Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Good arguments for Theism

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 4:12:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
To be fair to theist, I do not intend to argue against these as I state them. Are these valid?

1. Cosmology: First cause arguments: there was a first cause, or prime mover, which is identified as God.
2. Teleological argument: The universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God.
3. The Ontological argument: This is based on arguments about a being greater than which cannot be conceived: The concept of God is used to show that it is logically possible for Go to exist, then God must exist.
4. Intelligent design: Observations of universe and living things exhibit design. The designer must have been God.
5. Argument from Reason: Naturalism is self-contradictory.
6. Argument from Fervor for God: MadCornishBiker and Bornofgod.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 8:05:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 4:12:55 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
To be fair to theist, I do not intend to argue against these as I state them. Are these valid?

1. Cosmology: First cause arguments: there was a first cause, or prime mover, which is identified as God.

I think these arguments are sound, but I have some doubts about the kalam version.

2. Teleological argument: The universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God.

These days there are two major kinds of teleological arguments--the argument from fine tuning, and the argument from information in DNA. I'm not sure whether these are sound or not, but I find the fine tuning argument more persuasive than the argument from information.

3. The Ontological argument: This is based on arguments about a being greater than which cannot be conceived: The concept of God is used to show that it is logically possible for Go to exist, then God must exist.

I think Anselm's version is unsound. I think Plantinga's version may be sound, but it's impossible to know, so it's not a good argument.

4. Intelligent design: Observations of universe and living things exhibit design. The designer must have been God.

Isn't this the same thing as the teleological argument?

5. Argument from Reason: Naturalism is self-contradictory.

I used to be a lot more persuaded by this argument than I am now, but I still think it's probably sound.

6. Argument from Fervor for God: MadCornishBiker and Bornofgod.

I've never heard of it. If it's the same thing as the argument from desire, then I don't think this is a sound argument.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 9:26:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yea, last one is bogus. I have the comedic potential of a bowling ball... :)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 10:08:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 8:05:41 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/4/2014 4:12:55 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
To be fair to theist, I do not intend to argue against these as I state them. Are these valid?

1. Cosmology: First cause arguments: there was a first cause, or prime mover, which is identified as God.

I think these arguments are sound, but I have some doubts about the kalam version.

2. Teleological argument: The universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God.

These days there are two major kinds of teleological arguments--the argument from fine tuning, and the argument from information in DNA. I'm not sure whether these are sound or not, but I find the fine tuning argument more persuasive than the argument from information.


There's also the Thomistic teleological argument which deals with causal regularity, and how the form of an effect can be somehow contained within something that doesn't embody it.

3. The Ontological argument: This is based on arguments about a being greater than which cannot be conceived: The concept of God is used to show that it is logically possible for Go to exist, then God must exist.

I think Anselm's version is unsound. I think Plantinga's version may be sound, but it's impossible to know, so it's not a good argument.

4. Intelligent design: Observations of universe and living things exhibit design. The designer must have been God.

Isn't this the same thing as the teleological argument?

5. Argument from Reason: Naturalism is self-contradictory.

I used to be a lot more persuaded by this argument than I am now, but I still think it's probably sound.

6. Argument from Fervor for God: MadCornishBiker and Bornofgod.

I've never heard of it. If it's the same thing as the argument from desire, then I don't think this is a sound argument.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 8:23:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 8:05:41 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/4/2014 4:12:55 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
To be fair to theist, I do not intend to argue against these as I state them. Are these valid?

1. Cosmology: First cause arguments: there was a first cause, or prime mover, which is identified as God.

I think these arguments are sound, but I have some doubts about the kalam version.


2. Teleological argument: The universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God.

These days there are two major kinds of teleological arguments--the argument from fine tuning, and the argument from information in DNA. I'm not sure whether these are sound or not, but I find the fine tuning argument more persuasive than the argument from information.

On the argument from fine tuning, how do we know life could not have come about and survive under different settings? It is an assumption there would be no life with different constants. Changing the constants certainly will be unhealthy to life like ours, but this in no way eliminates the possibility of life unlike ours.

I have not heard the argument from information in DNA.

3. The Ontological argument: This is based on arguments about a being greater than which cannot be conceived: The concept of God is used to show that it is logically possible for Go to exist, then God must exist.

I think Anselm's version is unsound. I think Plantinga's version may be sound, but it's impossible to know, so it's not a good argument.

4. Intelligent design: Observations of universe and living things exhibit design. The designer must have been God.

Isn't this the same thing as the teleological argument?

Yes, you're probably right, but I wanted to submit it to discussion.

5. Argument from Reason: Naturalism is self-contradictory.

I used to be a lot more persuaded by this argument than I am now, but I still think it's probably sound.

6. Argument from Fervor for God: MadCornishBiker and Bornofgod.

I've never heard of it. If it's the same thing as the argument from desire, then I don't think this is a sound argument.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
RhysJaxson
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 8:45:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 4:12:55 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
To be fair to theist, I do not intend to argue against these as I state them. Are these valid?

I'd be willing to debate anybody on these.

1. Cosmology: First cause arguments: there was a first cause, or prime mover, which is identified as God.

The only analogous event that we can compare the creation of the universe from nothing to is the spontaneous creation of virtual particles. These virtual particles apparently have no cause, and there is absolutely no evidence that they came from a god.

The problem with this argument is the equivocation of creation from nothing with creation from something. We can see a person make a house, but they just rearranged existing matter. We can see a person make a robot, but still just rearranging existing matter. We know cause/effect to exist in that sense.

But, the universe is not created in that sense. It is new matter, new energy, possibly even new laws. There is no support for the premise that there must be a cause, especially since the creation involves new time, and causality doesn't extend to non-time.

2. Teleological argument: The universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God.

Creator God is more complex than simple laws of order.

3. The Ontological argument: This is based on arguments about a being greater than which cannot be conceived: The concept of God is used to show that it is logically possible for Go to exist, then God must exist.

Nothing more than an attempt at clever wordplay mixed with a specific modal argument. The premise of 'greater' is also unsubstantiated.

4. Intelligent design: Observations of universe and living things exhibit design. The designer must have been God.

Purely subjective, and demonstrably wrong. Much of the design of living things is dangerous and highly inefficient. Also, just because something appears designed doesn't mean it is. Crystals can form in shapes that look like gears, but they aren't designed.

5. Argument from Reason: Naturalism is self-contradictory.

6. Argument from Fervor for God: MadCornishBiker and Bornofgod.

I'm unfamiliar with the last two, but I would still be willing to debate them. I'm confident I could win flying by the seat of my pants :D
We are better than religion. We are better than gods.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 12:08:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 8:23:57 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/4/2014 8:05:41 PM, philochristos wrote:

These days there are two major kinds of teleological arguments--the argument from fine tuning, and the argument from information in DNA. I'm not sure whether these are sound or not, but I find the fine tuning argument more persuasive than the argument from information.

On the argument from fine tuning, how do we know life could not have come about and survive under different settings? It is an assumption there would be no life with different constants. Changing the constants certainly will be unhealthy to life like ours, but this in no way eliminates the possibility of life unlike ours.

From what I understand, the argument from fine tuning is that the constants of nature would have to be fine-tuned to some unimaginably fine tolerances for any life of any kind to even be possible, not just life like ours. The reason is because however exotic other kinds of life might be, the only way to have anything that fits the usual definition of "biological life" is to have something with complex chemistry, and to have complex chemistry, you have to have a periodic table of some sort. But according to what I've read about these constants, they have to be fine tuned in order for there to be chemistry at all. With no chemistry, there is no possibility of any kind of biological life, be it ever so exotic.

I have not heard the argument from information in DNA.

That's what Steve Meyer's book, Signature In the Cell, is about. I guess I shouldn't have said "information in DNA." Instead, I should've said, "the argument from biology," because there is more than merely information in DNA that people these days think support teleology.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 11:03:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 12:08:10 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/5/2014 8:23:57 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/4/2014 8:05:41 PM, philochristos wrote:

These days there are two major kinds of teleological arguments--the argument from fine tuning, and the argument from information in DNA. I'm not sure whether these are sound or not, but I find the fine tuning argument more persuasive than the argument from information.

On the argument from fine tuning, how do we know life could not have come about and survive under different settings? It is an assumption there would be no life with different constants. Changing the constants certainly will be unhealthy to life like ours, but this in no way eliminates the possibility of life unlike ours.

From what I understand, the argument from fine tuning is that the constants of nature would have to be fine-tuned to some unimaginably fine tolerances for any life of any kind to even be possible, not just life like ours. The reason is because however exotic other kinds of life might be, the only way to have anything that fits the usual definition of "biological life" is to have something with complex chemistry, and to have complex chemistry, you have to have a periodic table of some sort. But according to what I've read about these constants, they have to be fine tuned in order for there to be chemistry at all. With no chemistry, there is no possibility of any kind of biological life, be it ever so exotic.

The argument may be solid, and I don't mean to contest it with my limited knowledge. What do you think of Lawrence Kraus's comment," the Cosmological Constant, which is perhaps the most confusing finely tuned parameter we know of in the Universe, is fine tuned in a mathematical sense, compared to the na"ve value we might expect on the basis of our current understanding of physical theory. While it is also true that if it were much larger, galaxies would not form, and therefore life forms that survive on solar power would not be likely to form with any significant abundance in the universe, I also explained that if the Cosmological Constant were in fact zero, which is what most theorists had predicted in advance, the conditions for life would be, if anything, more favorable, for the development and persistence of life in the cosmos."

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

I have not heard the argument from information in DNA.

That's what Steve Meyer's book, Signature In the Cell, is about. I guess I shouldn't have said "information in DNA." Instead, I should've said, "the argument from biology," because there is more than merely information in DNA that people these days think support teleology.

I will have to check that out.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 11:19:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 4:12:55 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
To be fair to theist, I do not intend to argue against these as I state them. Are these valid?

1. Cosmology: First cause arguments: there was a first cause, or prime mover, which is identified as God.
2. Teleological argument: The universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God.
3. The Ontological argument: This is based on arguments about a being greater than which cannot be conceived: The concept of God is used to show that it is logically possible for Go to exist, then God must exist.
4. Intelligent design: Observations of universe and living things exhibit design. The designer must have been God.
5. Argument from Reason: Naturalism is self-contradictory.
6. Argument from Fervor for God: MadCornishBiker and Bornofgod.

When you put a liar like MCB in the same category as a saint who speaks for our invisible Creator who calls Himself the Truth, , you are totally deceived. No liar can tell the difference between a lie and the Truth and all Christians are liars.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 11:37:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 12:08:10 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/5/2014 8:23:57 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/4/2014 8:05:41 PM, philochristos wrote:

These days there are two major kinds of teleological arguments--the argument from fine tuning, and the argument from information in DNA. I'm not sure whether these are sound or not, but I find the fine tuning argument more persuasive than the argument from information.

On the argument from fine tuning, how do we know life could not have come about and survive under different settings? It is an assumption there would be no life with different constants. Changing the constants certainly will be unhealthy to life like ours, but this in no way eliminates the possibility of life unlike ours.

From what I understand, the argument from fine tuning is that the constants of nature would have to be fine-tuned to some unimaginably fine tolerances for any life of any kind to even be possible, not just life like ours. The reason is because however exotic other kinds of life might be, the only way to have anything that fits the usual definition of "biological life" is to have something with complex chemistry, and to have complex chemistry, you have to have a periodic table of some sort. But according to what I've read about these constants, they have to be fine tuned in order for there to be chemistry at all. With no chemistry, there is no possibility of any kind of biological life, be it ever so exotic.

Did he say biological?


I have not heard the argument from information in DNA.

That's what Steve Meyer's book, Signature In the Cell, is about. I guess I shouldn't have said "information in DNA." Instead, I should've said, "the argument from biology," because there is more than merely information in DNA that people these days think support teleology.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 11:39:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 12:08:10 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/5/2014 8:23:57 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/4/2014 8:05:41 PM, philochristos wrote:

These days there are two major kinds of teleological arguments--the argument from fine tuning, and the argument from information in DNA. I'm not sure whether these are sound or not, but I find the fine tuning argument more persuasive than the argument from information.

On the argument from fine tuning, how do we know life could not have come about and survive under different settings? It is an assumption there would be no life with different constants. Changing the constants certainly will be unhealthy to life like ours, but this in no way eliminates the possibility of life unlike ours.

From what I understand, the argument from fine tuning is that the constants of nature would have to be fine-tuned to some unimaginably fine tolerances for any life of any kind to even be possible, not just life like ours. The reason is because however exotic other kinds of life might be, the only way to have anything that fits the usual definition of "biological life" is to have something with complex chemistry, and to have complex chemistry, you have to have a periodic table of some sort. But according to what I've read about these constants, they have to be fine tuned in order for there to be chemistry at all. With no chemistry, there is no possibility of any kind of biological life, be it ever so exotic.

I have not heard the argument from information in DNA.

That's what Steve Meyer's book, Signature In the Cell, is about. I guess I shouldn't have said "information in DNA." Instead, I should've said, "the argument from biology," because there is more than merely information in DNA that people these days think support teleology.

