Logic and Christianity
lovejoydavid
Posts: 395 Member
I promised, well, no one that I would make this thread, and in fact, promised that if I did, it would be boring. However, numerous statements regarding the inherent illogic of Christianity seem worth addressing.
First, some questions. Who believes that Christians are illogical, and why? What logic is violated? Is the violation somehow contained in mere theism, or the existance of miracles, or just that darn book itself?
Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause
2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God
3) The universe exists.
4) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
5) There, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.
Now, this is plain old propositional logic, with true premises, conclusions that follow the premises, and conclusions that are more plausible then their denials. It might not be completely persuasive, but it is logically valid.
Moral Argument
1) If God did not exist, objective moral values would not exist
2) Objective moral values do exist.
3) Therefore, God exists.
I think it is fairly easy to premise the existence of God in any number of logical ways. Peoples devotion of the idea of a true moral base is certainly one of them.
From the premise that God is at the center of the universe, and its creation, then comes the notion that whatever observed uniformity (or natural laws) also come from God. And, then, the notion that if there is ever a change in that uniformity (a miracle), that would also come from God. Really, if you premise a universe in God, then miracles are not an issue, and the only problem is why are they not more frequent? And, the answer, of course is that they, like natural laws, are purposeful, not random. In fact, the creation of man, his apparent free will, the bible, and the meaning of life, is purposeful, not random.
If this sort of thing is of interest to anyone, I can continue on to other objections to the logic of God, or will happily even debate over any of the above points. This is just a quick swipe at the subject, to see if there are any bits. Thanks.
First, some questions. Who believes that Christians are illogical, and why? What logic is violated? Is the violation somehow contained in mere theism, or the existance of miracles, or just that darn book itself?
Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause
2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God
3) The universe exists.
4) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
5) There, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.
Now, this is plain old propositional logic, with true premises, conclusions that follow the premises, and conclusions that are more plausible then their denials. It might not be completely persuasive, but it is logically valid.
Moral Argument
1) If God did not exist, objective moral values would not exist
2) Objective moral values do exist.
3) Therefore, God exists.
I think it is fairly easy to premise the existence of God in any number of logical ways. Peoples devotion of the idea of a true moral base is certainly one of them.
From the premise that God is at the center of the universe, and its creation, then comes the notion that whatever observed uniformity (or natural laws) also come from God. And, then, the notion that if there is ever a change in that uniformity (a miracle), that would also come from God. Really, if you premise a universe in God, then miracles are not an issue, and the only problem is why are they not more frequent? And, the answer, of course is that they, like natural laws, are purposeful, not random. In fact, the creation of man, his apparent free will, the bible, and the meaning of life, is purposeful, not random.
If this sort of thing is of interest to anyone, I can continue on to other objections to the logic of God, or will happily even debate over any of the above points. This is just a quick swipe at the subject, to see if there are any bits. Thanks.
0
Replies
-
in #2, from the first list, you make a claim that isn't factual, but an opinion. It doesn't even try to examine any other potential explanations for the universe's existence. Therefore all the following claims that rely upon it fall apart .
Ditto for the next list, only your assumption is contained in #1.
It's like proving the Biblical stories by quoting scripture. That logic is faulty.0 -
if you'd like a list of ways that Christian beliefs violate logic, I know our friends in the Atheist group can provide many many examples, but here's one:
Jesus was born of a virgin, correct? Human biology tells us that in order for a developing child to be a male, it needs a Y-Chromosome. Which can only be provided from the embryo's father/sperm. Mary's production of a boy child necessitates SOMEONE'S Y-Chromosome was used. Whose?
Another? If God knows everyting that will happen, (omniscient), then why did he make the Devil? Was it God that created evil? If not, then the Devil must also have creative powers. But then the Devil would be a god, and we're told that God is the only god.(capitalization/lack of was intentional to attempt to add clarity)0 -
in #2, from the first list, you make a claim that isn't factual, but an opinion. It doesn't even try to examine any other potential explanations for the universe's existence. Therefore all the following claims that rely upon it fall apart .
