35 thoughts on “Arguments for god

  1. Arkenaten says:

    As much as I admire Carrier, I find his exposition too long-winded for my little brain to absorb. But I did skip scan some of his post.
    Very interesting stuff.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. john zande says:

    I concur with Ark. Carrier seems a tad obsessed with filling space in his writing as opposed to worshipping (and honouring) the Great Lord of Brevity


  3. The TL;DR version of the article:

    Ten classic arguments for the existence of the Christian deity don’t actually describe a situation where that deity is more likely to exist. Because they have no effect on the likelihood, they aren’t really relevant to the existence of the Christian deity.

    Personally, I dislike using Bayes’ Theorem in anything because it encourages people to assign arbitrary probability values to stuff. It’s also more complicated than it needs to be. I remember a conversation I had with UnkleE on Nate’s blog where he tried using it to arbitrarily say his answered prayer made his deity more likely to exist. I pointed out that he was making his numbers up, and the best response he had was to claim I didn’t have better ones.


  4. renudepride says:

    A good point of reference for refuting the “absolutists” and their theist rationale. However, we all know that they are a far-from rational crowd! LOL! Naked hugs, my Kenyan brother!


  5. Ron says:

    Apologists tells us that:

    1+1+1=1, 1=3 and 3=1.

    I think competence in simple math is sufficient to counter their logic.


  6. It’s easy to get distracted and pulled into a theological argument. One must be careful to remember that theology is the philosophy of God—which upon empirical and logical evidence does not exist.
    —so why waste our time.

    It’s important to pull the discussion back to the real issues, one being the validity of theology at all!!!

    Having been a Bible teacher/student for over 3 decades, I also get distracted with Biblical inner issues. I have to fight the tendency to argue what the Bible means intrinsically… when the Bible is irrelevant today.

    We need to talk about WHY we accept or refuse sources. What our standards for evidence are—and if we apply those paradigms to all other claims… or just ours.
    Anything else is just bloviating bullshit, albeit fun when we have time.

    Liked by 1 person

    • makagutu says:

      Paine, said, and I think you would agree, . The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Haha… indeed. Theologians won’t like that, but to specialize in the circular meaning, history, and philosophy of a diety’s ontology is just as useful to their beliefs that it is for any other religious belief.

        Theology is a ready-to-wear suit that fits any theistic paradigm that gives the impression that it is tailored for only one religion.


We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s