Simple Case for God
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
"you also have no moral absolutes, any thing goes"
"spilling your poison to vulnerable kids"
This would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. Your church and everyone in it is responsible for countless crimes against vulnerable kids. I have very strict moral absolutes that don't depend on fairy stories. It always amazes me how someone in an organization as famously corrupt and toxic as the catholic church can claim a monopoly on morality.
Why is the choice 'by chance" or "from nothing" vs. god? We know everything we see around us happens according to natural laws, why not the beginning of the universe? Why not life?
Also , I think it is good to get information from experts in their chosen fields. Biologists are good to get knowledge about life from. Astrophysicists / cosmologists knowledge about the universe. Lee Strobel is a lawyer and we know what they are good at. He is not a scientist.
This is an old argument based on the five proofs of St. Thomas Aquinas and pimped up by William Lane Craig. It has been debated for a long time and it is nothing more than wishful thinking, if you ask me.
But, for arguments sake, lets assume that it is correct:
It is an argument for a minimalistic version of a deistic type of god. A creator that initiated the Universe, nothing more.
It's not an argument for a personal god, a god who answers prayers, a god who creates miracles, a god who wants to be worshipped or a god who guides events in the Universe. It doesn't even argue for a god that initiated life or is guiding evolution.
Your profile doesn't show any religious adherence, only that you are not an atheist.
May I ask, do you adhere to any religion (and denomination)? Are you a deist?
I'm Christian. This is my source (https://gotquestions.org/argument-existence-God.html) and the source of this text:
• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (exceedingly).
• He must be eternal (self-existent).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).
This is assuming you've already ruled out other possibilities of existence, which I have and was the body of my original post. This gives the case for a God that fits the biblical one. As for the impersonal creating personality, I'm supposing there's a scientific explanation for that (basically, a material, natural universe creating beings full of purpose and personality, 'an effect must resemble its cause.')
You should probably read these before you copy/paste them: this one is patently false.
I suppose that's true. I still hold to the other points, and believe in a single God, for personal reasons as well.
My friend, how can this be false? Let's look at it your way.
Hypothetically we have two infinite Gods, yes? They are both all powerful, eternal, all knowing. How are we to distinguish between them? By giving one a trait the other does not have. However, when we do this, we introduce a limit to the other God, who then ceases to be all powerful. See the problem?
Let's say we don't distinguish them. Then... They are just one, due to law of identity.
Therefore, this eternal being must be singular and infinite.
There is no requirement that we be able to distinguish between them.
Because the law of identity is known to not be universal; I would be wary of any conclusions drawn from it about hypothetical deities. That being said: this paragraph of yours was the most interesting thing I've seen posted on AR by a theist in a long time.
/e On a sillier note: your argument seems to imply that god can't make a copy of himself; which as you said: introduces a limit to the god, who then ceases to be all powerful. Isn't it interesting that postulating an all powerful deity always seems to lead to contradictions?
What do you mean there is no need to distinguish between them? How else would you be able to determine the number of beings?
I also didn't realize it wasn't universal...could you explain to me why?
And yeah, I think theorizing all kinds of different hypothetical situations will always produce contradictions if we are speaking with ambiguous terms, or just for the sake of argument. Like for example, why would God require a copy of himself?
Thanks for debating with me! I'm always excited to learn different viewpoints and challenge my own
I never said god would require a copy of himself.
Your argument seemed to imply that god couldn't copy himself. Yet earlier in your argument you seemed to imply that we can't put limits on god's power. As I said: it was a silly observation; basically just a different incarnation of the old "can god make a stone he can't lift" question.
Because there are well known exceptions: perfectly identical objects that exist in the real world. I gave you a link to an article about this.
And He must be a he? :-/
If you take a moment to objectively and honestly look at that list, you will find a number of impossibilities, contradictions, fallacies, and assumptions.
Would employing logic and scepticism to do this examination be allowed by you god?
