Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 78910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 123

Thread: Arguments for the Existence of God

  1. #101
    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

    Problems with the argument from the meaning of life

    Absolute meaning of life might not exist

    The argument assumes there is an absolute meaning to life. However, this is not necessarily true and difficult to establish with any certainty. Although we might feel uncomfortable admitting that our life does not serve an eternal purpose, we should not simply assume that it does have a purpose. There is no evidence that any absolute meaning of life exists. While religious believers claim their idea of the meaning of life is absolute, without some way of verifying it, it is likely to be another a subjective concept. Simply claiming their concept of meaning is absolute does not make it absolute.

  2. #102
    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

    Christian idea for the meaning of life is questionable

    It is important to determine what the theist believes the meaning of life actually is. In some cases, they say the meaning of life is to worship God. Subservient worship is not going to be most people's idea of a meaningful life.

    Alternatively, God may have determined the purpose of humans is to be quite different from what humans currently belief and, for all we know, is possibly unachievable. This would hardly be a comforting concept.

    If meaning is predestined, then either God is unjust and does not give atheists the same facility to meaning, or is impotent, and can't. Secondly, free will and "designed" meaning cannot exist together, as they are mutually exclusive.

  3. #103
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Last Online
    04-01-2017 @ 12:05 AM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    .
    Ethnicity
    1/4 English, 1/4 Finnish, 1/8 Swedish, 1/8 French, 1/8 Northern Italian, 1/8 Southern Italian
    Country
    United States
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    Christian-Calvinist
    Age
    28
    Gender
    Posts
    89
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 50
    Given: 47

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    We don't have free will.

    God is just because He can do what he jolly well pleases, with His own damn property. Potter/Clay & Parable of the workers in the vinyard

    Worshiping God is meaningful because he is the highest good (summum bonum) and fullness of the good, if you want everything that is good and desireable (which all humans do) you can only find that in God in whom it is posessable all at once without the possbility for dimminishment. You should just be grateful that He actually wants to give some people joy, if you have the misfortune of being among the ones who are damned ... well that is so that those whom He saves will appreciate their salvation all the more, recognizing that it was not owed to them. I believe this is just, but in order to do so I need to believe that their was some sort of primeval fall, don't know exactly what it looked like, but I believe it happened ... but even if it didn't happen, we wouldn't have the right to bitch.

  4. #104
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Last Online
    01-17-2018 @ 04:41 AM
    Ethnicity
    Mare
    Country
    Andorra
    Gender
    Posts
    5,400
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 4,783
    Given: 2,629

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    On the Ontological Argument, existence is not given as one of God's attributes as part of the definition, it is derived from premisses, we don't see in the definition 'God exists' or something semantically equivalent, if this was circular logic then all deductions would be circular logic. Just like saying "x = 1+5x2" is not defining x to be 11, or "x is a prime and x is more than 15 and for all y such that (y is prime and y is greater than 15 and y is different from x) then x is smaller than y" is not defining x to be 17 (in this case x would be the smallest prime greater than 15).

    Your examples do not involve maximally great entities and so are not analogous to it. In 1.) you conclude one of your premisses, that the unicorn exists, it becomes a petitio principii, in fact you could just go from (1) to (3), in 2.) and 3.) you conceive of entities that are maximal within a restricted class, the class of places and the class of warriors, even if we accept all of Anselm's premisses and argument there is no need for us to accept a conceived maximal great warrior must exist because not being maximally great just being a 'maximal warrior', it is not contradictory to have the properties that would it a maximal warrior but still fail to exist.

    I am familiar with another "refutation" of it, which starts with "Imagine A and let A be maximally great" to conclude "A exists". Where A is not maximally great by definition is usually defined as a unicorn. It is true that if you add a premisse to another set of premisses then you should still be able to deduce at least as much as you would without that aditional premisse, but it is important to see if the aditional premisse is consistent with the rest. If I make an argument to say 'if something is a triangle on planar geometry then the sum of its internal angles is 180°', then you might go on and say 'if something is a triangle and has two sides of equal length then the sum of its internal angles is 180°', because having two sides of equal length is consistent with being a triangle so the objects that satisfies both premisses defines a non-empty subset of the triangles, but if someone says 'if something is a triangle and a pentagon then the sum of its internal angles is 180°' then there is no object to fit the premisses because they clash, leaving the argument vacuosly true. In the way you can't fit a unicorn with being maximally great because a unicorn is a physical horse with wings and horse-like intelligence, sure you could redefine your unicorn to get rid of any submaximally great properties but then you would be defining your unicorn to fit Anselm's definition of God.

