Philosophical Proofs For the Existence of God

[steve_b]

Since cause and effect exist, then there cannot be an effect without cause.

True

dame:

If, the universe can be show to alway’s have existed, would there be a God?

You accept that “something” has alway’s existed. What…if that something is not your christian god, but…a simple reality? The universe.

Science gives age to the universe.
map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

By giving age to singularity, It gives a beginning, ergo it didn’t always exist. Ergo it was caused/created

dame:

In other words the philisophical arguments break down at this point, because humans are limited by our understandings and our observations. Anything is possible at the point of infinite regression.

You have to show, why “your” possibility, is more correct than the other.

Since science puts an age of 13.7 B years as the age of the universe +/- 1%, then before there was singularity there was nothing. Singularity then is an effect from a cause.

Even the oldest stars which scientists use to measure light and therefore age, are an effect. Someone had to make them, and someone had to light them.

It’s not possible to ask WHAT caused singularity. There’s far too much design to suppose it is a WHAT.

WHO caused singularity is one of those unavoidable conclusions that… God exists and created everything…

 

[Nebogipfel]

its a double standard. they want a higher standard of proof for G-d than for an electron

No, I want exactly the same standard of proof for an electron as for God, a god or gods.

The difference being that there is ample robust and objective evidence that electrons actually exist, even if we don’t understand exactly what they are.

The robust and objective evidence for the existance of God, a god or gods, is, from where I’m standing, zilch.

 

[Nebogipfel]

Hi warpspeedpetey (and everyone else, of course!)

I made a lousy job of explaining my objection to the fine tuning argument, which i believe is the one you’re making. In fact my puddle analogy had two different arguments conflated, so it was a singularly muddy puddle…

Allow me to try again.

You observe that human beings “fit” incredibly neatly into the Universe we live in. We live on the Earth, where there is air we can breathe, food we can eat, the balance of minerals and trace elements in the soil is just right for our metabolism and (ignoring for the moment, the extinction level catastrophes that occur every hundred million years or so), the earth is a pretty safe place for us to live.

And yes, you are quite right; if the physical laws of the universe are just selected at random, the chances of selecting a universe in which human beings can live, is indeed, most likely vanishingly small.

We fit our niche here very snugly indeed; as snugly as a puddle of water fits into the pothole that contains it.

Where you are going wrong, is that you are making the implicit and unwarranted assumption, that whatever else happens, human beings must exist, i.e. that the purpose* of the universe is to contain human beings.

This is exactly – exactly - like saying that the puddle in the road must be exactly that shape, and that he pothole that contains it must therefore have been fine-tuned in order to fit the shape of the puddle – in fact, the pothole is there specifically for the purpose of containing the puddle.

Do you find that argument at all convincing?

From where I’m standing, the fine tuning argument is exactly backwards; by assuming that that human beings must exist, it reasonably dismisses the staggering coincidence that, by random chance, the universe happens to have a niche into which human beings can fit. But remove the unwarranted assumption that human beings must exist, and you’re left with a the universe which happens to be such that it has a niche into which something like a human (and dogs, horses, termites, bombardier beetles, squids, sharks, duckbilled platypuses, etc, etc) can fit. So then it’s not really that surprising to find all these improbable things there.

Look at it another way. Let’s suppose that things had turned out differently, and the laws of physics were such that only red dwarf stars could ever form. Either no intelligent life would ever emerge at all, in which case the fine tuning argument is moot, or it would be the kind of life which could only exist in red dwarf stars. Such life might ponder the existence of the universe and think; hmm - our kind of life can only possibly exist in red dwarf stars; and hey, look, the universe appears to be finely tuned so that it only produces red dwarf stars. It must have been designed specifically for us red-dwarfers to live in. Exactly the same logic – but no humans involved…

Or; Observe that on a beautiful summer day, the deep blue of the sky matches perfectly the restful green of the grass and leaves If the colours of the grass and sky were assigned by random chance, we could have ended up with some perfectly gross combination like puce pink grass, and limey-orange sky, and we’d spend our entire lives being sick and having migranes. Surely the fact that we find colours of a summer day so agreeable, means they were specifically designed to be that way, to be agreeable to us humans. They MUST have been.

Do you find that a convincing argument? It is, in fact, identical to the fine tuning argument.

