-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What Is Your Favourite Argument For God.
- Thread starter The Neo Nerd
- Start date
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
It's got a more simple problem. It starts with the assumption of creation and then runs from there. You can't build an argument on such a poor base.
I agree. It is not established that the universe was caused and the phenomenon of causation is, as far as we know, a property that belongs only to this world. But even allowing the possibility that the universe was caused I see no necessary connection with a worshipful being who is said to have done and supposedly will do particular things according to doctrine.
cablescavenger
Well-Known Member
What is that? a tv show or the news?
Love me some Bill O'Reilly. Funniest show on tv. He has that ironical humour NAILED
John Martin
Active Member
my strong argument for God's existence is our basic desire for happiness. If I am hungry there must be something that satisfies my hunger. We all long for happiness, happiness that last for ever. I feel that happiness is God.The Irony is I am that happiness but I am looking for it outside.
HERBERT W. ARMSTRONG’S ARGUMENT FROM SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE
(1) When I was young, I searched for truth.
(2) Science kept changing what it called truth.
(3) The Bible didn't change what it called truth.
(4) Therefore, the Bible must be true.
(5) Therefore, God exists.
(1) When I was young, I searched for truth.
(2) Science kept changing what it called truth.
(3) The Bible didn't change what it called truth.
(4) Therefore, the Bible must be true.
(5) Therefore, God exists.
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
We get this argument on RF quite often.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
My top 3
3) Aren't you afraid of going to hell? I am thats why I believe in god
2) We exist. Science does'nt know why. Checkmate Atheists
1) 1+1=2 Therefore god.
3) Aren't you afraid of going to hell? I am thats why I believe in god
2) We exist. Science does'nt know why. Checkmate Atheists
1) 1+1=2 Therefore god.
Kalidas
Well-Known Member
ah the good ole pascals wager argument. Richard Dawkins (The God delusion) had a FANTASTIC response to that. He stated that faith is NOT a choice and if you do not believe and only "choose" to believe so as to "trick" God in to thinking you believe, you are lying. That will land you in Hell too.
Kalidas
Well-Known Member
That only is true if one assumes God never intended evilness to exist, or does not want evilness to exist. I feel the good and evil of this universe are both needed and have an equally fair reason to exist, two halves of a coin. Or more importantly there is no evil or good there just is.
this argument won't work with deists who think God just created things and left, or those who believe everything is God. Like you and I are God and etc... this also will apply to "evil" and "good" things, because God is not actually "physically" present to intervene.
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
[B said:
The Problem of Evil is fatal for many Christian conceptions of God, but as long as one lets go of just one of the omni attributes, the problem goes away. So it isn't even a problem for deists, Jews, and other theists at all.
On the other hand, here's the fatal test for theism. If anyone thinks a god exists, tell them to answer this-
1. What changes or effects in the world are uniquely accounted for by your god?
Since existence entails being a part of the world, existence entails affecting other things- and such causes necessarily leave evidence. Thus, existence entails necessary evidence.
And the absence of necessary evidence is necessarily evidence of absence.
Since no God or gods satisfy 1, no God/gods exist.
ManTimeForgot
Temporally Challenged
If Reality is Infinite and Eternal, what meaningful distinction can you give me between Reality and "God?"
If Reality is finite and has a beginning, then since Reality is extant truth (stuff exists), creation occurred and it was the result of something outside/beyond the scope of Reality. If Reality was created by something that transcends existence, then what meaningful distinction can you provide me between such a thing and "God?"
The bare facts of the matter is that looking for changes in the universe will help us account for ET, but it won't do a bloody thing in trying to account for most people's conception of "God." ET might very well be a "deity" in the lower case sense of the word "god," but its not even close to what most people consider to be "God."
We don't know anywhere near enough to begin speculating about anything to do with the origination of reality. The universe is the current observational limit we have, but it takes the rankest hubris to believe that that is the fullest extent of all that is. We know Nothing. And in the absence of all evidence all individual propositions are equally likely (nearly zero).
