Most convincing argument for the existence of God?

[belorg]

Also i would love a link or your explanation of why the KC argument fails. Ive seen attempted refutations, but all of them have been on the basis of misunderstanding Craig’s argument. They didnt refute the KC they refuted their misunderstanding of the KC. Matt Dillahunty and the atheist experience, for example, fell into this error.

Will my refutation do?

Here it is.

A God who is infinite, omniscient, necessary, eternal etc cannot start anything, for the simple reason that to start something requires time. God would need time in order to start time. IOW if the KCA is correct then time would have to exist both logically prior and logically posterior to God’s creative act. But that is logically impossible.

 

[samiam1611]

What, in your opinion, is the most convincing argument and why?

A few examples are the classical arguments such as Aquinas’ cosmological arugment or the 5 ways, Descartes’ ontological argument, The many different versions of the teleological argument, The fine-tuning argument, Intelligent design argument, Kant’s moral argument, CS Lewis’ argument from reason etc.
There are many other examples that I haven’t listed, feel free to put them down too.

No arguments have convinced me, I am an atheist. But some arguments are better than others. Since joining CAF, some of those arguments have made me think about how it’s possible there is a god, but if there is, what can be known about it?

I don’t know exactly what the name of the argument I find most convincing is, but it’s one of those you listed I guess. The first cause, cosmological type of stuff.

What started the Big Bang? Could that be God? I think the Big Bang was a natural event, not supernatural, but natural in a different way. Like how space is different than here. I mean way way way outer space in the way way way past. Gravity is different there, and you’ve got dark matter and dark energy and all that stuff.

I read an interesting sentence on Wikipedia the other day: “Surveys of galaxy motions have detected a mystery dark flow towards an unseen mass.”

I think God could be that unseen mass. Or God could be like gravity, like a force. I have these ideas floating around in my mind relating to what I have read about pandeism and the Big Bang - like God was the gravitational singularity, and blew up and became the universe.

I have never heard anything that makes me think it’s possible for there to be a personal immaterial God. My perception of reality tells me that is impossible. :whacky:
You can’t have personal[ity] without material. Unless I experience a different reality, no argument will change my mind. In any case, the arguments don’t address how someOne can think and plan and design and exist if it is not made of something!

There is no way for there to be a God unless God is the universe, or God was the universe before it was the universe as we know it (i.e. before the Big Bang) and now God is either non-existent or spread out throughout the universe like dark energy or something.

 

[Drinkgasoline]

No arguments have convinced me, I am an atheist. But some arguments are better than others. Since joining CAF, some of those arguments have made me think about how it’s possible there is a god, but if there is, what can be known about it?

I don’t know exactly what the name of the argument I find most convincing is, but it’s one of those you listed I guess. The first cause, cosmological type of stuff.

What started the Big Bang? Could that be God? I think the Big Bang was a natural event, not supernatural, but natural in a different way. Like how space is different than here. I mean way way way outer space in the way way way past. Gravity is different there, and you’ve got dark matter and dark energy and all that stuff.

I read an interesting sentence on Wikipedia the other day: “Surveys of galaxy motions have detected a mystery dark flow towards an unseen mass.”

I think God could be that unseen mass. Or God could be like gravity, like a force. I have these ideas floating around in my mind relating to what I have read about pandeism and the Big Bang - like God was the gravitational singularity, and blew up and became the universe.

I have never heard anything that makes me think it’s possible for there to be a personal immaterial God. My perception of reality tells me that is impossible. :whacky:
You can’t have personal[ity] without material. Unless I experience a different reality, no argument will change my mind. In any case, the arguments don’t address how someOne can think and plan and design and exist if it is not made of something!

There is no way for there to be a God unless God is the universe, or God was the universe before it was the universe as we know it (i.e. before the Big Bang) and now God is either non-existent or spread out throughout the universe like dark energy or something.

I do like your logical open-mindedness and indeed the concept of a cosmological God is the basis before the development of the concept of a personal God.

Your last paragraph points towards Einstein’s idea of God, the ever-present God whose presence permeates the universe and in fact is the universe.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

The debate is not whether God can be conceived as a necessary being because conceivability does not equal logical possibility… The fact that you think they are equal proves that you do not understand modal logic and the reason why the OA convinces you is because you do not understand it.

Numbers are necessary beings because you cannot imagine any possible world without numbers. Same with logic. These entities are an example of mind and I would argue that these principles, though eternally existing, cannot exist apart from a mind. Logic, for example, is the very foundation for thinking. There must be a necessary mind in which these necessary entities exist… or how else would they or could they exist? This is basically the Transcendental Argument. I do accept your correction on my use of the word conceive.

I must admit I was wrong in placing the word necessary in Plantinga’s argument the way I did. I remember the argument differently. I apologize. However, I still think the argument works. Here’s a syllogism of Plantinga’s argument. Also, If you replace maximal greatness with necessary it still works. I don’t see why this argument does not work. The only way it would not work is if some one were to disagree with premise 3. One would have to give reason for why this is not possible though.

