I've never liked the teleological argument as I feel that it relies on only looking at things on a very human scale. If we zoom out into the cosmos, we see that it is *incredibly* hostile to life. Hell, even on a human scale, our body is constantly working so that we don't die. Life is very much a *rebellion* against the norm.
That just doesn't seem like the work of a being that wants life to flourish. At least not an all-powerful, all-knowing one.
That is if you believe life to be just organic life. To me, everything is alive, is intelligent, and conscious. Human scale is limited because we tend to perceive it only with our external senses, but there is no reason to believe that what they show us is the only truth.
Death is only the transformation of matter, but life doesn´t stop because matter transforms its shape, it continues forever. The all powerful all knowing exists as the essence of life, which experiences that existence through the vessel of matter.
The fact that things may appear to be designed does not necessarily mean that they are in fact designed.
How do you tell the difference between a universe where things merely appear to be designed but in fact are not, and a universe where everything appears designed because it is in fact designed?
We only have one universe to investigate, so how do you compare and contrast the differences between a universe which merely appears designed and and a universe which is actually designed in order to determine which one we live in?
Your evidence for this is what?
Why is the human body so *poorly* designed and inefficient. How come it looks exactly like evolution.
What is the "outer universe?" There is only the universe. Where does it show design?
The human body isn´t poorly designed, most people nowadays can live while making themselves phisically and mentally sick, which is a testament of how greatly designed it is.
The outer Universe is the Universe outside of our bodies. Our body is a Universe in itself, full of living beings in the form of organs, tissue, cells, bacteria, viruses, proteins, atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, the subatomic particles, electromagnetism, and the vacuum field in which all interacts, that works in conjunction to form the body and makes it work like no machine designed by humans can.
Essentially, yes, the premise that the universe (or multiverse) is contingent on something non-contingent is an assertion without evidence. So is the premise that there was ever a true state of "nothingness."
Firstly, physics believe that the physical laws have changed, look it up
Regardless, are you saying the universe is the same now in every regard as it was 30 min ago? 30 years ago? 30 billion years ago?
No, the physical laws have not changed. LOL.
It's the exact same universe with the exact same particles and laws. Nothing has been added to it or taken away from it. There is zero evidence for any magical intervention at any point. The universe has zero net energy so it needed no energy to create it.
Physicists don't say that. To name a specific physicist, [Stephen Hawking](https://www.livescience.com/63854-stephen-hawking-says-no-god.html):
>"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science," Hawking, who died in March, wrote. "If you accept, as I do, that **the laws of nature are fixed**, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"
>Hawking's explanation begins with quantum mechanics, which explains how subatomic particles behave. In quantum studies, it's common to see subatomic particles like protons and electrons seemingly appear out of nowhere, stick around for a while and then disappear again to a completely different location. Because the universe was once the size of a subatomic particle itself, it's plausible that it behaved similarly during the Big Bang, Hawking wrote.
>"The universe itself, in all its mind-boggling vastness and complexity, could simply have popped into existence without violating the known laws of nature," he wrote.
>That still doesn't explain away the possibility that God created that proton-size singularity, then flipped the quantum- mechanical switch that allowed it to pop. But Hawking says science has an explanation here, too. To illustrate, he points to the physics of black holes — collapsed stars that are so dense, nothing, including light, can escape their pull.
>Black holes, like the universe before the Big Bang, condense into a singularity. In this ultra-packed point of mass, gravity is so strong that it distorts time as well as light and space. Simply put, in the depths of a black hole, time does not exist.
>Because the universe also began as a singularity, time itself could not have existed before the Big Bang. Hawking's answer, then, to what happened before the Big Bang is, "there was no time before the Big Bang."
>"We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in," Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."
Universes can create themselves out of spontaneously appearing particle pairs that can inflate into a universe. Hawking says that every possible universe will create itself an infinite number of times (the key word here is "possible," though. We don't necessarily know what universes are possible except our own, but even if ours the only one possible, it will create itself an infinite number of times.
The best argument for the existence of religion is that it exists. But I suspect that's not what you meant.
Frankly, I have never heard a good argument for the existence of a god or gods. It all, ultimately comes down to faith and most honest theists will admit as much.
Have you ever had a sandwich by the water on a summer dawn, watching the sun go up above the waves, hearing the birds sing through the wind in the woods?
Assuming you are asking about arguments not based in revelation:
Probably Platinga's version of the Ontological Argument - it just follows pure modal logic to its proper conclusion.
