• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Problem With Theistic Arguments

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
Pretty much every theistic argument I've encountered has had essentially the same structure, namely, "God is necessary to explain X." X can be a wide variety of things: the universe, the apparent design in living things, the existence of logical or mathematical truths, the existence of moral truths, the existence of beauty, the existence of love, the apparent "fine-tuning" of the universe, etc. But I don't find any form of this argument to be convincing, because I don't see any reason why any of these things need to be explained at all. After all, theists accept God as a being whose existence needs no explanation. If you are attempting to explain the existence of something with a being whose existence is by definition unexplainable, then you've arrived back at the same problem you were trying to solve in the first place. There is no reason to assert the existence of an unexplained god to explain anything. It's just as logical to assume the thing you were trying to explain with a god needs no explanation at all.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
Pretty much every theistic argument I've encountered has had essentially the same structure, namely, "God is necessary to explain X." X can be a wide variety of things: the universe, the apparent design in living things, the existence of logical or mathematical truths, the existence of moral truths, the existence of beauty, the existence of love, the apparent "fine-tuning" of the universe, etc. But I don't find any form of this argument to be convincing, because I don't see any reason why any of these things need to be explained at all. After all, theists accept God as a being whose existence needs no explanation. If you are attempting to explain the existence of something with a being whose existence is by definition unexplainable, then you've arrived back at the same problem you were trying to solve in the first place. There is no reason to assert the existence of an unexplained god to explain anything. It's just as logical to assume the thing you were trying to explain with a god needs no explanation at all.

Who says the Gods 1) Need explaining. And 2) Need to follow any sort of Logic?
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Pretty much every theistic argument I've encountered has had essentially the same structure, namely, "God is necessary to explain X." X can be a wide variety of things: the universe, the apparent design in living things, the existence of logical or mathematical truths, the existence of moral truths, the existence of beauty, the existence of love, the apparent "fine-tuning" of the universe, etc. But I don't find any form of this argument to be convincing, because I don't see any reason why any of these things need to be explained at all. After all, theists accept God as a being whose existence needs no explanation. If you are attempting to explain the existence of something with a being whose existence is by definition unexplainable, then you've arrived back at the same problem you were trying to solve in the first place. There is no reason to assert the existence of an unexplained god to explain anything. It's just as logical to assume the thing you were trying to explain with a god needs no explanation at all.

You don't see doesn't mean you shouldn't see, it maybe because you are blind to perceiving of it properly. A choice you make to not apply reason and rationality properly but cling to irrational doubt and conjecture and argue by what is known to be irrational even to you.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Pretty much every theistic argument I've encountered has had essentially the same structure, namely, "God is necessary to explain X." X can be a wide variety of things: the universe, the apparent design in living things, the existence of logical or mathematical truths, the existence of moral truths, the existence of beauty, the existence of love, the apparent "fine-tuning" of the universe, etc. But I don't find any form of this argument to be convincing, because I don't see any reason why any of these things need to be explained at all. After all, theists accept God as a being whose existence needs no explanation. If you are attempting to explain the existence of something with a being whose existence is by definition unexplainable, then you've arrived back at the same problem you were trying to solve in the first place. There is no reason to assert the existence of an unexplained god to explain anything. It's just as logical to assume the thing you were trying to explain with a god needs no explanation at all.
Then, of course, there is the other side of the spectrum :D
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
What does that mean?
Your post is the opposite side of the spectrum... "There is no reason to assert the existence of an unexplained god to explain anything. It's just as logical to assume the thing you were trying to explain with a god needs no explanation at all."

it's the same thing over and over again. And yet, you try to explain what we see by asserting the existence of something that you don't know existed at all at the moment of creation and then, somehow, asserting that no God existed to make that happen.
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
Your post is the opposite side of the spectrum... "There is no reason to assert the existence of an unexplained god to explain anything. It's just as logical to assume the thing you were trying to explain with a god needs no explanation at all."

it's the same thing over and over again. And yet, you try to explain what we see by asserting the existence of something that you don't know existed at all at the moment of creation and then, somehow, asserting that no God existed to make that happen.