Also, if the constants were changed just a bit, then pasta wouldn't exist (chemistry wouldn't exist, we wouldn't, and thus, pasta wouldn't). So, I guess this is evidence of the flying Speghetti Monster too. There are tons of things that couldn't exist if the constants were changed, why are we so special?
Zogen
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 12:09:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 4:12:55 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
To be fair to theist, I do not intend to argue against these as I state them. Are these valid?

1. Cosmology: First cause arguments: there was a first cause, or prime mover, which is identified as God.
2. Teleological argument: The universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God.
3. The Ontological argument: This is based on arguments about a being greater than which cannot be conceived: The concept of God is used to show that it is logically possible for Go to exist, then God must exist.
4. Intelligent design: Observations of universe and living things exhibit design. The designer must have been God.
5. Argument from Reason: Naturalism is self-contradictory.
6. Argument from Fervor for God: MadCornishBiker and Bornofgod.

1) Very weak argument, somewhat hypocritical, based on extremely questionable premises and assumptions.
2) and 4) There are equally valid, if not more so (based on observable equivalents and more solid and apparent evidence) scientific solutions to the apparent regularity; evolution, multiverse/chaotic inflation and the anthropic principle
3) Hardly solid logic, make decent logical conclusions and shoehorn in God as the only possible solution to such conclusions
5) and 6) Sorry, don't know well enough to offer reasonable comment.
Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand (Karl Marx).
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 1:06:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 11:19:56 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 1/4/2014 4:12:55 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
To be fair to theist, I do not intend to argue against these as I state them. Are these valid?

1. Cosmology: First cause arguments: there was a first cause, or prime mover, which is identified as God.
2. Teleological argument: The universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God.
3. The Ontological argument: This is based on arguments about a being greater than which cannot be conceived: The concept of God is used to show that it is logically possible for Go to exist, then God must exist.
4. Intelligent design: Observations of universe and living things exhibit design. The designer must have been God.
5. Argument from Reason: Naturalism is self-contradictory.
6. Argument from Fervor for God: MadCornishBiker and Bornofgod.

When you put a liar like MCB in the same category as a saint who speaks for our invisible Creator who calls Himself the Truth, , you are totally deceived. No liar can tell the difference between a lie and the Truth and all Christians are liars.

You're right, I was wrong to put you two in this list at all. My apologies.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 9:23:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 11:37:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/6/2014 12:08:10 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/5/2014 8:23:57 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/4/2014 8:05:41 PM, philochristos wrote:

These days there are two major kinds of teleological arguments--the argument from fine tuning, and the argument from information in DNA. I'm not sure whether these are sound or not, but I find the fine tuning argument more persuasive than the argument from information.

On the argument from fine tuning, how do we know life could not have come about and survive under different settings? It is an assumption there would be no life with different constants. Changing the constants certainly will be unhealthy to life like ours, but this in no way eliminates the possibility of life unlike ours.

From what I understand, the argument from fine tuning is that the constants of nature would have to be fine-tuned to some unimaginably fine tolerances for any life of any kind to even be possible, not just life like ours. The reason is because however exotic other kinds of life might be, the only way to have anything that fits the usual definition of "biological life" is to have something with complex chemistry, and to have complex chemistry, you have to have a periodic table of some sort. But according to what I've read about these constants, they have to be fine tuned in order for there to be chemistry at all. With no chemistry, there is no possibility of any kind of biological life, be it ever so exotic.

Did he say biological?

No, but I didn't get the impression he was talking about anything like angels, gods, or ghosts. I assumed he was talking about physical chemical life forms.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 9:43:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 1:06:21 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/6/2014 11:19:56 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 1/4/2014 4:12:55 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
To be fair to theist, I do not intend to argue against these as I state them. Are these valid?

1. Cosmology: First cause arguments: there was a first cause, or prime mover, which is identified as God.
2. Teleological argument: The universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God.
3. The Ontological argument: This is based on arguments about a being greater than which cannot be conceived: The concept of God is used to show that it is logically possible for Go to exist, then God must exist.
4. Intelligent design: Observations of universe and living things exhibit design. The designer must have been God.
5. Argument from Reason: Naturalism is self-contradictory.
6. Argument from Fervor for God: MadCornishBiker and Bornofgod.

When you put a liar like MCB in the same category as a saint who speaks for our invisible Creator who calls Himself the Truth, , you are totally deceived. No liar can tell the difference between a lie and the Truth and all Christians are liars.

You're right, I was wrong to put you two in this list at all. My apologies.

Your apology is accepted my friend. Christians have no idea who our Creator is or how He created us and if they weren't chosen to listen to my testimonies from our invisible Creator, they won't learn about God's eternal plans for us.