When people ask me what my problem with religion is, one answer is not enough

[Special At Specialist]

Would someone please explain to me what evidence there is for the existence of a god or deity?

I've read Thomas Aquinas' argument and I didn't find it very convincing. To sum it up:
He believes that if people can imagine a god, then something must have provoked that idea, and that provocation must be based on reality.

If that is the case, then I can picture a flying spaghetti monster or 1000+ other gods, so does that mean that they are all real as well?
Humans have a very vivid imagination, so just because we can imagine something, doesn't mean that our idea was closely linked to reality. We combine ideas, so by combining already existent powers (but to the extreme level) together, and the concept of "everything in one", we were able to dream up the idea of a god or deity quite easily.

I'm not familiar with Descartes argument, so if someone would mind posting it, I will gladly try to think up a refutation for it (if I can).

[Russ]

I really hope I'm not so weak as to post again. I was meant to not post any more after my last post, but I succumbed. I have had a rule for 3 years now that I would never debate any religious matter on an internet forum. Suffice to say I now remember why. This thread is pointless, it was always going to be pointless, and there is little point in continuing it. If anyone honestly wants to continue this discussion, in a polite and reasonable fashion - that is, without insulting me every five seconds - then please message me.

I also post my opinion and then refuse to deal with people debating it, whilst claiming the moral high ground...

nb, Descartes argument is still just as trashy as as the original version, no matter how you dress it up

[slothpomba]

Would someone please explain to me what evidence there is for the existence of a god or deity?

Depends what philosophical position you take though (without getting extremely technical), it depends what you mean by evidence.

For instance, there are very good arguments that show an all loving, all knowing God might not exist but if he does exist, it suddenly doesn't make him disappear. Conversely, if you think you have very good proof for God, it doesn't suddenly make him pop into existence if he doesn't exist.

That said, such arguments are only of limited value. Personally, i believe we can't actually choose to believe in something like religion, as in, wake up one day and suddenly i decide to become a methodist. The argument ive made around this is very long and fairly complicated but i'll just say that so people know where i'm coming from.

That said, i'm sure it doesn't surprise anyone here there isn't any fully conclusive and widely accepted argument for or against a God. It's easy for one side to play "Dr.No" just like tony abbot and trash the othersides argument but when they present their arguments to the contrary, most of them are just as open to being trashed. Both these reasons are why arguments of that nature often turn into huge circlejerks, its not like your argument will convince many, if any to change teams so to speak. It usually takes something more than that. Most of the time its just people throwing words at each other, telling the other person why they're wrong and why they don't believe what they just said, rinse and repeat.

If you're just looking to refute every single argument that comes your way, you won't find much proof in anything really. We can't under estimate the effect of psychology in things like this either.

The cosmological argument is a good place to start, especially so because you can't really prove either way - http://kingpomba.tumblr.com/post/10354513929/marios-dream-turtles-all-the-way-down-argument-for

Alvin plantinga's notion of "properly basic" is also another place to go to.

[Jdog]

I really hope I'm not so weak as to post again. I was meant to not post any more after my last post, but I succumbed. I have had a rule for 3 years now that I would never debate any religious matter on an internet forum. Suffice to say I now remember why. This thread is pointless, it was always going to be pointless, and there is little point in continuing it. If anyone honestly wants to continue this discussion, in a polite and reasonable fashion - that is, without insulting me every five seconds - then please message me.

I also post my opinion and then refuse to deal with people debating it, whilst claiming the moral high ground...

nb, Descartes argument is still just as trashy as as the original version, no matter how you dress it up

I don't think what enwiabe and co. are doing is debating. If they did it in a reasonable fashion then maybe Aurelian would bother.

[kensan]

Watch this video over 15 million views in 10 days
Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus || Spoken Word
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY&feature=player_detailpage

Then watch an atheists view on it (pretty funny)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBo7Z_abiLE&feature=related

[EvangelionZeta]

I also post my opinion and then refuse to deal with people debating it, whilst claiming the moral high ground...

To be fair, he defended pretty much everything except a small aspect of his rant about militant atheism, which seemed an aside and mostly tangential to the actual debate itself (depending on what you define as the 'actual debate' - I'm not even sure anymore...).

[Special At Specialist]

The infinite regression is an interesting one. I sort of disagree with it, but I'm not yet confident enough to say "it is wrong".

For example, suppose if I asked you to draw a y = x graph.
Imagine you are trying to argue that every point on the y = x graph is joined to two other points, whilst I am saying that there must be an endpoint where it is only joined to one point.
I could use arguments like:
1. A y = x graph is a line.
2. A line can only have a maximum number of two points attaching to each point on the line.
3. A line can be split up into a number of different intervals.
4. Let us name the line AC and it is a line of x units in length.
5. Let B be the midpoint of line AC with length x/2 units.
6. Whatever the value for x, this line can be drawn by starting at point B and moving x/2 units in opposite directions (in this case, North-east and South-west starting from the origin).
7. Rather than starting at the origin and drawing a length x/2 units in either direction, we can move x/2 units in a particular direction and then start drawing x units in the opposite direction.
8. We are therefore drawing a line from a point A to another point C.
9. Points A and C are the endpoints of the graph and hence only go in one particular direction (towards each other).
10. Therefore there are points on the graph of y = x that are only joined to one other point.

