|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Debate on 5 Non-Biblical arguments for the existence of God | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jalajo Inactive Member |
The existence of God will not be proved nor disproved, but i have 5 different non-Biblical arguments for God that can be interesting for debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jalajo Inactive Member |
Cosmological Argument
Since the world (cosmos) exists and something cannot come from nothing, there must be a creator, thus God exists. This argument is an application of the first Law of Thermodynamics Teleological Argument Order and useful arrangement in a system imply intelligence and purpose in its organizing cause. Anthropological Argument A blind force (such as evolution) could never produce a man with intellect, sensibility, will, conscience, and an inherent belief in a creator. Moral Argument Related to the Anthropological Argument. Since man has an innate awareness of right and wrong, I.E. a sense of morality, and this cannot be attributed to any evolutionary process, it must have come from a moral being who placed it within man. Ontological Argument An imperfect, finite being could not of himself concieve of a perfect and infinite God. Therefore God must have place that idea within man (man could never invent a GOd he can not understand). If a man could conceive a perfect God who does not exist, then he could conceive someone greater than God, which is impossible. The argument rests with the fact that the concept of God is universal. I'm not claiming to have all the answers but these should be interesting for debate. Remember: Those who cannot defend their beliefs rationally, defend them passionately.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2302 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
Hello jalalo,
quote: Have you ever heard of the concept of infinite regression?
quote: So God created us with noses and ears because they would be so useful in holding on our glasses?
quote: Argument from incredulity?
quote: Then, if two people or cultures disagree on the morality of a given issue; does that mean that they had separate creators?
quote: Mankind has yet to invent a perfect God. Albeit, there are some who have slapped on the label and declared that any objections are simply the result of our not understanding. Just some brief thoughts on your brief presentation. Amlodhi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6012 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
I fear the content of your opening post is probably too much for one thread, but I have a very specific question...
Do you, personally, find your argument #5 (Ontological argument) compelling? I've heard the argument before, and I'm always left scratching my head why ANYONE would take it seriously, yet obviously many people have. I wonder if I'm missing something, because it strikes as the most ludicrious proposed "proof" of God I've ever seen. Each and every assertion it makes seems unfounded, and each conclusion it draws is a non-sequiter. If anyone could phrase this to me in a way that makes it seem even slightly reasonable, I'd actually be grateful. This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 09-29-2004 10:27 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Since the world (cosmos) exists and something cannot come from nothing, there must be a creator, thus God exists. This argument is an application of the first Law of Thermodynamics a) The First law of thermodymanics is not "something cannot come from nothing"; otherwise it would be contradicted by a number of quantum phenomena where something comes from nothing. b) Why should the First Law, presumably a description of behavior within the universe, be expected to apply to the universe itself?
Order and useful arrangement in a system imply intelligence and purpose in its organizing cause. Unsupported assertion. Random mutation and natural selection give rise to order; crystals are highly ordered but never is it asserted that crystals are always the product of anything but the laws of physics.
A blind force (such as evolution) could never produce a man with intellect, sensibility, will, conscience, and an inherent belief in a creator. a) The existence of atheists like me shows that there's no such thing as an "inherent belief in a creator." b)This is simply assertion; there's no reason to believe that any of this is true.
Related to the Anthropological Argument. Since man has an innate awareness of right and wrong, I.E. a sense of morality, and this cannot be attributed to any evolutionary process, it must have come from a moral being who placed it within man. a) Kin selection shows that many moral systems can be attributed to survival advantage. b) The extensive variance of moral systems between cultures, as well as the existence of human sociopaths, demonstrates that there is in fact no "innate awareness of right and wrong." If there were, all cultures would agree on what is right and wrong; they do not.
An imperfect, finite being could not of himself concieve of a perfect and infinite God. I submit that no conception of God is truly infinite or perfect, despite assertions to the contrary; especially the Christian God, who is both highly limited and far from perfect. Since no human has in fact succeeded in conceptualizing a perfect, infinite God, your proof fails on that count. Furthermore, even if I succeeded in conceptualizing something perfect, that doesn't mean that that thing is compelled to exist. I can posit the Perfect Island; no amount of positing will cause that island to come into existence. Ok, well, that was simple enough. Next!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Really these arguments aren't very good.
There have already been plenty of comments but to touch on to major flaws:1) The Cosmological argument is just an argument for some sort of "first cause". You'd need to use one of the other arguments to even try to get from there to the existence of God. 2) The version of the Ontological argument starts with a particularly daft assertion. How can "concieve of" be construed so it is actually as difficult as claimed AND we can say that it has been done ? Just thinking up the basic concept is trivially easy (just like it is easy to think of an infinitely long and perfectly straight line).The latter part of the argument is also daft. At best you can only argue that the CONCEPT must include the idea of actual existence. The conceptual being itself is not any greater if it refers to something that actually exists or less if it refers to something that does not exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jalajo Inactive Member |
First of all, thanks for responding everyone. Now, you bring up good points, but you said:
"The existence of atheists like me shows that there's no such thing as an 'inherent belief in a creator'." What i mean by inherent is that man had to decide whenever that man was not going to believe a god or any diety. That would mean that the idea came into their minds from an inherent belief in a creator so that they could reject God. If no God exists then how did the belief of God or any god come about, an inherent belief in a creator.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
That would mean that the idea came into their minds from an inherent belief in a creator so that they could reject God. Of course, it could be exactly the opposite.
If no God exists then how did the belief of God or any god come about, an inherent belief in a creator. There were things that were similar to what humans did, but far beyond the capabilities of any known human. It was only a short jump to believe that those things were the actions of some super human, in other words, GODs. Bolts of lightning are similar to a spear, earthquakes are similar to a man in rage shaking a table. It was easy to imagine that these were the acts and actions of GODs. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
quote: Yep. I understand what you mean exactly. If humans werent created by God. We would be exactly like all the other animals. Interested only in survival. But man is rational, he can investigate the world. And this intelligence does not come from premeval ponds. And fish do not turn into people, not matter how many magic wands of 'billions of yrs and chance' are thrown around.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jalajo Inactive Member |
Hello Amlodhi,
First of all thanks for your response. Second of all: "Have you ever heard of infinite regression?" No, actually i haven't. I would appreciate it greatly if you would explain to me the concept. This might make me look dumb, but hey i never claimed to have all the answers. I just wanted to talk about them. "So God created us with noses and ears because they would be so useful in holding on our glasses?" Not quite sure what you mean by this but...no He didn't. He, in fact, created our noses and ears so that we could smell and hear. I dont mean to be sarcastic, but i truly am confused on your answer. "if two people or cultures disagree on the morality on a given issue, does this mean that they have separate creators?" No, culture does sometimes define, in a way, what is culturally accepted as right and wrong, but that idea of some things being right and others being wrong is attributed to a sense of morality. We really don't see "morality" in the animal kingdom. Worker bees don't rise up against the queen bee because they dont have enough say in government or because they are being treated unfairly. I'm kind of joking, but i think you can see my point. The evolutionary process really couldn't develop a man with a sense of right and wrong. Oh, and this isn't any type of argument or any counterpoint,but your right man hasn't ever "invented" a perfect God.I know that sounds really religiously retarded, but hey, if you give your opinion i'll give mine. Thanks for your response.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jalajo Inactive Member |
Quick question: what do you mean by exact opposite, im looking at the wording of the quote and can't figure out what the "exact opposite" is. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Or it could mean that the aberation of GODhood came into their minds to lead them to believe a fantasy.
Belief in GOD is a faith. There is neither a reason to try to prove GOD exists, or that GOD does not exist. If GOD exists, he does not exist because we believe in him. If GOD does not exist, then no belief will make him real. Some of us believe in GOD, others do not. Neither belief has any effect on GOD's existence. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
quote: Hello jalajo, The concept of infinite regression is inherent in the first part of your statement above. If "something cannot come from nothing", then everything that exists had to come from something else. Thus you have an infinite regression of precedents; i.e., the cosmos came from God, God came from the creator of God, who came from the creator of the creator of God, ad infinitum. The fallacy of the Cosmological Argument is that the first part sets down the conditions for the premise, and then the second part immediately assumes the existence of something that is exempt from these conditions. Thus, rather than a logical inference, what you are left with is merely the same unsupported assumption that you began with.
quote:As to "order": We have been able (to some extent) to describe mathematically the physical interaction of matter with matter based on the properties of such things as chemistry, electro-magnetism, thermodynamics, and gravitation. However, the fact that matter tends to react consistently to these forces should not be confused with the concept of "order". The path of, and resulting devastation caused by, an impacting asteroid is governed by these same forces and described by the same mathematics. As to "useful arrangement": My reply was intended to point up the question: "What makes an arrangement useful?" Is the arrangement of our noses and ears useful for holding on glasses because an omnipotent deity arranged it that way, or did we simply adapt to, and make use of, whatever arrangement happened to exist? IOW, as I have heard it stated: Does the water puddle marvel that the pothole it sits in must have been pre-created in exactly the shape and size necessary for a perfect fit?
quote:Here, you are attempting to create a false dichotomy between "what a culture defines as right or wrong" vs. an enigmatic "sense of morality". In reality, however, the two are one and the same. IOW, what a given culture defines as right or wrong is their sense of morality. And, as such, if this "sense of morality" was imbued by God, every person and/or culture would define it in the same way. But, that isn't what we observe.
quote:I understand, but just like the morality issue above, if the perception of God was from God, we would all have the same perception of God. But, again, since this isn't what we observe, we are left instead with each "special interest group" claiming that it is only they that have truly conceived of God. Amlodhi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jalajo Inactive Member |
Dear Jar,
I agree with your statement for the most part, but I don't feel like we're here (at this site) to prove or disprove the existence of God. I think we're here to simply discuss our views on it, you know? I realize that everyone's mind is made up on what they believe before they even get in here, so is mine. We're just here, at least i am just here, to discuss it with people's whose beliefs are different than mine.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024