I don’t believe in sensus divinitatus because it varies so much between cultures and individuals. I think that points to it being learned and only mistakenly believed to be innate. I never taught my kids that there is or is not a God, and I was surprised when they told me they do not believe in such being.

Given all this, I have no trouble accepting a belief in God, but I’m opposed to the idea that such can ever be claimed as knowledge.

As for the God of the Bible, especially if including the OT, even given Pascal’s wager, I oppose that God even at the risk of eternal torment. He is despicable and more demonic than divine. My God is kind of a combo of the Gods of Spinoza, Einstein and Paine.

All of these arguments fail as proof of anything, except maybe the cosmological as proof that something uncaused exists, but it fails once we try to attach attributes to it. That is why I believe in God if simply defined as a transcendent uncaused cause. To me transcendent means transcending all categories. Therefore God is not personal nor impersonal. That makes no sense to our conditioned mind, but it makes more sense to me than that God is personal. Personality is far too anthropomorphic a term.

I find no convincing evidence that the story of Jesus’ resurrection is true, though I think there is profound truth in it as a metaphor. I don’t believe in sensus

I love how often I run into apologists touting Pascal’s wager as some sort of ultimate doomsday weapon of theological debate. Far too often the one so confident in the wager misses it’s point entirely.

The wager states that the nature of God is unknowable. That is the first thing it makes a point of addressing. Pascal’s Pensees states:

“If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is….
…God is, or He is not. But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. ”

By that VERY SAME logic (God is unknowable) how can a theist of any stripe possibly know that their God is the right one? ‘God’ could be a god who rewards atheists for using their mortal sense of skepticism, after all.

The argument proves nothing to an atheist, since it validates ALL gods (even a God I make up in my head at this very moment…like the FSM) and NONE at the same time.

How about the argument that we don’t need reason or arguments; we come to God, just thru “Faith”? As Pope Benedict XVI affirmed today?

But this can be turned into the FSM too. E.g.: “I know there don’t seem to be any good arguments for him; but we were told to have faith. And I have total faith, in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Therefore, I am totally right; I have found God. Because I have faith.”

CMP:

OK; I’ll bite. What IS the “immanent argument” that only “God” could be the transcendent force that created the universe?

Where’s the ontological argument? That’s always a fun one.

That is exactly right. If you want to call your god the FSM, that is sufficient. The next step (now that transcendence is established) would be to argue for a particular God. I would venture to say that you don’t have any immanent argument that the FSM could be the truth behind the transcendence?

Christianity does. But I am glad that we have established a common ground of theism since atheism does not stand the test of the arguments above.

Pastafarian, with the exception of No. 10, because there are no known punishments for rebelling against the FSM, you are correct. The other arguments are what are known as general arguments for the existence of God. They are, if you like, the intelligent design level of argumentation. They develop the sense of a creative moral rational power, but they don’t try to give it a name.

The arguments are similar to those used by the Greek philosophers against their non-theistic counterparts, and could as easily be used to argue for Zeus (except for the moral element) or Allah (except for the rational part) or the FSM.

We could point out that the FSM does not fulfil the identity requirement of actual testimony, as the FSM is simply a construct produced by atheists a few years ago to mock theists, but nonetheless your arguments are generally sound.

Congratulations. In arguing for the FSM you have produced a more rational argument than any atheistic visitor to this blog. Pat yourself on the back.

9 of the10 arguements can be used to argue for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

1. Cosmological Argument: Also called the argument from universal causation or the argument from contingency, the cosmological argument is probably the most well know and well loved among theistic apologists. The basic argument is that all effects have an efficient cause. The universe and all that is in it, due to its contingent (dependent) nature, is an effect. Therefore, the universe has a cause. But that cause cannot be an effect or one would have to explain its cause. Therefore, there must be an ultimate cause, an unmoved mover, an uncaused cause that began the process. This cause must transcend time and space in order to transcend the law of cause and effect. This transcendent entity must be personal in order to willfully cause the effect. This ultimate cause is the FSM.

