Before someone makes a comment on , this should belong in the religion part this is proving the existence of god, not the nature. So a couple things to say: Using religion to prove god's existence is using the nature of god to prove god's existence,which is circular and is therefore unacceptable proof. I'll be posting some popular arguments for God's existence. You're welcome to improve them or even come up with your own and remember, once a premise is broken the whole thing falls a part. Thomas Aquinas Cosmological argument contingency. 1)A contingent being exists. 2)This contingent being has a cause of its existence. 3)The cause of its existence is something other than itself. 4)What causes this contingent being to exist must be a set that contains either only contingent beings or a set that contains at least one noncontingent (necessary) being. 5)A set that contains only contingent beings cannot cause this contingent being to exist. 6)Therefore, what causes this contingent being must be a set that contains at least one necessary being. C)Therefore, a necessary being exists. Thomas Aquinas The teleological argument or argument from "design" (ex fine), which claims that many things in the Universe possess final causes that must be directed by God: 1)All natural bodies in the world act towards ends. 2)These objects are in themselves unintelligent. 3)Acting towards an end is characteristic of intelligence. C)Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural bodies towards their ends. This being is whom we call God. Alternative interpretation: The teleological argument or argument of "design" (ex fine), which claims that everything in the Universe follows laws, which must have been created by God : 1)All natural bodies follow laws of conduct. 2)These objects are themselves unintelligent. 3)Laws of conduct are characteristic of intelligence. C)Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that created the laws for all natural bodies. This being is whom we call God. argument from degree 1)Varying perfections of varying degrees may be found throughout the universe. 2)These degrees assume the existence of an ultimate standard of perfection. 3)Therefore, perfection must have a pinnacle. C)This pinnacle is whom we call God. first cause argument - cosmological 1)Some things are caused. 2)Everything that is caused is caused by something else. 3)An infinite regress of causation is impossible. 4)Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused. C)This causer is what we call God. unmoved mover 1)Some things are in motion. 2)A thing cannot, in the same respect and in the same way, move itself: it requires a mover. 3)An infinite regress of movers is impossible. 4)Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds. C)This mover is what we call God. Anslem's ontological argument 1)Assume God does not exist. 2)'God' is defined as "that than which no greater can be conceived" 3)"That than which no greater can be conceived" must therefore not exist. (from 1 & 2) 4)"That than which no greater can be conceived" exists only in imagination, not in reality. (from 2 & 5)If "that than which no greater can be conceived" were to exist in reality as well as in imagination, it would be even "greater". 6)But that would mean "That than which no greater can be conceived" is not "that than which no greater can be conceived". ( From 4&5) 7)"That than which no greater can be conceived" must exist in imagination and also exist in reality for it to be the greatest thing conceivable. 8)That means 'God' both does and does not exist (from 1 & 7). 9)Premise 1 cannot be true (reductio ad absurdum) C)'God' exists. Edit:added WLC's arguments William Lane Craig's 5 arguments 1. The Cosmological Argument from Contingency 1)The cosmological argument comes in a variety of forms. Here’s a simple version of the famous version from contingency: 2)Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. 3)If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. 4)The universe exists. 5)Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3). C)Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4). 2. The Kalam Cosmological Argument Based on the Beginning of the Universe Here’s a different version of the cosmological argument, which I have called the kalam cosmological argument in honor of its medieval Muslim proponents (kalam is the Arabic word for theology): 1)Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2)The universe began to exist. 3)Therefore, the universe has a cause. 3. The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties 1)If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. 2)Objective moral values and duties do exist. C)Therefore, God exists. Teleological argument 1)The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. 2)It is not due to physical necessity or chance. C)Therefore, it is due to design. The ontological argument 1)It is possible that a maximally great being exists. 2)If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3)If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4)If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5)If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists. C)Therefore, a maximally great being exists. Immediate experience He asserts that you can know that God exists , merely from experiencing God Resurrection argument We have claims that Jesus rose from the dead If Jesus rised from the dead then we have a divine miracle on our hands thus evidence of a God existing evidence to support it: There are four historical facts which must be explained by any adequate historical hypothesis: o Jesus’ burial o the discovery of his empty tomb o his post-mortem appearances o the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.
Thomas Aquinas Cosmological argument contingency. contingency is defined as by webster " dependent on or conditioned by something else." Contingent - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary This already assumes that something is necessary , therefore it is circular. Furthermore, it falls short on proving God's existence, since a non-contingent being doesn't necessarily have to be an infinitely powerful being or has a consciousness.
