Vote
39 Total Votes
1

Nope

25 votes
5 comments
2

Yes

12 votes
3 comments
3

What is God?

2 votes
0 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
MollyHendrix says2013-09-24T21:42:08.9194385-05:00
All I see is people arguing "No proof!" "There is proof!" "No there's not!"
Miles_Donahue says2013-09-26T08:42:04.6655373-05:00
Well, I named five arguments for the existence of God that I find convincing.
Miles_Donahue says2013-09-26T08:42:06.5375253-05:00
Well, I named five arguments for the existence of God that I find convincing.
Jingram994 says2013-09-26T09:29:06.9766052-05:00
Argument from 'fine-tuning'; not really relevant. If the universe weren't 'tuned' to our ability to live, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. It only makes sense that we could only discuss this in a universe that we are able to live in; how 'likely' this may be without involving supernatural arguments isn't really the point. Ontological argument;This argument essentially amounts to: 1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived. 2. The idea of God exists in the mind. 3. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind. 4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality. 5. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God. 6. Therefore, God exists. The argument itself makes presuppositions that can only be considered 'proven' if we accept the final statement. As the final statement is absolutely dependent on presuppositions only proven by the end statement itself, this argument is a fallacy. Kalam cosmological argument; attempts to use god as a 'first cause' for the universe. If the universe requires a 'creator' or 'cause', then so does god. This continues on ad infinitum, with each creator in turn being itself created. Unless we make god exempt from the same rule we are using to 'prove' his existence. Which is a fallacy. The argument from contingency is actually pretty much the same thing as this, except *actually* applied to religious theory. Argument from morality; absolutely nonsensical. This argument attempts to state that the only way 'morality' could be absolute and objective was if god existed, therefore god exists and morality is both. This argument presupposes that morality actually is objective and absolute. Actual 'objective' morality by definition doesn't require the existence of a being outside of it, and exists entirely independently of beings. Thus, god is not required for morality to be objective. Also, allow me to use the Euthyphro Dilemma; is an act good because god commands it, or does god command an act because it is good? If the latter,then 'morality' exists independently of god, and he is unnecessary and irrelevant. If the former, then this supposed 'morality' is nothing more than a fallacious appeal to higher authority, and is inherently meaningless.
Miles_Donahue says2013-09-26T18:18:46.3395542-05:00
Jingram, I was responding to the comment that no one was actually citing arguments for their positions (a charge made by Molly Hendrix). I didn't, nor do I, mean to get into a debate about the existence of God on the comments section of a poll. Nevertheless, I don't find any of your objections convincing; they all seem to be based on misunderstandings of the arguments. But this isn't the place for that discussion. Perhaps we could debate the issues some other time.
Jingram994 says2013-09-27T00:44:24.9986689-05:00
Sorry, just thought I may as well answer those theories you quoted with some of their more common arguments. Lots of time on my hands, you know?
Miles_Donahue says2013-09-27T18:26:37.9982340-05:00
Haha, I understand.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.