The Strongest Argument for God

[Morny]

I find it a powerful evidence that, of the millions of other species, we are the only creature on earth that is so much further advanced in intelligence, reasoning, and having deep psychological and spiritual traits, and abilities are that are far superior to any other specie on the planet.

As I've said before, you clearly haven't met my in-laws.

[Philip]

Morny: I suppose everything depends on the specifics of what "experiences of sorts" and "their religious belief" are. I can understand if you don't want to give specifics. But as an example, if a Morman claimed to see visions of Moroni, I suspect that both of us would question the reality of that Morman's justification for his vision.

Obviously, Joseph Smith and Muhammad both should have automatically been suspect, as they both went off in some dark corner and came back with mystical and unverifiable claims that must be accepted ONLY upon their personal testimony and without giving any validating evidences that they had an encounter with God. Smith, via claiming a series of visions, one where he says he saw God the Father and Jesus, and a second one in which an angel pointed him to a buried golden plates with a "God-given" history of an ancient America. And Muhammad by claiming, while praying in a cave, he was supposedly visited by the angel Gabriel who revealed to him revelations from God, over a period of time - later announcing himself to be God's latest prophet and messenger. In both of these false prophets, they provided no evidence except their own testimony. And while both co-opted the Old Testament (and Smith also the New Testament), both deny Jesus was God - with Muhammad's writings denying Jesus was even crucified, much less resurrected.

Now, contrast the lone individuals of Smith and Muhammad who gave NO reasons or evidences to be believed, with the MANY prophets and apostles God sent and inspired His communications to mankind - and sent this succession of people over about a 1,600 year span. And the prophets were all universally recognized as a prophet of God in Israel. All of the Apostles were either disciples of Christ or like Paul eventually associated with them. They all asserted they had encountered the risen Christ and were willing to (and most did) die for preaching that (while fully knowing the truth of the matter). The prophets and the apostles accompanied their words with miracles and healings that demonstrated that God had sent them. The prophets provided a collectively large number of time-traceable, seemingly unlikely and DETAILED prophecies, many of which came true. And the prophets and the apostles all testified to the same God, and either prophesied the Messiah or had direct historical experiences with Him. So, those sent by God were MANY, sent over 16 centuries, were all in agreement, and gave powerful and examinable evidences, and each had large - and sometimes huge numbers - of witnesses. There is no comparison the the claimants of whatever religious mysticisms.

[Kurieuo]

And what reason would that be?

To quote [url=viewtopic.php?p=244153#p244153]
If you were to take a stab at why, in your own words, "most people believe in some type of God/higher power" -- what would you guess as the reason for this?

People like answers. I believe many people would even prefer an unreasonable answer over no answer at all. If there is one thing theism provides; it's answers.

I don't see it as unreasonable to consider why most people do believe in some type of God/higher power. Surely, you could minimally put forward some reasonable possibilities as to why this might be the case?

I think most people believe because everybody around them believes. That’s why I used to believe; I just sorta took everybody else's word for it

Is that a strong argument for God then, that most people believe because everyone else believes?

Kind of feels like its begging the question to say people believe because most people believe. Like, but why does everyone else believe? Because everyone else believes...

[Kenny]

To quote [url=viewtopic.php?p=244153#p244153]
If you were to take a stab at why, in your own words, "most people believe in some type of God/higher power" -- what would you guess as the reason for this?

People like answers. I believe many people would even prefer an unreasonable answer over no answer at all. If there is one thing theism provides; it's answers.

I don't see it as unreasonable to consider why most people do believe in some type of God/higher power. Surely, you could minimally put forward some reasonable possibilities as to why this might be the case?

I think most people believe because everybody around them believes. That’s why I used to believe; I just sorta took everybody else's word for it

Is that a strong argument for God then, that most people believe because everyone else believes? [/quote]
Obviously I'm not aware of any strong arguments for God hence my views on religion.

Kind of feels like its begging the question to say people believe because most people believe. Like, but why does everyone else believe? Because everyone else believes...

I agree. Sorta like one of those things that once it gets started, kinda takes on a life of it's own.

[Kurieuo]

People like answers. I believe many people would even prefer an unreasonable answer over no answer at all. If there is one thing theism provides; it's answers.

I don't see it as unreasonable to consider why most people do believe in some type of God/higher power. Surely, you could minimally put forward some reasonable possibilities as to why this might be the case?

I think most people believe because everybody around them believes. That’s why I used to believe; I just sorta took everybody else's word for it

Is that a strong argument for God then, that most people believe because everyone else believes?

Obviously I'm not aware of any strong arguments for God hence my views on religion.

Kind of feels like its begging the question to say people believe because most people believe. Like, but why does everyone else believe? Because everyone else believes...

I agree. Sorta like one of those things that once it gets started, kinda takes on a life of it's own.

So, I guess in your particular instance, RickD was correct in pointing out that it wasn't really a good argument i.e., it commits ad populum fallacy. There's just no real further reasoning behind "the why" you believe many people believe in God/higher power.

This Kenny now is the one I know best. Feels like you've backtracked a little, but I'll not be surprised any more reading over your previous comment / offered up argument.

[Kenny]

I don't see it as unreasonable to consider why most people do believe in some type of God/higher power. Surely, you could minimally put forward some reasonable possibilities as to why this might be the case?

I think most people believe because everybody around them believes. That’s why I used to believe; I just sorta took everybody else's word for it

Is that a strong argument for God then, that most people believe because everyone else believes?

Obviously I'm not aware of any strong arguments for God hence my views on religion.

Kind of feels like its begging the question to say people believe because most people believe. Like, but why does everyone else believe? Because everyone else believes...

I agree. Sorta like one of those things that once it gets started, kinda takes on a life of it's own.

So, I guess in your particular instance, RickD was correct in pointing out that it wasn't really a good argument i.e., it commits ad populum fallacy. There's just no real further reasoning behind "the why" you believe many people believe in God/higher power.

This Kenny now is the one I know best. Feels like you've backtracked a little, but I'll not be surprised any more reading over your previous comment / offered up argument.

If I felt there were a good reason/argument for believing in God, I probably wouldn’t be atheist; but a Deist or even a Theist. My response shouldn’t be a surprise for you

[PaulSacramento]

The strongest argument isn't always the easiest to understand.
IMO, the argument for the Unmoved Mover/ Uncaused cause is the strongest, though most critics get it horribly wrong.

[RickD]

The strongest argument isn't always the easiest to understand.
IMO, the argument for the Unmoved Mover/ Uncaused cause is the strongest, though most critics get it horribly wrong.

That one is irrelevant to Kenny, because he ignores it. The easiest way to deal with something we don't understand, is to pretend it doesn't exist.

[Kenny]

The strongest argument isn't always the easiest to understand.
IMO, the argument for the Unmoved Mover/ Uncaused cause is the strongest, though most critics get it horribly wrong.

That one is irrelevant to Kenny, because he ignores it. The easiest way to deal with something we don't understand, is to pretend it doesn't exist.

When you consider the countless pages I've spent discussing "the unmoved mover" (along with other such arguments) with various people here, It should be clear the one thing I have not done is ignore it.

[RickD]

The strongest argument isn't always the easiest to understand.
IMO, the argument for the Unmoved Mover/ Uncaused cause is the strongest, though most critics get it horribly wrong.

That one is irrelevant to Kenny, because he ignores it. The easiest way to deal with something we don't understand, is to pretend it doesn't exist.

When you consider the countless pages I've spent discussing "the unmoved mover" (along with other such arguments) with various people here, It should be clear the one thing I have not done is ignore it.

Of course you ignore the unmoved mover argument.

One Definition of ignore:

ignore-
fail to consider

From the countless pages that people here have discussed the topic, I believe that you don't understand the argument, refuse to understand it, therefore you fail to consider it.

[Kurieuo]

Kenny does appear to exchange many words, and I hope that's because of something inward but fear for his sake that it's just really all hobby and habit. It's as Jesus said:

‘Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.’

which Isaiah prophecied:

‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
For this people’s heart has grown callous;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn, and I would heal them.’

Thankfully, some of us have been blessed to see and hear.

[Kenny]

The strongest argument isn't always the easiest to understand.
IMO, the argument for the Unmoved Mover/ Uncaused cause is the strongest, though most critics get it horribly wrong.

That one is irrelevant to Kenny, because he ignores it. The easiest way to deal with something we don't understand, is to pretend it doesn't exist.

When you consider the countless pages I've spent discussing "the unmoved mover" (along with other such arguments) with various people here, It should be clear the one thing I have not done is ignore it.

Of course you ignore the unmoved mover argument.

One Definition of ignore:

ignore-
fail to consider

From the countless pages that people here have discussed the topic, I believe that you don't understand the argument, refuse to understand it, therefore you fail to consider it.

If giving a detailed explanation for why I disagree with the argument equals refuse to understand or fail to consider in your book, then I'm guilty as charged. However call that "respectfully disagreeing".

[PaulSacramento]

The strongest argument isn't always the easiest to understand.
IMO, the argument for the Unmoved Mover/ Uncaused cause is the strongest, though most critics get it horribly wrong.

That one is irrelevant to Kenny, because he ignores it. The easiest way to deal with something we don't understand, is to pretend it doesn't exist.

When you consider the countless pages I've spent discussing "the unmoved mover" (along with other such arguments) with various people here, It should be clear the one thing I have not done is ignore it.

Of course you ignore the unmoved mover argument.

One Definition of ignore:

ignore-
fail to consider

From the countless pages that people here have discussed the topic, I believe that you don't understand the argument, refuse to understand it, therefore you fail to consider it.

If giving a detailed explanation for why I disagree with the argument equals refuse to understand or fail to consider in your book, then I'm guilty as charged. However call that "respectfully disagreeing".

Your explanations show that you don't understand the argument.

It would be like me disagreeing with evolution because I don't see any real-time evolution happening.
The disagreement shows ignorance of the actual argument ( since evolution isn't observed happening in real-time).

[Kenny]

That one is irrelevant to Kenny, because he ignores it. The easiest way to deal with something we don't understand, is to pretend it doesn't exist.

When you consider the countless pages I've spent discussing "the unmoved mover" (along with other such arguments) with various people here, It should be clear the one thing I have not done is ignore it.

Of course you ignore the unmoved mover argument.

One Definition of ignore:

ignore-
fail to consider

From the countless pages that people here have discussed the topic, I believe that you don't understand the argument, refuse to understand it, therefore you fail to consider it.

If giving a detailed explanation for why I disagree with the argument equals refuse to understand or fail to consider in your book, then I'm guilty as charged. However call that "respectfully disagreeing".

Your explanations show that you don't understand the argument.

It would be like me disagreeing with evolution because I don't see any real-time evolution happening.
The disagreement shows ignorance of the actual argument ( since evolution isn't observed happening in real-time).

Some of the greatest Cosmologists in the world dismiss this argument as well; I guess they just don't understand it either huh? After all; it CAN'T be a flaw in the argument right???

[RickD]

When you consider the countless pages I've spent discussing "the unmoved mover" (along with other such arguments) with various people here, It should be clear the one thing I have not done is ignore it.

Of course you ignore the unmoved mover argument.

One Definition of ignore:

ignore-
fail to consider

From the countless pages that people here have discussed the topic, I believe that you don't understand the argument, refuse to understand it, therefore you fail to consider it.

If giving a detailed explanation for why I disagree with the argument equals refuse to understand or fail to consider in your book, then I'm guilty as charged. However call that "respectfully disagreeing".

Your explanations show that you don't understand the argument.

It would be like me disagreeing with evolution because I don't see any real-time evolution happening.
The disagreement shows ignorance of the actual argument ( since evolution isn't observed happening in real-time).

Some of the greatest Cosmologists in the world dismiss this argument as well; I guess they just don't understand it either huh? After all; it CAN'T be a flaw in the argument right???

Of course there could be a flaw in the argument. And if you have counter to the argument, from a "great cosmologist", post it.

So yes, it's possible that someone who actually understands the first mover argument, could have an actual reason that the argument isn't valid. But you sir, do not understand the argument.