The teleological argument or argument from "design" (ex fine), which claims that many things in the Universe possess final causes that must be directed by God: 1)All natural bodies in the world act towards ends. 2)These objects are in themselves unintelligent. 3)Acting towards an end is characteristic of intelligence. C)Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural bodies towards their ends. This being is whom we call God. Premise one isn't proven, we don't know if the universe(a natural body) has an ending. A rock is a natural body and to say it acts implies it acts towards and ending implies it has a consciousness. Alternative interpretation: The teleological argument or argument of "design" (ex fine), which claims that everything in the Universe follows laws, which must have been created by God : 1)All natural bodies follow laws of conduct. 2)These objects are themselves unintelligent. 3)Laws of conduct are characteristic of intelligence. C)Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that created the laws for all natural bodies. This being is whom we call God. by laws of conduct he probably means like natural laws of physics. He is using the fallacy of equivocation. These natural laws are not laws like in the judiciary system , but more like physical patterns we notice always takes place.
i've never really seen a logical/philosophical argument for god. it generally gets too religious, i guess. very cool
first cause argument - cosmological 1)Some things are caused. 2)Everything that is caused is caused by something else. 3)An infinite regress of causation is impossible. 4)Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused. C)This causer is what we call God. 3- We don't know if an infinite regress is impossible. C) The first cause doesn't show us that there is a sentient being , so it would prove that the first cause is a uncaused natural force. This proves pantheism. The problem with pantheism is that the word god is unjustifiable , when we can simply call it the universe. unmoved mover 1)Some things are in motion. 2)A thing cannot, in the same respect and in the same way, move itself: it requires a mover. 3)An infinite regress of movers is impossible. 4)Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds. C)This mover is what we call God. 3) same mistake as above. this unmoved mover(God) is special pleading since on 2 it says things can't move itself,so it requires a mover, so the fact that there is an unmoved mover contradicts it.
argument from degree 1)Varying perfections of varying degrees may be found throughout the universe. 2)These degrees assume the existence of an ultimate standard of perfection. 3)Therefore, perfection must have a pinnacle. C)This pinnacle is whom we call God. The term perfection is merely a concept and what is perfect is subjective. Also assuming if there is objectively a standard concept for perfect, we do not know if there actually exist a pinnacle of perfection , because there is a limitation of our perception and our concept could be wrong. Anslem's ontological argument 1)Assume God does not exist. 2)'God' is defined as "that than which no greater can be conceived" 3)"That than which no greater can be conceived" must therefore not exist. (from 1 & 2) 4)"That than which no greater can be conceived" exists only in imagination, not in reality. (from 2 & 1) 5)If "that than which no greater can be conceived" were to exist in reality as well as in imagination, it would be even "greater". 6)But that would mean "That than which no greater can be conceived" is not "that than which no greater can be conceived". ( From 4&5) 7)"That than which no greater can be conceived" must exist in imagination and also exist in reality for it to be the greatest thing conceivable. 8)That means 'God' both does and does not exist (from 1 & 7). 9)Premise 1 cannot be true (reductio ad absurdum) C)'God' exists. 5- Kant questioned whether existence is a property. Anselm asserts existence like it's a property When you're trying to assert that something exist you're saying that there is this substance with a set of properties exist. Let's think of an apple, It's round red and has a stem, to say that it exist adds nothing to it's properties , because it's the same thing the concept of the apple remains unchanged. whew that was exhausting. edit: on 7 "That than which no greater can be conceived" is concluded as A God with the properties of existence, however on premise 2 he uses the same definition, therefore making it circular. It's basically saying "I define unicorns as a horse with one horn that exists, therefore it exists." When we're trying to prove something exists, we prove that a thing with a certain set of properties exist. Also, if on premise 2 people may define the universe as no greater thing that can exist, leading to pantheism, as stated before the word god is unjustifiable.
For all intelligence on this debate, we should move from gods to just God. 'God' is defined as "that than which no greater can be conceived" & (Section 1) that is because It/God is enlightened to the highest possible point. People who say we are God because we hold the power to determine the fate of our-self's are wrong because they have not understood section 1. Start with the base belief that nothing should exist or ever had have existed & go from there. - Komatic
P. An infinite regress has an infinite number of past events. P. An infinite number is self-contradictory P. The universe cannot have an infinite number of past events C. Therefore the universe is finite
we are all a god in our own right. I make this universe for myself every waking moment.. I am the creator of my universe. Prove me wrong.
You think you can elaborate on how P2 follows from P1? I read that the problem with infinite regress is that there is a limited amount of information , so there is a limited amount of premises, so therefore the premises repeat and thus making it circular. I'd like to know why it's self-contradictory. edit: new arguments added.
