Arguments for and against the existence of God

A

Alan McDougall

Alan McDougall
Registered Senior Member
Arguments for and against the existence of God

OK lets take these to argument and let us try to reach some sort of consensus of this vexing puzzle

Arguments for the existence of God

1) The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with some claim about the world, like its containing entities that are caused to exist by other entities.

2) The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator god. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, id est that it exhibits order and design

Lets us deal later with arguments against the belief in god

Alan
 
Nature exhibits complexity, order, adaptation, purpose and/or beauty.

The exhibited feature(s) cannot be explained by random or accidental processes, but only as a product of mind.

Therefore, there exists a mind that has produced or is producing nature.

A mind that produces nature is a definition of "God."

Therefore, God exists.

Anyway you slice it dice it..big bang or whatever

. God is always there
 
The problem with PieAreSquared's argument is that most processes in nature are not random or accidental. They are governed by precise laws of nature, some of which we have managed to find out through the scientific method.

So far in the scientific enterprise, nothing has been found in nature that requires "mind" for its ultimate production.
 
James R said:
The problem with PieAreSquared's argument is that most processes in nature are not random or accidental. They are governed by precise laws of nature, some of which we have managed to find out through the scientific method.

So far in the scientific enterprise, nothing has been found in nature that requires "mind" for its ultimate production.
Click to expand...

But this does not nullify that there was a creator who put all those laws in place. We know that there are several constants in universe that allow, due to their carefully set values, life on earth. This and the above mentioned arguments in thread match what God says in the holy Quran:

a. that everything was created with carefully set values (thoughtfully).
b. that Big Bang is a fact.

Here is what God says regarding the creation of the universe in the 1430 years old text:

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit of creation, before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"
Holy Quran - The Prophets 21:30​
 

Due to the complexity of the universe, nature,assumption that there is a force of superior intelligence,is a plausible assumption.
 
Alan McDougall said:
1) The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with some claim about the world, like its containing entities that are caused to exist by other entities.
Click to expand...

The notion of cause and effect also requires some notion of time. There's nothing to say that time or cause and effect were relevant "prior" to the Big Bang. There's also nothing to say that time doesn't go infinitely far back into the past. The argument merely replaces one gap in our understanding with an even bigger gap. Belief in a divine creator offers zero predictive power for modelling real-life situations, and it replaces a difficult question with an even more difficult one -who made God?- without providing the slightest testable answer.

Alan McDougall said:
2) The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator god. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, id est that it exhibits order and design
Click to expand...

Order and design are subjective concepts. Mars might look like a smooth ball from a distance, but up close it's a random pile of soil and rocks. Nothing has yet been shown to exist that can't conceivably be explained by complex random processes governed by simple natural laws. Arguments based on calculations of the probability of life are bogus, because no one has the computing power or knowledge to calculate the probability that some form of life similar to our own might emerge somewhere in the universe.
 
Lori_7 said:
god rocked my world; therefore god exists.
Click to expand...

I guess I can say the same when it comes to my experience.

Regarding design and randomness: Do not you see obvious design in the following?!

a9695152.jpg

The Creator uses same pieces of design across species. Here we can see owl eyes on a butterfly. Butterfly name: Caligo Idomenius.
 
Imagine the universe is built upon a computer language. For all purposes lets assume the language is HTML.

Lets assume that the 'result' of the code has ability to 'see' (consciousness) the result of other codes.

One sees 'bolded text' and is amazed. Another sees a video running (HTML5?) and is amazed. They attribute all of it to some designer.

But there is another group- they see the bolded text, and they find out why and how it become bolded, and they find the code < b> < /b> . They attribute the bold to this tag. Then they see the a color and they find out why and they attribute it to < color> < /color> tag. This group comes to the conclusion that everything can be explained by the code.

So one group attributes something external to the code. Another attributes their existence to the code.

One tries to explain the very existence of the code through a designer. The other explains the results of the code through the code.

Does it change the fact that HTML was created? But if all elements of the code had consciousness could they tell there was a 'creator' wouldn't they also attribute everything to the code.

Then there is the question of 'information'. < b> < /b> may be the code for a bold text, but what translates < b> < /b> to actually mean something. How and why do these tags work together to form something. Why aren't they absolutely random in which case there could be no way to tell what leads to what.

If you look at the page source of a website, can you say someone created it? Can you not see what leads to 'what element' and show that what was 'created' actually came from the code having 'no evidence' for the creator. From the code the creator can not be seen. Because the creator created the code, he isn't the code itself. You can't find him in the code.

There is a code, but there is also a system that understands the code.

Why is it that if you write something in < b> < /b> that it becomes bold but not just words written otherwise? What determines this 'translation' or 'syntax'?

Sure the code works together, different tags lead to different things but why is it that they lead to what they do. Why is it that it is 'translated' this way. Who is the translator? Who is the one who set the syntax. Is it illogical to assume that someone set these parameters? Maybe, maybe not.

Peace be unto you ;)

PS- You can draw the parallels of what the tags represents, and what represents nature, and so forth I hope.
 
Last edited:
Dywyddyr said:
God didn't even show up in my world: therefore god doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

that's how it is. that's why i think that debating his existence from an intellectual standpoint, and pointing fingers is pretty futile.
 
Yosef said:
I guess I can say the same when it comes to my experience.

Regarding design and randomness: Do not you see obvious design in the following?!

a9695152.jpg

The Creator uses same pieces of design across species. Here we can see owl eyes on a butterfly. Butterfly name: Caligo Idomenius.
Click to expand...

pretty. i wanted to cry in a butterfly atrium once. :bawl:
 
James R said:
The problem with PieAreSquared's argument is that most processes in nature are not random or accidental. They are governed by precise laws of nature, some of which we have managed to find out through the scientific method.

So far in the scientific enterprise, nothing has been found in nature that requires "mind" for its ultimate production.
Click to expand...


Not really my argument .. cut from wiki

Personally I believe in God.. but not all the woo associated with it ;)
 
Jan Ardena said:
What are the "arguments against the existence of God"?

jan.
Click to expand...

Arguments against belief in God

Cut from Wikepedia

Each of the following arguments aims at showing either that a particular subset of gods do not exist (by showing them as inherently meaningless, contradictory, or at odds with known scientific or historical facts) or that there is insufficient reason to believe in them.
[edit] Empirical arguments

Empirical arguments depend on empirical data in order to prove their conclusions.

• The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the deity called God as described in scriptures -- such as the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible, or the Muslim Qur'an -- by identifying apparent contradictions between different scriptures, within a single scripture, or between scripture and known facts. To be effective this argument requires the other side to hold that its scriptural record is inerrant, or to conflate the record itself with the God it describes.

• The problem of evil contests the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god should not permit the existence of evil or suffering. The theist responses are called theodicies.

• The argument from poor design contests the idea that God created life on the basis that lifeforms exist which seem to exhibit poor design. For example, many runners get a painful "stitch" in their side due to poor placement of the liver.

• The argument from nonbelief contests the existence of an omnipotent God who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers.

• The argument from parsimony contends that since natural (non-supernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief in gods,[25] the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon.

• It is impossible to prove, or disprove, the "pot of gold at the end of a rainbow's" existence, as it is impossible to actually get to the end of the rainbow and check, due to the (circular, and hence "endless") nature of a rainbow. This "inability to check" is taken by most to be proof that the "pot of gold" does not in fact exist (there is no end of the rainbow for the pot to be at.)

For God, this lack of proof, and the similar lack of ability to check it, is taken by some to be "proof of existence." A case of "absence of proof is not proof of absence." Some see this to be proof that "God must exist, as he/she/it can't be disproved." The absence of proof is taken by others to be the same as the "pot of gold". If you can't get to a place that does not exist, then it's obvious that there is nothing there
 
Yosef said:
Regarding design and randomness: Do not you see obvious design in the following?!

a9695152.jpg

The Creator uses same pieces of design across species. Here we can see owl eyes on a butterfly. Butterfly name: Caligo Idomenius.
Click to expand...
All I see is the result of evolution - i.e. those butterflies that had wings that aided in their survival would pass on those traits / genes to their offspring. Over time their predators would weed out those with "unfit" wings, leaving those with the best camouflage for survival.

Simple evolution at work.
No design necessary.
 
786 said:
Does it change the fact that HTML was created?
Click to expand...

"HTML was created" is not a "fact". It's just a way of seeing and perceiving HTML. But it is easy to deconstruct this perspective:

Who created HTML? Human beings. But who, which particular human being? Or even group of human beings? Nobody can pinpoint such an individual neither a group of people. The second degree limitation can only be "software engineers", but not more than this: HTML or any other software system for that matter might emerge as an idea by a single person; but the moment the software becomes an accepted working product, numerous contribution and codification efforts of various unknown people are already behind the product in many level. HTML that we globally use as a web site language is not a creation of any single individual, company or group of super clever people. It was neither created at once; in fact HTML is not a completed creation either; constant modifications due to requirements (by users, by technology, etc.) have been made through time, still being made and will be made in the future until one day HTML becomes completely useless for any application or erodes within/becomes base for a different software.

And these vast number of people doesn't appear as "creator", but they rather present an environment for the evolution of HTML. Even the generation of coders and computer specialists die, HTML will survive and change. Therefore, it is possible to say that "HTML is creator-independent software", even if the initial idea was first coined by some person (or people), the result(s) are independent from them.

Moreover, from a wider perspective, we can also question HTML as a separate, independent entity within the vast concept of "computer software language and logic". At the end of the day, HTML shares many features of other software and does not distinguish itself as a completely different system. When we eliminate all shared elements, what would left behind HTML?
 
We can look at the development of HTML as an evolution. That is, better code by more inputs from several people. So many people were needed to have the HTML language that we have now. But what about the owl eye butterfly?! Would you please tell me or name at least one entity that participated in its "evolution"?!

I want to know about an entity that is mindful, conscious, self-correcting & intelligent.

And we all know that the owl eyes butterfly is millions of times more complex than the HTML code.

Evolution cannot make it because any "stupid" mutation on the way would kill the butterfly and it would have extincted long time ago. I remind that the product that we have in front of our eyes is a flawless and beautiful butterfly.

You want me to believe that a tornado can pass by a backyard and produce a F-16 ?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top