1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
   3 )It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness.
3. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
4. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

I’ll copy past my reply to empther here

A God who is infinite, omniscient, necessary, eternal etc cannot start anything, for the simple reason that to start something requires time. And since you claim (and I granted this FTSOTA) that time started, God would need time in order to start time. IOW if the KCA (or your version of it) is correct then time would have to exist both logically prior and logically posterior to God’s creative act. But that is logically impossible.

1. To start something does require time, which means when God started it time began. God could exist as a singularity, being complete and lacking nothing. This presents Einsteins question though of whether it would be possible for God to have not created the Universe… which if is the case, it would be an incomprehensible mode of existence, but not inconceivable and therefore possible.
2. Even if time is eternal and necessary, we still have the dilemma of events. For if time were necessary, the events that take place in time could have happen any number of ways, therefore events are not necessary but contingent. If time is eternal in the past… we still fall into this contingency problem, unless one would argue that God exists at all times at once, but that’s further than I’d be willing to go.

Admitting this becomes complex and we hit somewhat of a wall. And yet it would seem time must have began to exist (for if time was eternally in the past we would have never reached this current point in time). How does time begin to exist? Something transcendant of time must cause it. I’m pretty sure WLC has covered this refutation several times actually. It may be on his website.

Thomistic arguments are different arguments, not the same arguments with different formatting. Thomas e.g. has a cosmological argument too.

You have different forms of the Cosmological, different forms of the Ontological, different forms of the teleological, etc. Just because there are a range of subtle differences does not mean they cannot fall into a genre of argument. In my original post all I meant to say is that when the Cosmological, teleological, Ontological, Moral, Transcendental, etc are looked at together as a mesh they strengthen one another and support each other. Some objections to one argument might be answered by another argument.

This has nothing to do with science. What is e.g; the logical connection between a green light flashing at position X and a car crashing at position Y?
As long as it has not been established what exactly the conncetion is between God willen X and X occurring, God’s will is not an explanantion. Since my willing something does not make it so, you’ll have to argue why God’s will is an exception. And just thrwoing in words like omnipotence won’t do it. I am asking for arguments, not assertions.

It’s not Science it is philosophy. I guarantee that I cannot tell you exactly how God created the Universe, what method He used, how He interacted with it, etc. That is besides the point. Just because I do not know or cannot show exactly how God created the Universe does not mean I cannot show through logical deduction that God (being a supreme being, we do not even have to go so far as to say which God) would be necessary in the equation. I agree that we should support scientific inquiry into how the Universe was formed, but I am saying that we can show that there needs to be a creator without showing how that creator created. I do not see science and philosophy as incompatible, however philosopher’s should do their job and scientists do theirs. They handle physics, not metaphysics, but often times overstep their bounds.

No, all I have to show is that it is not impossible that the natural world must exist. That folows from the OA.

1. I don’t think you have shown that
2. This does not work with the OA for the same reason Gaunillo’s objection to Anselm failed. The OA argues that God must necessarily exist. You cannot show that with the natural world because the natural world has shown itself to be contingent.

My objection is that God cannot be proven to be a necessary being, and at leats one prominent christian philospher agrees with me. That means that God as a logically necessary being is NOT uncontroversial. If you say it ‘logically follows’ you are asserting things.

I honestly have no idea what Swinburne meant by that, I’ll look it up later. However, it does logically follow. All of the major arguments for God are logically valid, thus they logically follow. The only thing up for debate is the truth of the premises.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Will my refutation do?

Here it is.

A God who is infinite, omniscient, necessary, eternal etc cannot start anything, for the simple reason that to start something requires time. God would need time in order to start time. IOW if the KCA is correct then time would have to exist both logically prior and logically posterior to God’s creative act. But that is logically impossible.

reasonablefaith.org/time-and-the-kalam-cosmological-argument

 

[JDaniel]

No arguments have convinced me, I am an atheist.

Sam:

I was an atheist too, for a long time. In retrospect, I realize that I did little or nothing, during that time, to advance my intelligence except in the areas of my particular specialty - which was not Cosmology. But, then came a day that I found a 40 year old copy of the Summa in a volume of the Great Books of the Western World and got curious. I re-read St. Thomas’ proofs, then put the book back. His ideas stayed in the nether reaches of my mind until I found another old college book and began re-reading it. I had remembered that this latter book discussed, in some detail, those proofs. That’s when I discovered I had previously been in the dark. Shortly afterwords, I emerged into the light.

But some arguments are better than others. Since joining CAF, some of those arguments have made me think about how it’s possible there is a god, but if there is, what can be known about it?

Good point. I went through that same thing. I recognized that the existence of “a” god was undeniable, but what sort of “god” I didn’t know. Over time, God became more and more “personal” to me. It only took years of additional thinking and reading.

I don’t know exactly what the name of the argument I find most convincing is, but it’s one of those you listed I guess. The first cause, cosmological type of stuff.

