What is the strongest argument for the existence of God? Al

>>270967
not /lit/

>>270967
The universe is not old enough to achieve this level of order by random chance.

>>270969
That's a terrible argument though.

>>270967
>>>>/hist/
>>>>/trash/
>>>>/pol/
>>>>/b/

Any other board desu senpai. If you actually read any transcendentalists or theology and then posed discussion then maybe it'd be different.

But you want a circle jerk. Go away.

>>270967
>What is the strongest argument for the existence of God?

The Bible.

>>270969
>order
>random chance

Any more buzzwords you wanna fit in there?

>>270973
"Evolution," could you fit it in there?

>>270967
Remember boys and girls, sage christposters, hide christposters, report christposters.

>"The belief in a transcendent being conveys a genetic advantage: that couples who follow one of the three religions of the Book and maintain patriarchal values have more children than atheists or agnostics. You see less education among women, less hedonism and individualism. And to a large degree, this belief in transcendence can be passed on genetically. Conversions, or cases where people grow up to reject family values, are statistically insignificant. In the vast majority of cases, people stick with whatever metaphysical system they grow up in. That’s why atheist humanism—the basis of any ‘pluralist society’—is doomed.”

The existence of God doesn't require argument. Atheism is a temporary fluke of the last few years and will cease to exist within one or two generations.

>>270976
this

test

>>270969
This is actually a good argument.

1. Causuality exists
2. The universe require God
3. The universe exists
4. God Exists
5. Therefore god exists

>>270969
Awful argument
>>270979
Be ashamed of yourself

>>270981
The amount of combinations of the universe's particles that facilitate life, compared to that of combinations that don't, is astronomically small. Therefore, considering the total entropy of the universe, and the fact that not all combinations can occur before it ends, it is very arguable that, in the 13 billion years the universe has existed, life could not have formed naturally.

https://storify.com/JoshMock/dawkins-gets-bofa-d

It makes me feel good.

>>270984
This, as with vegetarianism, is the only argument I will ever accept when it comes to "God".

>>270976
Maybe it's a good idea to convince most poeple in a society that some religion is true, but that's not a good argument for that religion actually being correct.

>>270986
Yes, but my point is that the correctness is of no consequence.

>>270976

>The belief in a transcendent being conveys a genetic advantage: that couples who follow one of the three religions of the Book and maintain patriarchal values have more children than atheists or agnostics.

>Religious people have a r-selection reproductive strategy.

Makes sense.

>>270969
>not old enough

what a terrible argument

what would be "old enough"? 10 billion more years? 50? 400?

As if any other thinker could embarrass Dawkins more than he embarrasses himself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tIwYNioDL8

>>271040
>atheist "scientists"

File: 1215.png (20KB, 160x160px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 160x160px

>>271040
No bully, he invented memes.

>>270976
>Not believing is a fluke
So somehow, even though secularism has been the biggest trend in almost every society globally, it will suddenly stop and we will become believers again... what?

>>270976
>Conversions, or cases where people grow up to reject family values, are statistically insignificant. In the vast majority of cases, people stick with whatever metaphysical system they grow up in.
So where did all the atheists come from

>>271087
he's suggesting non-believers won't have children while religious people will.

>>271094
Atheism was there before religion.

>>271145
K, but like 100, or 200 years ago virtually everyone was religious.

>>270980
Causality can't exist if God is an infinite being. He must exist outside of Causality in order for him to exist in the first place. Cause and effect can't exist on a metaphysical level. Otherwise, you have a paradox of existence.

>>270967
Honestly, only appeals to emotion and calls for faith can be used to argue reason to believe in God. For the material mind, the one that requires substantial evidence will never get it.

I mean, the fact that we have to argue over something that isn't physically there is a bit mind boggling.

>>271155
Some out of peer pressure surely. It was hard to be part of society if you didn't officially believe, unofficially though....

>>270967
Aquinas' first 3 ways.
I personally really like the argument from desire though

>>271177
>what is an abstract concept

>>271177
What are you doing here them?

File: 1414404574736.gif (2MB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x150px

>>270976
>family values

>>270972
wow an old storybook, that is absolutely the best argument for god. gg

>>271283
Not physically existing, that's what

>>271365
I believe that was the Joke.

>>270982
>Considering the total entropy of the universe
Yeah and how the fuck did you measure that? You clearly don't know any thermodynamics or cosmology, much less anything else. You're a moron. I'm not saying God isn't real, but that argument is shit.

>>270982
This is only a good argument if you ignore all observed physics. With observed physics, the combinations that support life are not very uncommon

>>270976
>Atheism is a temporary fluke.

It has always existed in western society at least, although it was frowned upon.

>>270967
The arguments here can be summed up as:
>a) Believing in god has positive effects therefore god exists
Or
>b) The universe requires god to exist

Which can be easily beaten by stating the facts that:
a) An effect of a held belief does not impact the nature of said belief. If believing I was a kid had good effects for me it still wouldn't make me a kid.
And
b) Most pseudo-philosophers on this board have no actual understanding of STEM fields and thus should shut the fuck up if they think their understanding of the complexity of natural phenomena is of any worth

Essentially, stop making bullshit to justify your beliefs and actually rethink them for a bit.
If you stop trying lying to yourself maybe you'll see that you can't know a divine entity, but merely believe it. That is, have Faith.

File: 1447912284174.png (14KB, 633x524px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 633x524px

>>271040
what

>>270967
"Ad hominem is a logical fallacy and that's science 101"

It has nothing to do with science you fuck

>>270967
>existence of God?
Which god?

File: fedora tip.jpg (49KB, 469x463px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 469x463px

>>270967
>What is the strongest argument for the existence of God?

That Richard Dawkins exists.

>>270967
the strongest argument for god is literally a silly picture of a fat guy in an ugly hat. if you want to start with the classics Thomas Aquinas outlines 5 pro-god arguements in Summa Contra Gentiles. These being 1. First cause. 2. Unmoved mover(borrowed from Aristotle) 3. Ultimate neccessity 4. Argument from perfection 5. Arguement for external purpose.

some of these are rather complex and most are not considered today to be ultimately sound but they will serve well to anyone with a weak understanding of metaphysics. Just google them and rephrase for the understanding level of your audience

>There is stuff.
>Where did stuff come from?
>Stuff either created itself or a god created it.
>We know scientifically that stuff can't created itself.
>God created stuff
>"But where did God come from?"
>God has always existed, but he created science, he's not bound by it.

>>273572
>created
Why do we have to use this word in the first place? Why not just formed?

File: 1445697779625.jpg (100KB, 797x453px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 797x453px

>>273572
but le quantum fluctuations mang

>>271175
>Causality can't exist if God is an infinite being
It can, just not in the metaphisical plane.
>He must exist outside of Causality in order for him to exist in the first place. Cause and effect can't exist on a metaphysical level. Otherwise, you have a paradox of existence.
This is correct.
Based Aquinas.

>>273600
>Based Aquinas
"Based" Aquinas has a fundamentally flawed reasoning due to being overly anthropocentric in his arguments.

>>270982
>astronomically
This is a bait post

>>271177
>I mean, the fact that we have to argue over something that isn't physically there is a bit mind boggling.
Without such an axiomatic belief you can't believe in the phisical in the first place, unless you just put your head in the sand in regards to this problem.
Try reading philosophy, it's good for you.

>>273595
Why are you trivializing that argument?

>>271145
>Atheism was there before religion
On which evidence do you base your claim?

>>271437
Most pseudo-stemfags have no understanding oh complex philosophy and logic behind arguments for God.
Essentially, stop making bullshit to justify your beliefs and actually rethink them for a bit.

>>273610
Humans are always anthropocentric. You can never be something that isn't a human or perceive things as anything else. Therefor even the "humble" arguments about how unimportant humans are are just as anthropocentric as Aqunas or anyone else.

>>273644
And it's unfortunate. That we'd ascribe human-centric explanations or anthropocentric reasoning to events that have nothing to do with humans.

>>273621
because I think it plays around a definition of "nothing" which isn't actually the philosophical nothing of said philosophical arguments

>>271437
>>273632
"The Universe requires Thor to Exist" only really works based on an "ex nihilo" universe.

Science has endorsed "ex nihilo" for a long time - although in truth, we don't have good answers for what was going on beyond the "early hot dense phase" of the universe's history.

Also, it assumes that your definition of Thor is "The thing that made the universe" and then you have to go forward proving all the other attributes of Thor (blond hair, hammer, sibling named Loki, etc.) based on other postulates.

Ya'll need to read the Enquiry on Human Understanding of the Critique of Pure Reason.

Hume and Kant are some of the best thinkers to have existed, both thought, essentially, arguments for the existence of God suck.

>>273684
Are you saying you think that scientists/skeptics say there was "nothing" before the big bang? Pretty sure most don't.

>>270967

prime mover, first mover, whatever it is called

do internet search

File: nietzsche.jpg (51KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 499x499px

>>270976
>Atheism is a temporary fluke of the last few years and will cease to exist within one or two generations.

Tell yourself that at night.

>>273704
As far as I know they use quantum fluctuations of "nothing" as a possible reason why the big bang happened in the first place.

>>273712
Doesn't the idea of causality break down at the universe's conception

>>270976
>The existence of God doesn't require argument
Yes, it does.

>>273722
Can you give an example of someone thinking/stating that?

>instead of being a nice guy, God is kinda a dick that likes fucking with people
>the current state of politics

>>270967
>Dawkins getting destroyed
If you fell for Deepak's bullshit, you don't belong on this board.

>>273739
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCUmeE8sIVo

It's in here somewhere. At the very least, this video will call into question the idea that we're talking about something ("nothing") that we know anything about.

>>273632

>Most pseudo-stemfags have no understanding of bullshit language games

fify

>>273754
Go to 53:00

File: 1448055216867.jpg (78KB, 568x554px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 568x554px

>>270967

>>273632
>complex philosophy and logic behind arguments for God
You can't talk God into existence.

