Common Arguments God Existence (Videos)

[Unveiled Artist]

Our unit on the philosophy of religion and the existence of god continues with Thomas Aquinas. Today, we consider his first four arguments: the cosmological arguments.

Last week we introduced Thomas Aquinas’s four cosmological arguments for the existence of god; today we introduce his fifth argument: the teleological argument, and the ensuing dialogue it initiated.

I thought these about 10 min arguments about god. He explains what the arguments are and some of their counterarguments. Its lighthearted and interesting.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Another thing that just came to mind is if god exists based on an uncased mover, like someone needing to be the first domino to create the domino affect, wouldn't that same law apply to the afterlife, and the afterlife after than afterlife. Life would be circularly rather than linear.

 

[sun rise]

Life would be circularly rather than linear.

Or helical - thus transcending the circular East (wheel of samsara) vs the linear West.

 

[Polymath257]

Fun videos. And yes, the basic problem is that none of these arguments prove their conclusion. An infinite regress is logically possible, moving things don't necessarily require moving things to make them move, contingency doesn't work as claimed, etc. Nothing shows there cannot be multiple uncaused causes (and, in fact, QM suggests exactly this), etc.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Our unit on the philosophy of religion and the existence of god continues with Thomas Aquinas. Today, we consider his first four arguments: the cosmological arguments.

I start by not assuming that we exist. All of the major philosophies about God tend to result in a similar statement. Some say we are like a dream. Others says we are temporary, or we exist in God. Removing the assumption that we exist is a fast track, because it implies that things can seem to exist yet not be and conversely that things which are invisible can be as real or more real than ourselves.

 

[Valjean]

Why did Aquinas find the idea of a 'nothing existing' contingency inconceivable? Perhaps it made him uncomfortable, or raised another question of existence as chance.

A "value defining anchor" seems to be begging the question. It's a human-invented conundrum.
A need for a definitive "perfection?" See above.

Swinburne: "...we should go with the explanation that's most likely to be true." But "Goddidit" isn't an explanation. It posits no mechanism. It's just an attribution of agency.
The 'natural' explanations, on the other hand, are actual explanations, and are reasonable, commonsense, observable and testable.
"...more probable that God designed the world" presupposes an extant God, evidenced by a complex world, that must needs be the product of a purposive God, as evidenced by the complexity of the creation, which must be the product of a creator........
Anyone else getting dizzy?

 

[Aupmanyav]

The 'natural' explanations, on the other hand, are actual explanations, and are reasonable, commonsense, observable and testable.
"...more probable that God designed the world" presupposes an extant God, evidenced by a complex world, that must needs be the product of a purposive God, as evidenced by the complexity of the creation, which must be the product of a creator........
Anyone else getting dizzy?

Yeah, that is why I rejected theism.