Ditto for the next list, only your assumption is contained in #1.
It's like proving the Biblical stories by quoting scripture. That logic is faulty.
What you discussing is not formal logic. Propositionally logical arguments never have to contain premises, or conclusions, that are certain, as that is epistemically impossible. They merely have to be possible, and then you defend them, hopefully to the point that they are more plausible than their denials. As such, if you wish to detract from them, you are required to establish how the denial is more plausible. I am sorry, but that is how actual logic works, and why I started this thread. I don't think we are all talking about the same kind of logic. Yours appears to be rooted in a materialist worldview that simply denials the possibility of things without a reason why?0 -
So this is logical?
Unicorns are Pretty.
Pretty things make me happy.
I'm happy.
Therefore, unicorns exist.
You're right, apparently we're NOT talking about the same kind of logic.0 -
Ok so I've always asked this one and never gotten a good satisfactory response.
Mary was a virgin according to Christianity
How did she have Jesus ? I dont mean the conception I mean the actual birth.
If her passage had not been opened and her hymen not broken(which is how virginity was and still is measured) how did the child pass through the canal?0 -
Ok so I've always asked this one and never gotten a good satisfactory response.
Mary was a virgin according to Christianity
How did she have Jesus ? I dont mean the conception I mean the actual birth.
If her passage had not been opened and her hymen not broken(which is how virginity was and still is measured) how did the child pass through the canal?
ignoring the fact he's male and so she couldn't have been a virgin.....
why wouldn't the child being pushed out break the hymen in the same way as a penis coming in?
Also, presence of hymen is NOT required to "prove" virginity, because many females are born with small/incomplete/non-present hymens. The qualifier for virginity is whether a penis has entered the vagina. Hymen=optional.0 -
Ok so I've always asked this one and never gotten a good satisfactory response.
Mary was a virgin according to Christianity
How did she have Jesus ? I dont mean the conception I mean the actual birth.
If her passage had not been opened and her hymen not broken(which is how virginity was and still is measured) how did the child pass through the canal?
ignoring the fact he's male and so she couldn't have been a virgin.....
why wouldn't the child being pushed out break the hymen in the same way as a penis coming in?
Also, presence of hymen is NOT required to "prove" virginity, because many females are born with small/incomplete/non-present hymens. The qualifier for virginity is whether a penis has entered the vagina. Hymen=optional.
During that time hymens were the actaul proof if you will of virginity.
Also the birth canal would not widen to allow passage of the child if the hymen had not already been torn. In modern times an outside force can remove the hymen but if it were intact thier would be no way for the child to pass through.0 -
Nevermind. I really don't see a point anymore.0
-
I think you have some confusion about biology. The term "birth canal" is not that specific, let me see if I can be more medical in my terminology and maybe that will help clarify.
When Jesus is ready to get delivered, Mary's cervix begins to widen. It opens up and dialates to about ten cm. This is help accommodate his exit. So far at this stage, Mary's hymen is still intact, but not for long. As the dialation of the cervix is occurring, contractions also begin. The stomach muscles are clenching in preparation to push. So far so good for Mary's hymen. When Jesus begins to travel down the vagina, and just before he "crowns" (head starting to show/poke out) , THAT"S the moment she would experience the tearing of her hymen. The hymen is positioned close to the vaginal opening, so just before crowning is when it would tear. Then nothing is in the way for him to come out. I'd imagine this would add pain to the birthing experience, but it wouldn't bar the child from exiting the vagina.
Imagine a football team who runs through a giant poster on their way to the field. That's Jesus, busting his way out.
If you buy the virgin birth story, that's (medically) how it happened.0 -
No, you are are violating modus ponens, that is your first and second premises do not lead to a conclusion. All you can say is that pretty things make you happy, therefore pretty things exist. That is really more of an inductive argument to try to say that unicorns exist, as any number of pretty things could be the cause of your happiness.So this is logical?
Unicorns are Pretty.
Pretty things make me happy.
I'm happy.
Therefore, unicorns exist.
You're right, apparently we're NOT talking about the same kind of logic.
Again, I am not attempting to tell people that God certainly exists due to my logic. Only laypersons believe that logic works that way. Formal logic is more like math, and is a discipline. What most people are saying is using logic in a colloquial way. My assertion is that you can make logically valid points about theism. To make this discussion something other than what it is seems like bigotry to me.0 -
Nevermind. I really don't see a point anymore.
No no, please, if you have something constructive to say, I would appreciate it. I am merely trying to have a civil conversation in which we can all come to some kind of appreciation of the others view. I would not have that derailed, if at all possible.0 -
Undoubtedly a violation of biology, and entirely why it is called a miracle. At best this is a defeater for the birth story of Jesus, not theism.if you'd like a list of ways that Christian beliefs violate logic, I know our friends in the Atheist group can provide many many examples, but here's one:
Jesus was born of a virgin, correct? Human biology tells us that in order for a developing child to be a male, it needs a Y-Chromosome. Which can only be provided from the embryo's father/sperm. Mary's production of a boy child necessitates SOMEONE'S Y-Chromosome was used. Whose?Another? If God knows everyting that will happen, (omniscient), then why did he make the Devil? Was it God that created evil? If not, then the Devil must also have creative powers. But then the Devil would be a god, and we're told that God is the only god.(capitalization/lack of was intentional to attempt to add clarity)
One must assume that evil is 'thing' to be created. Instead, it is just free will contrary to God's, and He did create free will. My view of omniscience uses "the many worlds" arguments and presumes counterfactual or "middle" knowledge, in which God decreed the best possible world, knowing all possible outcomes.
I really did not intend this to be a comphrensive apologetic. I am not a theologian or philosopher. I really am just an RN who likes the idea of mutual respect of ideas, and freedom of expression.0 -
I would just like to mention that I am not the inventor of either of those arguments. The first one especially, if we wish to argue whether it is consistent with formal logic, we should look to who did actually create it, and the underlying rational and defense of it. If you do not know who Gottfried Leibniz is, I would pop over to at least his Wikipedia page, and then decide for yourself who is best qualified to make a coherent statement in propositional logic. Whether true or not.0
-
Your logic is faulty.
1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause
TRUE
2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God
FALSE. This is an opinion, not a true statement. The fact that we do not know how the universe is created does not prove that there is a God. Before the discovery of gravity the fact that things didn't float up into the sky was supposedly proof that God was pushing them down. We don't know what an appendix is for either but the fact that everyone has one isn't proof of God.
3) The universe exists.
TRUE
4) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
TRUE but that explanation is not known.
5) There, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.
FALSE. Again, opinion.
The logic is faulty. You cannot prove the existence of God by arguing a point that is not known (how the universe came to be.) You are starting with a conclusion already in mind (that there is a God) and using faulty logic to reach your own foregone conclusion. I could use your very same argument to prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists or that the universe was created by little green aliens in elf hats.
1) If God did not exist, objective moral values would not exist
FALSE. Why not? If that statement were true everyone on the planet would have the same moral values. Atheists, Christian, Muslim wouldn't matter because it's not what you believe, it's what is actually true. If God exists then why would He give such a diverse set of morals based on where someone lives and what era they lived in? Not that long ago a woman showing her ankles was shocking. In some parts of the world there is no problem with stoning someone to death for having an affair. If God exists, whose moral values are proof of that existence? Muslims? Buddhists? Puritans? Catholics?
2) Objective moral values do exist.
TRUE. And they vary greatly based on where you live and into what era you were born.
3) Therefore, God exists.
FALSE. Again, you cannot make a proof using a faulty argument. #1 is not a true statement therefore the entire premise is illogical. You have to prove that statement #1 is a fact before you can use it as factual evidence. Even then, there could be outside sources at play.0 -
0 -
Oh sorry, is this where that other thread was going? I stopped reading a while ago. Let me know if this is just more beating of a dead horse please. I really hate it when people do that.0
-
Another? If God knows everyting that will happen, (omniscient), then why did he make the Devil? Was it God that created evil? If not, then the Devil must also have creative powers. But then the Devil would be a god, and we're told that God is the only god.(capitalization/lack of was intentional to attempt to add clarity)
One must assume that evil is 'thing' to be created.
