Does God Exist? (2 Viewers)

[katie_tully]

...and whether it's possible that God exists. They're the major axioms of the argument. As I said, teh reasoning is entirely sound, it can't be flawed. The only way to reject the argument is to reject one or more of the axioms. It doesn't take much for an atheist to reject the argument, there's a neat way of doing so, but I wont give away any trade secrets. I'll let someone else try their hand at logically rejecting the argument.

If the answer to the following question is false.
Was the preceeding statement true or false?

 

[katie_tully]

Leibniz tried that.
The axiom can only be proven wrong if there is a contradiction. This was shown by an example of God being absolute compassion, but being absolute justice at the same time.

"Define X as the greatest being imaginable: that which no greater can be imagined.
Consider for a moment that this being does not exist in reality, it's just an idea in the mind.
Then a greater being can be imagined: one that does exist in reality after all. The concept that X doesn't exist in reality leads to a contradiction.
Therefore, X exists in reality.
Let X=God."

"The argument that infinities cannot exist originally came from mathematical paradoxes such as that infinity plus one equals infinity. Modern mathematics is much better at dealing with these.
The First Cause is not necessarily the same thing as God.
We may think that every event has a cause simply because we live through such a tiny part of the life of the Universe that this is true. It could be that time is circular, so that the Big Bang is the same moment as the Big Crunch. In this circle every effect has a cause, but there's no first cause.
If the universe is defined as "everything", it must include God. If the First Cause is God, we're still left with the question of where God came from"

And now, my mathematically challenged head is going to read some more so it understands.

 

[Kierkegaard]

'If' should not be in there.

It's a common paradox--Epimenides paradox. The suggestion by Kripke was to create a new category of 'neither'. There are many appraoches to this paradox. The best is to say that the original statement is meaningless. Consult Quine for further information.

 

[katie_tully]

Does this work along the same principals as the Axiom of Infinity? if so, do the same paradoxes apply?

 

[Kierkegaard]

Yeah, that's just another ontological argument. Aquinas, Leibniz, Descartes and many others have put forward ontological arguments (phrase coined by Kant).

The idea that a first cause is necessary can also be rejected by questioning whether time began at t=0.

Sorry, it's a Eubulides Paradox. I got my Eubulides and Epimenides mixed up.

 

[Kierkegaard]

The paradox of infinity is Zeno's paradox; which has been taken care-of by modern calculus.

 

[katie_tully]

I feel handicapped going into this debate. It's rather mathematical now that we're dealing with axioms, and as it is, I have trouble counting the fingers on my hands.

I'll go read up.

 

[Kierkegaard]

It's great to debate with someone who's so darn willing to learn. You'd make a great philosopher. Now, where are the theists? We have a formidable non-theist outfit!

 

[katie_tully]

I eagerly await more Bible extracts.

 

[Arvin Sloane]

I eagerly await more Bible extracts.

Oh yeah, you and me both.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

If god exists, why does he exist necessarily? There are alot of things on earth that exist, albiet not necessarily.
It is possible god exists. It is also possible he doesn't exist.
If he exists necessarily, then he exists. But what's to prove he exists, and what's to prove that his existance is necessary?
Point 4 cancels out point 9 and 10.

He's using modal logic, it doesn't mean 'necessarily' in the everyday meaning

 

[katie_tully]

He's using modal logic, it doesn't mean 'necessarily' in the everyday meaning

We already worked it out. I went researchies.

 

[malkin86]

Has anyone read "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis? It's sort of a logical step-by-step big essay, 'proving' that the Christian God exists. I'd appreciate any sort of a rebuttal of the main argument of the first section, which is that our underlying moral sense was put there by a greater being.

 

[katie_tully]

Has anyone read "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis? It's sort of a logical step-by-step big essay, 'proving' that the Christian God exists. I'd appreciate any sort of a rebuttal of the main argument of the first section, which is that our underlying moral sense was put there by a greater being.

I'll rebut that. If our underlying moral sense was put there by a greater being, why did Hitler have an extreme lack of moral sense, in comparison to Mother Teresa.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Well, I can put foward an argument that morality is independant of God, if you want

 

[Kierkegaard]

There's a nice little book called The Philosophy Gym. It's very basic, but provides answers for many of the questions put forward in this debate. It'll take you a couple of hours to a day, to read and grasp every concept covered (25 philosophical problems(if you're not a Wittgenstein fan), which would take about 10 lectures to cover in-depth in a philosophy 101 course). It's well worth the $25 you'll pay for it. While it doesn't go beyond the basics, it's bloody good for an introductory book, that will answer many of these questions, more than adequately.

 

[katie_tully]

There's a nice little book called The Philosophy Gym. It's very basic, but provides answers for many of the questions put forward in this debate. It'll take you a couple of hours to a day, to read and grasp every concept covered (25 concepts, which would take about 10 lectures to cover in-depth in a philosophy 101 course). It's well worth the $25 you'll pay for it. While it doesn't go beyond the basics, it's bloody good for an introductory book, that will answer many of these questions, more than adequately.

Out of curiosity, are you for the existance, or against the existance... or indifferent?

 

[malkin86]

Here's a quote: "First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in" (p. 21). All cultures, he says, have a moral code and those codes are remarkably similar.

Is he correct in inferring from this observation the existence of a Universal "Law of Human Nature," an innate sense of right and wrong?
Hitler believed he was right - he was acting from morals, though not the "universal" ones - Satan is a very useful scapegoat.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Here's a quote: "First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in" (p. 21). All cultures, he says, have a moral code and those codes are remarkably similar.

Is he correct in inferring from this observation the existence of a Universal "Law of Human Nature," an innate sense of right and wrong?
Hitler believed he was right - he was acting from morals, though not the "universal" ones - Satan is a very useful scapegoat.

Recommended reading: Hume - Treatise on Human Nature

 

[Kierkegaard]

Quite frankly, I'm searching for answers.
I started out a fervent Christian, then I started reading into philosophy to quite some depth. I wavered from my pentecostalism (I was one of them in my younger days) and became a deist who appreciated the teachings of Jesus. Eventually, logic took the better of me and I became a deistic agnostic, which I then found to be inadequately logical, so I became an agnostic. I call myself a deist in certain company and an agnostic in other company. It helps to keep a certain illusion.

So, now I'm an agnostic, searching for answers. I've debated for and against just about every theistic argument.