thread starter Divination May 13 2010
+ PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT
| Not to be a prick or anything, but this is just what I think about all the religion threads. If you have anything to add, feel free to comment. • The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with a claim about the world, like its containing entities or motion. >There cannot be an infinite regression of prime movers, or first causes, there would have to be an origin of that first cause, so if God were to exist, and had been indefinitely, he would have had a cause. This may give God credibility, but no due proof. • The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, i.e. that it exhibits order and design. This argument has two versions: One based on the analogy of design and designer, the other arguing that goals can only occur in minds. >If we were to observe the universe this way, one can ponder designs that have "gone wrong." Take mental retardation, for example. Is that a flaw of God or a flaw of humanity? • The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which cannot be conceived". It starts simply with a concept of God. Avicenna, St. Anselm of Canterbury and Alvin Plantinga formulated this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists. >A classic example of the argument from contingency, but flawed nonetheless. I can conceive a pink unicorn being logically possible and existing, but does that mean it exists Who is to say that God is necessary? Imagining a concept does not make it true, this ontological argument has been refuted. • The argument from degree, a version of the ontological argument posited by Aquinas, states that there must exist a being which possesses all properties to the maximum possible degree. >My question is, who says this MUST be true, and that there MUST exist a being which possess this quality? • Arguments that a non-physical quality observed in the universe is of fundamental importance and not an epiphenomenon, such as Morality (Argument from morality), Beauty (Argument from beauty), Love (Argument from love), or religious experience (Argument from religious experience), are arguments for theism as against materialism. * The anthropic argument suggests that basic facts, such as our existence, are best explained by the existence of God. >Yet modern science easily objects to this. * The moral argument argues that the existence of objective morality depends on the existence of God. >Yet morality, and henceforth morals, are relative to the observer. * The transcendental argument suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other things we take seriously do not make sense in the absence of God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency. >Once again, because imagining that it's prese |
My Characters: Caprice - 13 Bera Rogue