• 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]

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...

The big bang was the start of both space and time, thus there was no "before" the big bang. Moreover, even if you were to assume there was some sort of supernatural creator, its an argument for deism, not theism. Finally, to say that the universe could not exist without a creator, ignores the fact that the same argument could be used about the supposed creator.

The Cosmological Argument is ultimately nothing more than a God of the Gaps argument. "I don't know why the universe exists - Therefore it has to be due to God".
 
Angel said:
Been there, Done that.
How about you? Any solid proof for any of your ideas lately?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The fact that no one on this planet has any solid proof of God's existence is all the proof that I need.

Wake up and smell the coffee.
 
shrubnose said:
The fact that no one on this planet has any solid proof of God's existence is all the proof that I need.

Wake up and smell the coffee.
Click to expand...
So a solid lack of proof works as well for you as a solid proof. That's a very holistic view. I like it!
By the by, did you know that light roast has more caffeine than dark roast? Or rather dark roast has less caffeine than light roast?
 
Angel said:
Been there, Done that.
How about you? Any solid proof for any of your ideas lately?
Click to expand...

There is no evidence of god(s). There are only arguments without evidence. You can't argue something into existence. You do not exist because of a philosophical argument, you simply exist. No argument can alter that fact which is backed by the physical evidence of your existence.
 
Angel said:
So a solid lack of proof works as well for you as a solid proof. That's a very holistic view. I like it!
By the by, did you know that light roast has more caffeine than dark roast? Or rather dark roast has less caffeine than light roast?
Click to expand...

The philosophical burden of proof lies with those making unfalsifiable claims. Others don't have to disprove the existence of God, you have to prove it.

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time." --Bertrand Russell
 
OldFatGuy said:
I also appreciate the comfort and structures religions provide for some people.

It's difficult to explain why those recovering from surgeries do better when they pray, and when others pray in their behalf.

While on a personal level we may not trust religions, and discount "silly stories" which many not be so silly when examined for meaning, the need to understand how they have effected mankind and still do, is of paramount value. Religions are intertwined with our cultural developments throughout history. How do we understand ourselves without understanding as best we can, all components of our cultural maturity without examining how religion has effected so much, intrinsically and with great inspiration? From daily living, to wars and love, and even lullabies.
Click to expand...

Do people who are recovering from surgery's do better when they pray?? How do you know that?
 
zyzygy said:
I would like to see the peer reviewed research.
Click to expand...

I know there was one that showed that, but a follow up with a larger sample size by the same people who published the first paper found there was no correlation. I thought it was interesting it was by the same group of people that just used a larger sample size.
 
OldFatGuy said:
I also appreciate the comfort and structures religions provide for some people.

It's difficult to explain why those recovering from surgeries do better when they pray, and when others pray in their behalf.

While on a personal level we may not trust religions, and discount "silly stories" which many not be so silly when examined for meaning, the need to understand how they have effected mankind and still do, is of paramount value. Religions are intertwined with our cultural developments throughout history. How do we understand ourselves without understanding as best we can, all components of our cultural maturity without examining how religion has effected so much, intrinsically and with great inspiration? From daily living, to wars and love, and even lullabies.
Click to expand...

Religion has utility as does every other concept created by man. The problem is when people take it literally.
 
devildavid said:
There is no evidence of god(s). There are only arguments without evidence. You can't argue something into existence. You do not exist because of a philosophical argument, you simply exist. No argument can alter that fact which is backed by the physical evidence of your existence.
Click to expand...
Evidence is everywhere, brother. You yourself are evidence, whether you have eyes to see that or not, and whether you like it or not.
 
RAMOSS said:
I know there was one that showed that, but a follow up with a larger sample size by the same people who published the first paper found there was no correlation. I thought it was interesting it was by the same group of people that just used a larger sample size.
Click to expand...

One has to pick all the cherries.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The philosophical burden of proof lies with those making unfalsifiable claims. Others don't have to disprove the existence of God, you have to prove it.
Click to expand...
My post replied to shrubnose's post to the effect that for him a solid lack of proof constituted a proof, and I commended his holism. I did not ask him to disprove anything.
As for my having to prove that God exists, I don't quite see the necessity. Perhaps you can help me understand it.
And on what do you base your claim that the existence of God is unfalsifiable?
 
