1818 replies to this topic

[DukeNukem]

Maybe god doesn't want us to believe in god. Since god won't give us one clue or another, god wants us to be atheists. God is like way too almighty to be acknowledged. You know, like high school. God is the really boss kid and too cool to nod a simple "Hi!" to the rest of us dorks straggling in the hallways of life.

Yep. One of the strongest arguments against gods is that they do nothing to reveal themselves. Quite the opposite, in fact: Every clue in this vast world and universe indicates they do not exist. In fact, the signs they apparently did make, like the Bible or Quran, are so flawed and scientifically inaccurate, it makes these gods look like poorly educated bozos. And worse, mass murdering madmen.

Even if they were real, why would anyone want to follow them. They apparently love suffering. And their idea of punishing us (eternal hell) is so off-the-scale evil that it truly shows their true colors as merciless psychopaths.

But, the "good news", they're not real, so no one needs to worry about them.

[johnross47]

I'm posting short points because I'm in the middle of moving house. Another issue is the composition of qualities of the maximally everything entity; it might be lots of different entities; one is biggest, another is omniscient and another, away off in another reality is the most compassionate. The omniscient one might be the cruelest. Chop it up any way you like; unless you start with a rule that one being holds all the cards then I don't think there is any reason to suppose it would so. Usain Bolt is the fastest sprinter while Mo Farah is fastest at 5000 and 10000 metres.

[sthira]

Yeh, I'm confused about the difference between a "maximally great being" (such peculiar terminology) and the universe itself. Sure, a maximally great being exists, and that "being" is the universe. Why the need for god? If god sparked the big bang -- bully for you, god, thanks for our suffering little lives. But what does god's existence or non-existence have to do with anyone's daily life since god doesn't care one way or another about ongoing communication?

[johnross47]

That's one of the curious claims these theists make. SH loves to produce BGV as if it proves his God, but it's more likely to be just a random quantum fart. Proving that the universe began doesn't show how, and conjuring up a maximally great being doesn't prove the christian god. SH next takes refuge in saying these arguments are not proofs, just signs. When I see a road sign I trust it; when I see a sign proclaiming god I look for the theist behind it and expect it to lead to believers and not what they believe in.

[sthira]

God: Now I shall appoint you, Shadowhawk, as my hawkingly shadowy voice.  On an internet forum about vitamins, thou shalt use giant, colored fonts to argue up my Being

Shadowhawk:  thanks, God, I'll post a bunch of random YouTube polemics, repeat ad nauseum lists of the names and descriptions of logical fallacies ("I teach logic" you know), and then I'll copy and paste other dude's sentences about your glorious glory, etc, etc.

God: thou shalt do these things and more, Shadowhawk, since I'm too almightily cool for any of those human fuckwads on that tiresome nootropically obsessed site

[shadowhawk]

johnross47 One of the many difficulties involved in arguing with Christians is their incorrigible dishonesty. It's exactly the same problem as when creationists and intelligent designers say that they are not claiming that a specific god did it. We all, (even the courts), know that they do exactly and specifically intend the creative designer, or maximally great being to be, not just any old god, not Thor or Zeus or Allah, but their own personal sect's particular god. That is so clearly the origin of their specification of characteristics that it is rather like watching a chocolate faced three year old denying knowledge of the missing goodies.

Another point which I thought I had clarified, is that the form of the argument does not require that the entity in question is at the big end of the set; it could be at the opposite extreme, "maximally" small, or indeed in the middle of the range. All that is required is that it occupies a necessarily existent niche. S5 says very little except that things that exist exist. Dressing it up in the language of possibility and necessity makes it look important, but it still comes up against the issue of whether existence is a predicate? Most people think not. Clearly, truth is not determined by voting, but I think you would have a hard job showing that existence adds anything to anything; it's only an issue where there is no evidence of it.

Ad Hominem
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
http://www.nizkor.or...ad-hominem.html

Your specialty is name calling.

You want to create a straw man out of the fact the argument does not pretend to identify the maximally great being. It is not intended to do that. I will identify who I think that being is later but the Ontological argument, and the other arguments I have presented do not have this as their purpose. Small is not the opposite of great. The argument is not a spacial argument. Also existence adds everything to everything. You are an evangelist of Nothing.

The Ontological argument argues:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

You need to deal with the actual argument.
http://www.longecity...330#entry636734
http://www.longecity...330#entry636736

[shadowhawk]

Yeh, I'm confused about the difference between a "maximally great being" (such peculiar terminology) and the universe itself. Sure, a maximally great being exists, and that "being" is the universe. Why the need for god? If god sparked the big bang -- bully for you, god, thanks for our suffering little lives. But what does god's existence or non-existence have to do with anyone's daily life since god doesn't care one way or another about ongoing communication?

How do you know? There is a need for something beside the caused universe. Kalam

[shadowhawk]

That's one of the curious claims these theists make. SH loves to produce BGV as if it proves his God, but it's more likely to be just a random quantum fart. Proving that the universe began doesn't show how, and conjuring up a maximally great being doesn't prove the christian god. SH next takes refuge in saying these arguments are not proofs, just signs. When I see a road sign I trust it; when I see a sign proclaiming god I look for the theist behind it and expect it to lead to believers and not what they believe in.

Wrong. The BGV proves the universe we know, had a beginning. So does entropy. I didn’t say the maximally great being was the Christian God. Not only do you call people names but misrepresent them.

[shadowhawk]

God: Now I shall appoint you, Shadowhawk, as my hawkingly shadowy voice. On an internet forum about vitamins, thou shalt use giant, colored fonts to argue up my Being

Shadowhawk: thanks, God, I'll post a bunch of random YouTube polemics, repeat ad nauseum lists of the names and descriptions of logical fallacies ("I teach logic" you know), and then I'll copy and paste other dude's sentences about your glorious glory, etc, etc.

God: thou shalt do these things and more, Shadowhawk, since I'm too almightily cool for any of those human fuckwads on that tiresome nootropically obsessed site

When you have nothing to say, start ad hominem attacks, ridicule and name calling. It says more about you than anyone else. In case you haven’t noticed this forum is about Spirituality and Religion. So you are off topic and in violation of the forum rules, not that you care. Rave on. Ho hummm

[shadowhawk]

[sthira]

How do you know?  There is a need for something beside the caused universe.  Kalam

Gazoontite

When you have nothing to say, start ad hominem attacks, ridicule and name calling.  It says more about you than anyone else.  In case you haven’t noticed this forum is about Spirituality and Religion.  So you are off topic and in violation of the forum rules, not that you care.  Rave on.  Ho hummm  

Since you're such down-swoop of hawkish of fun I guess you know the joke by Emo Phillips?

"I was walking across a bridge one day and I saw a man standing on a ledge -- about to jump off.  So I ran over and said, "Stop!  Don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

"Well, there's so much to live for." 

"Like what?" 

"Well, are you religious?" 

He said yes, and I said, "Me too!" 

Are you Christian or Buddhist?  Christian.  Me too!  Are you Catholic or Protestant?  Protestant.  Me too!  Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?  Baptist.   Wow, me too!  Are you Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?  Reformed Baptist Church of God.   Me too!  Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1789 or Reformed Baptist Church of God, 1915?

He said: "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915."

I said, "Die, heretic scum!"  And I pushed him off the bridge.

[johnross47]

johnross47 One of the many difficulties involved in arguing with Christians is their incorrigible dishonesty. It's exactly the same problem as when creationists and intelligent designers say that they are not claiming that a specific god did it. We all, (even the courts), know that they do exactly and specifically intend the creative designer, or maximally great being to be, not just any old god, not Thor or Zeus or Allah, but their own personal sect's particular god. That is so clearly the origin of their specification of characteristics that it is rather like watching a chocolate faced three year old denying knowledge of the missing goodies.

Another point which I thought I had clarified, is that the form of the argument does not require that the entity in question is at the big end of the set; it could be at the opposite extreme, "maximally" small, or indeed in the middle of the range. All that is required is that it occupies a necessarily existent niche. S5 says very little except that things that exist exist. Dressing it up in the language of possibility and necessity makes it look important, but it still comes up against the issue of whether existence is a predicate? Most people think not. Clearly, truth is not determined by voting, but I think you would have a hard job showing that existence adds anything to anything; it's only an issue where there is no evidence of it.

Ad Hominem
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
http://www.nizkor.or...ad-hominem.html

Your specialty is name calling.

You want to create a straw man out of the fact the argument does not pretend to identify the maximally great being. It is not intended to do that. I will identify who I think that being is later but the Ontological argument, and the other arguments I have presented do not have this as their purpose. Small is not the opposite of great. The argument is not a spacial argument. Also existence adds everything to everything. You are an evangelist of Nothing.

The Ontological argument argues:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

You need to deal with the actual argument.
http://www.longecity...330#entry636734
http://www.longecity...330#entry636736

A perfect example of the chocolate faced dishonesty referred to. We can all read. I find it hard to understand how a grown adult can seek to use such shamelessly aggressive denials when the facts are only a short scroll away.

Line 2 of the "proof" is the crux of the silliness. Just because something is possible does not make it actual, and when you combine it with the definitional issues you have chosen to avoid confronting, the whole thing is exposed as a steaming pile. S5 is a very dangerous piece of sophistry.

[shadowhawk]

Is it possible that a maximally great being exists? If so, than it exists in some possible world. You are perhaps saying (because you earlier argued that this being could be small,) that such a being could exist but be small. So...if the answer is yes, than it would have to exist in some possible reality.

This has been so obvious since I presented the argument and yet you still misunderstand it.
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists. No? scientific evidence.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

[shadowhawk]

SUMMARY OF TOPIC DISCUSSION.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. EVIDENCE FROM HUMAN DESIRE.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This something is what people call "God" and "life with God
forever.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry616422

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GODS EXISTENCE

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry617242
http://www.longecity...270#entry634650
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FROM CONTINGENCY
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619063
The cosmological argument comes in a variety of forms. We examined the Kalaam above. Here’s a simple version of the famous version from contingency offered as a further proof for God:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619676
3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619063

a variation of the Cosmological argument from Contingency,
http://www.longecity...180#entry629626
http://www.longecity...210#entry629767
1. I exist.
2. If I exist something must have always existed because you don’t get something from nothing.
3. There are only two choices for an eternal ‘something’: (a) The universe; (b) God.
4. The universe is not eternal.
5. Therefore, God exists.

Then I presented W.L. Craig’s additional defense of the Cosmological argument after the Lawrence Krauss debate.
http://www.longecity...210#entry630446
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. EVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845

1. Kalam argument used with cause and effect Evolution as evIdence for God.
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
2.E-coli proof of evolution???
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
http://www.longecity..._90#entry622255

3.PALEY’S old watch argument for design.
http://www.longecity..._90#entry622077
1) The element common to both watches and life is: Both are preceded by a language (plan) before they are built

2) The essential difference between naturally occurring pattern and an intelligent design is language

3) All language comes from a mind

4) Therefore all things containing the logic of language are designed


4. HILBERTS HOTEL http://www.longecity..._90#entry622260

5. MY BOOKCASE AND THE MOVING BALL. http://www.longecity..._90#entry622414

6. NECESSARY BEING
http://www.longecity..._90#entry623130

7. BIG BANG http://www.longecity..._90#entry622862

8. SHAKESPEARE’S HAMLET
http://www.longecity...120#entry624716

9. TESTS FOR DISCOVERING THE REAL WORLD.
http://www.longecity...120#entry625613

10. EVIDENCE FOR GODS EXISTENCE.
http://www.longecity...150#entry625790

11. FIVE ARGUMENTS FOR GODS EXISTENCE. We have discussed two of these.
http://www.longecity...150#entry626289

12. RANDOM CHANCE AND EVOLUTION DEFEATS NATURALISTIC ATHEISM.
http://www.longecity...180#entry627545


6. SUMMARY OF FINE TUNING

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

I have shown that the cosmos has the appearance of being “Finely Tuned,” for life bu a designer. Dozens of constants (laws) exist and if they varied only slightly life would not exist.
http://www.longecity...180#entry629011
----------------------------------------------------

Where is the evidence to the contrary? There is none no matter how loudly the Atheists scream or try to derail the discussion of the topic with logical fallacies or violations of the forum rules and guidelines, contrary evidence.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I illustrated this by the “DART THROWER.” http://www.longecity...180#entry629199

The darts illustrate the constants that are aimed at the bull’s-eye of life. All of them are so finely aimed that it would be highly improbable that they could hit the target by blind random chance,
---------------------------------------------------------
Next I presented Dr. Walter L. Bradley, argument for Fine Tuning. He brought up the subject of math which we will turn to again, next.
http://www.longecity...180#entry629222
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then I went off track with this argument, a variation of the Cosmological argument from Contingency,
http://www.longecity...180#entry629626
http://www.longecity...210#entry629767
1. I exist.
2. If I exist something must have always existed because you don’t get something from nothing.
3. There are only two choices for an eternal ‘something’: (a) The universe; (b) God.
4. The universe is not eternal.
5. Therefore, God exists.

Then I presented W.L. Craig’s additional defense of the Cosmological argument after the Lawrence Krauss.
http://www.longecity...210#entry630446

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Then I turned to Dr. Nancy Cartwright’s paper, “NO GOD, NO LAWS.” Which is directly related to the Fine Tuning argument.
http://www.longecity...210#entry630491
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MATH AS FINE TUNING EVIDENCE FOR GOD.
http://www.longecity...240#entry632454
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE MORAL ARGUMENT.
http://www.longecity...270#entry634645
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists

Definition of terms:
http://www.longecity...270#entry634870
http://www.longecity...270#entry635144

Euthyphro Dilemma:
http://www.longecity...300#entry635604

EVIL AS PROOF OF GOD.
http://www.longecity...300#entry635613

APPLYING MORAL VIEWS
““Lets see how you apply this. In order to win the second world war we believed it was right to carpet bomb Germany killing men, women and children. The Nazis fired rockets into Great Brittan with little concern who they hit. Each side believed in their own sides moral position.”
http://www.longecity...270#entry635315

Based on your view, were they both right? Neither was right. One or the other was right.”
http://www.longecity...300#entry635811
http://www.longecity...330#entry637241

SLAVERY
http://www.longecity...300#entry635846


The ONTOLOGICQAL ARGUMENT from the Possibility
of God's Existence to His Actuality
http://www.longecity...300#entry636722
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

http://www.longecity...330#entry636734
http://www.longecity...330#entry636736
http://www.longecity...330#entry636990

A Sign as Evidence:
http://www.longecity...330#entry637232
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY TO THIS POINT

[johnross47]

No doubt you will declare yourself the winner simply by repeating all the rubbish over and over and ignoring all the other poster's points. Then you can reward yourself with some emoticons. Do you really imagine anyone will waste their time going back over your endless paste jobs? They don't suddenly become correct by repetition.

[YOLF]

Just an observation, but there is way too much reading in this thread! It's best in my opinion to keep arguments simple rather than this detailed. There is just too much here. You would have to be a super intelligent maximally great super being to keep track of all this and still have time for other things in your life

I can't imagine such a long argument could lead anyone to the light. If it's gone on this long there obviously underlying issues that aren't being addressed and prevent the non-believer from understanding all of this.

[shadowhawk]

Just an observation, but there is way too much reading in this thread! It's best in my opinion to keep arguments simple rather than this detailed. There is just too much here. You would have to be a super intelligent maximally great super being to keep track of all this and still have time for other things in your life

I can't imagine such a long argument could lead anyone to the light. If it's gone on this long there obviously underlying issues that aren't being addressed and prevent the non-believer from understanding all of this.

Most topics are much more complicated then what we have discussed here. Life extension for example. If it is to much, I don’t know what to say. I’ll leave it up to you. Good luck what ever you do.

If I followed your advice, I can hear the criticism now, “you are to simple.” Christians are dumb. I have heard it over and again already. I am not trying to lead someone to the light. The topic is clear. 1. Is there evidence of a God? 2. Which God? 3. Evidence for Christianity. 4. Christian experience. IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY? I did one on IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM? The atheists are desperate to derail this topic and that is the reason for much nonsense.. Just look at the last post.

[shadowhawk]

No doubt you will declare yourself the winner simply by repeating all the rubbish over and over and ignoring all the other poster's points. Then you can reward yourself with some emoticons. Do you really imagine anyone will waste their time going back over your endless paste jobs? They don't suddenly become correct by repetition.

No doubt you typically are making this up. Take away all your endless Ad Hominems and there is nothing left. Rave on.

[shadowhawk]

SUMMARY... con't
http://www.longecity...360#entry638337

[YOLF]

Just an observation, but there is way too much reading in this thread! It's best in my opinion to keep arguments simple rather than this detailed. There is just too much here. You would have to be a super intelligent maximally great super being to keep track of all this and still have time for other things in your life

I can't imagine such a long argument could lead anyone to the light. If it's gone on this long there obviously underlying issues that aren't being addressed and prevent the non-believer from understanding all of this.

Most topics are much more complicated then what we have discussed here. Life extension for example. If it is to much, I don’t know what to say. I’ll leave it up to you. Good luck what ever you do.

If I followed your advice, I can hear the criticism now, “you are to simple.” Christians are dumb. I have heard it over and again already. I am not trying to lead someone to the light. The topic is clear. 1. Is there evidence of a God? 2. Which God? 3. Evidence for Christianity. 4. Christian experience. IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY? I did one on IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM? The atheists are desperate to derail this topic and that is the reason for much nonsense.. Just look at the last post.

I'm just saying that the answers are simpler and easier to understand and don't so much require as much conversation as has gone on here. I'm guessing you could make it all clear to them from a different and much more direct vector of explanation. The endless arguments only serve to reinforce the position of your opposition. I haven't had time to read the entire thread, but I don't think the Atheists just mean to pick on you and don't think they should just be left in the dark from what I'm assuming that you know (for lack of a more informed term).

So if there are underlying causes for a lack of belief in the existence of God and you argue your point without first addressing them, you can't really get anywhere and the end result will be to distance the person you are arguing with from God as they are now obviously reinforcing their beliefs as they lack the proper assumptions to understand your statements as you do. If and when the opposition finally understands, their not going to feel very good about this conversation and their relationship with God will be starting off on the wrong foot and with negative feelings.

It's just some constructive criticism. Hopefully it gives you a shortcut.

[shadowhawk]

I think there are as many causes as there are atheists and again mu purpose is to discus, IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY??Anything else is off topic. By the way, I did address them first in, IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM??? Have you read that topic?

[johnross47]

Just an observation, but there is way too much reading in this thread! It's best in my opinion to keep arguments simple rather than this detailed. There is just too much here. You would have to be a super intelligent maximally great super being to keep track of all this and still have time for other things in your life

I can't imagine such a long argument could lead anyone to the light. If it's gone on this long there obviously underlying issues that aren't being addressed and prevent the non-believer from understanding all of this.

The non believers understand perfectly. What is keeping us from agreeing with SH is the fact that his arguments are poor and mostly just wrong, and occasionally not even that. His style is offensive dishonest and evasive and would push people away from him and his god. From the quality of the posts here I would guess that we don't need to plead lack of intellect or knowledge. We are quite used to being patronised by believers so don't feel guilty about your remarks; we understand.

[shadowhawk]

The case for the existence of God does not depend on any one bit of evidence. I have presented several in some depth but here is a list of 30 to expand the discussion. Some are in a different form than the ones I presented.

. Most of these 30 arguments were taken from the works of Peter Kreeft. I will present a shorter list of his next with more detail. . There may be many more arguments that are not listed here. However, the arguments presented are among some of the more popular arguments. This article was created to be a quick reference for those seeking popular arguments for the existence of God

Some of these arguments may be more convincing than others. However, when one examines the entirety of these arguments as a whole, one is left with a compelling argument for the existence of God. Ultimately, the greatest apologetic is when one is open to an experience with God.

1. Ontological: Anselm’s Argument (Anselm)

One of the more controversial arguments is that of Anselm’s ontological argument. The argument goes like this:

“1. It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone.

2. ‘God’ means ‘that than which a greater cannot be thought.’

3. Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality.

4. Then a greater than God could be thought…

5. Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality” (Kreeft and Tacellli, 1994)

In other words, God is that which nothing greater could be conceived. If God is this, then God must exist in reality as well as in the mind.

2. Ontological: Modal Version of the Ontological Argument (Hartshorne and Malcolm)

Charles Hartshorne and Norman Malcolm developed an additional version of Anselm’s argument. Kreeft and Tacelli define it as:

“1. The expression ‘that being than which a greater cannot be thought’ (GCB, for short) expresses a consistent concept.

2. GCB cannot be thought of as: a. necessarily nonexistent; or as b. contingently existing but only as c. necessarily existing.

3. So GCB can only be thought of as the kind of being that cannot not exist, that must exist.

4. But what must be so is so.

5. Therefore, GCB (i.e., God) exists” (Kreeft and Tacelli, 1994).

It would seem that this version accepts God’s existence as a necessity and continues from there. Since GCB is consistent and the highest thing that could necessarily be, GCB must exist.

3. Ontological: Possible Worlds Argument (Alvin Plantinga)

The following is a difficult argument constructed by Alvin Plantinga and simplified by Kreeft and Tacelli:

“1. There is a possible world (W) in which there is a being (X) with maximal greatness.

2. But X is maximally great only if X has maximal excellence in every possible world.

3. Therefore X is maximally great only if X has onmipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection in every possible world.

4. In W, the proposition ‘There is no omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being’ would be impossible–that is, necessarily false.

5. But what it impossible does not vary from world to world.

6. Therefore, the proposition, ‘There is no omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being’ is necessarily false in this actual world, too.

7. Therefore, there actually exists in this world, and must exist in every possible world, an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being” (Kreeft and Tacelli, 1994).

In other words, if God is possible in one world, God is possible in all worlds. God’s existence far exceeds the rationality of God’s non-existence.

4. Cosmological: Argument from Motion (Aquinas)

Nothing can essentially change itself (i.e., grow wings or grow gills by one’s own power). Therefore, one must be changed or created from something beyond the scope of oneself. Ultimately, this leads to a prime mover (God).

5. Cosmological: Argument from Efficient Causality (Aquinas)

Nothing can create its own existence. One’s existence requires something beyond the scope of oneself. (Even the universe came from something beyond the scope of itself. Quantum physics show how things already in existence can appear to pop into existence. However, this is viewing the physics after it has been created. It should be considered that at the beginning, before physics even existed, even these things have to possess a first cause.) Ultimately, the prime Creator is God.

6. Cosmological: Argument from Contingency and Necessity (Aquinas)

There are contingent beings (beings that exist because of something else) and a necessary being (a being that is necessitated by the existence of contingent beings…in other words a being that must be, or a being that cannot not be). Contingent beings…beings that are here depending on a necessary being…are here because of a necessary being (God). In other words, our existence demands that God must exist.

7. Cosmological: Argument from Degrees of Perfection

Degrees of perfection demand that there be a standard of perfection. A standard must exist before the imperfections of a standard can be known. That standard is found in the person and being of God.

8. Teleological: Argument from Design (Teleological)

Teleological arguments discuss the design in the universe and how such design shows the need for a designer…God. William Lane Craig explains this argument as:

“1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design” (Craig 2008, 161).

Check out Craig’s work Reasonable Faith for more information on this argument.

9. Teleological: Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (Leibniz)

Gottfried William Leibniz also had an argument for the design and/or origin of the universe. This is considered a cosmological argument, but is added here due to the influence of design on the implications of Leibniz’ argument.

“1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence. (From 1, 3).

5. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. (From 2, 4)” (Craig 2008, 106).

10. Teleological/Cosmological: Design (Kalam) Argument

We have addressed this argument before in a previous article. The argument goes: 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. This argument is short, sweet, and stout in its implications.

11. Psychological: Argument from Absolute Truth (Augustine)

Augustine purported that we are in contact with objective absolute truths that transcend us. These absolute truths (such as mathematical formulas) are superior to the human experience and on par with the divine. The divine God is the only acceptable explanation for such truths.

12. Psychological: Argument from Origin of Idea of God (Descartes)

Descartes seems to make an argument for revelation. Descartes argues that our idea of God could not have originated by the effect (us), but must have originated by the cause (God). Some may write this off. However, it is plausible especially understanding that one cannot know another unless introduced. Animals have no concept of the divine. If humans are merely a product of animalistic adaptations, then why should humans think of the divine? Superstitions would lead to animism, but not to the divine unless the divine introduced Himself to humanity.

13. Psychological: Argument from Morality (Kant)

The argument from morality goes: 1. God is the best answer for the existence of objective morality. 2. Objective morals exist. 3. Therefore, God exists. There are variations of this argument, but we have presented the general gist of the argument. Objective morals are those morals that transcend culture (e.g., wrong to rape, wrong to murder those of one’s community, and et cetera).

14. Psychological: Argument from Consciousness (Newman)

The argument from consciousness argues the existence of God as the explanation of consciousness. Kreeft and Tacelli post the argument as:

“1. We experience the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.

2. Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance.

3. Not blind chance.

4. Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence” (Kreeft and Tacelli, 1994).

Consciousness comes from consciousness. Ultimately, consciousness must come from an eternal, conscious being…God.

15. Psychological: Argument from Innate Desires (C. S. Lewis)

C.S. Lewis popularized the argument that people have desires for real things (desire for money, desire for power over something, etc.). People have, at least unconsciously, a desire for God and heaven. Therefore, God must exist.

16. Psychological: Argument from Aesthetic Beauty (Von Balthasar)

Peter Kreeft explains, “Beauty reveals God. There is Mozart, therefore there must be God” (Kreeft 1990, 64).

17. Psychological: Argument from Existential Meaning

Without God, everything is meaningless. Since life has meaning, that meaning must be found in God.

18. Psychological: Argument from Mystical Experiences

Individuals have had visions of the divine and other such experiences that could only come from God. This gives credence to the existence of God as many of these experiences are not explainable by hallucinations and the like.

19. Psychological: Argument from Religious Experiences

Individuals all across the globe have had similar experiences of the divine. Most of these experiences can only be attributed to God, especially among those who were adamantly opposed to the faith in the beginning.

20. Psychological: Argument from Love and Value

Without God, no absolute form of love is possible or conceivable. Absolute love is possible and conceivable. Therefore, absolute love is found only in a loving God’s existence. Add to this the value of life found in love.

21. Mental: Argument from other Minds (Alvin Plantinga)

It is just as difficult to prove other minds exist as it is to prove the Mind of God. Since other minds exist, it is conceivable that God exists and God is the source of the mind.

22. Practical: Pascal’s Wager

There are two options: God exists or God does not exist. There are two choices: choose God or reject God. If one is wrong about the existence of God, there is nothing to lose. If one is correct in that God exists, then the only choice to insure eternal happiness is God. So, there is everything to gain with God and everything to lose without God.

20-arguments_pascal

23. Historical: Argument from Miracles

Miracles are understood by supernatural works by God. If miracles occur at any point in history, God must be the cause. Multiple miracles have occurred over the course of human history. Therefore, God exists.

24. Historical: Argument from Providence

God’s working can be seen in history, through the working of Scripture, and through the working of individuals. God’s existence is the only possible explanation of these occurrences.

25. Historical: Argument from Authority

As Kreeft explains, “Most good, wise, reliable people believe in God” (Kreeft 1990, 64). If this is the case, then the common link is God.

26. Historical: Argument from the Saints

If something is positively different about authentic religious people than those who are not, there must be a reason. If the positive results are shown to be from God, then God must exist. Authentic religious people are different than unbelievers. Many show changes and possess strength that could only be attributed to the divine. Therefore, God exists.

27. Historical: Argument from the Resurrection

If the resurrection of Christ can be shown as a real event in history, then the existence of God is demanded as an explanation for the resurrection. The resurrection of Christ is and can be shown as a fact of history. Therefore, God exists.

28. Additional: Information Argument

Processes and programs require information to operate. Information requires intelligence. The universe consists of processes and programs. Therefore, the universe requires programming intelligence. In other words, since there are processes in the universe, there must be a grand programmer of all things…God.

29: Additional: Transformation Argument

This is similar to the argument from the saints. There are several individuals throughout history who have experienced a 180 degree turnaround. Atheists and antagonists to the Christian faith have become Christians due to personal encounters with God. God’s existence is the only rational explanation for these occurrences.

30. Additional: NDE and OBE Argument

Since there are several occasions where people have experienced God after death, and there have been occasions where these experiences have been medically confirmed (for example, individuals who have witnessed and confirmed events and objects after being pronounced dead, then being allowed to come back to confirm the events and objects), the existence of God and the afterlife are the only rational conclusions. See the works of J. P. Moreland and Gary Habermas for greater detail of such occurrences.

[shadowhawk]

Just an observation, but there is way too much reading in this thread! It's best in my opinion to keep arguments simple rather than this detailed. There is just too much here. You would have to be a super intelligent maximally great super being to keep track of all this and still have time for other things in your life

I can't imagine such a long argument could lead anyone to the light. If it's gone on this long there obviously underlying issues that aren't being addressed and prevent the non-believer from understanding all of this.

The non believers understand perfectly. What is keeping us from agreeing with SH is the fact that his arguments are poor and mostly just wrong, and occasionally not even that. His style is offensive dishonest and evasive and would push people away from him and his god. From the quality of the posts here I would guess that we don't need to plead lack of intellect or knowledge. We are quite used to being patronised by believers so don't feel guilty about your remarks; we understand.

Yes johnross47 knows what non believers all think. All this is, is ad hominem attacks and name calling which is typical of most of his interactions with theists. It started off this way. Follow his posts and you will find this off topic is typical. Read the evidence for Atheism topic. Ho humm

[DukeNukem]

SH, which god, exactly, do you choose to believe exists?

[johnross47]

SH, which god, exactly, do you choose to believe exists?

I've asked him that before but he just made one of his usual excuses. It would certainly advance things if we knew which god he is promoting.

[johnross47]

Just an observation, but there is way too much reading in this thread! It's best in my opinion to keep arguments simple rather than this detailed. There is just too much here. You would have to be a super intelligent maximally great super being to keep track of all this and still have time for other things in your life

I can't imagine such a long argument could lead anyone to the light. If it's gone on this long there obviously underlying issues that aren't being addressed and prevent the non-believer from understanding all of this.

The non believers understand perfectly. What is keeping us from agreeing with SH is the fact that his arguments are poor and mostly just wrong, and occasionally not even that. His style is offensive dishonest and evasive and would push people away from him and his god. From the quality of the posts here I would guess that we don't need to plead lack of intellect or knowledge. We are quite used to being patronised by believers so don't feel guilty about your remarks; we understand.

Yes johnross47 knows what non believers all think. All this is, is ad hominem attacks and name calling which is typical of most of his interactions with theists. It started off this way. Follow his posts and you will find this off topic is typical. Read the evidence for Atheism topic. Ho humm

I would treat you with more respect if you behaved better. Everyone else presents points and addresses the points made by others. You keep trying to compel everyone to talk only to you. Your comment about trying to derail the topic is very revealing; do you start the topic with a rigid plan which concludes with us all converting? In an open discussion nobody should be dictating the proceedings. It isn't actually a crime to pursue the topic as we want, or to examine aspects of it that you find inconvenient.

[Deep Thought]

Just an observation, but there is way too much reading in this thread! It's best in my opinion to keep arguments simple rather than this detailed. There is just too much here. You would have to be a super intelligent maximally great super being to keep track of all this and still have time for other things in your life

I can't imagine such a long argument could lead anyone to the light. If it's gone on this long there obviously underlying issues that aren't being addressed and prevent the non-believer from understanding all of this.

The non believers understand perfectly. What is keeping us from agreeing with SH is the fact that his arguments are poor and mostly just wrong, and occasionally not even that. His style is offensive dishonest and evasive and would push people away from him and his god. From the quality of the posts here I would guess that we don't need to plead lack of intellect or knowledge. We are quite used to being patronised by believers so don't feel guilty about your remarks; we understand.

Yes johnross47 knows what non believers all think. All this is, is ad hominem attacks and name calling which is typical of most of his interactions with theists. It started off this way. Follow his posts and you will find this off topic is typical. Read the evidence for Atheism topic. Ho humm

On the internet the non-believers can express their disagreements with religions without fearing some psychopathic religious will find out where they live or that something similar might happen.

Edited by Deep Thought, 24 January 2014 - 03:35 PM.

[YOLF]

Just an observation, but there is way too much reading in this thread! It's best in my opinion to keep arguments simple rather than this detailed. There is just too much here. You would have to be a super intelligent maximally great super being to keep track of all this and still have time for other things in your life

I can't imagine such a long argument could lead anyone to the light. If it's gone on this long there obviously underlying issues that aren't being addressed and prevent the non-believer from understanding all of this.

The non believers understand perfectly. What is keeping us from agreeing with SH is the fact that his arguments are poor and mostly just wrong, and occasionally not even that. His style is offensive dishonest and evasive and would push people away from him and his god. From the quality of the posts here I would guess that we don't need to plead lack of intellect or knowledge. We are quite used to being patronised by believers so don't feel guilty about your remarks; we understand.

I was once in a position where I only thought I understood what Christianity and just about every other Faithgroup (I studied all of them for mass media appeal being a wouldbe media producer at the time) was about. It later pained me to realize that I wasn't taking a relevant stance on things and was wasting the lions share of my ongoing efforts in life on the wrong things. I would not have been able to understand any of it if I didn't discover a particular set of nootropics that made me reassess every assumption I had ever made and left in quite a bit of ignorant despair. I hadn't properly communicated many feelings (if any) in my entire life and had failed at everything I had done. I was with the wrong people, had developed the wrong relationships and was living very differently than I should have. Where I would have liked to have a been a powerful proponent for the causes of my choosing, I didn't even know the arguments and the list could go on and on.

The pathology of the problem looks like this to my eyes. Children who experience Christianity and understand it in an uninterrupted linear fashion become very strong and passionate Christians. Those who don't experience it this way have difficulty with Christianity and Christianity has to cover it up by misrepresenting things to prevent the next generation from loosing faith therefor resulting in a greater lack of efficacy for Faithgroups. Further, being outside of the Faithgroup leads to being ignorant of many social and scientific conventions and impairs the ability of the non-believer or person with a bad Christianity/Faithgroup experience and this leads to social isolation and alot of other behavioral patterns including rejection of the "spirit" as they say.

Being outside of the Faithgroup convention means never understanding the world or coming not to like it once you've understood it and feeling pretty much ostracized. So the existence of Faithgroups and the social conventions they create, in turn create people who are second class citizens, and I don't see Faithgroups doing anything to fix it because they accept that some people are just going to die. This is the same reason why Faithgroups often challenge anything to do with defeating aging and death. If we defeat aging and death, there will be a substantial number of people who are knowledgeable about Faithgroups who are believers in their existence, but who do not support them. This means that the Faithgroups may see a population who is able to challenge them, and the last time this happened there was a cold war and it left us with all of the problems we have today...

[johnross47]

Just an observation, but there is way too much reading in this thread! It's best in my opinion to keep arguments simple rather than this detailed. There is just too much here. You would have to be a super intelligent maximally great super being to keep track of all this and still have time for other things in your life

I can't imagine such a long argument could lead anyone to the light. If it's gone on this long there obviously underlying issues that aren't being addressed and prevent the non-believer from understanding all of this.

The non believers understand perfectly. What is keeping us from agreeing with SH is the fact that his arguments are poor and mostly just wrong, and occasionally not even that. His style is offensive dishonest and evasive and would push people away from him and his god. From the quality of the posts here I would guess that we don't need to plead lack of intellect or knowledge. We are quite used to being patronised by believers so don't feel guilty about your remarks; we understand.

I was once in a position where I only thought I understood what Christianity and just about every other Faithgroup (I studied all of them for mass media appeal being a wouldbe media producer at the time) was about. It later pained me to realize that I wasn't taking a relevant stance on things and was wasting the lions share of my ongoing efforts in life on the wrong things. I would not have been able to understand any of it if I didn't discover a particular set of nootropics that made me reassess every assumption I had ever made and left in quite a bit of ignorant despair. I hadn't properly communicated many feelings (if any) in my entire life and had failed at everything I had done. I was with the wrong people, had developed the wrong relationships and was living very differently than I should have. Where I would have liked to have a been a powerful proponent for the causes of my choosing, I didn't even know the arguments and the list could go on and on.

The pathology of the problem looks like this to my eyes. Children who experience Christianity and understand it in an uninterrupted linear fashion become very strong and passionate Christians. Those who don't experience it this way have difficulty with Christianity and Christianity has to cover it up by misrepresenting things to prevent the next generation from loosing faith therefor resulting in a greater lack of efficacy for Faithgroups. Further, being outside of the Faithgroup leads to being ignorant of many social and scientific conventions and impairs the ability of the non-believer or person with a bad Christianity/Faithgroup experience and this leads to social isolation and alot of other behavioral patterns including rejection of the "spirit" as they say.

Being outside of the Faithgroup convention means never understanding the world or coming not to like it once you've understood it and feeling pretty much ostracized. So the existence of Faithgroups and the social conventions they create, in turn create people who are second class citizens, and I don't see Faithgroups doing anything to fix it because they accept that some people are just going to die. This is the same reason why Faithgroups often challenge anything to do with defeating aging and death. If we defeat aging and death, there will be a substantial number of people who are knowledgeable about Faithgroups who are believers in their existence, but who do not support them. This means that the Faithgroups may see a population who is able to challenge them, and the last time this happened there was a cold war and it left us with all of the problems we have today...

Clearly you have experienced all sorts of emotional turmoil which has interacted with your religious faith, but, it has no bearing on the issues here. SH has presented a debate on evidence for Christianity and that is what we have addressed. Unfortunately it has been one sided. We have raised logical points and he has ignored them and/or shouted abuse.