Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Very interesting

http://www.doxa.ws/meta_crock/listGodarguments.html

Originally posted by Redwolf
Very interesting

http://www.doxa.ws/meta_crock/listGodarguments.html

Wow!

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Wow!





http://www.doxa.ws/meta_crock/cumulative.html

G. Conclusion: God is proven QED.

Any one of these arguments demonstates a rational warrant for belief. With the cumulative case, however, we have more than just a rational warrant but positive probabalistic proof. Thus it is established that it is more probabale and thus more rational to beleive in God than not. I dont' know how one would establish a matheamtical measurement of that probability, but in history at least we don't establish a mathematical percentage, but we do deal in probability. Historical probability is more or less an "on" or "off" assumption. Since disputes about the origin of the universe invovle aspects of the history of the universe we could say that it is histoircally probable that the universe was created by God, and that people have been experiencing God throughout human history.

Thus the atheist is demonstrably unjustified everytime they say "there is no reason to beleive in God" or "there is not one rational reason to beleive in God. There are 35 rational reasons, and there is one whopping great big reason to feel very confident in that assumption.

Originally posted by Redwolf
http://www.doxa.ws/meta_crock/listGodarguments.html

These are, essentially, Ontological Arguments, some of which have been around for centuries (ala St Aquinas). While certainly thought-provoking, they are ultimately suggestive, and Not conclusive in proving God's existence, for obvious reasons...

1. Simply put: God is infinite, logic is not. To state that the latter can encompass the former diminishes "God" and therefore is Not the "ultimate reality" one is trying to prove in the first place.

Put another way: God is not just transempirical (which is why empirical science will never be able to prove God's existence), but also translogical. The best that logic--or certain empirical phenomena--can do is, again, suggest God's existence, just as a shadow suggests the object casting it. But it is Not direct verification.

2. The other problem with some of the OAs is that there are alternative explanations which are better. Eg, regarding the anthropic POV (also seen in "Intelligent Design": quantum cosmology offers an alternative explanation for "everything being just right" that is at least theoretically, empirically testable.

3. Some of the OAs appear to suggest that not only does God exist, but "He" is the Christian God. This is not surprising, since those OAs seem to be put forth by Christian thinkers. This introduces the contaminating variable of personal bias. Further, assigning "specific details" about God--beyond the opener of His existence--requires further direct verification.

I don't mean to burst any bubbles (I'm sure I haven't ), and I'm not saying that OAs are necessarily and utterly worthless. I am saying beware of wishful thinking. IMO, an honest seeker of truth explores all possibilities before drawing conclusions.

^ Good work.

I'll havet o rad it later, but if i wanted to seem credible....I wouldn't term myself an "apologetic"

Prima facie my a$$.

Most of those arguments fall under the "God of the Gaps" fallacy, ie. the Fallacy of Ignorance.

There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
The gap is filled with acts of God
Therefore it proves, or helps to prove, that God exists . . . . Lame (Yeah im looking at you ID freaks).

Science may not be able to prove it now but rest assured, it will be dealth with later. Think about the rainbows; for the longest time people thought its a bridge from the gods, until science prove it otherwise.

Second, most of these arguments Argue in Circles which is another logical fallacy. Basically, they make UNFOUNDED CLAIMS that "god is beyond the concept of time" and from there start their misguided debate on God's existence.

Before you describe something as "beyond the concept of time" or "god is the beginning and the end" or anything else for that matter, that something must be first be proven to EXIST and since God existence is the very THING IN QUESTION here, we cant use phrases such as "the Alpha and the Omega" and similar ilk in any proof, scientific or theological, for God's existence. Why? Because for such phrases to be true and valid in our debate, it entails that God's existance has already been proven. We are getting ahead of ourselves in our debate about God's existence.

Its like saying unicorns exist because because they have twisting horns . . . . how could the description " as having twisting horns" serve as proof that unicorns exist? **** that! how do you know that unicorns have twisting horns given that NO ONE has seen a unicorn for real before? If unicorns have been proven to have twisting horns, we wouldnt even be debating its existence in the first place!

Third, check this link, promise the format is more reader friendly than the one above.
http://www.inu.net/skeptic/god.html

It should cover the rest of those so called "40 proofs" for God's existence, yes even faith.

Bonus quote:
To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of lunacy.
- The Necessity of Atheism by David Brooks

I like you.

Thanks .

You shouldn't smoke. lol

That was really quite good Templares. And it is good you made the point:



A truly irksome approach people take to the debate is to believe that a scientific theory that has a hole, not even always a big one, instantly disproves that entire theory despite however much evidence it might have while at the same time proving God or something like that.