Immediate experience This is an easy one. The person could be delusional and hallucinating. It does not pinpoint,which God, indicated that majority of people's experiences are mistaken given that there are an infinite possibility of Gods. 3. The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties 1)If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. 2)Objective moral values and duties do exist. C)Therefore, God exists. It does not follow that if God exist moral values and duties exist , because if he is an apathetic God, morality and duties do not exist. Also Objective morality does not need a God, because if we define morality the well-being for all conscious creatures. What ever system leads to the well-being can be considered objectively moral if you follow Sam Harris' moral landscape. Teleological argument 1)The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. 2)It is not due to physical necessity or chance. C)Therefore, it is due to design. 2) Physical necessity exists under the metaphysical realm of metaphysics and dualism. If there is fine tuning it seems like it's been done by an evil ,clumsy or apathetic God. You can look at how dead the universe is and how many species gone extinct,droughts ,disease and many more problems that does not make it seem optimum for life. I'm not a physicist , but according to quantum mechanics chance is a possibility. Big Bounce - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia There is also the theory of the big bounce, where the universe is in a cycle. So if there are a larger number of resets at an astronomical proportion, then it's possible that there are variations of how the universe is arranged and,so the illusion of finely tuned could appear. Furthermore, we know that organic life is not finely tuned , but is built through evolution. Resurrection argument We have historical claims that Jesus rose from the dead If Jesus rised from the dead then we have a divine miracle on our hands thus evidence of a God existing evidence to support it: There are four historical facts which must be explained by any adequate historical hypothesis: o Jesus' burial o the discovery of his empty tomb o his post-mortem appearances o the origin of the disciples' belief in his resurrection. for an elaboration on the facts see here: Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith First of all, if Jesus existed , it's more likely that he was either in a comma or had a look alike die(or to replace him). secondly, The empty tomb could be explained by someone sneaking him out. Or he sneaked out thirdly, it's using the bible, making it circular. Fourthly, a Resurrection isn't necessary a miracle (divine intervention), It's more likely there is something we don't understand about the human body. Fifth, Jesus could be a magician,which doesn't necessarily prove there is a God. based on occam's razor the existence of magic is more likely Sixthly, the bible is an unreliable source,due to editing and mistranslated and the fact that it was written 30 years after his death.
Infinite regress is to say our particular universe came from a multiverse which came from a super multiverse etc. An infinite number of past events. That is to explain the universe naturalistically, positing an infinite regress to address the ex nihilo problem. The problem arrises then, that infinities dont exist and an infinite number is self contradictory. Something that can in theory be counted, is a number or can be numbered. An infinity is a concept with no value or quantity, it cannot be numbered or quantified. When in the river did this universe show up when the river is unless? Halfway between the beginningless beginning and the endless end? I hope that sheds some light as to what i meant.
First of all, if Jesus existed , it's more likely that he was either in a comma or had a look alike die(or to replace him).do any historians actually question his existence anymore? then you claim to know that if he existed it would be more probable that he was in a coma or had a lookalike die? Where did you get this? secondly, The empty tomb could be explained by someone sneaking him out. Or he sneaked out the empty tomb could be explained by him sneaking out or by a ufo abduction. Rather than speculate, follow the evidence. What do the scholars say? thirdly, it's using the bible, making it circular. what is circular? We are talking about god(s) not the bible. You were using resurrection as an argument for god, not as an argument for the bible, so thats not circular. Fourthly, a Resurrection isn't necessary a miracle (divine intervention), It's more likely there is something we don't understand about the human body. if resurrecting from the dead after 3 days isnt a miracle then nothing is. Not sure how you can say which is more likely either. Fifth, Jesus could be a magician,which doesn't necessarily prove there is a God. based on occam's razor the existence of magic is more likely that is a misuse of occams razor. It is to say essentially, prefer simpler theories as opposed to unecessarily complicated ones. Its also a rule of thumb not a law. I know of no magic that permits self resurrection or immunity to crucifiction. Sixthly, the bible is an unreliable source,due to editing and mistranslated and the fact that it was written 30 years after his death. again historians dont consider the bible an unreliable historical document. Furthermore, the Bible is a document of correlated writings that support each other.mistranslations can be dealt with by reading it in its original text which historians do. Furthermore yet, biblical accuracy isnt what the argument attempts to establish. i hope someone else cant go through the rest of these arguments, it is difficult on a cellphone.
