-
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!
Your best argument that god exists
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
kepha31
Active Member
Making thoughtless retorts without indicating the fallacies or strawmen might work on your followers to discredit just about anything, but it doesn't work on everybody.
.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Ex nihilo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"A widely supported scientific theory in modern physics is the zero-energy universe which states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. It has been argued that this is the only kind of universe that could come from nothing. Such a universe would have to be flat in shape, a state which does not contradict current observations that the universe is flat with a 0.5% margin of error."
"Some physicists, such as Lawrence Krauss, define nothing as an unstable quantum vacuum that contains no particles. This is incompatible with the philosophical definition of nothing, since it can be defined by certain properties, and is governed by physical laws."
Nothing comes from nothing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A Universe from Nothing « Astronomical Society
"A widely supported scientific theory in modern physics is the zero-energy universe which states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. It has been argued that this is the only kind of universe that could come from nothing. Such a universe would have to be flat in shape, a state which does not contradict current observations that the universe is flat with a 0.5% margin of error."
"Some physicists, such as Lawrence Krauss, define nothing as an unstable quantum vacuum that contains no particles. This is incompatible with the philosophical definition of nothing, since it can be defined by certain properties, and is governed by physical laws."
Nothing comes from nothing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A Universe from Nothing « Astronomical Society
kepha31
Active Member
The First Way is an a posteriori * argument. Since Aquinas has seen in the universe that changing beings exist, then there must be an Unchanged Changer in the universe. Virtual particles randomly fluctuating in the universe does not disprove the First Way.
a posteriori *
adjective
1. from particular instances to a general principle or law; based upon actual observation or upon experimental data:
an a posteriori argument that derives the theory from the evidence.
2. not existing in the mind prior to or independent of experience.
A posteriori | Define A posteriori at Dictionary.com
If the mathematics of quantum mechanics is right (as most fundamental physicists believe), and if materialism is right, one is forced to accept the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. And that is awfully heavy baggage for materialism to carry.
If, on the other hand, we accept the more traditional understanding of quantum mechanics that goes back to von Neumann, one is led by its logic (as Wigner and Peierls were) to the conclusion that not everything is just matter in motion, and that in particular there is something about the human mind that transcends matter and its laws. It then becomes possible to take seriously certain questions that materialism had ruled out of court: If the human mind transcends matter to some extent, could there not exist minds that transcend the physical universe altogether? And might there not even exist an ultimate Mind?
The discovery of virtual particles does not refute Aquinas's observations. The reason why Aquinas' 5 ways are great is because he assumes that the universe could be eternal. The Big Bang however, does not support atheism since if everything that comes to be needs a cause, then the universe would need a cause. Also, a person can look at the universe and see design, therefore there needs to be a designer. Your explanation of a patch of wet grass ought not to be rain, it could be a person who watered the lawn, a child spilling an orange juice, or a dog marking his territory which shows that the patch of wet grass was designed or someone or something put it there. I know that a wet spot on the grass couldn't be left there by itself, it needed to be put there by something else. This is exactly the point of Aquinas proofs. If there is motion, then there must be a mover. Hence, Aquinas' great proof still stands.
To review the Third Way:
Contingent and Necessary Objects
This Way defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that can not exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately necessitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God. Follow the argument this way:
1) Contingent beings are caused.
2) Not every being can be contingent.
3) There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings.
4) This necessary being is God.
Aquinas' basic argument is if there are contingent beings, then there must be a Necessary Being. You are using logical propositions with metaphysical realities, thus making them weak. Aquinas deals with metaphysical realities throughout. Also, you do not explain how the contingent beings come into existence in his/her universe. Aquinas' argument explains how there cannot always be a state of total nothingness or else nothing would exist. If your universe is dependent (I assume it is since it consists of contingent beings) then the universe is dependent on an infinite Being as well.
The Argument From Degrees And Perfection
What you seem to be saying is all goodness is the same and a greater good does not exist therefore there can be no highest level of Good. Do you feel the same way about music?
Fulton Sheen explains:
"The argument is not that the greater or less participation prove of themselves absolute, but rather that the diversity of degree of participation proves that a thing does not possess it by itself and essentially." (Philosophy of Religion, 381)
You live in a world with no gradations of beauty, goodness or knowledge? Everything is equal and flat? Can you define a negative value without falling into the relativistic trap? I don't think so. The Fourth Way is about degrees/gradients and Perfection, TA is not presupposing anything by not mentioning "negative values" and not proving the universe. Whatever definition of "negative values" you wish to propose leads to further refutation of atheism.
I don't think you understand the Fifth Way. It is an à posteriori argument, (scroll up) and the conclusion is not claimed to follow with absolute certainty. This argument is also termed, "The Teleological Argument." (study of purpose, ends, and goals in natural processes).
Thus, if Thomas' argument is correct, the degree of the truth of the conclusion should be comparable to the conclusions of the findings of modern science. It is important to see that since no claim is made as to the certainty of the conclusion but only as to its probability, the argument cannot be criticized on the grounds that the conclusion does not follow with absolute necessity.