Yes, and you guys are really giving me something to think about out. I gave you my argument and you're poking holes. Some I can't find the words to answer, and some I can't at all. He is a He because the bible, which most fits the description of what God must be like, says He is a He.
Rhetorical question for you to think about: What if your god turned out to be a she? How would that effect your world view?
I don't think God really has a gender anyways. He's outside of space and time, and immaterial. If He was referred to as She, He would still be the same; He's unchanging. I don't know the reason He is called He. As for me, if He somehow had a gender and was female, or was referred to as She, I'd know He hasn't changed.
Well, why don't you try a little experiment then. Refer to your god as she for one month. Review how people react to it. Think about your own comfort level while doing it. Report back with your findings. Be honest.
Its not that God can be referred to as either, its that He chose to be revealed as male. I can tell you I'd feel uncomfortable and others I talk about Him to would be confused.
As for why your God is referred to as a "he," it is most likely because women were seen as inferior to men back in early A.D. Times, especially in the areas the New Testament took place. The religion probably wouldn't have become as popular if they referred to their god as a she. It's just a conjecture, but I don't see any it couldn't apply.
It is interesting to note that the Old Testament Yahweh probably had a consort, namely Astarte. Her statue was actually in the Israelite temple for a time. I guess that makes Yahweh a "he."
Can you maybe point out some of the alleged impossibilities, contradictions, and fallacies? Sometimes it really helps to be specific :)
Is your faith as Christian based on these assumptions?
Not alone, no, just something I thought was a good point for what I believe when I'm questioned (in terms of science) and I brought it here to be determined. Its been a years journey for me learning about God. I didn't read an argument for God and turn, it was personal.
I don't know what you mean by "in terms of science" with regards to what you have posted. Just seems to be a list of (wishy-washy) axioms.
I mean at least broader than trying to explain how God has reached me.
Still, you have to FIRST prove a god, not just assume it. No one has done that in the entire history of the world.
If a god is necessary why just one? Why not a pantheon? If it is possible that one being is eternal and unmade then it is possible for others also.
"Additionally, a non-sentient and impersonal universe could not create such personal beings as humans."
Upon what facts do you base this?
Science has proven that something CAN come from nothing. You obviously missed the bus on that little tidbit. Steven hawking proved it long ago and other scientists independently proved he was correct.Secondly, you can't just take a huge leap and make an illogical conclusion that there is a creator. You have to prove the creator and connect that to the creation.
Your OP proves that you lack critical thing skills, that you WANT there to be a creator. So you just make a huge fanciful leap of faith.
Prove your god. The onus is on YOU. Don't make giant leaps and make illogical unsubstantiated conclusions.
If I were to prosecute YOU, you wouldn't want me to make a huge unsubstantiated leap of faith about your guilt. You would demand proof.
I'm not familiar with all the scientific theories on the universe, mostly because they're just that, theories. With famous scientists such as Hawking and others 'proving' them, I can see how they sound reasonable. The points I made are based upon what's already evident, that things exists and existence raises the question of why. As far as all recorded history is concerned, something cannot come from nothing. That leads me to believe something must have always existed, and since the universe had a beginning, that leaves only a supernatural force to have created everything, and God fits the description according to what He created. I'm now aware of the Crunch theory, but again, I'd like to believe what's evident. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the theory of 'something from nothing,' but if its true, it doesn't explain the other half of the argument, what was created. Where did morals, personality, and the search for meaning come from inside us? I'd like to know if there's a scientific explanation for that.
Just a notice:
The word "theory" in common use and in scientific use is very big, and leads to a lot of confusion.
I wrote a thread about it to understand the terms myself and to try to get an understandable explanation, here:
In terms like "the theory of evolution" or "the Big Bang theory", it means the scientific use of the word theory.
@Machoke. Something can come from nothing is NOT a theory. It is a proven fact. Look it up.
Your statement " God fits the description according to what He created." Makes no sense. It's like bad cops that arrest random black people citing the excuse "they fit the description." No prove, no god. Plain and simple.