Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[HazzRat]

The Superlative argument doesn't work, it falls into sorites paradox and furthermore for every maximally perfect thing there is going to be an inverse, I accept the first argument from motion from Aquinas but can you defend it from someone who adopts Humean causality or is an anti-realist?

 

[A(theist)]

View attachment 44346

Just correcting a few things from them :/

 

[idkkdi]

ye sure they can believe but whats the point? u get purpose in your life? is there no purpose in your life without god? that seems rather bleak.

without the afterlife being in the picture it seems like anything faith could bring, similarly a person could get themselves. at that point whats the use in spending energy or time on this at all

^ my train of thought prior to this still stands. seems like pseudo-intellectual nuance on something pointless

 

[A(theist)]

^ my train of thought prior to this still stands. seems like pseudo-intellectual nuance on something pointless

Can I provide some input or is this directed at their response?

 

[dan964]

Daniel especially you, I want to show you how you presuppose things subsequent to having to presuppose a preceding first mover or uncaused causer, identical to the theistic worldview, without any empirical evidence like you require of God such as axioms.

Umm, you do realise I am Christian as well so I do hold the theistic worldview. You might have your wires crossed with the person I was engaging with...

P1-A: Some things are in motion.
P2-A: If some things are in motion, then they are put in motion by another.
C-A: Therefore, they are put in motion by another.

P1-B: If they are put in motion by another, then either this goes on to infinity or it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other.
P2-B: They are put in motion by another. C-B: Therefore, either this goes on to infinity or it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other

P1-C: Either this goes on to infinity or it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other
P2-C: But this cannot go on to infinity.
C-C: Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other.

Arguments like these are helpful in establishing that it isn't irrational to believe in God BUT the real objection to this argument is that it is insufficient proof for God's existence because all this establishes is there is a first mover, it does not establish the divinity nor the personal-ness of this first mover (this is why special revelation is needed aka for Christians, the person of Jesus Christ etc).

The argument hinges on whether all things are put in motion by something external to the system of the motion, and the counter premise is that maybe it doesn't hold true at the beginning of the universe (e.g. self causality) but this is where empirical evidence comes in. Since the empirical evidence thus far establishes causality as how the universe functions, then it is more reasonable to hold to P2-A then its antithesis, the latter of which is speculation.

It is basically asking the question where does the initial force to kickstart the universes expansion and energy to start the creation of matter to come from, AKA where does the bang come from in the Big Bang?

 

[WishingForPastPapers]

what is this debate..

 

[Study to success]

I haven’t read any of this thread but my thoughts are that we don’t necessarily have to reduce things to human rationality and if something isn’t understandable based on human rationality than it’s wrong. Cause these things are social constructs and why can’t we question things. Like why can’t 2+2=5. This is smth my Eng teacher was once discussing abt lol.

 

[WishingForPastPapers]

I haven’t read any of this thread but my thoughts are that we don’t necessarily have to reduce things to human rationality and if something isn’t understandable based on human rationality than it’s wrong. Cause these things are social constructs and why can’t we question things. Like why can’t 2+2=5. This is smth my Eng teacher was once discussing abt lol.

interesting take. Watch this spark up another 1000 pages.

 

[idkkdi]

interesting take. Watch this spark up another 1000 pages.

more than likely been addressed already

 

[idkkdi]

I haven’t read any of this thread but my thoughts are that we don’t necessarily have to reduce things to human rationality and if something isn’t understandable based on human rationality than it’s wrong. Cause these things are social constructs and why can’t we question things. Like why can’t 2+2=5. This is smth my Eng teacher was once discussing abt lol.

2+2=5 isnt really a social construct. it’s a logical construct of the way we define numbers and addition. now the ‘way we define’ could arguably be a social construct

 

[coolcat6778]

2 + 2 = 4

god isn't real either

 

[dan964]

2+2=5 isnt really a social construct. it’s a logical construct of the way we define numbers and addition. now the ‘way we define’ could arguably be a social construct

yep symbols and language. 2+2=4 and god is real afaik