I have been doing many posts recently as to why belief in god and the afterlife is irrational. It seems only fair that I now provide arguments for the other side but it seems that someone has already done all the work for me. I came across this website that gives over five hundred of proofs of god’s existence, many of which will be familiar to anyone who has discussed these things with believers.
Here are some proofs:
2. COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (I)
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
8. ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (I)
(1) My aunt had cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments.
(3) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn’t have cancer.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
12. ARGUMENT FROM FEAR
(1) If there is no God then we’re all going to not exist after we die.
(2) I’m afraid of that.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
19. ARGUMENT FROM NUMBERS
(1) Millions and millions of people believe in God.
(2) They can’t all be wrong, can they?
(3) Therefore, God exists.
36. ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPLETE DEVASTATION
(1) A plane crashed killing 143 passengers and crew.
(2) But one child survived with only third-degree burns.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
38. ARGUMENT FROM SHEER WILL
(1) I DO believe in God! I DO believe in God! I do I do I do I DO believe in God!
(2) Therefore, God exists.
51. ARGUMENT FROM INFINITE REGRESS, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (II)
(1) Ask Atheists what caused the Big Bang.
(2) Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this.
(3) Continue process until the Atheist admits he doesn’t know the answer to one of your questions.
(4) You win!
(5) Therefore, God exists.
59. ARGUMENT FROM CREATIVE INTERPRETATION
(1) God is:
(a) The feeling you have when you look at a newborn baby.
(b) The love of a mother for her child.
(c) That little still voice in your heart.
(d) Humankind’s potential to overcome their difficulties.
(e) How I feel when I look at a sunset.
(f) The taste of ice cream on a hot day.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
79. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL SANITY
(1) I’ve had religious experiences that can’t be explained unless I’m insane or God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
93. ARGUMENT FROM MYSTERIOUS USE OF PREPOSITIONS
(1) It is impossible to disprove God with your puny human intellect unless you are above God.
(2) Are you higher than God?
(3) I’ll take that puzzled look on your face as a no.
(4) Therefore, God (being the highest thing ever) exists.
98. ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN (II), a.k.a. GOD OF THE GAPS, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (II), a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (IV)
(1) Isn’t X amazing!
(2) I don’t understand how X could be, without something else (that I don’t really understand either) making or doing X.
(3) This something else must be God because I can’t come up with a better explanation.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
101. ARGUMENT FROM AGNOSTICISM
(1) I don’t know and you don’t know either.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
199. ARGUMENT FROM QUANTUM PHYSICS
(1) Quantum physics uses an uncertainty principle.
(2) There is room for God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
And finally, my favorite:
109. ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF
(1) You can’t prove God doesn’t exist!
(2) Therefore, God exists.
But there are hundreds more proofs on the website, which naturally leads to this one:
552. ARGUMENT FROM MULTIPLICITY (IV) (recursive internet edition)
(1) There exists a web page (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm)
(2) That page has hundreds of purported proofs of the existence of God.
(3) They can’t all be wrong.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
The list inspired me to propose another proof, in the same spirit:
ARGUMENT FROM TERMINOLOGY
(1) There are hundreds of proofs of god’s existence
(2) When you call something a ‘proof’, that means you have shown the result to be true
(3) Therefore, God exists
Mark Thomas, the creator of the above website, has written an excellent article titled Why Atheism that deals exhaustively with many of the topics that have been discussed in this blog. His home page as president of the Atheists of Silicon Valley is also full of interesting links.
Here is a very clever video clip that Mark alerted me to that is an almost perfect allegory of how religion operates. (One of the great things about the internet is that it has provided a platform for amateur film makers to write and produce little film clips that are of remarkably high quality.)
POST SCRIPT: Panel on religion and sexuality
The Spectrum group at Case is holding a panel discussion on religion and sexuality. It will be at 7:00 pm in Guilford lounge on Tuesday, April 17, 2007. The panel will address the questions:
What does sex/sexuality/gender mean to you and how is it defined in your religion?
What role does sex/sexuality/gender play in your religion or what roles are associated with sex/sexuality/gender?
Do the values and roles set by your religious identity conflict with your sexual/gender identity or your expectations of sexual/gender identity?
What role should religion play in affecting how policy is made in regards to issues of sex/sexuality/gender?
The panel itself consists of:
Joe White (moderator): Professor and Chair of the Political Science Department
Rev. Loey Powell: Co-Team Leader of Justice and Witness Ministries of the United Church of Christ
Jacob Nash: Transactivist and Worship Leader
Mano Singham: Director of UCITE, an atheist perspective
Deepak Sarma: Assistant Professor of the Religion Department, specialty in Hinduism
Ramez Islambouli: Full-Time Lecturer in the Department of Modern Languages & Literature, a Muslim perspective (will be arriving a little late because he’s teaching a class right before)
William Deal: Inamori Professor of Ethics in the Religion Department, specialty in Buddhism
In the book Flatland the narrator, who lives in the second dimension, is introduced to the third dimension by a giant sphere.
