What are the best arguments in favor of theism and against atheism?

[Milton Platt]

theism has answers. atheism has nothing.

That is an assertion, not an argument. Atheism is a lack of belief, and requires no evidence, anyway. Theism has no good evidence to support it. If you feel otherwise, then list your best argument....the one which if refuted would change your mind.

 

[syo]

That is an assertion, not an argument. Atheism is a lack of belief, and requires no evidence, anyway. Theism has no good evidence to support it. If you feel otherwise, then list your best argument....the one which if refuted would change your mind.

atheism doesn't answer why everything happened. atheism is like having no purpose in life. why we exist? atheists will say ''I don't know''.

 

[Milton Platt]

atheism doesn't answer why everything happened. atheism is like having no purpose in life. why we exist? atheists will say ''I don't know''.

Thanks for your response.

No,...again, atheism is just a lack of belief in any of the currently asserted gods because of insufficient evidence. You do not believe in most of the gods.....do you need to prove you do not believe in them? No.

There may not be a "why we exist". There is no reason there has to be one. But there is the question of how we exist. Science has answered many of the questions about this which religion had left unanswered.

Not believing an unjustified claim isn't supposed to give a purpose to anything. It is simply a logical conclusion. The universe does mot have an obligation to behave a certain way just because we want it to. However, my life has plenty of purpose and meaning, thank you. We give our lives meaning.

I allow for the possibility that there could be a deity of some kind, even though I do not see any good evidence for one to exist, in the same way that I allow for the possibility that many other things probably exist even though I have no evidence for their existence. But just like a deity, I do not believe they exist until I know they exist.

Theism has no answers, either. It only has assertions made without sufficient justification. That is why it requires faith.

I ask again, can you provide your best evidence for the existence of your version of a deity? I would prefer one that has not already been refuted, but go with what you have and I can point you to the links that give the refutation, or we can rehash it again, if you wish. I would especially enjoy one or more which if a refutation can be given would cause you to stop believing, otherwise, you are resorting to faith and not evidence for your belief.

You are certainly allowed to use faith as the basis for your belief, but then you are on the wrong thread, as I think the original poster was asking for actual evidence.

 

[syo]

Thanks for your response.

No,...again, atheism is just a lack of belief in any of the currently asserted gods because of insufficient evidence. You do not believe in most of the gods.....do you need to prove you do not believe in them? No.

Not believing an unjustified claim isn't supposed to give a purpose to anything. However, my life has plenty of purpose and meaning, thank you. We give our lives meaning.

I allow for the possibility that there could be a deity of some kind, even though I do not see any good evidence for one to exist, in the same way that I allow for the possibility that many other things probably exist even though I have no evidence for their existence. But just like a deity, I do not believe they exist until I know they exist.

Theism has no answers, either. It only has assertions made without sufficient justification. That is why it requires faith.

I ask again, can you provide your best evidence for the existence of your version of a deity? I would prefer one that has not already been refuted, but go with what you have and I can point you to the links that give the refutation, or we can rehash it again, if you wish. I would especially enjoy one or more which if a refutation can be given would cause you to stop believing, otherwise, you are resorting to faith and not evidence for your belief.

You are certainly allowed to use faith as the basis for your belief, but then you are on the wrong thread, as I think the original poster was asking for actual evidence.

maybe I'm off topic. srry

 

[Milton Platt]

maybe I'm off topic. srry

It's okay, I was enjoying the conversation.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

maybe I'm off topic. srry

I don't think so,- I agree with you that theism has answers

Of course both do have their own set of answers we are all familiar with, both are unproven, both require faith.

But only one recognizes that faith as such, - the other does not - aka blind faith.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

theism has answers.

It does? Which answers?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

atheism doesn't answer why everything happened.

Neither does Ohm's Law. So what?

atheism is like having no purpose in life. why we exist? atheists will say ''I don't know''.

Or they'll give you an answer from some other aspect of their life. Why do you think that life purpose requires a god?