2. Teleological Argument: (Gr. telos, “end” or “purpose”) This is also know as the argument from design. This argument moves from complexity to a necessary explanatory cause for such complexity. The universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. From the complexities of the human eye to the order and arrangement of the cosmology, the voice of the FSM is heard. Therefore, the FSMs existence is the best explanation for such design. The FSM is the undesigned designer.

3. Moral Argument: This argument argues from the reality of moral laws to the existence of a necessary moral law giver. The idea here is that if there are moral laws (murder is wrong, selfishness is wrong, self-sacrifice is noble, torturing innocent babies for fun is evil), then there must be a transcendent explanation and justification for such laws. Otherwise, they are merely conventions that are not morally binding on anyone. Since there are moral laws, then there must be a moral law giver who transcends space and time. This moral law giver is the FSM.

4. sensus divinitatus (”sense of the divine”): While this argument goes by many names, the sensus divinitatus argues for the existence of the FSM from the innate sense of the divine that exists within all people. This sense of the divine, it can be argued, is the “FSM shaped void” within all people. This explains why people, societies, and cultures of all time have been, by nature, those who sense a need to worship something greater than themselves.

5. The Argument from Aesthetic Experience: This is the argument from universal beauty and pleasure. Beauty and pleasure are universally recognized as such. Even subjective variation in one’s definition of what is beautiful are not distinct enough to relativize this principle. From the beauty or the sunset over the Rockies to the pleasure of eating certain foods, there is a common aesthetic experience that transcends the individual. This transcendence must have a ultimate source. This ultimate source is the FSM.

6. Argument from the Existence of Arguments: The idea here is that there is no such thing as an argument without order and rationality. In the absence of the FSM, all that exists is chaos. Chaos does not give birth to order. Arguments assume order. Order assumes purpose and design which in turn requires a transcendent being for its genesis. To even argue against the existence of the FSM assumes his existence and is therefore self-referentially absurd. Therefore, there is no such thing as an “argument” against Transcendence (the FSM).

7. Argument from the Existence of Free-will Arguments: If there is no FSM, then all we have is a meaningless series of cause and effect stretching back into eternity. This series of cause and effects is necessary and determined, being the result of the previous cause and effect. As a billiard ball is hit by another and has no self-motivated movements of its own, so all of human existence exists under the same attributes. All things are determined, not self-motivated, including beliefs. Therefore, if someone does not believe in the FSM, it is not the result of self-motivated free-will beliefs, but because of a determined and fatalistic series of causes and effects stretching back into eternity. To argue against the existence of the FSM would not be the result of looking at the evidence and making a more reasoned decision to not believe in the FSM, but because that is what people were fatalistically determined to do. Therefore, all arguments are absurd and unjustified without the FSM.

8. Argument from the Existence of Evil: Like the moral argument, this argument assumes the existence of a universal characteristic that is meaningless without the FSM. Some argue that the existence of evil disproves the FSM (or at least a good FSM), but to argue such is formally absurd since one would have to have an ultimate and transcendent standard of good in order to define evil. If evil exists, goodness exists. If both exist, there must be a transcendent norm from which they get their meaning. Since evil does exist, the FSM exists.

10. Pascal’s Wager: Popularize by French philosopher Blaise Pascal, Pascal’s Wager argues that belief in the FSM is the most rational choice due to the consequences of being wrong. If one were to believe in the FSM and be wrong, there are no consequences. However, if one were to deny the FSM and be wrong, the consequences are eternally tragic. Therefore, the most rational choice, considering the absence of absolute certainty, is not agnosticism or atheism, but a belief in the FSM.

Recommended for this topic: Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology.
In the table of contents: The Doctrine of God. And begins w/ The
Existence of God. Also has Q&A at the end of ea. ch.
God Bless you all