20 Arguments For God’s Existence

[Seaweed]

http://www.strangenotions.com/god-exists/

Phenomenal read.

[Fidel_CashFlow]

Seaweed my apologies in advance

[SprayBoy]

I can't tell if it's satirical or not...these are incredibly unsound and illogical arguments

[Aaron McCrevice]

Why 20? Why not 21...or 36.... or 13?


There can only be one....

[pulledclear]

Its a great read if you are a fckng manic retard!

[Seaweed]

Don't be afraid to read, Peter kreeft is great. Bets, I hope you give the read a chance, you will like it.

[Seaweed]

I can't tell if it's satirical or not...these are incredibly unsound and illogical arguments

Although I'm amazed that you were able to break the world record and read the entire piece in a mere 5 minutes, based on your feedback, I can't say I'm surprised.

[chipper]

Interesting stuff.... I didn't finish the article but I bookmarked it to go back and try to get through it.

[Seaweed]

Seaweed my apologies in advance

No worries Bets, just sharing a very interesting and thought provoking read. God will not impose on those that are adamantly opposed to it, rather He will grant them the graces needed for their understanding; but if they choose not to accept the gifts, they may never come to understand

Someone once told me something that made me think....God can still exist even if you choose not to believe in Him

[Fidel_CashFlow]

honestly Seaweed. IM lookin for a reason to believe so I will check it out a bit


as far as the did not read gif.... i just wanted to use that one and why not use it on my buddy Seaweed

[Seaweed]

Interesting stuff.... I didn't finish the article but I bookmarked it to go back and try to get through it.

Took me a good hour, I'm a slow reader but I had to stop along the way to read some lines and think.

[pulledclear]

What about a retard sitting in his front yard eating dog shit. No concept of God. Retard Heaven????? I say he burns in HELL...

[greenhippo]

Article has dozens of opinions and hypotheses listed as 100% fact. Embarrassing to put that in writing and try to pass it off. Besides, nature and the fact that nature changes and alters explains almost every one in the list.

[Seaweed]

What about a retard sitting in his front yard eating dog shit. No concept of God. Retard Heaven????? I say he burns in HELL...

[Seaweed]

Article has dozens of opinions and hypotheses listed as 100% fact. Embarrassing to put that in writing and try to pass it off. Besides, nature and the fact that nature changes and alters explains almost every one in the list.

Effective Arguments for the debate on God's existence are based on logic and reasoning-both of which are carried out in all 20.

[Aaron McCrevice]

I know God exists when I wake up every day

I know pure evil exists when I do things I know are bad for me

[The Kraken]

Saer no matter how much you believe, it's just not real.

[Seaweed]

I know God exists when I wake up every day

I know pure evil exists when I do things I know are bad for me

I like that.

[tony_come]

Dog = god

[Seaweed]

Saer no matter how much you believe, it's just not real.

I believe not because I have to, but because I feel it and know it.

[Seaweed]

Dog = god

racecar=racecar

[SprayBoy]

Although I'm amazed that you were able to break the world record and read the entire piece in a mere 5 minutes, based on your feedback, I can't say I'm surprised.

No. I know because I've studied these arguments for many years. I've read Aquinas to william lane craig. Pick any argument you like in the list and I will show you its faults. I'll pick my favorite of them: Pascals wager.

First off, how can you possibly claim that these are all "effective arguments for god's existence using reason" when Pascal's wager has absolutely nothing to do with proving god's existence. The argument simply claims that we are unsure if god exists, ergo it's better to believe because if we're wrong nothing changes and if we're right we go to heaven. This argument is INCREDIBLY flawed. It effectively promotes the belief in god not because of any personal desire to reflect christian values, but instead purely out of the desire to possible save their own ass.

A fantastic rebuttal (not my own) is the atheist wager. Which states that if there truly is a loving and all-knowing god, then he will look down much kinder on those who lived their lives honestly and who did good deeds for others purely on their own merits and not for the sake of granting self-immunity from hell.

Again, pick any argument you like there and we can discuss it. The arguments for god's existence are all logically flawed and never "prove" anything. I know picking fights with the religious is difficult because they mostly have their minds made up, but if I can help others here to think freely and divorce themselves from ignorance then I should try.