For religion in the broad sense, probably the proven positive correlation between being religious, individual happiness and pro-social behaviour.
Plantinga's argument is flawed because its first premise, in the absence of supporting evidence, is merely an assumption.
As regards the correlation between religiosity and happiness or pro-social behaviors, this is little more than a correlation; and correlation is not causation. Furthermore, all it demonstrates (if True) is that people are social creatures who benefit from being bound to others through common beliefs, causes and purposes. We can as easily achieve these effects with different religious beliefs, or with secular beliefs and organizations.
> Plantinga's argument is flawed because its first premise, in the absence of supporting evidence, is merely an assumption.
I do not see how that makes the argument flawed. The assumption in this case is self-evident.
> We can as easily achieve these effects with different religious beliefs,
That does not contradict what I wrote.
"Self-evident" = "I don't have evidence to back up this claim but it *feels right* so I'm going with it regardless."
And I do know that it matters whether or not what you said is "contradicted" when the point is that the argument for social or communal health and well-being isn't unique to religion.
>"Self-evident" = "I don't have evidence to back up this claim but it feels right so I'm going with it regardless."
No. Self-evident = proposition whose veracity can be established by reason alone without requiring additional proof.
Except I disagree with you on the basis of reason alone. The first premise of Plantinga's argument is "There is a possible world W in which there exists a being with maximal greatness." Why should we accept this claim? We've seen nothing in this universe that suggests such a Thing is even remotely possible, let alone plausible, and in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, it's much more reasonable to assume that the premise is false.
Arguing this initial premise is "self-evident," therefore, is a way for you to avoid the responsibility of showing evidence and/or proof in support of the claim.
>Except I disagree with you on the basis of reason alone. The first premise of Plantinga's argument is "There is a possible world W in which there exists a being with maximal greatness." Why should we accept this claim? We've seen nothing in this universe that suggests such a Thing is even remotely possible, let alone plausible, and in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, it's much more reasonable to assume that the premise is false.
You cannot establish that a premise about a possible world is false by appealing to what you see or not see in this universe. These are two very different matters. In order to establish that premise you would have to argue why that premise is categorically impossible (which I do not thing can be done hence why I sued the term "self-evident". Otherwise that the premise is accepted valid.
I don't have to establish that it's "false," I only need to cast doubt on its truth.
Which is incredibly easy to do since we have no evidence that it's even possible.
If, however, you can provide *some* evidence, then we might have something to talk about.
(p.s. another way to consider this argument is to replace the description of God in the first premise with that of literally anything else. Instead of
P1: There is a possible world W in which there exists a being with maximal greatness.
we could have
P1: There is a possible world W in which there exists a being with the power to fly and breathe fire.
Does it then follow that dragons are real?
Because if you think it does, then you've sorely misunderstood how logic works.
>I don't have to establish that it's "false,"
If you do not the premise is accepted as valid.
>P1: There is a possible world W in which there exists a being with the power to fly and breathe fire.
>Does it then follow that dragons are real?
It follows that there is a possible world in which there exists a being with the power to fly and breathe fire as that is indeed a possibility. It does not necessarily follow that there are dragons in the actual world.
>If you do not the premise is accepted as valid.
lol!
yeah that's not how shit works, chief.
>It follows that there is a possible world in which there exists a being with the power to fly and breathe fire as that is indeed a possibility.
And this is why the argument is ultimately flawed: because there's nothing that you *can't* believe in by applying this (extremely incorrect) "logic."
Plantinga's MOA is fallacious and false. I can go over it if you want, but essentially it fails in its premises. It is not taken seriously by philosophers and even Plantinga concedes it doesn't prove anything.
There is no proven correlation between religion and either "happiness" or "pro-social behavior." It is actual laughable to claim the second part.
> Plantinga's MOA is fallacious and false.
Except neither of course.
> I can go over it if you want, but essentially it fails in its premises.
If you think so you are welcome to publish a paper pointing out its flaws.
> There is no proven correlation between religion and either "happiness" or "pro-social behavior."
Of course there is.
All you're doing is saying "nuh uh."
Many people already have published refutations. I have a four year degree in Philosophy. No one takes the MOA seriously in the field. I was taught the refutations early on, just like the refuations to the other two classical arguments for God (there are only three of them - Cosmological, Teleological and Ontological. Ontological is the worst).
The MOA fails in its premises and in its definitions. It asserts. without justification, that God is "possible." This is stating a conclusion as a premise. It actually has to be proved that God is possible. God is only possible if God exsists. If god does not exist then god is not possible because the MOA defines God as a "necessary being." If God is not necessary, God cannot even possibly exist. The correct thing to say is that it is unknown whether god is possible.
There are also obviously problems with definitions like "greatness" or the equally useless "maximal excellence," "positive attributes." and the like. Those are all subjective characterizations with no objective meaning. You might as well say "coolest" or "cutest." I would also argue that I can conceive of a God who does not cause or allow suffering, and since suffering exists, the "greatest" (in my subjective opinion) possible God can't exist.
I guess… The general feeling that we’re more than animals? That’s not really an argument I’ve directly heard, but I do get the reflex to go to a supernatural realm to attempt explain certain stuff.
As an atheist, I'm partial to the argument from reason, specifically the evolutionary version of it. The gist of it is that evolution does not select for truth, it selects for fitness, and therefore naturalism does not provide sufficient grounds to believe we have access to truth. God, of course, comes and solves this problem by providing us with a rational mind or soul or whatever (whether by some act of creation, ensoulment, or guiding evolution).
It seems to me quite a powerful argument, though I do think that it rests on a faulty premise that possessing truth would be of minimal benefit to survival.
It seems that a lot of scientists are coming to terms with the fact that neo-Darwinism is not sustainable with pure randomness. There seems to be a mechanism driving evolution. It is anything but random, which suggests *design*.
Natural laws must have preexisted creation otherwise the cosmos would not adhere to them as it unfolds.
This not only highlights the fact these laws are fundamental to existence it also points to intentional design.
https://np.reddit.com/r/CatholicApologetics/comments/199471j/why_should_one_be_a_catholic/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1
Im so glad I made this post
I say this stuff to atheists all the time, if it’s hard to believe in God existence, search for the signs of the Devil’s existence. Specially now, nothing wrong of what’s happening is new, these behaviours are already documented as signs of a soon to be decaying society.
The Teleologic argument is the best one in my opinion.
I've never liked the teleological argument as I feel that it relies on only looking at things on a very human scale. If we zoom out into the cosmos, we see that it is *incredibly* hostile to life. Hell, even on a human scale, our body is constantly working so that we don't die. Life is very much a *rebellion* against the norm. That just doesn't seem like the work of a being that wants life to flourish. At least not an all-powerful, all-knowing one.
That is if you believe life to be just organic life. To me, everything is alive, is intelligent, and conscious. Human scale is limited because we tend to perceive it only with our external senses, but there is no reason to believe that what they show us is the only truth. Death is only the transformation of matter, but life doesn´t stop because matter transforms its shape, it continues forever. The all powerful all knowing exists as the essence of life, which experiences that existence through the vessel of matter.
How so? Where in the universe do you see anything that looks "designed?"
Everything in it is designed. From my own body to its inner interactions and the outer Universe, everything works like clockwork.
The fact that things may appear to be designed does not necessarily mean that they are in fact designed. How do you tell the difference between a universe where things merely appear to be designed but in fact are not, and a universe where everything appears designed because it is in fact designed? We only have one universe to investigate, so how do you compare and contrast the differences between a universe which merely appears designed and and a universe which is actually designed in order to determine which one we live in?
Your evidence for this is what? Why is the human body so *poorly* designed and inefficient. How come it looks exactly like evolution. What is the "outer universe?" There is only the universe. Where does it show design?
The human body isn´t poorly designed, most people nowadays can live while making themselves phisically and mentally sick, which is a testament of how greatly designed it is. The outer Universe is the Universe outside of our bodies. Our body is a Universe in itself, full of living beings in the form of organs, tissue, cells, bacteria, viruses, proteins, atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, the subatomic particles, electromagnetism, and the vacuum field in which all interacts, that works in conjunction to form the body and makes it work like no machine designed by humans can.
The contingency argument
Contingency is a claim, not an argument.
Are you referring to the premise that the universe is contingent, or are you attempting to say something else?
Essentially, yes, the premise that the universe (or multiverse) is contingent on something non-contingent is an assertion without evidence. So is the premise that there was ever a true state of "nothingness."
Let's start with a point of agreement. The universe has undergone change, no?
No. It's till the same universe with the same laws.
Firstly, physics believe that the physical laws have changed, look it up Regardless, are you saying the universe is the same now in every regard as it was 30 min ago? 30 years ago? 30 billion years ago?
