What is the strongest argument for the existence of God?

>>2686742
I'd give it to you, but this is a blue board.

>>2686742
Humans are incapable of walking in a straight line without visual reference or outside guidance.

>>2686742
Prove that he's NOT real

File: sdfgfd.png (6KB, 134x167px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 134x167px

you can't explain qualia therefore something is transcendental probably maybe and you could guess that it's some kind of god i suppose

and other people thought so! what are you, an independant thinker?

>>2686742
My feelings.

>>2686742
Define God first. And completely, every single attribute, leave no stone unturned.

>>2686742

If had to argue that, I would just define "god" in such a way that it exists by definition. Yes it's retarded, but that's theology for you.

File: irz7lajh4pax.png (499KB, 500x433px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 500x433px

Most cosmological arguments except for Kalam.

>>2686775
Burden of prove is with the claimant.

>>2686835
that really depends on the setting of the debate.

but "you can't prove i'm wrong" is indeed pretty much a forfeit on making a convincing argument.

If the universe began with a Big Bang, who triggered the Big Bang? This is the thing that Christians always say that scientists have to concede to not know.

>>2686742
Kek, and the sagas of /pol/.

>>2686860
My huge cock.

>>2686742
The strongest argument is "You don't know! He could be real!"

>>2686939
If you're a dumb shit, yeah, but if you're a learned theist then it's some kind of cosmological argument.

>>2686955
Haven't learned enough to realize we don't live in an Aristotelian universe, though.

>>2686955
Cosmological arguments are always based on weak and sometimes overtly false premises.

>>2686962
Bro that is far from proven, and it's not like science can prove that in terms of metaphysics; plenty of theists as far back as Albert the Great recognized that

>>2686766
Fpbp

>>2686860
if christians were intellectually honest they'd have to concede on that point too

>>2686980
That's very, very debatable; there's a reason it's still taken seriously in philosophy of religion

>>2686742
none of them
gods existence can not be reasoned, it can only be felt

>>2686984
Where does the premise that all things are caused by an external agent come from?

If it comes from an observation of nature, then science contradicts it on the quantum level. If it comes from pure reason with no observation, then we can just as easily reason that things do not happen for any reason, or at least causation cannot be proven. Indeed, people have done so before. The logic is easily discounted from both ends.

>>2686996
*tips bible*

>>2686804
Still no response. And this is why the debate will never end, because we can't even settle upon what we're talking about first.

>>2687000
Observation, induction, and the fact that a thing coming into being without something prior to it is a contradiction, hence it's impossible.

Quantum physics does not rule out Aristotelian causality at all since it's not confined to event based causality like Humean causality. Causes can be simultaneous and more about a dependency relationship between an effect and its cause.

>>2687034
>Observation, induction,
So if we can factor in observation, we can factor in science, which is simply very rigorous observation of the natural world. And if we can factor that in, then particles pop in and out of existence all the time, or can be in two places at once and other traditionally thought to be impossible things.

>Quantum physics does not rule out Aristotelian causality at all since it's not confined to event based causality like Humean causality. Causes can be simultaneous and more about a dependency relationship between an effect and its cause.
Doesn't matter. Whatever the cause would be, we would be able to see it in the statistical variation of for example radioactive decay patterns as the trigger occurred. We don't. There is no external cause for why one particular unstable nucleus decays now and its otherwise identical neighbor decays millions of years from now.

>>2687033
Most positions on God as far as monotheists go generally fall into two categories: the classical theist tradition and the theistic personalists. The first is the tradition extending back to Plato and Aristotle and was adopted by Christians, Jews, and Muslims. They view God as the transcendent cause of anything existent and is ultimately simple, composed of no parts and hence predications can only be made analogically. Theistic personalists is more recent and views God quite literally as a person albeit an immaterial and one who has attributes maxed out.

Other theist traditions are still interesting and worth looking into.

File: tips.jpg (102KB, 640x800px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 640x800px

>>2687024
epic meme
I bet you also believe that love is just a chemical reaction in our brains

>>2687068
not as epic as yours, friendo, it was the inspiration, after all

>>2687056
You do know science is observation of quantifiable being, right? To reduce being to extension is very problematic.

> Doesn't matter. Whatever the cause would be, we would be able to see it in the statistical variation of for example radioactive decay patterns as the trigger occurred. We don't. There is no external cause for why one particular unstable nucleus decays now and its otherwise identical neighbor decays millions of years from now. And particles do not "pop" into existence - you should read up more on virtual particles.

Then it's simply the case here that the nature of the atom to decay in random patterns; it still remains a metaphysical fact that contingent things have an ultimate external cause. But that's ignoring the fact that scientific inquiry depends on certain metaphysical facts prior to it and to speak of science as contradicting it is incoherent.

To me it's that everything must come from a beginning. Even if the Big Bang Theory is true, what caused it? What existed beforehand? I think god, whatever he/it may be is the beginning. I'm not really sure of anything after but I personally think that is as plausible an answer as any.

>>2686790
>qualia

Double decaf with caramel and a chocolate muffin to go please.

>>2687103
>You do know science is observation of quantifiable being, right? To reduce being to extension is very problematic.
Language games. The premise is contradicted by more careful observation. It was mistaken, and without valid premises the argument fails to be convincing.

>But that's ignoring the fact that scientific inquiry depends on certain metaphysical facts prior to it and to speak of science as contradicting it is incoherent.
For Aquinas' argument to work, you need to have the full unbroken chain of causation. Such a chain explicitly does not exist, full stop. If you have to disregard reality for your argument to work, it's not much of an argument, no matter what fancy words you dress it up with.

>>2686817
>>2686994

These "arguments" are only impressive to believers who are looking for an excuse-- any excuse-- to push away the certain knowledge in their hearts that there is no god. They would completely fail to convert, say, a Hindu to your religion, because he has the exact same kind of "arguments" to push back at you.

>>2686835
Burden of proof is a logical fallacy.

>>2687215
>claiming a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy

>>2686742

Who argues for the truth? Who defends a lion? Who protects a sword?

File: freeshrugs.jpg (44KB, 1281x940px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1281x940px

the fact that there's a universe and visible and invisible stuff and here you are, etc
nbd, op

>>2686742
The supernatural can not be described with reason. Whether you believe it or not is up to your faith.

>>2686990
Not exactly. The Idea of The Christian God implies that he'd be the initial cause of events.

>>2687132
Not really, anyone with proper education and training in philosophical theology regardless of their personal standing can attest to the rigor of the philosophical arguments; they're not meant to convert one to a religion, they're meant to argue for a transcendent cause of anything existent. Christian, Jewish, Islamic, and even Hindu philosophers have very similar philosophical grounds for belief in a transcendent cause of all that is existent

>>2687940
"Initial" implies a temporal dimension to God, he's a sustaining cause, one that must exist at every moment for the existence of the effect.

>>2686742
That we might be living in a simulation. It's not an absolute proof or anything, but it's very well structured.
t. Agnostic atheist

>>2686742
Without god all existence is pointless.

That cannot be therefore god must exist. If you disagree you likely won't live long or create offspring and your ideas will die with you.

My two favourites are:

1. The Moral Argument
2. Lazarus and the Rich man argument

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBu_Jw61UZE

>>2688103
Not to mention unintelligible

Faith

>>2686742
Hallucinations. Fevers. Food poisoning. Etc.

>>2687123
> Language games. The premise is contradicted by more careful observation. It was mistaken, and without valid premises the argument fails to be convincing.

You don't even know what language games are, do you? There is no observation that contradicts it, not even in quantum mechanics.

> For Aquinas' argument to work, you need to have the full unbroken chain of causation. Such a chain explicitly does not exist, full stop. If you have to disregard reality for your argument to work, it's not much of an argument, no matter what fancy words you dress it up with.

What does a "full" chain of causation even mean? It just argues that there must be a first cause to explain anything at all. And the "fancy words" is simply clearly defined terminology that most people don't take the time to learn.

That you keep his commandments.

>>2686742
Something along the line that since the universe has a set beginning it must have a creator

>>2686835
Prove it.

>god isn't physical therefore he isn't real
>human rights aren't physical therefore they aren't real
really fires up your neurons huh

>>2686742
>>2686742
Trump's victory.

All of the statistical models put Hillary as the near-certain winner, but Kek alone foretold a Trump win.

File: thirteenth-floor.jpg (240KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1280x720px

>>2686742

The strongest argument for the existence of God is simulation theory. Assuming that the theory holds true, whoever originally programmed the simulation is for all intents and purposes equivalent to God within this universe.

>>2688564
>The strongest argument for the existence of God is simulation theory.

Never understood it really, heard all the arguments and heard all the hubbub about it but I guess it assume that if we live in a simulation (or computer) then a creator must have made the computer? Right?

>>2686742
youtube.com/watch?v=bdjjqFSEJ_Y

>>2686742
we are living.
but define 'god' what does it mean to you since it might mean something different to me, and those to each their own

>>2688491
The terms you are using have no reference to external reality and are only meaningful insofar as they refer to each other in a consistent manner.

>There is no observation that contradicts it, not even in quantum mechanics.
Very explicitly, we have an example of change/"motion" not being caused by an external agent and an effect without a cause (you dismissed it saying it's in the unstable nuclei's "nature" to decay, which is true in one sense, but in the sense you mean it all identical unstable nuclei of the same species or "nature" should decay at the same time, rather than the actual randomness observed.)

>What does a "full" chain of causation even mean?
Unbroken, such that all cause/effect relationships or changes can and must be traced back to a single agent of pure actuality. Without this unbroken chain, there is no need for a being of pure actuality, even if that were a meaningful term. Human definitions do not outrank reality.

>>2688714
They clearly have a basis in reality - that there's not a discrete, quantifiable thing called "cause" or "effect" is something else. There are things that are manifestly caused. Certain processes within the atom don't require an external agent, and no that they're the same genus or even species dictates that they must decay at the same time, in fact it may be in their nature to decay in random patterns; but the atom itself still requires external principles for it (ie strong/weak atomic forces, space-time for it to inhabit, so far as we know, and most likely other factors that we haven't discovered yet).

> Unbroken, such that all cause/effect relationships or changes can and must be traced back to a single agent of pure actuality. Without this unbroken chain, there is no need for a being of pure actuality, even if that were a meaningful term. Human definitions do not outrank reality.

One need not account for every single member of the causal series, one simply needs to recognize that without something whose causal power is inherent in itself and not derivative there can be no causal chain at all, hence the need for a first cause. It being pure actuality is too much to go into; I'd say read up on it if you have a charitable and intellectually honest attitude when approaching it.

"Human" definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive.

>>2686775
I mean that's not exactly strong proof

>>2686804

God is everything.

People have tried to name every attribute, but even then it's only one perspective.

Bottom line is you can't describe God, but Westerners do tend to get rustled when you point out to them God does everything, and that there is no "good" or "evil," that there is just the command of God.

>>2690460
Westerners view it slightly differently, they recognize that God is the source of the existence of everything and is in virtue of that existence itself.

>>2686860
HOL OP HOL OP
SO BE BEEN SAYING
>science discovered the origin of universe as we know it
>science basically refute the holly writings and the religious idea of god
>sciende didnt discovered(yet) what was going on before de big bang
>so all what holly writtings say is metaphoric shit, but god still exist because of MUH UNCERTAINTY

>>2686742
Define the most perfect being you can. Ask yourself, does it exist. If it does not then it is not perfect. God is ultimate perfection therefore existence must be one of those attributes, therefore God exists.

>>2686860
That's certainly a mystery that we have not figured out. I am prepared to leave it at that.

If you take the argument that if we do not know what originated the Big Bang, therefore God must have been behind it, you open yourself to an endless chain of "Then who made x" until the argument becomes redundant.

I really do not think that Christians should attempt to assert that evidence for God exists.
Thomas Aquinas himself perfectly summarized the Christian belief in god. God is not a being in this world that can be quantified or measured. God is the shear act of being itself. He does not exists in the realm of evidence that we use to quantify materialistic phenomenon.

>>2690873
>because i can imagine it, it nescecarily exists.

>>2690873
An interesting way to formulate the ontological argument

>>2690873
>implying a perfect being wouldn't also possess the ability to not exist

>>2691101
Nonsense, that would be contradictory

>>2687377
This

File: Heraclitus-300x265.jpg (21KB, 300x265px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x265px

God is not a "thing" among "things". God does not exist beside the "raindrop", the "tree", the "river", etc. God is the being that unites all of these distinct beings, and so God is in all things. God allows the raindrop to be distinct from the river, we can only understand a raindrop as being distinct from the air around it. In order to answer the question "does anything exist?" you need to first acknowledge the existence of the question thereby answering the question before you begin the process of answering.

"God" cannot be proved since the existence of God precedes its proof, Gods existence is implicit in the question, and so any attempt would be circular. Indeed, most Christian apologetics (*cough* C.S. Lewis) are elaborate circular arguments. There can be no evidence of God's existence, firstly because he is not a "thing" among things (as say a black swan among white swans), and secondly because he is a metaphysical concept which exists outside the natural world. You might as well be looking for justice using a microscope. You cannot find God as a thing in the world, just as you can't find Shakespeare in Hamlet. Using the tools of natural science to search for something outside the limits of natural science is self evidently foolish.

This does raise the problem "how does God act in the world?", "Then how can Christ be the son of God?", and "how do miracles occur?". I can only answer with "I'm not a Christian!"

>>2690873
doesn't that imply that the human mind can conceive/understand God in his entirety?

>>2688103
>That cannot be
Source

>>2690460
Then just call it everything. We don't need another word for it

>>2691538
It's also nothing and something.

>>2686742
There are no arguments for his existence as there are no arguments for his nonexistence.
But as kant put it is in order to have a good and happy life we must asume two postulates: 1.the imortality of the soul and 2.the existence of god. If only we exept this premises life has meaning and morals exist, otherwise life has no meaning and morals can not be derived.

>>2691544
logical contradiction

>>2691563
>suddenly all the good moral happy atheists don't exist
Damn that was easy

>>2690425
>e, quantifiable thing called "cause" or "effect" is something else. There are things that are manifestly caused. Certain processes within the atom don't require an external agent, and no that they're the same genus or even species dictates that they must decay at the same time, in fact it may be in their nature to decay in random patterns
The reasoning is, specifically, that as nothing can change from potential to actual without the influence of an external actual, there must be an ultimate cause of pure actual. But here we have a case of a potential becoming actual (unstable nuclei decaying into another species) specifically without any external actual trigger. If things can move from potential to actual without the influence of an external actual, the argument that there MUST be a pure actual at the end of the unbroken chain of actuals changing potentials to actuals is false. And it's not just that we haven't found the trigger: the physics specifically discounts the existence of a trigger, and a hidden trigger would still show up in statistical analysis of variations in decay rates/patterns.

>One need not account for every single member of the causal series, one simply needs to recognize that without something whose causal power is inherent in itself and not derivative there can be no causal chain at all, hence the need for a first cause.
If you want to come up with the Anon's Cosmological Theory, be my guest, I'll be happy to read it. But the unbroken causal series is a defining feature of the existing arguments defining the "first cause" as God.

>>2691234
Then why do you still call it he.

>>2691628
>The reasoning is, specifically, that as nothing can change from potential to actual without the influence of an external actual, there must be an ultimate cause of pure actual. But here we have a case of a potential becoming actual (unstable nuclei decaying into another species) specifically without any external actual trigger. If things can move from potential to actual without the influence of an external actual, the argument that there MUST be a pure actual at the end of the unbroken chain of actuals changing potentials to actuals is false. And it's not just that we haven't found the trigger: the physics specifically discounts the existence of a trigger, and a hidden trigger would still show up in statistical analysis of variations in decay rates/patterns.

There isn't anything in the theory of act/potency that says that all causal power belongs only to the first cause, just that any act/potency composite has its causal power derivatively - it's derived from something external to it. So it's completely reasonable for cause of some phenomena to lie in the nature of the thing; and that's not to mention that if there were no atom, there would be no neutron decay, so the atom is the cause of decay in this sense. It's useful to not restrict causes to their Newtonion or Humean definitions. Physics discerns no cause, but physics never really did in the strict scientific sense. As an extra point that's worth mentioning, random processes does not invalidate causality, and likewise causality does not imply determinism.

>If you want to come up with the Anon's Cosmological Theory, be my guest, I'll be happy to read it. But the unbroken causal series is a defining feature of the existing arguments defining the "first cause" as God.

Nowhere in fleshed out arguments from motion/causality is an "unbroken" causal series necessitated, just certain facts concerning the causal series behind any given object.

>>2691631
Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." (Genesis 1:26)

>>2692112
>just so happens that humans are the special snowflakes out of the millions of species of earth and trillions of configurations of matter in the universe
What a coincidence. Or: it's fanfiction made up by humans.

>>2692160
يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنَّا خَلَقْنَاكُم مِّن ذَكَرٍ وَأُنثَىٰ وَجَعَلْنَاكُمْ شُعُوبًا وَقَبَائِلَ لِتَعَارَفُوا ۚ إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِندَ اللَّهِ أَتْقَاكُمْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ خَبِيرٌ - 49:13
O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.

>>2692166
I repeat my previous post

>>2692176
one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:6)

>>2692187
>Father
I repeat my previous post

>>2692191
"I am become Time, the destroyer of worlds."

>>2686835
That isn't how it works you fucking tard

>>2692090
Reread my post moron

File: 1488700894921.jpg (35KB, 369x387px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 369x387px

>>2687103
>>2687113
>>2687123
>>2687132
>>2688714
>>2691628
>>2686790
>>2686742
So many worthless cucks in this thread lol.

File: 1480109458383.jpg (52KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 250x250px

>>2692274
>mfw

>>2686798
this.

The only somewhat decent argument for god I've heard involved the Principle of Sufficient Reason. The principle of sufficient reason simply states that everything has a reason. But even that argument juxtaposed purpose onto existence. If man has an objective purpose, there is a creator. If man does not, there is no creator.

>>2692389
The principle of sufficient reason is more about intelligibility than purpose. Everything is intelligible and has a sufficient reason for its existence, be it inherently or through something external to it.

me

>>2692090
>There isn't anything in the theory of act/potency that says that all causal power belongs only to the first cause
Nor did I ever say it did. The theory states that the casual power changing a potentiality to an actuality must itself be actual. And since that actuality is an actuality rather than a potency, it too must have been changed by an actuality from being a potency. Thus, because all change from potency to actuality requires an external actuality, there must have been a Pure Actuality that caused change, otherwise everything would remain a potency (and since a potency cannot cause change, only an actuality can, there would never be change.) This is directly the argument from motion/change.

>so the atom is the cause of decay in this sense
The nucleus is moving from a potency to an actuality without an external trigger. It is undergoing change/"motion" without an actually causing it. This is in direct contradiction to the argument.

>As an extra point that's worth mentioning, random processes does not invalidate causality, and likewise causality does not imply determinism.
I never said anything about causality or determinism either way. I said something very specific, which is that the entirely random and untriggered case of nuclear decay is in direct opposition to Aquinas' argument. Because it is, and thst's why Thomists try to argue that it must have some external trigger so fiercely.

>Nowhere in fleshed out arguments from motion/causality is an "unbroken" causal series necessitated,
The unbroken chain is what leads to the invocation of Pure Actuality, to allow change/"motion" to exist at all. Because if things can change from potency to actuality on their own, or if we redefine them to be other pure actualities, the end "this everyone understands to be god" premise is explicitly rejected, as any old object with this nature will do. We can now easily say instead "this everyone understands to be the singularity of the Big Bang."

>>2692582
What you said before did point to that. Indeed it does state that act is prior to potency.

You're saying that there is no direct event one can point to that "causes" the decay, but decay doesn't happen without the atom, hence the atom can be said to be the cause of it. So while there no trigger, but there is a cause. So no contradiction (and either way, if something suggests a contradiction then there's something wrong with the interpretation, not necessarily the metaphysics).

Yes, it's random and untriggered. Uncaused is something different; there's still a prior cause that allows for the decay to take place the way it does. I've never seen any Thomist argue that there must be some external trigger as you say; cause, yes, but trigger like you say, no.

You misunderstand what it means for something to be pure actuality if you speak of multiple ones and equate it with the singularity of the Big Bang.

>>2693105
>direct event one can point to that "causes" the decay, but decay doesn't happen without the atom
So the atom is changing itself, from a potency to an actuality, which is explicitly said to be imposible, because only an actuality can change a potency from an actuality. There is no way of getting around this. It is a direct point of the argument and reality contradicts it. Full stop.

>and either way, if something suggests a contradiction then there's something wrong with the interpretation, not necessarily the metaphysics
This essentially means "the argument is right even if it's proven wrong."

>I've never seen any Thomist argue that there must be some external trigger as you say; cause, yes, but trigger like you say, no.
So let's dispense with trigger and cause and use their terminology directly, then. Again, what we have here is a potency going to an actuality without the influence of an external actuality. According to Thomism this is not possible.

>You misunderstand what it means for something to be pure actuality if you speak of multiple ones and equate it with the singularity of the Big Bang
The only reason we were talking about multiple pure actualites was because you tried to say that multiple potencies could change into actualities without the influence of another actuality if it was in their "nature" to get around the unbroken chain which quite clearly can be broken. But the only way for that to work, within a Thomistic framework, is if quantum phenomena themselves were pure actualities. So if you're rejecting that, we're right back to where we started, where you need to somehow explain why a Pure Actuality, which can only and exclusively be God, is necessary for change/"motion" to exist if many objects are able to change from potency to actuality without an external actuality changing them.