This argument is incorrect and has a fallacy in it (see if you can spot which step), however it is based on the idea of infinite regression. Does that mean that the idea of infinite regression can actually work in particular situations? And if it can work in particular situations, is it possible for it to work in a "cause" situation where one event causes another?

[slothpomba]

An argument not based on graphing would be nice and more accessible... especially since not everyone knows the ins and outs of something like graphing a line like that. Just as far as explaining things to everyone that probably isn't the best approach.. (I stopped reading at about the 2nd or 3rd premise, too much math. If you're not trolling anyway... which you dont seem to be but you have to understand this isn't one of the better ways to explain your argument..).

[brightsky]

The infinite regression is an interesting one. I sort of disagree with it, but I'm not yet confident enough to say "it is wrong".

For example, suppose if I asked you to draw a y = x graph.
Imagine you are trying to argue that every point on the y = x graph is joined to two other points, whilst I am saying that there must be an endpoint where it is only joined to one point.
I could use arguments like:
1. A y = x graph is a line.
2. A line can only have a maximum number of two points attaching to each point on the line.
3. A line can be split up into a number of different intervals.
4. Let us name the line AC and it is a line of x units in length.
5. Let B be the midpoint of line AC with length x/2 units.
6. Whatever the value for x, this line can be drawn by starting at point B and moving x/2 units in opposite directions (in this case, North-east and South-west starting from the origin).
7. Rather than starting at the origin and drawing a length x/2 units in either direction, we can move x/2 units in a particular direction and then start drawing x units in the opposite direction.
8. We are therefore drawing a line from a point A to another point C.
9. Points A and C are the endpoints of the graph and hence only go in one particular direction (towards each other).
10. Therefore there are points on the graph of y = x that are only joined to one other point.

This argument is incorrect and has a fallacy in it (see if you can spot which step), however it is based on the idea of infinite regression. Does that mean that the idea of infinite regression can actually work in particular situations? And if it can work in particular situations, is it possible for it to work in a "cause" situation where one event causes another?

what the...

[EvangelionZeta]

The infinite regression is an interesting one. I sort of disagree with it, but I'm not yet confident enough to say "it is wrong".

For example, suppose if I asked you to draw a y = x graph.
Imagine you are trying to argue that every point on the y = x graph is joined to two other points, whilst I am saying that there must be an endpoint where it is only joined to one point.
I could use arguments like:
1. A y = x graph is a line.
2. A line can only have a maximum number of two points attaching to each point on the line.
3. A line can be split up into a number of different intervals.
4. Let us name the line AC and it is a line of x units in length.
5. Let B be the midpoint of line AC with length x/2 units.
6. Whatever the value for x, this line can be drawn by starting at point B and moving x/2 units in opposite directions (in this case, North-east and South-west starting from the origin).
7. Rather than starting at the origin and drawing a length x/2 units in either direction, we can move x/2 units in a particular direction and then start drawing x units in the opposite direction.
8. We are therefore drawing a line from a point A to another point C.
9. Points A and C are the endpoints of the graph and hence only go in one particular direction (towards each other).
10. Therefore there are points on the graph of y = x that are only joined to one other point.

This argument is incorrect and has a fallacy in it (see if you can spot which step), however it is based on the idea of infinite regression. Does that mean that the idea of infinite regression can actually work in particular situations? And if it can work in particular situations, is it possible for it to work in a "cause" situation where one event causes another?

what the...

You know you're in trouble when this guy doesn't understand :p

[Special At Specialist]

The point which I'm trying to make is that certain things, such as a y = x graph, can go on forever and have an infinite regression. This goes against the principle that many philosophers have used to argue for the existence of a god. For example, if it works for this particular instance, can it work for other things, such as an infinite chain of events with no initial cause?

[JellyDonut]

I got lost at point 7 and started asking myself 'how long is a piece of string'?

[Mech]

This argument is incorrect and has a fallacy in it (see if you can spot which step)

Can you maybe express your idea in a simpler form? So many premises.

[slothpomba]

I don't really want to enter into a discussion about whether religion is wholly bad or not, bound to wind up a circle jerk. I think people are creating false dichotomies here, only thinking there can be black and white, when there can actually be many shades in between.  When people point out all the bad things religions have done through history, i think it is forgotten, historically, almost all the world was religious in one way or another. So pretty much everyone who did something bad was "religious". Of course it doesn't excuse that or deny that people did do things in favour of religion, like the crusades but there were obvious geopolitical undertones to that as well. Non-religious people do bad things too.

A lot of muslim terrorists have actually been handed in by the mosques they worship at ( for example : http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/09/30/332831/mosque-kicked-out-suspected-terrorist-because-of-his-radical-views-and-support-of-al-qaeda/?mobile=nc ).

Another example is how the FBI planted an ex-con pretending to be a terrorist, to try trap other terrorists. Guess what happened? The other people at the mosque reported this undercover agent for being a terrorist and i think he got arrested ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336166/FBI-informant-Craig-Monteilh-scares-Muslim-suspects-report-HIM.html ).

The point which I'm trying to make is that certain things, such as a y = x graph, can go on forever and have an infinite regression. This goes against the principle that many philosophers have used to argue for the existence of a god. For example, if it works for this particular instance, can it work for other things, such as an infinite chain of events with no initial cause?

Yeah, still not working for me. Could you do it not in terms of graphs or anything mathematical (above arithmetic and things like that)

[JellyDonut]

I think a lot of religious people were massacred during Communists regimes under the assumption of a blank slate