Argue the Opposite: Existence of God

[Svartalf]

So God is a prehistoric version of Mickey Mouse and Superman? Gotcha.

[Audley Strange]

yup

[Cormac]

Of course gods exist. The main problem with the religious and with atheists is that they presume that existence pertains to the physical universe. Gods exist in the same way all fictional characters exist. Imagined constructs with motivations and personalities which we define for them.


We done?

Like Platonic Ideals?

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

[Coito ergo sum]

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

The personal testimony of people who say they have seen gods. 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. Similarly, religions such as Islam, Mormonism and whatnot attest to the existence of god through witness testimony.

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

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.

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

[Coito ergo sum]

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

That is, of course, a good way of succinctly stating the teleological argument.

[Coito ergo sum]

The opposite of my position is surely that ALL gods exist - as I currently hold that none of them do. That could get a tad crowded in Olympus.

However, there must be an argument for that. I think there are some folks out there who do, in fact, think that all gods exist, or that whatever god one believes in exists.

Make the argument!

[Coito ergo sum]

I spent almost 30 years doing that with myself already. Ain't nobody got time for that.

POINH!

[Animavore]

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.

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

Sound bites are great an' all but the views, thoughts and opinions on God are so diverse and varied one could very quickly get bogged down entertaining them. Also, one would have to entertain and argue for conflicting and contrary views at the same time while maintaining consistency. A tall order

[Audley Strange]

Of course gods exist. The main problem with the religious and with atheists is that they presume that existence pertains to the physical universe. Gods exist in the same way all fictional characters exist. Imagined constructs with motivations and personalities which we define for them.


We done?

Like Platonic Ideals?

Yes.

[Coito ergo sum]

I am starting a new thread series for the forum. It's called "Argue the Opposite" and I welcome anyone else to start a thread similar to this on other topics or questions.

The idea: The idea is to argue the opposite of the position you would normally take on an issue. That is, if you are normally atheistic, argue the theistic position. If you are normally a theist, then argue the atheist position.

I'll sit this one out at least until our chief "contrarian" regales us with walls of words about the virtues and desirability of Marxism.

That would be a great thread to start. "Argue the Opposite: Why is Marxism good or bad?" -- care to start it?

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

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

Sound bites are great an' all but the views, thoughts and opinions on God are so diverse and varied one could very quickly get bogged down entertaining them. Also, one would have to entertain and argue for conflicting and contrary views at the same time while maintaining consistency. A tall order

No need to do any of that. You don't have to argue "everything" in order to make an argument.

[Coito ergo sum]

This would be just as interesting a thread for a theist to participate, and see what their argument for the nonexistence of gods would be.

Similarly, on the Marxist issue -- would be entertaining to see Marxists or pro-socialism folks argue against Marxism.

[Bella Fortuna]

I'll take the Groucho side, and you take the Harpo side. The Gummo perspective isn't even worth considering.

[Audley Strange]

anna two hard boiled Eggs!


Problem is for such an argument to work both sides would have to be comprised of people arguing for propositions they didn't agree in. It would need to be more of an organised sport than "hey you believe in gun control, argue that you don't!"