[pulledclear]

Heres my argument.

[Fidel_CashFlow]

No. I know because I've studied these arguments for many years. I've read Aquinas to william lane craig. Pick any argument you like in the list and I will show you its faults. I'll pick my favorite of them: Pascals wager.

First off, how can you possibly claim that these are all "effective arguments for god's existence using reason" when Pascal's wager has absolutely nothing to do with proving god's existence. The argument simply claims that we are unsure if god exists, ergo it's better to believe because if we're wrong nothing changes and if we're right we go to heaven. This argument is INCREDIBLY flawed. It effectively promotes the belief in god not because of any personal desire to reflect christian values, but instead purely out of the desire to possible save their own ass.

A fantastic rebuttal (not my own) is the atheist wager. Which states that if there truly is a loving and all-knowing god, then he will look down much kinder on those who lived their lives honestly and who did good deeds for others purely on their own merits and not for the sake of granting self-immunity from hell.

Again, pick any argument you like there and we can discuss it. The arguments for god's existence are all logically flawed and never "prove" anything. I know picking fights with the religious is difficult because they mostly have their minds made up, but if I can help others here to think freely and divorce themselves from ignorance then I should try.

But you know what that means then right ?

It means that your loved ones just go in the dirt when they die and nothing more?

I guess its harder for me to stomach then most

[GUMMO77]

Don't you know that God is Pooh Bear?

[SamDiamond]

Kreeft uses the "Common Consent Argument", and, that's a tad bit looney.

In a nutshell, this is the Common Consent Argument that Kreeft uses...and I am going to quote him directly...

1. Belief in God—that Being to whom reverence and worship are properly due—is common to almost all people of every era.
2. Either the vast majority of people have been wrong about this most profound element of their lives or they have not.
3. It is most plausible to believe that they have not.
4. Therefore it is most plausible to believe that God exist

Now, instead of using "God", try, "The World is Flat".

1. Believing the world is flat is common among people in the 13th century.
2. Either the vast number of people in the world has been wrong, or they have not.
3. It is plausible to believe they are not.
4. Therefore the world is flat.

It is a silly argument for the belief in god.

[pouyasophy]

Kreeft uses the "Common Consent Argument", and, that's a tad bit looney.

In a nutshell, this is the Common Consent Argument that Kreeft uses...and I am going to quote him directly...

1. Belief in God—that Being to whom reverence and worship are properly due—is common to almost all people of every era.
2. Either the vast majority of people have been wrong about this most profound element of their lives or they have not.
3. It is most plausible to believe that they have not.
4. Therefore it is most plausible to believe that God exist

Now, instead of using "God", try, "The World is Flat".

1. Believing the world is flat is common among people in the 13th century.
2. Either the vast number of people in the world has been wrong, or they have not.
3. It is plausible to believe they are not.
4. Therefore the world is flat.

It is a silly argument for the belief in god.

I was once a lost degenerate atheist like the rest of you until I realized that it is highly unlikely that all of our lives are nothing more than a "fluke," which is what atheists believe, whether they like it or not. They believe that they are nobodies so they become nobodies and live their lives as nothing more than "Buzz Killingtons" and "Debbie Downers," following people around attempting to bring people down to their level. Misery loves company. Haters gonna hate.

Something can't come from nothing, no matter how much atheists want to believe that it can.

[Easy-Rider 66]

I was once a lost degenerate atheist like the rest of you until I realized that it is highly unlikely that all of our lives are nothing more than a "fluke," which is what atheists believe, whether they like it or not. They believe that they are nobodies so they become nobodies and live their lives as nothing more than "Buzz Killingtons" and "Debbie Downers," following people around attempting to bring people down to their level. Misery loves company. Haters gonna hate.

Something can't come from nothing, no matter how much atheists want to believe that it can.

http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-ta...-new-post.html Have to think you are still lost, after expressing your support for Hitler in post #60 of this thread. Haters gonna Hate.

[pouyasophy]

http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-ta...-new-post.html Have to think you are still lost, after expressing your support for Hitler in post #60 of this thread. Haters gonna Hate.

I was trolling at the time, nothing wrong with that.

