Arguments for the existence of god.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-10-2016, 04:23 PM
Arguments for the existence of god.
Recently, I've been debating with a theist and he presented 3 arguments that I found really interesting, and I would like to see if I could find a solution for them here. Huh

1. Because without a necessary being you do not have an explanation for the existence of the contingent universe, or the great fact conjuntivi contingent. You then abandon the principle of sufficient reason (which is absurd and leads to disastrous consequences, besides being pure atheistic retreat), or admit theism, or take a Spinozist pantheism (which brings its own very serious consequences, does not explain everything and, anyway, it would no longer be atheism).

2. The second point is not the argument of fine tuning. Fine tuning is an additional argument and also provides more strength to my point, but I refer to the more general teleology that can be found in nature, something like the fifth way of Saint Thomas or the argument of nomic regularity of Swinburne; any causal order already requires an order of explanation that can not be purely fortuitous, and can not explain all this only through natural laws - after all, the natural laws themselves are merely descriptive, describe the order of final causes and regularities we observe in nature. Fine tuning, which is another argument, also provides an additional support to what I said - not just the universe brings order in its foundation (which could be observed even if the whole reality only involved two poles attracting or repelling regularly for example), but it brings an absurdly rare order that allowed the appearence of some kind of life as we, against absolutely overwhelming majority of hostile scenarios to any existence of life in any space.

3. The third refers to the fact of the soul / human mind (you name it) resist any reductionism or explanations of supervening material, it can not be explained merely as a natural emergency material processes which would be sufficient. That is, human intelligence itself - the proper semantic capacity, mean, abstract immaterial universal concepts, etc. - must have its explanation in a being with special power to create such immaterial rationality. Only an evolutionary process, for example, may not be enough for the emergence of intelligence as human, that is effectively separated from the other higher animals by a true abyss.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2016, 04:40 PM
RE: Arguments for the existence of god.
1. Why can't the universe just exist without an explanation? And if an explanation is needed, what's the explanation for the "necessary being"? I'm comfortable with the universe as a brute fact. I don't require any explanation.

2. The whole fine-tuning argument commits the fallacy of applying probability retroactively. Given that a universe exists at all (and it obviously does), there are any number of forms it could have taken. Any one of those forms is just as unlikely as any other -- yet one of them must be "the one". The universe we live in, with whatever "tuning" it may or may not have, won the lottery. Just like when Joe Blow wins the Powerball lottery (and every few weeks, somebody does win it). He didn't have any better chance of winning it than anyone else -- yet he did win it. After something happens, the probability collapses to 1, or 100%. It doesn't matter how unlikely it was -- it happened. Unlikely things happen all the time.

3. We don't know how to explain "the soul" (whatever that is) yet. So what? That doesn't imply God -- it's just something we don't understand yet (and neuroscientists are actually a long way toward understanding it -- much more so than the apologists like to admit). I don't need to have all the answers right now, even if I have to make up some of them. I'm OK with not knowing some things.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Grasshopper's post
18-10-2016, 04:46 PM
RE: Arguments for the existence of god.
"Fine tuning" is one of the silliest arguments, I think.

Show me a universe that is NOT finely tuned, then we'll see what we've got. What is it? Just a bunch of slime and rocks floating around? Shit exploding constantly? Lions bouncing around like rabbits? WHAT?!

[Image: Rolling-my-eyes-so-hard.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Dark Wanderer's post
18-10-2016, 05:08 PM
RE: Arguments for the existence of god.
3 points of word salad.

1. Nature can't do stuff on its own.
2. Nature is too complex to have happened by accident.
3 We can't scientifically explain fictional concepts that don't exist.

Do you know what my argument is to prove to people I have a car ?

I show them my car.
Granted, as arguments go, it's not very wordy.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 11 users Like Rahn127's post
18-10-2016, 05:15 PM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2016 05:22 PM by unfogged.)
RE: Arguments for the existence of god.
(18-10-2016 04:23 PM)Sirhu Wrote:  Recently, I've been debating with a theist and he presented 3 arguments that I found really interesting, and I would like to see if I could find a solution for them here. Huh

1. Because without a necessary being

why 'being'? Even if I bought into the 'necessary' part I see no reason to assume an unexplained (and unexplainable) intelligence.

Grasshopper covered the others. #2 is an argument from incredulity and #3 an argument from ignorance. The god of the gaps is not convincing.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
18-10-2016, 05:59 PM
RE: Arguments for the existence of god.
Arguments without evidence aren't worth a bucket of warm spit. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Chas's post
18-10-2016, 06:48 PM
RE: Arguments for the existence of god.
(18-10-2016 05:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  Arguments without evidence aren't worth a bucket of warm spit. Drinking Beverage

Absolutely true.

Ask for evidence always. If they have none, walk away.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2016, 06:57 PM
RE: Arguments for the existence of god.
This whole lecture by Richard Carrier is very good. But the part you might be more interested in (re: your post) starts at the 28:21 mark.




"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jennybee's post
18-10-2016, 07:03 PM
RE: Arguments for the existence of god.
(18-10-2016 04:23 PM)Sirhu Wrote:  Recently, I've been debating with a theist and he presented 3 arguments that I found really interesting, and I would like to see if I could find a solution for them here. Huh

1. Because without a necessary being you do not have an explanation for the existence of the contingent universe, or the great fact conjuntivi contingent. You then abandon the principle of sufficient reason (which is absurd and leads to disastrous consequences, besides being pure atheistic retreat), or admit theism, or take a Spinozist pantheism (which brings its own very serious consequences, does not explain everything and, anyway, it would no longer be atheism).

2. The second point is not the argument of fine tuning. Fine tuning is an additional argument and also provides more strength to my point, but I refer to the more general teleology that can be found in nature, something like the fifth way of Saint Thomas or the argument of nomic regularity of Swinburne; any causal order already requires an order of explanation that can not be purely fortuitous, and can not explain all this only through natural laws - after all, the natural laws themselves are merely descriptive, describe the order of final causes and regularities we observe in nature. Fine tuning, which is another argument, also provides an additional support to what I said - not just the universe brings order in its foundation (which could be observed even if the whole reality only involved two poles attracting or repelling regularly for example), but it brings an absurdly rare order that allowed the appearence of some kind of life as we, against absolutely overwhelming majority of hostile scenarios to any existence of life in any space.

3. The third refers to the fact of the soul / human mind (you name it) resist any reductionism or explanations of supervening material, it can not be explained merely as a natural emergency material processes which would be sufficient. That is, human intelligence itself - the proper semantic capacity, mean, abstract immaterial universal concepts, etc. - must have its explanation in a being with special power to create such immaterial rationality. Only an evolutionary process, for example, may not be enough for the emergence of intelligence as human, that is effectively separated from the other higher animals by a true abyss.

All three of his arguments commit the fallacy of the stolen concept. They make use of logic to prove a conclusion which in its content negates a concept which is foundational to logic, namely the primacy of existence. They are all three invalid. They can not fail to fail. This applies to all deductive arguments intended to prove the existence of God.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
18-10-2016, 07:16 PM
RE: Arguments for the existence of god.
This is what a fine-tuned universe looks like:

[Image: 27237014-vector-bright-childrens-sketch-...lowers.jpg]

Seriously, what sort of competent Deity illuminates its Creation using fusion explosions dynamically stabilized by their own gravity?

This is what the universe actually looks like. Let me know if you spot God.

[Image: 2015-12-07-S-L.jpg]

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Paleophyte's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: