• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Questionable Logic Supporting the Existence of God

Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Sugriva said:
Yep. That's all well and good; their personal experiences are worthless in trying to convince anyone of their convictions. An internal, inscrutable belief that is not amendable to investigation is irrelevant. The invisible and non-existent look much alike.
Click to expand...
In fact, every bit of "evidence" is worthless to try to convince others of one's convictions. There is no ability to pass "belief" from one person to another.
 
Jordan St. Francis

Jordan St. Francis

Well-Known Member
Is it really true that the argument from first cause is irrational? It seems rational to me.


The principle of sufficient reason states that nothing exists without cause or reason. The universe is incapable of explaining itself.

According to the classic proof:

We can escape from the endless regression only by positing as a sufficient reason for the universe the existence of a being that does not itself need another reason.
Click to expand...
According to Andre Comte-Sponville, atheist and Parisian philosopher:
Of the three classical 'proofs' of God's existence this is the only one I find powerful, the one that occasionally makes me vacillate or hesitate. Why? Because contingency is an abyss in which reason loses its bearings. Disorientation, however, does not constitute proof. Why shouldn't reason- our reason- get lost in the universe. ... Indeed how can we be certain that our reason is perfectly rational? Only a God could guarantee us that, and this is just what prevents our reason from proving his existence.
Click to expand...

The crux of the cosmological proof is the principle of sufficient reason...Why the universe? Because God. But how do we know there is an order? How do we know reason is right? What makes us think there is no such thing as the absolutely inexplicable? Why should contingency not have the last word- or the final silence? So what, why shouldn't the truth be absurd?
Click to expand...

"The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality, (82)


I don't intend to derail the thread, but it seems as though, according to Sponville anyways, that this proof can not be trusted precisely because reason itself can not be trusted in any ultimate or cosmic sense. Our reason, as it may turn out, is not truly rational. It seems, according to Sponville, that the argument from contingency is rational. Reality might not be.

At the very least, is the proof from contingency really "silly" or "stupid" ?
 
Last edited:
McBell

McBell

Unbound
Jordan St. Francis said:
Is it really true that the argument from first cause is irrational? It seems rational to me.


The principle of sufficient reason states that nothing exists without cause or reason. The universe is incapable of explaining itself.

According to the classic proof:


According to Andre Comte-Sponville, atheist and Parisian philosopher:
"The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality, (82)

I don't intend to derail the thread, but it seems as though, according to Sponville anyways, that this proof can not be trusted precisely because reason itself can not be trusted in any ultimate or cosmic sense. Our reason, as it may turn out, is not truly rational.

At the very least, is the proof from contingency really "silly" or "stupid" ?
Click to expand...
This argument fails in the exact same place that the "Life Has To Come From Life" argument.

That once you get all the way up to 'god' you have to accept that either 'god' is not alive or that 'god' came from life as well.

Problem is that those who try to use this argument want to make an exception for 'god'.
 
Jordan St. Francis

Jordan St. Francis

Well-Known Member
This argument fails in the exact same place that the "Life Has To Come From Life" argument.

That once you get all the way up to 'god' you have to accept that either 'god' is not alive or that 'god' came from life as well.

Problem is that those who try to use this argument want to make an exception for 'god'.
Click to expand...
No, it climbs up a chain until you reach something which has the quality of being non-contingent- or a series of qualities, such as self-subsistent, unchanging- which means it depends on nothing outside of itself.

The other rational option is that we apply those necessary traits to the universe itself- which could be an opening for pantheism.

The argument from contingency does not posit God as just another cause in the series of causes. It posits a being as the cause in which all subsequent causes will be contained- and so is necessarily greater. Not simply the origin point.

If the universe is indeed contingent, there must be something greater than the universe, it would appear.
 
Jordan St. Francis

Jordan St. Francis

Well-Known Member
Anyways, I'm not trying to argue for God's existence. Just wondering if other atheists think the argument from contingency is silly or irrational- perhaps in light of what Sponville himself [an atheist philosopher] thinks.
 
Jordan St. Francis

Jordan St. Francis

Well-Known Member
Yes. It does approximate some of the qualities rendered to God. The argument supposedly gives a philosophical basis for the existence of God. It does not pretend to prove the God of Abraham.

Besides, I'm not trying to defend it here. Only trying to state what it is clearly so we can see if it is as foolish as some posters suggested.
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
Jordan St. Francis said:
Yes. It does approximate some of the qualities rendered to God. The argument supposedly gives a philosophical basis for the existence of God. It does not pretend to prove the God of Abraham.

Besides, I'm not trying to defend it here. Only trying to state what it is clearly so we can see if it is as foolish as some posters suggested.
Click to expand...
I understand better now.
Thank you for answering my questions and not assuming I was "attacking" you.
 
T

themadhair

Well-Known Member
@ Jordan St. Francis

I’m not attacking you here and I hope you will consider the following material. It is just lining out why people, such as myself, find such arguments deeply unconvincing (to say the least).

First:
Why would the first cause argument lead to god? Why not gods? Why would one assume these gods still exist?
To shamelessly borrow an analogy from the evangelical side, when you see a grand building you know there must be a builder right? No – you know there were builder[SIZE=+1]s[/SIZE], designers and architects, many of whom may no longer be alive today. The reason this line of reasoning never gets explored is because…well…why does it not?

Second:
To assume everything has a cause is logically incompatible with a ‘first cause’. This is violating one of the premises in order to make the argument and smacks of special pleading. I don’t buy the idea that regressing must necessarily lead to something having the “quality of being non-contingent” because it simply doesn’t follow either logically or experientially. Logically you cannot simply posit qualities to something with no basis. Experientially, through science, we have discovered that all manner of highly complex things come from simpler beginnings – why not the universe et al?

Third:
We all know the universe has a cause right? But do we know this in the same way everyone knew something had to hold up the earth? Positing the universe itself as being the first cause seems a lot more logical that positing an even greater conundrum.

Fourth:
Arguing for a ‘first cause’ is arguing for a ‘first cause’. Calling it god is setting up for an equivocation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top