[SamDiamond]

I was once a lost degenerate atheist like the rest of you until I realized that it is highly unlikely that all of our lives are nothing more than a "fluke," which is what atheists believe, whether they like it or not. They believe that they are nobodies so they become nobodies and live their lives as nothing more than "Buzz Killingtons" and "Debbie Downers," following people around attempting to bring people down to their level. Misery loves company. Haters gonna hate.

Something can't come from nothing, no matter how much atheists want to believe that it can.

There is no word to describe you other than-- DUMB.

Debating a point is not "hating". I disagree with Kreeft, it does not make me an atheist.

Do yourself a favor Pouy. Get a fukin job. You'll get off of government assistance, get some self pride, you'll stop hating on guys who drive nice cars. What you're doing now isn't working. It's pathetic.

[zizoudane10]

Kreeft uses the "Common Consent Argument", and, that's a tad bit looney.

In a nutshell, this is the Common Consent Argument that Kreeft uses...and I am going to quote him directly...

1. Belief in God—that Being to whom reverence and worship are properly due—is common to almost all people of every era.
2. Either the vast majority of people have been wrong about this most profound element of their lives or they have not.
3. It is most plausible to believe that they have not.
4. Therefore it is most plausible to believe that God exist

Now, instead of using "God", try, "The World is Flat".

1. Believing the world is flat is common among people in the 13th century.
2. Either the vast number of people in the world has been wrong, or they have not.
3. It is plausible to believe they are not.
4. Therefore the world is flat.

It is a silly argument for the belief in god.

Thanks, there is one man here who understands why Kreeft is a total donkey.

It's a shame, that he studied philosophy because he makes that many logical errors, that every student in their first year of philosophy would fail every test if they did the same.

Not only is the "Common Consent Argument" absolutely laughable and dumb, no, this guy studied philosophy and is fcking dumb enough to make the most common error anyone who didn't study it always makes: he loves to assume the conclusion. You don't do that. Not only that, you are simply not allowed to, because it is logically 100% wrong. Period. That's a shame, a damn fcking shame.

"It is most plausible that...." or "it is plausible that...." is NEVER and I repeat NEVER an argument to reach a conclusion in philosophy. Kreeft fails in "logic", and he even wrote a book about it, respect. Even more, he does not only fail in logic, he fails in theoretical philosophy, too.

Kreeft loves to use an "Argumentum ad populum" to debate, which is more than laughable. If you believe an "Argumentum ad populum" is a way to prove that a thing is good or bad, true or false, here you go: "Nine out of ten of my fellow congressmen favor the bill, therefore it is a good idea." "In a court of law, the jury vote by majority; therefore they will make the correct decision."

[Kermit]

Very hard to take religion seriously when there are far too many contradictions and changes made throughout the years in the bible to suit the ones who were in charge at their given time. Religion was a tool or "rulebook" created to manage slavery.

[Swinging Johnson]

Seaweed, coming out to the SBR community as a believer is akin to coming out of the closet as an active pro football player. It shouldn't be this way but as gamblers, we are a cynical lot. Nobody wants to be taken as a sucker or viewed as such. It's an emasculation in our community. That is why I applaud you for being bold enough to start this thread and suggesting this article, penned by a man of science, rather than a pontificating cleric whose sole intent is to convert.

I struggle with this myself and as I have grown older am ashamed to say I have been infected by the logic of an ever skeptical mind. Religion is imperfect to begin with because Man has been given a gift and we of course perverted it for our own self-serving interests. But the gift itself, freedom from Death and the beatitudes of striving to live as nobly as possible is the true Holy Grail.

I am afraid to say I am not an attendee at Sunday Mass but would argue that sitting inside a church makes me about as religious as standing inside my garage makes me a car. I can only hope that my failure to believe unflinchingly and my transgressions as a person are ultimately viewed as the result of a supremely imperfect reflection of my Father's perfect image.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. You're a good boy Seaweed.

[leetreaper]

Seaweed my apologies in advance

[TheCentaur]

First off, how can you possibly claim that these are all "effective arguments for god's luck's existence using reason" when Pascal's wager has absolutely nothing to do with proving god's luck's existence. The argument simply claims that we are unsure if god luck exists, ergo it's better to believe blow on the dice because if we're wrong nothing changes and if we're right we go to heaven have a hot roll.

Sounds strikingly similar to playing craps