A good one. St. Thomas’ second proof. The proof from efficient causality. All things require an Efficient Cause. Nothing can cause itself, otherwise it wold be prior to itself. (Imagine you bringing yourself into being.) But, St. Thomas goes on to say that all caused things (everything, therefore) have an immediate prior efficient cause, and perhaps many more remote, middle efficient causes. Now, if you take away a cause, there would be no result. (Think of, for example, one of your grand parents dying prior to the conception of your mom or dad.) But, that is effectively what you are doing if you replace a chain of middle causes that is finite in length with one that is infinite in length. There are no segments to infinity. There are no portions of infinity. There is no finite duration, no matter how long, that is comparable - even proportionately - to infinity. Infinity is not a number. There is only God who is Infinite. Infinity is an abstraction that we speak of when we talk about God, or when we talk speculative mathematics, which is another form of abstracting.

One of the most important things to remember is that the cause must be related, which is the same as saying, “essentially subordinated.” IOW, if we take away one of my grandparents, it would have no effect on you coming to be - unless we shared grand parents and, thus, would have been related. So, a causal chain must make sense. Not only should the causes be subordinated, but they must also be essentially related to all of the other causes in the chain.

You see, it’s not that difficult to comprehend. And, it’s impossible to refute. All of the supposed refutations that I’ve ever seen are stupid. There’s just no other word for them.

What started the Big Bang? Could that be God? I think the Big Bang was a natural event, not supernatural, but natural in a different way.

This has to be thought through. One has to study the physics of the Big Bang. It’s not as though one can walk up a street at dusk, notice a large, dark shape, sitting at a distance, in the middle of the road, and say to one’s self, "That’s a ‘dog’. Until it moves, it could be anything. If one were to turn left or right, one would never know and the object would remain mysterious. If one really wants to know, one must proceed forward and either confront the object up close, or, in some other way, get it to move.

Like how space is different than here. I mean way way way outer space in the way way way past. Gravity is different there

Actually ‘gravity’ is pretty much the same everywhere. It may exert more or less force because the nearby objects are larger or smaller. But, because one car costs more to buy than another, does not mean that it is not a ‘car’.

and you’ve got dark matter and dark energy and all that stuff.

These are the theories.

I read an interesting sentence on Wikipedia the other day: “Surveys of galaxy motions have detected a mystery dark flow towards an unseen mass.”

I think God could be that unseen mass. Or God could be like gravity, like a force. I have these ideas floating around in my mind relating to what I have read about and the Big Bang - like God was the gravitational singularity, and blew up and became the universe.

Good. You haven’t given up learning yet - as too many have. If you are still in school, you would do well to take some mathematics and at least one physics class.

I have never heard anything that makes me think it’s possible for there to be a personal immaterial God. My perception of reality tells me that is impossible. You can’t have personal[ity] without material.

Why? Do rocks have ‘personalities’?

Unless I experience a different reality, no argument will change my mind. In any case, the arguments don’t address how some One can think and plan and design and exist if it is not made of something!

There are plenty of theories - enough to go around. One of the oldest is that there are two co-existing realms: the physical realm and the spiritual realm. Obviously, they would be very different, if for no other reason than by virtue of their names. By virtue of their names, one might even think that they are very different. How different is up to us to discern.

There is no way for there to be a God unless God is the universe, or God was the universe before it was the universe as we know it (i.e. before the Big Bang) and now God is either non-existent or spread out throughout the universe like dark energy or something.

You might want to read some of this. Pay attention particularly to Yppop’s posts.

I’m not trying to convert you. I’m asking you to keep thinking and learning. Only you can convert yourself. Anyway, this subject is fascinating, don’t you think?

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

Numbers are necessary beings because you cannot imagine any possible world without numbers. Same with logic. These entities are an example of mind and I would argue that these principles, though eternally existing, cannot exist apart from a mind. Logic, for example, is the very foundation for thinking. There must be a necessary mind in which these necessary entities exist… or how else would they or could they exist? This is basically the Transcendental Argument. I do accept your correction on my use of the word conceive.

It is actually basically the conceptualist argument. I am convinced that that argument is self-defeating. But I am not giong to go into that here.

I must admit I was wrong in placing the word necessary in Plantinga’s argument the way I did. I remember the argument differently. I apologize. However, I still think the argument works. Here’s a syllogism of Plantinga’s argument. Also, If you replace maximal greatness with necessary it still works. I don’t see why this argument does not work. The only way it would not work is if some one were to disagree with premise 3. One would have to give reason for why this is not possible though.

1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
   3 )It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness.
3. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
4. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

3 can be translated as ‘it is possibel that a being has maximal **possible **greatness’, which makes 3 tautological and actually meaningless. Eveery OA can be rephrased this way, that’s why every OA fails.

1. To start something does require time, which means when God started it time began.

If it requires time to start time, then time is causally prior to God’s act of creating time, which si obviously contradictory

1. Even if time is eternal and necessary, we still have the dilemma of events. For if time were necessary, the events that take place in time could have happen any number of ways, therefore events are not necessary but contingent. If time is eternal in the past… we still fall into this contingency problem, unless one would argue that God exists at all times at once, but that’s further than I’d be willing to go.

