That they are never properly argued on either side.
While there are a few very good, sound arguments on the "does not exist" side, they take some effort to write out and some careful thinking and wording to avoid traps and pitfalls. A lot of well-intentioned people just blurt them out in a way in which they can be easily countered by the "does exist" side.
Also, a lot of "does not exist" folks also have outright dumb arguments like, "God can supposedly do anything. So he can create a stone he can't lift, which is a contradiction, therefore he doesn't exist."
The original assumption that "God can do anything" is a straw man. Someone making a "God exists" argument can simply proceed assuming that God can take any reasonable, self-consistent action not including square triangles and other absurdities.
The "does exist" side is at least equally frustrating.
Unlike the "does not exist" folks who tend to repeat good arguments poorly, the "does exist" folks often just throw in a lot of scientific and mathematical words and phrases to make it sound like they are making a rational argument.
One argument I saw went like this: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle only applies to humans, but not God. Since God can determine both the velocity AND position of a particle, that must make him really powerful!
"Heisenberg's uncertainty principle" -- sounds scientific, right? And it is. But it has nothing to do with anything. The above argument assumes that God exists AND some property of God is known and then USES THAT to prove that God is powerful. And I found it in an article attempting to prove that God exists. Circular. And silly.
I've also seen people bring in religious arguments like, "The Bible in passage 12:34 says that God has property X. Therefore Y. Therefore God exists."
Well, the Bible is only admissible evidence if you assume that God exists in the first place AND that the Bible is an accurate representation of his attributes. It's circular.
And lastly, I see a lot of emotionally motivated "arguments:" "You don't think God exists? Well then go kill everyone, you immoral fool, and I'll see you in hell! I know there is someone watching over me." If you believe God exists PURELY on faith, that's completely fine with me, but please keep out of a rational argument on his existence.
And here's a message to both sides: refuting someone else's argument is fine, and it needs to be done, but it doesn't mean you're right. It just means that their -argument- is wrong. Don't get distracted from the main topic.
So here's what I propose for this thread: a debate. With ONLY logical arguments. No appeals to emotion, tradition, circular arguments, faith-based arguments, flaming, personal attacks, and so on. Just human reasoning.
Why am I asking for this debate? Because I genuinely want to hear some real, rational arguments from the "does exist" side. I really, really do. I'm not trying to be an asshat. I will read it and consider it thoroughly. I want to get in your head. I want to understand how your world view works.
I will start off the debate with the following to get us going:
The universe is a very complex place and science can not yet explain it in its entirety. But whatever the "ultimate" explanation may be, arbitrarily defining an all-powerful God solves nothing. It simply takes the problem one step back: rather than asking, "How did life, the universe, and everything come to be -- and why?", the question becomes, "how did God come to exist, and why?" It is just as unsatisfying, if not more, since there is no evidence for the existence of God, while there is plenty of evidence for the existence of a universe.
If you found a child with a gun, you might ask him, "Son, where did you get that gun?" If he answered, "From my pocket," you would be very frustrated. Similarly, answering, "God created us" to the question of existence provides no real information. It explains complexity with even greater complexity -- and then asks that we not require an explanation for it. It is utterly futile.
"God has always existed" is the standard response. Well, fine. "The universe exists because God created it and he himself has always existed" IS a _VALID_ argument, but it answers NOTHING.
It is speculation at its wildest. It is a hypothesis without evidence. It is an arbitrary, valid response without any facts backing it up. If I asked you, "Why did you call me?" it COULD be the case that aliens inserted a chip into your brain, undetectable, which was programmed to force you to call me at this exact moment.
It is a VALID response. One in a world of infinite possibilities. But there is no EVIDENCE for it. It is indeed one way that the event of you calling me could've come about. It is not a very likely one at all.
In the same way, an all-powerful, always-existing god is one way that the universe could've come about. It could've also been the result of a super-soaker fight between aliens when two streams of water collided in just the right way and formed a mini-universe on top of one of the electrons in a hydrogen atom. Two explanations in a world of infinites. Both valid. Both highly, highly improbable. Zero evidence for either.
So in essence my argument is this: science doesn't know how the universe was created and no explanation may ever explain it in its entirety. But science sticks to the facts. There are infinitely many explanations which are VALID, logically, but completely unsupported by evidence. "God" is just one explanation among infinitely many that could explain the universe, none of which we have any reason to believe are true. God is pure speculation.
While there are a few very good, sound arguments on the "does not exist" side, they take some effort to write out and some careful thinking and wording to avoid traps and pitfalls. A lot of well-intentioned people just blurt them out in a way in which they can be easily countered by the "does exist" side.
Also, a lot of "does not exist" folks also have outright dumb arguments like, "God can supposedly do anything. So he can create a stone he can't lift, which is a contradiction, therefore he doesn't exist."
The original assumption that "God can do anything" is a straw man. Someone making a "God exists" argument can simply proceed assuming that God can take any reasonable, self-consistent action not including square triangles and other absurdities.
The "does exist" side is at least equally frustrating.
Unlike the "does not exist" folks who tend to repeat good arguments poorly, the "does exist" folks often just throw in a lot of scientific and mathematical words and phrases to make it sound like they are making a rational argument.
One argument I saw went like this: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle only applies to humans, but not God. Since God can determine both the velocity AND position of a particle, that must make him really powerful!
"Heisenberg's uncertainty principle" -- sounds scientific, right? And it is. But it has nothing to do with anything. The above argument assumes that God exists AND some property of God is known and then USES THAT to prove that God is powerful. And I found it in an article attempting to prove that God exists. Circular. And silly.
I've also seen people bring in religious arguments like, "The Bible in passage 12:34 says that God has property X. Therefore Y. Therefore God exists."
Well, the Bible is only admissible evidence if you assume that God exists in the first place AND that the Bible is an accurate representation of his attributes. It's circular.
And lastly, I see a lot of emotionally motivated "arguments:" "You don't think God exists? Well then go kill everyone, you immoral fool, and I'll see you in hell! I know there is someone watching over me." If you believe God exists PURELY on faith, that's completely fine with me, but please keep out of a rational argument on his existence.
And here's a message to both sides: refuting someone else's argument is fine, and it needs to be done, but it doesn't mean you're right. It just means that their -argument- is wrong. Don't get distracted from the main topic.
So here's what I propose for this thread: a debate. With ONLY logical arguments. No appeals to emotion, tradition, circular arguments, faith-based arguments, flaming, personal attacks, and so on. Just human reasoning.
Why am I asking for this debate? Because I genuinely want to hear some real, rational arguments from the "does exist" side. I really, really do. I'm not trying to be an asshat. I will read it and consider it thoroughly. I want to get in your head. I want to understand how your world view works.
I will start off the debate with the following to get us going:
The universe is a very complex place and science can not yet explain it in its entirety. But whatever the "ultimate" explanation may be, arbitrarily defining an all-powerful God solves nothing. It simply takes the problem one step back: rather than asking, "How did life, the universe, and everything come to be -- and why?", the question becomes, "how did God come to exist, and why?" It is just as unsatisfying, if not more, since there is no evidence for the existence of God, while there is plenty of evidence for the existence of a universe.
If you found a child with a gun, you might ask him, "Son, where did you get that gun?" If he answered, "From my pocket," you would be very frustrated. Similarly, answering, "God created us" to the question of existence provides no real information. It explains complexity with even greater complexity -- and then asks that we not require an explanation for it. It is utterly futile.
"God has always existed" is the standard response. Well, fine. "The universe exists because God created it and he himself has always existed" IS a _VALID_ argument, but it answers NOTHING.
It is speculation at its wildest. It is a hypothesis without evidence. It is an arbitrary, valid response without any facts backing it up. If I asked you, "Why did you call me?" it COULD be the case that aliens inserted a chip into your brain, undetectable, which was programmed to force you to call me at this exact moment.
It is a VALID response. One in a world of infinite possibilities. But there is no EVIDENCE for it. It is indeed one way that the event of you calling me could've come about. It is not a very likely one at all.
In the same way, an all-powerful, always-existing god is one way that the universe could've come about. It could've also been the result of a super-soaker fight between aliens when two streams of water collided in just the right way and formed a mini-universe on top of one of the electrons in a hydrogen atom. Two explanations in a world of infinites. Both valid. Both highly, highly improbable. Zero evidence for either.
So in essence my argument is this: science doesn't know how the universe was created and no explanation may ever explain it in its entirety. But science sticks to the facts. There are infinitely many explanations which are VALID, logically, but completely unsupported by evidence. "God" is just one explanation among infinitely many that could explain the universe, none of which we have any reason to believe are true. God is pure speculation.
Facebook
Twitter