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

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

Gods? Would they fight each other when we have multiple gods? They would fight who would be God of all gods or who gets the largest adulation, then one would be envious or the other would be scheming how to be in control. - isn't that Greek/Roman mythology even Marvel Comic gods - Thor, Odin and Loki?

There is only one God. There has to be. Why?

Hebrews 3:4 Jubilee Bible 2000 (JUB)
For every house is built by someone, but he that created all things is God.

Just joined yesterday.
I have included a video below addressing the question about the existence of God. I hope you like it.

Alright so right off the bat with this video it’s assuming people question the existence of God because of arrogance. As well as assuming it’s arrogance to question the existence of God at all. That is a bit silly because why couldn’t I just say “Well it’s arrogance to question the existence of my gods. So you should stop being so arrogant and just worship the gods properly already.”



On top of that the idea that the gods would fight doesn’t really disprove them as a concept and this assumes the gods could so easily break down into arguments about petty things like that.



I went back and found the video on science in the Bible and couldn’t help but notice how very muslim the whole thing sounded to me. Like those muslims who go on and on about how “Islam is proven by science!” nonsense. Then of course when he talks about science he clearly doesn’t know anything about science since instead of saying they use the scientific method to obtain new knowledge they use “few facts and generalizations.”



Scientists just guess is essentially what this blockhead is going on and on about and it’s kinda sad. I’m finding it exceptionally difficult to watch what I know is propaganda and little else. Science changes, that is actually a good thing as the scientific community is overall willing to make a change with new data. The bible is not.



I’m just going to go back to the video dealing with atheism now because I am finding it downright painful to put up with this other video talking about science. Does the church of christ believe Jesus is God? Because it seems like the argument he’s making in this video is that Jesus isn’t God because he’s not all spirit. I’d also have to say it seems downright silly to me that God would allow these people to create idols ect but then would never say anything to them about it. Especially if hell Is on the line.



Okay this is just too long, not the length itself but the fact he has as of yet in the video not brought up a single reason to actually believe in God is just silly. He’s droned on and on but I haven’t heard any argument yet. Could he just cut to the chase?



Then when he does get there he just says “Men have no excuse not to believe in God.” The rationale behind this? Oh cause the bible says so. “Just by looking at the things you see around you especially the heavens you see the power and wisdom of God.” Still no arguments, this is just someone who already believes in god talking to people who already believe in god. This video is clearly not meant for anyone who has questions or doubts.



So that was all very painful.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What arguments do you believe point to there being a God or gods and why do you think this makes more sense than the idea that there are no gods? I am personally a non-believer but I would greatly like to hear arguments against this position and possibly find a religion that at least makes sense.

I would like to hear actual arguments though. Lets keep off saying "ATheism is just dumb!" and the reverse. People come to their own beliefs for a large variety of reasons and you shouldn't just call them dumb for having said beliefs. Even if you think the beliefs themselves are pretty dumb.

Last thing, if you favor monotheism or polytheism or pantheism or non theism please be sure to include specifics of why you favor one version over another.

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

Because we have God and Theists in agreement against Atheists, 2 against 1, the ayes have it!

 

[MJFlores]

Does the church of christ believe Jesus is God?

Okay this is just too long, not the length itself but the fact he has as of yet in the video not brought up a single reason to actually believe in God is just silly. He’s droned on and on but I haven’t heard any argument yet. Could he just cut to the chase?

Then when he does get there he just says “Men have no excuse not to believe in God.” The rationale behind this?

So that was all very painful.

Jesus isn't God - that is what we believe in the Church of Christ.

Romans 1:19-20New International Version (NIV)

since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

The rational behind this sir, is when we look around us - these things just did not happen.
There had to be a reason why and who.

Hebrews 1:1-3 New International Version (NIV)

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

I hope these won't come painfully.

 

[Nous]

The shorter the time period over which we make a measurement, the more uncertain is the value of the energy. This explains the existence of virtual particles. They can spontaneioulsly appear out of empty space, but over only a limited amount of time. One virtual particle has positive energy and one has negative energy, so the average energy remains zero.

Agree. So you still don't dispute that the energy of a closed system is not created within the system.

Virtual particles can come from nothing (empty space). Physicists have speculated that the big bang was a quantum fluctuation, effectively creating our universe.

Are you disputing this: Vacuum state - Wikipedia

According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space",[1] and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void."[2]According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.[3][4][5]​

?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What arguments do you believe point to there being a God or gods and why do you think this makes more sense than the idea that there are no gods? I am personally a non-believer but I would greatly like to hear arguments against this position and possibly find a religion that at least makes sense.

