- I like the "argument from Dawkins"!
2007-09-26 06:38:58 · 8 answers · asked by cutiepie 23 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I like Dawkins' arguments too, because as a scientist he's very logical about it.
The quintessential theist argument is that something had to start it all, and that something is a god. One of Dawkins' arguments (and I'm sure somebody thought of it before Dawkins) is that you have to extend this logic to that god - what is its origin? If you argue that god was always there, you can just as easily argue that the universe was always there and therefore there's no reason to believe that a god was required to start it all.
2007-09-26 07:17:42 · answer #1 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why would I listen to a fools argument?
The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works,
There is none who does good. Ps. 14:1
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
fool1 /ful/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fool] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense.
2. a professional jester, formerly kept by a person of royal or noble rank for amusement: the court fool.
3. a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid: to make a fool of someone.
4. an ardent enthusiast who cannot resist an opportunity to indulge an enthusiasm (usually prec. by a present participle): He's just a dancing fool.
5. a weak-minded or idiotic person.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Rom. 1:20
Professing to be wise, they became fools. Rom. 1:22
But the cowardly, UNBELIEVING, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” Rev. 21:8
2007-09-26 07:05:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Paulo's point is a good one. For me, it's probably the argument from lack of necessity. The world can be adequately explained - within the current limits of human understanding - without resorting to God. I don't think it's a correct argument, but I think it's the hardest to counter.
2007-09-26 06:47:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Oh, most of them...
That's why I agree with them. The god of monotheism does not exist.
Since their arguments tend to fall flat with polytheism, I don't have a problem with them.
2007-09-26 06:42:46 · answer #4 · answered by LabGrrl 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As a believer - I respect the "self-reliant" atheists who say they don't need a crutch, don't need GOD, don't need prayer, support or comfort; the idea that they can do it all themselves without any outside help or interference.
I respect that.
I don't understand it, but I respect it!
2007-09-26 06:43:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well, seeing that I'm still decidedly theistic, I'd say that none of them have been terribly compelling thusfar. :-)
2007-09-26 06:43:00 · answer #6 · answered by Open Heart Searchery 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The word "*drink.*"
2007-09-26 06:41:28 · answer #7 · answered by §αғịỳỳẩ² Ẫ†нэậ†ị 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
NONE......... go in peace........ God bless
2007-09-26 06:42:51 · answer #8 · answered by Annie 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