The only positions which are not absurd are forms of agnosticism: weak theism and weak atheism. Both strong theists and strong atheists are unable to rationally account for their positions; they are either relying on a lack of evidence or highly exaggerating the weight of their evidence.
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position, but certainty is an absurd one.
MTF
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
Many of the truth-claims of orthodox Christianity regarding God would not be true of "Reality"- you know, turning folks to pillars of salt, appearing as a burning bush, meeting out divine retribution and all that jazz...
Being "created by something that transcends existence" is just word-salad; "transcending existence" is logically equivalent to being non-existent (i.e. if something is doing anything other than existing, it is not-existing), and being created or caused by some X would seem to entail that that X is (or at least was) existent.
But if there are no changes in the world which can only be accounted for by God, on what non-subjective and corroborative basis can God be distinguished from a mere fiction? If none, how could one reasonably believe in God?
No, agnosticism is not a viable option; theistic deities either intervene in the world, or their existence is a distinction which makes no difference- but intervening or causing changes in the world involves leaving worldly evidence, evidence which can confirm or disconfirm the truth of the claim that such a deity exists; an absence of the evidence which would obtain IF religious truth-claims (miracles, divine wrath, prophecies/foreknowlege, etc.) were true disconfirms theism, and vindicates atheism.
Uncertainty doesn't preclude nevertheless holding a position; one can note that the absence of evidence entailed by theistic truth-claims justifies atheism and nevertheless acknowledge that atheism is not certain (it is conceivably/possibly false).
ManTimeForgot
Temporally Challenged
Who says we are talking exclusively about the truth claims of orthodox Christians? You stated that all "God" concepts were impossible not that a limited set of Christian "God" concepts were impossible. You need to define your terms better.
It is not logically equivalent to non-existent. In order to transcend existence entirely something must be logically indeterminate; that means you cannot ascribe any fact or faculty to it including positing non-existence. Why would creation entail existence? Systems do not necessarily possess all the features that elements of that system possess. An omnipotent faculty's influence might be said to exist, but the omnipotent being pretty much has to be relegated to the logically indeterminate pile because it has to be able to obviate contradiction (if reality itself was created, then this being must be supersede contradiction and therefore logic entirely because it must be able to "act" without existence)
If I can account for all aspects of reality and find out that reality had a beginning, then some form of "God" is necessity. If I can account for all aspects of reality and I find out it is "Conscious," infinite, and eternal, then the notion that reality is distinguishable from "God" becomes laughable.
Who says we are talking about theistic deities? Why are deistic being precluded? As far as I am concerned any real being which intervenes on earth might very well be a deity, but it cannot possibly meet the definition of "God" by just about any standard I am aware of. Even the original deity which you seem want to discuss: "Elohim" translates to "only deity that matters." This means that other deities exist by their reckoning (which means we are talking about little "g" "gods.")
Rationalizing your position post facto doesn't change the fact that you don't know the extent of reality and therefore have no business being at all certain about what reality does or does not require. You might very well be highly confidant that there are no intervening deities (lower case gods) out there, but that is a FAR cry from claiming that "God" (With a capital "G") is impossible.
MTF
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
We aren't talking exclusively about orthodox Christians- that was just an obvious example. And I didn't say that all god-concepts are "impossible" for the same reasons; the god-model presented by much orthodox Christianity and mainstream theology is more problematic than others, but ultimately all gods fail the evidentiary test I mentioned. Moreover, it is arguably the case that transcendence is the sine qua non of theistic gods and that generally, an intervening and existent yet transcendent god is an incoherent notion, since transcendence nullifies the conditions which distinguish existence and which are necessary conditions for any causal agency (i.e. intervention)- and a god which is not responsible for any changes in the world whatsoever is a god whose existence is a distinction which makes no difference.
