Dear Atheists/Non-Believers

[Drew1411]

@pat

Where is the flaw?

Do you want me to quote your same article? You literally copy and pasted the section 4.1, but can’t continue to 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 which all discuss the objections…

For many critics, premise 5 (along with premise 2) holds the key to the argument’s success or failure.

here are the links to your article discussing the objections:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#Obje1UnivJust

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#Obje2ExplIndiConsSuff

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#Obje3PrinCausSuffReasSusp

Critics of the cosmological argument contend that the Causal Principle or, where applicable, the broader Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) that underlies versions of the argument, is suspect. As Hume argued, there is no reason for thinking that the Causal Principle is true a priori, for we can conceive of events occurring without conceiving of their being caused, and what is conceivable is possible in reality (1748: IV). Neither can an argument for the application of the Causal Principle to the universe be drawn from inductive experience. Even if the Causal Principle applies to events in the world, we cannot extrapolate from the way the world works to the world as a whole (Mackie 1982: 85).

we have no right to assume that the universe complies with our intellectual preferences for causal order. We can simply work with brute facts. Perhaps so, but without such principles, science itself would be undercut.

This is the point SMH beat you up on. The causal premise. You could not defend his objection.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#Obje4ProbConcNeceBein

Kant indicates that what he has in mind by an “absolutely necessary being” is a being whose existence is logically necessary, where to deny its existence is contradictory. The only being that meets this condition is the most real or maximally excellent being—a being with all perfections, including existence. This concept lies at the heart of the ontological argument (see entry on ontological arguments). Although in the ontological argument the perfect being is determined to exist through its own concept, in fact nothing can be determined to exist in this manner; one has to begin with existence. In short, the cosmological argument presupposes the cogency of the ontological argument. But since the ontological argument is defective for the above (and other) reason, the cosmological argument that depends on or invokes it likewise must be defective (Critique B634).

@pat

What’s the counter?

In your article. Did you not read them or did you just choose to ignore them?

@pat

I am encouraging people to put down their bias’s and research it for themselves, with facts and the real arguments that have been put forth throughout history, as well as their counters and see if they measure up. Don’t take my word for it. I am not asking anybody to do that.

As I said previously, this is exactly what I’m doing, and nothing has the conclusion that you have. I can’t find it anywhere. I can find arguments, but NOTHING says the existence of god is proven without strong objections on the premises. The counters measure up. You could easily say that you do not believe they don’t measure up, sure, you are entitled to your opinion. But there are clearly counters, and there is no “proven” existence, there are only strong arguments (which SMH said initially in the thread where he dominated you)

[tmgood]

If you take an history class, you will know that any war before the 1600s had a religious backing more so than anything else. Maybe they wanted spices or silks or anything else but it’s mostly to stop the spread of other religion. If that is too much of a stretch then lets take it back some more.

From 1096 - 1272 were the Crusades, literally a war soley based on religion. All the wars before 1 BC, people went to war because their Gods told them it was the right thing to do. Using your article, timeline of war from 1 - 999 AD, is just a bunch of Romans running around causing havoc. You know why? Because their new founded Christianity, in their minds, was far superior than every other religion so they wanted the world to know that.

My history falls short from 1300 - about 1600 when it comes to war. But on slightly different note, this was the end half of the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages is a period in which Science was at a hault due to the Church hunting all who went against it, and they believed that Science harmed the Church. The end of the Dark Ages was brought about by the rise of the universities, Oxford and Cambridge. The curriculum for these schools when they first came out were mainly Religion (Christianity) and Philosophy. Science was allowed in these schools but it was only used as a ‘handmaiden to religion’ which means Science could only be used to help the religious agenda. With the rise of the Ottoman empire, I will admit, my argument does fall flat. around 1650 - 1700 the Western Church was at it’s all time weakest. Slowly regaining it’s strength.

However, in the 1900s things to start to pick up again. Yes this was more politics than early but it’s hard to deny the religious subtext behind this. Obviously, the big example being WWII. It is kind of hard to deny that this war was not based on any sort of religious backing. And even in today’s world, with ISIS trying to stop radical Islamist, yet another religious group. I know arguments can be made that religion didn’t necessarily CAUSE these wars 100% directly but it’s clear to see that religion is the backing for almost all wars in history.

