I'm going to give you 25 arguments for the exsitence of God and I welcome any feed back on the following.

1. The argument from "common consent" or human authority either quantitative(most people believe) or qualitative (most Sages believe)

2. The argument from the reliability of the Bible.

3. '' " " (ordinary) Religious experience.

4. '' '' '' mystical experiences.

5. '' '' '' miracles, especially the resurrection of Jesus.

6. '' '' '' history: martyrs, saints, the survival of the Church.

7. '' '' '' Jesus: like Son, like Father. (John 14: 8-9)

8. Anselm's "ontological argument" from the idea of God as including all prefections to including the perfection of actual existence.

9. Descartes's psychological verion of Anselm's argument: from the perfection of the idea of God to the equal perfection of it's cause.

10. The moral argument from conscience: from an absolute moral law to an absolute moral law giver (Newman, C.S. Lewis).

11. '' '' '' '' the need for moral ideal of perfection to be actual or instantiated (Kant).

12. '' '' '' '' '' consequence of atheism ("If God did not exist, everything would be permissible"--Dostoyevski).

13. The epistemological argument from the eternityof truth to the exsitence of an eternal mind ( St. Augustine).

14. The aesthetic argument: "There is the music of Bach, therefore there must be a God." (3 ex-atheists were swayed by this argument; 2 are philosophy professors and 1 is a monk).

15. The existential argument from the need for an ultimate meaning to life (Soren Kierkegaard).

16. Pascal's Wager: Your only chance of winning eternal happiness is believing, and your only chance of losing is not believing.

17. C.S. Lewis's Argument from Desire: Every innate desire corresponds to a real object, and there is an innate desire for God.

18. The design argument from nature: The watch proves the watch maker (Paley).

19. '' '' '' '' the human brain: if that computer was programed by chance, not by God, why trust it? (J.B.S. Haldane).

20. The cosmological argument from motion to a First, Unmoved Mover.

21. '' '' "First Cause" argument from the second (caused) causes to a first (uncaused) cause of exsitence (a self -exsiting being).

22. The cosmological argument from contingent and mortal beings to an nessary and immortal being (otherwise all things would eventually perish).

22. The cosmological argument from degrees of perfection to a Most Perfct Being.

24. " '' "kalam" (time) argument from the impossibility of arriving at the present moment if time past is infinite and beginningless (uncreated) (medieval Muslim philosophers).

25. The metaphysical argument from the exsitence of beings whose essence does not contain existence, and which therefore need a cause for their existence, to the exsitence of a being whose exsitence is existence, and which therfore has no cause.

Oooh! This'll be fun!

Welcome to sciforums, Dogma. Sorry, none wash. I hate this being your first post, since I have to debunk it.

Sorry.

"1. The argument from "common consent" or human authority either quantitative(most people believe) or qualitative (most Sages believe)"

Most people once believed that the earth was flat. The fact that many people believe somthing does not make that 'somthing' true.

Sanity is not statistical, as Orwell put it.

"2. The argument from the reliability of the Bible."

The Bible is riddled with contradictions and scientific errors

"3. '' " " (ordinary) Religious experience."

Begs the question. Why should we have religious experiances? Because we believe in God. Why should we believe in God? Because of religious experiance.
You see the problem here?

Also, easily explained through neuroanatomy and psychology. In other words, there's a more prosaic explanation.

"4. '' '' '' mystical experiences."

See above.

"5. '' '' '' miracles, especially the resurrection of Jesus."

I rise from the dead every morning, or so me dad says when I stumble about before I have my coffee.

Seriously, there's no evidence that any miracle was ever more than a hoax or pious fraud.

There is no evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. If you cite the Bible as evidence, well, I could cite the Egyptian story of Isis and Osiris, or the Greek story of Leda and the swan.

Read Hume's work on miracles.

"6. '' '' '' history: martyrs, saints, the survival of the Church."

Proves nothing but the strength of human institutions. Besides, look at the current scandal.

"7. '' '' '' Jesus: like Son, like Father. (John 14: 8-9)"

Begs the question. You have to accept the divinity of Jesus to come to a proof of God that way. And there's no reason to accept the divinity of Jesus.

"8. Anselm's "ontological argument" from the idea of God as including all prefections to including the perfection of actual existence."

Debunked by many philosophers. And by me.

Basically, Anslem said that God was the greatest thing that could be conceived. Okay. Fine.

So what's greater than God? TWO Gods. What's greater than two Gods? Why three, of course!

Ad infinitum. We end up with an infinite number of Gods. Then Ockham's razor comes into play - it is illogical to believe in this infinity of Gods.

"9. Descartes's psychological verion of Anselm's argument: from the perfection of the idea of God to the equal perfection of it's cause."

Utter bull. I can imagine the Great Cthulhu. Does that mean that the Great Cthulhu exists?

Or unicorns. Or vampires. Or ghouls. Or good country-western music.

Just because we can imagine a perfect being dosen't mean it exists, or there would be unicorns cavorting through my living room, we'd have Harry Potter wandering about London, Great Cthulhu would be snacking on Massachusets residents, we'd be fednding off vampires right and left....you see my point?

"10. The moral argument from conscience: from an absolute moral law to an absolute moral law giver (Newman, C.S. Lewis)."

Show me an absolute moral law and I'll consider it.

There has never been an absolute moral law. And even then, such a law could easily be a human invention.

"11. '' '' '' '' the need for moral ideal of perfection to be actual or instantiated (Kant)."

Could easily be a human invention.

"12. '' '' '' '' '' consequence of atheism ("If God did not exist, everything would be permissible"-- Dostoyevski)."

Pure fallacy. Argument from negative consequences.

And utter bull. Since when do we need a God to tell us not to go around killing each other?

"13. The epistemological argument from the eternityof truth to the exsitence of an eternal mind ( St. Augustine)."

Prove the eternity of truth and I'll consider it.

"14. The aesthetic argument: "There is the music of Bach, therefore there must be a God." (3 ex- atheists were swayed by this argument; 2 are philosophy professors and 1 is a monk)."

H.P Lovecraft was a brilliant writer. "The Mountains of Madness" is a stunning work of staggering genius.

H.P.L was an athiest. Therefore, there is no God.

See the problem? Bach was human and his music is a human invention. Lovecraft was human and his novels are human inventions.

"15. The existential argument from the need for an ultimate meaning to life (Soren Kierkegaard)."

Nope. There dosen't need to be a ultimate meaning, we humans just wish there was.

The universe could easily be purposeless. Read Camus.

"16. Pascal's Wager: Your only chance of winning eternal happiness is believing, and your only chance of losing is not believing."

I despise conic sections. Pascal was evil.

Pardon.

In any case, the proof fails. It asks us to surrender our reason, to worship a bully. To worship God only because we fear being punished for not worshipping. I find the idea abhorrent.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pascal.html

"17. C.S. Lewis's Argument from Desire: Every innate desire corresponds to a real object, and there is an innate desire for God."

I don't have an innate desire for God. Lewis' God is merely a father figure.

Perhaps Lewis had an innate desire for such a figure. It ain't necessarily God.

"18. The design argument from nature: The watch proves the watch maker (Paley)."

GREAT GOOGLY-MOOGLY! That's an old argument!Hume rebutted this way back in the 1700s!

The final nail in the coffin was, of course, the discovery of evolution. The watch evolved.

"19. '' '' '' '' the human brain: if that computer was programed by chance, not by God, why trust it? (J.B.S. Haldane)."

But the brain wasn't programmed by chance, it evolved over millions of years. And we already know that our brains are untrustworthy - they make us do stupid things, like hallucinate and fall in love.

"20. The cosmological argument from motion to a First, Unmoved Mover."

Ahem, could somone please tell me what the state of physics was when Aquinas proposed this one?

*Hint*

It was before Einstien, hell, before Newton!

"21. '' '' "First Cause" argument from the second (caused) causes to a first (uncaused) cause of exsitence (a self -exsiting being)."

Is this necessarily God? In any case, this argument fails because infinite regress is possible.

"22. The cosmological argument from contingent and mortal beings to an nessary and immortal being (otherwise all things would eventually perish)."

Umm, don't all things eventually perish as it is? (Except Strom Thurmond. )

"22. The cosmological argument from degrees of perfection to a Most Perfct Being."

Nawp. Firstoff, prove degrees of perfection. Second, it dosen't mean there has to be a most perfect being.

"24. " '' "kalam" (time) argument from the impossibility of arriving at the present moment if time past is infinite and beginningless (uncreated) (medieval Muslim philosophers). "

Methinks those medieval Muslim philosophers were on a little too much hashish when they dreamed that up.

The past can easily be infinite. Time can be circular.

"25. The metaphysical argument from the exsitence of beings whose essence does not contain existence, and which therefore need a cause for their existence, to the exsitence of a being whose exsitence is existence, and which therfore has no cause."

You would have to prove an "essence of existance". Has anyone done that? No. So what happens to the argument?

*Flush*

Edit to add: More about Anslem:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/anselm.htm

More about the argument from design:

http://skepdic.com/design.html

More about miracles:

http://skepdic.com/miracles.html

Hume on miracles:

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/h/h92e/sec10.html

*Grins*

You're right, *stRgrL*. I'd better be carefull....

In that spirit, a more proper 'Hello' to DOGMA.

Welcome to Sciforums!

Careful Xev, hes from Canada. And you know what they think of us up there....

You godless American moneyhungry SWINE!!!!!

Sorry, couldnt help myself.

Welcome to Sciforums DOGMA!

Take care

Atheism - The Case Against God by G.H. Smith. I was going to post ample quotes from it, but just go pick it up yourself - WELL WORTH EVERY PENNY.

Welcome to Sciforums Dude.

Hello, Xev


I just finished reviewing your counter-arguments on the Arguments for the Exsitence of God. I found that some of your rebuttal arguments quite good and some to be just down right silly I also enjoyed seeing your anti-theist propagnda web sites that some of them hold no creditability what so ever.

For every single argument that you brought I also have a counter-argument. I thought about responding to every one of your rebuttals one by one and also wanted to post many theist web sites as well. It accured to me that this whole debate would be very lenthy and time consuming that in the end none of us would emerge victorious.

You see I'm not here to try to covert you or anybody else, I'm here just to give my side of the arguments for God exsitence. I believe in faith and my faith is been backed up by recent discoveries in physics, medicine, psychology, and other fields that paint a radically new picture of the universe and humanity's role in it . Central is the dawning realization that the cosmos, far from being a sea of chaos, appears instead to be a fined tune mechanism whose every molecule and every physical law seems to have been designed from the very first nanosecond of the big bang toward a single end- the creation of life.

With that I'd like to leave you with a few word from a well known philosopher on the exsitence of faith.

" Only in a world were faith is difficult can faith exist. I don't have faith in two plus two equals four or in the noonday sun. Those are beyond question. But the Scriptures describe God has a hidden God. You have to make an effort of faith to find him. There are clues that you can follow.

If we had absolute proof instead of clues, then you could no more deny God than you could deny the sun. if we had no evidence at all, you could never get there. God gives us just enough evidence so that those who want him can have him. Those who want to follow the clues will.

The Bible says "Seek and you shall find". It doesn't say everybody will find him. Some will find. Who? Those who seek. Those whose hearts are set on finding him and who follow the clues". (Peter John Kreeft, PH.D)

Dogma,
You give 25 arguments and then do not want to argue them? Hmmm strange. True, nothing may be gained, but it might be fun .

I actually concur to Xev's comments on many of the arguments, nice post Xev . But I agree that some of her rebuttals, especially the cosmological arguments, are weak.

I find most of these arguments to be weak for the existence of god. Some use a circular type reasoning: The church has survived therefore there is a god. Or rely on unproven equally questionable topics: there are mystical experiences, miracles, jesus, religious experiences, the bible.

I find the the Kalam argument fascinating. Xev had these comments:
"Methinks those medieval Muslim philosophers were on a little too much hashish when they dreamed that up. The past can easily be infinite. Time can be circular."

How can the past be infinite? Are we not adding a day to the past every 24 hours? How can you add to something that is infinite? Perhaps you mean it is potentially infinite but in that case it would not be circular. If you keep looking back in time, what do eventually find?