I would like to hear actual arguments though. Lets keep off saying "ATheism is just dumb!" and the reverse. People come to their own beliefs for a large variety of reasons and you shouldn't just call them dumb for having said beliefs. Even if you think the beliefs themselves are pretty dumb.

Last thing, if you favor monotheism or polytheism or pantheism or non theism please be sure to include specifics of why you favor one version over another.

Speaking as an ex-atheist, if you are genuinely open to the concept of theism,- I'd say that is the biggest hurdle to clear, it was for me- to at least begin with accepting that theists are not 'just dumb' as you say

I'd say #2 is looking not just at theism as a belief, but also examine and critique your own current belief. It's always easier to question other people's beliefs rather than your own, especially when they explicitly framed as 'disbeliefs' of the alternative. If you at least get to accepting that there is no inherent 'default' explanation, for something so without reference and precedent as our universe...

From there, if you can accept the ponderings of other atheists, like Andre Linde, and Greene, principles of modern inflationary theory, that 'alien ID' might be an explanation for our own universe, then theism is little more than a semantic step from there..

Ultimately the best confirmation comes as a personal communication, which used to sound crazy and delusional to me, but that was my experience.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

Speaking as an ex-atheist, if you are genuinely open to the concept of theism,- I'd say that is the biggest hurdle to clear, it was for me- to at least begin with accepting that theists are not 'just dumb' as you say

I'd say #2 is looking not just at theism as a belief, but also examine and critique your own current belief. It's always easier to question other people's beliefs rather than your own, especially when they explicitly framed as 'disbeliefs' of the alternative. If you at least get to accepting that there is no inherent 'default' explanation, for something so without reference and precedent as our universe...

From there, if you can accept the ponderings of other atheists, like Andre Linde, and Greene, principles of modern inflationary theory, that 'alien ID' might be an explanation for our own universe, then theism is little more than a semantic step from there..

Ultimately the best confirmation comes as a personal communication, which used to sound crazy and delusional to me, but that was my experience.

Simply accepting a belief such as atheism or theism doesn't actually say much about the persons intelligence. Critique of what I think isn't hard to do since as far as I am concerned I can discard it at just about anytime.

With that out of the way what is the reason to even start to come to believe in a god or gods?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Simply accepting a belief such as atheism or theism doesn't actually say much about the persons intelligence. Critique of what I think isn't hard to do since as far as I am concerned I can discard it at just about anytime.

With that out of the way what is the reason to even start to come to believe in a god or gods?

There are many for me, but let me ask you this for now

If you see 'HELP' spelled with rocks on a deserted island beach, no evidence of anyone ever being there, do you suspect the random action of the waves washed them up that way? why not?

 

[1137]

What arguments do you believe point to there being a God or gods and why do you think this makes more sense than the idea that there are no gods? I am personally a non-believer but I would greatly like to hear arguments against this position and possibly find a religion that at least makes sense.

I would like to hear actual arguments though. Lets keep off saying "ATheism is just dumb!" and the reverse. People come to their own beliefs for a large variety of reasons and you shouldn't just call them dumb for having said beliefs. Even if you think the beliefs themselves are pretty dumb.

Last thing, if you favor monotheism or polytheism or pantheism or non theism please be sure to include specifics of why you favor one version over another.

So I will share some I've posted previously.

Forms and Gods

Argument I Discovered

Mind-Body Dualism: A Finale

Argument for God(s) Second Edition - please critique

Beliefs and Ideologies that do not make sense to a Setian

Comprehensive Argument for Set

 

[Cobol]

Agree. So you still don't dispute that the energy of a closed system is not created within the system.

Are you disputing this: Vacuum state - Wikipedia

According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space",[1] and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void."[2]According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.[3][4][5]​

?

Virtual particles don"t have any real existence in vacuum when there are no real quanta of the fields present.

Virtual particles are book keeping mathematical entities, that allow calculations to be made for say, scattering amplitudes between two electrons, as one example.

Another way to describe them would be to use the term on and off shell, instead of virtual particles.
In physics, particularly in quantum field theory, configurations of a physical system that satisfy classical equations of motion are called on shell, and those that do not are called off shell.

General relativity implies that the only information that the vacuum carries at each point is the so-called metric tensor, which is a set of numbers that allow one to calculate the distance between any two nearby points. This is enough for the vacuum to be able to bend, like any material.

In quantum field theory, virtual particles are termed off shell. Real exchange particles are termed on shell (mass-shell).

The vacuum isn't empty, because it's filled with quantum fields. The vacuum energy density is nothing else than the magnitude of dark energy but this energy only becomes sizable for huge, cosmological volumes of space.

Quantum mechanics implies that the vacuum corresponds to a very particular state. The uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics implies that when one measures things such as the intensity of the electric field in the vacuum.

A vacuum is not empty because in our universe exists dark energy, but the numbers are so small that it can be considered empty, in the sense of almost 0 energy content.

Virtual particles are effectively measurable values.

There are equal numbers of particles and antiparticles, and by the hydrogen age a violation gave the asymmetry we observe.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

So I will share some I've posted previously.

Forms and Gods

Argument I Discovered

Mind-Body Dualism: A Finale

Argument for God(s) Second Edition - please critique

Beliefs and Ideologies that do not make sense to a Setian

Comprehensive Argument for Set

Thank you. Tell me, is there a way we could have a conversation about your beliefs or you could link me something on said beliefs? I am most curious man who has a set animal for a head.

 

[Nous]

Virtual particles don"t have any real existence in vacuum when there are no real quanta of the fields present.

Virtual particles are book keeping mathematical entities, that allow calculations to be made for say, scattering amplitudes between two electrons, as one example.

Another way to describe them would be to use the term on and off shell, instead of virtual particles.
In physics, particularly in quantum field theory, configurations of a physical system that satisfy classical equations of motion are called on shell, and those that do not are called off shell.

General relativity implies that the only information that the vacuum carries at each point is the so-called metric tensor, which is a set of numbers that allow one to calculate the distance between any two nearby points. This is enough for the vacuum to be able to bend, like any material.

In quantum field theory, virtual particles are termed off shell. Real exchange particles are termed on shell (mass-shell).

The vacuum isn't empty, because it's filled with quantum fields. The vacuum energy density is nothing else than the magnitude of dark energy but this energy only becomes sizable for huge, cosmological volumes of space.


The only information that the vacuum carries at each point is the so-called metric tensor. A set of numbers that allow one to calculate the distance between any two nearby points. This is enough for the vacuum to be able to bend.

Quantum mechanics implies that the vacuum corresponds to a very particular state. The uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics implies that when one measures things such as the intensity of the electric field in the vacuum.

A vacuum is not empty because in our universe exists dark energy, but the numbers are so small that it can be considered empty, in the sense of almost 0 energy content.

Virtual particles are effectively measurable values.

There are equal numbers of particles and antiparticles, and presume that by the hydrogen age an unknown violation gave the asymmetry we observe.

Is any of this intended to dispute the claim that the energy of a closed system is not created within the system, or anything I quoted about the quantum vacuum not being "empty space" or "some absolutely empty void"?

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

Is any of this intended to dispute the claim that the energy of a closed system is not created within the system, or anything I quoted about the quantum vacuum not being "empty space" or "some absolutely empty void"?

I wanted to thank you and that other one who throws out the words on here for having an interesting conversation. Keeps things fresh you know?

 

[Nous]

I wanted to thank you and that other one who throws out the words on here for having an interesting conversation. Keeps things fresh you know?

I wish I could take credit for saying something interesting, but at best I've just been using someone else's ideas, and, as Cobol pointed out, one thing I said was not quite accurate.

 

[Cobol]

as Cobol pointed out, one thing I said was not quite accurate.

I'm only making a revision to your claims.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

I wish I could take credit for saying something interesting, but at best I've just been using someone else's ideas, and, as Cobol pointed out, one thing I said was not quite accurate.

Oh, well in that case "BURN THE NON-BELIEVER!" after all we can't have people saying things that are not quite accurate now can we?

 

[1137]

Thank you. Tell me, is there a way we could have a conversation about your beliefs or you could link me something on said beliefs? I am most curious man who has a set animal for a head.

Yeah sure, just pm me. Or better yet, ask your questions in the Setianism DIR and tag me in it!

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

Yeah sure, just pm me. Or better yet, ask your questions in the Setianism DIR and tag me in it!

I shall do one or the other this evening. I suppose you would prefer the DIR yes?

 

[MJFlores]

Agree. So you still don't dispute that the energy of a closed system is not created within the system.

Are you disputing this: Vacuum state - Wikipedia

According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space",[1] and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void."[2]According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.[3][4][5]​

?

Gimme a direction here.
Its like my brain is shrinking in a vacuum with a vacuum cleaner.
And being bombarded by electromagnetic waves
Is this something that George Lucas wrote about?
Have you seen nothing create something?
I know that someone could create something
and someone could do nothing
and nothing could do nothing

 

[1137]

I shall do one or the other this evening. I suppose you would prefer the DIR yes?

It will be more beneficial! We have at least 3 or 4 very active Setians here, and some who pop in and out.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

It will be more beneficial! We have at least 3 or 4 very active Setians here, and some who pop in and out.

Alright and last question, I wasn't seeing a Setian DIR is it under neopagan or?