Also, note that the concept of design involves the ability of human beings either to grasp intellectually the order of things or to impose intellectually order on what is being observed.
By his natural reason man is able to arrive at some knowledge of God. For seeing that natural things run their course according to a fixed order, and since there cannot be order without a cause of order, men, for the most part, perceive that there is one who orders the things that we see. But who or of what kind this cause of order may be, or whether there be but one, cannot be gathered from this general consideration.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles (III.38), (quoted from Pegis 1948, 454–455)
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles (III.38), (quoted from Pegis 1948, 454–455)
I'm sure the defenses to the refutations are ignored, so it would depend on which university one attends.
No, the theist has plenty of sound arguments, the atheist just doesn't like them, and haughtily pretends there aren't any.
http://utexas.academia.edu/RKoons
"It is an argument from ignorance and god of the gaps, nothing more". Wrong. It is the arrogance and narrow mindedness of atheism that makes such assumptions.
I appreciate your thoughtful reply, and I enjoyed this discussion with you, unlike the usual stupid one liners that dominate this thread.
.
Last edited:
kepha31
Active Member
“Atheists deserve to have their own holiday—Nothingday—the purpose of which would be to honor what they believe in, which is absolutely nothing. Nothingday would be held on the day of the winter solstice and would be celebrated by holding nationwide conferences explicitly designed to accomplish nothing.
“For example, there would be seminars and workshops on the virtue of standing for nothing. Participants would be invited to watch a video on the meaning of Nothingday and would then discover—to their utter delight—that there’s nothing on the tape. Tables outside conference rooms would be set up, though there would be nothing on them. Breakout sessions would allow participants to huddle in corners for the express purpose of doing nothing. When they reassemble, their team leader would be able to report that they have accomplished absolutely nothing. Naturally, no minutes would be kept.
“They would then repair to the cocktail lounge where they would all be given empty glasses. Dinner would follow, though nothing would be served. At the awards ceremony, those who best represent the spirit of nothing would, of course, be given nothing for their efforts. Best of all, the keynote speaker wouldn’t open his mouth, allowing everyone to just sit there, staring endlessly into space.
“Quite frankly, this sounds a heck of a lot better than the conferences I’ve been to.”
ATHEISTS DESERVE THEIR OWN HOLIDAY—NOTHINGDAY - Catholic League
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Well, one cannot expect the Catholic League to say anything different. However, RigVeda does not make fun of the idea. 3,000 years ago, A very wise scholar, Vihavya Angirasa, in what is known as "The Hindu Creation Hymn", pointed at the relationship between existence and non-existence:
"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent."
Of course, he talked about existence of God also:
"Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not."
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.
It seems that he was the first atheist in the world, Vihavya Angirasa. The Vatican continued to believe in a flat earth, a geo-centric model of the Solar system and gave the age of the Universe as 6000 years.
"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent."
Of course, he talked about existence of God also:
"Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not."
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.
It seems that he was the first atheist in the world, Vihavya Angirasa. The Vatican continued to believe in a flat earth, a geo-centric model of the Solar system and gave the age of the Universe as 6000 years.
Last edited:
Shad
Veteran Member
Which is only a presuppositional view as Aquinas is trying to prove a belief he already accepts hence the priori fails as he already accepted the concept of God before he even started discussing philosophy . Virtual particles prove that there are uncaused objects in reality beside God so you need special pleading to keep the argument intact. Problem of induction too as no amount of observations guarantee that unobserved and/or undiscovered object follow the same observation. Hence virtual particle refute the argument.
Which uses math in it's theoretical theories with your idea requires magic as there is no explanation of how it happened, what method was used, etc, ie magic.
Which becomes a matter of taste as you are accepting an interpretation which works with your belief. Besides Bohr refuted much of von Neumann's work in the 1960s. Barr assets claims when it comes to his discussion between science and faith hence why his work on this subject made next to no impact outside of religious circles. He only asserts there could be a mind which anyone can dismiss for being unsound.
It does since it falsifies the premise that things which begin to exist have a cause. The rest of the argument collapses as unsound after this. The Big Bang support neither atheism nor theism since the singularity point is a road block, we do not know anything before this point beyond speculation. Your follow up is refute by virtual particles. Also you are treating the universe as an object in causality when causality only applies to objects within the universe. Also causality is spatial and temporal based thus for something to lack either, God, can not be applied to causality as a cause. Again using outdated causality from millennia ago. Proof by logic has been refuted by Hume 3 centuries ago. His proof does not stand as it is unsound, soundness is required for an logical argument. Again you use special pleading to render god immune from the first premise thus making the argument invalid and unsound
A person can look at a number of object swhich are natural and infer design but inferring design does not mean there is a design or designer, watchmaker fallacy. We identify a design and design by observations of both not inferring without basis
Which could be the Universe itself but you have dismissed this without an argument skipping straight to your presuppositions
Metaphysics is not a reality it is only speculation outside of physics. Call it reality all you want but this is not. Again both you and Aquinas dismiss the Universe as a possibility skipping straight to the shared presupposition held by faith. This is what happens when you rely on outdated models for your work rather than modern physics and head straight to confirmation bias. If one rejects metaphysics, they are free to do so since it is unsound, your argument collapses in another way.