I have no idea what the sentence "in order to transcend existence entirely something must be logically indeterminate" means, but your claim here is pretty obviously mistaken; if X is properly metaphysically transcendent, then it transcends all conditions and relations- in short, it transcends being or existence. But if X "transcends existence", then it is not the case that X exists. But if it is not the case that X exists, then it IS the case that X does not exist. Logically, if something does anything other than existing, then it does not exist.
Since creation is a causal relation, and a causal relation between a non-existent entity and an existent one is absolutely unintelligible. In order for X to be a cause of Y, X must exist, at least at the time that it causes Y. Or perhaps you can think of some examples of something being caused or created by something non-existent?
Um... Why? Even supposing that the universe had any absolute beginning (a rather large stretch to begin with), that wouldn't make it identical to God.
Only if one has a highly peculiar sense of humor; God is distinguished by more than being "conscious, infinite, and eternal"- for instance, by interacting with the world in various ways (creating it, intervening in it to communicate or interact with mortals, etc.). You would need to show that "reality" had at least enough of these characteristics to warrant the identification, including that reality had to "create" itself in some substantial sense (anything which is not responsible for the existence of the universe is arguably NOT God...).
As opposed to atheistic deities?
And not being entirely certain doesn't preclude having reasonable belief or even knowledge.
Since God is an intervening deity, being highly confident that there are no intervening deities would entail being confident that there is no God (the Christian deity) either.
ManTimeForgot
Temporally Challenged
Okay lets get some terms straight:
Theistic deity versus Deistic deity. If you are not familiar with deism, then please seek out wikipedia article on deism. There is a difference, and deists do not believe in an intervening "God" (Capital G). So if you want to continue to work under the tacit assumption that all "God" concepts are theistic ones, then that is your prerogative, but you will never be anywhere near as convincing as you seem to find yourself to be.
The Universe =/= Reality. The Universe is the limit of our observations. The Universe is a subset of Reality, and it might indeed be very close to the true limits of Reality, but I highly doubt that, and I find it incredibly troubling that someone as educated as yourself does not realize just how ignorant we are about the extent of our knowledge of the universe (let alone reality in general). There are Large Gaps in our knowledge of the universe, and until we can resolve those satisfactorily we cannot make any strong claims about the extent of the Universe.
Transcendence: This entails superseding all logic. This means that the law of excluded middle, which you keep using, does not apply. If something transcends something, then that means that any and all aspects of that thing do not apply properly. So when I tell you that "God" transcends logic and existence, then that means that you can claim that "God" both exists and does not exist as a matter of FACT. How is this done? I can logically assert a contradiction when the universe of discourse is fully indeterminate (doing this places things squarely outside the boundary of reality, but since we are discussing something which is purportedly outside the boundary of reality it is allowable). The principle of explosion allows me to derive anything; including the laws of logic itself. So my "contradictory thing," which is tentatively labeled "God," can in fact do anything, and is required to remain separate from existence itself.
The action/non-actions taken by this "thing" might very well qualify as existing (they would supposedly have real enough effects), but how would you distinguish this from anything that is supposed to happen normally? You can't; anything which "God" "does/not does" is the normative value for existence vis-a-vis omnipotence.
And this leads us to your "evidence test." You have provided a glorified non-sequitur. This shows why half-trained rationality is so dangerous; you are utterly convinced that an irrational test is conclusive evidence of something (doesn't matter what it is; even if this case it is "God.")
Whether or not the Universe was created is irrelevant. An ET with cosmic power/technology may very well have created our universe. If this is so, then I say: "So what?" ET might very well be a "god" with a lower case "g," but it is no where near omnipotence (even if you extend the definition of omnipotence to include maximal capability as opposed to unlimited capability it is still almost certainly no where close).