Huh? I don't assert no god. I don't know whether gods exist or not. But I see no reason for a god to explain things when there is no explanation for the god. An unexplained god solves nothing, so why not just believe in an unexplained universe?
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Pretty much every theistic argument I've encountered has had essentially the same structure, namely, "God is necessary to explain X." X can be a wide variety of things: the universe, the apparent design in living things, the existence of logical or mathematical truths, the existence of moral truths, the existence of beauty, the existence of love, the apparent "fine-tuning" of the universe, etc. But I don't find any form of this argument to be convincing, because I don't see any reason why any of these things need to be explained at all. After all, theists accept God as a being whose existence needs no explanation. If you are attempting to explain the existence of something with a being whose existence is by definition unexplainable, then you've arrived back at the same problem you were trying to solve in the first place. There is no reason to assert the existence of an unexplained god to explain anything. It's just as logical to assume the thing you were trying to explain with a god needs no explanation at all.

You assert that God is unexplained, but you have no proof of this.

What? You use that copout all the time. "Where's your proof of..."

Though actually, theologians do have explanations for the nature of God.

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

From this we know that there is a God the Father, who makes all things that we can see and that we can't.

We know that Jesus is one being with God, and made of the same substance. We hear that God is Light (and apparently Love, and also Kingdom Hearts is Light... maybe). We know that Jesus is eternally begotten. This is a strange phrase because to be begotten means to be born, but to be eternal means a being or process has no beginning and no end. That is to say, Jesus was NOT born once at 6 B.C. but is ALWAYS being born and reborn. Begotten not made, means that Jesus is God, not a creation of God at some point. God is eternal, Jesus is eternal. Through Jesus all things were made, as Jesus is part of the Trinity, like God. He also came from Heaven by the power of the Holy Spirit. He lived, died, and rose again. And at some point he's coming back to judge the living and the dead.

We then are told that God and Jesus sent the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit and God sent Jesus earlier through incarnation. And both God and Jesus made all things.

Oh yes, it's explained. It just makes the same sort of sense as this.

Gunnerkrigg Court - By Tom Siddell
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
You don't see doesn't mean you shouldn't see, it maybe because you are blind to perceiving of it properly. A choice you make to not apply reason and rationality properly but cling to irrational doubt and conjecture and argue by what is known to be irrational even to you.
From the point of view of hallucinating people, everybody else is blind. Therefore, the argument that atheists simply do not have some vision power that theists have, leads nowhere.

Wait, have you also seen Superman just flying by right now? :)

Ciao

- viole
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Huh? I don't assert no god. I don't know whether gods exist or not. But I see no reason for a god to explain things when there is no explanation for the god. An unexplained god solves nothing, so why not just believe in an unexplained universe?

Good question but I think it is in the nature of man to explain the universe. Certainly scientists are trying to figure it out.

In the Christian camp, we just believe that creation is an artwork of a Creator.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Pretty much every theistic argument I've encountered has had essentially the same structure, namely, "God is necessary to explain X." X can be a wide variety of things: the universe, the apparent design in living things, the existence of logical or mathematical truths, the existence of moral truths, the existence of beauty, the existence of love, the apparent "fine-tuning" of the universe, and THE EXISTENCE OF ME. But I don't find any form of this argument to be convincing, ...

I have put in one crucial item that you missed. It is shown in red fonts above. Now, tell us what you find unconvincing? Do you find 'existence of you' convincingly explainable by any of your belief systems?
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
in the first place. There is no reason to assert the existence of an unexplained god to explain anything.

I would offer....the simple regression
Someone had to be First

and the explanation we shall not have as we are breathing.....
HOW did He bring to declaration......

I AM!

which is the ONLY true mystery
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
Good question but I think it is in the nature of man to explain the universe. Certainly scientists are trying to figure it out.

In the Christian camp, we just believe that creation is an artwork of a Creator.

Fair enough. I don't see why the universe needs an explanation.
 
Top