• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Arguments for the existence of God[W:740]

shrubnose said:
You have nothing on your side soyou and I have nothing more to discuss.

Come back when you have some real proof.

If God would eliminate nukes and create peace on Earth I'd accept that as proof of his existence.

If that doesn't happen I'll continue to not believe in a God that doesn't exist.

:lol:
Click to expand...

This is not a proper response or argument. You haven't even addressed the argument in the OP, let alone refuted it.
 
Why does God allow pedophiles to serve as priests in His church?

Explain that if you can.
 
Wessexman said:
I did no such thing. That is just a complete strawman. Most atheists accept everything in the universe has an explanation. It is a premise most atheists share with theists. As I said, you can dispute this, but it is problematic. It would require a rejection of the principle of sufficient reason and the acceptance of brute facts. For example, science assumes all things in the universe have an explanation. The scientist, when faced with a phenomena, doesn't think it could have no explanation. But arguably it would be worse than this. If anything could exist without explanation this would include our beliefs, which undermines our confidence in our reasoning.
Click to expand...

No, most atheists do not assume everything has a reason and meaning in the way you're trying to use it to explain a god you have no evidence for. You're just making things up because they make you feel good. The strongest evidence that there is no god is that no matter how hard any theists try they can't provide a single shred of evidence for, so they stick to philosophical "proofs" with holes so large in them that a 747 could fly through.

I'm glad though that after like 10 posts of me begging and pleading for you to defend your own points you're at least trying now. So thanks for that.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
No, most atheists do not assume everything has a reason and meaning in the way you're trying to use it to explain a god you have no evidence for. .
Click to expand...

What do you mean by this? Be specific. How do you understand the way explanation is being used in the first premise? You seem to be running together different premises - assuming that the premise assumes what is proven in the conclusion, and so on. The first premise assumes a sense of explanation eminently acceptable to most atheists.
 
Wessexman said:
What do you mean by this? Be specific. How do you understand the way explanation is being used in the first premise? You seem to be running together different premises - assuming that the premise assumes what is proven in the conclusion, and so on.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that you didn't prove premise #1 and even if you could it doesn't logically support your other points building up to an all powerful sky wizard.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
What I'm saying is that you didn't prove premise #1 and even if you could it doesn't logically support your other points building up to an all powerful sky wizard.
Click to expand...

How didn't I prove it? Be specific. The premise simply says that there is some bottom level explanation, which could be the laws of nature, for each thing in the universe. Most atheists accept this, as it is basic to natural science. Do you dispute it?

Again, be specific. Where does the logic fall down in the other points?
 
Wessexman said:
How didn't I prove it? Be specific. The premise simply says that there is some bottom level explanation, which could be the laws of nature, for each thing in the universe. Most atheists accept this, as it is basic to natural science. Do you dispute it?

Again, be specific. Where does the logic fall down in the other points?
Click to expand...

Saying "most atheists believe this" is not proving it,nor does a majority of atheists believing it prove it. Be specific and show that everything in the universe has a reason or meaning. Be specific. Further, if everything in the universe does in fact have a reason, there's no need for god as everything is already explained.

You're just superimposing your desire for a god onto completely unrelated cosmic phenomena.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Saying "most atheists believe this" is not proving it,nor does a majority of atheists believing it prove it. Be specific and show that everything in the universe has a reason or meaning. Be specific.
Click to expand...

This is assumed, for example, by natural science. The scientist, when faced with a phenomena, doesn't think it might have no explanation. He looks for its explanation, at least in some basic laws of nature. So to reject this premise is to endanger natural science.

But it is arguably worse than that. If one rejects this premise, or the principle of sufficient reason, then that means one accepts there may be brute facts in the universe - phenomena without any explanation at all. But those unexplained facts could be our beliefs, perceptions, etc. This would seem to undermine our confidence in our faculties and lead to radical scepticism.