This leads to the other arguement I find interesting, the first cause arguement. We exist. Everything that exists has a cause. The universe exists. The cause of the universe is god. I have a hard time with this one. The trouble is this: does the universe have a cause? It would seem it does not. However, everything else does. Nothing ever just pops into thin air for no reason whatsoever. I would say this is the best argument there is that there is a god. Am i convinced? No, but I admit it has me thinking.

fc

Damnit!!!! People like this tick me off!!!!!! So stuck to their own point of view they refuse to listen to anyone else's no matter how much sense it makes. I'm sorry I recomended the book DOGMA, I can see you do not have an open mind.

And no one calls me hypocritical. After reading Atheism the case against God, I purchased Saint Thomas Aquinas' shorter summa and read it. I go on both sides of an argument just not to be CLOSED MINDED - hint hint.

Fading Captain:
First, welcome to Sciforums.
Second

"How can the past be infinite? Are we not adding a day to the past every 24 hours? How can you add to something that is infinite? Perhaps you mean it is potentially infinite but in that case it would not be circular. If you keep looking back in time, what do eventually find?"

If you see time as circular, you avoid any dilemna.

Ask, and it shall be given to you, DOGMA.

" I thought about responding to every one of your rebuttals one by one and also wanted to post many theist web sites as well. It accured to me that this whole debate would be very lenthy and time consuming that in the end none of us would emerge victorious."

Wrong. I'd win, you would just not aknowledge it.

I rarely, if ever, lose.

'Cept when it comes to men.

Righty-o, let's do a little more debunking. You obviously can't stand the heat, so, in that spirit, get out of the kitchen.

"13. The epistemological argument from the eternityof truth to the exsitence of an eternal mind ( St. Augustine)."

Let's pick on Augustine first, 'cuz he was an insulur nitwit.

Augustine's basic argument is this:

Now, firstoff, I can concieve of somthing better than God - two Gods. So right away, his logic fails.

However, let's move on. Is the incorruptable better than the corruptable? Can this be proven, or is it a value judgement?

'Better than' is always a value judgement. So, link two of Augustine's chain of logic is broken.

Now, let's look at the conclusion. It assumes that any truth is eternal and immutable. Why? 'Cuz God illuminates the soul with truth! Why do we believe that God illuminates the soul with truth? Because we believe that God illuminates the soul with truth.

Augustine, twit that he was, is begging the question.

In other words, sheer and utter crap. Moving on....

God has been called the 'ultimate father figure'. (By me, actually, but Freud inspired me )

Well, our fathers exist or have existed, right? So there's your real object!

*Flush*

In addition, when I was a little girl, I desperatly wanted a flying horse. Not a unicorn, but a horse like Pegasus.

Well, I've just proven the existance of flying horses.

The concept of inertia was poorly developed in Aquinas' day. However, this is an example of circular logic.

What moved the Unmoved Mover? Whence comes God?

*Fluuuuush*

What caused God?

Aquinas rejected the possibility of infinite regress out of hand. I wonder why? There's no reason that infinite regress is impossible.

*Fluuuuuuuush*

Is this necessarily God? In any case, this argument fails because infinite regress is possible.

Obviously, all things do eventually perish. One could assert that there is an afterlife, but it remains unsubstantiated assertion.

One could also say that there is no such thing as 'perish' - only a change of state - but this 'declaws' the argument.

*Fluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuush*

Only works if you take the Medieval 'Great Chain of Being' as a given.

Otherwise, perfection remains a subjective value judgement, based on emotion, not reason.

*Fluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuush!*

Did I miss any? C'mon, if I was weak somwhere, let me know!

DOGMA
DOGMA is right!

"Psalm 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork."

Who needs logic or reason, Xev? Will they make you happy? Will they make you whole? Will they give you EVERLASTING LIFE?

No! They won't. So why rely on them?

Damn, Xev. I was looking forward to responding to that but you did an excellent job.

