Does God exist?

[Archaeopteryx]

Quite serious.



The earth/moon system produces eclipses that are unique in the solar system. No other planet has a moon that exactly covers the sun during a total solar eclipse, producing a beautiful artistic effect. This is completely unnecessary for life - it is the sort of thing you would expect to find if there were a Creator.

It's also the sort of thing you might expect if the Moon God was jealous of the Sun God.

 

[quatona]

That's incorrect. Atheists typically assert that if theism is not warranted then the universe has no proven theistic explanation for its existence. Since when does the rejection of a theistic explanation count as rejection of any and all explanations?

...and since when and how has "Goddidit" changed its status from "assertion" to "explanation", anyway?

 

[DogmaHunter]

...and since when and how has "Goddidit" changed its status from "assertion" to "explanation", anyway?

Ever since William Lame Craig asserted it to be such, didn't you get the memo?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ok, Ray Comfort's sidekick...
This is completely ridiculous... OFF COURSE (un)belief is a matter of the intellect!!!!

I don't "choose" what to believe. I believe whatever convinces me and disbelief whatever doesn't. Belief for me is not a "choice". It is a compulsion based on evidence, rational reasoning, trust and valid argumentation. I don't hold beliefs because I want to or because they make me feel good. I hold beliefs (tentatively) when they convince me.

Perhaps this is a case of projection. Maybe some theists do really believe only because they choose to, so they expect others to do likewise.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I am going to speak as you speak for a moment and simply say I thank you for sharing your opinion with me.

You see how easy that was?

Anyone who is in your position can do and say the things you do.

That is easy. I lived the way you do for many years. It was easy. It was not hard at all. Do as I please, believe what I please, come and go as I please, pretend I am the be all and end all and the only one around whom the world revolves.

It is easy to be self-centered and egotistical. Nothing hard in that. To stand aloof from the world and pretend it is all an illusion.

Speak for yourself! Just because you were selfish, "worshipped" yourself (whatever that means), and did as you pleased without regard for the consequences up until you found your theism does not mean that everyone else who is not a theist behaves the way you did.

I think rampant.a.i., not of CF, characterised the situation well when he said:

You believe you have the right to be rude, arrogant, condescending, derogatory, insincere, untrustworthy, abrasive, use personal information people reveal about their lives against them, and still think you ought to be welcomed with open arms and respected despite your actions, for the mere reason you converted to Christianity because you couldn't behave morally on your own.

It is people like you that remind me of how I was and how God wrought in me something that someone like you could never do on your own. Even if you desired to be displaced from the center of the universe (or should I say, your universe), you would have no way of doing so.

You cannot be what I am. The desire must be present first and even if the desire is present, one cannot change their nature in and of themselves.

But you do not envy me at all. In fact you may feel sorry for me and I understand, for when I was like you I felt sorry for all them that did not worship themselves as I did.

But your posts reek of pride. It oozes out of much of what you write on here. You are so prideful that in your pride you attempt to mask it so as to not be too evident. Vanity rules you but it is also your weakness. You cannot tolerate being called out or exposed. You let it be known when you are slighted, but only off-handedly.

The irony meter just exploded. My goodness!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

To facilitate the discussion let it be known that he can only hold one of two positions regarding moral semantics:

1. Cognitivist theories hold that evaluative moral sentences express propositions (that is, they are "truth apt" or "truth bearers", capable of being true or false), as opposed to non-cognitivism.
2. Non-Cognitivist theories hold that ethical sentences are neither true nor false because they do not express genuine propositions. Non-cognitivism is another form of moral anti-realism. Most forms of non-cognitivism are also forms of expressivism, however some such as Mark Timmons and Terrence Horgan distinguish the two and allow the possibility of cognitivist forms of expressivism.

If you copy from Wikipedia, at least provide a link to the source. Interestingly, in finding the source material for this text, I also happened to find this (note: CF's censor filter appears to be distorting the correct link). Another Jeremy E Walker on The Thinking Atheist?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

never mind your habit of dodging. Lets look at your reply:

the moral argument basically is summed up like this, real simple. How does an athiest account for morality? In other words, what makes a God who tortures babies for fun, evil? Or a God who loves babies, Good? Who or what law does an athiest adhere to to make that call? IT is the moral law. If the moral law does not exist, then we are forced to vote for morality in which the athiest is forced to declare that there is not proper moral ground to declare any act of God evil without evidence (as voting for morality is not empirical methodology).

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're getting at.

even stanford encyclopedia of philosophy states this:

"the fact that we humans are aware of moral facts is itself surprising and calls for an explanation."

Yes, it does. But how does invoking deities provide an explanation?

Moral Arguments for the Existence of God (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I assume you may have one or two replies for this topic. That being said, this debate will last 6-10 post max. That is one of the 10 arguments at most, for the existence of God. it does not take that much time, if you know exactly what the argument entails.

I'm not sure I understand the argument you're making. You asked what makes a God who tortures babies for fun evil? If God is the source of morality, and he determines what is right or wrong, then presumably that God can declare that torturing babies for fun is good.

 

[KCfromNC]

there are four premises and one conclusion. They are sequential. Do you understand the logic behind debate? If not I can explain it in more detail.

None of this has anything to do with what I wrote. Take all the time you need to figure out a way to respond to my actual post. No rush.

 

[KCfromNC]

Evolutionists have no moral standard according to Darwin

So you're saying you uncritically accept Darwin as an authority in everything he wrote? Seems like that would require you to accept evolution at face value in addition to his claims about moralty.

If you're not willing to do that, why do you think anyone else should be held to the same standard and believe what you're telling us he said? Seems inherently self-defeating to try and use this type of argument from authority from an authority you probably reject yourself.

 

[KCfromNC]

it follows logically from premise 1,

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

I don't see god mentioned anywhere in this premise. Sounds like you've got an unstated premise 1.5 here, something along the lines of "the ultimate external uncaused cause is god". But you can't just come out and say it since that's also the conclusion.

 

[KCfromNC]

The atheist typically asserts the following:

A. If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence.

Citation needed. Let's see 10 examples of atheists saying this. Please be specific.

A more honest response would be "we have no idea if the universe has an explanation, and the question of the existence of god(s) might be unrelated to that issue". Have fun arguing from that.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Citation needed. Let's see 10 examples of atheists saying this. Please be specific.

As noted by Daniel Chaney, this statement is also a fallacy. "Atheists typically assert..." Even if atheists did typically assert what WLC claims they do, it would be an appeal to the majority. There is nothing about atheism that requires the atheist to state that, without God, the universe has no explanation for its existence. It would be like saying that, without the Thunder God, lightning has no explanation for its existence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

As noted by Daniel Chaney, this statement is also a fallacy. "Atheists typically assert..." Even if atheists did typically assert what WLC claims they do, it would be an appeal to the majority. There is nothing about atheism that requires the atheist to state that, without God, the universe has no explanation for its existence. It would be like saying that, without the Thunder God, lightning has no explanation for its existence.

I think you are making too much sense here...

 

[Chany]

I'm happy someone got around to Craig's poor arguments. I was going to do it this morning, but I dreaded doing it since yesterday.

 

[KCfromNC]

As noted by Daniel Chaney, this statement is also a fallacy. "Atheists typically assert..." Even if atheists did typically assert what WLC claims they do, it would be an appeal to the majority.

No argument, but I was just curious if the poster could even raise his game to the level of a fallacy. As it stands now it is just an example of lying for Jesus.

 

[mark kennedy]

For me to prove to you God exists, let alone to define God for you is to define and prove something less then God. God's glory is reflected in nature and not only God's existence but God's essential nature is clearly seen, leaving us without excuse. Atheism is not a series of reasonable proofs, it's an antithetical view devoid of positive proofs. It reminds me of the arguments of Tweedledum and Tweedledee and their retort, 'contrary wise'. What I think is especially telling is that atheists never ask for a definition of God because, of course, everyone know what is meant by the term. What Atheists don't seem able to grasp is that St. Thomas Aquinas made his five arguments and concluded with the phrase, 'everyone understands this to be God'.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Rom. 1:20)​

God being self existing and beyond the reach of human opinion, it only makes sense the God is self evident. In Christian theology and Scripture God's existence is never argued, it's an a priori fact. Still, there are common arguments for God's existence that really haven't changed that much down through the centuries.

Five proofs for the existence of God.

(1) First Cause: God as first cause, the unmoved mover.
(2) Efficient Cause: God as first efficient or ultimate cause,
(3) Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)
(4) Gradation of Being: From the gradation of things from lower to higher to God as the highest and most perfect.
(5) Teleology: God is the Giver of the end and purpose of all things.​

St. Thomas Aquinas, The Existence of God can be proved in five ways

No matter who asks the question, if you are predicating the argument on the other persons understanding it's called an 'ad hominem'. That is to say, an argument based on something the opposing view won't dispute, it's very common and highly effective. Atheists could easily avoid this trap if they had done their due diligence with regards to defining core terms, because they never do they spiral into fallacious arguments that cannot raise substantive points, they can only raise subjective objections. What they fail to appreciate is that these objections were addressed centuries before there was any such thing as philosophical atheism. As a matter of fact it is derived from Aristotelian 'cause and effect' arguments and when explored in depth it plumbs the depths of epistemology (theories of knowledge), that is how we know anything.

Here's a way to get a quick start on the subject, God being separate (Aseity of God) also transcends all of time and space. The question becomes, how do you determine a transcendent principle, that is, a substantive element that transcends all reality? More importantly, how would you disprove it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[BL2KTN]

Woah, woah, woah, time out. You're not trying to prove the existence of God in scripture, you're trying to prove the existence of Yahweh. Big difference there. Yahweh is certainly not self-evident.

 

[mark kennedy]

Woah, woah, woah, time out. You're not trying to prove the existence of God in scripture, you're trying to prove the existence of Yahweh. Big difference there. Yahweh is certainly not self-evident.

Nonsense, this kind of semantical hair splitting is a poor basis for any philosophical discussion. God is the core term, used by Aristotle without any reference to the Covenant name(s) for God in the Old Testament. The proofs for Yahweh are the same as the ones for the existence of the Hebrew people and the covenant relationship of the Jews with God. The Hebrews never proved or denied the existence of God, your being ridiculous.

That's what happens when you refuse to define core terms, you get personal objections where you should be getting substantive arguments.

 

[BL2KTN]

In Christian theology and Scripture God's existence is never argued, it's an a priori fact.

Is this God not Yahweh? Because I do believe in the Creator, but I do not think for a second that a 3,000 year-old Canaanite war god is It.

Nonsense, this kind of semantical hair splitting is a poor basis for any philosophical discussion. God is the core term, used by Aristotle without any reference to the Covenant name(s) for God in the Old Testament. The proofs for Yahweh are the same as the ones for the existence of the Hebrew people and the covenant relationship of the Jews with God. The Hebrews never proved or denied the existence of God, your being ridiculous.

But you are specifically trying to prove the existence of Yahweh, not just any god, right?

That's what happens when you refuse to define core terms, you get personal objections where you should be getting substantive arguments.

Do you want to prove a creator or Yahweh?

 

[digitalgoth]

Why do you people care if God exists or not? I mean, I highly doubt it would even closely resemble anything in your books.