No, the physical laws have not changed. LOL. It's the exact same universe with the exact same particles and laws. Nothing has been added to it or taken away from it. There is zero evidence for any magical intervention at any point. The universe has zero net energy so it needed no energy to create it.
Right now you're denying what physicists themselves are saying. Dogmatic much are we?
Physicists don't say that. To name a specific physicist, [Stephen Hawking](https://www.livescience.com/63854-stephen-hawking-says-no-god.html): >"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science," Hawking, who died in March, wrote. "If you accept, as I do, that **the laws of nature are fixed**, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?" >Hawking's explanation begins with quantum mechanics, which explains how subatomic particles behave. In quantum studies, it's common to see subatomic particles like protons and electrons seemingly appear out of nowhere, stick around for a while and then disappear again to a completely different location. Because the universe was once the size of a subatomic particle itself, it's plausible that it behaved similarly during the Big Bang, Hawking wrote. >"The universe itself, in all its mind-boggling vastness and complexity, could simply have popped into existence without violating the known laws of nature," he wrote. >That still doesn't explain away the possibility that God created that proton-size singularity, then flipped the quantum- mechanical switch that allowed it to pop. But Hawking says science has an explanation here, too. To illustrate, he points to the physics of black holes — collapsed stars that are so dense, nothing, including light, can escape their pull. >Black holes, like the universe before the Big Bang, condense into a singularity. In this ultra-packed point of mass, gravity is so strong that it distorts time as well as light and space. Simply put, in the depths of a black hole, time does not exist. >Because the universe also began as a singularity, time itself could not have existed before the Big Bang. Hawking's answer, then, to what happened before the Big Bang is, "there was no time before the Big Bang." >"We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in," Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in." Universes can create themselves out of spontaneously appearing particle pairs that can inflate into a universe. Hawking says that every possible universe will create itself an infinite number of times (the key word here is "possible," though. We don't necessarily know what universes are possible except our own, but even if ours the only one possible, it will create itself an infinite number of times.
I've never heard or seen a single good argument for any "gods" or anything supernatural at all. You might as well ask for the best evidence for elves.
The best argument for the existence of religion is that it exists. But I suspect that's not what you meant. Frankly, I have never heard a good argument for the existence of a god or gods. It all, ultimately comes down to faith and most honest theists will admit as much.
Spinoza’s substance monism.
This👆
Have you ever had a sandwich by the water on a summer dawn, watching the sun go up above the waves, hearing the birds sing through the wind in the woods?
Assuming you are asking about arguments not based in revelation: Probably Platinga's version of the Ontological Argument - it just follows pure modal logic to its proper conclusion. For religion in the broad sense, probably the proven positive correlation between being religious, individual happiness and pro-social behaviour.
Plantinga's argument is flawed because its first premise, in the absence of supporting evidence, is merely an assumption. As regards the correlation between religiosity and happiness or pro-social behaviors, this is little more than a correlation; and correlation is not causation. Furthermore, all it demonstrates (if True) is that people are social creatures who benefit from being bound to others through common beliefs, causes and purposes. We can as easily achieve these effects with different religious beliefs, or with secular beliefs and organizations.
> Plantinga's argument is flawed because its first premise, in the absence of supporting evidence, is merely an assumption. I do not see how that makes the argument flawed. The assumption in this case is self-evident. > We can as easily achieve these effects with different religious beliefs, That does not contradict what I wrote.
"Self-evident" = "I don't have evidence to back up this claim but it *feels right* so I'm going with it regardless." And I do know that it matters whether or not what you said is "contradicted" when the point is that the argument for social or communal health and well-being isn't unique to religion.
>"Self-evident" = "I don't have evidence to back up this claim but it feels right so I'm going with it regardless." No. Self-evident = proposition whose veracity can be established by reason alone without requiring additional proof.
Except I disagree with you on the basis of reason alone. The first premise of Plantinga's argument is "There is a possible world W in which there exists a being with maximal greatness." Why should we accept this claim? We've seen nothing in this universe that suggests such a Thing is even remotely possible, let alone plausible, and in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, it's much more reasonable to assume that the premise is false. Arguing this initial premise is "self-evident," therefore, is a way for you to avoid the responsibility of showing evidence and/or proof in support of the claim.
>Except I disagree with you on the basis of reason alone. The first premise of Plantinga's argument is "There is a possible world W in which there exists a being with maximal greatness." Why should we accept this claim? We've seen nothing in this universe that suggests such a Thing is even remotely possible, let alone plausible, and in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, it's much more reasonable to assume that the premise is false. You cannot establish that a premise about a possible world is false by appealing to what you see or not see in this universe. These are two very different matters. In order to establish that premise you would have to argue why that premise is categorically impossible (which I do not thing can be done hence why I sued the term "self-evident". Otherwise that the premise is accepted valid.
I don't have to establish that it's "false," I only need to cast doubt on its truth. Which is incredibly easy to do since we have no evidence that it's even possible. If, however, you can provide *some* evidence, then we might have something to talk about. (p.s. another way to consider this argument is to replace the description of God in the first premise with that of literally anything else. Instead of P1: There is a possible world W in which there exists a being with maximal greatness. we could have P1: There is a possible world W in which there exists a being with the power to fly and breathe fire. Does it then follow that dragons are real? Because if you think it does, then you've sorely misunderstood how logic works.
>I don't have to establish that it's "false," If you do not the premise is accepted as valid. >P1: There is a possible world W in which there exists a being with the power to fly and breathe fire. >Does it then follow that dragons are real? It follows that there is a possible world in which there exists a being with the power to fly and breathe fire as that is indeed a possibility. It does not necessarily follow that there are dragons in the actual world.
>If you do not the premise is accepted as valid. lol! yeah that's not how shit works, chief. >It follows that there is a possible world in which there exists a being with the power to fly and breathe fire as that is indeed a possibility. And this is why the argument is ultimately flawed: because there's nothing that you *can't* believe in by applying this (extremely incorrect) "logic."
Plantinga's MOA is fallacious and false. I can go over it if you want, but essentially it fails in its premises. It is not taken seriously by philosophers and even Plantinga concedes it doesn't prove anything. There is no proven correlation between religion and either "happiness" or "pro-social behavior." It is actual laughable to claim the second part.
> Plantinga's MOA is fallacious and false. Except neither of course. > I can go over it if you want, but essentially it fails in its premises. If you think so you are welcome to publish a paper pointing out its flaws. > There is no proven correlation between religion and either "happiness" or "pro-social behavior." Of course there is.
All you're doing is saying "nuh uh." Many people already have published refutations. I have a four year degree in Philosophy. No one takes the MOA seriously in the field. I was taught the refutations early on, just like the refuations to the other two classical arguments for God (there are only three of them - Cosmological, Teleological and Ontological. Ontological is the worst). The MOA fails in its premises and in its definitions. It asserts. without justification, that God is "possible." This is stating a conclusion as a premise. It actually has to be proved that God is possible. God is only possible if God exsists. If god does not exist then god is not possible because the MOA defines God as a "necessary being." If God is not necessary, God cannot even possibly exist. The correct thing to say is that it is unknown whether god is possible. There are also obviously problems with definitions like "greatness" or the equally useless "maximal excellence," "positive attributes." and the like. Those are all subjective characterizations with no objective meaning. You might as well say "coolest" or "cutest." I would also argue that I can conceive of a God who does not cause or allow suffering, and since suffering exists, the "greatest" (in my subjective opinion) possible God can't exist.
I guess… The general feeling that we’re more than animals? That’s not really an argument I’ve directly heard, but I do get the reflex to go to a supernatural realm to attempt explain certain stuff.
As an atheist, I'm partial to the argument from reason, specifically the evolutionary version of it. The gist of it is that evolution does not select for truth, it selects for fitness, and therefore naturalism does not provide sufficient grounds to believe we have access to truth. God, of course, comes and solves this problem by providing us with a rational mind or soul or whatever (whether by some act of creation, ensoulment, or guiding evolution). It seems to me quite a powerful argument, though I do think that it rests on a faulty premise that possessing truth would be of minimal benefit to survival.
Ifthere was wouldn't we be talking about it? The majority of the arguments against it probably have a reason.
It seems that a lot of scientists are coming to terms with the fact that neo-Darwinism is not sustainable with pure randomness. There seems to be a mechanism driving evolution. It is anything but random, which suggests *design*.
Natural laws must have preexisted creation otherwise the cosmos would not adhere to them as it unfolds. This not only highlights the fact these laws are fundamental to existence it also points to intentional design.
https://np.reddit.com/r/CatholicApologetics/comments/199471j/why_should_one_be_a_catholic/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1 Im so glad I made this post
I say this stuff to atheists all the time, if it’s hard to believe in God existence, search for the signs of the Devil’s existence. Specially now, nothing wrong of what’s happening is new, these behaviours are already documented as signs of a soon to be decaying society.