The narrator doesn’t take this information well. The sphere tries to use logic and words to explain the concept of a higher dimension. However, the phrase “up but not north” means nothing to a square.
It is only after the sphere takes the square and lifts him up and out of his second dimension world that he is able to realize there is a higher dimension.
Once enabled with this truth the square returns to Flatland only to be ridiculed by his peers. It seems they also are tied to the meaning of words and logic. For them, it is simply irrational to think of “up but not north.”
Some people have had an experience similar to that of the square. They have been lifted up and out of their flat little world and introduced to a deeper and broader existence. In short, they have experienced God.
You are like the others in Flatland. You continue to ask for proof of the existence of this higher world. The trouble is words like “up but not north” mean nothing to you.
You need the experience. Stop asking for proofs.
Very cute. I love the sense of humor in it. Makes for intelligent discussion too!
By the way, I’m actually stoopid enought to read Thomas’ Why Atheism site.
The video clip didn’t do anything for me? Maybe its my computer.
Jim
Dr. Singham-
Great straw-man arguement.
Kato,
I am not asking for logical proofs, I am asking for concrete experiential proof. All the examples I have given that would make me believe are of concrete experiences, not abstract reasoning. I am quite willing to have the experiences. Presumably god can give the required experiences to anyone at any time. So I am ready and willing and waiting.
But until such experiences occur, I will treat the phenomenon exactly like the way I treat invisible magic unicorns in my office or Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny.
Jim,
I wish I could help you with why the video clip does not work on your computer, but I am not enough of a geek to figure it out. I do know that the clip is a “.mov” extension, which may mean you need Windows Media Viewer or something.
That video was amazing. Definitely one of the funniest things I have seen in a long time. I especially liked how the evangelists turned on Hank when they found out he didn’t follow their rules about weiners.
This seems to be a common reaction of many religious people; they take your disbelief personally.
Mano,
I hope you enjoy this as much as I enjoyed your post.
List of atheist rebuttals to the existance of god.
“Cause? We don’t need no stinking cause”
1. You say we need a cause for the universe because that is how everything else in reality works.
2. We say you don’t.
3. We are smarter than you.
4. There is no god.
“Elegant design by white pimply @@#$%”
1. You say that the universe is exquisitely fine tuned for life to be possible and that this begs a designer.
2. We say the universe is not elegantly designed and if it was designed the designer is an idiot (and/or evil) because he didn’t put a Starbucks on the corner of my street or because I know some little girl with a bad disease. Anyway there is no designer.
3. We are smarter than you.
4. There is no god.
Nothing from nothing gives something (or 2 + 2 = j)
1. You say that matter cannot be created from nothing.
2. We say it can.
3. We are smarter than you.
4. there is no god.
Genicidal maniacs argument
1. More people have died in the name of religion than anything else.
2. Galileo was persecuted by the church.
3. BTK was a Christian (need we say more).
4. There is no god.
As the Worlds Turn Argument (one of my favorites)
1. You say the universe had a beginning and therefore is in need of a cause or god.
2. We say the universe is actually part of a fabric of infinite universes called the megaverse and that this is mathematically proven. We say that in this infinite number of universes it is not that surprising that at least one of them would bear life.
3. You ask, what empiracle evidence is there for this?
4. We say none but its true just trust us. Here, make these 17 Grand Canyon Size assumptions, do 3 months of differential equations and linear algebra and voila, there it is-a megaverse. See, I told you so.
5. You say, but isn’t this a bit overcomplicated like a James Bond nemises who constructs the overelaborate plot to kill him that never seems to work out.
6. We say no its not.
7. You say but isn’t it easier to just say we don’t want to believe in a god?
8. We say yes but this makes us look alot smarter.
9. There is no god.
My Friend is Really Smart and Witty Argument
(1) My atheist friend has a webpage (http://www.atheistsRus.com)
(2) My friend is really smart and says there is no god.
(3) There is no god
Science Will answer everthing
1. Science is really cool.
2. Science is really neat.
3. Science can explain everything.
4. Anything science doesn’t know today it will eventually know.
5. There is no such thing as the supernatural because science says so
6. We understand science and you do not.
7. There is no god.
I think I’ll apply for that god job
1. If there was a god why would he (insert whatever you think doesn’t make sense in your little egocentric world here).
2. If I were god I’d do it differently.
3. Therefore, there is no god.
Amateurish I know but maybe others can come up with better rebuttals than these.
Jim
Jim,
To play the video, all you need is Quicktime. http://www.apple.com/quicktime/
Once installed you should be able to watch this and other .mov files directly in your Web browser.
An assignment in a logic class. Given:
1. If evil exists and God is unable to prevent it, God is impotent.
2. If evil exists and God is unwilling to prevent it, God is malevolent.
3. God is neither impotent nor malevolent.
4. Evil exists.
Symbolically prove that God does not exist.
Our instructor was given much grief for this assignment. Ironically, this was after discussions about a logical proofs constructed from false premises; believes can easy use the “mysterious ways cause” on premise (2).
What is a more interesting question, and one that I have not heard addressed, is it necessary that God be perfect?