In order to qualify as a "God" concept said thing needs to have invented Reality; which means logic and existence had to not exist prior. This should seem nonsensical to you (if it doesn't, then there is a gross discrepancy in our understandings of the terms logic and existence). "God" literally is nonsensical. This does not stop us from being unable to be certain about its necessity or lack of necessity. We cannot possibly know whether or not "God" is necessary, Because we do not have any spare realities lying around for comparison. How is anyone supposed to know what to look for in order to evidence "God?"
ET might very well have created the universe and even meddled in the development of life in the cosmos. Intelligent design taken in this light is unfalsifiable. You cannot possibly discount this. We do not have any spare "Earths" lying around for comparison; we do not have any spare universe creations with which to compare to our evidence of our own universe's early period. The bare fact that intelligent design is unfalsifiable is the reason why it cannot present a challenge to BBT and Evolution. It exists inside the realm of uncertainty; we cannot strongly evidence for or against the proposition.
The same holds true of "God." It is unfalsifiable. We do not have any spare "realities" (I'm not even sure what that means... or even what a "real being" would do to go about investigating it even if true) lying about with which we might try to probe for discontinuities or differences between existences. And without a separate universe (let alone separate reality) how can you possibly discount the notion of cosmic consciousness or first causes? Quantum physics might be the result of the influence of a universal consciousness (or proto-consciousness): how can we possibly test that? The point is that we can't, and so we default to the null hypothesis of such a thing not being the case.
So we can and should operate under the assumption that there isn't a cosmic consciousness, but that is merely for the purposes of our experiments or model building. Outside of that limited sphere of influence we are to remain uncertain because that is all we can rationally be on the issue.
MTF
Theistic deity versus Deistic deity. If you are not familiar with deism, then please seek out wikipedia article on deism. There is a difference, and deists do not believe in an intervening "God" (Capital G). So if you want to continue to work under the tacit assumption that all "God" concepts are theistic ones, then that is your prerogative, but you will never be anywhere near as convincing as you seem to find yourself to be.
The Universe =/= Reality. The Universe is the limit of our observations. The Universe is a subset of Reality, and it might indeed be very close to the true limits of Reality, but I highly doubt that, and I find it incredibly troubling that someone as educated as yourself does not realize just how ignorant we are about the extent of our knowledge of the universe (let alone reality in general). There are Large Gaps in our knowledge of the universe, and until we can resolve those satisfactorily we cannot make any strong claims about the extent of the Universe.
Transcendence: This entails superseding all logic. This means that the law of excluded middle, which you keep using, does not apply. If something transcends something, then that means that any and all aspects of that thing do not apply properly. So when I tell you that "God" transcends logic and existence, then that means that you can claim that "God" both exists and does not exist as a matter of FACT. How is this done? I can logically assert a contradiction when the universe of discourse is fully indeterminate (doing this places things squarely outside the boundary of reality, but since we are discussing something which is purportedly outside the boundary of reality it is allowable). The principle of explosion allows me to derive anything; including the laws of logic itself. So my "contradictory thing," which is tentatively labeled "God," can in fact do anything, and is required to remain separate from existence itself.
The action/non-actions taken by this "thing" might very well qualify as existing (they would supposedly have real enough effects), but how would you distinguish this from anything that is supposed to happen normally? You can't; anything which "God" "does/not does" is the normative value for existence vis-a-vis omnipotence.
And this leads us to your "evidence test." You have provided a glorified non-sequitur. This shows why half-trained rationality is so dangerous; you are utterly convinced that an irrational test is conclusive evidence of something (doesn't matter what it is; even if this case it is "God.")
Whether or not the Universe was created is irrelevant. An ET with cosmic power/technology may very well have created our universe. If this is so, then I say: "So what?" ET might very well be a "god" with a lower case "g," but it is no where near omnipotence (even if you extend the definition of omnipotence to include maximal capability as opposed to unlimited capability it is still almost certainly no where close).
