Fascinating - 5 Arguments For and Against the Existence of God
Dec 5, 2019 08:56:17 #
5 Arguments For and Against the Existence of God
Listverse.com
Religious topics abound on Listverse and they are frequently the most commented upon. It has been some time since the last one so it seems like the time is ripe for another – and this one is a great one for discussion. Here we present five arguments in favor of the existence of God, and the counterargument for it. Feel free to comment on the veracity (or your opinion of) each but remember to keep calm and argue reasonably. After all, it is our ability to be reasonable (rationality) which separates us from the other animals! Note: These all deal with the Judeo-Christian God.
5. Ontological Argument
First formulated by St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, then taken up by Alvin Plantinga. “God exists, provided that it is logically possible for him to exist.”This argument is quite brazen in its simplicity, requiring not only a belief in God, but a belief in the necessity of God. If you believe he is necessary, then you must believe he exists.The Counterargument:Criticism typically deals with the Ontological Argument committing a “bare assertion fallacy,” which means it asserts qualities inherent solely to an unproven statement, without any support for those qualities. It is also criticized as a circular argument, revolving from a premise to a conclusion which relies on the premise, which relies on the conclusion.
4. Moral Argument
This argument is very old, and states that God must exist for the following reason: 1. An aspect of morality is observed. 2. Belief in God is a better explanation for this morality than any alternative. 3. Belief in God is thus preferable to disbelief in God.The Counterargument:This argument is technically valid, provided that the three constituents are accepted, and most critics refuse to accept the first. Morality, they argue, is not universal. Murder was perfectly fine for the soldiers of the First Crusade, who slaughtered every man, woman, and child in Jerusalem in 1099. Thomas Hobbes argued that morality is based on the society around it, and is thus not objective.
3. Argument from Degree
This is one of St. Thomas Aquinas’s “Five Proofs of God,” and still causes debate among the two sides. Here is Aquinas’s statement of it, which I have t***slated from Latin, for a sense of thoroughness:The fourth proof originates from the degrees discovered in things. For there is discovered greater and lesser degrees of goodness, t***h, nobility, and others. But “more” or “less” are terms spoken concerning various things that approach in diverse manners toward something that is the “greatest,” just as in the case of “hotter” approaching nearer the “greatest” heat. There exists, therefore, something “truest,” and “best,” and “noblest,” which, in consequence, is the “greatest” being. For those things which are the greatest t***hs are the greatest beings, as is stated in Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. Furthermore, that which is the greatest in its way, is, in another way, the cause of all things belonging to it; thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore, there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things, and of goodness, and of every perfection wh**ever. We call this “God.”The Counterargument:The most prevalent criticism of this argument considers that we do not have to believe in an object of a greater degree in order to believe in an object of a lesser degree. Richard Dawkins, the most famous, or infamous, Atheist around these days, argues that just because we come across a “smelly” object, does not require that we believe that we believe in a “preeminently peerless stinker,” in his words.
2. Argument from Reason
One of my favorites, with very intricate abstraction. C. S. Lewis (who wrote “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe”) came up with this. It begins as an argument from design, and then continues into something new. Very basically, it argues that God must exist, because, in Lewis’s words: “Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”The Counterargument:It sounds powerful, and the final judgment on it is still out there. But its primary weak point is that, in the strictest sense, it is not a proof of God’s existence because it requires the assumption that human minds can assess the t***h or falsehood of a claim, and it requires that human minds can be convinced by argumentation.But in order to reject the assumption that human minds can assess the t***h or falsehood of a claim, a human mind must assume that this claim is true or false, which immediately proves that human minds can assess the t***h or falsehood of a claim.But none of this has anything to do with God’s existence. Thus, the argument is better treated as a disproof of naturalistic materialism. However, given that most Atheists use naturalistic materialism as the foundation of Atheism, is is a very viable argument.
1 Cosmological Argument
Thomas Aquinas’s most famous proof of God refuses to go away. You’ve probably already heard of it in some form. It was around before Aquinas, at least as early as Plato and Aristotle, and in basic terms, it goes like this:1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.This is especially impressive in that it was theorized by the Ancient Greeks, at a time when the Universe was not known to have had an origin. Today, we call this “the Big Bang,” and the argument has changed to this form: 1. Wh**ever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.The Counterargument:Sequentially speaking, these three points are true. But the second point requires the Universe to have had a cause, and we still aren’t sure it did. “The Big Bang” is the most prevalent astrophysical theory today, but it has its detractors, most arguing that because the mathematics that leads back to a big bang do not function at the point immediately prior to the big bang, those mathematics were invalid to begin with.Better than this, however, is the argument that this proof of God commits the logical fallacy called “infinite regression.” If the Universe had a first cause, what caused that first cause? Criticism declares that it is unfair to argue for every thing’s cause, and then argue for the sole exception of a “First Cause,” which did not have a cause.
Listverse.com
Religious topics abound on Listverse and they are frequently the most commented upon. It has been some time since the last one so it seems like the time is ripe for another – and this one is a great one for discussion. Here we present five arguments in favor of the existence of God, and the counterargument for it. Feel free to comment on the veracity (or your opinion of) each but remember to keep calm and argue reasonably. After all, it is our ability to be reasonable (rationality) which separates us from the other animals! Note: These all deal with the Judeo-Christian God.
5. Ontological Argument
First formulated by St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, then taken up by Alvin Plantinga. “God exists, provided that it is logically possible for him to exist.”This argument is quite brazen in its simplicity, requiring not only a belief in God, but a belief in the necessity of God. If you believe he is necessary, then you must believe he exists.The Counterargument:Criticism typically deals with the Ontological Argument committing a “bare assertion fallacy,” which means it asserts qualities inherent solely to an unproven statement, without any support for those qualities. It is also criticized as a circular argument, revolving from a premise to a conclusion which relies on the premise, which relies on the conclusion.
4. Moral Argument
This argument is very old, and states that God must exist for the following reason: 1. An aspect of morality is observed. 2. Belief in God is a better explanation for this morality than any alternative. 3. Belief in God is thus preferable to disbelief in God.The Counterargument:This argument is technically valid, provided that the three constituents are accepted, and most critics refuse to accept the first. Morality, they argue, is not universal. Murder was perfectly fine for the soldiers of the First Crusade, who slaughtered every man, woman, and child in Jerusalem in 1099. Thomas Hobbes argued that morality is based on the society around it, and is thus not objective.
3. Argument from Degree
This is one of St. Thomas Aquinas’s “Five Proofs of God,” and still causes debate among the two sides. Here is Aquinas’s statement of it, which I have t***slated from Latin, for a sense of thoroughness:The fourth proof originates from the degrees discovered in things. For there is discovered greater and lesser degrees of goodness, t***h, nobility, and others. But “more” or “less” are terms spoken concerning various things that approach in diverse manners toward something that is the “greatest,” just as in the case of “hotter” approaching nearer the “greatest” heat. There exists, therefore, something “truest,” and “best,” and “noblest,” which, in consequence, is the “greatest” being. For those things which are the greatest t***hs are the greatest beings, as is stated in Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. Furthermore, that which is the greatest in its way, is, in another way, the cause of all things belonging to it; thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore, there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things, and of goodness, and of every perfection wh**ever. We call this “God.”The Counterargument:The most prevalent criticism of this argument considers that we do not have to believe in an object of a greater degree in order to believe in an object of a lesser degree. Richard Dawkins, the most famous, or infamous, Atheist around these days, argues that just because we come across a “smelly” object, does not require that we believe that we believe in a “preeminently peerless stinker,” in his words.
2. Argument from Reason
One of my favorites, with very intricate abstraction. C. S. Lewis (who wrote “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe”) came up with this. It begins as an argument from design, and then continues into something new. Very basically, it argues that God must exist, because, in Lewis’s words: “Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”The Counterargument:It sounds powerful, and the final judgment on it is still out there. But its primary weak point is that, in the strictest sense, it is not a proof of God’s existence because it requires the assumption that human minds can assess the t***h or falsehood of a claim, and it requires that human minds can be convinced by argumentation.But in order to reject the assumption that human minds can assess the t***h or falsehood of a claim, a human mind must assume that this claim is true or false, which immediately proves that human minds can assess the t***h or falsehood of a claim.But none of this has anything to do with God’s existence. Thus, the argument is better treated as a disproof of naturalistic materialism. However, given that most Atheists use naturalistic materialism as the foundation of Atheism, is is a very viable argument.
1 Cosmological Argument
Thomas Aquinas’s most famous proof of God refuses to go away. You’ve probably already heard of it in some form. It was around before Aquinas, at least as early as Plato and Aristotle, and in basic terms, it goes like this:1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.This is especially impressive in that it was theorized by the Ancient Greeks, at a time when the Universe was not known to have had an origin. Today, we call this “the Big Bang,” and the argument has changed to this form: 1. Wh**ever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.The Counterargument:Sequentially speaking, these three points are true. But the second point requires the Universe to have had a cause, and we still aren’t sure it did. “The Big Bang” is the most prevalent astrophysical theory today, but it has its detractors, most arguing that because the mathematics that leads back to a big bang do not function at the point immediately prior to the big bang, those mathematics were invalid to begin with.Better than this, however, is the argument that this proof of God commits the logical fallacy called “infinite regression.” If the Universe had a first cause, what caused that first cause? Criticism declares that it is unfair to argue for every thing’s cause, and then argue for the sole exception of a “First Cause,” which did not have a cause.
Dec 5, 2019 09:28:42 #
maximus
Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
5 Arguments For and Against the Existence of God b... (show quote)
I need some time to think on these...theories?
But I CAN say this right now...to me, it's just as easy to believe that God created the universe and everything in it, as to believe that the universe was already here, just squeezed into a ball so small it could fit onto the head of a pin, or the Big Bang. With the Big Bang, one is left with questions, such as, Where did all that stuff that made our universe come from?"
Dec 5, 2019 09:33:26 #
maximus wrote:
I need some time to think on these...theories?
But I CAN say this right now...to me, it's just as easy to believe that God created the universe and everything in it, as to believe that the universe was already here, just squeezed into a ball so small it could fit onto the head of a pin, or the Big Bang. With the Big Bang, one is left with questions, such as, Where did all that stuff that made our universe come from?"
But I CAN say this right now...to me, it's just as easy to believe that God created the universe and everything in it, as to believe that the universe was already here, just squeezed into a ball so small it could fit onto the head of a pin, or the Big Bang. With the Big Bang, one is left with questions, such as, Where did all that stuff that made our universe come from?"
Personally I have no doubt as to God's existence...
I do find these arguments fascinating...
Do you notice the common theme to the counter-arguments?
Dec 5, 2019 10:41:03 #
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Personally I have no doubt as to God's existence...
I do find these arguments fascinating...
Do you notice the common theme to the counter-arguments?
I do find these arguments fascinating...
Do you notice the common theme to the counter-arguments?
I've struggled with the theory forever. Being raised Catholic I always seemed to ask the 'wrong' questions during religion class. The Church ague's against the Big Bang theory saying 'you can't create something from nothing. Therefore it proves that God exists. BUT, if you can't create something from nothing how did God come to exist? Approaching my 78th year when most of my family rarely made 65 I figure I'm past my expiration date and will soon be faced with finding our if there is a God. If there is I sure hope He has a great sense of humor.
Dec 6, 2019 00:48:58 #
Found it finally.
God or no God…
I’ll start this off with a full disclosure, I call myself an agnostic (small ’a’). My personal inclinations in religious thought would most closely align with Taoism; not entirely but mostly.
My argument:
There may be a God. That is as reasonable a conclusion as saying that a micro-fine-nothing in a nonexistent space suddenly destabilizes and causes a universe.
Einstein said that there is a fabric to space/time and modern cosmologists assert that the one cannot exist without the other since they are the same thing, essentially. The only conclusion that allows for the Big Bang is that wh**ever the little nothing was that started it all must have existed in nowhere. That makes the whole scientific Big Bang argument a bit difficult to take too seriously.
On the other side of the argument, religion has done a great deal for human society. I know, there are some who will claim that religion is the source of much mayhem, murder and misery. It is true that religion has been utilized in that manner but the simple fact is that the only people who use religion in an evil manner are those who seek power or already hold power over others. Religion creates a consensus and that is a powerful bludgeon in the wrong hands. The general population can be said to make an honest attempt to observe the principles of their particular faiths.
The willing observance manifests itself generally as dealing kindly and honorably with others, at least others of their own faith, and a generally law abiding social behavior. All in all, religion is a positive force in our world.
So, if I reject the current scientific consensus and have nice things to say about religion, why don’t I support any religion? In short, because I seek solid factual evidence of what this universe is composed of and how it works. In that, I see no evidence of a personal God or a benevolent benefactor who watches over us. I do see too many gross contradictions within the dogmas with which I am familiar.
God is perfect and His creations are perfect… except for us whom He granted free will. If that is true, why is a newborn baby gazelle, just moments into its life, torn apart by a pack of wild dogs? Was it flawed in some way or did it commit some unpardonable sin? Why is the design of His universe such that in order for one perfect entity to survive it must destroy an equally perfect entity? God’s ways are mysterious, is not an acceptable answer for me.
Even a cursory understanding of the way things operate in the broader universe makes clear that it functions without supervision; asteroids and comets slamming into planets, stars blowing up, and galaxies colliding with each other. The universe at large, when viewed in perspective, is a chaotic and haphazard place.
There are certainly reasons why things happen out there but reason is not necessarily sensible. An ordered, sensible, universe is not where we live. Where is the perfection in temporary order within chaos?
If God is perfect and creates perfection, there is certainly a lack of evidence of His handiwork in this universe.
To summarize, science has a long way to go to prove itself sensible in regard to the origin of the universe.
There must be evidence of perfection if the claim to God’s existence is that He is perfect because if He is not, He bears the responsibility for all that occurs within His Creation. What He has allegedly created in this universe is very far from perfect.
Further, religion has many benefits for mankind, or humankind if you prefer, and should be happily accepted while it is benign. Where it becomes malignant it must be excised.
There may be a God. That is as reasonable a conclusion as saying that a micro-fine-nothing in a nonexistent space suddenly destabilizes and causes a universe.
The subject is worthy of consideration.
God or no God…
I’ll start this off with a full disclosure, I call myself an agnostic (small ’a’). My personal inclinations in religious thought would most closely align with Taoism; not entirely but mostly.
My argument:
There may be a God. That is as reasonable a conclusion as saying that a micro-fine-nothing in a nonexistent space suddenly destabilizes and causes a universe.
Einstein said that there is a fabric to space/time and modern cosmologists assert that the one cannot exist without the other since they are the same thing, essentially. The only conclusion that allows for the Big Bang is that wh**ever the little nothing was that started it all must have existed in nowhere. That makes the whole scientific Big Bang argument a bit difficult to take too seriously.
On the other side of the argument, religion has done a great deal for human society. I know, there are some who will claim that religion is the source of much mayhem, murder and misery. It is true that religion has been utilized in that manner but the simple fact is that the only people who use religion in an evil manner are those who seek power or already hold power over others. Religion creates a consensus and that is a powerful bludgeon in the wrong hands. The general population can be said to make an honest attempt to observe the principles of their particular faiths.
The willing observance manifests itself generally as dealing kindly and honorably with others, at least others of their own faith, and a generally law abiding social behavior. All in all, religion is a positive force in our world.
So, if I reject the current scientific consensus and have nice things to say about religion, why don’t I support any religion? In short, because I seek solid factual evidence of what this universe is composed of and how it works. In that, I see no evidence of a personal God or a benevolent benefactor who watches over us. I do see too many gross contradictions within the dogmas with which I am familiar.
God is perfect and His creations are perfect… except for us whom He granted free will. If that is true, why is a newborn baby gazelle, just moments into its life, torn apart by a pack of wild dogs? Was it flawed in some way or did it commit some unpardonable sin? Why is the design of His universe such that in order for one perfect entity to survive it must destroy an equally perfect entity? God’s ways are mysterious, is not an acceptable answer for me.
Even a cursory understanding of the way things operate in the broader universe makes clear that it functions without supervision; asteroids and comets slamming into planets, stars blowing up, and galaxies colliding with each other. The universe at large, when viewed in perspective, is a chaotic and haphazard place.
There are certainly reasons why things happen out there but reason is not necessarily sensible. An ordered, sensible, universe is not where we live. Where is the perfection in temporary order within chaos?
If God is perfect and creates perfection, there is certainly a lack of evidence of His handiwork in this universe.
To summarize, science has a long way to go to prove itself sensible in regard to the origin of the universe.
There must be evidence of perfection if the claim to God’s existence is that He is perfect because if He is not, He bears the responsibility for all that occurs within His Creation. What He has allegedly created in this universe is very far from perfect.
Further, religion has many benefits for mankind, or humankind if you prefer, and should be happily accepted while it is benign. Where it becomes malignant it must be excised.
There may be a God. That is as reasonable a conclusion as saying that a micro-fine-nothing in a nonexistent space suddenly destabilizes and causes a universe.
The subject is worthy of consideration.
Dec 6, 2019 01:23:07 #
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
5 Arguments For and Against the Existence of God b... (show quote)
With regard to the 5...
5 is begging the question, circular logic, or wh**ever you want to call it. It fails logically.
4 I am inclined to agree with Hobbes on this one.
3 tautological and begging the question. It also fails logically. (Dawkins is an i***t.)
2 is also begging the question.
1 is pure nonsense.
Dec 6, 2019 07:13:34 #
billy a
Loc: South Florida
I need to keep it simple. I marvel at the question rather than drive myself mad seeking the answer.
I've lived two lives ( generally speaking, in this mortal coil.)
The first was undisciplined,and run by self-will.It damn near k**led me. I was unhappy, selfish,and without God.
Then, at 46, I begged for help from wh**ever MAY be there...and was shown mercy. I have been given a gift that can only be recieved by asking for it. Yeah,there's arguments about "self hypnosis" and all that, but I KNOW there is a God,and that more will be revealed.
Merry Christmas...
I've lived two lives ( generally speaking, in this mortal coil.)
The first was undisciplined,and run by self-will.It damn near k**led me. I was unhappy, selfish,and without God.
Then, at 46, I begged for help from wh**ever MAY be there...and was shown mercy. I have been given a gift that can only be recieved by asking for it. Yeah,there's arguments about "self hypnosis" and all that, but I KNOW there is a God,and that more will be revealed.
Merry Christmas...
Dec 6, 2019 10:42:49 #
billy a wrote:
I need to keep it simple. I marvel at the question... (show quote)
By the blood of the lamb and the word of our testimony. I only received mercy in like manner.........I publically disavowed my insistence on being the one to decide what mercy looked like.
Dec 6, 2019 10:49:17 #
As I said in my previous post I suppose I'll find out soon enough if there is a God. Religion tells us that God created man, I sometimes feel that maybe it was MAN who created God in order to explain what couldn't be understood. Then sometime later when men realized that they could use 'God' to control others organized religion was born. Now that idea might buy me some time in Purgatory so let's see where this one gets me. Am I the only person who wonders why, of all the possible choices, WE were made in the image of God? And, if were are in the image of God that means that He has an image and if so why can't we see some part of Him since we're told He's everywhere? I'd better quite while I'm still in Purgatory, it's starting to get warmer in here and I just heard a loud clap of thunder.
Dec 6, 2019 12:26:16 #
Peewee
Loc: San Antonio, TX
F.D.R. wrote:
As I said in my previous post I suppose I'll find ... (show quote)
Everyone blames God and few ever blame Satan. We all live an open book test and it's pass or fail. Nothing surprises God and His grand design. He designed Satan so wonderfully that He knew Satan would rebel and interfere with His creation. God is creating a bride for His son, that's who we're meant to be. Before Christ you could be saved by righteousness, after Jesus/Yeshuah/Salvation you must believe He is Messiah. Miss Jesus and you miss your purpose in life and the afterlife. It's all in the book. Just my opinion.
Dec 6, 2019 16:25:12 #
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
5 Arguments For and Against the Existence of God b... (show quote)
This is short unlike the ones before me. Why do I believe in God? There were so many times I should have died but didn't, not just on the battlefield, I'll give you one. Some girlfriends and I drove up to Maine to visit another friend's frat. Nothing special in that right? There is when you consider it was night and I wasn't wearing my glasses, I still see okay so what was it really? We finally get there at 4 am and I park the car, it's cold out. Walk back the next morning and the left front tire was above a ditch, the rest of the car was okay. And that's just one of the times I should have died, there are others. So to me the thing is believe in a force greater than I am or not.
Dec 6, 2019 16:41:59 #
My argument:
There is a God, and if you would like to learn more, go to YouTube and search for “From Evolutionist to creationist” , by Professor Walter Veith. He taught Evolution as a professor in a University, and could destroy anyone that believed in Creation. He has a remarkable story and it is worth listening too.
There is a God, and if you would like to learn more, go to YouTube and search for “From Evolutionist to creationist” , by Professor Walter Veith. He taught Evolution as a professor in a University, and could destroy anyone that believed in Creation. He has a remarkable story and it is worth listening too.
Dec 6, 2019 21:14:30 #
billy a
Loc: South Florida
rebob14 wrote:
By the blood of the lamb and the word of our testimony. I only received mercy in like manner.........I publically disavowed my insistence on being the one to decide what mercy looked like.
Does this mean I'm not to speak of my experience ?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.