How about the Devil? If the Devil exists, God made him, right? If God made him, and he knew what he was creating and all that it would bring about....then God's not much different than the Devil, eh?0 -
Oh sorry, is this where that other thread was going? I stopped reading a while ago. Let me know if this is just more beating of a dead horse please. I really hate it when people do that.
I have no idea what you are talking about. This thread was just to open cordial discussion between people of different backgrounds. in hope of some mutual respect. If, indeed, you are incapable of that, then you can move on to other topics. I will, however, address your rebuttal right after dinner, with considerable more courtesy than you have demonstrated.0 -
Absolutely true, from a Christian perspective. Whether or not that implies absolutely true as a matter of fact, dunno. However, the usual approach is to see Satan as created in all light and beauty, but with a completely free will, giving him a legit chance to serve. He, apparently, chose otherwise. Of couse, this also means that his defiance would somehow work into the greater plan of a best possible world, though I certainly have limited insight into how that works. I really think that, Satan or no, humans were going to fall. Satan, for most christians, just seems to add a more real sense of a spiritual struggle. I think it adds an almost unneeded, and even heretical, sense of equal and opposite poles of light and dark. Clearly more of Zoroaster than Christ.Another? If God knows everyting that will happen, (omniscient), then why did he make the Devil? Was it God that created evil? If not, then the Devil must also have creative powers. But then the Devil would be a god, and we're told that God is the only god.(capitalization/lack of was intentional to attempt to add clarity)
One must assume that evil is 'thing' to be created.
How about the Devil? If the Devil exists, God made him, right? If God made him, and he knew what he was creating and all that it would bring about....then God's not much different than the Devil, eh?
If you prefer this as a more completely apologetic thread, I will treat it as such. Though it seems to be alternately boring and/or PO a number of people, though they still seem interested enough to post about it. Have I somehow been unkind, or crossed some line in posting about what I consider true?0 -
Oh sorry, is this where that other thread was going? I stopped reading a while ago. Let me know if this is just more beating of a dead horse please. I really hate it when people do that.
I have no idea what you are talking about. This thread was just to open cordial discussion between people of different backgrounds. in hope of some mutual respect. If, indeed, you are incapable of that, then you can move on to other topics. I will, however, address your rebuttal right after dinner, with considerable more courtesy than you have demonstrated.
Dear Kettle,
You are black.
Love,
Pot
I was not rude to you. I merely asked the person who posted the cartoon if this was a continuation of a thread that had just been done to death. Based on her cartoon that was the implication. As the admin of a different debate forum (differnt site) it does get irksome when people refuse to let a dead horse lay. NOW, if that is NOT the case here then, assuming you can be civil, I will continue to engage in the debate.0 -
I have seen different uses of logic as a means of "proving" the existence of god. The ontological proof comes to mind. Everyone I've seen shares the same trait. At some point the existence of God is assumed. Once that happens it's a simple matter to "prove" his existence.
As was pointed out earlier it's deeply flawed. First you have to define what you mean when you say God. Otherwise there's no difference between the Christian God, Muslim God, etc. etc. Even the Flying Spaghetti Monster can be substituted in. First you have to nail down your terms and good luck doing even that.
So while all of this may work as an intellectual thought experiment it does nothing to "prove" anything. At it's absolute best it proves only the possibility of the existence of an undefined deity that takes no active role in the universe. You still have all your work ahead of you to prove that this deity has any concern for human life at all, much less wants our worship and praise. Proving that it's possible that an entity could have created the universe based simply on the fact that we haven't yet figured out how the universe was created does little to impress me. It's the God of the Gaps and I don't find much in it worth believing.
With all due respect of course.0 -
Oh sorry, is this where that other thread was going? I stopped reading a while ago. Let me know if this is just more beating of a dead horse please. I really hate it when people do that.
I have no idea what you are talking about. This thread was just to open cordial discussion between people of different backgrounds. in hope of some mutual respect. If, indeed, you are incapable of that, then you can move on to other topics. I will, however, address your rebuttal right after dinner, with considerable more courtesy than you have demonstrated.
Dear Kettle,
You are black.
Love,
Pot
I was not rude to you. I merely asked the person who posted the cartoon if this was a continuation of a thread that had just been done to death. Based on her cartoon that was the implication. As the admin of a different debate forum (differnt site) it does get irksome when people refuse to let a dead horse lay. NOW, if that is NOT the case here then, assuming you can be civil, I will continue to engage in the debate.
I obviously completely misunderstood the post, and do very much apologize.0 -
Your logic is faulty.
1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause
TRUE
2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God
FALSE. This is an opinion, not a true statement. The fact that we do not know how the universe is created does not prove that there is a God. Before the discovery of gravity the fact that things didn't float up into the sky was supposedly proof that God was pushing them down. We don't know what an appendix is for either but the fact that everyone has one isn't proof of God.
I don’t know what your background is, but this just demonstrates a further misunderstanding of propositional logic. All I am required to do is offer a premise that is possible (I cannot say “a circle is a square”), and that is more probable than it’s contradictory. That is it. To say that I am required to offer some kind of proven fact is profoundly wrong. At least, per the ‘rules’ of this kind of logic.
In this case, it might be better to say that explanation is a creator, rather than God. Than the contradictory is either “the universe has no explanation” or “that explanation is …..random chance?”
Once again, you are simply mistaken about how formal logic and argumentation work. You have to provide a reason that my statement is patently false (that is contradicts a known reality), or offer a more plausible contradictory statement, ie, an uncaused universe, chance, etc.3) The universe exists.
TRUE
4) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
TRUE but that explanation is not known.
5) There, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.
FALSE. Again, opinion.
Once again, this logic is not mine, it is Leibniz’s. And, what the heck is the point of logic if we can only talk about scientifically proven facts?The logic is faulty. You cannot prove the existence of God by arguing a point that is not known (how the universe came to be.) You are starting with a conclusion already in mind (that there is a God) and using faulty logic to reach your own foregone conclusion. I could use your very same argument to prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists or that the universe was created by little green aliens in elf hats.
I did not say that they were completely known, just that they exist, with God. And that we tend to believe that they exist, even if we act like they don’t.1) If God did not exist, objective moral values would not exist
FALSE. Why not? If that statement were true everyone on the planet would have the same moral values. Atheists, Christian, Muslim wouldn't matter because it's not what you believe, it's what is actually true. If God exists then why would He give such a diverse set of morals based on where someone lives and what era they lived in? Not that long ago a woman showing her ankles was shocking. In some parts of the world there is no problem with stoning someone to death for having an affair. If God exists, whose moral values are proof of that existence? Muslims? Buddhists? Puritans? Catholics?
How can an objective set of values exist if they differ from person to person? If the truth content varies from culture to culture, and that is okay, then we are talking about descriptive moral relativism, which is the opposite of moral objectivism.2) Objective moral values do exist.
TRUE. And they vary greatly based on where you live and into what era you were born.
Your objection was more of red herring than a contradictory. I think that, to defeat this argument, one need either provide a plausible account as why objective morality does not exist, or how it can be grounded without an external source.3) Therefore, God exists.
FALSE. Again, you cannot make a proof using a faulty argument. #1 is not a true statement therefore the entire premise is illogical. You have to prove that statement #1 is a fact before you can use it as factual evidence. Even then, there could be outside sources at play.
And, of course, thank you for the discussion. And I still apologize for the previous lack of understanding on my part.0 -
I have seen different uses of logic as a means of "proving" the existence of god. The ontological proof comes to mind. Everyone I've seen shares the same trait. At some point the existence of God is assumed. Once that happens it's a simple matter to "prove" his existence.