Further, if everything in the universe does in fact have a reason, there's no need for god as everything is already explained.
Click to expand...
As I said, you seem to be confusing the premise and the rest of the argument. The premise is simply there is a bottom level explanation for every thing in the universe, such as the laws of nature. The rest of the argument is to show this explanation can only be God.
 
Wessexman said:
Following on from recent discussions, I will try to discuss positive arguments for God's existence, and hopefully some decent discussion can out of it (and there won't be an inundation of fallacy). Again, mostly because I'm lazy, I will start by posting the basic argument and give support for premises in response to queries, rather than fillin the background from the beginning. I will start with Plotinus'/The Neoplatonic version of the cosmological argument, based on the appeal to divine simplicity, mostly because Edward Feser has a good, accessible formulation of it (adapted by Lloyd Gerson's):

Edward Feser: Plotinus on divine simplicity, Part I

1. There must be a first principle of all if there is to be an explanation of why the world exists.

2. If the first principle of all were composed of parts, then those parts would be ontologically prior to it.

3. But in that case it would not be the first principle of all.

4. So the first principle is not composed of parts, but is absolutely simple.

5. If there were a distinction between what the first principle is and the fact that it is, then there could be more than one first principle.

6. But in order for there to be more than one, there would have to be some attribute that distinguished them.

7. But since a first principle is absolutely simple, there can be no such attribute.

8. So there cannot be more than one first principle.

9. So there is no distinction in the first principle between what it is and the fact that it is.

10. So the first principle is not only absolutely simple but utterly unique: the One.

Although I said I wouldn't start by giving background or support to the premises, it is worth quoting Feser on the first premise, because that is bound to be misunderstood, especially by people who specialise in misunderstandings:

What is meant by a “first principle” in step (1) is, essentially, a bottom level explanation of the world, something that explains everything else without needing an explanation itself. Accordingly, this premise is at least implicitly accepted by the atheist no less than by the theist, at least insofar as the atheist regards scientific explanations as terminating in a most fundamental level of physical laws that determine all the rest – whether this takes the form of a “Theory of everything” or instead a conjunction of several physical theories left unreduced to some such single theory. The dispute between Plotinus and the atheist, then, would not be over the existence of a “first principle,” but rather over its character. And Plotinus wants to show in the rest of the argument that the first principle of all would have to be simple in (something like) the sense of “simplicity” enshrined in the doctrine of divine simplicity.

By the way, Feser's Cosmological Argument Roundup is a great online resource on cosmological arguments:


Edward Feser: Cosmological argument roundup

If anyone has any other arguments they like, please post them.
Click to expand...

#1 is an assumption
 
Quag said:
#1 is an assumption
Click to expand...

I have already responded to this point as made by Spud and RabidAlpaca (though the latter may object that I dare to not start the discussion all over again with you). See my posts to them, or Feser's point explanation quoted in the OP.
 
Wessexman said:
Well, the logical problem of evil would rule out God's existence tout court. But you'd have to argue for a straight contradiction between evil's very existence and God. Besides, the proofs of God still purport to show God exists, and are worth examining.
The evidential problem of evil, which you seem to be bringing up, is only a probable argument,
Click to expand...
 at its strongest, so they are doubly still worth considering in that case.
Click to expand...


If you doubt that evil exists on this planet try reading the news every day.You'll find plenty of evidence of evil and and no evidence God doing anything about it.That's an ironclad fact.

You are totally out of touch with reality.

Come back when you have some real proof of your God's existence.

:lol:
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
What do you mean by this? Be specific. How do you understand the way explanation is being used in the first premise? You seem to be running together different premises - assuming that the premise assumes what is proven in the conclusion, and so on. The first premise assumes a sense of explanation eminently acceptable to most atheists.
Click to expand...

No it is notacceptable.

It is a presumption that you have no idea about.

The universe started.

WHY?

We don't know.

Inventing loads of long worded drivel trying to define the answer to something that is clearly beyond our understanding will just send you mad.
 
shrubnose said:
If you doubt that evil exists on this planet try reading the news every day.