File: 1426011786124_1_.gif (121KB, 620x367px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 620x367px

>>273331

>>273754
It seems like they're talking about the quantum fluctuations dominating the expansion of the universe, not being the cause of its origin.

>>270967
A random desert book.

File: 1447903271106.gif (289KB, 576x2992px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 576x2992px

>>271040

same applies to him

>>273784

why does this make me dizzy?

>>273786
You're right. I gave you the example of a scientist saying that:
"It's pure assumption that there was a beginning of the universe at all, we've been biased by historical traditions and religion but theres no reason at all why we should focus on theories that propose a beginning - it's not demanded."

Now that I'm thinking of it, it was a video with Lawrence Krauss that proposed the quantum fluctuations bit. I will keep digging...

>>273829
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbsGYRArH_w

this is the one you want.

>>271979
Id say the progressive left have definitely made ad hominem a part of science in the last few decades, its their primary tool for dismissing dissenting facts and evidence.

What do people think of the fine tuning argument?

>>270967
Wow, never seen someone get so flustered. Reminds me of Al Afleqi on Maher

>>273917
I think it lies on two presumptions. That

1) the universe was formed with an intention behind it (or, created), which I think is nonsense, and
2) the universe was created for humanity to exist, which, I think, is an unsubstantiated claim.

>>273933
>lies
*relies

>>273933
I am not sure that it really does do that. It just says that we can observe fundamental factors in the fabric of the universe that are so fine tuned that chance is unlikely to have played a large role in its formation.

>>273943
>fine tuned
There in lies the presumption. That it was fine-tuned to begin with, which implies intention.

>>273950
Not really. It simply says that either side of current settings and the universe would be fundamentally different.

>>273943
We could only observed "apparently fine tuned" "variables" in a universe that had them. It puts the cart before the horse. If the "variables" were different, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Compare it with this:
My dad cumdumped like a billion sperm into moms, god must have chosen my particular sperm so that I could be here to think about it.

>>273955
So then the universe can be "fine tuned" by happenstance, and not by god, if fine tuning does not imply intention.

>>273955
And doesn't the argument use that to try to prove that there's an intention behind the universe? I thought the "fine-tuning argument" was an argument for God's existence.

>>270985

>as with vegetarianism

I'm not a vegetarian but you've got to be real dumb to think that, unless you WANT to destroy the planet.

>>273961
Absolutely, but happenstance begins to look a lot less likely.
The fine tuning argument is essentially the best current argument either way in this entire debate, it trumps anything atheists bring to the table. So it makes sense you would want to co-opt it.

>>273572

>created

There's nothing to suggest that anything was created at all. In fact, it seems likely that all matter has always existed.

>>273958
You end up making a much larger assumption that there is an infinite number of universes.

>>273965
It can be applied for that purpose. At its crux it simply points out the biggest coincidences known to man.

>>273955
Yes, but you could just as well look at it the other way around and conclude that everything that exists does so in accordance to the laws of the universe. Not that the laws of the universe are the way they are in order to accommodate for all that exists.

>>273978
I'm not assuming that at all. Not that there isn't some science to support that idea.

>>273724

it never breaks down because otherwise it would imply the universe created itself

>>271175
>He must exist outside of Causality

"Causality exists" just means that " there are instances of causation in our universe", this doesn't mean that God has to be a being who is caused himself. Causality isn't something that other things are "contained" within- causality is just beings causing effects.

>>273516

The thing with the 5 ways is that they are just a lemma, the real proof of God's existence takes place throughout the whole first book of the Summa, as Aquinas shows why the first being that is come to in the 5 ways must have God's properties.

>>273724

This doesn't matter for Aquinas or Aristotle, since it is assumed that the world could have existed for infinite past time. The arguments are all about what has to be going on at this moment for creation to be doing what it is.

Aquinas actually explicitly wrecks versions of the cosmological argument that demand a first temporal cause. The Kalam Cosmological argument for example claims that if the world was infinite in past time then it would have taken an infinity to get to the moment, and thus we could have never gotten here. Aquinas points out that this presumes that there is an "infiniteeth" member in the series of past times. Really no matter which point in time we think about, it will be a finite amount of time from the present day. The whole point of the infinity of past moments is that there is no starting point from which we must traverse to get to this moment. The argument is seriously question begging.

Often atheists use this very argument against Aquinas' version of the cosmological argument, which is hilarious since it not only has nothing to do with his argument, but is also something that he formulated in the first place.

>>270967
>What is the strongest argument for the existence of God?
The big bang.

Few things are funnier then atheists who unironically believe the theory supports their side of the argument.

>>274003
And why can't that be the case? And why can't the universe have "always" existed? I don't see how you can talk about what "caused" the universe given that time didn't exist "before" the universe.

