Argue the Opposite: Existence of God

[Svartalf]

It is impossible for there not to be a God. The proof? The universe is so fucking awesome!

Indeed, we live an a positive paradise, and human nature, since we are made in Its image, proves that it is perfect and benevolent.

Tell that to the children of Syria, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Lybia...

This is an argue the opposite of your views thread, if you've not read OP correctly. Now, are you here to contribute or just to troll? or are you a closet believer?

[Mysturji]

I'm not really into being "Devil's Advocate", not even for the sake of it. I guess I just can't argue or construct arguments in favour of something that I don't believe in, because I would have already considered and rejected said arguments. This is not to say that I won't try to look for holes in something so that I can understand it better, or be more sure of it. But God ...

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle.

I have entertained such thoughts.
Frequently.
I entertain all kinds of thoughts - briefly.
The worthy ones, I entertain more often.
The unworthy ones - which, after due and careful consideration I deem to be unworthy - I then (rightly IMHO) dismiss with a or a or a .
But argue in favour of them?
No.

[Hermit]

It's traumatic for believers to lose faith, and once they do they don't want to reargue it.

It wasn't traumatic for me. I did not so much lose my faith - I gained a measure of freedom. I escaped the clutches of a bully by realising skydaddy is the figment of our collective imagination.

And I'll be happy to reargue the existence of god any time. I just don't feel the need to indulge in intellectual gymnastics for the sake of itself.

[Mysturji]

Coito, could you please provide some evidence for the existence of god(s)?

The personal testimony of people who say they have seen gods.

Hallucinations.

Christianity and Judaism assert that God intervened in key specific moments in history, especially at the Exodus and the giving of the Ten Commandments in front of all the tribes of Israel, positing an argument from empirical evidence stemming from sheer number of witnesses, thus demonstrating his existence.

... And yet not a peep out of the fucker for how many thousand years?
Tower of Babel vs. CN Tower or Apollo Program, anyone?

Similarly, religions such as Islam, Mormonism and whatnot attest to the existence of god through witness testimony.

Hallucinations, lies, rumours & fairy tales.

The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and throughout the ages.

... which all contradict each other. In fact, a lot of them contradict themselves.

A variation of this is the argument from miracles which relies on testimony of supernatural events to establish the existence of God. Thus, where people report miraculous occurrences, this can be called evidence of the existence of god.

No, that's not evidence. It's testimony. From unreliable witnesses. See above.

The majority argument argues that the theism of people throughout most of recorded history and in many different places provides prima facie demonstration of God's existence.

No. It demonstrates certain aspects of Human nature, including (but not exclusively). Cognitive bias, self-fulfilling prophecies, wishful thinking, psychoses, neuroses, and authoritarianism (including authoritarian followers).

That would not prove the existence of god conclusively, but you asked for "some evidence." Testimony of people over the centuries is "some" evidence. How much weight you give it would be your call.

Testimony is not evidence. See above.

It can also be argued that the existence of god is self evident, which is the ontological argument.

Edit:

[Mysturji]

I'm not sure how I could argue for something without having knowledge and understanding of what it is first. But since any gods I've come across are so ill-defined I might as well argue for the existence of fyyyttggffvvcddfggyu.

At least that - as a sequence of letters, however unpronounceable and meaningless - has an independent existence outside a Human mind.
(edit: spelling)

[Svartalf]

It's traumatic for believers to lose faith, and once they do they don't want to reargue it.

It wasn't traumatic for me. I did not so much lose my faith - I gained a measure of freedom. I escaped the clutches of a bully by realising skydaddy is the figment of our collective imagination.

And I'll be happy to reargue the existence of god any time. I just don't feel the need to indulge in intellectual gymnastics for the sake of itself.

It was traumatic for me. I lost what trust I had in the world and in providence.
OTOH, most of the shit that has happened to me in my life became much easier to understand once you removed the concept of a loving god from the picture. Not that it made sense, but at least the possibility of it piling up like that even though I'm not Job reentered the realm of the possible. I still blame shitty luck.

[Mysturji]

My god sent Megan Fox to suck our collective cocks.

Still waiting...

[Mysturji]

But all the arguments suck. Especially the ontological argument above. I can think of many gods greater than the one of many Judeochristomuslims.

Yes yes. But, here's the thing. Have you ever noticed that there are some otherwise intelligent, educated people who are "believers" of one sort or another? They're making arguments. I am like you in thinking that the believer arguments suck. Sure, but I can't help but think that there might be a possibility that something out there is persuading some fairly smart people. I'd at least like to be able to fathom their thinking. And, just the exercise is a help in debating with believers, because it helps to understand their arguments better than them -- they can be skewered easier that way.

Brainwashing is not an argument.

[Mysturji]

The problem for me is as someone who was a devout believer, and then after slowly finding myself doubting more and more, spent many years studying theology to try and find the "truth" and holding to those beliefs until they unravelled, all the while holding on to at the very least, the core idea that God existed and was the beginning of all things. Well, I only ended up at atheism because I continued to shoot down my own beliefs as they became unbelievable. If I had found a believable argument I'd still be a believer. So, arguing for something I know to be untrue seems like an exercise in futility.

It's not so much whether you know or don't know it to be "true." The exercise is to take your best shot at making the argument.

I've heard them all, and while I regularly forget their names (ontological, teleological...) they are all illogical and full of shit.
I have argued this thread in my head, in many forms, from many positions, ever since, as a child, I asked my (Protestant) father why he never went to (Catholic) communion. (Answer: because he couldn't bring himself to believe in the devine transformation (edit: or whatever the fuck they call it. Ritual cannibalism via magical transmogrification). (Me: You can do that? ))

[Mysturji]

It is impossible for there not to be a God. The proof? The universe is so fucking awesome!

Indeed, we live an a positive paradise, and human nature, since we are made in Its image, proves that it is perfect and benevolent.

Tell that to the children of Syria, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Lybia...

This is an argue the opposite of your views thread, if you've not read OP correctly. Now, are you here to contribute or just to troll? or are you a closet believer?

See above. Been there, done that. Pointless going over it all again.
Besides, how can you have an argument if everyone takes the same side?