If time is eternal and necessary, the KCA fails anyway.

Admitting this becomes complex and we hit somewhat of a wall. And yet it would seem time must have began to exist (for if time was eternally in the past we would have never reached this current point in time).

That is simply false.

How does time begin to exist? Something transcendant of time must cause it. I’m pretty sure WLC has covered this refutation several times actually. It may be on his website.

Actually he hasn’t. He thinks he has but he does not even seem to fully understand the objection. He thinks he can refute t it by making silly claims like ‘a man sitting down from eternity but willing from eternity to get up, can get up’.

You have different forms of the Cosmological, different forms of the Ontological, different forms of the teleological, etc. Just because there are a range of subtle differences does not mean they cannot fall into a genre of argument. In my original post all I meant to say is that when the Cosmological, teleological, Ontological, Moral, Transcendental, etc are looked at together as a mesh they strengthen one another and support each other. Some objections to one argument might be answered by another argument.

I can refute every single one of those.

It’s not Science it is philosophy. I guarantee that I cannot tell you exactly how God created the Universe, what method He used, how He interacted with it, etc. That is besides the point.

That’s not what I am asking. All I am asking is for you and other theists to show one connection between God’s will of X and the occurence of X. So far, there is none. All I have ever heard is assertions. There just seems to be no logical connection between a will and an event.

but I am saying that we can show that there needs to be a creator without showing how that creator created.

All I am asking you is to show that the creator created. And that takes much more than merely asserting that God willed X and X occurred.

1. This does not work with the OA for the same reason Gaunillo’s objection to Anselm failed. The OA argues that God must necessarily exist. You cannot show that with the natural world because the natural world has shown itself to be contingent.

No, Plantinga’s OA argues from possible necessary existence. And this has nothing to do with Gaunilo’s objection which BTW properly understood does not fail.

I honestly have no idea what Swinburne meant by that, I’ll look it up later. However, it does logically follow. All of the major arguments for God are logically valid, thus they logically follow. The only thing up for debate is the truth of the premises.

Most of the arguments are logically valid, but that does not mean anything, what matters is, as you say, the truth of the premoses. And you ccannot prove the truth of your premises.

 

[belorg]

reasonablefaith.org/time-and-the-kalam-cosmological-argument

I have read this Q and A and it does not refute my objection at all.

 

[padrepio_2012]

Man ur all missing the point. Ur all trying to use science so much to prove there’s a God that I think u missed the mark. Ur going sooo deep inti science and thought that ur concentrating to much on the science and physics and it’s honestly ridiculous and a waste of time. If u conccentrate too much on the science of proving theres a God or not a God ur not going to find Him cuz ur to absorbed in the process of finding Him. Like the kca and all that stuff whats that got to do with God? Yes i believe we can find God through science and reason a.d theres been no scientific finding that has ever proved there isnt a God. If anything science has only strengthened the argument that He doees exist. But to the atheists out there who say there’s no God and want to know how to prove there iis one: pray to Him and ask Him if He’s there He’ll respond to you if your hearts really open. I’ve done my fair search of trying to find God through reason and science. In the end I realized I was being dumb and had gotten so absorbed in the physics I missed the point. He was there all along. Ik this is hard for non believers to comprehend but I hope n pray for the conversion of atheists

 

[Drinkgasoline]

Man ur all missing the point. Ur all trying to use science so much to prove there’s a God that I think u missed the mark. Ur going sooo deep inti science and thought that ur concentrating to much on the science and physics and it’s honestly ridiculous and a waste of time. If u conccentrate too much on the science of proving theres a God or not a God ur not going to find Him cuz ur to absorbed in the process of finding Him. Like the kca and all that stuff whats that got to do with God? Yes i believe we can find God through science and reason a.d theres been no scientific finding that has ever proved there isnt a God. If anything science has only strengthened the argument that He doees exist. But to the atheists out there who say there’s no God and want to know how to prove there iis one: pray to Him and ask Him if He’s there He’ll respond to you if your hearts really open. I’ve done my fair search of trying to find God through reason and science. In the end I realized I was being dumb and had gotten so absorbed in the physics I missed the point. He was there all along. Ik this is hard for non believers to comprehend but I hope n pray for the conversion of atheists

Perhaps if you spell correctly and use paragraphs people would take you more seriously.

Seriously though, you’re not going to convince a non-believer like that, that’s why we have philosophy in the first place.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

It is actually basically the conceptualist argument. I am convinced that that argument is self-defeating. But I am not giong to go into that here.

You’re right, thank you for the correction. I do not see how it is self-defeating, but I won’t try to get you to go into it here, because honestly this debate is running long.

3 can be translated as ‘it is possible that a being has maximal **possible **greatness’, which makes 3 tautological and actually meaningless. Eveery OA can be rephrased this way, that’s why every OA fails.

