And why?
2007-12-02 01:24:34 · 18 answers · asked by My Religion Is Bigger than Yours 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I see ignorance is up and kicking this early in the morning.
2007-12-02 01:32:13 · update #1
Look up the definition of "proof" before making your little attacks. You're shooting the messenger anyways, because that's not what I'm asking. I used the word "proof" merely because of the space constraints.
2007-12-02 01:34:30 · update #2
Anthropic, because it is flawlessly stupid and how can you argue with perfection?
2007-12-04 00:02:49 · answer #1 · answered by Бэлзeбот 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The one that is hardest to refute may not be the best argument. Out of those four probably the ontological argument is the hardest to refute--because it's the most subjective. It can simply be dismissed out of hand though for that very reason.
I think the subjective proof from a person's own experience is the only proof that ultimately matters (and that is no proof at all in a scientific sense--because they could say that assuming you're not hallucinating, assuming that the things you say happened did absolutely happen, there is nothing to show that those experiences had to be caused by a god. They could appear superhuman but maybe there is something in the human condition that we have not discovered yet that makes the experience possible).
As far as which of the arguments you suggest that may be the most convincing to build around if you were so inclined would probably be the teleological--though you may need to spin it a bit because complexity does not necessarily imply design. You would take a similar tact that Richard Dawkins did (for the opposite side) and discuss the probability of a God--your conclusion from a position of belief would point to probability as Dawkins position points away from it.
Again, that could be the approach, ultimately though I think it comes down to a matter of opinion, and I would again emphasize that I don't think argumentation of this sort gets you anywhere.
2007-12-02 01:43:17 · answer #2 · answered by Todd 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Oh, positive. The ontological argument is in accordance to arguments about a "being better than that may not be conceived" i.e. this is logically available for God (an substantial being) to exist, then God exists. this is bullcrap. The cosmological argument argues that there change right into a "first reason", or "best mover" who's suggested as God. The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are fantastic defined by ability of connection with a author god. The anthropic argument signifies that common data, alongside with our existence, are fantastic defined by ability of the existence of God.
2016-10-25 07:33:20 · answer #3 · answered by favreau 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are all equally easy to dispel.
That's because god is imaginary. ALL of these arguments assume that god is real.
And, as yet, there isn't a single, solitary shred of credible evidence to support it's existence.
If there was, deists would be shouting it from the rooftops.
2007-12-02 01:38:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Which proof? Your question only referenced philosophical arguments, not 'proofs'.
As such, the question is invalid.
Try the philosophy section, and replace the word 'proof' with 'argument'.
(EDIT: I wasn't attacking you, I was disagreeing that there was a 'proof' to dispel, rather than just an argument)
2007-12-02 01:29:43 · answer #5 · answered by Bajingo 6 · 8⤊ 0⤋
1. What created God?
2. Its been proved that God does not exist nor anything like him several times.
3. Whats so hard to believe about Evolution?
2007-12-02 01:28:28 · answer #6 · answered by Buffy 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There is no proof of God's existence... all are illusions. Since God doesn't exist, a proof of the opposite is impossible.
2007-12-02 01:44:01 · answer #7 · answered by I'm an Atheist 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You obviously have no idea what proof means. To some of us, proof means more than claims that you must believe or be sent to everlasting hell. What a low caliber of proof you require.
2007-12-02 01:29:43 · answer #8 · answered by Fred 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Considering there has never been any such proof, your question is vacuous. As far as ignorance cropping up this morning, the only sign I see of that is the question.
2007-12-02 01:35:35 · answer #9 · answered by Block Wall 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The "evidence" of personal experience. If they see some personal experience as evidence of God, it is a total waste of time to tell them that in fact it is just evidence of their emotional state at the time.
The other "proofs" are easily dealt with.
2007-12-02 01:30:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I wasn't aware any of them were proofs per se, merely arguments.
2007-12-02 01:38:22 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