. Why don't you let others hold their beliefs, just as you are free to hold yours, without going out of your way to mock them? If you want to make the world a better place, you might start with a little respect for others. (Quote)

 

This post says it all really.

I'm not mocking anyone. And nor is Mike. 

 

I'm not interested in winning/losing any argument... for me there is no argument... live and let live. I'm just trying to point out that the OP seems to make an assumption that theists are wrong, and has misrepresented them as I stated above. The OP asks theists to present good arguments, then later says he didn't expect to get any! Sorry, I don't get the point of that. 

 

Indeed it is

Well . . . being able to prove something about the bible or any other religious text to be true would be one way. If you can't even prove that the source of such a belief to begin with was legitimate, it wouldn't make much sense to continue believing. Since the bible is the source for a large majority of religious beliefs/general deism & theism in America today, I would start there. 

If you can't prove the thing itself exists, look for the evidence surrounding it. We can't see the wind, but we knew it existed because of trees swaying and leaves blowing in its wake. From there, science began to explain it through theory, and now it's irrefutable that the wind does in fact blow. But it started with something as simple as observation. Surely, if God truly does exist, there should at least be something we could observe that suggests this, even if it can't be proven outright, yet.

Remember, if a believer is going to debate a non-believer, there needs to be SOMETHING that would sway opinion in the believer's direction. If not direct proof of God himself, at least some evidence that the texts and incidents surrounding him are real. You should be able to present something that will be accepted by everybody, regardless of their personal belief, and also is theistic. A real truth-seeker would have no choice but to accept it if it makes sense, regardless of what viewpoint it favors.

 

I really found some of your statements so incredibly misspointed that I don't really know if to take it seriously or give it away... really...

 

You are the one who wants proves, not me. You are the one who is appealing to science, not me. But as soon as it gets very clear that you can't reach to the key point of explanation then you take back and said that science can't prove everything. I know that, that is exactly what I'm saying.

 

Now, what I believe and how I feel believing in it is just a matter of me and myself so it's pointless to discuss about my ownself. Where you read that I will ascend to heaven? do you believe that having somebody watching us is not good for improving my life?

JLocke wrote: I feel the same about religious people who do that. I think my stated belief obviously implies that I would never do that. http://www.phy.duke.edu/%7Ergb/Beowulf/axioms/axioms/node4.html - http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Beowulf/axioms/axioms/node4.html  Like I said . . . 'apparently'. I honestly don't know how serious this guy is being, or how much truth is behind it.

I'm going to take a break and read this through. I'm supposed to be doing logic proofs anyway, so I convince myself my work is still getting done while I procrastinate with this.

JLocke wrote:   Hey, as mentioned earlier, I'm not opposed to diving into philosophy further at some point, and accepting it for what it is (thought-provoking ideas and propositions), I'll never have a problem with. However, this thread is all about whether or not a theist can defend herself against a rationalist with new evidence that hasn't already been refuted. As long as the situation is presented in such a black-and-white manner, I'll be on the atheist's side every time.

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

In another post I believe you wrote "a good reason for believing what (a Theist) does".

Still not sure what you are seeking...I believe under the parameters you set out above, where you keep citing things like Occam's Razor, that you will not receive anything that you would consider a good argument.

Like you said, there's a confirmation bias built into this, in my view.  You've asked for a discussion and set up parameters such that we can only arrive at the conclusion you have presupposed.  That's fine, I guess, but my participation in this thread is to question the productivity of such an exercise, not to beat the dead horse of the Theist/Atheist debate.

Well, of course. And I'm not accusing you specifically of doing that, anyway.  I think I get where you're coming from, and I find nothing wrong with it, personally. 

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I believe my position is quite rational and unassailable by any cogent argument a "rationalist" could throw at it honestly.

 

Your interesting "analisys" of the situation is stupid, really... you missed the point on purpose and I don't care about it. You don't know what are you talking about and you can't understand believers. If people think like that simplistic way, you even imagine that god would have some believers. No, you missed the point intentionally and I don't really care man.

 

Believe whatever you want. If you enjoy to annoy people in the so called search for answers, well, that's your problem. Just imagine the for me, as a believer, is ridiculus the way you try to put in other people shoes, but you demmand explanations from what you can even understand...

 

Sorry, I won't participate in your silly game. BTW, just like you, I'm not calling you stupid, but the way you try to make fun of this serious topic is what I called stupid... I leave...

People read and believe horoscopes in the millions, even though astrology has been long debunked as a farce. It's the same situation with religion. People will allow themselves to be taken in by anything if it has a chance of bringing them some comfort and assurance. 

I'm not trying to convert anybody. I'm not telling anybody how to live their life. I'm debating my beliefs (or lack thereof) with others. Got a problem with that? I don't really care. Nobody is forcing religious people to listen to us, but plenty of religious figures have forced their agendas on society for centuries. Forgive me if I think that's a bad thing, and happen to wish to voice my opinion. 

It's true, many religious folks are able to practice their beliefs peacefully, but all atheists are able to peacefully believe what we will. Don't like what we're talking about? Don't listen to us. I don't see why we are accused of forcing agendas whenever we speak out, but religious folks get a free pass to do the same exact thing. 

Give me one valid argument for the existence of God, and I'll consider it.