Dumb arguments for and against god.
0
Yes yes, I know "Oh dear, here comes BigLundi bitching about God and spirituality and religion again."
I'm actually not going to bitch about religion, or even God. what I'm bitching about this time, is more the rather trollish attitude of some apologetics.
There are arguments for god that are designed to be convincing, like the Morality Argument, the Kalam Cosmological Argument. And there are even arguments for Atheism that are convincing. Russell's Teapot analogy and the Problem of Evil being a couple.
However there are some arguments that are NOT designed to be convincing...moreso the are designed to win debates. By that I mean, an argument that is in no way valid OR sound, yet is so vague, complex, and strange that it's designed to pummel the opponent with semantics, purely for the purpose of making them look stupid.
There are 3 arguments, in my opinion, that are designed to do just that. 2 are Theistic, one is atheistic.
the first argument I'd like to address, breifly, as it only deserves it briefly, is the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God.
For those that don't know the Ontological Argument is essentially this:
1. God is defined as the greatest being in the universe.
2. In order to be the greatest being in the universe, this being must exist.
Conclusion: God must exist.
...Do you get it? It's an argument literall designed to DEFINE God into existence. I mean...come on. And yes, there is an updated Modal Logic version of the argument, but all THAT version does is state the same things, in a FAR more complex manner, that maybe 20 people in the world understand, not necessarily including the guy who made it up.
The second argument is the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God.(also known as TAG)
This is the most infuriating one to me, as it's regualrly spouted by Christian Apologist Matt Slick of karm.org. It goes like this.
The foundation for the transcendental argument is that if two worldviews oppose eachother, and one fails to give an account for the existence of something, the other is therefore vindicated. Theism accounts for the existence of Logical absolutes, and Atheism does not.
1. Everything is either physical or conceptual.
2. Logic is a product of the mind, it is conceptual.
3. Logical Absolutes are transcendental, and will exist after human minds die.
4. It then follows that there must be a transcendent eternal mind that concieved of logical absolutes.
Conclusion: God is that mind.
This argument is put forth by an apologist...for christians. If you don't understand why that infuriates me it's because of what I said earlier. It's NOT a convincing argument. What it IS is a very confusing argument. Firstly, it begins by pissing off the atheist it's arguing against by saying, "I can account for something and you can't. Atheism is illogical lol." It then continues to start the argument in premises 2 and 3 by committing a fallacy of division. Just because a logical absolute is 'transcendent' doesn't in any way mean a human mind cannot concieve of it. That's like saying only a fat person's mind can concieve of chocolate cake.
Anyhow, this post is getting too long, so I'm going to just post the Omniscience Versus Free Will argument, my problem with it, then the TL/DR version of the post.
The omniscience argument goes like this:
God's omniscience is logicall contradictory to the doctrine that we have free will.
For instance, if God knows with infallible certainty that I'm going to snap my fingers in 30 minutes and blink my eyes, then I'm going to do that, and I never had an option not to.
The reason this is dumb is because it in no way addresses what free will is. free will is not the 'power to escape prediction'. If this argument could demonstrat that BECAUSE an omniscient god is watching, we'd be making different choices than if a god weren't watching, it'd be more valid and sound...but it doesn't do that.
I could re word the argument like this. "If God knows with absolute infallible certainty that I'm going to exercise my free will before I do it then I have no choice but to exercise my free will."
...No shit.
Too Long didn't Read version : the Ontological, TAG, and Omniscience vs. Free Will arguments don't convince anyone, and they're quite basically simply trollish. Never let anyone make them.
I'm actually not going to bitch about religion, or even God. what I'm bitching about this time, is more the rather trollish attitude of some apologetics.
There are arguments for god that are designed to be convincing, like the Morality Argument, the Kalam Cosmological Argument. And there are even arguments for Atheism that are convincing. Russell's Teapot analogy and the Problem of Evil being a couple.
However there are some arguments that are NOT designed to be convincing...moreso the are designed to win debates. By that I mean, an argument that is in no way valid OR sound, yet is so vague, complex, and strange that it's designed to pummel the opponent with semantics, purely for the purpose of making them look stupid.