It's interesting that if it is true that infinities do not exist, then it's impossible for God to exist, since he's in theory an infinite being. an interesting overview of infinites Does infinity exist? | plus.maths.org "Similarly, the list of all the rational numbers, that is all the fractions, is a countable infinity. The way to count those systematically is to add the numerator and the denominator, and then first write down all the fractions for which this sum is 2 (there is only one, 1/1), then all the ones for which it is 3 (1/2 and 2/1), and so on. Each time you are counting only a finite number of fractions (the number of fractions p/q where p+q=n is n-1). This is an infallible recipe for counting all the rational numbers: you won't miss any. This shows that the rational numbers are countable too, even though in an intuitive sense there seem to be lots more of them than there are natural numbers." "Actual infinity is the idea that numbers, or some other type of mathematical object, can form an actual, completed totality; namely, a set. Hence, in the philosophy of mathematics, the abstraction of actual infinity involves the acceptance of infinite entities, such as the set of all natural numbers or an infinite sequence of rational numbers, as given objects." Actual infinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia So maybe what we're interested is physical infinities. in Particle physics you can get infinite answers after adding a finite amount to an answer. When you subtract off the infinite you get the predicted answer.This is called renormilisation. Of course phycisits find this unsatisfactory and ,which seems to be the reason why string theory seems appealing ,since it offers a finite set. Cosmological infinites Einstein's relativity in the big bang would predict an finite density and a finite past ( ,which obviously contradicts an infinite past). an interesting discussion, but most of it goes over my head. Is the universe finite or infinite? It seems like it's fairly inconclusive,so far,but also seems like most mathematicians and physicist despise infinite and treat it like a flaw in the model used.
it all really comes down to pascals wager, which has it's flaws... But essentially which way would you rather be wrong? Believing in no god and burning hell for eternity, or believing in god and there is no afterlife?
That's why i believe in Zeus, so just in case im right and he is the greatest lord, i wont be fucked. I also believe in krishna, Quetzalcoatl, Ahura Mazda, Unumbotte and every other god that anyone has ever believed in. But no no, your pascals wager that only accounts for the possibility of one god in one faith system to exist is probably a safe bet
I disagree, this is a false dichotomy, there are an infinite choices of Gods and many of them won't allow other Gods or require an individual to live a certain lifestyle and live by a set strict moral code that are mutually exclusive of each other.Furthermore, there are an infinte number of interpretations of each God , hence the infinte number of sects in each religion. So with an infinite choice, you are statistically likely to get screwed over. Also That God(s) , must be terribly stupid to be fooled by an individual that pretends to believe. If there is a God, the moment you make the wager you lose. Pascal says that going to mass and praying will dull your mind. Who the hell want's a dull their mind? And the problem with this is that, most would lose interest. Can you truly believe in something ,while knowing you're doing as an insurance? I doubt it. If a God exist we do not know his nature, therefore we do not know the consequences of our actions. Thus, this wager is only useful if:1) We know God's nature;2) We know the requirements;3)God isn't stupid to be fooled by a pretend belief. Also This isn't even an argument for proving God's existence. edit if you're interested here's a good video breaking it down. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU[/ame]
1. The Cosmological Argument from Contingency The cosmological argument comes in a variety of forms. Here's a simple version of the famous version from contingency: 1)Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. 2)If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. 3)The universe exists. 4)Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3). C)Therefore, the explanation of the universe's existence is God (from 2, 4). If there is a cause for the universe it doesn't necessarily have to be a God and it's impossible for anything to exist if there is no universe, since the universe is defined by everything that exists. it would be considered special pleading. premise 2: saying God did it is not an explanation, otherwise what cause God to exist? and if he always existed we could say the universe always existed due to its nature as said in premise 1. 2. The Kalam Cosmological Argument Based on the Beginning of the Universe Here's a different version of the cosmological argument, which I have called the kalam cosmological argument in honor of its medieval Muslim proponents (kalam is the Arabic word for theology): 1)Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2)The universe began to exist. 3)Therefore, the universe has a cause. Premise 2:We don't know if the universe began to exist, this is still up to debate among the scientific community. Conculsion: falls short on pinpointing the source of the cause. Also the "cause" on premise 1 is the scientific cause of cause and effect where time is needed. Time did not "before" the universe so the "cause" in the conclusion must therefore be a different kind sense,therefore an equivocation fallacy. If they are the same causes then it's invalid since a cause and effect is not possible with no time. edit: The ontological argument 1)It is possible that a maximally great being exists. 2)If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3)If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4)If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5)If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists. C)Therefore, a maximally great being exists. 2) assumes there is a multiverse of some sort, we do not know this, making this proof inconclusive. And when we say it's possible it doesn't mean it actually exists in another world, even if there is a multiverse. There could be certain overlaps on all universe and the "maximal being" being one of them. Also if we accept this argument , then I could think of contradictory concepts and that human's have a limited knowledge, so we can never say anything is impossible , therefore making it "possible". I can say I can think of an object that deletes this certain maximal in all worlds, therefore maximal do not exist.
Nice summation! And ive heard the same thing regarding the last sentence. And as far as i am aware, them 'accepting' infinities is to say they 'deal' with them in such a way that they can actually work with them. I would think by attributing some value to it, which would explain how they get answers when subtracting from an infinity. And im curious that you brought up the infinite god problem. You cited both sam harris and WLC, have you not checked out their debate? I think it was sometime last year, anyway, someone in q&a posed that problem to WLC and was adequately answered (in my opinion).