    There is though one argument against the Ontological Argument that I find very cogent, due to Kant I believe, who said existence is not a property, I am not sure if that's what you intended to mention in one of your counter-arguments. Maybe you could dive deeper into that.
    Last edited by Also; 12-05-2016 at 05:01 AM.

  5. #105
    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

    Kant’s Objection to Descartes’ Ontological Argument

    Descartes had argued that God had existence in the same way as a triangle has three sides. Kant would agree, if you had a triangle then you did indeed have an object with three sides. But if you do not have the triangle, you have neither its three angles or its three sides. If you accept that there is a God, it is logical to accept also that His existence is necessary. But you don’t have to accept that there is a God.

    Contemporary Views of the Ontological Argument

    Kant's objection has been very influential in the ontological argument debate. Philosopher are still divided as to whether or not existence is a predicate. Some thinkers controversially believe that existence can be thought of as a unique property. A modern advocate of the ontological argument is Alvin Plantinga (b.1932) Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame University, USA. He has forcefully argued that Kant's objection does not conflict with anything in Anselm's argument. For Anselm does not contingently add existence as a property to God and define him into existence. Naturally these objections are contentious, which adds to the intrigue of the ontological argument.

  6. #106
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Croatia
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Slavic+Romance
    Ethnicity
    Croatian
    Ancestry
    3/4 Croatian and 1/4 North Italian
    Country
    Croatia
    Region
    Dalmatia
    Y-DNA
    I2a1b
    Taxonomy
    Atlantid+CM
    Politics
    Direct Democracy
    Hero
    Jordan Peterson
    Religion
    Deist
    Gender
    Posts
    9,888
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 12,781
    Given: 8,063

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    Our minds invented religious God, there is God, but our minds shaped it in our own image.

    And the truth is the mind cannot solve our human problems. The mind can invent theories, systems, ideas; it can bring about different patterns of action; it can organize existence; it can invent and formulate. It cannot solve the human problem because the mind itself is the problem, and not the problem which it projects outside itself. The mind itself has become the problem, and its fabrications further complicate life, bringing conflict and misery. The substitution of one idea for another, or the change of ideas does not transform the thinker.

    So, the thinker himself has become the problem. Thought can be modified, changed; but the thinker remains apart. The thinker is the thought. They are not separate, they are a joint phenomenon and not separate processes. The thinker, by manipulating, modifying, changing thought according to circumstances, safeguards himself by this action. The picture remains; only the frame is changed, but the picture is the problem and not the frame. Thought is not the problem, but the thinker. This action of modification, change, of his thought, is a clever deception on the part of the thinker, leading him to illusion and endless misunderstanding and conflict. So, only when the thinker ceases is there being, and it is only the state of being that can bring about radical transformation.


    Ideas cannot bring about transformation in the world. Ideas only create further ideas in opposition or in acceptance, which inevitably create separate groups and bring about conflict and misery. Ideas cannot fundamentally change man. They do affect his superficial life, modifying his actions and his outward relationships, but ideas do not radically transform his being. He either opposes them or accepts them and therefore isolates himself - which only creates further antagonism and strife. Only the state of being can bring about fundamental transformation. This state of being is not an idea or a mere formulation, but it comes when thought as ideas ceases.


    It is important to understand this - that ideas cannot transform man; modification of thought cannot bring about radical revolution. There is radical revolution only when the thinker comes to an end. When do you have creative moments, a sense of joy and beauty? Only when the thinker is absent, when the thought process comes to an end. Then, in the interval between two thoughts, is creative joy. Being alone can bring about transformation.

    You cannot think about God...The thinker him/herself is the problem.

  7. #107
    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
    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.
    This corner thing is getting boring, like some mantra repeated by atheists.

    Matthew 4:8
    An exceeding high mountain - It is not known what mountain this was. It was probably some elevated place in the vicinity of Jerusalem, from the top of which could be seen no small part of the land of Palestine. The Abbe Mariti speaks of a mountain on which he was, which answers to the description here. "This part of the mountain," says he, "overlooks the mountains of Arabia, the country of Gilead, the country of the Amorites, the plains of Moab, the plains of Jericho, the River Jordan, and the whole extent of the Dead Sea." So Moses, before he died, went up into Mount Nebo, and from it God showed him "all the land of Gilead unto Dan, and all Naphtali, and the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, and all the land of Judah, unto the utmost sea, and the south, and the plain of the valley of Jericho, and the city of palm-trees, unto Zoar," Deuteronomy 34:1-3. This shows that there were mountains from which no small part of the land of Canaan could be seen; and we need not suppose that there was any miracle when they were shown to the Saviour.

    All the kingdoms of the world - It is not probable that anything more is intended here than the kingdoms of Palestine, or of the land of Canaan, and those in the immediate vicinity. Judea was divided into three parts, and those parts were called kingdoms; and the sons of Herod, who presided over them, were called kings. The term "world" is often used in this limited sense to denote a part or a large part of the world, particularly the land of Canaan. See Romans 4:13, where it means the land of Judah; also Luke 2:1, and the note on the place.
    But if we take the world to mean only the land of Judea, and some of the surrounding nations, as it appears sometimes to signify, (see on Luke 2:1 (note)), then the mountain described by the Abbe Mariti (Travels through Cyprus, etc). could have afforded the prospect in question. Speaking of it, he says, "Here we enjoyed the most beautiful prospect imaginable. This part of the mountain overlooks the mountains of Arabia, the country of Gilead, the country of the Amorites, the plains of Moab, the plains of Jericho, the river Jordan, and the whole extent of the Dead Sea. It was here that the devil said to the Son of God, All these kingdoms will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me." Probably St. Matthew, in the Hebrew original, wrote הארץ haarets, which signifies the world, the earth, and often the land of Judea only. What renders this more probable is, that at this time Judea was divided into several kingdoms, or governments under the three sons of Herod the Great, viz. Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip; which are not only called ethnarchs and tetrarchs in the Gospels, but also βασιλεις, kings, and are said βασιλευειν, to reign, as Rosenmuller has properly remarked. See Matthew 2:22; Matth
    Why is it so wrong to assume that Job is speaking allegorically and figuratively there?? Job speaks about the foundations of the Earth and garments and yet writes that God suspends the Earth over nothing or hangs the Earth over nothing. Job uses the same word kanaph which is in Isaiah translated as corners (and which can mean a lot of things, extremity in general), but Job speaks of the Earth's circle. Do circles have corners? Are not mathematically extremities of spheres either its centers or points on surface? Earth's two extremities for example are North and South Pole since they are extremities of an axis through a sphere, but ok that is just playing with words, but you get the point.

    What do you think about the following verse, Jesus describing his return?

    In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
    Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.
    I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
    I don't think people very too aware back then of time zones and that there can be day and night at the same time which is possible if the world is not flat. There is a story of Magellan and his crew who were perplexed when they reached Cape Verde. They thought it is a Wednesday and people told them it is Thursday, so I don't think they were aware of that.

  8. #108
    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
    This corner thing is getting boring, like some mantra repeated by atheists.

    Matthew 4:8



    Why is it so wrong to assume that Job is speaking allegorically and figuratively there?? Job speaks about the foundations of the Earth and garments and yet writes that God suspends the Earth over nothing or hangs the Earth over nothing. Job uses the same word kanaph which is in Isaiah translated as corners (and which can mean a lot of things, extremity in general), but Job speaks of the Earth's circle. Do circles have corners? Are not mathematically extremities of spheres either its centers or points on surface? Earth's two extremities for example are North and South Pole since they are extremities of an axis through a sphere, but ok that is just playing with words, but you get the point.

    What do you think about the following verse, Jesus describing his return?


    I don't think people very too aware back then of time zones and that there can be day and night at the same time which is possible if the world is not flat. There is a story of Magellan and his crew who were perplexed when they reached Cape Verde. They thought it is a Wednesday and people told them it is Thursday, so I don't think they were aware of that.
    The Bible is a vast book and there are different genres in it: there are Psalms, Proverbs, poetry, etc.
    But when it comes to factual claims, surely if the Bible were divinely authored, there should have been clear indications that the Earth is spherical.
    This is just one example. Another example would be the age of the Earth. Science tells us the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, while a literalist reading of the Bible would suggest it is 6000 to 10000 years old. This is not a trivial error. Clearly the authors of the Bible were not aware of these scientific truths, that is why the Bible should not be treated as a science book. And those who do, are doing a great disfavor for both science and the Bible.

  9. #109
    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

    bump

  10. #110
    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

    Doesn't it take more faith to disbelieve in God than to believe in him?

    Atheists maintain that there is currently no evidence to justify positive belief in God. Therefore, it is not necessary, logical, or reasonable to believe in any of the various gods posited by world religions. The absence of evidence could represent either evidence of absence or simply the absence of a proper means of detection. Regardless, positive claims about the existence of gods made in the absence of evidence are difficult to defend. Belief is warranted when the existence of a god can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. For the purposes of this discussion, the relevant definition of faith is:

    "Accepting a proposition as true based on intuition or reason, regardless of the evidence."

    A separate issues is that, in general, it seems believing requires less psychological effort than disbelieving.

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 78910111213 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
  •