|
|
Post by mypallyowndu on Nov 24, 2008 20:30:12 GMT -5
The Cosmological Argument (CA) is not a "god of the gaps" argument. A god of the gaps argument (or, as philosophers like to say, an argument from ignorance) is a the claim that scientific knowledge cannot currently explain some event, therefore, God must be the explanation (e.g. we don't know why the Sun revolves around the Sun, therefore, it must be God willing it).
CA is different. It argues that the universe is a finite thing and, like all finite things, it must have a beginning. All things that have a beginning have a cause. Physical laws cannot explain the origins of the universe because physical laws exist only in time and, without the universe, there is no time. Therefore, a personal, rational agent necessarily has to be the cause of the universe. Notice that the claim isn't that science has yet to discover the origins of the universe. The claim is that science CANNOT explain the origins of the universe because physical laws cannot explain something that happened before physical laws existed.
As to the infinite regress argument (i.e. God had to have a cause as well), theists have an easy response --- God is an infinite being. Only finite beings have a cause. Therefore, it is incoherent to speak of God's origins because infinite beings don't have causes.
And this is the problem with proofs of God. I don't really know how to respond to that. It's a perfectly valid argument (i.e. the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion) but it's unsatisfactory to a person disposed to atheism (like myself). I'm sure it's the case that if God exists he has to be an infinite being. How do I disprove that? It just sounds so metaphysically loaded to assume this omnipresent and omniscient being existing.
It's why I think that once you get down to basic metaphysical premises, whether you believe them depends on whether you are predisposed to believe in God or not. And that predisposition is usually premised on things other than pure logic and evidence (and that includes atheists who tend to have an active dislike of religion and religious people).
|
|
|
|
Post by Darknezz on Nov 25, 2008 1:09:28 GMT -5
To respond to the "God is infinite" argument, you should read this article; atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/a/design.htm It explains it quite well. Also, I still think the Cosmological Argument is a god of the gaps, because it's based on the premise that we can't explain how the universe began. |
|
|
|
Post by Cocyx The Skeleton on Nov 25, 2008 9:22:53 GMT -5
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence 2. The universe began to exist 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence 4. Since physical laws cannot provide a causal story for the origins of the universe, the explanation must involve a personal agent (e.g. God) Most arguments for the existence of God are like this. They start with a premise about something existing and then say that the only thing that explains its existence is God. For example: 1) Certain features of the natural world cannot be explained through evolution but only through design by a being with an end in mind; therefore God exists. 2) There are moral truths that are universal (it is wrong to kill an innocent person) and the best explanation for the existence of moral truths is a God commanding moral truths and making them self-evident to us by giving us the gift of reason. Etc. etc. or maybe we just don't know ?????????????? not having all the facts does not mean the theory of god exists, i don't even see how that is remotely related God doesn't WANT to be proven - that would be too easy. neither does the flying spaghetti monster >:[ i maek sensce |
|
|
|
Post by evilplans on Nov 25, 2008 15:58:19 GMT -5
 says it right there guys, lets just end this topic at that |
|
|
|
Post by mypallyowndu on Nov 25, 2008 16:06:51 GMT -5
No Cocyx the argument is more sophisticated than that. It's about the possibility of explanations. The CA claims that it is IMPOSSIBLE for science and physical laws to explain the beginnings of the universe because physical laws did not exist before the universe began (nothing did). Therefore, the only explanation, the NECESSARY explanation, is that some rational, infinite agent created the universe.
I think the claims are too strong though. It's just the case that our knowledge of physical laws may be incomplete. Or it may be that the origins of the universe were not subject to the same sort of causal laws that apply to normal, mundane things.
The point is that whether you believe those premises, I think, depends on your predispositions. I grew up in a household without a lot of religion (never went to temple, prayed, or even discussed God). I think that created the backdrop for me to accept the sorts of arguments advanced by atheists when I was in high school. And, I think that's okay (it's how a lot of our beliefs are formed).
I just don't like it when atheists pretend that they arrived at their conclusions solely through a strict adherence to Enlightenment principles. It ignores the powerful effect that our emotions, prejudices, biases and environments have on us, especially when we are very young.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cocyx The Skeleton on Nov 25, 2008 17:48:45 GMT -5
I think the claims are too strong though. It's just the case that our knowledge of physical laws may be incomplete. that's...sort of my point, yeah I just don't like it when atheists pretend that they arrived at their conclusions solely through a strict adherence to Enlightenment principles. i said what now |
|
|
|
Post by mlgsux on Nov 27, 2008 13:44:17 GMT -5
Science is bull shit and freaks if you bring up "Intelligent Design". Religion started as a good thing but got twisted into a money making business. Im Catholic but I still think both need some reforming and just think about God and Science complement each other, seriously, did a atom just somehow explode out of nowhere and create perfect beings that are only known life existing ( that the government has told us).
When I say perfect beings I mean like everything in our body has a purpose like when we eat, the food comes back out and if we drink some liquid, it comes out. Not that we are just perfect in not dying and such.
/end truth
|
|
|
|
Post by Cocyx The Skeleton on Nov 27, 2008 16:17:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Darknezz on Nov 27, 2008 18:38:38 GMT -5
Sadly, I have to agree with Cocyx.
You, mlgsux, need to die in a fire. Especially since you were the one sending messages on XBL to David that were all caps calling him a "homosexual butt black person" Please excuse the use of the word, it's what he typed out in a message to David and is not directed at anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by mlgsux on Nov 29, 2008 15:23:50 GMT -5
Im not going to argue with Gullible people, I already plead my case and told you that Taiko wrongly accused me to get back at me, lay off it and Im black so why would I use a deragatory thing to demean my race? Im not going to try to persuade you but seriously get your facts straight
|
|
|
|
Post by Cocyx The Skeleton on Dec 2, 2008 9:27:18 GMT -5
Im not going to argue with Gullible peoplesomeone throw me a life raft because i'm drowning in irony ho hooooo. ho. -rubs temples.- |
|
|
|
Post by helixfc3s on Dec 2, 2008 16:23:26 GMT -5
I don't try to look for proof. I was raised Catholic so I do believe Jesus Christ existed at one point. And I definetally hope people who are Catholic do not think they can find concrete proof, as someone said, religion is based on faith. But those who seek to find evidence or truths to their religion (e.g. Christianity) are only going to make them skeptics to their own religion. It will hinder their beliefs and make people question everything about their religion. If Jesus exists, he will show himself without question or doubt. I do think the Bible has some insight into the past of whether Jesus (or God) exists or not, but I don't think everything should be taken literally.
I can figure out what one might say at this point, "How exactly is being skeptic and questioning your beliefs a bad thing? That is something you should do every day."
However, I did not say it was a bad thing, but if one is going to look for proof of a divine or supreme being, he or she is most likely not going to get concrete evidence. So those who become attached to needing physical evidence for everything are going to have trouble fully believing in Jesus. I admit, I do question whether my religion is the right one or not. Even if there is a God. I think it's pretty healthy to want to ponder and question our existence. But I consider myself to be a firm Catholic person and I believe in deism.
I think everyone should keep in mind, for those still asking for evidence on the existence of Jesus Christ or just God for that matter, that Jesus was not considered a significant Jew rebel and the Romans killed a bunch of them. Jesus only became famous over a century after his death. And to simply bring up Alexandar the Great (lived before Jesus) for a moment, he on the other hand was an established great emperor so it was no wonder there is historical evidence (books/documents) to prove his existence. Out of curiosity (read: boredom), I did some research awhile ago and some Roman records show that there lived a man that later received the label named Christus (messiah) and he suffered "the extreme penalty" for unknown reasons. However, there are no surviving documents from those that knew Jesus personally. The earliest of gospels were written by Mark in Rome 30+ years after his death and he never met him. Neither did Matthew, Luke, nor St. Paul.
Then again, to sum it up in one sentence: if there was proof then it wouldn't be called faith.
So to bring it back in full circle, why should a non-believer worship God or any God for that matter? To put it in simple terms, it just makes us feel better. I don't consider my religion to be a security blanket, but I have strong faith in what I believe in and no one will know the final answer until we die. I think we just feel naturally happier knowing there will be something at the other end of our lives to live in eternal peace. I can't imagine how depressing it would be to be an atheist, though I'll respect your decision (whoever is one). Though, atheists always argue how religion is always at fault for the wars around the world and its history, which I completely agree. If you read anything on Buddhism, Isalm, or Catholics they are pretty much the same with having few alterations to the language/context, but we always fight and discriminate people who belittles or offends our religion. Religion just makes our lives more meaningful and that is, in my opinion, why one should believe in a God or have any type of religion. I highly doubt my arguments changed anything, but I just thought I'd throw my two cents in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cocyx The Skeleton on Dec 2, 2008 16:57:37 GMT -5
Then again, to sum it up in one sentence: if there was proof then it wouldn't be called faith. why is this argument showing up again and again so i can basically pull a religion out of my as shole (i'll use the flying spaghetti monster again i guess because i don't feel creative) and say oh the flying spaghetti monster doesnt -want- to prove he exists because he's testing you and you should believe in him because you'll burn in spaghetti hell FOREVER but we cant prove that either because you can't tell until you're dead hurrrrr what makes the flying spaghetti monster any more ridiculous then your concept of 'god'? |
|
|
|
Post by helixfc3s on Dec 2, 2008 17:08:38 GMT -5
Then again, to sum it up in one sentence: if there was proof then it wouldn't be called faith. why is this argument showing up again and again so i can basically pull a religion out of my as shole (i'll use the flying spaghetti monster again i guess because i don't feel creative) and say oh the flying spaghetti monster doesnt -want- to prove he exists because he's testing you and you should believe in him because you'll burn in spaghetti hell FOREVER but we cant prove that either because you can't tell until you're dead hurrrrr what makes the flying spaghetti monster any more ridiculous then your concept of 'god'? Obviously, anyone can come up with a religion. But you have to look at history and read how far Christianity and other religions survived through the centuries and how it has affected every individual under it. A religion starts somewhere with some person accounted to it, either recorded or not. Since the flying spghetti monster is a pretty contemporary example, these religions that are sprung out of thin air require evidence and proof. It's hard to compare something modern to something that originally started centuries ago. I'd refer back to my original post with the comparison of the evidence of Alexander's existence and Jesus Christ's existence. But since you asked, the most ridiculous thing about the flying spghetti monster religion is the name.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cocyx The Skeleton on Dec 2, 2008 17:45:38 GMT -5
Obviously, anyone can come up with a religion. But you have to look at history and read how far Christianity and other religions survived through the centuries and how it has affected every individual under it. Christianity only survived because people were born into it, and back then they'd shun you the fu ck out if you didn't believe in it A religion starts somewhere with some person accounted to it, either recorded or not. Since the flying spghetti monster is a pretty contemporary example, these religions that are sprung out of thin air require evidence and proof. but, but but, you have to have faith!how can you have faith with evidence and proof? It's hard to compare something modern to something that originally started centuries ago. so the only thing religion has got going for it is how long it's lasted? y'know people used to think spitting on wounds would heal them too? I'd refer back to my original post with the comparison of the evidence of Alexander's existence and Jesus Christ's existence. But since you asked, the most ridiculous thing about the flying spghetti monster religion is the name. ..lol. |
|