As was pointed out earlier it's deeply flawed. First you have to define what you mean when you say God. Otherwise there's no difference between the Christian God, Muslim God, etc. etc. Even the Flying Spaghetti Monster can be substituted in. First you have to nail down your terms and good luck doing even that.
So while all of this may work as an intellectual thought experiment it does nothing to "prove" anything. At it's absolute best it proves only the possibility of the existence of an undefined deity that takes no active role in the universe. You still have all your work ahead of you to prove that this deity has any concern for human life at all, much less wants our worship and praise. Proving that it's possible that an entity could have created the universe based simply on the fact that we haven't yet figured out how the universe was created does little to impress me. It's the God of the Gaps and I don't find much in it worth believing.
With all due respect of course.
True enough! None of it is an absolute proof, but the existence of God cannot be assumed, a "deity', 'creator', etc must always be established as an explanation that is better than the contradictory. But, as you say, it really does not get the discussion beyond deism. But that is better than nothing. In the end, it should be the accumulation of arguments that becomes persuasive, if it ever does.
Plantinga loves the ontological argument, it is not my favorite. Could you present the one that you find flawed, just for the sake fo discussion?
Once again, for everyone, I am not trying to prove God here. Beyond my abilities, if nothing else. I am just proving, that we can talk about it without anyone being accused of being illogical, or being hauled off for more extensive work up at the nearest mental health facility.0 -
Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause
2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God
3) The universe exists.
4) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
5) There, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.
Why the Christian God? Could the universe not have been created by Zeus,Odin,RA,OMETEOTL,IZANAGI and IZANAMI,ect ect0 -
No worries Lovejoydavid.
We're good.
I, however, have a massvbe migraine coming on and I am just not up for heavy intellect right now. Give me a good fluff debate and I'm all over it though.
Just 1 thing first though. You said that to show my argument that I had to prove that God doesn't exist. You seem to be of considerably above average intellect so you should know and understand the inherent faults in proving a negative.0 -
How did I miss this? I love discussing logic and Christianity. I'll read through the comments and post something in response.0
-
I disagree. In the traditional cosmological arguments, for instance, the existence of God is a conclusion of a line of reasoning that begins with changing/moving things and then, eventually, arrives at the need of an uncaused, self-existent, eternal ground of all being (God). Rather than being an assumption, God's existence is a conclusion.I have seen different uses of logic as a means of "proving" the existence of god. The ontological proof comes to mind. Everyone I've seen shares the same trait. At some point the existence of God is assumed. Once that happens it's a simple matter to "prove" his existence.
No single argument for God proves everything about God. An argument for God's existence may show that an eternal, uncaused, spirit is the ground of all contingent beings but not simultaneously prove that Jesus is the incarnation of that God. A Christian, Mulim and Jew might all agree that a cosmological argument proves the existence of God but all should agree that such an argument does not prove the specific, distinctive claims of each religion. If the arguments for God show that God must be eternal, necessary, self-existent, the cause of everything other than himself, spirit, etc., then it follows that if the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" lacks these attributes (and the various other attributes that can be inferrred from the arguments for God) then he/it is excluded from consideration when we speak of "God." I would suggest that we begin a discussion of God by identifying that which differentiates God from everything that is not God. I like using the term "aseity" to get to the point. This term refers to the fact that God is that reality that exists purely "from himself." In other words, God depends on nothing for his existence. He is his own reason for being. Everything that is not God exists "per aliud" (Latin expression used to identify the fact that "creatures" exist "through another" or because of something other than themselves). I think all the monotheistic religions will agree with this basic starting-point. If one believes that God exists, it makes sense to then consider claims that this God has revealed himself to human beings. This kind of revelation from God is a second question after we acknowledge God's existence.As was pointed out earlier it's deeply flawed. First you have to define what you mean when you say God. Otherwise there's no difference between the Christian God, Muslim God, etc. etc. Even the Flying Spaghetti Monster can be substituted in. First you have to nail down your terms and good luck doing even that.So while all of this may work as an intellectual thought experiment it does nothing to "prove" anything. At it's absolute best it proves only the possibility of the existence of an undefined deity that takes no active role in the universe. You still have all your work ahead of you to prove that this deity has any concern for human life at all, much less wants our worship and praise. Proving that it's possible that an entity could have created the universe based simply on the fact that we haven't yet figured out how the universe was created does little to impress me. It's the God of the Gaps and I don't find much in it worth believing.
The God that I would argue for is the present, sustaining ground of being for everything other than himself. If this is true (as I think reason will show), this God not only takes an active role in universe but the universe would have no being at all unless God presently willed its existence. To use an analogy, if I ask you why a cup of water is cold or hot, you will refer to something beyond the water to account for its temperature. Let's say you just took the cup from the refrigerator. The refrigerator is the cause of the coldness of the water. Similarly, if we ask why we exist, we cannot find the answer to that question within our own "essence." In other words, what we are is not sufficient to explain the fact that we are. If "what" we are could account for our existence, we would be self-caused or self-existent. That would mean, of course, that we are God. What I'm arguing is that temperature is to water as existence is to our essence. If we limit our consideration to creatures, we are always left with the question, "Why is there anything at all?" To answer this question, our minds tend to slip away to something else that partially explains the existence of something. For instance, we might refer to our parents to explain our existence. The problem, of course, is that our parents also need an explanation. If the universe is made up of beings that need something else to explain them, we have a cosmic problem. We need a cause of the being of dependent/contingent things. That cause must be its own explanation or else we have simply pushed off the problem yet again. Often atheists argue that even though individual things need an explanation, the sum total of things in the universe do not need an explanation. This is like saying that a thousand idiots make one wise man (to quote someone I read after a long time ago on this subject). Multiplying dependent things does not magically give you independence. The universe exhibits all the signs of depedence and therefore the entirety of it directs us to a supremely independent reality that grounds it. We call that reality God.
Worship and praise are natural reactions of gratitude. If we are conscious of the fact that we have been given a gift that we did not merit or deserve, we should respond with admiration and gratitude. I think worship of God is more of a logical inference from viewing life as a gift. To know the reality of God and refuse to offer worship and gratitude seems to my mind radically ungrateful.
The argument I've given is not a "God of the gaps" argument. That kind of argument is based on saying something like this: "Since we don't know how this happened or what this means, we must postulate God to account for what we don't presently know." This is precisely the opposite of what the cosmological reasoning that I've suggested here does. It is because we do know that the things we observe in this world are dependent on other things that we draw the valid inference that there must be a first ground of being. Again, this conclusion is the result of reasoning from what we do know to recognize dependence and therefore conclude to an independent reality. When physicists postulate "gravity" it is by inference from the behavior of physical bodies. When philosophers conclude to the existence of God it is based on inference from the nature of the universe. This is quite the opposite of "God of the gaps."0 -
No worries Lovejoydavid. We're good.
I, however, have a massvbe migraine coming on and I am just not up for heavy intellect right now. Give me a good fluff debate and I'm all over it though.
Just 1 thing first though. You said that to show my argument that I had to prove that God doesn't exist. You seem to be of considerably above average intellect so you should know and understand the inherent faults in proving a negative.
Did I? Certainly, I would not have meant to do that. As I read my very rushed response, though, I see it is not clear. What I meant to say is that my placing the word "god" in there should be replaced with "creator," and that the defeator would be a proof of an uncreated universe, or at least a plausible rationale on how a universe could be caused without the need for a creator. You don't need to disprove God, just offer a more plausible substitute! Rest your brain, though, and come back with fresh thinking! I will as well.0 -
Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause
2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God
3) The universe exists.
4) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
5) There, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.
Why the Christian God? Could the universe not have been created by Zeus,Odin,RA,OMETEOTL,IZANAGI and IZANAMI,ect ect
It actually does not specify God of the Christian world, and, actually, was written in rather deistic times. As you can see in later posts, I moved on to the notion of merely a creator. Any uncaused, necessary being (non contingent, which eliminates most of your list) that can fit that bill is in. In fact, we don't need to specify beyond eternal, self causing, logically necessary being.0
This discussion has been closed.