 

[Ben Avraham]

No, that is wrong. I do not have to have any beliefs at all about how the universe began to discard something that is merely an assumption. But something else could have very well preceded it and natural causes caused the current configuration of matter and energy. We do not know what preceded the universe as we experience it. Just because we can pinpoint a time when this universe began does not mean that nothing at all preceded it. The creation of universes, or the creation of space/time and energy could be a perpetual thing. We have no way of knowing. The only way you could use the phrase "primal cause" would be as a placeholder for an area where we do not yet have any actual knowledge. I prefer just to admit that I don't know. You cannot on the one hand say that everything must have a cause, and then not explain the cause of your primal cause. If your primal cause can exist without a cause, then we can skip that step and just admit that things can exist without a cause.

What or Who caused the Universe to exist is not an assumption but a fact. The assumption here is yours, not mine, because you show to be unable to make judgement without atheistic preconceived notions. If to you, the Primal Cause does not exist, you are required to provide a solution to the question before you stand against It. Otherwise, you will be acting like a fool. I understand that you cannot pinpoint a time when the Universe began; by the same token, you can't speak about an age for the Universe. Again, the Primal Cause is the agent Who caused the Universe to exist. The Universe exists and that's a fact. Since it could not cause itself to exist, it is only obvious that something that preceded it caused it to exist. If you prefer simply to say "you don't know," you are expected to prevent yourself from affirmations about something you do not know. At least, show some understanding of Logic, if the Primal Cause had been caused It could no longer be the Primal Cause. Last but not least, to admit that things can exist without a cause is to admit belief in magic and to live in the hope to get something out of the hat of the magician.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If to you, the Primal Cause does not exist, you are required to provide a solution to the question before you stand against It. Otherwise, you will be acting like a fool.

Speaking of acting like a fool: do you take this approach on other issues?

For instance, if your car was to break and someone told you that the problem was invisible pixies messing with the engine, would you say to yourself, "hmm. Until I diagnose the car and figure out some other cause for what happened, it would be foolish for me to say that the problem isn't pixies?"

Also: why are you assuming that a "primal cause" must be a god?

 

[Ben Avraham]

how so? Obviously, otherwise you would have to admit you have no idea. What do you mean by maker? Maker as an event? then yes. maker as an entity? so far we have no reason to believe that such an entity exists.

Maker is an entity. The event is the thing caused. The entity is the Primal Cause. Since you cannot admit that the Primal Cause exists, you are required to provide us with a cause for the existence of the Universe or to prevent yourself from negatives opinions to substantiate what you do not know.

Lol, Now who is jiggling words? Is Primal cause physical? What do you mean by every thing? Oh, I Think you are confusing your way of defining a universe with the scientific term of a universe. Yet it is theoretically possible, so we can't yet falsify that.

If the Primal Cause were physical It could not be of the nature of an absolute Oneness. By every thing I mean the Universe by definition. There can't exist more than one "Everything." To argue about the theory of multiverse or infinite universe is simply verbal juggling of no sensical words.

Yep and beginning is evidence of the Primal Cause. Nope. Well.. again, depends what you mean by primal cause. I had a beginning. my primal cause is the "moment" of my parents mating. we can't even understand the primal cause for our universe to be formed and you claim to "know" what caused the entire existence of everything that can ever be.

Nope! Logically, all beginning constitute the evidence that something was caused. Since there is nothing able to cause itself to exist. It is only obvious to admit the existence of the Primal Cause. Yes, you had a beginning and the moment your parents got together to effect your beginning was not the Primal Cause but only to cause of the event. The Primal Cause was the beginning of all causes.

Can you demonstrate god as a physical matter? I assume your answer is no, because god is not physical. So can you demonstrate god as a mathematical prediction? I assume your answer is no, because god is not measurable. Well, can you demonstrate god as a concept that provides solutions to our problems? (like preventing children of dying as an example?) I assume the answer is no, because god gave free will, and cannot "intervene" with humans choice to harm other beings. Ok, How about, can you demonstrate a god that provides anything other than subjective feeling? I assume the answer is no, because god speaks and affect us through those feelings. Can you recognize a pattern here?

