Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    You don't have an ounce of evidence for this, it is special pleading. If the complexity of the creator doesn't require a cause, then you cannot make the argument that the universe's does.
    The Universe does require a cause, because the universe is contingent (reliant on other things), whereas for God to be God, God has to be necessary. Therefore, the universe and God are completely different in nature i.e. God has to exist in reality otherwise there would always be a greater being that existed that caused the universe to exist.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    My religion is science. Who is the God of science? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ella_08)
    The Universe does require a cause, because the universe is contingent (reliant on other things), whereas for God to be God, God has to be necessary. Therefore, the universe and God are completely different in nature i.e. God has to exist in reality otherwise there would always be a greater being that existed that caused the universe to exist.
    The claim that the universe is dependent on other things is just that, a claim. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that the universe must require a cause.

    As to your comments on God, they are just baseless assertions, equally devoid of evidence. Substituting “God” for “omnipotent, magical rabbit” highlights the absurdity of your position.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    you can't just make the world be a certain way because that's how you want it to be, and you can't just say something is true because you don't like the people who support the opposite side of the argument. if you want spirituality there is poetry, literature, art, music, philosophy, nature and the whole world and cosmos itself. I know atheists can be so arrogant and unflinching in their opinions, which doesn't even make sense - how can anyone know anything for sure? atheism too closely mirrors deism in their absolute certainty for my liking. a more intelligent way to be is an agnostic who doesn't think there is a religious god but then again can't say anything for sure. please don't go to the dark side because of some militiant atheists.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    The claim that the universe is dependent on other things is just that, a claim. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that the universe must require a cause.

    As to your comments on God, they are just baseless assertions, equally devoid of evidence. Substituting “God” for “omnipotent, magical rabbit” highlights the absurdity of your position.
    That's the thing though, you don't need empirical evidence to prove that God exists. A priori reasoning, as opposed to a posteriori reasoning, is much stronger because arguments for the existence of God using empirical evidence, such as the teleological argument, can be criticised via scientific discoveries, making them weak.
    I don't actually have a religion, I'm just knowledgeable when it comes to philosophy. So then, if God doesn't exist, how would you explain the cause of the Universe out of interest?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ella_08)
    That's the thing though, you don't need empirical evidence to prove that God exists. A priori reasoning, as opposed to a posteriori reasoning, is much stronger because arguments for the existence of God using empirical evidence, such as the teleological argument, can be criticised via scientific discoveries, making them weak.
    I don't actually have a religion, I'm just knowledgeable when it comes to philosophy. So then, if God doesn't exist, how would you explain the cause of the Universe out of interest?
    Of course you need empirical evidence to prove God exists! You can't just define God into existence using philosophical arguments, they are, by definition, not physical proofs of anything.

    The universe expanded from a singularity. What caused it is currently unknown, but a cause need not be intelligent and magical. Better to wait until evidence is provided rather than making up explanations that are not based on data.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Of course you need empirical evidence to prove God exists! You can't just define God into existence using philosophical arguments, they are, by definition, not physical proofs of anything.

    The universe expanded from a singularity. What caused it is currently unknown, but a cause need not be intelligent and magical. Better to wait until evidence is provided rather than making up explanations that are not based on data.
    It has been proven that you don't though and Anselm's argument has not been successfully defeated until this day. So just saying 'you need empirical evidence' doesn't disprove a priori reasoning.
    But it's an interesting debate, great practice for my Rs exam in 3 months haha! I guess everyone is bound to have different viewpoints, if you prefer evidence then good for you but I personally love the ontological argument and its creativity
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by petalsunrise)
    you can't just make the world be a certain way because that's how you want it to be, and you can't just say something is true because you don't like the people who support the opposite side of the argument. if you want spirituality there is poetry, literature, art, music, philosophy, nature and the whole world and cosmos itself. I know atheists can be so arrogant and unflinching in their opinions, which doesn't even make sense - how can anyone know anything for sure? atheism too closely mirrors deism in their absolute certainty for my liking. a more intelligent way to be is an agnostic who doesn't think there is a religious god but then again can't say anything for sure. please don't go to the dark side because of some militiant atheists.
    Everyone is agnostic really because it is impossible to know for certain. I am as certain as possible that God doesn't exist and and people who oppose religion do so to show the irrationality behind those beliefs. I prefer to see evidence before believing in something and there is nothing compelling for a God.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ella_08)
    It has been proven that you don't though and Anselm's argument has not been successfully defeated until this day. So just saying 'you need empirical evidence' doesn't disprove a priori reasoning.
    But it's an interesting debate, great practice for my Rs exam in 3 months haha! I guess everyone is bound to have different viewpoints, if you prefer evidence then good for you but I personally love the ontological argument and its creativity
    No, Anselm's Argument does not prove God exists, it is just semantics and "word magic". Anselm didn't show why a being of which none greater can be conceived must exist in reality if it can be conceived of in the mind.

    Gaunilo of Marmoutiers presented a major objection to Anselm's, namely that theists cannot actually conceive of God in the first place, at least not fully, causing the argument to collapse.

