Quote:
Simoon wrote
No. They are all fallacious.
The Cosmological argument, Ontological argument, TAG, Teleological argument are all fatally flawed.
If any of these are convincing to you, we can discuss why they are flawed. Or if you have another, present it.
I have no idea.
I base my beliefs on demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid/sound logic. If a claim does not live up to these criteria, I am not justified in believing it.
If some evidence was discovered and presented that lived up to the above criteria, I would be compelled to accept it.
My atheism is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one.
Depends on the god. The god(s) depicted in the Bible, Koran, Vedas, Book of Mormon are pretty monstrous fellows. It would truly be horrible if one of those existed.
I'm sure I could come up with some description of a god that I wouldn't mind if it existed. The deist god, for example.
|
First off, let me start by saying thank you to you and the others here for taking time to read my posts and to respond to my questions. Before starting this thread, I read through some other posts and I noted the discussions in those threads generally became, ah, heated. So I must admit, I half expected to get flamed immediately here for asking questions.
I can find merits in all of the arguments that you listed but I think the cosmological argument is the one that seals the deal for me. What is it about that argument that irks you?
Your answers to question 2, and particularly question 3, are very interesting to me. I admit that I had a preconceived notion that many atheists simply deny the existence of a god because they want their lives to be their own and they don't want to beholden to a "supreme being." So I admit I expected a lot of negative answers to question 3.