t-rob said:
Unfortunately Science has shown time and time again that it's evidence cannot be trusted.
Faith on the other hand can be trusted implicitly.
Why, because people hundreds of years ago thought the world was flat and changed their minds in light of new evidence?
If you can explain how faith can be trusted implicitly I'll be very impressed.
Soulmanpete said:
1. The Cosmological Argument. Cosmological = “logos” (reason) and “cosmos” (the world). This argument looks at the reason or explanation for the world. It refers to the law of cause and effect. The world is here (flowers, mountains and rivers). How did it come to be here? Why do these things exist and what is the explanation for them? Something or someone must have caused the created world to come into existence. If nothing existed, it wouldn’t require an explanation. The moment that something (anything) exists, there has to be a reason or a cause.
Science has a number of points which can point to the fact that the universe was 'created' by a 'big bang'. This is not to say that they know how or why that happened, only that the evidence that they can see points to this type of beginning.
Soulmanpete said:
2. The Teleological Argument. Teleological = the design or purpose that we see in the world. Not only does the universe exist, there is an order, beauty, and a sense of harmony and purpose to everything. Who is responsible for this? There simply cannot be a design without a designer. It doesn’t make sense.
This has already been covered extensively on the christianity thread. Simply, the sense of harmony and purpose you see is far better explained by natural selection and species' genetic need to survive than it is by a designer. A series of small changes within each organisms DNA is a far simpler (and provable) explanation to the complexity of life on earth than the theory that an invisible being created it.
Soulmanpete said:
3. The Moral Argument. The moral argument comes from the observation that in human nature world-wide, there exists a kind of moral code stamped on the hearts of human beings that brings an inner sense of “right and wrong” to the lives of people, as well as a sense of responsibility to adhere to the right and avoid the wrong. Where does this come from? Reasonable people would say that this indicates the existence of a lawgiver and judge who built into mankind this sense of responsibility for doing what’s right.
How does this theory account for the discrimination against women which was a natural trait of mankind until very recently. How does it explain racism which until recently was equally prevalent in human interactivity? Wouldn't you expect a creator that espoused love, forgiveness and equality to build these qualities into his design?
It is clear to see that mankind's sociological evolution has played a very big part in raising the morality of it's civilisations throughout it's history which is in no way consistent with the theory of a designer.
Soulmanpete said:
4. Christian Experience. This is far from conclusive, but it is very important. Millions of intelligent people all over the world from all walks of life claim that they have experienced the love or forgiveness of God, the peace of God or the comfort of God. This cannot or should not be taken lightly. Many could testify about the nearness of God (the real unmistakable presence of God) during difficult or traumatic times. This argument asks, “How do we account for this?”.
It's interesting that you state this argument as 'Christian Experience' and not 'Religious Experience'. To give this 'evidence' any credence whatsoever you need to be able to explain how billions of people who have different belief systems to the christian one have similar experiences. Otherwise this evidence actually illustrates quite clearly how people's brains are capable of tricking them into believing these experiences are real. Of course neuroscience and behavioral science can also demonstrate very clearly that people are beyond capable of doing this, particularly when what they are believing is something they want to believe or something they are taught should happen to them particularly when that teaching comes from a person of respect or a book which implies authority on the subject.
Soulmanpete said:
When considering whether God exists, place all these arguments on the scale and watch which way it tips. Ultimately, we have to look at the evidence and make a choice as to what we are going to believe.
IMO you couldn't make four better reasons to become an atheist.
jayfox said:
Since Atheism is the belief that there is no God, I want you to prove that He doesn't exist. On the Christianity thread, I have been told constantly that I am the one proclaiming He lives so it is my responsibility to prove His existence. Well, now you have an Atheism thread based on your beliefs, or lack of them, and the ball is in your court to 'prove' that God doesn't exist. After all, that is what your belief system bases itself on - the lack of existence of a God.
Any scientist will tell you that you can't prove that God doesn't exist because religion claims he exists beyond the reach of science. Therefore all you can really do is discuss why you don't believe God exists.
From my own point of view, I don't discount entirely the possible existence of
a god because for the same reasons as above you can't totally eliminate the possibility that a god who doesn't have a personal relationship with humans and takes no notice of humans created this world exactly as the evidence suggests. However, as the end result of what we see around us is highly improbable to explain by any means, adding in a creator only makes the equation exponentially less likely.
So my 'atheism' is based on the fact that everything I've read, heard and experienced be it on religion, science or whatever has led my brain to tell me that none of the gods or myths presented by man made religion are real.