Of course it can be tautological if you rephrase it to be tautological, but that is just a matter of rhetoric. To be honest, I think premise 4 could be phrased better, but the argument still follows. The point of any OA is to show that, when properly understood and defined, God cannot be thought to not exist. In theory that does not necessarily mean God exist just because you cannot think otherwise. What it does show is that God, when properly understood and defined, is like mathematics or logic in that you would be unable to think them nonexistent. This would make God a necessary entity.

If it requires time to start time, then time is causally prior to God’s act of creating time, which si obviously contradictory

Sorry, let me rephrase that. It does not require time to start time in the since that time must come prior. What I was saying is when God created time began. Time is used to measure moments, the travel through space and speed. A—>B is time. However, if there is only A time does not exist because there is no relation. A= God (Or God and His will to create I suppose you could say) and B=Creation. When A—>B Time began. The only debatable thing about this is whether this is an accurate definition of time or if God could exist as A in singularity until creating.

If time is eternal and necessary, the KCA fails anyway.

If time is eternal you are correct. The problem is if time is truly eternal it creates quite a dilemma for both the naturalist and the super-naturalist. It’s simply problematic if you ask me. It also falls into a problem of infinite regress as it concerns events.

That is simply false.

-_- I hate when people can’t see why eternal time would be so problematic being an issue of infinite regression. Even if the past, present, and future all existed simultaneously at one time eternally, we still have the problem of infinite regress of events and the fact that it is tremendously counter-intuitive and would undermine any notion of causality (i.e. I hit the glass, thus the glass fell onto the floor. These are causal events, so time would seem to be linear). In any case, we may just agree to disagree.

Actually he hasn’t. He thinks he has but he does not even seem to fully understand the objection. He thinks he can refute t it by making silly claims like ‘a man sitting down from eternity but willing from eternity to get up, can get up’.

Perhaps you misunderstand his refutation. But I will concede it is a wondrous concept to grasp, and a difficult thing to explain and defend. And yet I still believe the supernaturalists has put forth more evidence for supernatural origins than the naturalists have for natural ones. If God does not exist, if there is no creator of the Universe, there must be an alternative explanation. No alternative explanations have been offered. Not even hypothetical ones. This goes back to my claim that nature is insufficient for accounting for its own existence. When an alternative explanation can be offered that does not run into problems of contingency, infinite regresses, or insufficient cause then perhaps the theist will have something else to ponder. You say there is no evidence for God (though I think many atheists unfairly set the standard for the burden of proof) I say naturalism is philosophically in adequate.

I can refute every single one of those.

I can counter-refute all your refutations. Now that may or may not be true, but simply saying it proves nothing. Even if you are able to “refute” all of them, that does not necessarily make your “refutation” sound (you could be misunderstanding the argument or it could simply be irrelevant) or your objection could be countered.

That’s not what I am asking. All I am asking is for you and other theists to show one connection between God’s will of X and the occurence of X. So far, there is none. All I have ever heard is assertions. There just seems to be no logical connection between a will and an event.

Well I think there is an obvious connection between a will and event, but I understand what you are saying. Shot, I’ll give it to you, I think it would be very perplexing how a eternal, divine mind could will something into existence using will or “mental” capabilities alone. I have a few off the bat ideas, but I’ll keep them to myself for now and formulate them. All I will say is if God is a mind, or something like unto a mind, such a mind would greatly exceed our own or any we have come in contact with. Perhaps with such a mind willing things into being is possible. That’s a stretch, I know, but I just thought I might as well put it out there.

That being said, I am still trying to figure out how naturalism defends the creation of something out of nothing. (this is different from the doctrine of ex nihilo because at least ex nihilo relies on a divine mind. Even then I wonder if ex nihilo was more so a defense against the Aristotelian philosophy of the prime mover). The belief in a static Universe is falling apart, and that would still not defend it against the objection of infinite regression.

All I am asking you is to show that the creator created. And that takes much more than merely asserting that God willed X and X occurred.

The creator created because there is creation and we know that this is a creation because 1) it began to exist, requiring a cause 2) it follows inherent rules, order and principles (Teleo logical, Conceptual, and Transcendental arguments). 1 is how we know that there is a cause (or at least a prime mover) and 2 supports the belief that this cause was/is intelligent. This is inferential and if you deny the inferences, so be it. But do not say inferences are mere assertions, because your assertion of these inferences being an assertion is an assertion. As far as how exactly, I go back to i don’t know.

No, Plantinga’s OA argues from possible necessary existence. And this has nothing to do with Gaunilo’s objection which BTW properly understood does not fail.

1. In true sincerity, I am not trying to say this in a belittling way, but if you think that Gaunilo’s objection works when properly understood, then you have either failed to understand Anselm’s OA or failed to understand Anselm’s counter to Gaunilo. I understand what Guanilo meant and what he was trying to say, but an island which none greater can be thought is different that a being which none greater can be thought. How many palm trees does the perfect highland have? With God we can say he as all knowledge, all power, and that He is omnibenevolent, but what does it mean for an island to have “all palm trees?” Islands are already, by themselves, defined. Therefore, a perfect island would simply that which best fits the definition of an island, but perfection is not in the definition of an island. But God is by Anselm’s definition that which nothing greather can be thought, or that which is most excellent, etc. Therefore, we are not talking about "the perfect God’ but God, which is defined by perfection.