>>273993

The main problem with this is that "laws of the universe" are really just generalizations of how concrete things act. How do "laws" compel objects to act the way they do ? Such a thesis is just as mysterious as any theistic one. "Laws" are good ways to unify phenomena and organize them so we can do experiments easier. But ontologically they are pretty useless.

>>273996
So how did our universe hit the nail on the head if it wasn't one in an infinite number and not fine tuned?

>>274010
Weird that being a physics expert correlates with atheism

>>274006
>it is assumed that the world could have existed for infinite past time
Who assumes this? I'm a bit confused.
>Often atheists use this very argument against Aquinas' version of the cosmological argument
We do? We say that there couldn't have been infinite time, and therefore Aquinas is wrong? I'm not getting who you're claiming is saying what.

>>274052
Weird that the physics expert who created the theory was a roman Catholic priest.

>>274010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7VcLCwnpt4

>>274031
>Lemaître stated that the theory was neutral and there was no connection between his religion and his theory.
Looks like maybe it shook his faith a little.

>>274031
>"the universe hit the nail on the head"
Your question anthromorphises the universe and assumes that humanity was the goal - but you don't even realize you're doing this do you?

Btw, have you stopped beating your wife?

Okay. Let's apply a little logic here.

Starting from the assuption that there isn't a compelling argument against the existence of a god-like being, and supposing that such a being created the universe; can you prove the following?

1.) This god-like being matches the description given by any of all existant religion of their deities.

2.) The human race was this being's central focus during the creation of the universe.

Alternatively, if you can't prove that at least one of these affirmations is true, tell me why would I display adoration for such being.

>>274019

Well for X to create X X would have to exist so to create X, but if X is not created X cannot exist to create X.

The cause would be simultaneous with the universe in the first moment of time, it would only have ontological priority to the first moment of time and the universe. It would be what the universe was derived from, but there would be no time before the universe was derived from it. Causation is first and foremost about the simultaneous relationship of dependence on cause from effect, temporal precedence is not actually necessary.

The cosmological argument shows that to have a series of causes that have their own causal power derivatively requires that there is at least one cause that has it underivatively- elsewise the causal power could not be in the series as each member has no causal power on its own, but can only have it by gaining it from something else. Due to this you need a first cause which cannot be caused by anything. But if X is a certain way, and X cannot be caused to have any new effect then there is no way that X can change. Given that the universe is constantly expanding it clearly changes, but what ever the first cause is has to be eternal and unchanging, therefore the first cause cannot be the universe.

File: 1447880996914.gif (5KB, 239x235px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 239x235px

This is probably more of an argument for the importance of metaphysics, but how do materialists justify the idea that somehow a bunch of interacting soulless atoms can become a "truth telling device". When does exactly this happen and most importantly why it happens at all when it's still a bunch of of interacting soulless atoms, just in a particular configuration?

Isn't pure materialism self-refuting?

I'm not a theist myself but many atheists I know seem to be convinced that metaphysics can be dismissed by just relying on science and pure materialism, and that doesn't sound right.

This is also important for morality I think.

>>274093
>Well for X to create X X would have to exist so to create X, but if X is not created X cannot exist to create X.
All that is well and good for events that happen *inside* the universe, but how do you know the same can be applied when you go "outside"? How do you get outside the universe? How do you go "before" the universe? And there's also the second alternative I mentioned, the universe having always existed on its timeframe.
>simultaneous
Does simultaneity actually exist, though? I think relativity has another story on the subject.
>first cause is has to be eternal and unchanging, therefore the first cause cannot be the universe.
Doesn't the "first cause" have to change to cause something?

God is something that the human being invented to justify its own ignorance. We have no knowledge of things like what happens after death, the purpose of life and the origin of the universe, and an omnipotent architect solves all these problems in a extremely simplistic way. Instead of admitting that some things are beyond its understanding, the human prefers to create a imaginary being to feel better about itself. This imaginary being serves as a defense mechanism against the uncomfortable doubt that lies within the question of death and also within the question of existence and this defense mechanism will continue to exist until the day that a definitive answer to the great question is found.

So the best argument in favor of the existence of God is that the human wants it to exist. It's a convenient, simplistic and easy answer to a complex question that is deeply troubling to us. It's the very definition of wishful thinking and the undeniable proof that we will believe in anything to feel better about ourselves.

>>274010
>The big bang.

How is this an argument for the existence of a deity?

>>274053

Aristotle used to hold that the world existed for infinite past time. Before the Big Bang was theorized atheists would use it as an argument against the universe needing a temporal beginning, and hence needing a creator. Someone even raised that criticism in this thread somewhere.

What is claimed by his opponents is that Aquinas was saying that there needs to be a first temporal cause and finite past time leading to it. Modern Christians like WLC also hold this.

Atheists will say that the universe could have always existed and we could have had an infinite series of causes stretching back infinitely in past time. Hence Aquinas is wrong in positing the need for a first cause.

Aquinas agrees that it is possible to have infinite past time and an infinite series of causes in time. The kind of causal series he is talking about is a series of simultaneous causes that operates at each moment the universe exists, derivatively causing due to being caused by others.

>>274089

1.

That's allot of properties to prove. Aquinas makes a case for, simplicity, eternity, uniqueness, etc throughout the Summa.
It is allot of arguments though, and most of them much more complex than the 5 ways. It would be worth checking out the full first book of the Summa if you are interested.

One thing that I don't think can be properly proven from a cosmological argument is omnipotence. No matter what the effect is, if it is finite it cannot demonstrate infinite power. You would have to show how something else about God that we get from a cosmological argument entails him being infinitely powerfull- because we can't really argue from effects to get there. Though if we were willing to say " God is the most powerful being that there is" that would be fine, but it isn't properly omnipotence.

2 is weird. God is awesome regardless of if he cares more about Manatees than he does Humans or not.

>>270969
Bad

Literally anything else would have been better. Emergent complexity is a thing

Also lets get this trash back to /lit/

>>274103
>but how do materialists justify the idea that somehow a bunch of interacting soulless atoms can become a "truth telling device". When does exactly this happen and most importantly why it happens at all when it's still a bunch of of interacting soulless atoms, just in a particular configuration?

Clearly because a brain is not analogous to a rock.

While I grant that consciousness is fundamentally mysterious, analogizing every other kind of matter to the intrinsic complexity from billions of years of evolution that is required for consciousness to exist in a human body, is asinine.

>>274103
You're strong on ontology and metaphysics but weak on epistemology - materialists generally have to admit to being skeptical of the ability of humans to be truth tellers.

>>274174
I'm not religious, but I think he meant that the big bang theory is almost as absurd and ridiculous as an omnipotent being creating the universe.

>>274174
Because a Catholic came up with it.

>>274199
kek, okay

>>274186
>Clearly because a brain is not analogous to a rock
Fundamentally it still is something that is reducible to interacting atoms though, just like a rock, isn't it?
Reducible should be the key word here. You are right to say consciousness is mysterious, and this relates to the possible mechanism of how this truth telling device emerges, but I'm skeptical on why it emerges at all, especially the truth telling part.
Because to just assume it does from the material experience requires materialism itself to be correct, no?

>>274193
Eh, I wish the materialists I talk too were so skeptical too.

>>274256
So what?

He wasn't just a Catholic you know. He was also a very exceptional physicist.

Just because people who do specific extraordinary things in the physical sciences are religious, doesn't say anything about their religion's validity or not.

>>274280
>Fundamentally it still is something that is reducible to interacting atoms though, just like a rock, isn't it?

Fundamentally, yes of course, but a rock is a rock, regardless of it's size, but if you reduce a brain to it's constituent properties it's clearly not a brain anymore is it?

>>274283
Look I'm not defending it I'm just saying what I think he meant.

>>274305
Fair enough.

>>274293
Well how do you define "brain" materialistically though?
Might be hard, but you can say it's a particular configuration of many atoms, no? Is there a secret ingredient that makes it do the jump?

>>274126

No thats pretty much a rule of logic, we can't attribute anything to X if X doesn't exist, it just becomes a misuse of language on our part. This is'nt really something we read off of nature, we need the ability to do logic to make sense of nature in the first place. There isn't any reason why should assume that logic breaks down when we start talking about something beyond "the universe".

>Does simultaneity actually exist, though? I think relativity has another story on the subject.

Relativity shows us that there are different frames of reference in observation between different observers in relation to how close or far away from the speed of light they are moving at. It has more to do with the fact that passing time and change aren't absolute and seperate, but rather go together. It doesn't really say much about God existing at the first moment of time as the world's cause. And simultaneity still exists- and it may even be that relativity is simply telling us about how humans perceive things rather than an ontological truth about the universe.

The first cause would not have to change to cause something. For X to be changed it has to exist in some manner at T1 and exist in some matter at T2, but the changer Y could have only existed in T2 and caused the new effect X in its first moment of existence. In this case God is only ever in the state of being the cause he is, so in his only eternal moment of existence he causes all of creation, which unfolds over time- but it is all rooted in one act on God's side. To explain how this works Krettzmann and Stump actually utilized the fact that distinct frames of reference exist and showed how you can have an eternal frame of reference and a temporal one that interacts with each other. The piece is called ' Eternity' and it is well worth reading.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2026047?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

>>274324
The brain is a mass of organic material that is configurated in a specific way yes, but it's atomic parts are clearly not the point. The point is that the complexity of those atomic parts cannot be compared to a rock.

>>273722
It's less nothing and more that empty space isn't possible.

Taking a region of space, emptying it of all matter, but then applying the laws of physics to it leads to virtual particles that are in a state of superimposition (simultaneously existing and not existing)

The infinite particles popping in and out of existence means that at some point one will exist with a true vacuum within it. This true vacuum causes the instantaneous expansion of the particle into the universe we have today.

>>273572
stuff can create itself and man created science.

>>274335
Ok so the god of this proposition is what?
An un-caused first cause? Why call it 'god'? It seems to me to just be a supernatural mystery blip

>>274351
This is true indeed, but it doesn't change the point, does it?
I mean, it's kind of similar to the old bald vs full of hair issue i.e at which point a person is bald and at which point it isn't anymore. Yeah, in everyday language this isn't a problem and it's not even a worthy philosophical argument perhaps, but this one might be.
At which point enough complexity+a particular configuration enables a collection of atoms to spew truths? And does it really happen at all? That's the issue.

>>274471
>At which point enough complexity+a particular configuration enables a collection of atoms to spew truths? And does it really happen at all? That's the issue.

Who knows, which is why I said that consciousness is fundamentally a mysterious phenomenon.

>>274399

The cosmological argument doesn't ground that. Nor is it supposed to. It brings us to a first cause, then many other arguments are needed to show that the first cause is God.

One property we have so far is that the first cause is eternal and unchanging.

Another we have to account for is the contingency in the world, all of our "laws" are totally contingent and there are an infinite amount of different ways our universe could have been, with no necessary reason for it to be one way or another. Given that there were several options for what kind of world to create, and no necessity for any particular kind of creation to be created, you a need a being who can make a choice between all the equally possible worlds.

That gives us an eternal being, who created the world, and has some sort of intelligence by which it can chose.

I don't know the argument for every single property of God off hand. The first book of the Summa is long ( and there are other Theologians other than Thomas who we probably want to consider as well), but there are arguments for just about all of God's major properties in there. Soctus also has his own account in the De Primo Principio that is pretty good and worth looking up. I have some sort of version on my computer were I ground most of the main qualities based on the notion of a first cause. But I think It would be more conducive to peoples knowledge if they check out fuller versions in the classical theistic texts. Even if you doubt you will be swayed, it is much more illuminating to know the best versions of the arguments to know where you really stand on the matter.

>>274525
>you a need a being who can make a choice between all the equally possible worlds.
Freaking why? Only humans make choices.

>>274388
Has this been properly observed?
From what I understand it has to do with the uncertainty principle, but isn't the fundamentally probabilistic nature of QM a bit dodgy in this case?

>>274550

Think about how causal chains work. If one cause can result in two different effects then either A. another factor comes in to make the cause tend to one over the other, or B. it needs to be able to chose between the two on its own volition without having something else effect it to tend to one over the other. If there are two options, and nothing to make it to tend to one over the other then it must either C. produce both effects( which is impossible if the effects are contradictory), or D, it will produce neither. In C and D there is really only one possible outcome that can come about in either case, they both are instances of things being produced necessarily. Likewise A really can only have one effect as well since it is determined to one particular effect given other extraneous factors. Really A, C and D-( lets call them a set "E") are all cases of necessary causation. and B is a case of contingent causation, B and E exhaust the possible ways that effects can be produced, either necessarily in the cases contained in E, or contingently in B.

These two modes of being, necessity and contingency, constitute an exhaustive disjunction, with no middle term between them- we can apply only one or the other to any being or its function within a specific sense of the disjunction. The distinction is like infinite vs finite, there is no middle ground.

Now mind you, maybe there are cases of indeterminsm, but it is hard to see how we can ground causation around indeterminism. So if we want to support an indeterministic universe, talk of a first cause probably isn't appropriate anyways.

>>270975
who are you calling boys and girls? the nerve!

>>270976
who said this? no seriously, this is the first time i hear this

>>270976
>>273720
>denying the truth

nice going degenerate, go back to reddit with your knowledge of middle school philosophy :^)

>>274525
The property of being 'unchanging' and the ability to 'make choices' are contradictory.
What mechanism can ever allow for a choice if nothing can ever change?

>>275489

He makes the choice in an instant without deliberation. He could have had a different choice other than the one he chose, nothing necessitated him making the choice he did in regards to contingencies about the world.

The moment one chooses they still have the same knowledge that they were deliberating on before. There is nothing contradictory about eliminating the deliberation aspect ( weighing the different options back and forth, hesitating, etc) while keeping choice insofar as we dealing with a being who has no need for deliberation.

Given that God sees all times and causes his whole act in one instant of eternity, he already has everything set out. Humans need to respond with new choices because we have yet to experience everything we will, God experiences everything at once and acts accordingly in his one act- we experience it all in pieces- it is one of our prime limitations in comparison.

>>274525
k well the science is out as to whether the universe has a beginning or is 'ex nihilo'

>>271141
Me and my girlfriend are both atheists and we are planning on having at least three kids

Hate to use anecdotal evidence but most of my atheist friends are planning on having kids, really only the edgelord mcedgys aren't.

Also, blacks and Mexicans, who have tons of kids, tend to be more religious.

Plantinga's modal ontological argument is probably the hardest argument to properly understand and refute for the usual fedora tipping atheist

>>273624
Animals aren't intelligent enough to come up with the idea of an all powerful deity

>>271155
There was actually a time period before the 2nd great awakening when many people were not religious

It goes in cycles

>>275684
We did it

>>274057
Weird that every time someone mentions that most scientists are atheists someone says "b-b-b-but Isaac Newton and Georges Lemaitre!"

>>275581
Different choices requires there to be multiple different potentials to begin with and then to actually realize a choice you must move (change) from one configuration to another.
If you're saying the configuration never can or never has changed, then no choices has ever been made.

>>275697
Obviously we're smarter than the average animal

A cat is going to think "food, predator, friend" its entire life.

A human thinks "I wonder what that is" and having no explanation we try to come up with one, like a chariot in the sky or something

Also, other animals aren't scared of death like humans are, they don't truly understand what it means to die. They don't have a reason to believe in an afterlife.

Do people that believe in the existence of God think that God made this universe with his bare hands?

>>270967
>naturalist fallacies

he destroys himself

>>275713
Still animals though so it refutes your point.

>>275783
Do you know that you're retarded or should I tell you?

>>275713
> they don't truly understand what it means to die. They don't have a reason to believe in an afterlife.
Neither do the majority of people who believe in the after life. In fact martyrs and suicide bombers are proof of this. At least a cat knows dying is bad.

>>275787
Go ahead tell me.

>>275794
You're retarded

>>275795
Did you or did you not say animals cannot do conceive of god?

>>275803
Do you or do you not have a mental deficiency?

>>275805
he is in a religion thread, isn't he?

>>275805
Why so obstinate?

>>275829
Why so many chromosomes?

>>275835
Come on dude you made mistake. don't be childish.
Unless you believe humans are a special 'creation' in which case you are just a retard

>>275704

I don't see any reason to agree with that analysis of choice simpliciter. I agree that that is the way that finite beings like humans chose. We are imperfect, so our contingent actions are bound up with limitations like having our choices being related to change. Still the actual moment of instantiation of a choice is always purely actual- the potency only exists in the deliberation before the choice, not when the choice is actually made. Choice itself has a per se relationship with its moment and only an accidental relationship with the moment preceding it.

God has the act he does, there is no necessity in his act, and it could have been otherwise. This is not in the temporal sense of " I did x now I can do y" but in the sense that X never needed to be God's act in the first place, Y or Z could have been God's eternal act instead of X.

There are two different notions involved. Freedom and choice in divine and human subjects is unified by their contingency but beyond that are diverse notions based on their kind of existences.

>>275863
>God has the act he does, there is no necessity in his act, and it could have been otherwise.
If there's no necessity in gods acts then he's a contingent being.

>>275944

There is no connection there. God having necessary existence ( he could'nt have not existed) is different from God's act being X and it having been possible for the act to be Y instead.

>Also, post Richard Dawkins getting destroyed.

Idk if this has been posted yet but oh well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v34QjYPuiEA

>>276028
If god could have created another type of universe (i.e set of laws) then you've failed to explain anything at all in regards to the 'fine-tuning' of the universe.
You're left with the exact same problem - why this universe and not another?

To explain the supposed contingency of the natural laws you invent a being who has to make contingent choices to select those laws.
What are god's choices contingent upon?
His 'state of mind'?
But then we are back to my original objection - for there to be a contingent relationship between this 'mind' and different outcomes there has to be a plasticity of this 'mind', otherwise it becomes a necessary act.
Temporality is irrelevant, for a choice to be realized there has to be a change where a selection function was written one way or the other.
Reversing the timeflow or even invoking absolute simultaneity does not absolve the fact that something changed.

>>270982
Do you know how big the universe is dumbo?

>>276121

I never said anything about "fine tuning". I don't buy into design arguments- that was someone else.

I explained why the rest of the post is false in my earlier post >>275863 . You are still building temporality into your analysis of choice. There are two senses of necessity here that you have to disambiguate, you are running off of temporal necessity still when you claim that you need to be able to go from one state to another to have a free act and thus a choice. You are looking backwards and ascribing the contingency to a moment before the act.

In the sense of what will be- God's act is set and "necessary"- this is the necessity of the "now"- or as Aquinas would call it "necessity per accidens", just as my typing each key is "necessary" as I type it insofar as it is now unpreventable. But being unpreventable is different from being determined to be. I did not have to type the keys I did, I type them contingently in an absolute sense.

Not only that, but contingency and choice cannot exist on the analysis you are giving. We cannot attribute contingency to something that doesn't exist, so if the contingency only comes in the moment before the act itself, but is necessary simpliciter when it is in act then there can be no ascription of contingency. The contingency must come in the act insofar as it need have not been due to a real property that is inherent in the being at the time of the act. There is on one hand the power of opposites in the will as a first actuality, and a contingent act of will that emerges from the will as a second actuality, which is distinct from it, and does not molest the power for opposites inherent in the first actuality. The same power remains while an act corresponding to one opposite is emergent, all in the single instant of choice.
So while we may talk in counterfactual terms the ability to do so comes from a property existent in God at the single moment of choice.

It is a strange idea, but I do think that it is right.

>>271036
Considering heat death in an order of hundreds of trillions of years. Reevaluate your statement.

File: 1430406822401.png (379KB, 446x600px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 446x600px

>elements combine randomly with no adherence to laws of chemical bonding

Creationists need to repeat middle school.

>>276273
No as I said, temporality is irrelevant, I'm talking about the actualization of the choice function.
For something to be a choice it has two exist two criteria: multiple different potential initial conditions and multiple different potential outcomes.
If we consider the simplest kind of a binary choice then we have two different realities, and if a choice is to be made there has to be a recorded state somewhere which connects one of the initial potentials to the actuality that was chosen, if this state cannot or have not ever changed (be it timeless or not) then you cannot in any logically coherent way say that any choice has ever been made because what would the difference between a necessary or determined path and a contingent, chosen one even be?

A unchanging choice function can only ever evaluate to the same and singular value, namely the steady state it's always in.

>>270972
As much as Spiderman comics are proof that Spiderman exist.

>>275787
>HUMANS R NOT ANIMULS!!! IM SPECIULL!!
T
A
R
D

>>270976
>"The belief in a transcendent being conveys a genetic advantage: that couples who follow one of the three religions of the Book and maintain patriarchal values have more children than atheists or agnostics
Nigga never heard of Asia.
Also
>muh Abrahamic religions

>>270967
He literally created memes. Show a bit of respect.

>>274010
kek, this.

The Big Bang was originally formulated by a Catholic priest desu.

>>274256

Yes, and that same Catholic made it very clear that it had no theological significance whatsoever. He famously disagreed with Pope Pius on it

>>278461
goes for >>278446 as well

>>278461
>>278463
The Big Bang theory doesn't proves God's existence, but it supports God's existence better than the eternal steady state universe theory.

File: lemaitre pius.png (18KB, 1062x119px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 1062x119px

>>278476
>but it supports God's existence

Right, this is exactly the type of stuff Lemaitre opposed. See, he knew that dimwits like you would one day use his work to evangelize, that's the very reason why he resented the statement by Pope Pius.

I'm glad you're proving him completely right once more

>>278490
The eternal steady state universe theory makes several of Aquinas's arguments for existence irrelevant.

The Big Bang does not.

>>278498

Did you read the image I just posted? Lemaitre himself, a Catholic priest no less, said that the Big Bang doesn't support or refute anything about God.

Science and theology are completely separate. Your post makes no sense whatsoever, and Lemaitre already accounted for dumb /pol/ Catholic types like you. Like I said, you're just proving him right once more

>>278509
I'm just saying if the big bang theory is true, God's existence is more likely, than if the other theory is true.

Is that wrong?

Also, I'm not sure if theology and science are completely separate.

>>278523
>Also, I'm not sure if theology and science are completely separate.

In that case you'd be completely disagreeing with Lemaitre, which makes you pimping him as your Verifier of the Faith all the more ironic

>>278536
>you can't agree with only some of the things someone has said

>>278542

So I as an atheist can respect Lemaitre as a scientist without agreeing with his assessment of the supernatural?

File: meme philosopher.jpg (10KB, 200x237px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 200x237px

Help me out here guys, fill in the blanks:

God is a _____

>>270969
How do you know it's not older than the big bang?

>>270969
If it's really a repeating cycle, then that has no meaning.

If our big bang is the first one, forming a few planets with life isn't that special given the size and time.

>>270976
The laws of Jesus Christ are built into our western societies as law anyways from thousands of years of influence so there isn't a real point in believing.

Sure you can have faith but either way you are following Christianity which was the basis for the rebuild of society after the Germans took everything.

>>278589
Is there anything Stirner can't do?

>>270971
You could just admit that you're afraid of this dialogue or do nothing instead of acting like a colossal faggot.

>>276708

> I'm talking about the actualization of the choice function.

I explained how you don't need change to account for this though. You have a power for opposites as a first actuality in the same moment that one actuality is manifested rather than the other as a second actuality apart from the first one. So you have the possibilities and the selection of one over the other all accounted for in a singular instant.

You are thinking that the power for X and the manifestation of x have to be one thing in two different modes, like going down a path that is already there. I'm saying that the power for X and not X is itself a power distinct from the act that happens to correspond to either act.

>For something to be a choice it has two exist two criteria: multiple different potential initial conditions and multiple different potential outcomes.

Both are covered by the metaphysical structure I explained. They just actualize in an instant rather than across distinct moments of time.

>then you cannot in any logically coherent way say that any choice has ever been made because what would the difference between a necessary or determined path and a contingent, chosen one even be?

I explained this in my pot already, according to a temporal mode of necessity the act is necessary, according to power and possibility it is contingent.>>276273

You are still working with temporality if you want to involve change. Time is just a measurement of change. Any change will go from one state in one moment to another state in another,or else one thing could be X and -X in the same moment. Likewise the fact that we have one temporal moment to another necessitates that there is a change from one moment to the other. The existence of time presupposes the existence of change and vice versa. By invoking change you must still be operating on a notion of temporal modality instead of a powers based one. If one gets the distinction clear then choice at instant becomes intelligible.