Angel said:
My post replied to shrubnose's post to the effect that for him a solid lack of proof constituted a proof, and I commended his holism. I did not ask him to disprove anything.
As for my having to prove that God exists, I don't quite see the necessity. Perhaps you can help me understand it.
And on what do you base your claim that the existence of God is unfalsifiable?
Click to expand...

You have to be able to provide empirical evidence for the existence of God for it to be a falsifiable hypothesis. All you have is an assertion. For example, I assert Zeus exists. That is not a falsifiable hypothesis, its just me making an assertion.
 
Angel said:
My post replied to shrubnose's post to the effect that for him a solid lack of proof constituted a proof, and I commended his holism. I did not ask him to disprove anything.
As for my having to prove that God exists, I don't quite see the necessity. Perhaps you can help me understand it.
And on what do you base your claim that the existence of God is unfalsifiable?
Click to expand...

You do not have to prove God unelss you want to try and convinve others that God exists. This thread is an attempt to do so. It has not been succesful
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
You have to be able to provide empirical evidence for the existence of God for it to be a falsifiable hypothesis. All you have is an assertion. For example, I assert Zeus exists. That is not a falsifiable hypothesis, its just me making an assertion.
Click to expand...
If God is understood as the necessary and sufficient condition behind the miracle (defined in the usual sense) of this singular life-bearing planet we call Earth, then the empirical evidence that would falsify the hypothesis is another life-bearing planet in the universe.

Quag said:
You do not have to prove God unelss you want to try and convinve others that God exists. This thread is an attempt to do so. It has not been succesful
Click to expand...
Quite right.
 
Angel said:
Evidence is everywhere, brother. You yourself are evidence, whether you have eyes to see that or not, and whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

I am only evidence of physical existence. My existence was made possible by two other physical beings. One day, we will all cease to exist at all, just like many before us. The only way we can post here is as long as we physically exist. There are no pure spirits in this forum who lack physical existence. Philosophizing can only be done by physical beings. We are making arguments form a basis that exists with or without the arguments.
 
devildavid said:
I am only evidence of physical existence. My existence was made possible by two other physical beings. One day, we will all cease to exist at all, just like many before us. The only way we can post here is as long as we physically exist. There are no pure spirits in this forum who lack physical existence. Philosophizing can only be done by physical beings. We are making arguments form a basis that exists with or without the arguments.
Click to expand...
You are evidence of a miraculous physical existence, defining miraculous in the usual sense of escaping scientific explanation.
 
Angel said:
If God is understood as the necessary and sufficient condition behind the miracle (defined in the usual sense) of this singular life-bearing planet we call Earth, then the empirical evidence that would falsify the hypothesis is another life-bearing planet in the universe.


Quite right.
Click to expand...

God is a necessary condition? Then that falsely make all necessary conditions gods, and clearly they are not.
 
devildavid said:
God is a necessary condition? Then that falsely make all necessary conditions gods, and clearly they are not.
Click to expand...
No, it would make god(s) a necessary condition, which it is, truly.
 
Angel said:
If God is understood as the necessary and sufficient condition behind the miracle (defined in the usual sense) of this singular life-bearing planet we call Earth, then the empirical evidence that would falsify the hypothesis is another life-bearing planet in the universe.
Click to expand...

That is a very loaded argument though.

First off, let's define the term miracle. Miracle: An extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.

Therefore the presumption in your argument is that the existence of life on earth and the conditions on this planet that support it are not explainable by natural and scientific laws and thus require a supernatural explanation. That presumption is false. There is no evidence that life or the conditions for it require any explanation outside of the known physical universe. You are making a classic "God of the gaps" argument in that we don't know everything about how the first single celled life forms came into existence therefore it must be a supernatural cause - God. We don't know whether any other planet harbors life or how many do in our universe, therefore God.

The second argument doesn't even logically follow, but you seemed to make it just the same.
 
Angel said:
You are evidence of a miraculous physical existence, defining miraculous in the usual sense of escaping scientific explanation.
Click to expand...

I don't escape scientific explanation for how I came to exist. Science only deals with how, not why. Why is irrelevant. You can call why a miracle and I can call why random chance. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. We are still left with the bottom line that all we truly know and experience is totally dependent upon physical existence. The only explanation for my existence is how. There is no explanation of why. Why is a blank space that people like to fill in with whatever pleases them. Physical reality just is. It is independent of a why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom