Arguments for the Existence of God Part One

	"There is no subject so old that something new cannot be said about it." ~Fyodor Dostoevsky ...or something old. The Socratic Club

About this Entry
Posted by: TheSocraticClub Original: 2/7/2006 11:17 PM Views: 81 Comments: 16 eProps: 20 Read Comments Post a Comment Back to Your Xanga Site

Who gave the eProps?
2 eProps from: Peace_Sells_Deth Da__Vinci CelticCrazy Turning_Tables BobbyFroggO g0ngenat0r Inroute IntellectualSpirit An_Atheist_View ProtestantWitness

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

The Metaphysical Arguments

The arguments following have been simplified.

The Ontological Argument: If the concept of God exists, God must exist. If God did not exist, then the concept of God would be completely absurd, so much so that man would not even be able to understand it. Used by Saint Anselm (Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093-1109 AD) and French philosopher scientist René Descartes (1596-1650 AD).

The Cosmological Argument: The universe exists. Nothing can come into existence unless something brings it into existence. Nothing can come from nothing. Something must have created the universe—that something is God. Put forth by Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD).

Responses? Objections? Criticism?

Posted 2/7/2006 11:17 PM - 81 views - 16 comments

recommend
recs0
give stars
votes0
share
email
sent0

Give eProps or Post a Comment

16 Comments

They all go on assumptions of the universe and how it works and plays out. It uses human logic to attempt to answer the unanswerable. Just because we think nothing can come from nothing shouldn't mean that we can automatically think must be God!

It's Post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking

Their are too many variables
We shall see hopefully sooner or later
Bilbo

Posted 2/8/2006 1:02 AM by Peace_Sells_Deth - reply

If we believed in the great Spaghetti God would there necessarily need to be one? I do not think that simply because we have developed a concept of something that it necessarily exists in the form of matter governed by natural law. Of course concepts do exist independent of reality.

As for the cosmological argument, it is assuming that there was indeed a point of nothingness, which is a big unfounded assumption, then it is self refuting. Therefore there was never a point where nothing existed.

Posted 2/8/2006 10:46 AM by Da__Vinci

- reply

The ontological argument is based upon mans reasoning - but then where does that lead? As Da__Vinci brought up does belief = reality?

Aquinas - "ah, our sprinkled(or was he submersed?) Aristotle"- The Cosmological argument is weak simply because it leads to the question, "Who made God?" if one is of the mindset that God cannot be created, what ho...? Throw out the baby and the bathwater?

~L's -trying to rationalize rationalism.

Posted 2/8/2006 1:56 PM by CelticCrazy - reply

Was Zeus such an absurd concept when the Greeks believed in him?

Posted 2/8/2006 3:01 PM by Turning_Tables - reply

How about this one. I think it can be physical observation. IF planet earth were one degree closer or further from the sun in its orbit the chances of us being able to look out and even notice that there was a universe would be zero. Our place within just our solar system was either planned or it happened by accident.

God! I used to have this concept of some kind of masculine/feminine personal kind of entity with a mind of his/her own. I used to even embrace the Christian concept until he became just a little to angry and jealous. Those attributes started sounding a bit too human to me. At points in my seeking the last 30 years I've held to half-a-dozen gurus, several religions, Theosophy, Cayce, and many other sources for definitions of god. I haven't found one yet, and I don't suppose I will. At this point in time I have no idea what a god is or why, I just try staying away from anything that smells of individual or collective egotism. After all, EGO, is an illusion - - something that we as individuals and as societies have made up from our history so as to cope, together. From what I see on the world stage it appears that this concept isn't working either.

Posted 2/8/2006 7:14 PM by BobbyFroggO - reply

On the onthological arguement: as turning_tables mentioned, there are other entities that non-Christian cultures believe in. There is a book out called "Religion Explained", and in one part it describes how tribes of Africa believe in praying to spirits in statues and believing in invisible witches that throw magic darts at people. For many people, that notion is completely absurd. Yet the African tribe believes in it. So either the onthological arguement is false (absurd notions are believable) or there are many gods and not just one God, in which case parts of the bible are false.

Posted 2/8/2006 11:46 PM by g0ngenat0r - reply

I was about to elaborate on what I was saying, but I think everyone else has pretty much gotten to the pudding before me.

What's the next topic, Burden of Proof? Looking at certain xangas *coughsendscough*, I think it's a topic worth covering, especially when we're refering to the burden of proof from the atheist standpoint.

Posted 2/9/2006 12:05 AM by Turning_Tables - reply

The "Metaphysical Argument" leaves no room for faith, it seems. And yet, since we worship God in spirit, isn't faith the main ingredient that drives belief?

Posted 2/9/2006 12:28 AM by Inroute - reply

"And yet, since we worship God in spirit, isn't faith the main ingredient that drives belief?"

It's the main ingredient for RELIGIOUS belief.

Posted 2/9/2006 6:30 AM by Turning_Tables - reply

"The "Metaphysical Argument" leaves no room for faith, it seems. And yet, since we worship God in spirit, isn't faith the main ingredient that drives belief?"

Why have faith in God if their is no evidence for his existence?

Posted 2/9/2006 10:34 AM by TheSocraticClub - reply

DaVinci,
It's the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you blasphemer. How dare you caricature Him as simply "the Spaghetti God." His monsterness is an essential attribute.

Posted 2/9/2006 4:30 PM by IntellectualSpirit - reply

Concerning the ontological argument, I agree that the concept of God is a mystery, and as such is not understood for cause of its apparent absurdities. The human inability to define God prevents an understanding beyond a mere association of words, which is to say, the concept does not actually exist, but is instead assumed to exist somewhere in those mysterious associations.

"The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing and admits of no conclusion."
~Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

Concerning the cosmological argument, the point of disagreement is over whether one can positively identify this universe as depending on a necessity of one-dimensional (and directional) time. Since we have no understanding of universe creation, it is presumptuous to declare that the creative action follows the laws it thereby creates. Or conversely it is presumptuous to argue that some law of cause and effect as observed within the universe may be extrapolated to beyond the universe. It is furthermore presumptuous to sustain that this scenario requires, and specifically so, the Christian deity. While one may define God as the first cause, the argument from freewheeling theology and hoping creation fits is one made with the power of conviction, not the power to convince.

Posted 2/9/2006 4:59 PM by IntellectualSpirit - reply

We must be careful when putting forth semantic statements/arguements; because they all do stem from MY point of biew which has a lot and everything to do with my ego..not yours.

Posted 2/9/2006 5:47 PM by BobbyFroggO - reply

Oh, very fun.

Posted 2/10/2006 8:40 AM by An_Atheist_View - reply

Well, it seems to me that the ontological argument doesn't specify the nature of deity, but simply its existence. The human mind is very limited in its creativity (for example, we cannot devise another colour), and the concept of a spiritual entity which created the world is so vastly different from anythign tangible (by definition) that the basic concept of deity must be something that the early humans were familiar with. There is variation in how deities are depicted and worshipped depending on the culture, of course, much like our novels variate in style, but not really in substance; they still depict things, or abberations of things, with which we are familiar.

In any event, I've developed a philisophical argument for God's existence which I've posted at my blog- I'd be indebted if everyone would glance over it and tell me if it's worth the paper it's printed on. (So to speak.)

In Christ, and for the gospel of the kingdom,
Brett

Posted 2/10/2006 2:42 PM by ProtestantWitness - reply