35 thoughts on “Arguments for god”

  1. Arkenaten says:
    January 23, 2017 at 12:08

    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

    Reply
  2. john zande says:
    January 23, 2017 at 13:45

    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

    Like

    Reply
  3. Sirius Bizinus says:
    January 23, 2017 at 18:56

    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.

    Like

    Reply
    • makagutu says:
      January 23, 2017 at 20:32

      Probability wasn’t my strong point in school.
      I have no need for complex math to show gods are imaginary.
      UnkleE is one of those it is pointless to engage. He always repeats the mantra 70% of scholars whom he can’t name agree with him

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      • Sirius Bizinus says:
        January 24, 2017 at 07:15

        Probability wasn’t my strong point, either. And nobody needs complex math in an argument.

        It all boils down to defining what evidence is. I think skeptics of all stripes need to be clear on what we mean by it. Even if someone randomly grew back a limb after a priest prayed to Zeus, one would still need to prove it was the prayer that did it and not something else.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply
      • Peter says:
        January 24, 2017 at 07:23

        The one concrete outcome that UnkleE achieves seems to be to drive Ark to distraction.

        Like

        Reply
    • Peter says:
      January 24, 2017 at 07:22

      Have you heard Physicist Sean Carroll’s argument about why ‘God’ is not a good hypothesis to explain the physical world?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  4. renudepride says:
    January 23, 2017 at 20:34

    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!

    Like

    Reply
  5. Ron says:
    January 24, 2017 at 20:51

    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.

    Like

    Reply
  6. vincedeporter says:
    January 25, 2017 at 18:54

    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

    Reply
    • makagutu says:
      January 27, 2017 at 08:52

      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

      Reply
      • vincedeporter says:
        January 27, 2017 at 09:08

        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.

        Like

        Reply

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