There are 3 arguments, in my opinion, that are designed to do just that. 2 are Theistic, one is atheistic.
the first argument I'd like to address, breifly, as it only deserves it briefly, is the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God.
For those that don't know the Ontological Argument is essentially this:
1. God is defined as the greatest being in the universe.
2. In order to be the greatest being in the universe, this being must exist.
Conclusion: God must exist.
...Do you get it? It's an argument literall designed to DEFINE God into existence. I mean...come on. And yes, there is an updated Modal Logic version of the argument, but all THAT version does is state the same things, in a FAR more complex manner, that maybe 20 people in the world understand, not necessarily including the guy who made it up.
The second argument is the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God.(also known as TAG)
This is the most infuriating one to me, as it's regualrly spouted by Christian Apologist Matt Slick of karm.org. It goes like this.
The foundation for the transcendental argument is that if two worldviews oppose eachother, and one fails to give an account for the existence of something, the other is therefore vindicated. Theism accounts for the existence of Logical absolutes, and Atheism does not.
1. Everything is either physical or conceptual.
2. Logic is a product of the mind, it is conceptual.
3. Logical Absolutes are transcendental, and will exist after human minds die.
4. It then follows that there must be a transcendent eternal mind that concieved of logical absolutes.
Conclusion: God is that mind.
This argument is put forth by an apologist...for christians. If you don't understand why that infuriates me it's because of what I said earlier. It's NOT a convincing argument. What it IS is a very confusing argument. Firstly, it begins by pissing off the atheist it's arguing against by saying, "I can account for something and you can't. Atheism is illogical lol." It then continues to start the argument in premises 2 and 3 by committing a fallacy of division. Just because a logical absolute is 'transcendent' doesn't in any way mean a human mind cannot concieve of it. That's like saying only a fat person's mind can concieve of chocolate cake.
Anyhow, this post is getting too long, so I'm going to just post the Omniscience Versus Free Will argument, my problem with it, then the TL/DR version of the post.
The omniscience argument goes like this:
God's omniscience is logicall contradictory to the doctrine that we have free will.
For instance, if God knows with infallible certainty that I'm going to snap my fingers in 30 minutes and blink my eyes, then I'm going to do that, and I never had an option not to.
The reason this is dumb is because it in no way addresses what free will is. free will is not the 'power to escape prediction'. If this argument could demonstrat that BECAUSE an omniscient god is watching, we'd be making different choices than if a god weren't watching, it'd be more valid and sound...but it doesn't do that.
I could re word the argument like this. "If God knows with absolute infallible certainty that I'm going to exercise my free will before I do it then I have no choice but to exercise my free will."
...No shit.
Too Long didn't Read version : the Ontological, TAG, and Omniscience vs. Free Will arguments don't convince anyone, and they're quite basically simply trollish. Never let anyone make them.
0
There's also the really shitty one that goes, "We had to be created by a creator (God) therefore God exists."
Which is wrong on the account of, in order to assume that God created us, you must first prove God even exists to create us. By assuming that God created us, you're assuming that God exists and then using that assumption to "prove" the existence. It's the same as saying, "God exists therefore God exists." Another one, begging the question, like most proofs for/against God.
Which is wrong on the account of, in order to assume that God created us, you must first prove God even exists to create us. By assuming that God created us, you're assuming that God exists and then using that assumption to "prove" the existence. It's the same as saying, "God exists therefore God exists." Another one, begging the question, like most proofs for/against God.
0
Stenta wrote...
There's also the really shitty one that goes, "We had to be created by a creator (God) therefore God exists."Which is wrong on the account of, in order to assume that God created us, you must first prove God even exists to create us. By assuming that God created us, you're assuming that God exists and then using that assumption to "prove" the existence. It's the same as saying, "God exists therefore God exists." Another one, begging the question, like most proofs for/against God.
It nds like Ray Comfort's argument. "There's a creation, Creation, is 100% undeniable proof there's a creator!" There's so much wrong with it, it just leaves people speechless with the dumb. This is also regular referred to as 'visciously circular reasoning'. Similar to "We know the bible is true because it's god's word, we know it's god's word because the bible says so, we know the bible is true when it says this because it's god's word." Round and round you go.
0
Christianity claims that we are "saved by faith". If we could prove God exists, then it would no longer be faith, but lack of denial against proven truths. Given this, I don't see why people try to say that God can be proven to exist. I believe God exists, but I will never claim to prove God exists.
0
Lelouch24 wrote...
Christianity claims that we are "saved by faith". If we could prove God exists, then it would no longer be faith, but lack of denial against proven truths. Given this, I don't see why people try to say that God can be proven to exist. I believe God exists, but I will never claim to prove God exists......grrrr I want to argue with you so much, but that's not what this topic is about so I'm going to take it to private messages.
0
Renée Descartes' proof of god (the "cogito ergo sum" guy):
"You can only imagine what you have seen before, what exists. In your dreams, you can combine - you can dream of a golden mountain, because you know the colour gold and the landscapes called mountains.
God is "perfect". Neither a human being, nor anything in nature is perfect. Therefore, the perfect being called god must exists, because you can imagine him as a perfect being."
"You can only imagine what you have seen before, what exists. In your dreams, you can combine - you can dream of a golden mountain, because you know the colour gold and the landscapes called mountains.
God is "perfect". Neither a human being, nor anything in nature is perfect. Therefore, the perfect being called god must exists, because you can imagine him as a perfect being."
0
Rei means Zero wrote...
Renée Descartes' proof of god (the "cogito ergo sum" guy):"You can only imagine what you have seen before, what exists. In your dreams, you can combine - you can dream of a golden mountain, because you know the colour gold and the landscapes called mountains.
God is "perfect". Neither a human being, nor anything in nature is perfect. Therefore, the perfect being called god must exists, because you can imagine him as a perfect being."
Pretty much agreed with this. You can't have a logic mind about something that your logic cannot reach.
0
BigLundi wrote...
Yes yes, I know "Oh dear, here comes BigLundi bitching about God and spirituality and religion again."Fuck my life. Not again.
2
Atheist professor vs. A christian student
An atheist professor of Philosophy was speaking to his class on the problem Science has with GOD. He asked one of his new Christian Students to stand and . . .
Professor : You are a Christian, aren't you, son ?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, you believe in GOD ?
Student : Absolutely, sir.
Professor : Is GOD good ?
Student : Sure.
professor: Is GOD all powerful ?
Student : Yes.
Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to GOD to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn't. How is this GOD good then? Hmm?
(Student was silent.)
Professor: You can't answer, can you ? Let's start again, young fella. Is GOD good?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Is satan good ?
Student : No.
Professor: Where does satan come from ?
Student : From . . . GOD . . .
Professor: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn't it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct?
Student : Yes.
Professor: So who created evil ?
(Student did not answer.)
Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, who created them ?
(Student had no answer.)
Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen GOD?
Student : No, sir.
Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD?
Student : No , sir.
Professor: Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD, smelt your GOD? Have you ever had any sensory perception of GOD for that matter?
Student : No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student : Yes.
Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.
Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has.
Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Professor: Yes.
Student : And is there such a thing as cold?
Professor: Yes.
Student : No, sir. There isn't.
(The lecture theatre became very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.)
Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?
Student : You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it is, were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?
Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man ?
Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how?
Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good GOD and a bad GOD. You are viewing the concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.
Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.
Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was going.)
Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor. Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?
(The class was in uproar.)
Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?
(The class broke out into laughter. )
Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.)
Professor: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
Student : That is it sir . . . Exactly ! The link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.
An atheist professor of Philosophy was speaking to his class on the problem Science has with GOD. He asked one of his new Christian Students to stand and . . .
Professor : You are a Christian, aren't you, son ?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, you believe in GOD ?
Student : Absolutely, sir.
Professor : Is GOD good ?
Student : Sure.
professor: Is GOD all powerful ?
Student : Yes.
Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to GOD to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn't. How is this GOD good then? Hmm?
(Student was silent.)
Professor: You can't answer, can you ? Let's start again, young fella. Is GOD good?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Is satan good ?
Student : No.
Professor: Where does satan come from ?
Student : From . . . GOD . . .
Professor: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn't it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct?
Student : Yes.
Professor: So who created evil ?
(Student did not answer.)
Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, who created them ?
(Student had no answer.)
Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen GOD?
Student : No, sir.
Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD?
Student : No , sir.
Professor: Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD, smelt your GOD? Have you ever had any sensory perception of GOD for that matter?
Student : No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student : Yes.
Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.
Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has.
Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Professor: Yes.
Student : And is there such a thing as cold?
Professor: Yes.
Student : No, sir. There isn't.
(The lecture theatre became very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.)
Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?
Student : You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it is, were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?
Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man ?
Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how?
Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good GOD and a bad GOD. You are viewing the concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.
Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.
Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was going.)
Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor. Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?
(The class was in uproar.)
Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?
(The class broke out into laughter. )
Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.)
Professor: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
Student : That is it sir . . . Exactly ! The link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.
Spoiler:
0
There are so many mysteries surrounding God's existence....
Faith is something almost everyone has so they can believe in God....
Science can only prove one's existence or matter based on the 5 senses human have...
People who have faith believes in God...
Science don't believe in God because there is no slight evidence to prove his existence.....
This discussion about God and religion is really ridiculous....
Faith and science are two completely different things....
Spirit vs. Human Senses
I believe we shouldn't discuss about this matter...
it will only lead to arguments between 2 different types of groups...
*Note*
I strongly believe in faith and I strongly believe in science...
I have respect for both parties and respect their point of views..
I need faith to believe in God, and I also need science to understand the logic in things.....
But please do me a favor and NEVER have a battle ( discussion) about science vs. faith again... This will only lead to a pointless argument.
Faith is something almost everyone has so they can believe in God....
Science can only prove one's existence or matter based on the 5 senses human have...
People who have faith believes in God...
Science don't believe in God because there is no slight evidence to prove his existence.....
This discussion about God and religion is really ridiculous....
Faith and science are two completely different things....
Spirit vs. Human Senses
I believe we shouldn't discuss about this matter...
it will only lead to arguments between 2 different types of groups...
*Note*
I strongly believe in faith and I strongly believe in science...
I have respect for both parties and respect their point of views..
I need faith to believe in God, and I also need science to understand the logic in things.....
But please do me a favor and NEVER have a battle ( discussion) about science vs. faith again... This will only lead to a pointless argument.
0
I still want proof that we were created by ONE god. Forget the argument whether or not god exists. How do we know all began with ONE god? And how is Christianity anymore "correct" then Buddhism? The only basis for that is because their god said so.
0
Against: If god exists he wouldn't have let 9/11 happen. Or even let religious start, I mean how stupid can you be and let people wage war against each other for centuries, I mean I get it, the planet is full of people and some need to be rid because the planet as it is can't sustain it already anyways but then do it via something else like E.D. or such but don't do it with a war on religion. Cause that's the most pointless war you can ever wage in my eyes. I don't care about what your god does or what he doesn't do as long as you treat everybody equally and with respect. And I'm also just to lazy to go to church every sunday and being told that god watches over me, because I don't believe he does. I'm atheist, makes it so much easier. Another one is, a popular quote.
"If money is the root of all evil, then why the church begging for it?" (slightly adjusted but still the same)
"If money is the root of all evil, then why the church begging for it?" (slightly adjusted but still the same)
0
Anesthetize wrote...
Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.)
Professor: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
Student : That is it sir . . . Exactly ! The link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.
Spoiler:
Congrats, that is probably the dumbest argument I'vE EVER heard. Literally. Ever.
0
Anesthetize wrote...
Atheist professor vs. A christian student...
That's Einstein, yo. He wassa' Jewish.
0
Stenta wrote...
Anesthetize wrote...
Atheist professor vs. A christian student...
That's Einstein, yo. He wassa' Jewish.
He also repeatedly publically expressed that he didn't believe in a personal god, felt the idea of a personal god was extremely arrogant and silly, and at most believed in a pantheistic, or even deistic type of god at BEST.
0
RosutoRyu wrote...
