| CreedFeed Community |
Proofs For The Existence Of God
Proofs of the Existence of God:
First Way: The Argument From Motion St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philosopher Aristotle, concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion (e.g. the planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion. Follow the argument this way: 1) Nothing can move itself. 2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover. 3) This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God. Second Way: Causation Of Existence This Way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things. Follow the argument this way: 1) There exists things that are caused (created) by other things. 2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.) 3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist. 4) Therefore, there must be an uncaused first cause called God. Third Way: Contingent and Necessary Objects This Way defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that can not exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately necessitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God. Follow the argument this way: 1) Contingent beings are caused. 2) Not every being can be contingent. 3) There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings. 4) This necessary being is God. Fourth Way: The Argument From Degrees And Perfection St. Thomas formulated this Way from a very interesting observation about the qualities of things. For example one may say that of two marble sculptures one is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects, one has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality. From this fact Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be an perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured. These perfections are contained in God. ( a person who really likes any form of art should understand this one) Fifth Way: The Argument From Intelligent Design The final Way that St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of has to do with the observable universe and the order of nature. Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that is was designed by an intelligent designer, God. In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intelligent designer. I)Teleological Argument: i.)The basic premise, of all teleological arguments for the existence of God, is that the world exhibits an intelligent purpose based on experience from nature such as its order, unity, coherency, design and complexity. Hence, there must be an intelligent designer to account for the observed intelligent purpose and order that we can observe. ii.)Paley's teleological argument is based on an analogy: Watchmaker is to watch as God is to universe. Just as a watch, with its intelligent design and complex function must have been created by an intelligent maker: a watchmaker, the universe, with all its complexity and greatness, must have been created by an intelligent and powerful creator. Therefore a watchmaker is to watch as God is to universe. II)Paley's Teleological Argument: 1.)Human artifacts are products of intelligent design. 2.)The universe resembles human artifacts. 3.)Therefore the universe is a product of intelligent design. 4.) But the universe is complex and gigantic, in comparison to human artifacts. 5.)Therefore, there probably is a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the universe. Follow St. Anselm's Argument Point By Point: 1) God is defined as the being in which none greater is possible. 2) It is true that the notion of God exists in the understanding (your mind.) 3) And that God may exist in reality (God is a possible being.) 4) If God only exists in the mind, and may have existed, then God might have been greater than He is. 5) Then, God might have been greater than He is (if He existed in reality.) 6) Therefore, God is a being which a greater is possible. 7) This is not possible, for God is a being in which a greater is impossible. 8) Therefore God exists in reality as well as the mind. Everywhere in our daily life we encounter artifacts that intrigue us. When something is obviously man-made, we automatically assume that there was a designer. You would never dream that your computer "just happened" by a random combination of silica and plastic. Nor would you assume that the programming was accomplished by dropping marbles on a keyboard. Yet, even my hamster's brain is more complicated then the most sophisticated computers. To assume that hamster brains are no more than a random mix of chemicals is considerably less reasonable than the dropping of marbles. This proof also includes an important twist: if you believe that your brain is the result of random combinations of chemicals, how can you trust your reasoning? Since there is no design to your brain you cannot assume that it is capable of determining the truth. Of course, an atheists' denial of God has little to do with reason. He knows that if he accepts that there is a God, and that that God has given certain precepts for living life on this earth, then he will be responsible for his actions at the end of his life. Many find it easier to deny that God exists than to change their lifestyles.They have created a god in their own image and everyone elses image of God is not theirs, so they reject it, but deify their own image of god which they also reject. But I think they have really rejected themselves first, and denial of God is just an elaborate excuse to justify self worship, or self hatred. |
Wow. You must not be a Christian, because Christians are lazy, and this must have taken you like ten minutes to write!
lol, jk, of course. Great post man. I especially like the fourth argument. |
I commend you on a well researched well thought out post No fixed address
But I will have to say "First Way: The Argument From Motion" The Big Band "Second Way: Causation Of Existence" Ummm The Big Bang "Third Way: Contingent and Necessary Objects" Proteins and amino acids formed the first life and it evolved from there "Fourth Way: The Argument From Degrees And Perfection” perfection?? No I am not even gonna bother with this one it’s too easy "Fifth Way: The Argument From Intelligent Design" If there was intelligent design then it must not have been very intelligent because everything was kind thrown together in a haphazard manner. |
The Big bang? You missed the point compeltely naked smurf. HOW DID THE BIG BANG HAPPEN? There is no answer to that.