If you read the thread, "The Absolute Oneness of God", you will understand why not. (Isaiah 46:5) The Primal Cause is not a concept. However, It has provided us with a solution to our problems through the Law but, with it, It has granted us with Freewill. So, it is up to us to take possession of the provision which is obedience of the Law. No, one can be prevented from dying. The nature of man is that once we have been born, we must die. Children are giving to man to be taken care of. So, premature death is attributed to man, not to the Primal Cause. The pattern here you have built with your doubtful questions is too religious. You probably must have got disappointed with Christian beliefs before you became an atheist.

 

[LuisDantas]

theism has answers. atheism has nothing.

That is not really an argument for theism, given the quality and worth of those answers, though.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Speaking of acting like a fool: do you take this approach on other issues? For instance, if your car was to break and someone told you that the problem was invisible pixies messing with the engine, would you say to yourself, "hmm. Until I diagnose the car and figure out some other cause for what happened, it would be foolish for me to say that the problem isn't pixies?" Also: why are you assuming that a "primal cause" must be a god?

I have never said here that the Primal Cause must be a god. So, the assumption must be coming from you. The Primal Cause is the Entity that caused the Universe to exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have never said here that the Primal Cause must be a god. So, the assumption must be coming from you. The Primal Cause is the Entity that caused the Universe to exist.

Come off it. You described the "Primal Cause" as a "who" and said that it "gave" us the Law and free will.

 

[Ben Avraham]

No, that is wrong. I do not have to have any beliefs at all about how the universe began to discard something that is merely an assumption. But something else could have very well preceded it and natural causes caused the current configuration of matter and energy. We do not know what preceded the universe as we experience it. Just because we can pinpoint a time when this universe began does not mean that nothing at all preceded it. The creation of universes, or the creation of space/time and energy could be a perpetual thing. We have no way of knowing. The only way you could use the phrase "primal cause" would be as a placeholder for an area where we do not yet have any actual knowledge. I prefer just to admit that I don't know. You cannot on the one hand say that everything must have a cause, and then not explain the cause of your primal cause. If your primal cause can exist without a cause, then we can skip that step and just admit that things can exist without a cause.

Things cannot exist without a cause because the Universe is not like a hat of the magician. Now, the creation of space/time and energy cannot be infinite or a perpetual thing to happen. Space/time and energy are subject to matter. As space is measured by the distance between matter and matter, time is measured by the motion of matter. Energy is measured by the movements and accidents in the atoms of matter. I perfectly understand the legitimacy to admit that you don't know but by the same token, it obligates you not to stand against the views of another as for instance my saying that I cannot affirm that every thing must have a cause. Can you provide me with an example of something that had not to be caused to exist?

 

[ChristineM]

Things cannot exist without a cause because the Universe is not like a hat of the magician. Now, the creation of space/time and energy cannot be infinite or a perpetual thing to happen. Space/time and energy are subject to matter.
As space is measured by the distance between matter and matter, time is measured by the motion of matter. Energy is measured by the movements and accidents in the atoms of matter. I perfectly understand the legitimacy to admit that you don't know but by the same token, it obligates you not to stand against the views of another as for instance my saying that I cannot affirm that every thing must have a cause. Can you provide me with an example of something
that had not to be caused to exist?

And still you talk nonsense about what you don't understand

 

[Ben Avraham]

Come off it. You described the "Primal Cause" as a "who" and said that it "gave" us the Law and free will.

I still remember when my old father would give me laws to peacefully live in society. Does it mean he was the Primal Cause?

 

[ChristineM]

theism has answers. atheism has nothing.

Theism has the guesses to fill in the gaps, atheism says stop guessing about the gaps and provide evidence otherwise there is no cause to believe in bronze age mythology

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I still remember when my old father would give me laws to peacefully live in society. Does it mean he was the Primal Cause?

If you can't even keep track of your own claims, there isn't going to be much point in continuing this discussion.

 

[Segev Moran]

Maker is an entity.

How do you know?

The event is the thing caused.

By the entity?

The entity is the Primal Cause.

Would you consider the universe itself as a primal cause?