    A further flaw in the argument is the devil corollary response, which destroys the very foundations of Anselm's arguments, rendering it null and void. Anselm's argument is just word play, it doesn't actually physically prove God exists.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ella_08)
    That's the thing though, you don't need empirical evidence to prove that God exists. A priori reasoning, as opposed to a posteriori reasoning, is much stronger because arguments for the existence of God using empirical evidence, such as the teleological argument, can be criticised via scientific discoveries, making them weak.
    I don't actually have a religion, I'm just knowledgeable when it comes to philosophy. So then, if God doesn't exist, how would you explain the cause of the Universe out of interest?
    We don't yet know the cause of the universe, but as so many people say;
    "Just because we don't yet know something, doesn't mean you can just fill in the gaps with no evidence."
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    No, Anselm's Argument does not prove God exists, it is just semantics and "word magic". Anselm didn't show why a being of which none greater can be conceived must exist in reality if it can be conceived of in the mind.

    Gaunilo of Marmoutiers presented a major objection to Anselm's, namely that theists cannot actually conceive of God in the first place, at least not fully, causing the argument to collapse.

    A further flaw in the argument is the devil corollary response, which destroys the very foundations of Anselm's arguments, rendering it null and void. Anselm's argument is just word play, it doesn't actually physically prove God exists.
    Just because we have not witnessed God, i.e. via religious experience, does not cause Anselm's argument to collapse, since the argument is deductive.

    Gaunilo's objections were completely invalid; his analogy of a perfect island ultimately fails since an island is subjective in nature, and more importantly, God can't be compared to a contingent object [the island], since the respective natures fundamentally differ. Plantigua provided a good response to Guanilo, too, arguing that an island is different to God because it has no "intrinsic maximum". Descartes also argues that since in our mind we can think of a Perfect Being - God - yet we are contingent, proves that the idea must have originated from a necessary being.

    Empirical evidence is therefore limited in comparison to the effectiveness of reasoning and logic
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bio 7)
    We don't yet know the cause of the universe, but as so many people say;
    "Just because we don't yet know something, doesn't mean you can just fill in the gaps with no evidence."
    I suppose that's a challenge from agnostics, it's not a bad claim, although I still don't think this disproves the ontological argument. It's hard to understand the effectiveness of the ontological argument when you haven't learnt about it before though because it's pretty complex!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ella_08)
    Just because we have not witnessed God, i.e. via religious experience, does not cause Anselm's argument to collapse, since the argument is deductive.
    And a deductive argument doesn’t physically prove the existence of a deity. Once again, you can’t define God into existence by using fancy words.

    Gaunilo's objections were completely invalid; his analogy of a perfect island ultimately fails since an island is subjective in nature, and more importantly, God can't be compared to a contingent object [the island], since the respective natures fundamentally differ. Plantigua provided a good response to Guanilo, too, arguing that an island is different to God because it has no "intrinsic maximum". Descartes also argues that since in our mind we can think of a Perfect Being - God - yet we are contingent, proves that the idea must have originated from a necessary being.

    Empirical evidence is therefore limited in comparison to the effectiveness of reasoning and logic
    I wasn’t talking about the example of the perfect island, I was talking about Gaulino’s comment that God cannot be conceived of in the first place, rendering the argument void.

    Further, I do not accept the criticisms of the island example. Their difference in natures is irrelevant, if the premise is that a maximally great thing can be imagined then it must exist in reality, this logic has to be extended to all things that can be imagined. Saying it only applies to God, without giving any real reason other than “because it’s God”, is special pleading, as you should well know. After all, being maximally great is not a characteristic that is intrinsic or exclusive to deity.

    Why does an island have no intrinsic maximum? Philosophically speaking, a perfect island would be, by definition, perfect and therefore the maximum achievable by any island. I’d also like to hear your thoughts on why you think an island can’t have an intrinsic maximum but God can? Would you mind explaining why this is without using the contingency argument which is actually irrelevant to whether something can be the most maximally great thing of its class.

    You still have not explained why an imagined being of which greater cannot be conceived must exist in reality. That is just a leap that is not supported by evidence and therefore no reason to accept it as true. Just because something may be internally consistent in formal logic does not necessarily mean it has to be true in reality. Anything that exists in reality must necessarily be proven to exist via physical means, i.e. evidence.

    Ignoring the contention that you cannot actually conceive of a perfect being, how on Earth would being able to do so prove it must have come from said being? That is a total non-sequitur.

    Not so, empirical evidence actually proves things exist, abstract philosophical arguments don’t in all cases.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    And a deductive argument doesn’t physically prove the existence of a deity. Once again, you can’t define God into existence by using fancy words.



    I wasn’t talking about the example of the perfect island, I was talking about Gaulino’s comment that God cannot be conceived of in the first place, rendering the argument void.

    You still have not explained why an imagined being of which greater cannot be conceived must exist in reality. That is just a leap that is not supported by evidence and therefore no reason to accept it as true. Just because something may be consistent in formal logic does not necessarily mean in reality. Anything that exists in reality must necessarily be proven to exist via physical means, i.e. evidence.