Most of the arguments are logically valid, but that does not mean anything, what matters is, as you say, the truth of the premoses. And you ccannot prove the truth of your premises.

Logical validity is just as important as the truth of the premises. In response, the truth of the premises depends on which premises. If there are certain premises that cannot be proved true, that is not to say they have been disproved either.

I am still waiting for a philosophical explanation for naturalism that better explains what Theists have argued for supernaturalism. Nature cannot explain itself or its order, and it cannot escape the trap of contingency or infinite regression. This is another case of an atheist picking at Theistic arguments without presenting any alternative arguments, let alone convincing ones. If supernaturalism is false atheist should easily be able to give a philosophical scenario where naturalism could be true, since the absence of the supernatural would leave only naturalism. Alas, there is not such an argument. Only counter-arguments that are highly debated.

Finally, if Theism is true, God interacts with creation. If you disagree, that’s fine, but do remember that the scientific method only works on the basis of reoccurring experiences. My experience with God is reoccurring & it is shown to be reliable through logic (or at least shown to no be rational). Unless I am presented with an argument or evidence that blows theism out of the water, I believe I have enough to support my belief in God. This is really just an open ended for you.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What, in your opinion, is the most convincing argument and why?

A few examples are the classical arguments such as Aquinas’ cosmological arugment or the 5 ways, Descartes’ ontological argument, The many different versions of the teleological argument, The fine-tuning argument, Intelligent design argument, Kant’s moral argument, CS Lewis’ argument from reason etc.
There are many other examples that I haven’t listed, feel free to put them down too.

Of course the five ways of Thomas at the intellectual but to understand them you have to be some what fluent in his philosophy. And most people aren’t, even Christians, because it requires some attentive study and perhaps the help of a good Scholastic manual.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church in part 1 of the Creed lists a number of others, all valid. And of course there is the argument from the history of salvation as given in the Scriptures and from Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church. I find these later the most convincing of all.

And the lives of the Saints.

The criteria of judgement as to the value of any of these is not dependent on general acceptance and certainly not on their acceptance by non-believers. Enough will believe to keep the Church going and faithfully so. We have Christ’s word on that. So don’t be alarmed by the loud voices coming from the secularist/humanist/athiest:extrahappy:ic camps. I see they are busy already on your post. Ignore them, " be not afraid. " They want nothing so much intimidate the faithful.

 

[belorg]

Of course it can be tautological if you rephrase it to be tautological, but that is just a matter of rhetoric.

No, it’s not. That’s exactly what premise 3 means. I don’t think an omniscient and omnipotent etc being is possible, so whatever maxiammy great being might exist, it most certainly isn’t omni-whatever. You obviously think differently. But that is the case with and without the OA. That’s why the OA does not add anything at all to the discussion.

The point of any OA is to show that, when properly understood and defined, God cannot be thought to not exist. In theory that does not necessarily mean God exist just because you cannot think otherwise. What it does show is that God, when properly understood and defined, is like mathematics or logic in that you would be unable to think them nonexistent. This would make God a necessary entity.

But the OA fails to do so.

Sorry, let me rephrase that. It does not require time to start time in the since that time must come prior. What I was saying is when God created time began. Time is used to measure moments, the travel through space and speed. A—>B is time. However, if there is only A time does not exist because there is no relation. A= God (Or God and His will to create I suppose you could say) and B=Creation. When A—>B Time began. The only debatable thing about this is whether this is an accurate definition of time or if God could exist as A in singularity until creating.

Since ‘until’ is a temporal marker, the only logical answer to your last question is obviously ‘no’.

If time is eternal you are correct. The problem is if time is truly eternal it creates quite a dilemma for both the naturalist and the super-naturalist. It’s simply problematic if you ask me. It also falls into a problem of infinite regress as it concerns events.

I don’t think time is eternal. That’s why a personal omnipotent creator is logically impossinle.

-_- I hate when people can’t see why eternal time would be so problematic being an issue of infinite regression. Even if the past, present, and future all existed simultaneously at one time eternally, we still have the problem of infinite regress of events and the fact that it is tremendously counter-intuitive and would undermine any notion of causality (i.e. I hit the glass, thus the glass fell onto the floor. These are causal events, so time would seem to be linear). In any case, we may just agree to disagree.

‘Counter-intuitive’ is not the same as impossible. If it were God would most certainly be impossible.

Perhaps you misunderstand his refutation. But I will concede it is a wondrous concept to grasp, and a difficult thing to explain and defend.

I do not misundertand his refutation. and his concept is not wondrous to grasp. His concept is logically impossible;

And yet I still believe the supernaturalists has put forth more evidence for supernatural origins than the naturalists have for natural ones.

