Your best argument that god exists

[Skwim]

I think this short video will give a better idea of what I am trying to say

Didn't need to go past the :46 mark. He left out a fourth possibility; the universe came out of a prior state of being.

 

[Skwim]

Read Bible, Quran or writings of James Smith, Bahaullah or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Kindly do not read Hindu books or you will think that you are adrift in the Pacific Ocean.

I don't do the homework of others. Simply pointing to a book shelf and saying the answer lies in the books on the top shelf isn't how things work around here. If you can't make the argument yourself, so be it. I can't care.

 

[Sabour]

Didn't need to go past the :46 mark. He left out a fourth possibility; the universe came out of a prior state of being.

I would suggest to hear it all, even if you disagreed with it right from the beginning.

 

[Skwim]

I would suggest to hear it all, even if you disagreed with it right from the beginning.

I scanned the rest of the video, and it was just as I suspected: The creator position wins by default because the other two fail, or so he claims. However, the default win is spurious because he disregards the the forth possibility altogether.

 

[McBell]

I scanned the rest of the video, and it was just as I suspected: The creator position wins by default because the other two fail, or so he claims. However, the default win is spurious because he disregards the the forth possibility altogether.

The other two fail simply because he dismisses them.

His "argument" is almost as good as his jokes...

 

[Skwim]

The other two fail simply because he dismisses them.

His "argument" is almost as good as his jokes...

You've got more "stick" than I do.

 

[kepha31]

reply to Outhouse:
Baseless rhetoric is not a refutation, it's a cop out. If you are not a polytheistic Deo-Atomist, then say so.

nice strawman.

Tell me, do you have anything to present that is not a logical fallacy?

Do you have anything to present besides following Outhouse's mindless retorts because he cannot refute my post and you can't either? You assert "logical fallacy" without explanation. That means your remark is just as baseless as Outhouse'. If you are not a polytheistic Deo-Atomist, then say so.
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Deo-Atomism ("The Atom-as-God")

 

[kepha31]

The stupidity of Epicurus

There's no evidence to suggest Epicurus ever wrote it. The form people are familiar with, depending on who you believe, was either put together by David Hume or maybe Carneades. No one knows which but saying Epicurus put it together is yet another atheist urban legend, much like saying communism could work or saying the early Christians were never martyred. (And yes, there is a book out there arguing this).

A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.

The term “evil” is never defined in this argument – what is evil? Asking the atheist will not get a clear answer – given the fact that the only clear definition is “that which is against God” and the atheist denies the existence of God. The atheist will probably give examples of evil – the Holocaust, child rape, murder, war, starvation. All of these things are certainly unpleasant, and many of them are actively evil. But atheism has no consistent definition of evil. How can it?

The unspoken premise in this argument is that an all-loving God will intervene to prevent what the atheist defines as unpleasant. This is a key issue – if God interfered prevented everything that was genuinely evil (i.e. what He saw as evil) then no-one would be able to deny His existence, no-one would be able to have premarital sex, no-one would be able to advocate or have an abortion and so forth.

This would result in the complete subjugation of free-will. This is a necessarily logical step – God cannot prevent evil without removing free-will from people (and removing it not just to a degree of coercion – i.e. “Do as I say or you will suffer” - but rather totally removing it so that humanity has no free-will whatsoever and cannot choose to do anything.)

If there is no free-will and humanity cannot choose evil, then humanity cannot choose good either. A rock has no free-will; it is not a moral thing, but neither is it amoral. It simply exists.

Consider what the paradox says in the very first sentence: either God cannot abolish evil or God chooses not to. That's it. It only considers two options; it doesn't consider (for sake of argument) that maybe God is allowing evil or perhaps there's a reason why the evil is there in the first place.

So, what does it mean for God to be all-loving? It means that He wants us to choose Him and choose the good. He wants us to reject evil. God's highest good is the correct exercise of free-will to choose Him. He sees death and suffering as, while very unpleasant for humanity, not evil in and of themselves. Death and suffering are often the results of evil actions, but they are not evil themselves.

Last I checked, man is free to commit evil or good. That is not to say they always make the better choice but this does say at least the choice is there. The paradox doesn't address that.

If there is no God, why is there so much good? Why do we even have the idea of good if there is no source for it?

The whole wicked and impotent part is just an opinion, not an objective fact.
Those parts are nothing more than a slight-of-hand that add nothing themselves and suffer from their own logical inconsistencies.

It places the problem of evil on God rather than man. Man in the end is responsible for how he treats other people. I don't see how God could even come close to blame in light of this. Blaming God for the evil man commits is stupidity.

There is no way to take this paradox seriously.
In light of all these points, a Christian should not be threatened by this writing at all since the atheist is just picking at straws on this.
Refuting Atheism
: Refuting the Riddle of Epicurus

 

[outhouse]

reply to Outhouse:
Baseless rhetoric is not a refutation

Yet you supply non academic sources that amount to rhetorical opinion.

I said it was worthless to me, and it was.

 

[outhouse]

or saying the early Christians were never martyred. (And yes, there is a book out there arguing this).

You blowing it out of proportion ?


Candida Moss has a book out, going into detail on how much of the martyrdom grew in mythology we know. But she still leaves the historical core there.

So no it is not argued.

 

[outhouse]

Refuting Atheism

Worthless link based on fallacies and strawmen

 

[Bunyip]

This argument always arrives at an uncreated God.

How exactly? Nobody has ever explained that.

The first cause must be an uncaused cause, because else we would have an infinite number of causes.

So, then the premis that everything must have a cause is proven false. The premis 'everything that exists must have a cause' is quite obviously disproven when you cite God as an example of something that does not need a cause. The cosmological argument disproves it's own premis.

 

[Bunyip]

If that was not the case, than there are two possibilities.

1-Creation created itself.
2- Creation existed from the beginning.




1- Creation can't create itself because something can't make itself exist if it doesn't exist.

Apart from God apparently, so there goes that premis in a puff of inescapable logic.

2- Creation can't exist from the beginning because creation has a beginning and an end and everything we observe must have a cause and effect.

Apart from God, which destroys the assumption that everything must have a cause. How could you possibly know that those are the only two options? I can think of several more without even really trying. All you have there is a faith based assumption, not logical argument. As weak as saying; "I don't know who took my lunch, only a superman could have done it. Therefore Superman is real.

 

[Bunyip]

Because we can apply attributes to the first cause. If this cause created the universe, it must be very powerful, or we can say all powerful because it created everything. Humans cant even create a bacteria in a virtual world. The first cause created the whole universe, therefore it must be waay more intelligent than humans, or we can say all knowing because it created everything. And so on

Sure,gravity is very powerful. Now explain how you get from "something really powerful" (like gravity) to a specific god.

 

[Shad]

1) Nothing can move itself.
2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.
3) This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.

Special pleading and begging the question. If nothing can move itself God can not be the unmoved mover. 1. renders 3. false. It is also per-Newtonian physics is used here which is millennia out of date

1) There exists things that are caused (created) by other things.
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
4) Therefore, ther must be an uncaused first cause called God.

Special pleading and dismissing of alternatives yet accepted in the case of one, the presupposition of god by Aquinas. If God is uncaused then we have the beginning of a set of uncaused objects/entities. Why can this not be applied to the Universe itself? Considering the Big Bang theory stops as the road block of the singularity there is only speculation if this was the true beginning of the Universe rather than the beginning of it's current configuration, speculation being an argument from ignorance . More so QM has shown via virtual particles that there are uncaused objects/entities within our present time and Universe so the set includes more than just a single example. Again using outdated physics rendering the argument false once modern knowledge is considered.

Third Way:

Contingent and Necessary Objects
This Way defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that can not exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately necessitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God. Follow the argument this way:

1) Contingent beings are caused.
2) Not every being can be contingent.
3) There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings.
4) This necessary being is God.

Rehashing of argument #1. Same refutation applies. Again it dismisses the possibility that the Universe is the necessary being without any argument. More so matter and energy can not be created nor destroyed thus is contingent on nothing as per Einstein. Again it uses outdated physics and is refuted by QM as per above

Fourth Way:

The Argument From Degrees And Perfection
St. Thomas formulated this Way from a very interesting observation about the qualities of things. For example one may say that of two marble sculptures one is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects, one has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality. From this fact Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be an perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured. These perfections are contained in God.

These are values not properties of an object. Good does not make something exist nor more than being tall makes one human. Negative values can as be applied which is dismissed without an argument due to the presupposition of Aquinas. More so assigning properties does not make something exist. We can create abstract ideas all we want but this does not mean the idea is an object within reality. Proof by logic was refuted by Hume.

Fifth Way:

The Argument From Intelligent Design
The final Way that St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of has to do with the observable universe and the order of nature. Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that is was designed by an intelligent designer, God. In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intelligent designer.
St. Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways

http://www.religiouseducation.co.uk/school/alevel/philosophy/cosmological/5ways.htm

Complexity does not imply a designer. This is the standard watchmaker fallacy. The same argument can be applied to God regardless of the Divine simplicity clause of Thomistic theology. It also rendered the causality argument false as causality is based on spatial and temporal coordinate which do not apply to God due to Divine simplicity.

All these refutations are taught right after the arguments are put forward in modern philosophy classes. There are more refutations than I have supplied as the Aquinas module is quite large.

Is it my best argument for the existence of God? No, but it's a good one, and more reasonable that the atheists argument by silence for the existence of the universe, and our place and purpose in it.

So a guess considering the refutation above is better than claim a lack of knowledge? That is a comforting idea but has been shown to be false repeatedly. It is an argument from ignorance and god of the gaps, nothing more.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is this Caliph Ibrahim?

 

[Skwim]

The stupidity of Epicurus

There's no evidence to suggest Epicurus ever wrote it.

Kinda like god and his inspiration of the Bible.

The term “evil” is never defined in this argument – what is evil? Asking the atheist will not get a clear answer – given the fact that the only clear definition is “that which is against God” and the atheist denies the existence of God. The atheist will probably give examples of evil – the Holocaust, child rape, murder, war, starvation. All of these things are certainly unpleasant, and many of them are actively evil. But atheism has no consistent definition of evil. How can it?

The unspoken premise in this argument is that an all-loving God will intervene to prevent what the atheist defines as unpleasant. This is a key issue – if God interfered prevented everything that was genuinely evil (i.e. what He saw as evil) then no-one would be able to deny His existence, no-one would be able to have premarital sex, no-one would be able to advocate or have an abortion and so forth.

This would result in the complete subjugation of free-will. This is a necessarily logical step – God cannot prevent evil without removing free-will from people (and removing it not just to a degree of coercion – i.e. “Do as I say or you will suffer” - but rather totally removing it so that humanity has no free-will whatsoever and cannot choose to do anything.)

If there is no free-will and humanity cannot choose evil, then humanity cannot choose good either. A rock has no free-will; it is not a moral thing, but neither is it amoral. It simply exists.

Consider what the paradox says in the very first sentence: either God cannot abolish evil or God chooses not to. That's it. It only considers two options; it doesn't consider (for sake of argument) that maybe God is allowing evil or perhaps there's a reason why the evil is there in the first place.

So, what does it mean for God to be all-loving? It means that He wants us to choose Him and choose the good. He wants us to reject evil. God's highest good is the correct exercise of free-will to choose Him. He sees death and suffering as, while very unpleasant for humanity, not evil in and of themselves. Death and suffering are often the results of evil actions, but they are not evil themselves.

Last I checked, man is free to commit evil or good. That is not to say they always make the better choice but this does say at least the choice is there. The paradox doesn't address that.

If there is no God, why is there so much good? Why do we even have the idea of good if there is no source for it?

The whole wicked and impotent part is just an opinion, not an objective fact.
Those parts are nothing more than a slight-of-hand that add nothing themselves and suffer from their own logical inconsistencies.

It places the problem of evil on God rather than man. Man in the end is responsible for how he treats other people. I don't see how God could even come close to blame in light of this. Blaming God for the evil man commits is stupidity.

There is no way to take this paradox seriously.
In light of all these points, a Christian should not be threatened by this writing at all since the atheist is just picking at straws on this.
Refuting Atheism
Atheists Are Idiots: Refuting the Riddle of Epicurus

WOW! It really got to you didn't it. Who would have thought.

In any case, I don't want to sidetrack the OP here. Perhaps another time.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Another try:

In a similar way, the Vedanta accepts that there should be an awareness of there being nothing. If sunyavada accepts that there is an awareness which alone can say 'nothing exists', then the doctrine of nothingness is defeated out and out. Something is.

Aham asmi iti vijaniyat: I know that I exist.

Nobody says 'I am not'. This affirmation of 'I am' is actually the affirmation' of Brahman. But isn't the word 'I' a very intriguing thing because so many 'I's are there! This is I, this is I, that is I, this is I – which 'I' are you referring to? It is the supreme 'I' that is speaking as the 'I' of all individual beings.
From: The Critique of Erroneous Doctrines - An Analysis of the Brahma Sutra - Chapter 2

 

[Sabour]

Apart from God apparently, so there goes that premis in a puff of inescapable logic.Apart from God, which destroys the assumption that everything must have a cause. How could you possibly know that those are the only two options? I can think of several more without even really trying. All you have there is a faith based assumption, not logical argument. As weak as saying; "I don't know who took my lunch, only a superman could have done it. Therefore Superman is real.

I can't see how there might be other options, for me it is that simple.

I do repeat that I don't consider that as a proof for the existence of God, but rather a starting point to think about. Finding God needs a journey of true seeking and in my opinion the heart is the one that plays the bigger role.

 

[Sabour]

Didn't need to go past the :46 mark. He left out a fourth possibility; the universe came out of a prior state of being.

Excuse my English, what does prior state of being mean ?