    Ignoring the contention that e cannot actually conceive of a perfect being, how on Earth would being able to do so prove it must have come from said being? That is a total non-sequitur.

    Not so, empirical evidence actually proves things exist, abstract philosophical arguments don’t in all cases.
    1) You're just repeating the same point here and not really adding anything new; you're insisting that God needs to be proved. The only reason why Guanilo argued that God can't be conceived of is because he is an empiricist, i.e. you need evidence. BUT Anselm proves you don't need physical proof.

    2) In fact, it does prove it does exist in reality because since we can think of God in our minds, then therefore God must exist in reality because it is greater to exist in reality and the mind, than just the mind. And because the concept of God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, God must exist in reality because there is a contradiction in the greatest possible being not existing in reality.

    You disagree with the ontological argument, I agree with it. Case closed

    I better get back to my history revision
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ella_08)
    1) You're just repeating the same point here and not really adding anything new; you're insisting that God needs to be proved. The only reason why Guanilo argued that God can't be conceived of is because he is an empiricist, i.e. you need evidence. BUT Anselm proves you don't need physical proof.
    If you carry on making the same unsupported assertions I am obliged to keep showing you that Anselm’s argument, as well as being fatally flawed, does not by any stretch of the imagination prove God exists.

    You didn’t actually deal with Gaulino’s objections at all.

    2) In fact, it does prove it does exist in reality because since we can think of God in our minds, then therefore God must exist in reality because it is greater to exist in reality and the mind, than just the mind. And because the concept of God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, God must exist in reality because there is a contradiction in the greatest possible being not existing in reality.
    But that is not it proof! It is just a claim that the greatest thing that can be imagined must exist in reality. You haven’t actually shown why and how this is, merely asserted that it is so.

    And you have yet again yet again ignored the contention that God cannot actually be imagined. Nor have you addressed the devil corollary argument.

    You disagree with the ontological argument, I agree with it. Case closed

    I better get back to my history revision
    You can agree with it all you like, doesn’t change the fact you have been unable to show why this actually proves God exists. Look over my previous post as I made some edits to it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ella_08)
    1) You're just repeating the same point here and not really adding anything new; you're insisting that God needs to be proved. The only reason why Guanilo argued that God can't be conceived of is because he is an empiricist, i.e. you need evidence. BUT Anselm proves you don't need physical proof.

    2) In fact, it does prove it does exist in reality because since we can think of God in our minds, then therefore God must exist in reality because it is greater to exist in reality and the mind, than just the mind. And because the concept of God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, God must exist in reality because there is a contradiction in the greatest possible being not existing in reality.

    You disagree with the ontological argument, I agree with it. Case closed

    I better get back to my history revision
    \

    Even if any of these arguments had any merit and they proved the existence of god you would still need to confirm its the christian/Islamic/Jewish god. And that my friend is a leap of logic too far.If god must exist then how do you go from that to saying that he has a son called Jesus or that he reveals himself to warlords in the middle east.Its one thing to say that a creator god exists somewhere its quite another to say that he requires our constant worship and that if we eat his flesh we'll have eternal life.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    You don't have an ounce of evidence for this, it is special pleading. If the complexity of the creator doesn't require a cause, then you cannot make the argument that the universe's does.
    I never claimed to have any evidence. But, nonetheless you haven't refuted my point. So, it still stands. It's hard to say because we don't know what laws the creator is bound by. You again make a lot of assumptions about the creator having certain limitations, when I have already pointed out that this need not be the case if the creator is not bound by the laws that govern our universe.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Golden State)
    I never claimed to have any evidence. But, nonetheless you haven't refuted my point. So, it still stands. It's hard to say because we don't know what laws the creator is bound by. You again make a lot of assumptions about the creator having certain limitations, when I have already pointed out that this need not be the case if the creator is not bound by the laws that govern our universe.
    Your point doesn't stand because you made no point to refute. You just made a baseless assertion which can be dismissed without evidence. Further, existing outside of space and time (whatever that even means) is irrelevant to the argument that complexity does or doesn't require a creator.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ella_08)
    The Universe does require a cause, because the universe is contingent (reliant on other things), whereas for God to be God, God has to be necessary. Therefore, the universe and God are completely different in nature i.e. God has to exist in reality otherwise there would always be a greater being that existed that caused the universe to exist.
    It's down to definitions. If you say that the universe is all that exists, then even if 'God' or other deities with apparently magical powers that looked to humans like gods do exist, they would by definition be part of that universe. This might lead us to the paradoxical thought that the Creator of the Universe is nonetheless part of her own creation.

    However, it seems more plausible and logical to assume that if the universe is all there is, it has always been so and always will be and therefore does not require a creator. The idea that it does appears to be embedded in the human perspective of passing time, birth and death, etc. The universe exists on wholly different levels.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nathan Scott)
    Interesting, I think it's great how much of a positive impact theism brings into the world and to individuals (not necessarily religion); if only everyone knew this
    Yes, definitely. It's had a great positive impact on my life. I think religion has a great role to play in shaping society and our understanding of the human condition.
 
 
 
Poll
Favourite type of bread
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.