Since you cannot admit that the Primal Cause exists,

In order to admit something, you have to be certain of it.
I cannot admit what i don't know.
It will be like me asking you to admit you are a person who wants to be a Scientologist.

you are required to provide us with a cause for the existence of the Universe

There are several ideas.
So far, only two are seriously studied.
I wish i could be the one to find the answer to that question

But to make a long story short... i don't know what caused the universe to exist.

or to prevent yourself from negatives opinions to substantiate what you do not know.

What about what i said was negative?

If the Primal Cause were physical It could not be of the nature of an absolute Oneness.

Again, how do you know?
How can you possibly know what the non-material universe is like?

By every thing I mean the Universe by definition.

Thanks

There can't exist more than one "Everything."

Please explain what "everything" is. do you mean everything that we will ever discover and that ever exists, existed, will exists, every material or non material thing, every energy, dimension, atom and so on?

If so, please explain what you mean again by universe? as the definition of universe in science is regarding the currently known universe.

We don't know what lies behind it, if it will be a process that runs in parallel to us, it will be considered a separate universe.
Is this the case? or you mean multiverse as a whole one universe?

To argue about the theory of multiverse or infinite universe is simply verbal juggling of no sensical words.

same can be said about divinity, holiness, spiritual etc, with the exception that one has a valid basis, and the second does not.

Nope! Logically, all beginning constitute the evidence that something was caused.

To our own small universe maybe.
Not the entire whatever there is out there.

Since there is nothing able to cause itself to exist.

And again, how do you know?
Some studies recorded atoms popping into existence in a complete vacuum.
There might be a cause for them to pop, there might not. we don't really know.
Maybe there is something so small that creates atoms, but we cant see it yet?
Maybe there is something weird and atoms can pop in and out from existent?
Maybe atoms are "locked" in our universe and teleport themselves all over the universe?

There are many things that might be, and we still have a far way to go to understand them.

seems like you know for a fact things that the most brilliant minds in the history of humanity couldn't find the answer to yet.

It is only obvious to admit the existence of the Primal Cause. Yes, you had a beginning and the moment your parents got together to effect your beginning was not the Primal Cause but only to cause of the event. The Primal Cause was the beginning of all causes.

What if this primal cause was actually zeus?
What if it was an eternal stone?
Or maybe one atom?
What if we are robots in a robotic world that is billions of years old?
What if we are bits and bites of code programmed to expand the code?

There are so many possibilities, i really can't understand why the primal cause idea is the only one that has a 100% certainty prediction?

If you read the thread, "The Absolute Oneness of God", you will understand why not.

Can you post a link please?

(Isaiah 46:5) The Primal Cause is not a concept.

?

However, It has provided us with a solution to our problems through the Law

Which law? which problems?

but, with it, It has granted us with Freewill.

interesting...

if it granted us with free will, it means that it must have a free will also.
(if not, how could it have granted us free will (unless commanded by the it who controls it)?)

so this means, the one of two must have happened:

it gave us a duplication of the free will it have.

which in this case, our will is not really free as it is the free will of it and not us.
or it shared us with its own free will

in this case, it means we share the "substance" of free will as it.
if that is true, it means every sick thought someone might have, is actually a thought of it.

this also raises a question:

is free will limited? if it had to share the free will with us, this must mean it couldn't create more of it, so it must contain all the free will there is.

So, it is up to us to take possession of the provision which is obedience of the Law.

Which law?

No, one can be prevented from dying.

yet

The nature of man is that once we have been born, we must die.

i bet that was a shocker to most people

Children are giving to man to be taken care of. So, premature death is attributed to man, not to the Primal Cause.

so the primal cause just created us and left us be?

The pattern here you have built with your doubtful questions is too religious.

Please elaborate.

You probably must have got disappointed with Christian beliefs before you became an atheist.

Lol... i wasn't a christian
And although i am jewish, i am not a religious (nor was i) jewish.
I was however, very spiritual and "new age"
I was filled with divinity and had great life ( still do, luckily )
and how can you be disappointed with beliefs?