Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910111213 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 123

Thread: Arguments for the Existence of God

  1. #91
    Insufferable by many Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"


    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    -
    Country
    Antarctica
    Politics
    Bros over hoes
    Gender
    Posts
    18,407
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 11,167
    Given: 13,531

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petros Agapetos View Post
    Well, it depends on the definition of God.

    If we are talking about the God of classical theism :the all-powerful, all-merciful, all-just, I think there are internal contradictions, for example, mercy is the suspension of justice, so it is logically impossible for God to be both all just and all merciful simultaneously. But you can redefine the properties of the God of classical theism in a way as to make it logically possible. It basically depends on whether the God is falsifiable or not. If something cannot be proven wrong, there is no good reason to accept it, if you are skeptical.
    No contradictions, just incredibly (standard) simplistic atheistic thinking about God. Explained centuries ago by Thomas Aquinas for those who want to hear.

    When it comes to the God of Christian theism, I am actually a Gnostic Atheist (I claim to know that God does not in fact exist), but for a more generic definition of God, I am agnostic. I cannot disprove something that is unfalsifiable. So I am agnostic towards God claims that cannot be proven wrong.
    If you claim that God of Christian theism does not exist is that not an Agnostic Atheistic position and not Gnostic Atheist one? Is claiming to know and just claiming the same thing?
    Agnostic Atheist - claims God does not exist
    Gnostic Atheist - does not believe that God exists

  2. #92
    Veteran Member Petros Agapetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Online
    05-22-2023 @ 01:22 AM
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Meta-Ethnicity
    East Caucasian
    Ethnicity
    Armenian
    Country
    Canada
    Region
    Alberta
    Taxonomy
    East Alpine - East Med
    Politics
    Secular Liberal, Progressive Leftist
    Hero
    Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Robert Spencer, Bernie Sanders, Atheism-is-Unstoppable
    Religion
    Atheist
    Gender
    Posts
    4,074
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,051
    Given: 756

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Slivovitz View Post
    No contradictions, just incredibly (standard) simplistic atheistic thinking about God. Explained centuries ago by Thomas Aquinas for those who want to hear.



    If you claim that God of Christian theism does not exist is that not an Agnostic Atheistic position and not Gnostic Atheist one? Is claiming to know and just claiming the same thing?
    Agnostic Atheist - claims God does not exist
    Gnostic Atheist - does not believe that God exists
    Let me clarify:

    Agnostic = without knowledge (the prefix "a" in Greek means 'without', and "gnosis" means 'knowing')
    Gnostic = with knowledge

    Theist = believer that a God exists
    Atheist = non-believer in God's existence

    So if we put these categories together we get four positions:

    Agnostic Atheist = I do not believe in God, and I do not know that a God exists
    Gnostic Atheist = I do not believe in God, and I claim to know that God does NOT exist
    Agnostic Theist = I believe in God, but I don't claim to know that God exists
    Gnostic Theist = I believe in God, and I claim to know God exists.

  3. #93
    Veteran Member Petros Agapetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Online
    05-22-2023 @ 01:22 AM
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Meta-Ethnicity
    East Caucasian
    Ethnicity
    Armenian
    Country
    Canada
    Region
    Alberta
    Taxonomy
    East Alpine - East Med
    Politics
    Secular Liberal, Progressive Leftist
    Hero
    Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Robert Spencer, Bernie Sanders, Atheism-is-Unstoppable
    Religion
    Atheist
    Gender
    Posts
    4,074
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,051
    Given: 756

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Slivovitz View Post
    Are you an Agnostic Atheist? That is not better than being Gnostic Theist. All people should be either Agnostic Theists or Gnostic Atheists.
    I am Agnostic mainly about the generic God concept that passes the logical possibility test.
    I am Agnostic about God concepts that are not provable (not falsifiable).

    I am Gnostic about the Christian God not existing because there are many claims that Christianity makes which science has already falsified.

  4. #94
    Insufferable by many Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"


    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    -
    Country
    Antarctica
    Politics
    Bros over hoes
    Gender
    Posts
    18,407
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 11,167
    Given: 13,531

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petros Agapetos View Post
    Let me clarify:

    Agnostic = without knowledge (the prefix "a" in Greek means 'without', and "gnosis" means 'knowing')
    Gnostic = with knowledge

    Theist = believer that a God exists
    Atheist = non-believer in God's existence

    So if we put these categories together we get four positions:

    Agnostic Atheist = I do not believe in God, and I do not know that a God exists
    Gnostic Atheist = I do not believe in God, and I claim to know that God does NOT exist
    Agnostic Theist = I believe in God, but I don't claim to know that God exists
    Gnostic Theist = I believe in God, and I claim to know God exists.
    Thanks. I switched the Gnostic Atheism and Agnostic Atheism meanings.