No I said good, goodness, greater good are all value assessments from a subjective perspective. In order to hold these values as a premise you must accept the hidden premise that morality is objective along with a objective stance of what is good and what is evil which is strictly religious in this case and a presupposition. If one rejects this form of morality then good has no meaning other than subjective views. Subjective views are not sound views. There is the assumption that there is such as thing as maximum goodness thus is begging the question. We have no examples of perfection, we can image it but this does not mean it exists in reality. To do a comparison we need two object which exist as a basis for a comparison, not a abstract maximum goodness compared to reality. You must also accept an objective view of beauty which is not the case considering there are many objects people find beautiful and others do not. My brother's wife for example is beautiful to him but not to me.
Can you define good without falling into the moral presuppositions of your faith as a hidden premise? Aquinas could not, it seems like you will not either.
Which is just the watchmaker fallacy as it presupposes order in the human fashion is the same within the universe. Natural processes have no goals thus teleological has no valid application. Purpose is a human construct so does not work unless you accept the presupposition of your faith as a hidden premise . It is only true if you accept your presupposition as a hidden premise. Since we have only 2 universe which we can observe we can not infer design without comparison other universes which are and are not designed. If the universe was designed we have no true comparison of designed vs not designed.
Which it is not. There is no probability within the original argument nor your argument. You are inserting probability as a form of backpedaling yet contradict the claim and argument provided. More so this makes the conclusion uncertain which is not a claim Aquinas made so you further contradict his work and your first post. Uncetain makes an arguement unsound thus can be dismissed for this very reason. You just undermined your own argument of Aquinas' "proof" of god by claim the proof is uncertain...
No ignored. These views have been challenged not just by atheist but by other Christians like William Lane Craig and Peter Van Inwagen. You may think these argument have no detractors but they do. The objections have nothing to do with atheism as Craig is not an atheist. The issue is the arguments are flawed.
Considering Aquinas has gaps in his knowledge since he lived in the 13th century my claim is true. It is supported by the above post show exactly where the gaps in his knowledge are and why. However by ignoring new data you make this mistake, and fallacies, but ignoring data available to you which was not available to Aquinas. It is not an assumption considering no one uses Aristotle's 4 causes anymore except those argument for the 5 ways.
I like going into detail when I have the time to do so. Detail provides so much "meat" to a discussion that it's almost painful dealing with one liners. Although I believe many probably tag both our posts as TL DR.
*My bad, I thought the picture was in your post, edited and removed.*
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
You mean theist should get nothingday since they are the ONLY ones talking about it.
outhouse
Atheistically
Would that be better then following ancient mens mythology they know absolutely nothing about?
Shad
Veteran Member
Which is no better a strawman than this picture. Atheism is just a rejection of a claim, anything after this point any other view nothing to do with atheism but personal preference of the individual.
Does this picture represent your belief? It is not absurd once all the details are removed from a view to believe this? Is the belief nonsense or is the picture a strawman which make it nonsense itself?
outhouse
Atheistically
Skwim
Veteran Member
Perhaps our present universe is nothing more than a regeneration of a prior universe.
"According to the Big Bang theory, the whole universe emerged during a single moment some 13.7 billion years ago. In the competing theory, our universe generates and regenerates itself in an endless cycle of creation. The latest version of the cyclic model even matches key pieces of observational evidence supporting the older view."
source
source
Or perhaps our universe is an expression of a preexisting multiverse of some kind. We just don't know. However, just because we don't know doesn't mean that a creator automatically gets the nod.
Last edited:
Sabour
Well-Known Member
Thanks for explaining.
As a person who believes in God, I think there will never be a proof that can show all people that God exists because if that happens, it will mean there will be no chance for people to repent and become believers in God because their time for seeking the truth is up and each one already took his decision. This means the test is over because each one of us is responsible for finding the truth, After all that is the purpose of our creation.
I know that may not mean much for you, I just wanted to share it.
Regarding an answer to how the first thing in life came to exist, there will never be an answer. There will always be a reference to a possible thing that existed before it. We will be in an endless series of questions until we become open to the possibility of God's existence and seek the truth with our heart. That is my humble opinion.
So wishful thinking is a path to truth?
Don't you follow a belief system that's founded on the idea that the "saved" don't get what we deserve? Isn't that the whole idea behind the atonement?
Skwim
Veteran Member
Well, biochemistry has come up with an answer: abiogenesis.
Sabour
Well-Known Member
Skwim
Veteran Member
Nice piece of copy-and-paste plagiarism. Got any thoughts of your own?
Skwim
Veteran Member
Gotta read the article.