[EyeDentist]

A very different approach to the issue of the existence of God, and to the sorts of arguments promulgated by @pat …From John A.T. Robinson’s book Honest to God (Chapter 2):

Must Christianity Be ‘Supranaturalist’?

Traditional Christian theology has been based upon the proofs for the existence of God. The presupposition of these proofs, psychologically if not logically, is that God might or might not exist. They argue from something which everyone admits exists (the world) to a Being beyond it who could or could not be there. The purpose of the argument is to show that he must be there, that his being is ‘necessary’; but the presupposition behind it is that there is an entity or being ‘out there’ whose existence is problematic and has to be demonstrated. Now such an entity, even if it could be proved beyond dispute, would not be God: it would merely be a further piece of existence, that might conceivably not have been there–or a demonstration would not have been required.
[…]
The traditional formulation of Christianity, [existential theologian Paul Tillich] says, has been in terms of what he call ‘supranaturalism.’ According to this way of thinking, which is what we have all been brought up to, God is posited as ‘the highest Being’–out there, above and beyond this world, existing in his own right alongside and over against his creation. As Tillich put it, he is

“a being beside others and as such part of the whole of reality. He certainly is considered its most important part, but as a part and therefore as subjected to the structure of the whole…He is seen as a self which has a world, as an ego which is related to a thou, as a cause which is separated from its effect, as having a definite space and an endless time. He is a being, not Being-itself.”

The caricature of this way of thinking is the Deist conception of God’s relation to the world. Here God is the supreme Being, the grand Architect, who exists somewhere out beyond the world–like a rich aunt in Australia–who started it all going, periodically intervenes in its running, and generally gives evidence of his benevolent interest in it.
[this next part is slightly out of order in order to improve the flow of the excerpt]
Rather, we must start the other way around. God is, by definition, ultimate reality. And one cannot argue whether ultimate reality exists. One can only ask what ultimate reality is like–whether, for instance, in the last analysis what lies at the heart of things and governs their working is to be described in personal or impersonal categories. Thus, the fundamental theological question consists not in establishing the ‘existence’ of God as a separate entity but in pressing through in ultimate concern to what Tillich call ‘the ground of our being.’

[Der_Steppenwolfe]

That’s interesting. Could it possibly provide a road into christian philosophy (after all Jesus by all accounts was a really nice guy) for those of us who aren’t convinced of the existence of a supernatural deity?

[EyeDentist]

It could indeed. In the same book, Robinson draws upon the work of the courageous German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer (hanged by the Nazis), who wrote his seminal work while languishing in a Nazi prison. Bonhoeffer argued for “Christianity without religion,” and that Christians are called “to live grown-up without the props of religious dependency and as though God did not exist; we bear responsibility for our own thoughts and actions” (quoting someone describing Bonhoeffer’s work). Per Robinson, discussing Bonhoeffer:

“Jesus is ‘the man for others,’ the one in whom Love has completely taken over, the one who is utterly open to, and united with, the Ground of his being. And this ‘life for others, through participation in the Being of God,’ is transcendence.”

(Note: ‘The Ground of our being’ is Tillich’s conception of God as not being the cause of existence, but rather as being existence itself.)

[zeb1]

@Der_Steppenwolfe

after all Jesus by all accounts was a really nice guy

I bet the Pharisees and the Scribes did not think he was a “nice guy”. He was truthful.

Matthew 23:13
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.”

Mark 12:38-40. “Beware of the scribes, who like to go about in long robes, and to have salutations in the market places and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honour at feasts, who devour widows’ houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.”

He did not come to bring peace, but the truth

Matthew 10:34
“Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

Luke 12:51 “Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.”

[treco]

@EyeDentist

Traditional Christian theology has been based upon the proofs for the existence of God. The presupposition of these proofs, psychologically if not logically, is that God might or might not exist.

I don’t follow this.
Christian theology is based on whether God may or may not exist?

