Philosophical Arguments For Gods Existance

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Brian J. Rivera, Jul 31, 2014.

  1. Hey I thought this would be a fun little distraction from life. I commonly think about philosophical arguments for god. Usually they just pop in my head and some are actually pretty good. Feel free to add any. Also be sure to get critical and bring up problems with some of them. Lastly the goal of philosophy is to show that the existence of god can be known with reasonable certainty.

    1. Everything that has an effect has a beginning
    2. Everything with a beginning must have a cause
    3. the universe began to exist therefore the universe was created.
    *Note some will use the example of causeless particles that appear into existence from nothing. The problem with this is that the particles are dependent on there being physical space.
    1. inanimate objects do not will things to be created and nature cannot transcend itself
    2. Conscious minds will things to be created
    3. Therefore god created the world

    1. Laws require lawmakers
    2. the universe has laws
    3. therefore the universe had a lawmaker
    1. Opposites exist in every field and since there is a physical/natural/our universe/ existence there must be a metaphysical/natural/other universe/existence

    Person A "the universe is amazing and the laws of physics may not be the same everywhere."
    Person B "Since the laws of physics are not the same everywhere there may be a set of laws that allows for a god to exist."
    Flavio and LysanderShapiro say Amen and like this.
  2. 1st Science has yet to prove the Big Bang Theory, it is the MOST compelling explanation, but dark matter, dark energy and the inability to detect how much dark there is, now causes astrophysicists to pause.

    The stars we see are only a small portion of the known cosmos.

    2nd. If we do not know with certainty that the Big Bang created the cosmos because of the presence of dark matter, we cannot say if it had a beginning or not. Again we are back to the previous hypothesis of the ancient ever present universe.

    3rd. Is now right out until we get more data.

    Now how would this affect God?

    In no way whether there was a big bang or an ever present cosmos would it cause an issue.

    As the begats of the OT are showing the lineage of the old Adam to the New one (Jesus) the cosmos we know could simply be because of the need for this to come to fruition.

    Honestly none of this proves or disproves God.

    The only proof that will be totally acceptable to science will be the events of Revelation to come and for them to go before the judgement of their works as stated in Revelation. Until then we have faith, they have suspicion.
    chili likes this.
    1. Everything that has an effect has a beginning
    2. Everything with a beginning must have a cause
    3. the universe began to exist therefore the universe was created.
    No thats not a logical conclusion...according to the presentation, "the universe began to exist therefore the universe had a cause". Now I believe the universe was created but having a cause and being created CAN BE two different things
    Dave Lucas and Brian J. Rivera say Amen and like this.
    1. inanimate objects do not will things to be created and nature cannot transcend itself
    2. Conscious minds will things to be created
    3. Therefore god created the world
    Or at least IF the universe was created, then something/someone created it...that/who which created it WE call God.

    How about this one...Physics proves that time is a function of the Universe...therefore before the universe became there was no time...therefore that which caused the universe to become is not subject to time and is itself timeless...a logical conclusion of Aristotle's uncaused first cause...
    C1oudwatch3r and Ghid say Amen and like this.

  3. Whoops slight error on my part. It should be

    1. Everything that has a begining has a cause
    2. the universe began to exist
    3. The universe has a cause

  4. That's a good one
  5. Response to the natural argument against god

    Everything that was explained with the idea of god has been disproved by science.
    Therefore god(of bible) will eventually be disproved

    There are a few problems with this.
    1 false premise. Most gods like zeus are different from the god of the bible. These gods were used to explain nature while the god of the bible was an explanation for nature's existance.

    2. This can be reversed and we can say. All false gods have been disproven and given enough time the true god will be proven.
    C1oudwatch3r likes this.
  6. Science cannot disprove the existence of GOD. God has already been proven. The Bible has proven this. past present and future the Bible has predicted every thing that has happened so far.
    Heart_for_Christ and dUmPsTeR say Amen and like this.
  7. 1. You can not prove or disprove God.
    2. Philosophy gives me a headache.
    dUmPsTeR, Where is the Messiah and TezriLi says Amen and like this.
  8. 1. Humans are dumb.
    2. The universe is a work of genius.
    3. A higher power was involved.

    1. I have a heart that beats.
    2. Frankenstein is fiction.
    3. God exists.

    1. Humans are selfish.
    2. I have $100k eyes, $200k lungs, $400k heart.
    3. A selfless God was involved.

    1. The universe is limited by the laws of physics.
    2. According to that law 0 + 0 will never equal 1.
    3. A higher power not limited by physics was involved.

    1. According to evolution I was a flatworm 500 million years ago.
    2. We, as humans are unchanged for a minimum of 30k years.
    3. With an average of 18k visible / macro evolution stages (500/30) between us and a flatworm, God was definitely involved.

    1. Atheists are compulsive liars.
    2. They say there is no God.
    3. There is a good chance there is a God.
    dUmPsTeR likes this.
  9. How's this?

    Things that are disproved have no truth in our reality
    While things that are not disproved have truth in our reality.
    God cannot be disproved and therefore has truth in our reality.
    chili likes this.
  10. I like that one B
  11. ]
    Funny thing is I was inspired by an atheist. (at least I think he was) He basically said "scientists need to go out and try to disprove their(not true btw) theories and the ones that stick are true"
  12. Anti-infinite argument

    Some will say given an infinite amount of chances anything is possible, even the creation of our universe.


    You cannot turn a blue ball red by hitting it against wood an infinite amount of times.(unless you cut yourself)

    Given an infinite amount of chances results will be produced(+) but things can also be destroyed (-) given the same circumstances. Therefore given infinity chances we would expect to see (+) but we would also expect a (-) to be produced to remove a (+) from existance.

    Given an infinite amount of chances anything is possible. Therefore I expect to see inter-dimensional space worms.
  13. Ever hear of Peter Kreeft? He is a Professor of Philosophy who has accumulated 20 philosophical arguments demonstrating there must be or probably is a God...for example your first argument is called the Kalam Argument...he has said there are no (Zero) philosophical arguments which demonstrate there is no or cannot be any God...
  14. The Catholic Church maintains that knowledge of the existence of God is available in the "natural light of human reason''.
    LysanderShapiro likes this.
  15. #17 KingJ, Aug 1, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2014
    I like this one ''Alvin Plantinga compares the question of the existence of God to the question of the existence of other minds, claiming both are notoriously impossible to "prove" against a determined skeptic''

    and these the five ways of 'Aquinas'

    1. The unmoved mover argument asserts that, from our experience of motion in the universe (motion being the transition from potentiality to actuality) we can see that there must have been an initial mover. Aquinas argued that whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another thing, so there must be an unmoved mover.
    2. Aquinas' argument from first cause started with the premise that it is impossible for a being to cause itself (because it would have to exist before it caused itself) and that it is impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes, which would result in infinite regress. Therefore, there must be a first cause, itself uncaused.
    3. The argument from necessary being asserts that all beings are contingent, meaning that it is possible for them not to exist. Aquinas argued that if everything can possibly not exist, there must have been a time when nothing existed; as things exist now, there must exist a being with necessary existence, regarded as God.
    4. Aquinas argued from degree, considering the occurrence of degrees of goodness. He believed that things which are called good, must be called good in relation to a standard of good—a maximum. There must be a maximum goodness that which causes all goodness.
    5. The teleological argument asserts the view that things without intelligence are ordered towards a purpose. Aquinas argued that unintelligent objects cannot be ordered unless they are done so by an intelligent being, which means that there must be an intelligent being to move objects to their ends: God.
  16. Is this a discussion on science or philosophy? I'm seeing both being tossed around.
  17. Well it can't be on philosophy in the instance of the creation, if there is no definitive version of physical spacetime.

    Philosophy is usually based on facts that are clearly established, not conjecture.
  18. Didn't Aristotle and Socrates use philosophy to reason their way into the existence of a creator?

Share This Page