That’s another matter/

If God does not exist, if there is no creator of the Universe, there must be an alternative explanation. No alternative explanations have been offered. Not even hypothetical ones.

Have you been living in the jungle for the last couple of decades? There are countless alternative explanantions. But maybe they are ‘too wondrous to grasp’.

This goes back to my claim that nature is insufficient for accounting for its own existence. When an alternative explanation can be offered that does not run into problems of contingency, infinite regresses, or insufficient cause then perhaps the theist will have something else to ponder. You say there is no evidence for God (though I think many atheists unfairly set the standard for the burden of proof) I say naturalism is philosophically in adequate.

Do you even have a proper definition of naturalsim?

I can counter-refute all your refutations. Now that may or may not be true, but simply saying it proves nothing. Even if you are able to “refute” all of them, that does not necessarily make your “refutation” sound (you could be misunderstanding the argument or it could simply be irrelevant) or your objection could be countered.

I already refuted the KCA and Plantinga’s OA. Don’t have time to do them all in this thread.

Well I think there is an obvious connection between a will and event, but I understand what you are saying. Shot, I’ll give it to you, I think it would be very perplexing how a eternal, divine mind could will something into existence using will or “mental” capabilities alone.

It is very perplexing what nature can do.

I have a few off the bat ideas, but I’ll keep them to myself for now and formulate them. All I will say is if God is a mind, or something like unto a mind, such a mind would greatly exceed our own or any we have come in contact with. Perhaps with such a mind willing things into being is possible. That’s a stretch, I know, but I just thought I might as well put it out there.

Minds need bodies to accomplish something. Thiests do not even define ‘powerful’ when it comes to God.

That being said, I am still trying to figure out how naturalism defends the creation of something out of nothing. (this is different from the doctrine of ex nihilo because at least ex nihilo relies on a divine mind. Even then I wonder if ex nihilo was more so a defense against the Aristotelian philosophy of the prime mover). The belief in a static Universe is falling apart, and that would still not defend it against the objection of infinite regression.

You’ll have to do an awful lot of reading, and not just apologetics.

The creator created because there is creation and we know that this is a creation because 1) it began to exist, requiring a cause 2) it follows inherent rules, order and principles (Teleo logical, Conceptual, and Transcendental arguments). 1 is how we know that there is a cause (or at least a prime mover) and 2 supports the belief that this cause was/is intelligent. This is inferential and if you deny the inferences, so be it. But do not say inferences are mere assertions, because your assertion of these inferences being an assertion is an assertion. As far as how exactly, I go back to i don’t know.

This is all fine, but stuill does not answer the question. Is there any sort of connection between the cretor’s will and his creation?

1. In true sincerity, I am not trying to say this in a belittling way, but if you think that Gaunilo’s objection works when properly understood, then you have either failed to understand Anselm’s OA or failed to understand Anselm’s counter to Gaunilo. I understand what Guanilo meant and what he was trying to say, but an island which none greater can be thought is different that a being which none greater can be thought. How many palm trees does the perfect highland have?

All palm trees.

With God we can say he as all knowledge, all power, and that He is omnibenevolent, but what does it mean for an island to have “all palm trees?”

What does it mean for God to have all knowoledge?

Therefore, a perfect island would simply that which best fits the definition of an island, but perfection is not in the definition of an island.

But God is by Anselm’s definition that which nothing greather can be thought, or that which is most excellent, etc. Therefore, we are not talking about "the perfect God’ but God, which is defined by perfection.

Anselm’s point is that something real is greater than something in our mind. Therefore a real perfect island would be greater than an imagined perfect island, so by Anselm’s logic, a perfect isalnd should exist. But we all know it doesn’t. Therfore Anselm’s claim that to exist in reality is greater than tio exist in imagination alone is false.

Logical validity is just as important as the truth of the premises. In response, the truth of the premises depends on which premises. If there are certain premises that cannot be proved true, that is not to say they have been disproved either.

It means that the argument does not prove anything.

I am still waiting for a philosophical explanation for naturalism that better explains what Theists have argued for supernaturalism. Nature cannot explain itself or its order, and it cannot escape the trap of contingency or infinite regression.

Sure it can.

This is another case of an atheist picking at Theistic arguments without presenting any alternative arguments, let alone convincing ones. If supernaturalism is false atheist should easily be able to give a philosophical scenario where naturalism could be true, since the absence of the supernatural would leave only naturalism. Alas, there is not such an argument.

Again: read some serious stuff, not just what apologists want you to believe. It’s not because they do not understand a proper argument that you won’t.

Finally, if Theism is true, God interacts with creation. If you disagree, that’s fine, but do remember that the scientific method only works on the basis of reoccurring experiences.

Who is taling about the scientific method here?

My experience with God is reoccurring & it is shown to be reliable through logic (or at least shown to no be rational). Unless I am presented with an argument or evidence that blows theism out of the water, I believe I have enough to support my belief in God. This is really just an open ended for you.

Just keep an open mind and you will see evidence that blows theism out of the water everywhere around you.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

sigh belrog, most of your responses arent even engaging what im saying, theyre just shrugging off. Most of the time you dont even give specific reasons or argumentation. Also, i keep an open mind, and i always look at both sides of the argument which is why im so confident in my stance. Naturalism is the theory that all that exists is the natural world, but in order for that to be true the natural world must either be eternal or caused by natural means which seems to be self-refuting. I reject these based on my knowledge of the natural world. This does not mean i reject the truths of natural cosmology, but i also know its limitations. My question to you is if your disbelief is really just a result of intellectual difficulty alone or if it is mostly due to a hardness of heart. Do you just try to find inconsistencies in these arguments, or do you actually play devil’s advocate (or God’s advocate) in your head, contemplating their truth. Ive had my crisis of faith, i wonder if you, the atheist, has ever had a crisis of doubt? If you havent, then its probably because you have predisposed yourself to disbelief. In any case, i hope and pray the best for you. Adieu.

 

[Drinkgasoline]

One of my colleagues actually wrote an essay addressing the negative influence of a predisposition to a certain belief, that is, when someone is so predisposed to something that they lose their sense of open-mindedness - their rationality and ability to reason or look at both sides of the argument is impaired.

 

[empther]

sigh* belrog, most of your responses arent even engaging what im saying, theyre just shrugging off. Most of the time you dont even give specific reasons or argumentation.

belorg just says the first thing that comes to his mind to contradict anything a believer says.

He can’t give specific reasons of argumentation because he hasn’t really thought anything out.

He thinks that his long posts with comments on every sentence will win over people just by the sheer volume of it.
Some mindless people will no doubt be won over by that strategy, but you know what? Let the A-team have them.
We’ll get the people who have enough common sense to at least give God a benefit of a doubt and look into him more deeply.

 

[samiam1611]

I do like your logical open-mindedness and indeed the concept of a cosmological God is the basis before the development of the concept of a personal God.

Your last paragraph points towards Einstein’s idea of God, the ever-present God whose presence permeates the universe and in fact is the universe.

Yeah Einstein’s idea of God was pretty cool. I also like some of Giordano Bruno’s ideas.

Actually ‘gravity’ is pretty much the same everywhere. It may exert more or less force because the nearby objects are larger or smaller. But, because one car costs more to buy than another, does not mean that it is not a ‘car’.

I was thinking about like black holes and spacetime curvature and other things related to gravity so I just said gravity.

These are the theories.

Yep. They are so other-worldly seeming to me. I can’t even fathom something that’s invisible yet there, which is kinda like how people describe God, not made of matter but still there. I think it’s possible that God=dark matter.

Good. You haven’t given up learning yet - as too many have. If you are still in school, you would do well to take some mathematics and at least one physics class.

Math I’ve done but I’ve never even had high school physics, let alone college level. Wikipedia is where I learn stuff now haha.

Why? Do rocks have ‘personalities’?

Uhhh I did not say you can’t have material without personality, I said you can’t have personality without material. My perception of reality is that if a brain dies, (or a computer is destroyed), thinking, planning, designing, creating, and communicating are no longer possible. Agree or disagree?

There are plenty of theories - enough to go around. One of the oldest is that there are two co-existing realms: the physical realm and the spiritual realm. Obviously, they would be very different, if for no other reason than by virtue of their names. By virtue of their names, one might even think that they are very different. How different is up to us to discern.

People have wild imaginations.

You might want to read some of this. Pay attention particularly to Yppop’s posts.

I lurked on that thread for awhile.

I’m not trying to convert you. I’m asking you to keep thinking and learning. Only you can convert yourself. Anyway, this subject is fascinating, don’t you think?

Yes I do. I joined CAF cuz I wanted to discuss the Church’s teaching on procreation lol but then became more interested in discussing this type of thing.

 

[robwar]

The most convincing argument for me is nature itself. Look how it’s all just so, fine tuned and organized. Tress grow up not spread out across the ground. The cycles of the earth like precipitation and all that. It’s just overwhelming evidence. But the most compelling evidence is myself. I ( and all other humans) am like no other thing in this universe (besides God) We humans are so complicatedly built it boggles me. If I had a computer now id go n more details but I’m on my phone

thanks I agree
Psalm 19
keep it simple, “the heavens delcare the Glory of God”
It doesn’t get better than that.

 

[Bitternolonger]

The idea of just being here with no purpose, no design and no reason is just a horrible thought. That didn’t keep me from living that way for 40 years.

The most convincing argument comes from the transformation that takes place in your heart when you allow God to come in. But that takes prayer and a willingness for your heart to be convicted and softened.

 

[cerad2]

The idea of just being here with no purpose, no design and no reason is just a horrible thought. That didn’t keep me from living that way for 40 years.

The most convincing argument comes from the transformation that takes place in your heart when you allow God to come in. But that takes prayer and a willingness for your heart to be convicted and softened.

Why are you so scared of reality? Just make your own purpose and move on.