Against: If god exists he wouldn't have let 9/11 happen. Or even let religious start, I mean how stupid can you be and let people wage war against each other for centuries, I mean I get it, the planet is full of people and some need to be rid because the planet as it is can't sustain it already anyways but then do it via something else like E.D. or such but don't do it with a war on religion. Cause that's the most pointless war you can ever wage in my eyes. I don't care about what your god does or what he doesn't do as long as you treat everybody equally and with respect. And I'm also just to lazy to go to church every sunday and being told that god watches over me, because I don't believe he does. I'm atheist, makes it so much easier. Another one is, a popular quote."If money is the root of all evil, then why the church begging for it?" (slightly adjusted but still the same)
Are you saying that that is a dumb argument against God, or are you saying that you agree with that argument?
I see it as a very bad argument. 9/11 is one of the nicest things that has happened in the world, compared to what's happened throughout the span of mankind. But that's not really the point. The question of why God lets bad things happen is succinctly summed up regularly by preachers - free will. God gave us free will, so if we decide to fly planes into buildings, it's our choice. If God were to reach out and grab the plane, it'd be interfering with our free will.
Of course, then you have to argue about free will, what it is, why God didn't think it was so important in the Old Testament, how the free will of humans has nothing to do with the horror natural disasters inflict upon the world, etc. but those arguments have nothing to do with the simple fact that saying that God doesn't exist because if He did, He wouldn't let bad things happen to good people is a bad argument, and is pretty much the point of this thread. It's a lame argument against the existence of God.
0
BigLundi wrote...
He also repeatedly publically expressed that he didn't believe in a personal god, felt the idea of a personal god was extremely arrogant and silly, and at most believed in a pantheistic, or even deistic type of god at BEST.And I think he's right to think so.
God as a creator doesn't make sense. There is no way to show that it is logically true.
A personal God is even worse. Those arguments get utterly torn.
Atheism has the same problem as God as a creator.
Pantheistic makes more sense than any of the alternatives.
0
Stenta wrote...
BigLundi wrote...
He also repeatedly publically expressed that he didn't believe in a personal god, felt the idea of a personal god was extremely arrogant and silly, and at most believed in a pantheistic, or even deistic type of god at BEST.And I think he's right to think so.
God as a creator doesn't make sense. There is no way to show that it is logically true.
A personal God is even worse. Those arguments get utterly torn.
Atheism has the same problem as God as a creator.
Pantheistic makes more sense than any of the alternatives.
The reason a personal god is silly, in my opinion is because it's completely arrogant. That in the vast universe we live in, of the billions of planets and stars and galaxies and all that we can even fathom, there is a god out there that gives a shit, SPECIFICALY, about ONE species of 10 billion, on ONE planet.
Come on now.
I'm not sure how pantheism solves the problem of a god belief at all, I mean, calling the universe god is no different from calling 'love' god. We have words for these things already, and I see no reason to call the universe 'god'. I see no reason to believe in a deistic god, as that god could not exist, and nothing could be demonstrated to be any different.
I'm an atheist because I've never seen a logically demonstrable useful definition of a god.
0
You can neither prove that God exist nor can you prove he doesn't. This is because nobody can explain reality. Sure I can define reality, but it can never be explained. If I hit myself, sure I feel pain but is it really pain. Maybe I am in a test tube of another planet and I have created this reality. But, I can never deny this nor can I accept this since I can never prove it nor disprove it. Do I really exist in this world. Does everyone around me really exist. There are questions that can never be answered. Some try to seek answers but end up going crazy. But are they the crazy ones or is it me who is crazy? Some people kill themselves because they want answers to those questions. Why is it that some of our dreams end up showing up accurately in reality? This could mean when we die we wake up in another reality which resembles the one we exist in. Maybe God made this reality to test my faith in Him, and the non believers are the ones he uses to test my faith. But, I can never claim this is true or not, can I? Every man is born in their reality. Every man lives in their own reality. Every man is born alone and dies alone. Every man has their own beliefs and you can never prove they are right or wrong. Every man's world ends when they die.But then again, do their world really end? Is there another realm after death? Or do we return to this world? I BELIEVE God exist but I can never prove nor disprove His existence. Most people who believe in religion end up finding a purpose to their reality. But then again, do they?
If you cannot explain reality, how can you explain something that exist or doesn't exist in it?
If you cannot explain reality, how can you explain something that exist or doesn't exist in it?