But wait, you say, of course the purpose of the Universe is contain human beings. That’s the whole point of the Genesis story, whether taken literally or not. Well, maybe, but then you are already assuming the conclusion that the fine-tuning argument is supposed to prove, thus making it a circular argument - hardly a logically rigourous construction.

I can understand why it would never occur to you to question the assumption that human beings must exist – it’s deeply woven, explicitly and implicitly, into just about every aspect of our culture and our psychology.

I’m still considering my response to the First Cause argument - expressing it properly will take more time than I have to type.*

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No, I want exactly the same standard of proof for an electron as for God, a god or gods.

The difference being that there is ample robust and objective evidence that electrons actually exist, even if we don’t understand exactly what they are.

The robust and objective evidence for the existance of God, a god or gods, is, from where I’m standing, zilch.

please provide me with the robust and ample evidence of an electron.

because the last time i checked no one had physically observed an electron

the proof of an electrons existence is entirely based on logical observation of observable phenomenon.

in the same way we see the ‘eveidence’ of a universe, we apply the known laws of physics, and then produce logically possible theories.

same evidence, same method, same proof of something wwe cannot physically see.

so whats the difference?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hi warpspeedpetey (and everyone else, of course!)

I made a lousy job of explaining my objection to the fine tuning argument, which i believe is the one you’re making. In fact my puddle analogy had two different arguments conflated, so it was a singularly muddy puddle…

the ‘fine tuning’ argument is a protestant, creationist argument, generally concerning evolution. its is not the argument i am making.

im not saying conditions had to be just so, in order to result in life, i am saying that of the possible causes of the universe, a random one is as close to being impossible as one can get. the odds are still 1:infinity

you are confusing this argument with an anti-evolutionary creationist argument.

Allow me to try again.

You observe that human beings “fit” incredibly neatly into the Universe we live in. We live on the Earth, where there is air we can breathe, food we can eat, the balance of minerals and trace elements in the soil is just right for our metabolism and (ignoring for the moment, the extinction level catastrophes that occur every hundred million years or so), the earth is a pretty safe place for us to live

.

im sorry, but i never made those statements.

And yes, you are quite right; if the physical laws of the universe are just selected at random, the chances of selecting a universe in which human beings can live, is indeed, most likely vanishingly small.

the chance of any particular universe resulting from a random act is 1:infinity, regardless of any condition including the presence of life, or certain physical constants, etc.

We fit our niche here very snugly indeed; as snugly as a puddle of water fits into the pothole that contains it.

Where you are going wrong, is that you are making the implicit and unwarranted assumption, that whatever else happens, human beings must exist, i.e. that the purpose** of the universe is to contain human beings.

the subject is metaphysics, not creationism/evolution, i never made those statements or assumptions. the fact is from random cause, there is no reason that humans must exist at all. nor would a random act imply any ‘purpose’ to the universe.

This is exactly – exactly

• like saying that the puddle in the road must be exactly that shape, and that he pothole that contains it must therefore have been fine-tuned in order to fit the shape of the puddle – in fact, the pothole is there specifically for the purpose of containing the puddle.

i already refuted the pothole argument, now you are switching the puddles from being the universe to being humans.

thats ok, just im not talking about humans, im talking about the odds of a random act creating any particular universe, at all. and they remain 1:infinity

Do you find that argument at all convincing?

do you mean my argument or the one you think i am making?

From where I’m standing, the fine tuning argument is exactly backwards; by assuming that that human beings must

exist, it reasonably dismisses the staggering coincidence that, by random chance, the universe happens to have a niche into which human beings can fit. But remove the unwarranted assumption that human beings must exist, and you’re left with a the universe which happens to be such that it has a niche into which something like a human (and dogs, horses, termites, bombardier beetles, squids, sharks, duckbilled platypuses, etc, etc) can fit. So then it’s not really that surprising to find all these improbable things there.

Do you find that a convincing argument? It is, in fact, identical to the fine tuning argument.

its a good thing im not making the fine tuning argument.

But wait, you say, of course

the purpose of the Universe is contain human beings. That’s the whole point of the Genesis story, whether taken literally or not. Well, maybe, but then you are already assuming the conclusion that the fine-tuning argument is supposed to prove, thus making it a circular argument - hardly a logically rigourous construction.

i wouldn’t assume that humans must exist at all. why would i assume that?

