- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 8,468
- Reaction score
- 1,575
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
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:
Have some fun first. Got to say, I thought Angel was more entertaining.fig
I had that figured out from the OP and I'm not going to play his game.
I'm not sure what you. The argument is supposed to show an absolutely simple first cause.
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.
If God is omniscient, why all the rigmarole?
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. .
Why does God allow pedophiles to serve as priests in His church?
Explain that if you can.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.Further, if everything in the universe does in fact have a reason, there's no need for god as everything is already explained.
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.
#1 is an assumption
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.at its strongest, so they are doubly still worth considering in that case.The evidential problem of evil, which you seem to be bringing up, is only a probable argument,
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.
If you doubt that evil exists on this planet try reading the news every day.
You are out of touch with reality.
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.
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.
But not knowing the reason is not the same as thinking it might have no reason or explanation.
But (1)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.you haven't shown this disproves God's existence;
But not knowing the reason is not the same as thinking it might have no reason or explanation.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?