Best and worst arguments for the existence of God (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 01, 2022, 10:37:30 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: Actual Necromancer Joe Manchin)
  Best and worst arguments for the existence of God (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Best and worst arguments for the existence of God  (Read 3548 times)
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,304
United Kingdom


« on: July 16, 2022, 10:24:07 AM »

Yeah the strongest is some form of the cosmological argument. I don't think any of them reach the level of proof, but they're to some extent reasonable deductions from ordinary assumptions most people have about how the universe works: the principle of sufficient reason, the impossibility of infinities etc..

There are many bad folk arguments for the existence of God that depend on bare assertion, but the worst of the classical arguments IMO is the argument from design. It seems obvious to me that the universe just isn't that intelligently designed as one would expect from a Creator. Plus we can explain too many of its features naturalistically now.
Logged
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,304
United Kingdom


« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2022, 07:18:45 PM »

There are many bad folk arguments for the existence of God that depend on bare assertion, but the worst of the classical arguments IMO is the argument from design. It seems obvious to me that the universe just isn't that intelligently designed as one would expect from a Creator. Plus we can explain too many of its features naturalistically now.

I mean, these "naturalistic" explanations aren't really the end of the story though, are they? Even if you take them at face value, they ultimately boil down to certain properties of the universe being set just right for all of these natural processes to occur. Tweak even one of the fundamental constants by a trivial amount, and suddenly the universe becomes a lot more... boring, so to speak. Now, plenty of scientists have criticized the idea that the fundamental constants are "fine-tuned" (or even that such a claim has any meaning given that we can't observe any other universe). Personally, I think the anthropic principle is more than sufficient to explain any otherwise freakish coincidence that allows for the existence of life in our universe on a theoretical level. But again, any argument for or against the existence of God is emotional in nature, and all these rebuttals to the fine-turning argument are emotionally uncompelling to someone who is seriously swayed by it. So in that light, I think being swayed into faith by it makes plenty of sense.

That's just the anthropic principle though.
Logged
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,304
United Kingdom


« Reply #2 on: July 17, 2022, 08:57:05 AM »

Well we agree then
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 12 queries.