  5. #95
    Insufferable by many Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"


    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    -
    Country
    Antarctica
    Politics
    Bros over hoes
    Gender
    Posts
    18,407
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 11,167
    Given: 13,531

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petros Agapetos View Post
    I am Agnostic mainly about the generic God concept that passes the logical possibility test.
    I am Agnostic about God concepts that are not provable (not falsifiable).

    I am Gnostic about the Christian God not existing because there are many claims that Christianity makes which science has already falsified.
    What is that which science falsified? Is this yet another talk about the Book of Genesis?

  6. #96
    Veteran Member Petros Agapetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Online
    05-22-2023 @ 01:22 AM
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Meta-Ethnicity
    East Caucasian
    Ethnicity
    Armenian
    Country
    Canada
    Region
    Alberta
    Taxonomy
    East Alpine - East Med
    Politics
    Secular Liberal, Progressive Leftist
    Hero
    Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Robert Spencer, Bernie Sanders, Atheism-is-Unstoppable
    Religion
    Atheist
    Gender
    Posts
    4,074
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,051
    Given: 756

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Slivovitz View Post
    What is that which science falsified? Is this yet another talk about the Book of Genesis?
    Not just Genesis...there are many passages in the Old Testament, and some in the new, which describe a scientifically inaccurate picture of the world. Just to give one example here: The Bible says the Earth is flat. The Bible also uses the term "four corners of the Earth". This has been falsified.

    When it comes to claims about nature, the Bible has scientifically inaccurate information, with all due respect to Jews and Christians. The Bible claims that Earth has four ends and four corners. Nobody can ever think a ball or a cycle to have corners and ends! Only flat items can have corners and ends, and this is exactly what the bible is trying to express regarding the shape of the earth. The earth is not flat, as once thought and it has no corners or ends at all.

    Isaiah 11:12 :
    And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the Earth.

    Revelation 7:1
    1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corners of the Earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

    Job 38:13
    13 That it might take hold of the ends of the Earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

    Matthew 4:8
    Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

    Astronomical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from any place.

  7. #97
    Veteran Member Petros Agapetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Online
    05-22-2023 @ 01:22 AM
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Meta-Ethnicity
    East Caucasian
    Ethnicity
    Armenian
    Country
    Canada
    Region
    Alberta
    Taxonomy
    East Alpine - East Med
    Politics
    Secular Liberal, Progressive Leftist
    Hero
    Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Robert Spencer, Bernie Sanders, Atheism-is-Unstoppable
    Religion
    Atheist
    Gender
    Posts
    4,074
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,051
    Given: 756

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    The Ontological Argument for the Existence of the Devil

    An ontological argument can be used to prove the existence of the Devil.

    1. I have an idea of the Devil as the worst conceivable being.
    2. A being can exist merely as an idea or as an idea and in reality.
    3. It is worse for the worst conceivable being to exist in reality too rather than just as an idea.
    4. If I think of this worst conceivable being as existing merely as an idea, then I can think of a worse being, i.e. a being that exists in reality too.
    C. This worst conceivable being must exist in reality too, i.e. the Devil exists.

  8. #98
    Veteran Member Petros Agapetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Online
    05-22-2023 @ 01:22 AM
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Meta-Ethnicity
    East Caucasian
    Ethnicity
    Armenian
    Country
    Canada
    Region
    Alberta
    Taxonomy
    East Alpine - East Med
    Politics
    Secular Liberal, Progressive Leftist
    Hero
    Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Robert Spencer, Bernie Sanders, Atheism-is-Unstoppable
    Religion
    Atheist
    Gender
    Posts
    4,074
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,051
    Given: 756

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Ontological Argument

    The ontological argument was originally written by a Benedictine monk named Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in his book Proslogion in 1078. Ontology is the branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being and existence. The argument is based on the greatest idea, God, must exist because it is greater to exist than to not exist. There is a lesser known ontological argument by Descartes.

    The classic ontological argument for the existence of God runs as follows:
    1. I have an idea of God as the greatest conceivable being.
    2. A being can exist merely as an idea or as an idea and in reality.
    3. It is greater to exist in reality too rather than just as an idea.
    4. If I think of this greatest conceivable being as existing merely as an idea, then I can think of a greater being, i.e. a being that exists in reality too.
    5. This greatest conceivable being must exist in reality too, i.e. God exists.

    Counter arguments
    In this argument, existence is given as one of God's attributes as part of the definition: if X is God, then X has the property of existence. This is logically equivalent to "if X does not exist, then X is not God." It does not prove that there are any entities that actually match the definition.

    Existence is not an attribute or predicate

    Existence can hardly ever be considered an attribute, as something non-existent cannot have attributes. [1] Therefore, making conclusions about existence of an entity based on its properties is not logically sound. In short, this argument boils down to "show me a god, and I'll show you an existing god." It is a form of circular reasoning because the existence is built into the assumptions. The flaw was first identified by Immanuel Kant.

    Here are some examples of this proof that highlight the fallacy.
    Unicorns:
    1. Let us define a unicorn as a magical equine being that has one horn, and that exists.
    2. By that definition, such a being must necessarily exist.
    3. Therefore unicorns exist.

    Shangri-La:
    1. Shangri-La is the greatest place on earth.
    2. A place that exists is greater than one that doesn't.
    3. Therefore, Shangri-La exists.

    Hercules:
    1. Hercules is the greatest warrior in history.
    2. A warrior that existed is greater than one that did not.
    3. Therefore, Hercules existed.

    Which God?
    No specific God or religion is supported by the argument.
    The argument supports pantheism better than monotheism:
    1. A being that contains all the parts of another plus one extra part is the greater being.
    2. There cannot exist any part that is not a part of the greatest possible being.
    3. Therefore, the greatest possible being encompasses the entire universe -- hence Pantheism.
    4. If 1. is false, there is no reason to believe that the greatest possible being encompasses anything -- the greatest possible being is indistinguishable from nothing.
    5. If 1. is false and 4. is false because the greatest possible being is the one that encompasses all intrinsically positive things and no intrinsically negative things, then "a being that exists is greater than one that does not" is not true unless existence is intrinsically good.

    Affirming the consequent
    The argument also contains a converse error. The second premise amounts to "If a thing exists then it has greatness," while the conclusion assumes the reverse: "If a thing (the god) has greatness then it exists."

    Non sequitur
    Another problem with the classical version of the argument is that it is invalid. So even if the premises are true, the conclusion is not guaranteed to be true. The fourth premise is supposed to show that there is a contradiction in supposing the greatest conceivable being merely exists as an idea. This, at most, would show that when thinking of this being one would have to suppose this being exists. So even if there are no other problems with the argument, it only proves that I must think of God existing; it does not prove that there is a being actually out there that fits my idea.

    An argument for the Devil
    An ontological argument can be used to prove the existence of the Devil.
    1. I have an idea of the Devil as the worst conceivable being.
    2. A being can exist merely as an idea or as an idea and in reality.
    3. It is worse for the worst conceivable being to exist in reality too rather than just as an idea.
    4. If I think of this worst conceivable being as existing merely as an idea, then I can think of a worse being, i.e. a being that exists in reality too.
    5. This worst conceivable being must exist in reality too, i.e. the Devil exists.

    Gasking's proof
    A piece of parody for the non-existence of god is as follows: [2]
    1. The creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable.
    2. The merit of an achievement consists of its intrinsic greatness and the ability of its creator.
    3. The greater the handicap to the creator, the greater the achievement (would you be more impressed by Turner painting a beautiful landscape or a blind one-armed dwarf?)
    4. The biggest handicap to a creator would be non-existence
    5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the creation of an existing creator, we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
    6. Therefore, God does not exist.


    Assumption that existence is greater than non-existence

    Assuming that existence and non-existence can actually be properties of something, there is no logical justification for existence being greater than non-existence

    Proof by logic
    The argument effectively defines God into existence without considering factual evidence.

    Use-mention error
    The concept God is equated with the greatest conceivable being. This confuses two separate issues: "If compared to every other object, God is greater" and "the greatest thing is arbitrarily labelled God". Of course, one could argue that a "greatest object" must necessarily exist. However, the argument changes the usage of "God" to the former definition. The argument therefore commits the use-mention error.

  9. #99
    Veteran Member Petros Agapetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Online
    05-22-2023 @ 01:22 AM
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Meta-Ethnicity
    East Caucasian
    Ethnicity
    Armenian
    Country
    Canada
    Region
    Alberta
    Taxonomy
    East Alpine - East Med
    Politics
    Secular Liberal, Progressive Leftist
    Hero
    Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Robert Spencer, Bernie Sanders, Atheism-is-Unstoppable
    Religion
    Atheist
    Gender
    Posts
    4,074
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,051
    Given: 756

    0 Not allowed!

    Default Argument from the meaning of life

    The argument from the meaning of life states that God must exist because without God, human life would have no objective meaning. Conversely, apologists sometimes assert that a meaning of life exists and that this implies God exists too. No one wants to admit that their life is void of meaning and purpose, which provides the emotional basis for the argument.

    In 1843, Søren Kierkegaard wrote:

    "If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the bottom of everything there were only a wild ferment, a power that twisting in dark passions produced everything great or inconsequential; if an unfathomable, insatiable emptiness lay hid beneath everything, what would life be but despair?"

    More recent apologists have written:

    "Without God, life has no purpose, and without purpose, life has no meaning. Without meaning, life has no significance or hope."

    "If all the events are meaningless, then what can be the ultimate meaning of influencing any of them? Ultimately it makes no difference."

    "If the universe is not governed by an absolute goodness, then all our efforts are in the long run hopeless."
    — C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

    "Why would you want to live in a purposeless chaos, in which none of your actions had any significance? In which there was no hope of justice? In which the lives of all those you love ended abruptly at death and had no further significance? Why would you want, desire, actively wish to live in a universe as disgusting as that? You would have to have a very good reason. And I think [atheists] have a very good reason and its what they never wish to discuss. They don't want justice. They do want the dead to be dead. They do want the universe to be purposeless. They do not want their own individual actions to have any other significance than their immediate effect. You have to discuss with them why they are so keen on that proposition."
    — Peter Hitchens

    "[...] does the search for the existence of a supernatural being, so pervasive in all cultures ever studied, represent a universal but groundless human longing for something outside ourselves to give meaning to a meaningless life and to take away the sting of death? [...] I can recall clearly some of those moments in my own life, where this poignant sense of longing, falling somewhere between pleasure and grief, caught me by surprise and caused me to wonder from whence came such strong emotion, and how might such an experience be recovered."
    — Francis Collins, The Language of God

    Argument from justice is sometimes combined with this argument because it provides consequences to moral actions which is argued to be necessary for those actions to be meaningful. This argument is related to the transcendental argument because both assert absolute things exist that depend on the existence of God.

  10. #100
    Veteran Member Petros Agapetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Online
    05-22-2023 @ 01:22 AM
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Meta-Ethnicity
    East Caucasian
    Ethnicity
    Armenian
    Country
    Canada
    Region
    Alberta
    Taxonomy
    East Alpine - East Med
    Politics
    Secular Liberal, Progressive Leftist
    Hero
    Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Robert Spencer, Bernie Sanders, Atheism-is-Unstoppable
    Religion
    Atheist
    Gender
    Posts
    4,074
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,051
    Given: 756

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    What does the "meaning of life” mean?

    The meaning of life refers to the significance or purpose of human existence. Ancient and Medieval philosophy in the West has tended to only consider "intrinsic" values, roughly meaning a value is "good for its own sake", as potential candidates for the meaning for life. Similarly, most religions consider metaphysical notions such as ethics or our relationship with God to be the purpose of life. It is usually assumed that the purpose of life is uniform for all humans, invariant to time and is good no matter regardless of who attains it. This is the conception of the "meaning of life" used in the argument.

    Enlightenment philosophy changed the focus of meaning to "natural rights" of humans, which do not necessarily depend on God. Humanism and utilitarianism are similar in that they are concerned with improving the overall "greater good of humanity". These views implicitly suppose that a significance for human life can exist without recourse to God.

    Existentialism and other branches of modern philosophy have tended to consider absolute meaning of life as non-existent or conceptually meaningless. The possibility of a subjective or person specific "meaning of life" is accepted.

    "This—is now MY way,—where is yours?" Thus did I answer those who asked me "the way." For THE way—it doth not exist!

    We know what it means for a human action to have purpose because we experience it every day. However, it is unclear if the concept of "purpose" can be properly applied to an entire life.

Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910111213 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Which TA arguments are the worst?
    By Szegedist in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 11-08-2016, 11:07 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •