Whats your favorite argument for the existence of God?

[Eucharisted]

I favour evidence and the expense of unfounded speculation. The human brain like EVERY other complex thing in the cosmos has simple origins.

Actually when you look at the evidence, which is far more productive than “thinking about it”, the explanation that the complexity of the universe has been gained incrementally over vast amounts of time from simple origin makes perfect sense.

You are speaking about the natural order, while Tony is speaking about the supernatural. Moreover, you are assuming that the simple natural origin which everything natural comes from is all there is, that nothing supernatural could have started it. Furthermore, you are also assuming that nothing supernatural can exist and are attempting to prove this with science - when, in fact, science cannot and dose not answer any question on the existence of the supernatural, because it is focused on the natural order, not the super-natural. When science examines a miracle, for example, it says the miracle is inexplainable: far from being the scientific conclusion that the miracle is not a miracle, the conclusion of “inexplainable” is simply that the event cannot be explained by science. This is where philosophy comes in, because, while science answers the questions of the “how” of the Universe, philosophy answers the questions of the “why” of the Universe: i.e., the “how” of science would see the miracle as an inexplainable cure or change in substance or something such and the “why” of philosophy would see the miracle as coming from gods or energies or powers or something such. Hence, if you wish to speak about the supernatural, you must use philosophy.

 

[tonyrey]

You assume that the cosmos, i.e. physical reality existed before spiritual reality. How can you prove that or even show that it is more probable?

I don’t make any assumptions.

How can you get anywhere unless you make assumptions? Nothing can come from nothing…

It’s really quite simple, if you want to make any claims regarding “spiritual reality” you must demonstrate there is such a thing as “spiritual reality”.

All you have to do is look within yourself. You have unique powers possessed by no other physical organism. The entire universe is unaware that you exist whereas you know that it exists.

           *You also favour atomism at the expense of holism. The human brain is one of the most complex systems in the solar system, if not the most complex, yet its activity is integrated, coherent and more powerful than any other known object. It is an excellent example of how "**ultimate ***complexity" -(the most appropriate term you could have chosen) - co-exists with "**ultimate **simplicity".

I favour evidence and the expense of unfounded speculation.

This reveals one of your assumptions - that evidence is limited to **physical **objects and events. That assumption is certainly unfounded speculation. How can you possibly **know **that the whole of reality consisted solely of particles?

The human brain like EVERY other complex thing in the cosmos has simple origins.

Of course it has - but **how **and **why **did simplicity produce complexity?

When you think of it, the absurdity of deriving the immense richness and variety of the universe from atomic particles is overwhelming. The Greek philosophers were baffled by the problem of the Many and the One. Monism is certainly the simplest explanation of reality but it has to do justice to the fact of multiplicity. Supreme unity is discovered in one integrated Mind. Everything finite emerges “within” one infinite Creator: “In God we live, move and have our being”.
Actually when you look at the evidence, which is far more productive than “thinking about it”…?

Science wouldn’t even exist without “thinking about it”. It is thought that has produced results - the power of abstract reasoning which grasps intangible truths and principles, without which the processes of deduction and induction could not have come into being.

…the explanation that the complexity of the universe has been gained incrementally over vast amounts of time from simple origin makes perfect sense.

It makes perfect sense if you can explain** how** and why it occurred. Both questions need answers if your explanation is to be complete. What reason is there to replace “why” with “how”? It gives an unbalanced view of life - which you would never dream of adopting in your daily routine…

 

[mathematician]

If I had to come up with arguments, one would be the fine tuning argument, and one would be the sheer improbability of organisms as incredibly complex as human beings evolving. That is not to say that evolution didn’t happen; it is only to say that you need “theistic” in front of “evolution” before it starts sounding plausible.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

You are speaking about the natural order, while Tony is speaking about the supernatural. Moreover, you are assuming that the simple natural origin which everything natural comes from is all there is, that nothing supernatural could have started it. Furthermore, you are also assuming that nothing supernatural can exist and are attempting to prove this with science - when, in fact, science cannot and dose not answer any question on the existence of the supernatural, because it is focused on the natural order, not the super-natural. When science examines a miracle, for example, it says the miracle is inexplainable: far from being the scientific conclusion that the miracle is not a miracle, the conclusion of “inexplainable” is simply that the event cannot be explained by science. This is where philosophy comes in, because, while science answers the questions of the “how” of the Universe, philosophy answers the questions of the “why” of the Universe: i.e., the “how” of science would see the miracle as an inexplainable cure or change in substance or something such and the “why” of philosophy would see the miracle as coming from gods or energies or powers or something such. Hence, if you wish to speak about the supernatural, you must use philosophy.

Did i not just say that i don’t assume anything???

If you want to talk about the supernatural you must adequately demonstrated there is such a thing, science has nothing to do with it…

Oh and philosophy would not see the miracle as coming from god, else there would be no atheist philosophers.

 

[tonyrey]

Did i not just say that i don’t assume anything???

It’s impossible not to make any assumptions about what is real. If you believe in science you believe in physical reality and in our power to understand physical reality (to some extent at least)…

 

[MindOverMatter]

LOL dear me.
Ok lets cut through all your nonsense

There is no nonsense in my arguments.

Nothing can come from nothing, unless it is timeless and without change?

Please tell me that this is a joke. I can see why you didn’t quote my actual arguement since there is no way in all of actuality that you could possibly reduce it to such nonsense. You have made a false representation of my arguement. You have made a “straw-man”.

I am not saying that God came from Nothing. I am saying that there must be a necessary being. I explain this in more detail below.

Aside from the fact you don’t have a single shred of evidence to support your hypothesis.

Science cannot answer ultimate Questions, such as why there is something rather then nothing. This is an existential consideration. The principles of empirical science has no authority beyond its specific domain of investigation. We are both using philosophy/metaphysics to support our philosophical beliefs in regards to the ultimate reality of things, in reference to the immediate particularity of beings and their natures. I am using a metaphysical arguement for the existence of God, produce on a foundation of strict logic and the impenetrability of rational necessity; while at the same time taking the empirical reality of observation into full consideration. Metaphysically speaking, physical reality is my evidence for the supernatural. I use the same principle of inference which states that there are in fact other beings in reality that have intelligent minds. I know my own nature, and i see that other beings behave as i do, and so i make the reasonable inference that they have minds.

Whether you are aware of it or not or agree with it, it is evident to me that those whom choose to disbelieve in Gods existence necessarily support a “Metaphysical-Naturalism” in so far as they consider themselves logical, since it is the only other metaphysical basis for existence; i.e. all is physical. The naturalist makes this inference on other grounds that have nothing to do with any evidence produced by epistemological or scientific empiricism. At best, science can inform our metaphysical beliefs, but only in so far as it is describing the particularity of a beings specific “nature” and how they react in regards to other entities. What the empirical method can’t do is describe or measure the ultimate reality of existence. In regards to epistemology and science, naturalism cannot be proven. Science is neutral to what the ultimate ground of reality is. Thus, the naturalist uses logical inferences just like the theist does; and i have shown you quite explicitly why philosophical naturalism fails, as well as why Theism succeeds. It seems to me, if one is seeking that which is reasonable, then they will seek that which is the most reasonable outcome of the considered evidence. If one is agnostic, one might argue about the legitimacy of religion, but i see no legitimate basis for disbelieving in a timeless supernatural personal cause of all things.

The statement does not make sense.

Perhaps not to you; but any unbiased person whose only concerned is with finding the most reasonable and all encompassing basis for reality will see that the arguement is valid.

You should rephrase it and say, only that which is timeless and without change can come from nothing.

This is a false representation; another straw-man. That which is a timeless necessary being, is that which ultimately defines the difference between nothing and something. A necessary being does not “become”. It is quite simply being by its very nature. It is pure existence.

Also you don’t know one single thing about what i believe.

Its irrelevant. I have shown why Theism wins over Naturalism.

so if you want to see a REAL strawman you need look no fuhter than your own post.

I disagree. In fact the next quote shows exactly how much you wish to avoid reasonable debate. Either that, or you are finding it considerably difficult to understand simple philosophical concepts such as “being” and “real”. Please read my posts properly because i never said that God came out of nothing.

If NOTHING comes from NOTHING that means NOTHING, it does not mean nothing except your god. Unless of course we actually do agree with each other and your god is nothing.

Nope; the “straw-man” is right here in your post!

If Nothing is Nothing, as in not real, then it follows necessarily, according to logic, that there is in fact a being, which is by its very nature of existing, a timeless absolute and is logically necessary. It is also the case that this being has attributes that logically follows from its existence in respect of physical events, one of them most importantly being its personal nature. Such a being is not the physical universe, and I have already stated why in many posts spanning of many threads. Its irrefutable.

I’m not even going to get on to the fact that you posit a starting point of ultimate complexity, which again totally contradicts EVERYTHING we know about the cosmos.

When did i posit a point of ultimate complexity? I posited an ultimate being that is responsible for the existence all potentially existent beings. Do your self a favor and stop reading junkyard philosophers like Richard Dawkins. If you think that my arguement implies the existence of an infinitely complex entity (whatever that could possibly mean in terms of that which transcends physical parts), then i suggest that you state a clear rebuttal instead of making it merely seem like you know what your talking about. Thankyou.

 

[FMLJoliecouer]

I can choose to believe in God or choose not to.

If God did not exist, nor would I.

If creation was simply a matter of random events …then how do you explain the strong burning desire to be close to God that we all have…

God put that in us.

When we have a strong burning desire for God, but we don’t act on it in a way that God wants, then we spend our whole life seeking happiness and peace, but the outcome is transient peace and happiness. That is fine for some, but not for me.

Nothing can take away the inner peace I have when I know the right thing, do the right thing and thank God daily for the graces I have received.

Show me a man or woman who does not desire inner peace (the inner peace that only comes from God) and I’ll show you a dead branch that has fallen off a tree.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

How can you get anywhere unless you make assumptions? Nothing can come from nothing…

Except god Like i have told you before, to quote thunderf00t “i believe the universe exists and we can learn something about it”.

All you have to do is look within yourself. You have unique powers possessed by no other physical organism.

And what is that?

The entire universe is unaware that you exist whereas you know that it exists.

I am part of the universe, so it does know it exists.

This reveals one of your assumptions - that evidence is limited to **physical **objects and events. That assumption is certainly unfounded speculation. How can you possibly **know **that the whole of reality consisted solely of particles?

When have i ever said that, show me ONE time… . What i have always said is that if you want people to believe your claims about a the non physical, then you must provide evidence for such a thing.

Of course it has - but **how **and **why **did simplicity produce complexity?

Well this is very well documented, i suggest you look into the subject.

Science wouldn’t even exist without “thinking about it”. It is thought that has produced results - the power of abstract reasoning which grasps intangible truths and principles, without which the processes of deduction and induction could not have come into being.
It makes perfect sense if you can explain** how** and why it occurred. Both questions need answers if your explanation is to be complete. What reason is there to replace “why” with “how”? It gives an unbalanced view of life - which you would never dream of adopting in your daily routine…

Mainly how and why are actually the same question. For example, why does the earth orbit the sun, how does the earth orbit the sun? Exact same question, exact same answer. The same applies to our origins.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

When did i posit a point of ultimate complexity? I posited an ultimate being that is responsible for the existence all potentially existent beings. Do your self a favor and stop reading junkyard philosophers like Richard Dawkins. If you think that my arguement implies the existence of an infinitely complex entity (whatever that could possibly mean in terms of that which transcends physical parts), then i suggest that you state a clear rebuttal instead of making it merely seem like you know what your talking about. Thankyou.

Actually i don’t take any interest in philosophy, as when is comes to understanding the cosmos (which is what i am interested in) it is pretty much a meaningless pursuit. You can philosophize as much as you like, but if you want your hypothesis to be taken seriously you need a little thing call evidence (i know, i know, its a pain isn’t it?)

If Nothing is Nothing, as in not real, then it follows necessarily, according to logic, that there is in fact a being, which is by its very nature of existing, a timeless absolute and is logically necessary. It is also the case that this being has attributes that logically follows from its existence in respect of physical events, one of them most importantly being its personal nature. Such a being is not the physical universe, and I have already stated why in many posts spanning of many threads. Its irrefutable.

Sure it is . Now back to that small thing called evidence… Provide some .

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Science cannot answer ultimate Questions, such as why there is something rather then nothing. This is an existential consideration. The principles of empirical science has no authority beyond its specific domain of investigation. We are both using philosophy/metaphysics to support our philosophical beliefs in regards to the ultimate reality of things, in reference to the immediate particularity of beings and their natures. I am using a metaphysical arguement for the existence of God, produce on a foundation of strict logic and the impenetrability of rational necessity; while at the same time taking the empirical reality of observation into full consideration. Metaphysically speaking, physical reality is my evidence for the supernatural. I use the same principle of inference which states that there are in fact other beings in reality that have intelligent minds. I know my own nature, and i see that other beings behave as i do, and so i make the reasonable inference that they have minds.

Whether you are aware of it or not or agree with it, it is evident to me that those whom choose to disbelieve in Gods existence necessarily support a “Metaphysical-Naturalism” in so far as they consider themselves logical, since it is the only other metaphysical basis for existence; i.e. all is physical. The naturalist makes this inference on other grounds that have nothing to do with any evidence produced by epistemological or scientific empiricism. At best, science can inform our metaphysical beliefs, but only in so far as it is describing the particularity of a beings specific “nature” and how they react in regards to other entities. What the empirical method can’t do is describe or measure the ultimate reality of existence. In regards to epistemology and science, naturalism cannot be proven. Science is neutral to what the ultimate ground of reality is. Thus, the naturalist uses logical inferences just like the theist does; and i have shown you quite explicitly why philosophical naturalism fails, as well as why Theism succeeds. It seems to me, if one is seeking that which is reasonable, then they will seek that which is the most reasonable outcome of the considered evidence. If one is agnostic, one might argue about the legitimacy of religion, but i see no legitimate basis for disbelieving in a timeless supernatural personal cause of all things.

Firstly howdo you know science will NEVER answer that question regarding the origin of physical matter?

Also don’t disbelieve in god, i reject your claim that a god exists. A subtle but very important difference.

You have shown nothing, you have made claims with not a single shred of evidence to support them.

 

[mathematician]

Actually i don’t take any interest in philosophy

How about junkyard theology then? Either way, you have been reading too much Dawkins.

And if you think philosophy has got nothing to do with science, how about:

For a theory to be scientific, it must be a falsifiable theory?

I believe the philosopher Karl Popper came up with that (in fact I’m sure he did). The logical positivists, of course, thought it had to be verifiable, but that idea isn’t given much house room nowadays.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Actually i don’t take any interest in philosophy
.

I guess thats why you are here on the philosophy forum. You are obviously a deceptive person who has no interest in honest debate.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

How about junkyard theology then? Either way, you have been reading too much Dawkins.

And if you think philosophy has got nothing to do with science, how about:

For a theory to be scientific, it must be a falsifiable theory?

I believe the philosopher Karl Popper came up with that (in fact I’m sure he did). The logical positivists, of course, thought it had to be verifiable, but that idea isn’t given much house room nowadays.

When did i say it had nothing to do with science? What i said was my particular interest is in the origin of life, and our amazing cosmos. Which philosophy tells us little to nothing about.

I’m not dissing philosophy, it just does not compare to science when it comes to understanding why we are here. Sorry “how” we are here, same question though .

 

[MindOverMatter]

How about junkyard theology then? Either way, you have been reading too much Dawkins.

And if you think philosophy has got nothing to do with science, how about:

For a theory to be scientific, it must be a falsifiable theory?

I believe the philosopher Karl Popper came up with that (in fact I’m sure he did). The logical positivists, of course, thought it had to be verifiable, but that idea isn’t given much house room nowadays.

I second this.

 

[MindOverMatter]

When did i say it had nothing to do with science?.

Here…

it just does not compare to science when it comes to understanding why we are here.

Science and philosophy go hand in hand; and in some respects has a higher authority then Science. For instance you cannot prove that other minds exist. You cannot see minds, You infer them with logic. In so far as epistemology is concerned you cannot empirically prove that the universe exists outside of your mind. You infer its existence.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Which philosophy tells us little to nothing about.

Philosophy does tell us allot. How we interpret scientific observations requires a particular philosophical world view. Our understanding of concepts such as potentiality, necessity nature and being, or even occams razor, are all philosophical concepts that precede and inform our scientific investigation in so far as empiricism is concerned. Its true that science cannot tell us about the functional nature of any particular physical entity, and this is where the preciseness of the scientific method comes in. However there is nothing illegitimate in making logical inferences to entities that have a specific nature in respect of necessity from an object of observation when the nature of the object fundamentally implies only one logical possibility. And thus one can have a reasonable belief that is certain insofar as it follows from logic. A Scientist can have reasonable beliefs outside of the empirical method.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Here…

Science and philosophy go hand in hand; and in some respects has a higher authority then Science. For instance you cannot prove that other minds exist. You cannot see minds, You infer them with logic. In so far as epistemology is concerned you cannot empirically prove that the universe exists outside of your mind. You infer its existence.

it just does not compare to science when it comes to understanding why we are here. != it has nothing to do with it.

See this is exactly what I’m talking about, lets be honest we all know we exist and while scientists are answering real questions and inventing cures that save billions of life’s, other people are sitting about wondering if anything outside our minds really exists. Now what exactly does that do for the futherment of the human race?

 

[MindOverMatter]

lets be honest we all know we exist

You know that you exist, and this is a fact of certainty outside of scientific consideration. Thus we can be certain about things before we do Science. And this is for the simple fact that it would not be reasonable for you to believe that you did not exist, since it follows to be necessarily true from self knowledge in so far as strict logic is concerned. Thus we can know things in so far as they follow from logical necessity and the reasonable knowledge of things; i.e. there are things that have the potential to exist, but do not exist now.

You know that you exist, and you observe how you behave, and you see other “objects” behave in a way that is similar to you, and you make the most logical and reasonable inference in regards to that object, which is the idea that other minds exist; and this is certain to you only in so far as there are beings that behave like you do. This is not a scientific proof. It is a reasonable philosophical belief, that most people take for granted and hold almost unconsciously.

and while scientists are answering real questions and inventing cures that save billions of life’s, other people are sitting about wondering if anything outside our minds really exists.

You cannot prove through science that other minds exist. Thus we use philosophy to understand things that science cannot. This is reasonable and legitimate. Thus it is legitimate to make philosophical/metaphysical inferences to an ultimate cause so long as it follow necessarily and logically from the observation of things. And this is a fact whether you like it or not. We have given you all the evidence you need inorder to have a reasonable belief in God.

This is my last post.

 

[tonyrey]

*How can you get anywhere unless you make assumptions? *

Precisely. You use your power of reason to infer that it exists. So you assume you have the power of reason - which is an intangible reality.

You have unique powers possessed by no other physical organism.
And what is that?

The power of reason, self-awareness and free will.

The entire universe is unaware that you exist whereas you know that it exists.
I am part of the universe, so it does know it exists.

The physical universe does not know it exists.

This reveals one of your assumptions - that evidence is limited to physical objects and events. That assumption is certainly unfounded speculation. How can you possibly know that the whole of reality consisted solely of particles?
When have i ever said that, show me ONE time.

It is one of your assumptions. Do you believe the basic elements of reality are atomic particles?

What i have always said is that if you want people to believe your claims about the non physical, then you must provide evidence for such a thing.

You already have the evidence within you - the power of reason, self-awareness and free will.

How and why did simplicity produce complexity?
Well this is very well documented, i suggest you look into the subject.

Please give a reference to a scientific paper which explains how simplicity produced complexity.

It makes perfect sense if you can explain how and why it occurred. Both questions need answers if your explanation is to be complete. What reason is there to replace “why” with “how”? It gives an unbalanced view of life - which you would never dream of adopting in your daily routine…
Mainly how and why are actually the same question.

So if I ask you **why **you don’t believe God exists you will explain how you are thinking rather than give me a reason for your disbelief?. If I ask you why you love somebody you will give me a scientific explanation of how you have developed physically?

For example, why does the earth orbit the sun, how does the earth orbit the sun? Exact same question, exact same answer. The same applies to our origins.

Can you explain how purposeful activity emerged from purposeless activity?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

You cannot prove through science that other minds exist. Thus we use philosophy to understand things that science cannot. This is reasonable and legitimate. Thus it is legitimate to make philosophical/metaphysical inferences to an ultimate cause so long as it follow necessarily and logically from the observation of things. And this is a fact whether you like it or not. We have given you all the evidence you need inorder to have a reasonable belief in God.

This is my last post.

Science does not prove anything . Like i said philosophy has its uses, but when it comes to understanding the cosmos science is the king.