I can understand why it would never occur to you to question the assumption that human beings must

exist – it’s deeply woven, explicitly and implicitly, into just about every aspect of our culture and our psychology.

you rmaking a whole lot of assumptions about what i think, why i think that, and what my actual argument is.

I’m still considering my response to the First Cause argument - expressing it properly will take more time than I have to type.

ok, but make sure you know what that argument is prior to posting, so that you dont make another mistake like this.

to be clear.

my argument is not about the existence of life, of any kind, at all.

my argument is that the liklehood of a random act producing any particular universe at all, regardless of specific conditions, is 1:infinity.

 

[jkiernan56]

Where you are going wrong, is that you are making the implicit and unwarranted assumption, that whatever else happens, human beings must exist*, i.e. that the purpose of the universe is to contain human beings.

From where I’m standing, the fine tuning argument is exactly backwards; by assuming that that human beings must exist*,

But wait, you say, of course **the purpose of the Universe is contain human beings. **That’s the whole point of the Genesis story, whether taken literally or not. Well, maybe, but then you are already assuming the conclusion that the fine-tuning argument is supposed to prove, thus making it a circular argument - hardly a logically rigourous construction.

Nebogipfel and Warpspeedpetey - I agree with both of you. 1) Mankind does not have to exist …and … 2) the Universe was created for human beings.

What I am about to say I know is absolutely TRUE from experience … and whether you believe it or not … it is true … simply because it is … TRUE … so my experience in it does not make it MORE TRUE anymore than does your unbelief in it make it LESS TRUE. (Absolute Truth is an independant objective reality independant from me and you.) I speak from experience, not just logical reasoning. My experience has “touched” this reality. So even if you or the Pope himself might say something contrary … you could talk until the cows came home, and it would not change reality for me one bit in the slightest.

Only GOD has to EXIST !!!

God did not need or have to create the world !!!

The Universe and Mankind DO NOT HAVE TO EXIST !!!

The only reason the Universe and Mankind exist is because GOD THINKS AND WILLS IT TO EXIST !!!

GOD is keeping all of Creation IN EXISTENCE moment by moment by His sheer THOUGHT and WILL. If God stopped thinking and willing the Universe including mankind - it SIMPLY WOULD NOT EXIST any longer !!!

God created the Universe FOR MANKIND.
Mankind was NOT created for the Universe.

Mankind was created FOR GOD.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Only GOD has to EXIST !!!

God did not need or have to create the world !!!

The Universe and Mankind DO NOT HAVE TO EXIST !!!

The only reason the Universe and Mankind exist is because GOD THINKS AND WILLS IT TO EXIST !!!

i agree with you, the universe and mankind have no particular reason to exist.

neb, thought i was making a creationist argument called ‘fine tuning’

that wasn’t the case.

but we still need to defend why G-d must exist in rational terms for those who view faith as little more than self deception.

rationalism is the only way to influence them. G-d can be seen quite clearly through reason.

 

[Nebogipfel]

please provide me with the robust and ample evidence of an electron.

because the last time i checked no one had physically observed an electron

I suggest a introductory level text book on physics. Cathode rays were discovered by observation in the 19th century. J. J. Thompson performed repeatable experiments that indicated that cathode rays are composed of something like discrete particles with a measurable mass and electrical charge. Millikan measured their charge (and yes, I know his first results were fudged - but the result has been checked, rechecked, over and over again)

Anyone can repeat these experiments and confirm the results for themselves.

the proof of an electrons existence is entirely based on logical observation of observable phenomenon.

Correct.

in the same way we see the ‘eveidence’ of a universe, we apply the known laws of physics, and then produce logically possible theories.

Correct. So there should be no more disagreement among theologians about who and what God is, to whom he is talking, and what he is saying than there is disagreement among physicists about the mass and electrical charge of an electron.

Er…that’s not quite the world we live in, is it?

same evidence, same method, same proof of something wwe cannot physically see.

so whats the difference?

Show me the repeatable, objective experiments that establish the existence and properties of God in the same way as repeatable, objective experiments establish the mass and charge of an electron.

 

[jkiernan56]

Show me the repeatable, objective experiments that establish the existence and properties of God in the same way as repeatable, objective experiments establish the mass and charge of an electron.

Can you prove that YOU exist? Can you prove that the Universe exists?

If yes, you have proof that God exists. Existence proves for me that God exists - just as sitting on the branch of a tree inherently tells me that the Tree exists

 

[Dameedna]

If you use your REASON Damneedna, you would understand that SOMETHING cannot come from NOTHING. (That is why I do not buy into the Nihilistic understanding of Creation - but that is a subject for another thread).

I agree. Something cannot come from nothing.Therefore something necessarily exists.

What that “thing” is, is up for debate. Is it an eternal universe/physical reality that is ultimately eternal, or an eternal “power” as described by your faith or some other faith. Is it an eternal power that we don’t understand.

Yes my friend, I use my reasoning quite well.You presume that using human reasoning, ends up with your own view.

It doesn’t.

So for SOMETHING to exist is PRECISELY and ACTUALLY what Philosophy is ALL ABOUT. Now for you (please correct me if I am wrong) that SOMETHING that always existed is the Universe. For others including myself, that SOMETHING is the CAUSE of all Existence but whose Existence is NOT CAUSED by something else (ie - the Primary Mover or BEING).

Your use of capitals show’s your frustration and anger. I’m sorry for that. It is entirely possible for 2 humans to have exactly the same information, and draw a different conclusion. If that was not the case, then no human discovery would ever have been made.

You believe that the “thing”…the eternally necessary being is a God as described to you by your religion. I do not agree…

I accept that something must be eternal. I’m only interested in clarity about that eternal concept.

Cheers
Dame

 

[Nebogipfel]

warpspeedpetey:

my argument is that the liklehood of a random act producing any particular universe at all, regardless of specific conditions, is 1:infinity.

OK, I did indeed misinterpret your argument, but then I think what you are actually arguing is even less convincing because either

a) it’s still the fine-tuning argument, it’s just pushed back a step and applied to the conditions under which universes are created, rather than any one particular universe.

or (even worse)

b) you are arguing that it is too improbable that random processes could create a complex structure like a universe. Unless you can put some numbers on those probabilities, this is no different to a creationist arguing that it is too improbable for random processes to create a complex structure like an eye.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I suggest a introductory level text book on physics. Cathode rays were discovered by observation in the 19th century. J. J. Thompson performed repeatable experiments that indicated that cathode rays are composed of something like discrete particles with a measurable mass and electrical charge. Millikan measured their charge (and yes, I know his first results were fudged - but the result has been checked, rechecked, over and over again)

Anyone can repeat these experiments and confirm the results for themselves.

thanks for the suggestion, but ive had a few physics classes.


you are confusing observing an effect (cathode rays being deflected) with the cause,(the charge nature of electrons)

my point is that electrons are not physically observable, their nature has been determined by the effects they cause

in the same way we can determine much about the nature of first cause, from its effect, the observable universe.

there is no reason to believe that we cannot use similar tools on similar problems.

Correct. So there should be no more disagreement among theologians about who and what God is, to whom he is talking, and what he is saying than there is disagreement among physicists about the mass and electrical charge of an electron.

Er…that’s not quite the world we live in, is it?

now your confusing metaphysics, with comparative theology.

your continual assumptions show you arent really interested in the validity of our arguments, but rather what your response should be to support the position you already have.

but thats ok, i started there too.

Show me the repeatable, objective experiments that establish the existence and properties of God in the same way as repeatable, objective experiments establish the mass and charge of an electron.

no problem,

nothing physical can cause itself, therefore the first cause must necessarily be non-physical.

the ‘experiment’ is continuous, because the effect(the universe) continues to exist.

 

[jkiernan56]

I agree. Something cannot come from nothing.Therefore something necessarily exists.

What that “thing” is, is up for debate. Is it an eternal universe/physical reality that is ultimately eternal, or an eternal “power” as described by your faith or some other faith. Is it an eternal power that we don’t understand.

Yes my friend, I use my reasoning quite well.You presume that using human reasoning, ends up with your own view.

It doesn’t.

Your use of capitals show’s your frustration and anger. I’m sorry for that. It is entirely possible for 2 humans to have exactly the same information, and draw a different conclusion. If that was not the case, then no human discovery would ever have been made.

You believe that the “thing”…the eternally necessary being is a God as described to you by your religion. I do not agree…

I accept that something must be eternal. I’m only interested in clarity about that eternal concept.

Cheers
Dame

The purpose of my use of capital letters is only for emphasis and has nothing to do with frustration. You and I are on the same page as far as agreeing that “Something Eternal has always existed.” What has always existed is where you and I differ

 

[JDaniel]

Nebogipfel and Warpspeedpetey - I agree with both of you. 1) Mankind does not have to exist …and … 2) the Universe was created for human beings.

What I am about to say I know is absolutely TRUE from experience … and whether you believe it or not … it is true … simply because it is … TRUE … so my experience in it does not make it MORE TRUE anymore than does your unbelief in it make it LESS TRUE. (Absolute Truth is an independant objective reality independant from me and you.) I speak from experience, not just logical reasoning. My experience has “touched” this reality. So even if you or the Pope himself might say something contrary … you could talk until the cows came home, and it would not change reality for me one bit in the slightest.

Only GOD has to EXIST !!!

God did not need or have to create the world !!!

The Universe and Mankind DO NOT HAVE TO EXIST !!!

The only reason the Universe and Mankind exist is because GOD THINKS AND WILLS IT TO EXIST !!!

GOD is keeping all of Creation IN EXISTENCE moment by moment by His sheer THOUGHT and WILL. If God stopped thinking and willing the Universe including mankind - it SIMPLY WOULD NOT EXIST any longer !!!

God created the Universe FOR MANKIND.
Mankind was NOT created for the Universe.

Mankind was created FOR GOD.

I have a question for you, if you please: if God is Love, is it possible that mankind must exist? I know that we can conjecture that the triune is enough, but, is it really? Love is, by its very nature, an exigency that is “expressive”. Is it sufficient to express Love only to one’s self, or parts of one’s self, for it to actually be the essence of one’s being?

jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

OK, I did indeed misinterpret your argument, but then I think what you are actually arguing is even less convincing because either

a) it’s still the fine-tuning argument, it’s just pushed back a step and applied to the conditions under which universes are created, rather than any one particular universe.

make up your mind, im either making the ‘fine tuning’ argument or im not.

or (even worse)

b) you are arguing that it is too improbable that random processes could create a complex structure like a universe. Unless you can put some numbers on those probabilities, this is no different to a creationist arguing that it is too improbable for random processes to create a complex structure like an eye.

no im not saying that, either. my argument has nothing to do with the complex structures of the universe, life, or creationism.

the argument is simply about the probability of any universe being created by a random act.

as there are an infinite number of possible universes, the chances of any particular uinverse is 1:infinity. this is true no matter what kind of universe we are talking about.

i have assigned it those odds for that reason.

you have been busy trying to refute an argument i am not making,
life, structure, eyes, and protestant creationism have nothing to do with it.

if you don’t understand it i can clarify it further. its really much simpler than you are making it.

 

[jkiernan56]

I have a question for you, if you please: if God is Love, is it possible that mankind must exist? I know that we can conjecture that the triune is enough, but, is it really? Love is, by its very nature, an exigency that is “expressive”. Is it sufficient to express Love only to one’s self, or parts of one’s self, for it to actually be the essence of one’s being?

jd

You asked “If God is Love, is it possible that manking must exist?”

My answer to that is an absolute NO.
In God (the divine nature) are 3 distinct persons in a UNION of LOVE (ie - Community). God could have continued in BEING for all eternity without ever having created ANYTHING … God is completely happy and does not need ANYTHING as if anything were lacking.

But you are on the right track - it was absolutely because God is Love that God created the Universe. But I would not go so far as to say that God’s LOVE necessitated God to create the Universe. God did not need to create us and it was His will (that is completely free) that chose to do so. God did not “have to”.

That was my experience of Grace.

 

[N80]

It seems to me that discussions like this often become tangential and lose their utility because of lack of philosophical rigor…for lack of a better word.

I’m not a philosopher, physicist or theologian so I probably won’t bring any philosophical rigor to the discussion either.

There is a fabulous, concise and easy to read book, by philospher/theologian William Lane Craig called A Reasonable Faith that addresses most of the philosophical arguments for and against both God and Christian Faith. He is a Protestant but the book is about Christianity in general with no real specifics in regard to Catholic or Protestant doctrine. I highly recommend this book!

However, it is my understanding that the primary philosophical argument against the existence of God is the problem of evil. In other words, if there is a good and omnipotent God, then why is there evil. For many years this was thought to be the single logical/philosophical proof that God cannot exist, at least not as a good and omnipotent God.

Alvin Plantinga destroyed once and for all this last philosophical hurdle in his book Warranted Christian Belief. This book is long, exhaustive and (for me) difficult to read, but it is still an eloquent and very thorough and complete solution to the problem of evil that has been conceded by secular academic philosophy and even atheist philosophy. He does not directly prove the existence of God, but he eliminates that last proof against the existence of God…which is an indirect proof, really.

He also proves that based on his argument that specific Christian belief is warranted…in other words, he proves that it is reasonable and warranted in the most rigorous philosophical terms and arguments to not only believe in God but to believe in Christ as well.

He is also Protestant. There is some Calvinist doctrine there, which he actually misinterprets a little. He cites Calvin’s idea “sensus divinitatis” as part of his proof that man has an innate sense of God. He takes it further than Calvin suggesting that is equal to our other senses of perception but has been damaged by The Fall. I only mention this because 1) it should not put Catholics off since it is only a small part of his argument and 2) isn’t really even a ‘Calvinist’ idea. Paul tells us that there is no excuse for man and that all men should know that God exists.

I recommend this book as well. A bit hard to get through but when the argument is completed the victory of it is exhilirating! I beleive that our faith comes first and foremost from the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. But I also beleive that Christianity makes logical, intellectual sense and that God gave us minds, and the ability to reason in order to see and understand Him and His creation and His plan to some finite degree.

George

 

[warpspeedpetey]

However, it is my understanding that the primary philosophical argument against the existence of God is the problem of evil. In other words, if there is a good and omnipotent God, then why is there evil. For many years this was thought to be the single logical/philosophical proof that God cannot exist, at least not as a good and omnipotent God.

thats one of the more difficult arguemnts atheists make. not for rational reasons, but rather the opposite.

emotional ones

you can demonstrate, mathematically, the difference in the behavior of societies who are officially athiestic, and those allowing a freedom of religion.

you can point out the illogic of having that argument in the face of the intrinsic limits human knowledge, on logical, rational grounds, that we don’t really know what is evil and not, as we dont, have the whole picture. further, trying to have that ability is at the heart of the fall.

yet the answer is alwyas something along the lines of, those things dont matter, we dont want a G-d that does X, or, we know right and wrong as a group. then the debate devolves into subjective/objective morality

in the end. its not really an argument against the existence of G-d.

its a defense of the atheist position, when all other avenues fail, i.e. logic, physics, etc

 

[JDaniel]

thats one of the more difficult arguemnts atheists make. not for rational reasons, but rather the opposite.

emotional ones

you can demonstrate, mathematically, the difference in the behavior of societies who are officially athiestic, and those allowing a freedom of religion.

you can point out the illogic of having that argument in the face of the intrinsic limits human knowledge, on logical, rational grounds, that we don’t really know what is evil and not, as we dont, have the whole picture. further, trying to have that ability is at the heart of the fall.

yet the answer is alwyas something along the lines of, those things dont matter, we dont want a G-d that does X, or, we know right and wrong as a group. then the debate devolves into subjective/objective morality

in the end. its not really an argument against the existence of G-d.

its a defense of the atheist position, when all other avenues fail, i.e. logic, physics, etc

Quite an excellent reply.

You believe as I do that those who use the “evil” argument, were originally inspired by a delusion.

What delusion? Well, the delusion that we can know everything. The delusion that we know God’s purposes. The delusion that we know God’s real intentions - His ulterior motives, as it were. The delusion that we are sufficiently equipped to modify His plan(s) - for the better.

Once we realize that we can’t, there’s nothing left but to annihilate God Himself.

jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Quite an excellent reply.

You believe as I do that those who use the “evil” argument, were originally inspired by a delusion.

What delusion? Well, the delusion that we can know everything. The delusion that we know God’s purposes. The delusion that we know God’s real intentions - His ulterior motives, as it were. The delusion that we are sufficiently equipped to modify His plan(s) - for the better.

Once we realize that we can’t, there’s nothing left but to annihilate God Himself.

jd

i just realized that the argument from evil is their version of “G-d of the gaps”

its just “atheism of the gaps”

in other words it boils down tot the idea that if i cant understand why G-d would allow this, or that, it supports atheism

when it actually supports not understanding.