• 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!

Recent content by Wessexman

  1. Wessexman

    Arguments for the existence of God[W:740]

    But not knowing the reason is not the same as thinking it might have no reason or explanation.
  2. Wessexman

    Arguments for the existence of God[W:740]

    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.
  3. Wessexman

    Arguments for the existence of God[W:740]

    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.
  4. Wessexman

    Arguments for the existence of God[W:740]

    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...
  5. Wessexman

    Arguments for the existence of God[W:740]

    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...
  6. Wessexman

    Arguments for the existence of God[W:740]

    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...
  7. Wessexman

    Arguments for the existence of God[W:740]

    This is not a proper response or argument. You haven't even addressed the argument in the OP, let alone refuted it.
  8. Wessexman

    Arguments for the existence of God[W:740]

    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...
  9. Wessexman

    Arguments for the existence of God[W:740]

    I'm not sure what you. The argument is supposed to show an absolutely simple first cause.
  10. Wessexman

    Arguments for the existence of God[W:740]

    Premise one says nothing about whether science fails to explain everything. The argument aims to show that (in a sense). All premise one does is assume there is some basic explanation, not necessarily the same one, for each thing in the universe. Most atheists accept this when they consider the...
  11. Wessexman

    Arguments for the existence of God[W:740]

    But the argument purports to show God didn't come to be - he is the uncaused cause. I don't know quite what you mean by understand existence. The argument purports to show God is his own sufficient reason, to use the technical term, so their is an explanation of him, though it isn't in causal...
  12. Wessexman

    Arguments for the existence of God[W:740]

    Yes, this is expressly what the argument purports to show.
  13. Wessexman

    Arguments for the existence of God[W:740]

    I literally answered you in the post you are responding to: Does each thing in the universe have a scientific explanation? This is all the proof requires. Spell out why this doesn't answer your question. Maybe I'm just not understanding you.
  14. Wessexman

    Arguments for the existence of God[W:740]

    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...
  15. Wessexman

    Arguments for the existence of God[W:740]

    I care nothing for your judgment of me. Spud made literally a very similar objection, and I answered it. I also quoted an explanation of it in the OP. Does each thing in the universe have a scientific explanation? This is all the proof requires.
See more
Back
Top Bottom