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:
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
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.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 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.I would suggest to hear it all, even if you disagreed with it right from the beginning.
The other two fail simply because he dismisses them.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.
Tell me, do you have anything to present that is not a logical fallacy?
or saying the early Christians were never martyred. (And yes, there is a book out there arguing this).
How exactly? Nobody has ever explained that.This argument always arrives at an uncreated God.
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.The first cause must be an uncaused cause, because else we would have an infinite number of causes.
Apart from God apparently, so there goes that premis in a puff of inescapable logic.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, 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.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.
Sure,gravity is very powerful. Now explain how you get from "something really powerful" (like gravity) to a specific god.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
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.religiouseducation.co.uk/school/alevel/philosophy/cosmological/5ways.htmThe 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
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.
Kinda like god and his inspiration of the Bible.The stupidity of Epicurus
There's no evidence to suggest Epicurus ever wrote it.
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.
Atheists Are Idiots: Refuting the Riddle of Epicurus
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.