Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems that for every valid question challenging religion there is an apologist with a lame excuse. The excuses usually amount to "well you don't know there is no God" or "there is no evidence against God."
It seems that there will always be an excuse for our questions since the apologist is not bound by natural law or reality, all they have to do is rely on the unprovable.
No apologist excuse has ever changed my mind about the existence of God. How about you?
Can anyone come up with an apologist answer for the existence of God that will blow my mind?
Why does it matter whether one believes there is a God?
1. If (only one) God exists, then one can make some guesses about God's attributes. Some of those guesses are purely hypothetical and others are deductions from known facts.
1a. Hypothetical. That is, ideas that God is "supernatural" which entails these attributes:
* omnipotent (but doesn't always demonstrate this in a "willful" manner)
* immaterial (except when choosing to influence time and space)
* holy
* good (presumes that God knows evil but always choose good, a dubious attribute of God)
* eternal
* creator of the universe
(Notice that all of these attributes might alternatively be applied to the "laws of nature" as a collection of impersonal forces, as might be understood by a scientist or scientifically minded nonscientist.)
1b. Deductions from known facts
1b1. Communications with human beings
1b1a. God does not, or only rarely, communicates directly with human beings. (However, consider that those who attest that they have communicated directly with God often also present evidence of mental instability.)
1b1b. If one accepts as fact that God rarely, if ever, communicates directly with human beings, this could mean that:
1b1b1. God isn't particularly interested in human beings. If God exists but isn't interested in human beings, then human life might therefore be interpreted as inherently difficult and hopeless in the long run except for the success that humans can gain in "figuring things (such as survival) out for ourselves." There are philosophies developed in the past (e.g., Stoicism, Cynicism) that address this world view.
1b1b2. God wants humans to "better themselves" by reaching out to God. If God exists but doesn't prefer to communicate directly with humans, this might be because he wants humans to strive to improve themselves, with the occasional helper tutorial offered from God. Many persons who believe in "holy books" would agree with this kind of idea.
1b2. Unexplainable phenomena have been witnessed by humans, and those events might have a supernatural origin.
1b2a. Yes, these might be evidence of God's existence and that God wants to make presence known in space and time.
1b2b. Yes, there are presently unexplained but are subject to a rational (such as scientific) explanation later in human history, just as many other previously misunderstood pheonomena have been explained.
2. God's existence could have serious implications for the past, present, and future of human life on Earth.
2a. God requires human conformance to God's commandments/laws/holy nature. Is this a reasonable deduction?
2a1. Does God "need" humans to conform? How important to God are humans? On what basis do we have knowledge of this importance? (From humans' communications with God? This is a a debatable issue from prior discussion above.)
2a2. Does God "expect" humans to conform, due to whatever evidence exists in the natural world of God's existence and expectations of humans?
3. One God might exist but not have "personal" attributes at all.
3a. It is impossible to "communicate" with God.
3b. Humans can only with difficulty learn "truths" about the impersonal God. Those truths might or might not be relevant to conducting human life and human society.
3c. There might be different/multiple methods for learning about the impersonal God.
3c1. Internally directed psychological reflection (meditation)
3c2. Investigation of the attributes (laws) of the natural world.
3c3. Pure thought about abstract subject matter.
4. Multiple Gods could exist. What evidence is there for this idea?
4a. If multiple gods exist, how do humans decide how to relate to each?
4b. Is one more powerful, but not "all powerful," than the others?
ETC.
ETC.
ETC.
Last edited by ParkTwain; 12-24-2008 at 02:37 PM..
Well, I would consider that when/if I ask a theist for some sort of proof for the existence of the great myth and I am asked in return to "Just have faith" that tells me that there is no proof and they are simply repackaging the easter bunny and they don't seem to care that I prefer the chocolate to the marshmallow. Oh yeah, nice post Park, "gotta spread it around before I can give you any more"
If (4a) is the question, the answer is "go with the god that will give you the winning lottery numbers, you know, that omniscient thing god is supposed to have.
Can anyone come up with an apologist answer for the existence of God that will blow my mind?
Are apologists wasting their breath?
No, I don't think an apologist can come up with an answer to blow your mind... Only you can do that..
Many apologists waste their breath because they think they have the power and wisdom to make someone believe what they want them to believe..No one has that sort of power over anyone. Belief is a very personal matter to me..In a conversation, I can tell you what and why I believe, but would not expect you to believe it, but you would know me a little better
Nonbelief is very understandable, easy to explain and easy to imagine.(for me).Belief is only fully understandable and self explanatory to oneself, imo..Neither is a reason not to respect or befriend someone
I was born and raised an atheist. I can't say for certain if it were Christian apologists that converted me to Catholicism, but yeah, I did convert to Catholicism.
They are wasting away but if we discourage them, half the posts here will vanish! No more extended quotes from a holy book, no more caps or boldfaced font interspersed with multiple colors to drive home the point with clever fonty-visuals (rather than logic) - it won't be a pretty picture.
If the bible were truly inspired by God it would be accurate and true and not conflict with anything that we know as fact. In that case there would be no need for apologists would there? The need for apologists arose when it was discovered over time what a complete mess the bible is.
Of course they are wasting their breath. I think what they fail to realise is that each side of the argument is working from a different premise. The non believer will see it as written and make his critique based on the evidence before him whereas the believer will find a way to interpret it so that it makes sense because his faith depends on it being true. "And never the twain shall meet"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
