'The "Best Arguments for God's Existence" Are Actually Terrible'

Thought-provoking piece up on the New Republic's Web site:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116251/best-arguments-gods-existence-dont-challenge-atheists

I'm interested to hear what some others here, particularly some thoughtful, devoted Christians like Alma, think of the piece's arguments.

For example, is the following passage, which I found to be perhaps the most interesting in the article, true?

"The difference between theologians and believers is not their differential acquaintance with the truth about God, but the greater acquaintance of theologians with the history of theology. People like Hart, despite their intelligence, have no more handle on the nature of God than do Joe and Sally in the street. Theologians are, as we all know, simply confecting things about God, and then selling them using fancy words and their academic credentials."

I read Dawkins's "The God Delusion," and by far the least convincing chapter of the argument was the one attempting to refute the "Ground-of-Being"/"First Cause" theory of God, which is pretty much the one that I have come around to adopting in my own life. And this seems like an argument - how does one explain how something derived from nothing? - that sophisticated theologians are certainly more equipped to argue than is a carnival barker like Rick Warren. Thus, I think the author of the New Republic piece undersells their expertise.

And, relatedly, what I consider the "best argument" for God's existence, the origin of the universe, does not even make an appearance here.

Atheism seems like a futile, time-wasting exercise to devote one's self to. I understand and participate, as best as I can with my scientific pea brain, in the arguments against creationism and other perversions of science in the name of religion. And I also do not think that morality has anything to do with religion, and this is another fair ground for debate. But the root argument - whether or not there is a God - seems destined to be an intellectual stalemate with an unknowable (but definite) answer.

 

I do not believe in God. God. What the hell is "God?"

But I do believe each of us is our own God.

That being said, no piece of writing will ever illuminate the truth so many humans are desperate to swallow.

This will forever confound me.

But I do know "God" didn't start our something from nothing.

I'd love to know what's on the other side of planck length, which, IIRC, is the infinitesimal point that, Hawking says, began it all.

 

Who the hell are you to declare there is no God?

 

Did you even read my post, trolly troll?

 

Article sounds interesting. Will eventually read it. So this might be discussed in there, but it seems to me that all arguments for God eventually boil down to a George Michael song -- you gotta have faith.

 

Don't call me names, Dickie.
This is as trollish a thread as they get.
My question is sincere and forthright.
I have no use for atheists, but they do spend time and energy promoting their views.
An atheist is a person who collects coins and spits bile at somebody who collects stamps.

 

I was sitting at the bar over a couple of drinks during the holidays with my two brothers in law. One is a church-goer. The other is trying to figure it all out - particularly in the wake of the death of a third brother-in-law.

"So this is real to you, this is fact?" said the agnostic.

Answered the other: "It's the opposite of fact. It's faith."

 

I thought reason was the opposite of faith.

 

... at least according to these Baptists.



(if that isn't a generated sign)

 

Ironic post is ironic.

 

Explain yourself.

 

If the colloquial definition of faith is "belief in the absence of evidence", then it stands to reason that refusal to believe without evidence would be the opposite of faith.