[EyeDentist]

@treco

Christian theology is based on whether God may or may not exist?

I think he means that proofs concerning the existence of God presuppose that God might not exist.

[planetcybertron]

I wish to chime in, but I’m afraid of being ridiculed. So I’ll just pass.

[H_factor]

12-year-old rape victim told to 'turn the other cheek' as Christian school...

Catholic Church and Christian schools vying for the number one ranked place to be if you want your kid sexually abused.

God’s plan though.

[mohommad]

Atheists should be thrown down a well IMO. Scum of the earth.

[antiquity]

@mohommad

Atheists should be thrown down a well IMO. Scum of the earth.

What a loving, kind point of view. Please share the religion you follow that led you to have this sentiment, so I can be sure to stay as far away as possible.

[pfury]

@mohommad

Atheists should be thrown down a well IMO. Scum of the earth.

How many Raj’s does this make you guys?

[SkyzykS]

I think its like six at this point.

[magnumd]

As an atheist I can tell you that there are too many of us and you would just be wasting your time. Not enough wells. But hey, give it a shot and see how successful you will be.

[mohommad]

@antiquity

What a loving, kind point of view. Please share the religion you follow that led you to have this sentiment, so I can be sure to stay as far away as possible.

I’m an agnostic.

[antiquity]

@mohommad

What a loving, kind point of view. Please share the religion you follow that led you to have this sentiment, so I can be sure to stay as far away as possible.

I’m an agnostic.

Nicely played.

[pat]

By way of the arguments given through out history, and their subsequent unsuccessful rebuttals I am saying there is a factual basis for God’s existence based on the deductive philosophical arguments presented and unrefuted.

We humans determine, traditionally, that a proven fact is merely a fact that everyone accepts as true. I am not saying everybody accepts it. I am saying the predicates on which the arguments depend on are sound. There are two basic predicates, existence and causation, that lead to a conclusion of an Uncaused-cause, Unmoved-mover, Necessary Being. The arguments are really a form, the argument can start from any where, by divulging why a pencil exists, or as complex as what is a person who regularly rapes and murders children as an initial source.
I am not claiming these are accepted facts by everybody. What people accept as fact and what is in reality fact can be very different many times. As we have seen such things in operation through out history.

As I continued the study of these arguments and the counter arguments, I found not only have they not been refuted, but the premises on which they lie and the conclusion they are are irrefutable. That is the source of my certainty. That doesn’t mean certainty is a consensus.

In fact, there is very little consensus here, apparently. And I have stated many times, I am not asking people to believe me, I’d rather they do not, do their own research. Real research, not shout in to an echo chamber or attempt to confirm their own biases, but in as much as a person can, put it all aside and look at the evidence. Look at the philosophy, look at history, even look at theology as factually as possible and then draw one’s own conclusion. Certainly, requesting people to look at fact and really dig into what they believe and why they believe it is not an unreasonable request.

Most of the stuff I have heard here are filled is ad hoc falsehoods and sloganeering. I am saying let’s move past that. In that I have drawn my own conclusions because I did to the research and I did, in as much as I could, put aside my own biases, I say everybody should do that. Those, at least who are truly interested in the “God question”.

Interestingly the person who moved me from a “More probable than not” to a certainty position was a famous formally atheist philosopher named Anthony Flew. His defenses above all, pushed me in to the certainty category.

[pat]

I never said everybody agrees with me. They lie, more than likely, in the “more probable, than not” category. I didn’t say everybody agrees with me. I didn’t claim to have consensus. It’s up to each and every person to examine and study on there own to draw there own conclusions.

I never told anybody here, “Trust me, it’s a fact”. My message is do the work and do the research in as much as can be done, putting aside one’s own biases. That’s my message, not “Trust me, I know I am right.”

[H_factor]

It seems as if most (like me) took issue with the existence of God has been proven which you said. But yes I would expect you to feel far more strongly than me an agnostic.

That said unless you are offering new and unique arguments than the SMH thread then I would say they have been refuted. Best as I remember every believer theory taken to him was shot down soundly.

The existence of god has not been proven. If it had I would be a believer