Proteins and amino acids... Do you have any idea the sort of complexity it reuqires for proteins and amino acids to come togther to form a life even in the usual way? And so you want something RANDOM to create life? If the fourth argument is so easy, defeat it. Otherwise, you just look like you know no reponse. The universe is not haphazard at all, anyone who has done high school chemistry knows jsut how ridiculously complex and ordered the universe is. |
The big bang was God clapping his hands after a job well done ;)
|
Evolution Arguments Do Not Disprove The Existence Of God
Quote:
Thank you. I have no problem with the Big Bang Theory. But it is just that, a theory. Even the most advanced astro-physicists in the world say its a theory. I think it takes a great deal more faith to believe the Big Bang started spontaneously all on its own. That defies reason. The Big Bang cannot be a first cause, but the theory itself is reasonable. Quote:
Ummm, The Big Bang Theory affirms that no object can create itself, it does not dismiss Causation of Existence. Please provide the name of any reputable astro-physicist that claims matter came from itself. Quote:
So what. Protiens and amino acids are not contingent beings. You didn’t get it. Humans probably did evolve, but the first human souls were created. Now you have to shift your argument that you are nothing more than a collection of cells. Go ahead. Obviously, you are too young to have children. ( one or more collections of cells) Quote:
Too bad. It's my favorite one too. It's easy to explain, easy to understand, but not so easy to refute. If you have absolutely no beauty in your life, or cannot appreciate anything, not even music, or have no hobbies, or don't think a glorious sunset is anything worth looking at, I don't understand why you haven't blown your brains out by now. Quote:
This is not a reply, but an unintelligent cop-out. On one hand you argue from the standpoint of supposed science, and on the other you deny science completely. The Laws of Physics pre-existed and were explained, not invented, and all laws require a Law-Maker. You want a lawless world-view so you don't have to be responsible for your behavior. I bet you've heard that before. Basically, I think you are trying to dismiss me using evolutionary arguments. Sorry, but I believe that faith and science is compatible. Your argument is with literalists who think they are creationists, not with me. http://www.catholic.com/library/faith_science.asp >click on “Adam, Eve, and Evolution”. Copy and paste into the board the parts that you object to, and we can discuss it. Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.” Pope John Paul II |
Quote:
|
Quote:
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :clap: :clap: :clap: |
All these arguments No fixd address are the same old straw men…if they haven’t been disproved they have been labeled implausible.
Yes the big bang is a theory that is true but God in the realm of science is at best a hypothesis I subscribe to the oscillating Universe theory myself which is a causality loop which means there is no beginning and no end so... no God |
Hmm? I think its funny how people get tiked off due to the fact that they claim to be forced religion,then all of a sudden none of its true anymore :rolleyes: Then you come up with all these other fast scientific mumo jumbo to ustify yourself in not believing in God anymore.
|
Quote:
Science is not mumbo jumbo. what you are saying is the cry of the Fundamentalist Christian. Try reading something scientific Richard Carrier is a good place to start |
I am far from a fundamentalist christian,and if I wanted your advice I would have asked for it,but since I didn't...Well there ya go ;)
|
*shakes head* some people just don't get it
|
I think its you that doesn't get it :rolleyes: I'm out of here as of now,I'm not getting into a verbal war about this with you or anyone for that matter. I know what I believe in and that is all that matters! I don't need anyone throwing books about "How God doesn't exhist" In my face, because the only response you'll get out of me is :horseshit
|
actually I have not thrown out books on how god doesn't exist I actually refered you to an autor woh is a historian and a physicist it may be true that he himself is an atheist but he is not out to prove the non-existance of "God"
regaurdless if you wanna stay in you little box there I can't make you leave |
So,let me get this straight :rolleyes: I belierve in God so I'm uh...in my little box :wtf: Well in that case your invading my space so go find someone else to patronize. I'm boxed in your bitter,trying to think wich one is worse ;)
:boxedin: (Me) :D |
but you see Julie I have see both sides of the coin and I have proven that I know about Christianity but no one here can claim that they know all the thought processes of an atheist because none of you are (I know that sincir has been one but he has not been on this thread) and I don't know if he was an intellectual atheist or not so... there you go
|
:) PEACE :peacelove Aside From Being An ATHEIST What Are You,re other intrest
|
I do not have many interests I am tied up in reasearch and spending time with myfamily inaddition to listening to various music thats all.
|
A Fictional Discussion with an Atheist
A Fictional Discussion with an Atheist Between Teenage Philosophers
Discussion with an Atheist Moderator: Patty, Catholic: Apolonio, Feminist Atheist: Jackie Patty: It is great that you two teenagers are going to have this discussion. I know that both of you are seeking for the truth, which is why I decided to be the “moderator” of this “discussion/debate”. We are going to cover a lot of topics on Christian Apologetics. Our first topic is the existence of God. Apolonio, since you are the theist, I believe you should go first. Apolonio: I will be glad to. Jackie, nice to talk with you again. Jackie: Nice to talk with you, sophomore. Apolonio: Thank you senior (and I’m not Spanish!). Let’s get right down to business. I still have homework to do. Jackie: Fine with me. First Argument for God’s Existence Apolonio: My first argument is the argument from perfection. Jackie: Ah, this should be easy. Apolonio: Sure it is. It is really simple. In our world truth, life, and love exists. Do you disagree with this statement? Jackie: I am not going to argue that they do not exist. Of course, I believe in subjective truth, not in objective truth. But again, you already “nailed” me on that issue since believing in no absolute truths would only be true if “no absolute truths” is an absolute truth. So I would give you hat off for that one. My answer is yes; truth, life, and love exist. Apolonio: Thank you. What we have in the world however is truth mixed with error, life mixed with death, and love mixed with hatred. Jackie: Explain what you mean by that. Apolonio: I was about to until you interrupted me. Truth mixed with error just means that while seeking the truth, we find error. For example, if I was doing an addition problem, I make mistakes. I sometimes say that 2+2=5. Therefore truth is mixed with error. Jackie: Make sense. Life mixed with death means that life is not forever correct? Apolonio: You got it. And love mixed with hatred means that we have hatred for our enemies or mother in laws. Jackie: I’m getting you so far. But you have not proven that God exists yet. How is this the argument from perfection? Apolonio: You should have figured it out already. Truth mixed with error, life mixed with death, and love mixed with hatred means that we have fractional truth, life, and love. Jackie: So? Apolonio: There is no such thing as a fraction if there is no such thing as a whole. Therefore since we have fractional truth, life, and love, then there is a Being that is Perfect Truth, Life, and Love. Perfect Truth, Life, and Love is God. Jackie: Whoa, whoa. How did you get God from that? How do you know God is Perfect Truth, Life, and Love? Apolonio: You do not have to call it God, but we know that there is such a thing as Perfect Truth, Life, and Love and they cannot be separate since one cannot live without the other. Jackie: So according to your logic, there is such a thing as perfect error, death, and hatred that is as powerful as perfect truth, life, and love. Apolonio: I have no idea where you got “as powerful” from. It is not as powerful as God because good overcomes evil. Jackie: How do you know? Apolonio: Because we ought to be good. We ought not to be evil. However, that does not deny that there is evil. What you ought to be and what you are -- are two different things. Patty: OK, I think that is enough for one argument. Finish it up guys. Jackie: I am not a guy, but a woman. Apolonio’s argument is a fallacy. If he is going to take that idea, then there must be perfect error, death, and hatred. Apolonio: You have not refuted any of my arguments. Since we are short of time, I will just say that having perfect error, death, and hatred does not refute my statement and it does not show that Perfect Truth, Life, and Love does not exist. Therefore my argument still stands. |
Second Argument for God’s Existence
Second Argument for God’s Existence
Patty: Very good guys. Now, we have the second argument for God. Apolonio, you have the floor. Apolonio: My second argument does not prove God’s existence, but refutes atheism. Since I have given one argument, I believe it is best now to refute atheism. My main argument is this: there is no argument for atheism. Jackie: Huh? Apolonio: Jackie, do you believe atheism is true? Jackie: Of course I do. Apolonio: Prove it. Jackie: Prove a universal negative? Apolonio: Yes. Jackie: You think you are very smart. Well, I have prepared for this. And you are not going to nail me again! Apolonio: Hopefully, you won’t nail yourself. Patty: You guys are really teenagers, I can tell you that. Apolonio: Let me hear your arguments Jackie. Jackie: First of all, I don’t know why you shifted the burden of proof. My first argument is the famous “problem of evil.” Since God has the power to prevent evil but chooses not to even though He wants to, then there is no such thing as an all-good and all-powerful God. Great way to refute your first argument, eh? Apolonio: Actually, the problem of evil proves God exists. Jackie: Refute my argument first before you prove God exists with my argument. Apolonio: Sure thing. Can I be Socrates? Jackie: Sure. Try to nail me. Are you going to be a lawyer or something? Apolonio: Maybe a Canon Lawyer, I’m not sure. How do you know evil exists? Jackie: Because there is such thing as rape, murder, etc. Apolonio: Are those evil? Jackie: Of course they are. Apolonio: Why? Jackie: As a student of Philosophy, you should know this. Rape, for example, is evil because it takes away the dignity of people. Apolonio: So? Jackie: What do you mean so? Apolonio: Who said that taking away the dignity of people is evil? Jackie: Our conscience. Apolonio: And what does our conscience do? Jackie: It tells us what is right and wrong for one. Apolonio: And where does this moral law come from? Jackie: Very funny. That still does not prove God exists. Apolonio: Oh yes it does. It tells us the law comes from something. It did not come from evolution because animals never thought of anything like this and they do not know what is right and wrong. Jackie: That means we are smart animals. Apolonio: And where the heck would you get “smart animals” out of nowhere? I don’t see a connection from evolution on how “smart animals” became so smart that they would give food to the poor and “turn the other cheek.” If you don’t get it yet, all I am saying is that there would be no such thing as evil if there were no God unless you can connect evil and God somehow. Jackie: If that were so, then why would God not prevent evil? Apolonio: First of all, I don’t have to. Second, the answer is more theological. Even though my answer is not appealing to you, my refutation of your argument still stands. Jackie: Suuuure. Apolonio: My answer is that God lets us have free will. He does not interfere with our free will. For example, if a person has a powerful eye, and closes it, the eye is still powerful but since he closed it, he cannot see. Closing the eye is free will. God made us with free will and He would not interfere with it. Jackie: Um, that means that you are not powerful enough to see. Apolonio: Not at all. The powerful eye is still there. Jackie: Um no, that means you are not powerful enough to see through your eyes. Apolonio: <sigh> Patty: OK. I personally have no problem talking about the problem of evil, but I believe Apolonio does. He still has homework to do. Jackie, do you want to go on with your other arguments or shift the burden of proof? Jackie: I will shift the burden of proof now. Apolonio: That doesn’t make sense. I just proved God exists in two ways. Jackie: Um, no you haven’t. Apolonio: Yes I did. Perfection and the problem of evil. Jackie: Um, OK. Apolonio: Let me just make it short just in case you missed it. Since there is evil, then there has to be goodness. Therefore there is good and evil. Good and evil comes from the law, which God has made. Jackie: Since you are being a baby, I will prove atheism is true again. Apolonio: If you can, go ahead. Jackie: The second proof of atheism is that God is a human invention. Apolonio: I am just a beginner of Philosophy, but isn’t that attempting to prove a universal negative? Jackie: No, Mr. Beginner. Apolonio: Sorry. Jackie: God does not exist because God is an invention. That’s my whole argument. Apolonio: Nice logic. Jackie: Thank you. Apolonio: God is not a figment of an imagination. God is a Being and Santa Clause is a figment of imagination. I believe you can tell the difference when it is a figment of imagination or not. Jackie: God is a myth, period. Apolonio: Any proof? Jackie: Sure. If you look at history, there are a lot of made up things, such as Greek Mythology. Apolonio: Greek mythology isn’t all myths. Jackie: So there is a Zeus? Apolonio: No. One of the true things of mythology is morality. The Greeks knew that there were supernatural beings. They had common sense to believe in that. Jackie: But they are not on par with Christianity? Apolonio: Of course not. But that doesn’t make them all false. They made mistakes such as belief in many gods, but that just proves that they knew there is such a thing as a supernatural thing. And to get back to the Santa Clause, it isn’t all false either. Santa Clause is an invention of the mind that says he gives goodness and happiness to people. Having the thought of giving goodness and happiness to people means there is such a thing that brings us goodness and happiness. Of course, that Being is God. However, the person Santa Clause is false. Jackie: So you pick and choose what is true and what is not? Apolonio: No I do not. We know that Santa Clause is made up and we know that Greek mythology is made up. Common sense tells us that. Jackie: Common sense told the Greeks of polytheism. Apolonio: It doesn’t make them right. But they did have the common sense of a supernatural thing. And we are getting into a specific religion. We can argue which is the true religion after we have proven that God exists. Jackie: Fine by me. But you are still picking and choosing what is right for you. Patty: It is getting dark. Let us stop for today. Tomorrow, we discuss more evidences for God, and why Christianity is the true religion. Apolonio: Fine by me. Jackie: Me too. <sneeze> Apolonio: God bless you :) By: Apolonio Latar |
There is a God, leading atheist concludes
Philosopher says scientific evidence changed his mind
The Associated Press Updated: 6:04 p.m. ET Dec. 9, 2004NEW YORK - A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God — more or less — based on scientific evidence, and he says so on a video released Thursday. At age 81, after decades of insisting that belief is a mistake, the professor, Antony Flew, has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England. Flew said he was best labeled a deist, like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people’s lives. “I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins,” he said. “It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6688917/ |
But Hitler was a Catholic!!!!!
|
thats great a smug catholic and an atheist who doesn't know philosophy thats just great. where do you dig this stuff up :confused:
|
Quote:
Yeah I read that article too sad isn't it? An atheist has to be senile before they start to believe in god |
I have heard that argument too
the jury is still out on that. You can find most anything on the net to "prove" or "disprove" things about a person. Hell I bet you I can find a website that states Hitler was the masiah, or that he was Gay, or that he was a prophet, or that he is not really dead. In time I am sure that people will argue if Hitler even existed in the first place. it is all reletive when getting facts about a person. Yes I know that the article that you link to concludes that hitler was not a christian ( I have heard good arguments for both sides I just have not gotten around to reading up on the man and his beliefs) so I reserve my right not to cast an opinion in the matter at this time. |
Dialogue With an Atheist Philosophy Professor on the Kalam Cosmological Argument for God's Existence and its Possible Alternatives
http://web.archive.org/web/200306040...mus/RAZ511.HTM Dialogue With an Atheist on Logical Positivism, and the Existence and Cause (or No Cause) of the Universe http://web.archive.org/web/200302210...mus/RAZ452.HTM (its all here) Scientific Materialism, Intelligent Design, and the Cosmological Argument http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ15.HTM A Response to Grünbaum on Creation and Big Bang Cosmology http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...cs/replyg.html |
you know whats funny??? I can not find anything ANYTHING AT ALL on Steve Conifer when I do google search except the debate you have posted a link to. so how do I know what these man's qualifications are?
how ever I do get hits on Dr.Ted Drange now if I google Dave Armstrong the catholic in this debate I get hits all over the place I just thought I would say that (no I am not done reading the article I like to get an idea of the persons involved backround before I read.) |
Yup. Just I thought. You have nothing to say. Nothing to rebut, nothing to reply with, that is what you believe, that is what you post. Nothing.
Mindless emotional attacks do not qualify as a response nor do they negate the rock hard truth. You have no intelligent arguments. Your posts reveal that, I am just clarifying the matter. Try reading anything by Dave Armstrong. He's real good. And he only posts with permission from his opponents, unlike the typical monologues you get with people with a one sided agenda. |
Quote:
here is my reply go here http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/ipnegep.html |
thanks for posting the links :) haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa when im like in a really freaking bad mood i will check,em out :roll: :roll: really i admire you,re persistinace :) thank you
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
¿¿¿sincirr is a she???? :eek: huh I would have never guessed. Yes I know that you at one point walked away from christianity but the question I pose to you is... Did you every do any reading regarding the philosophy of atheism?? its an honest question that you have not touched on I am just curious. |
Jester you are amazing. You once claimed Christians ignore all arguments based on logic. Well, you have ignored all the arguments PERIOD. You have not refuted any of the seven arguments no fixd address presented, or even TRIED for that matter.
|
Actually,No I haven't,I'm not much of a reader myself,only do it when I have it ;)
|
Quote:
Did you bother reading the article I posted a link to uncertain? Or did you just post that with out reading? oh wait I know you "skimmed over it" I spent over 3 hours last night reading and I take it as an insult that anyone here insinuates otherwise. Why is it that No_fixd_address has not yet replied to the link I posted? Why is it that I have yet to get a reaction to the article I linked to? Is it that you guys don’t really care about anything an atheist has to say? Or is it because I will not respond to intellectually dishonest reasoning and claims of the existence of a god? Clue me in here. Every argument that has been made has been made before and shot down by and atheist, maybe the Christian think tank should come out with a new argument that might actually pose a challenge to disprove the atheistic claims. I think it is great that No_fixd_address is posting “Fictional” arguments that paint the atheist as a dumb fuck and have the catholic make assumptions and show no course on how they came to their conclusion. It just affirms the fact that the theists/Christian argument for a god is based on junk science at best. |
I think the next time I feel like talking to a brick wall will be the next time I post in here :bumpup: Later! I'm out.
|
Quote:
to each their own I guess for me I am not much of a reader unless I am passionate about the issue (science religion or lack there of) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2004 Steve Caponetto. All Rights Reserved.