Arguments for the Existence of God

[Petros Agapetos]

Then those unicorns are God. When I or person X define God we assume God who created the Universe, humans, along with humans the idea of unicorns and unicorns if they exist. You can't just use unicorns as a counterargument for the existence of God.

Yes but the term God already has baggage behind it. Why not call them what they are, universe creating pixies that look like invisible pink unicorns just sufficiently powerful enough to create a universe. And my universe creating pixies are more likely than your God, because they are less powerful, and hence less improbable.

[Petros Agapetos]

There is already an understanding of what the God of classical theism is. It is much less likely than any number of hypothesized beings that could have been the cause of our universe. But for some reason we don't even entertain them to be on the same footing as with God, because they are not all omnipotent.

[Insuperable]

Yes but the term God already has baggage behind it. Why not call them what they are, universe creating pixies that look like invisible pink unicorns just sufficiently powerful enough to create a universe. And my universe creating pixies are more likely than your God, because they are less powerful, and hence less improbable.

There is already an understanding of what the God of classical theism is. It is much less likely than any number of hypothesized beings that could have been the cause of our universe. But for some reason we don't even entertain them to be on the same footing as with God, because they are not all omnipotent.

Well, now that you know what is the God of classical theism then I don't see what is the point in writing nonsense unless you actually believe in invisible pink unicorns and universe creating pixies. I know you don't believe that and that you just try out to test the logic behind those who believe in God, but try to read between the lines. I have tried and don't see anything logical such in counter-arguments.

[Petros Agapetos]

Well, now that you know what is the God of classical theism then I don't see what is the point in writing nonsense unless you actually believe in invisible pink unicorns and universe creating pixies. I know you don't believe that and that you just try out to test the logic behind those who believe in God, but try to read between the lines. I have tried and don't see anything logical such in counter-arguments.

But the God of classical theism is omnipotent. What is your justification for positing that? Why not say sufficiently powerful, which makes it more probable it exists, and is by definition enough to create the universe. Why posit something above and beyond common sense such as infinitely powerful or omnipotent.

An Omnipotent God entails the idea that God can create a rock so heavy he could not lift it, yet he can. It would imply that God is powerful enough to create something he cannot destroy and yet be able to destroy it. It violates sound logic. It leads to contradiction, and that's where madness lies. It violates the cornerstone of reason, the logical absolutes, namely the Law of Non-Contradiction (A =/= not A), which is a foundation not only of logic and reason, but also of thought.

You can look up "The Logical Absolutes" to get more information about it.

If you however refer to the Sufficiently Powerful creator of the universe by "God of classical theism", then that's your prerogative, but my understanding is that the God of classical theism is all-powerful, which I think is an absurd stance to take about God, and doesn't do God's nature much justice to hypothesize something which you don't even need in order to explain creation.

[Petros Agapetos]

The cosmological argument is an argument for God based on the principle that everything has a cause. The argument is also known as the first cause argument, uncaused cause argument, argument from existence and the causal argument. One of the most influential statements of the argument was by Thomas Aquinas:

"Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause. This leads to a regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call God."

There are some popular variants of the cosmological argument, including:
Kalam, which argues that things that do not come into existence do not require a cause.

Why is there something rather than nothing?, which argues the chain of events or state of the universe requires an extra explanation.
Leibniz cosmological argument, uses a chain of explanations rather than a chain of causes. It depends on the premise that "everything that exists requires an explanation"; this concept is known as the principle of sufficient reason.
The preservation argument argues that something causes things to remain in existence.

[Petros Agapetos]

Formal Argument

Premise 1. Everything that exists must have a cause.

If you follow the chain of events backwards through time, it cannot go back infinitely, so eventually you arrive at the first cause.

Premise 2. This cause must, itself, be uncaused.

Premise 3. But nothing can exist without a cause, except for God.

Conclusion. Therefore, God exists.


A close variant is the argument from the Big Bang:

Premise 1.The universe began to exist at the Big Bang

Premise 2.Something apart from the universe caused this

Conclusion.Therefore, a creator exists.

[Dominicanese]

i don't believe in god so

there's something out there but it is unlike what we think

if there were one, why is there this?

[IMG][/IMG]

while you have others living like this





and others suffering like this



there aint no god


and btw, i highly advice all of you and those reading, that every day on your birthdays whether you have a bad or good one, you stop and think to yourself "man i wonder how many haven't made it to whatever age that i am turning"

[Petros Agapetos]

^ The above is called the argument from evil for the non-existence of God. It is an atheist argument.
I personally don't find it all that compelling. since a God could exists who is evil. The only reason you suppose God is the good one and Satan is the evil one is that God says "I am the Law" and I alone must be obeyed. If both the devil and God can deceive you, haven't you thought about how you would determine the will of God from the mere will of men who wrote the Bible?

[Petros Agapetos]

The most concise answer to this argument is: "Who created God?", which in turn raises the question "Who created God's creator?", and so on ad infinitum. This is known as an infinite regress or "It's turtles all the way down".

It is not necessarily impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes and effects. Among scientists, it is widely agreed that our universe began with the Big Bang. But we don't know what occurred in the first split second after the Big Bang, nor can we comment on anything that came before it, as no experiments have yet been devised that could test any hypotheses about these early moments.

Some have claimed that with an infinite past, we could never get to now. Flip the infinity: does an infinity of seconds not stretch forward into the future, eternally? Starting from an infinite future, can you go a second before that, and a second before that, ad infinitum, and get to now?

[Sacrificed Ram]

Be ignostic, the question of the existence of god is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence.