Now on ScienceBlogs: Alright, Neutrinos, The Jig Is Up!
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
The Archchancellor's most important job, as the Bursar saw it, was to sign things, preferably, from the Bursar's point of view, without reading them first.
(Terry Pratchett, Moving Pictures)
« Go read Jennifer Ouellette right now | Main | Me & Thunderf00t & some comedians »
More articles by PZ Myers can be found on Freethoughtblogs at the new Pharyngula!
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: July 20, 2011 6:11 PM, by PZ Myers
Now I'm sad. Robin Marie asked people at #TAM9 what the best argument for god was, and she didn't get around to me.
My answer would be the argument from ignorance, because they all boil down to that, anyway, and because the only way I could ever be persuaded to believe in gods is if my brain gets scrambled by traumatic injury or Alzheimer's or something. Being the one argument that could convince me ought to earn it high marks, I think.
HTML commands: <i>italic</i>, <b>bold</b>, <a href="url">link</a>, <blockquote>quote</blockquote>
Tim Lambert 02.01.2012
Orac 02.22.2012
Orac 02.21.2012
Ethan Siegel 02.22.2012
Tim Lambert 09.12.2011
Comments
Posted by: cdcasey
|
July 20, 2011 6:22 PM
One word: Bananas.
Posted by: csaar
|
July 20, 2011 6:29 PM
Some really potent and hallucigenic drug that fried a whole bunch of synapses I think. That or a community that is completely intoxicated with religion. Either way – some sort of poison or opium if you like.
Posted by: Brother Ogvorbis, Emperor of Steam and Fire, Penseur Extrémistes
|
July 20, 2011 6:33 PM
If you believe in god(s), you have an excuse for misogyny, racism, sexism, child abuse, slavery, murder, rape, conquering other peoples, stoning your neighbor, and calling down child-eating bears on kids who make fun of your baldness. Getting away with shit and dominating others is, for the right person, a great excuse to believe in god(s).
Oh. Argument for god(s), not excuse to believe. Sorry.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
July 20, 2011 6:36 PM
Poofyness.
Posted by: feralboy12, der Ken-Puppe Sie außerhalb in 1983 verlassen
|
July 20, 2011 6:36 PM
My favorite argument for god is the one that comes at the end, where they punt and say "God is Mysterious" or whatnot. Always reminds me of when the villain runs out of bullets and throws the gun at Superman.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 20, 2011 6:39 PM
What's the best argument for the Phoenix?
I mean, what's the difference? They're both just fictions, so there's really no argument at all.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 20, 2011 6:42 PM
PZ wrote:
Pfft. Where have you been? It's special pleading, pure and simple. It answers everything!
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/SaqGVG0xvJEQVwURVamS3DTCdvov0BLhXK1jOsYPPJQ-#b4893
|
July 20, 2011 6:45 PM
I'd have gone with "Sentimentality".
"Honey, don't you want to spend eternity in bliss with your dad and me, all your grandparents, and your sister? Because we all do. No more sickness, no more pain... It'll be wonderful, dear. Day after day after day of togetherness, forever."
MikeM
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmk5jhSGJNOG7GfefefHTez7Qq2Ki8zcIY
|
July 20, 2011 6:48 PM
Tasty tacos.
Posted by: raven
|
July 20, 2011 6:49 PM
One of the most common is "The Voices In My Head".
They don't quite put it that way but that is what it is. They usually say "heart" rather than "head" but the heart is just a blood pump. It doesn't have thoughts, emotions, or faith.
That is always WL Craig's Get out of the corner I'm In last ditch effort.
I've yet to hear why there are billions of head voices, they all say different things, and no one has any way to tell which is the One True Voice In The Head. Besides a war.
In second place is Pascal's wager. They like to threaten people with their imaginary friend. It's so boring and used so often that it is proof god doesn't exist. If he did, by now he would be chucking lightning bolts at anyone so lame that is all they can come up with.
Posted by: middlewest
|
July 20, 2011 6:55 PM
My favorite is that the universe looks so completely godless that it must have been intelligently designed by a god that wanted us to think it didn't exist.
Posted by: dustycrickets
|
July 20, 2011 6:57 PM
Well dang...my comment from a thread here earlier today fits much better on this one...
Another one from Benjamin Franklin is...
“Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/beer_is_proof_that_god_loves_us_and_wants_us_to/146025.html
This is the gospel of joy.
Though it's 100% inaccurate , it's still a much better argument for the existence of God than the tripe that commonly gets trotted out here by Godbots.
Posted by: oofreerefilloo
|
July 20, 2011 7:01 PM
Oh man.. I don't know if he does it intentionally, but James Randi seems to have this natural spot-on wit:
"I think the whole intelligent design thing is very powerful, if you don't think too deeply about it."
That really sums it up, right? The best argument for God is: Don't think about the arguments.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
July 20, 2011 7:05 PM
ODINNNNNNN!!!
Posted by: Randomfactor
|
July 20, 2011 7:05 PM
Always reminds me of when the villain runs out of bullets and throws the gun at Superman.
And Superman, who has carelessly stood as the bullets ricochet harmlessly off his chest, DUCKS THE GUN!
I would say that sex is the best argument for God. He expostulated.
Posted by: Alex, adv. diab.
|
July 20, 2011 7:11 PM
Love! Who can object...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 20, 2011 7:13 PM
Yep, Shiloh writ large over that comment...Posted by: jtradke
|
July 20, 2011 7:16 PM
The best argument? The existence of air conditioning. In my mind it's even more improbable than life itself.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 20, 2011 7:17 PM
Music, according to Kurt Vonnegut. So it goes.
Posted by: Dr. Strabismus (WGP) of Utrecht
|
July 20, 2011 7:17 PM
My favorite is the Ontological Proof. You know, where God is defined as the greatest, bestest thing of all, and obviously a greatest bestest thing that didn't exist wouldn't be as good as one that did exist, therefore, by definition, God MUST exist. QED.
That St. Anselm was a tricky fellow. It is kind of a Zeno's paradox of a proof - just how did Achilles beat that tortoise anyway? And magnets, how the f... oh never mind.
Posted by: Randomfactor
|
July 20, 2011 7:20 PM
Y'know what would be even better than the greatest, bestest thing that exists? Something that was so great and bestestest that it didn't even NEED to exist!
Posted by: MethodSkeptic
|
July 20, 2011 7:20 PM
I could contemplate a kind of weakly agnostic deism via the First Cause Argument, but really all that argues for is, yes Virginia, a first *cause* but says nothing about what that cause is, nor do we have any observations by which we could narrow down the possibilities. Certainly one cannot arbitrarily ascribe all the attributes that every God-belief piles onto that cause.
Posted by: tanyawalker79
|
July 20, 2011 7:24 PM
Off topic, but I want to turn your attention to a small town, red state newspaper that is having a FB discussion on a question I'm sure you will have fun answering!
you can either comment here: http://magicvalley.com/news/local/state-and-regional/students-spar-with-eastern-idaho-city-over-prayer-in-public/article_1f6824cc-b310-11e0-aa00-001cc4c03286.html
Or: go here: (the more active site) http://www.facebook.com/thetimesnews
and leave a comment!
Posted by: Toiletman
|
July 20, 2011 7:29 PM
I think a brain tumour could also make you believe into that. Or BSE. Or a gun.
Posted by: Dr. I. Needtob Athe
|
July 20, 2011 7:35 PM
If I'm asked "What would it take for you to believe in God?" my answer will be "I don't know, maybe a lobotomy."
Posted by: Your Mighty Overload - Un-True Scotsman
|
July 20, 2011 7:38 PM
I thought the last guy did quite badly there. Sure, you have to concede that God *might* exist, but you then also concede that unicorns, pixies, the tooth fairy, bigfoot, alien abductions and people who find Dane Cook funny might also exist.
Posted by: Dr. Strabismus (WGP) of Utrecht
|
July 20, 2011 7:47 PM
Randomfactor: Y'know what would be even better than the greatest, bestest thing that exists? Something that was so great and bestestest that it didn't even NEED to exist!
So the Ontological Proof actually proves God, by necessity, doesn't exist!
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Posted by: Becca the Over Socialized
|
July 20, 2011 7:50 PM
ice cubes in a heat wave. An endless supply of hot water after a long camping trip. a cold glass of wine in the summer. Oh, ... you mean I have to *believe*? well, drat.
Posted by: steve8282
|
July 20, 2011 7:59 PM
Pat Metheny.
Posted by: shripathikamath
|
July 20, 2011 8:11 PM
Argument from atheists.
1. IF no GOD THEN no atheists
2. Atheists
3. Therefore GOD
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens)
IF P THEN Q
NOT Q
Therefore NOT P
P = no GOD
Q = no atheists
(As good as anything else theists have)
Simpler version:
IF beer THEN GOD
beer
Therefore GOD
Posted by: Clyde
|
July 20, 2011 8:18 PM
The only reason that I think make sense for god is as a psychological crutch. Sure it's a cop out on life, but it's not the worst cop out. If people need a crutch... why not?
Of course, that leaves the proof of god as nothing more than a mental idea/dream/disease. Then again, I suppose that makes a much sense as anything.
Posted by: Ubi Dubium
|
July 20, 2011 8:26 PM
OMFSM, I was standing next to Robin Marie when she was talking to Randi and filming this! I think that his answer was maybe one of the best.
My answer: Ice floats. Without that, we would not have life on earth. Isn't that a little too convenient?
(I know that's kind of pathetic, but that's the best I've got.)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 20, 2011 8:35 PM
There's always: "I'm scared that when I die I won't exist any more, so there has to be a god who created a heaven so I can exist after I die."
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/Zow0oXRlzf17VKUhRSpcCd5YTQ--#4007b
|
July 20, 2011 8:36 PM
I think it has to be designers all the way down!
lff
Posted by: Randomfactor
|
July 20, 2011 8:36 PM
Actually, the BEST argument for the existence of God is money.
C'mon, all you theists out there...CONVINCE ME!!!
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 20, 2011 8:37 PM
Toiletman
How charming.
Posted by: mabell_yah
|
July 20, 2011 8:39 PM
I like pareidolia. I almost got killed by a (insert threat here), but God saved me. He has a plan. You can see it if you have faith.
Posted by: Dr. Strabismus (WGP) of Utrecht
|
July 20, 2011 9:02 PM
mabell_yah
pareidolia Are you sure that means what you think it means? I thought pareidolia was all about seeing the image of Jesus in burnt toast, or wall mildew, and similar perceptions of patterns. Not that that isn't a perfectly valid Proof - as good as any other.
Posted by: rturpin
|
July 20, 2011 9:11 PM
The best argument for a god is that Athena (or Jesus, or choose your favorite) routinely shows up in the claimant's bedroom, engaging him in literal conversation. It's hard to dispute that someone exists, when they are talking with you.
That's the best argument. The problem, of course, is that those gods never seem to show up when the rest of us are watching. And never seem to give their interlocutors much that provides outside objective evidence that they were visited by anything other than a figment of their own imagination. So we tend to dismiss those who claim that, as crazed or drugged.
Posted by: WhiteHatLurker
|
July 20, 2011 9:20 PM
I liked the "Gilmore Girls" answer in the clip.
One not mentioned - peer pressure, especially peer pressure accompanied by rope nooses and stakes surrounded with firewood.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 20, 2011 9:20 PM
The best argument for God is the three b's
Beer
Bourbon
Bacon
Or its the best argument for man.
one or the other.
Posted by: txpiper
|
July 20, 2011 9:20 PM
Prophecy is the best indication, closest thing to proof.
"If you believe in god(s),misogyny, racism, sexism, child abuse, slavery, murder, rape, conquering other peoples, stoning your neighbor, and calling down child-eating bears"
All of these are quite arguable points, but more importantly, if you don't believe in God, then such things should not be offensive. If there are no absolutes coming from an absolute source, all ideas and perceptions about right/wrong, good/evil, justice/injustice, etc., are just matters of opinion and/or consensus. Certainly, fairness and egalitarian notions of any sort are not reflected in nature.
Posted by: Vicar of Art on Earth
|
July 20, 2011 9:21 PM
What is with this disability prejudice, like you all live in a beer commercial?
It should be no surpize that children with even developmental disabilities will be non believers and even have a grasp of evolution.
Substitue, just for Stephen Hawkins, the word women for any of these cripple metaphors, you may understand why non disabled people feel they need to kill themselves.
Non belivers with Alzeimers if they were so before the onset of extreme forms of TV Drama fame will usually keep their core beliefs.
Besides that, Professor Myers is one of my heros.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 20, 2011 9:22 PM
'
damn it
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 20, 2011 9:28 PM
If you can exclude it from dumb luck or broad generalization or quirky interpretation or a multitude of other explanations.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
July 20, 2011 9:29 PM
BWAH HA HA HA HA HA
Posted by: ronsullivan
|
July 20, 2011 10:02 PM
But of course you're the best argument for God, PZ, or at least next-best after beer!
Oh, that's not what you meant by "... didn't get around to me." Nev-er mind.
Posted by: Bill Door
|
July 20, 2011 10:02 PM
"Believe in God and I'll give you a million dollars."
Works for me every time - and, I'd wager, many TV preachers.
Posted by: another
|
July 20, 2011 10:53 PM
The most effective argument for a god that is actually used goes something like:
"There's this really horrible place called Hell where your eternal soul will suffer never-ending torture unless you believe in my particular version of this fellow called God. If you agree to go along, we'll hook you up with eternal bliss. So what'll it be?"
As with tobacco, it helps if you start them young.
Posted by: rturpin
|
July 20, 2011 11:04 PM
txpiper writes:
Even if there is a god, that doesn't make his or her normative views any less subjective than anyone else's. Omniscience doesn't escape the fact that there is no derivation of ought from is.
And the fact that normative views are subjective (whether there is a god or not) doesn't mean that we, as moral agents, can escape discussing them and evaluating them. At some point, yeah, there's just disagreement. If you shrug your shoulders at genocide, so be it. But don't blame your god. You likely would shrug whether or not your myths approved that.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 20, 2011 11:11 PM
Considering Ol' Yahweh as advertised in the Bible is a sadistic, genocidal bully, by txpiper's argument there is no basis for morality.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 20, 2011 11:11 PM
Ah, your idiotic absolutes arguments. Since your deity doesn't exist, and the babble was written by men, there has never been absolute morality. It has always been the tribal consensus, in the case of the babble, the Canaanites circa 500BC. But presuppositionalists like yourself don't look at the history of the babble, and the lack of evidence for your imaginary deity.Posted by: cag
|
July 20, 2011 11:12 PM
God must be a Roman Catholic. After all, god is everywhere. Everywhere includes the back end of altar boys. We know that RC clergy specialise in the nether regions of altar boys, and RC clergy exist - therefore god.
I just checked below, and god is actually a hemorrhoid.
Makes just as much sense (none) as apologetics.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 20, 2011 11:17 PM
I've always liked Spider Robinson's description of gawd: "If someone who commits a felony is a felon and someone who indulges in gluttony is a glutton then God is an iron."
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 20, 2011 11:20 PM
Bah.
There are no good arguments for God, there aren't even any decent definitions of this purported supernatural denizen.
There is only the degenerate case where the "least bad" can be rephrased as "best argument" argument.
(The best-smelling shit is the least-stenchiferous one)
Posted by: raven
|
July 20, 2011 11:26 PM
OK. Which means you have just proved that god doesn't exist.
In old Judeo-xianity, biblical marriage is between one man and as many wives as he can round up and as many sex slaves as he can buy.
Speaking of slaves, it's all good. You can even sell your kids as sex slaves for a few bucks.
Being a nonvirgin bride, false prophet, adulterer, gay, a disobedient child, heretic, sabbath breaker, or atheist, is a death sentence.
Women are subhuman property.
All that is in the xian magic book bible.
And all that is rejected by most mature, civilized adults in the west. Which doesn't include the fundie cultists like txpiper. Anyone following the old biblical morality today would be doing multiple life sentences in prison.
There are no moral absolutes derivable from the bible. Xian and western morality has...EVOLVED over time.
We are noticeably better these days than the iron age biblical barbarians of 2,000 years ago. To take just a few minor examples, dog fighting, slavery, and burning people at the stake for being witches or atheists is illegal. Right now we are working on child sexual abuse by magic men called "priests and "ministers".
That eternal absolute morality turns out to be not so good in the first place and ephemeral and evolvable in the second place.
Posted by: raven
|
July 20, 2011 11:32 PM
Have you told Harold Camping about this? He is 0/2 and heading for 0/3. Pat Robertson's track record is even worse.
The bible is full of failed prophecies. Jesus, in the NT is one of the worst of the bunch.
By that criterion, xianity is just old mythology and the current fundie xian toad leaders just pretenders.
But we already knew that.
Posted by: Phalacrocorax, not a particularly smart avian
|
July 20, 2011 11:39 PM
The non-existence of Babel Fish is the ultimate proof of god.
Posted by: Phalacrocorax, not a particularly smart avian
|
July 21, 2011 12:04 AM
@txpiper (Texas Piper?)
The followers of Delian Apollo were the best at predicting the future. Consider this prophecy made just before the War of the Peloponnesian:
(Thucydides, History of the War of the Peloponnesian, Book 1, Chapter 5)Soon after the war broke out, Athens was hit by the Plague. A long time after that, the Spartans ended up winning the conflict, which pretty much fulfilled the prophecy.
Therefore, polytheism. QED.
Posted by: Snoof
|
July 21, 2011 12:12 AM
The _best_ argument for a god? Hmmm...
God is defined to be the universe.
The universe exists.
Therefore God exists.
It's not a particularly useful god for moral or teleological purposes, mind you. On the other hand, it means all science ever becomes classed as theology, which could be funny.
Posted by: txpiper
|
July 21, 2011 12:16 AM
Raven,
I understand your confused indignation. I'm just pointing out that you don't have any natural rationale for it.
But then, perhaps I am discounting the possibility that a 'selected for' random DNA replication error resulted in moral sensibilities that radiated through the west?
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 21, 2011 12:26 AM
txpiper:
You think amused derision is confused indignation?
(heh)
Posted by: SheepdogB
|
July 21, 2011 12:26 AM
Because I was told God exists by someone I trust and told that questioning that makes me a Bad Person.
I'm not a Bad Person therefore God.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
July 21, 2011 12:32 AM
Just consensus?
Glad to see you've finally come out and admitted that you are an enemy of democracy, txpiper.
Highly oversimplified, but at its basis, that is exactly what actually happened. Except it wasn't just the west. It radiated throughout the entire human population. Probably reached near fixation before we left Africa. The trait's expression is highly variable though, and substantially influenced by environment.
It's telling that you'd assume that "moral sensibility" is a feature exclusive to the west.
(P.S. That's a polite way of saying 'fuck off, bigot').
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
July 21, 2011 12:45 AM
I guess if someone pointed out that I was wrong about most other things, I might concede.
Or I guess not. I tend to be steadfast in my wrongness, which is a very special way to be wrong.
Weird question, anyway.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
July 21, 2011 12:48 AM
It might be, if "prophecy" weren't just ad-hoc guessing combined with post-hoc pattern matching and confirmation bias.
But if someone "prophesied" actual earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricane landfalls, supernovas, or other meteorological or cosmic events, it might well prove that the "prophet" had something interesting to say.
Just because you are a murderous suicidal sadomasochistic sociopath does not mean that everyone else is.
There's this thing called "empathy", which I suppose you don't have, and therefore cannot understand. Maybe pick up a psychology textbook?
Even if God existed, that would not make God some sort of magical "absolute source of absolutes". God has just one more opinion to offer the consensus.
Of course, God might well back up his whim and opinion with death and torture, but that would just make him a an absolute source of hypocrisy and tyranny.
And the naturalistic fallacy is applicable here ... because?
Posted by: 05makita
|
July 21, 2011 1:01 AM
When my son was about 5 or 6, he stated that people believe in god because "some houses have flat roofs on them." It's as good as any argument I've heard.
Posted by: txpiper
|
July 21, 2011 1:11 AM
amphiox,
"The trait's expression is highly variable though, and substantially influenced by environment."
Yes, substantially. I think we will find out how fixed that trait is in the not-too-distant future when the helpless subclasses our end-of-the-cycle democracy has fostered are starving.
I appreciate your politeness, but I was referring to Raven's revelations that:
"all that is rejected by most mature, civilized adults in the west...Xian and western morality has...EVOLVED over time."
That is some pompous, cultural nerve, don't you think?
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 21, 2011 1:19 AM
txpiper, your defense of goddism relies on debouching the conversation onto other subjects?
You're as much as admitting this god-concept is utterly indefensible.
(heh)
Posted by: Randomfactor
|
July 21, 2011 1:20 AM
That is some pompous, cultural nerve, don't you think?
Guess you're right. At least two of the GOP candidates for President seem to have no problem with slavery. So not EVERYONE has evolved.
Posted by: txpiper
|
July 21, 2011 1:24 AM
Owlmirror,
"It might be, if "prophecy" weren't just ad-hoc guessing combined with post-hoc pattern matching and confirmation bias."
Nice try. Now if you could just apply this strict, if uninformed, mentality to the preposterous conjecture you accept with no evidence. On one hand, dreamy ideas are all you need. On the other, ignorance and casual dismissal are fine and ready weapons.
Posted by: bromion
|
July 21, 2011 1:25 AM
Easy: zombies. How could zombies exist without god, hmmm?
Oh, wait....
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
July 21, 2011 1:28 AM
What are you talking about? I don't believe in God.
Right. That's all that creationists have -- dreamy ideas, ignorance, and casual dismissal. Glad you agree!
Posted by: viperzka
|
July 21, 2011 1:31 AM
The most mind blowingly ridiculous argument for god I've ever had was when someone claimed that the laws of physics were independent entities and thus needed something to create them (i.e. god). It was so infuriating simply trying to convince him that the laws of physics weren't actual independent entities that floated around in the universe forcing things like gravitation and molecular bonding to occur.
The worst part had to be how smug he was thinking that he had created the perfect proof of god.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 21, 2011 2:10 AM
viperzka wrote:
Well, to be fair, he has a right to be smug around pretty much anyone else who believes in any of the gods; such 'logic' is as compelling, intellectually honest and supported by evidence as anything anyone else has come up with to justify holding the beliefs they hold.
That it doesn't hold any water for non-believers just puts his crackpot theory on the end of a long list.
Posted by: kai.extern
|
July 21, 2011 2:48 AM
#74 viperzka
Well, it's the good ol' argument from stupidity, probably the most successful argumentation-style argument for god ever."Best" argument for god - according to what metric? If it's convincing to me, I've never heard any that would qualify ... for anything remotely resembling a Christian-style god.
For the more abstract, say theologician-style gods, again, nothing ever started to sound convincing. (In both cases, a number of those arguments made me question the author's sanity, however, such as the "best concept must be real" thing.)
And for other kinds of god, say like the old Greek ones, I can't remember ever hearing an argument in the first place.
As for successful, "don't think about it, just trust me" seems to really be the leading candidate, sadly.
Did the video state a criterion? The sound was so incredibly bad I could understand maybe one word in ten (about the same hit rate as YouTube's automatic subtitle feature, it seems).
Posted by: Duncan Ferguson
|
July 21, 2011 3:58 AM
I see the first response is "bananas".
I have argued elsewhere that there are only two things that appear to be against evolution and therefore in support of God.
1. Pigeons
2. "Comedy" Ray Comfort.
It is barely conceivable in both cases that evolution would have produced anything so stupid.
Posted by: hotshoe
|
July 21, 2011 3:59 AM
Oh, look who's back, the pathetic liar and deluded creotard txpiper - and now, new and improved with a heaping helping of class-and-race bigotry !Not an exclusive specialty of Texas, sad to say. Common enough to hir fundie ilk all across the USA. Emboldened by the current political climate of TeaBaggerism, txpiper is showing the filthy true colors of christianity.
Go crawl back under your rock, txpiper.
Posted by: pensnest
|
July 21, 2011 4:49 AM
I think PZ is right about the brain-scrambling illness thing. My father converted to Catholicism after he had a stroke - he'd been essentially god-free for many years. I was outraged that the church would so take advantage of someone whose mind had been considerably affected, but I suppose any convert is acceptable.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 21, 2011 5:07 AM
pensnest,
It's worse than that; it's more than acceptable: his sort of convert is (ahem) a blessing to them.
(The Church makes an awful lot of money from bequests)
Posted by: dzhellek
|
July 21, 2011 6:35 AM
A brief summary of all arguments for a god:
God exists because i want him to,
so there.
That's what they all sound like to me anyway.
Posted by: dzhellek
|
July 21, 2011 6:43 AM
duncan feegeson #77
Ah yes, Ray comfort and that guy from growing pains
or as I like to call them
the Bert and Ernie of creationism.
Posted by: ovdk
|
July 21, 2011 6:49 AM
The best argument for god is verifiable supernatural intervention like someone appearing in the sky and reversing the rotation of the earth
Posted by: dzhellek
|
July 21, 2011 6:56 AM
snoof #60
The point of view you just expressed there is called pantheism.
It's actually plausible because instead of arguing that everything comes from goes you say that everything IS god.
Of course, the problem with that is there is no distinct authority to receive instructions from(which is what these creationists really want). Under pantheism my pet goldfish would possess the same divine authority as the pope.
All hail my goldfish reginald but dont give him too many flakes.
Posted by: csrster
|
July 21, 2011 7:22 AM
I exist.
I am God.
Therefore God exists.
What could be wrong with that?
Posted by: No One
|
July 21, 2011 8:20 AM
Best argument for god?
A redneck sheriff:
"Yew believe jaysus boy?"
With sprinkles and a cherry on top...
Posted by: raven
|
July 21, 2011 8:43 AM
Well, OK. In point of fact, your pet goldfish has exactly the same divine authority as the pope.
Posted by: mcb
|
July 21, 2011 9:44 AM
And in the absence of any demonstrably accurate prophecy in your favorite scroll, or any other source in the history of humankind, you have what exactly?
So…we can’t complain about immoral behaviors exhibited by your god unless we believe in your god and that it is the author of all moral absolutes? My, my, that is presuppositional.
How about, for a variety of neurobiological reasons and social conventions we perceive the value of a variety of concepts such as empathy, equity, justice, altruism, individual accountability, social responsibility, right and wrong, even the notion of good and evil. Some of these ideas have developed over time, matured, and evolved. We no longer believe there is a ghost in the machine. We recognize that we may not have contra-causal free will, but agree that it sure feels like we do. We have come to believe that instructing people to murder their children as a test of loyalty, ritual genital mutilation, stoning for public order offenses, ethnic cleansing, slavery, rape as a reward for military prowess, infanticide, genocide, and even substitutionary atonement are wrong.
Now some people have developed an emotional commitment to parts of a scroll that says such practices were once ordered by a henotheistic deity worshipped by a scrappy agrarian tribe looking for a little lebensraum in eastern Mediterranean during the Iron Age. For at least a thousand of the last two thousand years they enjoyed the privilege of being allowed to murder anyone – person, school, or culture – who thought differently. They believe, in the absence of any scientific evidence, by way of motivated reasoning - rationalizing what they feel is true, that all morals exist only because their supernatural construct deemed them good. Some even suggest they own the playing field upon which this argument is played out because their copy of the scroll is true on its face. The question is not why we believe as we do, but why you persist in believing as you do.
The best proof of God is neurobiology and social convention.
Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory
|
July 21, 2011 10:24 AM
Probably the "best" argument for God is some variation of the "God of the gaps", because it can't actually be disproved, and until we have absolute understanding of absolutely everything, then maybe, hypothetically, fighters-crossed, there might just might be a God hiding somewhere where we haven't looked yet.
Which just goes to show how weak all the other arguments are.
I don't consider Pascal's Wager to be an argument for the existance of God, so much as an argument that you should pledge allegience to the meanest god out there. (I seem to remember once reading that several eastern religions that originally never had a concept of Hell all developed increasingly horrific ones after coming into contact with each other. "If you don't believe in our god(s), you'll get infinite punishment when you die!" "Well, if you don't believe in our gods, then you'll get infinity squared punishment!").
Posted by: ovdk | July 21, 2011 6:49 AM
All Praise Superman!
Posted by: unbound
|
July 21, 2011 10:33 AM
The best argument:
Because
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
July 21, 2011 11:16 AM
Why not?
Posted by: txpiper Author Profile If there are no absolutes coming from an absolute source, all ideas and perceptions about right/wrong, good/evil, justice/injustice, etc., are just matters of opinion and/or consensus.
Well, obviously.
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 21, 2011 12:25 PM
The "best" argument for God? Not sure.
I think the Argument from Reason can be one of the hardest to address, though. It doesn't work, but figuring out why it doesn't work and how to explain why it doesn't work gets complicated. The argument is confusing, because it skips too quickly between categories.
In a nutshell (as paraphrased by Richard Carrier from Reppert):
Naturalism is a belief, but no belief is rational if ultimately nonrational, and naturalism entails that all beliefs are ultimately nonrational, therefore naturalism is not a rational belief. From this it follows that, since there are rational beliefs, but rational beliefs cannot exist if naturalism is true, therefore naturalism is false (and some worldview that allows rational beliefs must be true).
If you haven't encountered it before, it can be tricky. If you have encountered it before, then it's just really annoying.
Personally, the last Argument for God which I held on to was the Argument from Beauty. Basically, it asks "why are things beautiful to us? Why is there any need for us to feel that things are beautiful? And what is Beauty?" and so forth. Sort of an Argument from Ignorance combined with an Argument from Abstractions. I found it the hardest to let go of, for some reason. I was a Transcendentalist, and perhaps that's the sort of thing that impresses Transcendentalists.
Posted by: Anri
|
July 21, 2011 12:27 PM
txpiper sez:
Wow, that's a stupid argument, as we shall see...
Um, who cares?
You see, fortunately, we can always be utilitarian about it and see what sort of society provides the best result for the people living in it, and near it.
Let me put it to you this way:
Do you believe that you have rights that should be respected by other people?
Do you believe you are unique in this regard?
Please consider morality in the light of these two questions.
My goodness, he's right.
Strangely, the internet is not a natural construct either, so presumably we shouldn't be using it?
What point is attempting to be made here?
Posted by: drawingbusiness
|
July 21, 2011 12:29 PM
Learning stuff is hard. Therefore, God.
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 21, 2011 12:40 PM
txpiper #42 wrote:
2 major problems with this:
1.) Humans are part of nature and there are commonalities among the species regarding basic concepts regarding what is good, what is unnecessarily harmful, and what is fair or unfair. Individuals and societies argue over specifics, but the "absolute source" is grounded in intersubjective agreement among human beings. A right/wrong, good/evil, justice/injustice which wasn't in reference to human beings would not be recognized by human beings.
2.) In order to justify God, you have to appeal to #1. If there is no intersubjective consensus of opinion on what is good, then God cannot represent a "universal" or "objective" Goodness. You have to assume what you're pretending to denounce.
All this so-called argument does is sneak the critical issue into the premises by breezily defining God as "the source of absolute morality." Hold on, there. By whose standard is it moral? Ultimately, it has to be the speaker's -- and the listener's -- standard. If not, it will be rejected as the 'wrong' version of God. Only vague generalities recognized by all humans will gather a consensus.
Posted by: azumahazuki
|
July 21, 2011 1:34 PM
There are two major problems, one a category or domain error and the other simple dishonesty, that keep apologetics alive.
The first is a question of philosophy, and a bit solipsistic too: the idea that everything is necessarily top-down. This is the underlying assumption behind all theism. I'm getting good at "unpacking" apologetic arguments and spotting the unspoken assumptions, and this is one of them.
Now, given that the idea of an emergent process is fairly new, it's not SO unreasonable to think this way, or at least it wasn't.
It's the other one that's the problem: apologists make this gigantic leap from a vaguely deistic "philosophers' God" to a modern conception of Yahweh, and I think even some of them don't realize how dishonest this is, or that they're doing it at all.
If more people were aware of this, there would be fewer believers of all stripes. by proportion.
Posted by: SteveM
|
July 21, 2011 2:58 PM
The most convincing proof of God is my very existence. You see, I was on my bike last October and was hit by a car. It broke all my ribs and punctured a lung and put me in a 12 day coma (with a brain that had been "torqued"). The doctors wrote me off as "doomed" but I then woke up and started rapidly healing and reconnecting my brain. During my coma many people I know were praying for me and my sudden recovery has started them calling me "the miracle man" because the odds of my recovery were so small.
I'm not convinced, I'm just as atheist as I was before the incident but I think it did convince some of my acquaintances of His existence. This is not really any argument, just felt like sharing this history.
Posted by: P_Smith
|
July 21, 2011 3:03 PM
I risk sounding like I'm advocating a "god" (or that I'm trying to create a good argument for one) but a tolerable concept for a "god" is a poker dealer.
The universe is a mixed deck (or four to eight decks if in a shoe), with occasional shuffles in a Big Bang. You take the cards you're dealt, and do the best you can with them. Those who learn to play well do well, and those who choose to depend on luck or wishing ("praying") on cards will lose.
The idea, being personal responsbility and effort will get you a "just reward", not cowardice or fealty. Even so, I don't believe in the bunk.
.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 21, 2011 3:08 PM
I just know that there's a God.
It's as good as any, at least.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter
|
July 21, 2011 3:33 PM
#97 SteveM And if you had died, would that have proved to them that there isn't a god?
Posted by: SteveM
|
July 21, 2011 3:46 PM
re 100:
I don't know, but I doubt it. I think most are used to not getting their prayers answered.Posted by: dzhellek
|
July 21, 2011 4:51 PM
raven #87
didn't mean to imply the pope is divine
but his hat is FABULOUS!
and dont you dare blapheme reginald
he's made of gold after all
Posted by: tsuloaf
|
July 22, 2011 5:05 AM
The best argument for the existence of god is the fact that the word lacks a universally agreed upon definition, and can thus be used to mean practically anything you want, including things that can be demonstrated to exist, such as the universe.
Posted by: rhaguirrem
|
July 22, 2011 12:56 PM
Best argument for god is fine-tunning. Unfortunately for theists, is also the best argument for pretty much any hypothesis involving multiverses or the idea that we live on a simulation. In other words, is a good argument, but useless to pick among the afore mentioned untestable alternatives.