You are out of touch with reality.
Click to expand...

But (1) you haven't shown this disproves God's existence; and (2) even if you had a good argument for that, it wouldn't directly refute the argument in the OP. Given that it still seems worth considering the argument in the OP on its own merits.
 
Wessexman said:
This is assumed, for example, by natural science. The scientist, when faced with a phenomena, doesn't think it might have no explanation. He looks for its explanation, at least in some basic laws of nature. So to reject this premise is to endanger natural science.

But it is arguably worse than that. If one rejects this premise, or the principle of sufficient reason, then that means one accepts there may be brute facts in the universe - phenomena without any explanation at all. But those unexplained facts could be our beliefs, perceptions, etc. This would seem to undermine our confidence in our faculties and lead to radical scepticism.


As I said, you seem to be confusing the premise and the rest of the argument. The premise is simply there is a bottom level explanation for every thing in the universe, such as the laws of nature. The rest of the argument is to show this explanation can only be God.
Click to expand...

The scientific response to it is that if he fails to find the reason for something he says that he does not know. This is the primary start point and default answer in science.
 
Tim the plumber said:

The scientific response to it is that if he fails to find the reason for something he says that he does not know. This is the primary start point and default answer in science.
Click to expand...

But not knowing the reason is not the same as thinking it might have no reason or explanation.
 
Wessexman said:
But not knowing the reason is not the same as thinking it might have no reason or explanation.
Click to expand...

True but that does not mean you are free to invent any old drivel.

When the old map makers put "There be dragons" on the map where they ran out of knowledge it was a psychological reason for not going there, for not having to explain that their knowledge had limits.

When the map has blank bits it is very difficult not to end up sending somebody to find out.

Your use of gibberish to cover the fact that you do not know how or why the universe is or started is just cowardice. Too affraid to face the truth that you don't know and never will. There are people working on it though and one day they might have a good, well supported, answer, maybe.
 
Wessexman said:
But (1)
you haven't shown this disproves God's existence;
Click to expand...
 and (2) even if you had a good argument for that, it wouldn't directly refute the argument in the OP. Given that it still seems worth considering the argument in the OP on its own merits.
Click to expand...


You have no proof that God exists or you would have posted it.

Wake up and smell the coffee.
 
I have Oliver Herford's poem "Some Geese" running through my head.
 
Wessexman said:
I have already responded to this point as made by Spud and RabidAlpaca (though the latter may object that I dare to not start the discussion all over again with you). See my posts to them, or Feser's point explanation quoted in the OP.
Click to expand...

I went back and read and your response doesn't change the fact that it is an assumption
Really until you prove #1 there is no way to go forward.
 
Wittgenstein once told that what the greatest minds, philosophy, religion, arts, ... try to say are all exactly the same but they say all in many different ways because what the want to say can not be really said with our medias.

The problem of talk about God is the language we use because language is a madia, or a tool, and it is often too limited to explain certain thoughts about Being (Dasein) and God. Reason why we express ourselves through several medias other than speak and writing.

Heidegger than said that trying to make philosophy understandable is what kills philosophy. If you take this point of view to the talk about God itself it means that we, as humans, tend to translate or see God in a human alike way in order to make such talk and concepts about God more understandable, while doing that people are not realizing that they are misunderstanding God, talking about otherthing that has nothing to do about God. It is like talking about cars as if cars were people like children do.

Heidegger wrote his philosophy about Being and Time in a such complex way that he often has to use phrases and words from Old Greek, Latin and so on in order to be more precise on what he is saying. Despite of the difficulty of understanding his book what he says is ridiculously simple, but very hard to express in words.

The point here is that the understanding about God is the understanding about the Being (Dasein) and many old religions understood that very well, like Tao, african rituals, even the Christianism, Islamism and Judaism. But religions becomes institutionalized and their teaching becomes tradition that people follow forgetting the real reason they actually exist, becoming a more a matter of cultural identity than actually understanding and reaching god.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom