The most convincing theistic argument - Page 3 - Religion, God, and Theology

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Religion, God, and Theology

The most convincing theistic argument

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 3 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Page 3 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

01-06-2010 , 02:37 AM

#51

esoterodactyl

enthusiast

Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 64

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

Really? Here's one:

1. If you read this post, then god exists.
2. You read this post.
3. God exists.

LOL

Quote

01-06-2010 , 02:39 AM

#52

bunny

will feast on your soul

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 11,219

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

Really? Here's one:

1. If you read this post, then god exists.
2. You read this post.
3. God exists.

The strong atheist response:
1. If you read this post, then god exists.
2. God doesnt exist
3. Therefore you didnt read this post.

Quote

01-06-2010 , 02:41 AM

#53

bunny

will feast on your soul

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 11,219

Quote:

Originally Posted by vixticator

Equally? I suppose not. Which is the least bad? I dunno... what are the major arguments again? Cosmological, argument from design, ontological..? What am I forgetting as far as the "major" arguments go?

Crap, my mind has gone blank which is rather embarrassing since I wrote at least one paper on them.

Ontological
Cosmological
Teleological
...The other one.

Quote

01-06-2010 , 02:50 AM

#54

Hardball47

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 13,301

Those three are the major ones.

Quote

01-06-2010 , 02:53 AM

#55

vixticator

clutch

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 117,339

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunny

Crap, my mind has gone blank which is rather embarrassing since I wrote at least one paper on them.

Ontological
Cosmological
Teleological
...The other one.

Hmmm... argument from morality?

Quote

01-06-2010 , 02:57 AM

#56

Original Position

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotReady

I think this may be the best for several reasons. In a sense, it can be found in the Bible, not as a formal argument, but simply the appeal to physical reality as evidence for God ("The heavens are telling of the glory of God").

You even find non-Christians making the argument, such as Cicero. Plantinga puts the idea of being convinced of God's existence from nature as a "properly basic belief" - it's so obvious and so intrinsic to human nature that a formal argument isn't necessary for one to be rational in believing.

And Romans 1:20 seems to say that God is Himself active in convincing people of His existence from the things that have been made.

Edit: I was going to post on this but decided not to, but will briefly mention it here. I recently read Hume's Enquiry Concerning Natural Religion, which is often cited as the death blow of the teleological argument. The truth is that it virtually confirms the argument as at least powerful, if not valid. The "Hume" character in the dialogue, Philo, who made all the objections to the argument, in the end basically admits that the order we see indicates a designer. It's amazing to me how so many people think Hume destroyed the argument. It's a very interesting paper to read - at one point he foreshadows Darwinism in a very eerie way, and it seems Darwin himself was a big fan of Hume - he was also a big fan early in his life of Paley, who supposedly wrote his book in response to Hume.

While you are correct that Philo is generally taken to be most representative of Hume's own views in the Dialogues, it is still a dialogue and so we cannot take everything that is said as a conclusion (including the ending). In fact, Hume's attacks on the teleological argument is very typical of his skeptical attitude towards metaphysics. Just as he attempts to show that other metaphysical ideas generally taken for granted (such as causation or the self) are either non-existent, incoherent, or unknowable, Hume's main focus is in showing that the design argument fails to rationally demonstrate the existence of a deity. Thus, we have no rational basis for believing in the God of traditional religion. But, for Hume, this doesn't remove the passions that might drive us to belief in God. The reversal at the end of the Dialogues is Philo reiterating this--acknowledging the emptiness of metaphysical reasoning about religion, not acknowledging the success of the teleological argument.

Quote

01-06-2010 , 02:59 AM

#57

Original Position

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunny

The strong atheist response:
1. If you read this post, then god exists.
2. God doesnt exist
3. Therefore you didnt read this post.

This is also logically valid.

Quote

01-06-2010 , 03:09 AM

#58

Hardball47

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 13,301

Quote:

Originally Posted by vixticator

Hmmm... argument from morality?

It's not as strong as the others.

Quote

01-06-2010 , 03:14 AM

#59

bunny

will feast on your soul

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 11,219

Quote:

Originally Posted by vixticator

Hmmm... argument from morality?

That may be it (it certainly deserves a mention). I thought there was another ...ogical name though but it was quite a while ago.

Quote

01-06-2010 , 03:17 AM

#60

Original Position

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunny

That may be it (it certainly deserves a mention). I thought there was another ...ogical name though but it was quite a while ago.

Nope. Those three are the traditional ones.

Quote

01-06-2010 , 03:31 AM

#61

vixticator

clutch

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 117,339

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardball47

It's not as strong as the others.

And I was about to say it is the least bad.

Last edited by vixticator; 01-06-2010 at 03:31 AM. Reason: not really

Quote

01-06-2010 , 04:14 AM

#62

NotReady

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 10,519

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

That's one spin on it. Another is that Philo's arguments against were just Hume's presentation of the best attack possible, not that the attack is successful, i.e., he is playing Devil's Advocate.

I think the real force of the argument is most people,when they consider nature objectively, see incredible intricacy of design - even Cicero, who knew almost nothing about nature compared to today. Perhaps Hume realized this and was himself struck by the beauty and order of the universe.

BTW, I thought Hume's objections were weak before I read the whole work. I think Philo is misrepresenting the analogy when he says things like objects in nature are not exactly like human artifacts, or that the world more resembles a vegetable than a machine. The point of the analogy is to focus on order and structure, not a one-to-one correspondence. The purpose of analogy in general is to illustrate one or two points, not to find things that are exactly similar. After all, if natural objects were exactly like human artifacts we would think they are human artifacts.

Quote

01-06-2010 , 04:21 AM

#63

NotReady

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 10,519

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunny

Crap, my mind has gone blank which is rather embarrassing since I wrote at least one paper on them.

Ontological
Cosmological
Teleological
...The other one.

Argument from contingency, which is basically Leibniz' version of the cosmo, though very different in structure.

Also, argument from reason, which is primarily an argument against materialism, but can be expanded into a theistic argument.

Also, TAG (transcendental argument for the existence of God), one I like very much but gains little traction with either atheist or theist. I think of it as more a conflation of all the theistic arguments, emphasizing the real goal of those methods, i.e., that nothing makes sense if God doesn't exist.

Edit: Can you, or anyone ftm, give one argument for the non-existence of God? Skip the problem of evil, that has basically been defeated logically.

Quote

01-06-2010 , 09:27 AM

#64

bunny

will feast on your soul

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 11,219

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotReady

Can you, or anyone ftm, give one argument for the non-existence of God? Skip the problem of evil, that has basically been defeated logically.

Only from an empiricist or rationalist perspective, both of which you reject so I doubt they'd be appealing. If so Occam's razor for the empiricist and the inconsistency of the doctrine of the trinity for the rationalist.

Perhaps closer to what you'd consider at least plausible although you dismissed it when we discussed it a few years ago as inconsequential - the problem of the Apocrypha. There are at least two competing versions of "The word of God" overlapping, but still distinct. More talented theologians than you or I have come down on both sides - doesnt that suggest that the ability to discern the truth is beyond us (since the finest minds, highly trained in the appropriate field are incapable of reaching a consensus)?

Quote

01-06-2010 , 09:33 AM

#65

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotReady

Edit: Can you, or anyone ftm, give one argument for the non-existence of God? Skip the problem of evil, that has basically been defeated logically.

The non-existence of God? Burning bushes don't speak.

The non-existence of god? Uninteresting. The existence of god is not even wrong.

Quote

01-06-2010 , 11:02 AM

#66

loK2thabrain

Tiger > Jack

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 23,203

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibninjas

here is a more full version of the KCA

Code:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of 
   its existence.

2.The universe began to exist.
  2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of 
   an actual infinite:
    2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
    2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events 
      is an actual infinite.
    2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress 
      of events cannot exist.
  2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the 
      formation of an actual infinite by 
      successive addition:
    2.21 A collection formed by successive 
      addition cannot be actually infinite.
    2.22 The temporal series of past events is 
      a collection formed by successive addition.
    2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past 
      events cannot be actually infinite.
  2.3 Confirmation based on the expansion of 
      the universe.
  2.4 Confirmation based on the thermodynamic 
      properties of the universe.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its 
   existence.

4. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then 
   an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, 
   who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, 
   immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously 
   powerful and intelligent.
  4.1 Argument that the cause of the universe is a 
   personal Creator:
    4.11 The universe was brought into being either 
      by a mechanically operating set of necessary and 
      sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent.
    4.12 The universe could not have been brought into 
      being by a mechanically operating set of necessary 
      and sufficient conditions.
    4.13 Therefore, the universe was brought into being 
      by a personal, free agent.
  4.2 Argument that the Creator sans creation 
      is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, 
      timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and 
      intelligent:
    4.21 The Creator is uncaused.
      4.211 An infinite temporal regress of causes cannot 
        exist. (2.13, 2.23)
    4.22 The Creator is beginningless.
      4.221 Whatever is uncaused does not begin to 
        exist. (1)
    4.23 The Creator is changeless.
      4.231 An infinite temporal regress of changes 
        cannot exist. (2.13, 2.23)
    4.24 The Creator is immaterial.
      4.241 Whatever is material involves change on 
        the atomic and molecular levels, but the Creator 
        is changeless. (4.23)
    4.25 The Creator is timeless.
      4.251 In the complete absence of change, time does
        not exist, and the Creator is changeless. (4.23)
    4.26 The Creator is spaceless.
      4.261 Whatever is immaterial and timeless cannot 
        be spatial, and the Creator is immaterial and 
        timeless (4.24, 4.25)
    4.27 The Creator is enormously powerful.
      4.271 He brought the universe into being out of 
        nothing. (3)
    4.28 The Creator is enormously intelligent.
      4.281 The initial conditions of the universe 
        involve incomprehensible fine-tuning that points 
        to intelligent design.

5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the 
   universe exists, who sans creation is "beginningless," 
   changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and 
   enormously powerful and intelligent.

lol

Quote

01-06-2010 , 11:06 AM

#67

skalf

banned

Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 1,458

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardball47

Forgive me for saying, but that's not a major problem.

Yes it is, look at the way Line one of the cosmologic argument Jib posted is formulated: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
Clearly the earnest way to put this would be: Whatever exist has a cause of its existence.
Begins to exist has been injected specifically to avoid having to answer where God came from, and that is completely unjustified. If a being powerful enough to create the universe from nothing exists, then clearly the physical creation of the universe is trivial, and the important question becomes: where does God come from.
The cosmological argument is a scam that tries to drown this obvious problem in minutia.

Quote

01-06-2010 , 11:15 AM

#68

NotReady

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 10,519

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunny

Only from an empiricist or rationalist perspective, both of which you reject so I doubt they'd be appealing. If so Occam's razor for the empiricist

Occam isn't an argument. Also, it would only apply if empiricism had as much or more explanatory power as theism.

Quote:

and the inconsistency of the doctrine of the trinity for the rationalist.

I don't think the Trinity is inconsistent, but even if it is, that only speaks against Christianity.

Quote:

Perhaps closer to what you'd consider at least plausible although you dismissed it when we discussed it a few years ago as inconsequential - the problem of the Apocrypha. There are at least two competing versions of "The word of God" overlapping, but still distinct. More talented theologians than you or I have come down on both sides - doesnt that suggest that the ability to discern the truth is beyond us (since the finest minds, highly trained in the appropriate field are incapable of reaching a consensus)?

Again, even if your argument is valid, it only goes to Christianity, not theism. And you begin to sound like DS in that last sentence - do you really want to hand over the fate of your immortal soul to a bunch of ivory tower theorists?

Quote

01-06-2010 , 11:17 AM

#69

NotReady

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 10,519

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

Burning bushes don't speak.

Yes it did.

Quote

01-06-2010 , 11:30 AM

#70

NotReady

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 10,519

Quote:

Originally Posted by skalf

What if you omit the first premise and just say:

1. The universe began to exist.
2. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

The skeptic could then say "Perhaps the universe began to exist without a cause" and we would then discuss exactly as we would if the first premise wasn't omitted. There's no scam because you can attack the premise - you can take the position that something began to exist without a cause. Your attack on God as the first cause should be made for those premises that follow the first conclusion.

Quote

01-06-2010 , 11:36 AM

#71

Original Position

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotReady

First, you are incorrect about how arguments from analogy work. The general form of analogical arguments is like this:

1. A and B are f, g, and h.
2. A is also j.
3. Therefore, B is also probably j.

The strength of the argument comes from whether the similarities in (1) are relevant to also having j. This is why Hume points out dissimilarities between human artifacts and natural objects.

Here's another way of putting it. Theists often assume that in presenting the design argument all that is necessary is to show that the universe, or natural objects like the human eye, have an ordered, complex structure. This, they say, is evidence of intelligent design.

However, in order for this to work we must also assume that all ordered, complex structures were made by intelligent designers. Here's where the analogy comes in. Theists will claim that the ordered, complex structure of the cosmos is similar to that of a machine. Since we know that machines must be created by intelligent designers, therefore the cosmos must also be created by an intelligent designer.

There are two ways to attack this. First, we can, like Hume, point out that as an analogy this fails as there are relevant dissimilarities. Or, conversely (like Hume again), we can acknowledge some dim analogy, but point out other equally similar analogies that don't have the inferred feature.

But really, the theory of evolution destroys this entire line of argument. The force of this analogy rests on the claim that ordered complexity cannot arise from random events, whereas evolution clearly shows that it can. That Hume recognized this before Darwin is to his credit as a thinker.

Quote

01-06-2010 , 11:45 AM

#72

NotReady

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 10,519

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

If there are no dissimilarities, why would you need an analogy? If dissimilarities kill analogy you must be taking the position that analogical thinking is always invalid.

Quote:

But really, the theory of evolution destroys this entire line of argument. The force of this analogy rests on the claim that ordered complexity cannot arise from random events, whereas evolution clearly shows that it can. That Hume recognized this before Darwin is to his credit as a thinker.

This gets to the real issue and why Darwinists are wrong that evolution trumped Paley. Evolution can be completely true in its technical details and Paley can still be right. He even dealt with this argument 50 years before Darwin.

Quote

01-06-2010 , 12:25 PM

#73

Original Position

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotReady

If there are no dissimilarities, why would you need an analogy? If dissimilarities kill analogy you must be taking the position that analogical thinking is always invalid.

This gets to the real issue and why Darwinists are wrong that evolution trumped Paley. Evolution can be completely true in its technical details and Paley can still be right. He even dealt with this argument 50 years before Darwin.

Indeed. Analogical arguments are always invalid. That is why the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the truth of the premises. Inductive arguments don't rely on validity to be correct. However, they still rely on something. What, for you, is the difference between a good and bad argument from analogy?

I'm not sure what aspect of Paley you are claiming is still right after Darwin. If you mean that the theory of evolution doesn't prove that God didn't exists or that she didn't create the universe, then I'll agree with you. However, the theory of evolution does show that an intelligent designer is not necessary to explain objects with ordered complexity and so the inference from ordered complexity to a designer is unjustified.

Quote

01-06-2010 , 03:06 PM

#74

NotReady

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 10,519

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

Indeed. Analogical arguments are always invalid.

Wow. You may be totally alone in that idea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

Quote:

Analogy plays a significant role in problem solving, decision making, perception, memory, creativity, emotion, explanation and communication. It lies behind basic tasks such as the identification of places, objects and people, for example, in face perception and facial recognition systems. It has been argued that analogy is "the core of cognition".

In the interests of full disclosure I only read the Wiki down to the table of contents.

There is no logical invalidity in the way the argument is normally formulated. You can disagree with the premises, of course, as is true of all the theistic arguments. But you can't show that it's irrational or implausible to believe in a designer, given the appearance of design.

Briefly, evolution doesn't destroy the TA because, even if it's true, it's just another natural law, which itself displays order, structure and purpose, and therefore requires explanation, i.e., a designer. To give an analogy, you wouldn't say the engineer is unnecessary to the existence of a car just because you can explain how it operates without including him in your explanation.