In order to qualify as a "God" concept said thing needs to have invented Reality; which means logic and existence had to not exist prior. This should seem nonsensical to you (if it doesn't, then there is a gross discrepancy in our understandings of the terms logic and existence). "God" literally is nonsensical. This does not stop us from being unable to be certain about its necessity or lack of necessity. We cannot possibly know whether or not "God" is necessary, Because we do not have any spare realities lying around for comparison. How is anyone supposed to know what to look for in order to evidence "God?"
ET might very well have created the universe and even meddled in the development of life in the cosmos. Intelligent design taken in this light is unfalsifiable. You cannot possibly discount this. We do not have any spare "Earths" lying around for comparison; we do not have any spare universe creations with which to compare to our evidence of our own universe's early period. The bare fact that intelligent design is unfalsifiable is the reason why it cannot present a challenge to BBT and Evolution. It exists inside the realm of uncertainty; we cannot strongly evidence for or against the proposition.
The same holds true of "God." It is unfalsifiable. We do not have any spare "realities" (I'm not even sure what that means... or even what a "real being" would do to go about investigating it even if true) lying about with which we might try to probe for discontinuities or differences between existences. And without a separate universe (let alone separate reality) how can you possibly discount the notion of cosmic consciousness or first causes? Quantum physics might be the result of the influence of a universal consciousness (or proto-consciousness): how can we possibly test that? The point is that we can't, and so we default to the null hypothesis of such a thing not being the case.
So we can and should operate under the assumption that there isn't a cosmic consciousness, but that is merely for the purposes of our experiments or model building. Outside of that limited sphere of influence we are to remain uncertain because that is all we can rationally be on the issue.
MTF
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
Deism is a form of theism. And yes, all "God concepts" are theistic ones, by definition. In any case, I've already mentioned non-intervening gods, such as deistic ones- if they do not cause any changes in the world, their existence is a distinction which makes no difference.
This is a questionable definition, but OK...
This is irrelevant hand-waving, and doesn't really address anything I've said. We can acknowledge that our knowledge of the universe, or of reality, is miniscule in the grand scheme of things, and nevertheless know that certain concepts are incoherent and thus cannot be instantiated, even in principle. We can tell, just from analyzing the concept, that a round square could not exist- we don't have to wait to search every corner of the universe to know there is no such thing; roundness precludes squareness. Similarly with the logical problems with the concept of God that I've mentioned.
You can claim this, but it is self-refuting. An entity which "transcends logic" is no entity, it is no object, and clearly it is not a subject of any coherent discourse or belief.
Sure, it is allowable because we are now talking about a pure fiction; so anything goes. Unfortunately, as above, placing something squarely outside of reality, means placing it outside of the realm of existence, knowledge, and even coherent discourse. Thus theology or any non-poetic discourse about God is impossible, as is theistic belief generally... This is a curious route to take.
And as above, a "contradictory thing... separate from existence" is not an existing thing, or a real thing, or an object or entity. You can deny excluded middle and try to invent some special status for this thing which does not exist, but if it is not the case that God exists, then it is not the case that God exists and the theist is mistaken.
If God is responsible for any changes in the world, if he has exerted any causal agency, then this is distinguished the same way anything else is distinguished; is there evidence of changes in the world not accounted for by things other than God?
rofl... If only calling something "irrational" or "non-sequitur" sufficed as a counter-argument, eh?
Unfortuantely, the evidentiary test is eminently sound; accounting for changes in the world is, more or less, our epistemic principle for the existence of pretty much anything else- sub-atomic particles and tectonic plates, rare insects and lesbian lizards, and everything else you care to pick. In any case, you haven't given any reason to suppose there's anything wrong here, and you certainly haven't answered the question of on what basis, if God does not uniquely account for any changes in the world, can God be distinguished from an imaginary object- on what non-subjective and corroborative basis the existence of God can be distinguished from non-existence.
This is not really true, there certainly can be evidentiary implications of intelligent design; but if it is truly unfalsifiable, then again, it is a difference which makes no difference, and there's no rational warrant for belief here. It can simply be discarded.