On to other things:

You seem to be ignoring chaos mathematics, threshold events, and a slew of quantum events (entanglement, superposition, the uncertainty principle, virtual particles) not to mention the superstring theory, multiple dimensions, etc. If anything, recent developments in physics are showing that nature is more random and less definable than once thought… perhaps even indiscernible at some point. The universe seems to be, quite literally, a sea of chaos.

Even if we were to accept that the universe was entirely mechanistic and life would inherently manifest due to the laws of physics your conclusion of purpose or God is still unfounded. Gravity will inevitably pull the autumn leaf to the ground; this does not necessitate purpose.

Powerful argument there Fox. I was especially swayed by the exclamation point.

~Raithere

Dogma,

I note you have not offered anything of substance. Your opening post briefly introduces a list of arguments rather than the arguments themselves. The list looks like it has been lifted from a theist website – which one? But it appears you have not taken much effort to make the post. The titles of arguments do not make a case, it is the reasoning or lack thereof, that these concepts claim that we need to confront. You give no indication that you even understand what you have quoted. In short your opening post says nothing.

But you seem quite prepared to openly criticize Xev who has clearly made a considerable effort to respond to you. But even your criticisms are without substance or value.

Which ones, and why? Make an effort.

Propaganda? Where? Which sites? Do you know the meaning of the word? I know the sites well and there is no propaganda there. You clearly have not studied them properly but I suspect you have seen texts that do not agree with your own ideas so of course you must evoke emotive ridicule typical of most theists who have no factual arguments of their own. You sound similar to many who have also been indoctrinated by the propaganda of theism – i.e. if you cannot give a reasoned argument then simply ridicule your opponent. Quite a disreputable tactic.

So if you think any site that Xev has quoted is using propaganda then give the references and examples rather than just give baseless useless assertions. It is you who lack credibility here since you have not provided any substance, only empty claims.

Then what are they, at least give an example. Again you have offered no substance but just empty claims of your unproven ability. Make an effort.

Victorious? Do you believe you are at war? Aren’t you interested in finding truth through reasoned and civilized debate? No, it seems not. As a theist you display typical theist arrogance that you must be right. But at least you understand you have no arguments and you recognize the futility of your position in trying to debate and defend your position, otherwise, of course, you would offer something of substance, right?

Ah ha, you are a preacher then. Why on earth would you think we would be interested? If you aren’t going to respond to reasoned arguments then you have no value here, and your sermons will be met with appropriate derision.

So have the courage to quote which specific discoveries and give authoritative references. Again you have made empty claims and have shown no evidence or substance.

Do you have evidence or is that your own fantasy? Are you assuming that the perceived Big Bang is the only one? Are you aware of current theories on multiple big bangs from the department of physics at MIT?


Religious faith is nothing more than believing something without any evidence. Or in other words believing as true, imaginative fantasies. Believing fantasies is easy, regardless of your quote. What is really difficult is the hard work needed to find supportive evidence for real phenomena. Faith is nothing more than short-sighted laziness by choosing to believe something because it ‘feels’ right.

This is a rather pathetic attempt to explain away contradictory and paradoxical mythologies that offer no substance, no evidence, and no proofs, for their claims.

Quite right, and your point is what? That indeed you have no proofs. Absolute proof? Any proof will do, or even some simple evidence of the existence of a god will be quite acceptable. If you think any such evidence exists then show it.

But we have no evidence, so your point is? That we can never find a god? Excellent, you show promise. However, if you think there is evidence, then show it. Or is that claim as empty as everything else you have said so far.

What evidence? And don’t give that crap that only those who have already been indoctrinated can find him. That type of attempt at pseudo logic is an insult to any thinking person.

And the point here is what? That those who choose to use their brains rather than their emotions will never find him and will be tortured by him in hell? This implies that only morons can find a god.

So far you have made many empty claims, and you intend to preach and not debate, so what do you expect us to do, listen politely? Either respond to our comments with supportive evidence or expect to be ignored.

Cris

Hey Fox, you should really read that story I posted under the thread "Story by Langston Hughes." I seeked God and found nothing, my story is very similar to the narrator's. I think you'll find this story to be most enlightening. I'd really love to know what you think of this story. By the way, it is a true story.

And try putting substance in your arguments. Also, sometime, you might want to try backing up your arguments instead of just listing the same ones over and over. (Justify your answers you moron! *thwap* People aren't going to believe you if you make no attempt to show <b>why</b> your beliefs are true, you know.)

Fox,

Living in ignorance and believing falsehoods might make you happy in the short term, but logic and reason has led to the development of science that has in turn led to a significant increase in the quality of life for all mankind, i.e. true happiness for many.

Without our ability to think logically we would be little different to the ape. It is because of our ability to reason that we have managed to create an advanced civilization that sets us apart from the animals. Are you saying you want to live like the animals?

But there is no guarantee that the discovery of truth will make you happy. The reality of life is that it is harsh and believing the fantasies spread by the ignorant superstitions of religion will not change that.

Believing the baseless promise of everlasting life is to live in a dream world and to give up the struggle to find solutions to the problems of our current mortality.

Your fatalistic attitude and that of other religionists is one of the greatest evils mankind has ever had to face.

Use your brain and contribute to the survival of the human race and stop wallowing in the emotional quagmire of the religious fantasy world.

Cris

Cris,
I think I may print off that last post and give it to some of my theist friends hehe. I can't seem to say it as well as you did.

Although I agree that these arguments aren't good and it is lame that dogma doesn't even offer up his rebuttal...I feel the need to take up his cause a little bit(always the devils advocate i guess).

Xev,
21. '' '' "First Cause" argument from the second (caused) causes to a first(uncaused) cause of exsitence (a self -exsiting being).
What caused God? Aquinas rejected the possibility of infinite regress out of hand. I wonder why? There's no reason that infinite regress is impossible.
- Yes, the key statement i think is "what caused God?" If you apply Occum's razor, this theory seems to go down the crapper. However, if you believe the universe had a beginning you must ask what that cause was, and you could label that cause god. As for infinite regress, how do you account for entropy? The universe would be devoid of enery by now if you believe infinite regress. Or do you think they was a time when entropy decreased?? This would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
"If you see time as circular, you avoid any dilemna. "
- I am not following you on this one, please explain. Do you mean that if we waited long enough, we would eventually be back to this moment in time? Would we exist again?

fc

Hi fading,

Ha ha, quoting me might be dangerous, but please feel free.

Cris

Hi Cris. Nice to see you again.

And thanks.

As for propaganda, the Pascal's wager site is. However, their claims are valid.


Fading Captain:

"As for infinite regress, how do you account for entropy? The universe would be devoid of enery by now if you believe infinite regress. Or do you think they was a time when entropy decreased?? This would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. "

As Cris mentioned, multiple big bangs.

http://plus.maths.org/issue18/reviews/book2/

""If you see time as circular, you avoid any dilemna. "
- I am not following you on this one, please explain. Do you mean that if we waited long enough, we would eventually be back to this moment in time? Would we exist again? "

Possibly, Fading Captain. I don't have any evidence, so it remains speculation on my part.

I simply posed it as an alternative possibility, and, in spite of the lack of evidence, it is just as valid as belief in God.

FoxM:
"Who needs logic or reason, Xev?"

I do.

"Will they make you happy?"

"It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have got it."
-- Edmund Way Teale

I can't put it better than a poet could.

"Will they make you whole?"

Last I checked, I was whole.

Ooops! Damn, my arm just fell off again!

"Will they give you EVERLASTING LIFE?"

Possibly, through science. It's a long shot, but it's possible.

Xev,
Thanks for the link...I'd say both the "first cause" and "beginning of time" arguments, while interesting, are currently a wash and provide no real insight on whether or a not god exists. As for the other arguments, I think you have done well in countering them. That leaves us with 0 for 25 of the arguments providing evidence that god exists. Anyone else have another opinion?

fc

In the slightly editited for context words of Albert Einstein:

"Why do you need 25, if they were right one would do?"

All of your arguments are "proven" by nothing more than words written by some guy!

Do you all follow the written words of any "guys" that feel the need to write some crap on a piece of paper. Not me, I'll just wait & see.

<b>Excellent</b> quote Neutrino. Excellent.