Top responses to common Christian theistic arguments...

[Philboid Studge]

calpurnpiso wrote

Don't forget to include infundibular anus & Luther 95 thesis with the limerick ...

I won't forget.

[Sternwallow]

calpurnpiso wrote

Don't forget to include infundibular anus & Luther 95 thesis with the limerick, after all the Christophrenic reformer wrote them while defecating in his laetrine...

Is that the Latrine Council?

[anthonyjfuchs]

There is no absurd historical claim or made-up mythology necessary to point out that the universe did not "begin." Time did not exist prior to the Big Bang; the singularity predated the existence of time. The singularity was therefore eternal. It did not have a "beginning." Therefore, it requires no cause.

Further, I am not pontificating on anything (as opposed to certain members of the Bovinae family who lurk in these corridors). I merely state (vigorously and perhaps abrasively) my opinions. In my opinion, certain philosophical arguments offered by certain lauded philosophers exhibit fatal flaws that cause me to find them unconvincing. Give me an argument, and I will tell you exactly what flaws I see and why I see them as flaws. If you can explain to me why these are not flaws, and I find your explanations compelling, then you may change my mind. Insisting that I'm wrong because I disagree with you and haven't written any books or papers will not persuade me that you're right.

Please: do indicate exactly which of my information is not factual. If you can supply a reasonable explanation for an instance where I've built an idea on a faulty foundation, I will most certainly be compelled to reevaulate my thoughts on the matter.

I criticize Christians constantly for clinging to faulty ideas. I would be remiss to commit the same thought-crime.

[Philboid Studge]

Sternwallow wrote

Is that the Latrine Council?

[calpurnpiso]

Sternwallow wrote

Is that the Latrine Council?

...touche. I left myself open for that one...on the other hand, ALL church councils were laetrine councils..

[magx01]

I'm currently working on a blog post regarding the main classical arguments for the existence of god. It's a rough work in progress, but here's an excerpt that encapsulates a chunk of my thoughts on the subject:

I feel that, despite all of the logistical arguments to the positive, the billions of believers, and all the "faith" in the world, there are no gods in existence. I of course can't claim true knowledge, but I reject the theistic position for a multitude of reasons, the largest simply being a lack of evidence. I also feel that the arguments for said existence have all been lacking, and they are all either invalid, unsound, or both. Each one I have encountered has contained one or more logical fallacies.


The arguments for the existence of a god are flawed for a few reasons. They are almost always used to confirm the existence of a specific god, when there is no reason to belive the do, because.....well, they DON'T. If say, an ontological argument proved a god existed, a Christian would say it proved that Yahweh existed, a Muslim would say it proved Allah existed, a Hindu would assert that it proved the existence of say Brahma or Vishnu, etc. Several thousand years ago, some would have said it proved that Zeus existed. None of them are right.


The arguments themselves, if correct, do NOT prove the existence of a certain god, and in fact, they wouldn't even prove that a god existed. Must a mind or a first cause necessarily be a god? I should think not. Nor do these arguments rule out polytheism (multiple gods). The major monotheistic religions not only want to state that these arguments prove that a god exists, which happens to be THEIR god, AND ONLY their god. Sorry, but you cannot ascertain that via these arguments. The conclusions are too unclear. Apart from establishing a cause, or a mind (which they don't), they do not


If someone tries to assert that the universe MUST have been created, and god is the answer to who is the creator, don't accept it. There is NO reason to belive the answer must be a who, despite the protestations of theists. There is much about the universe we don't yet know, and people far smarter than I are working very dilgently on these answers. However, they do know much thus far, and they are working to uncover new things all the time. There are a multitude of possibilities, many of which we cannot even conceive of yet. There are experiments in many areas that are working to solve some riddles and also work out the nature of the universe, since so much of it is unknown.


For all we know, the 'first cause', if there is one, could be a simple particle. There's no reason to think that it must be a sentient, intelligent lifeform, and in fact, it's more plausible to think otherwise. Scientists have observed that systems get simpler, not more complex, as you trace back to their origins. Then you factor in the absolute lack of any evidence of anything supernatural, and our ignorance when it comes to the origins/state of the universe pre-big bang, and suddenly the idea of a supernatural, sentient, all powerful, omniscient, transcendent superbeing named god that broke the very rule which convinced theists of its existence in the first place (all things needing a cause) by poofing itself into existence seems a little.....well, silly. Certainly, at the very least, unsupported, at least at this time.


It's certainly presumptuous to definitely state that the answer to the big questions is a who.