Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Loden · 01-04-2003, 05:48 PM

I picked up an old philosophy book at a yard sale recently. I thought the section on religion was particurally interesting, especially the part that outlined three main arguements for the existence of a god or gods.

Ontological Argument
This argument basically says that since God is a perfect being, to implt that s/he does not to exist is to imply that to be perfect is to not exist. It also says that since beings that exist are more perfect than beings that do not exist, asserting that God does not exist would be saying that we are more perfect than the perfect being, a contradiction.

I may not have interpreted this exactly right, but that was my take on it. Do I even have to say anything? It tries to argue the existence of God by using that very existence as evidence.

The Cosmological Argument
The Cosmological Argument is based on the belief (fact?) that everything is caused by something else. For every moving thing, there was something to set it in motion, etc. It says that this implies the existence of a self-sufficient, "necessary" being to begin the chain reaction.

IMO, this was the most valid of the three arguments. It's not going to make me change my mind, but it did make me think.

The Teleological Argument
The third argument is based on the complexity of life. The example the book gave was the fact that the ears of rabbits are formed to focus sounds behind it- the area of greatest danger. It argues that there must have been something behind the scenes, conciously arranging these things.

This argument was started well before people knew about evolution. We now have a scientific answer for it.

Well, what do you think? Personally, I think that any time you try to logically argue the existence of a higher power, it goes horribly wrong. Religion is based on faith, not reason.

Keith Russell · 01-04-2003, 06:23 PM

Ontological Argument:
This argument basically says that since God is a perfect being, to (imply) that s/he does not to exist is to imply that to be perfect is to not exist. It also says that since beings that exist are more perfect than beings that do not exist, asserting that God does not exist would be saying that we are more perfect than the perfect being, a contradiction.

Perfection does not exist. We are not more perfect that 'God' or unicorns; but we exist, and they do not.

I may not have interpreted this exactly right, but that was my take on it. Do I even have to say anything? It tries to argue the existence of God by using that very existence as evidence.

The Cosmological Argument:
The Cosmological Argument is based on the belief (fact?) that everything is caused by something else. For every moving thing, there was something to set it in motion, etc. It says that this implies the existence of a self-sufficient, "necessary" being to begin the chain reaction.

This is a contradiction. If everything has a cause, and if 'God' is a thing, then 'God' has to have had a cause, too.

IMO, this was the most valid of the three arguments. It's not going to make me change my mind, but it did make me think.

The Teleological Argument:
The third argument is based on the complexity of life. The example the book gave was the fact that the ears of rabbits are formed to focus sounds behind it- the area of greatest danger. It argues that there must have been something behind the scenes, conciously arranging these things.

The 'miracle' would be if life was not suited to life here, but lived nonetheless. The fact that life is suited to the environment on earth, and that our senses are specifically suited to the sensory data available, suggests that life evolved to survive here. Yes, life is designed, but that in no way means that the designer must be a conscious being.

A non-conscious process is the simpler explanation. (Occam's Razor, yet again...)

Keith.

Loden · 01-04-2003, 06:33 PM

Quote:

The Cosmological Argument:
The Cosmological Argument is based on the belief (fact?) that everything is caused by something else. For every moving thing, there was something to set it in motion, etc. It says that this implies the existence of a self-sufficient, "necessary" being to begin the chain reaction.

This is a contradiction. If everything has a cause, and if 'God' is a thing, then 'God' has to have had a cause, too.

I think that's the point of the argument. God had no cause- s/he existed all by him/herself, and was the cause of everything else. Keep in mind that I think this argument is as bogus as the rest. I just enjoy playing devil's advocate.

Keith Russell · 01-04-2003, 06:43 PM

Loden:

If 'God' could exist without a cause, then the statement 'everything must have a cause' is incorrect.

At best, you could say 'everything but 'God'' needs a cause, and you'd have to explain why 'God' is exempt from the rule.

If 'God' doesn't require a cause, then why would anything else, either?

Keith.

Loden · 01-04-2003, 07:01 PM

Ok, I misunderstood this one. I think the argument is actually that everything is either a self-sufficient, necessary being, or caused by something else. Since an infinite regress of causes is impossible, there must be a necessary being that functions as the ultimate source of the entire chain.

That doesn't contradict itself, but it doesn't necessarily imply the existence of a god.

RED DAVE · 01-05-2003, 01:01 AM

Quote:

there must be a necessary being that functions as the ultimate source of the entire chain.

No. There is no such "necessary being that functions as the ultimate source of the entire chain." Why should such a necessary being itself be causeless. Because it's declared to be causeless? It's only an evasion: an attempt to escape from the infinite regress.

RED DAVE

Keith Russell · 01-05-2003, 08:32 AM

Greetings:

But isn't the claim for 'God' arguing in favour of an infinite regress, too?

If 'God' was the first cause of the universe, 'God' would still need to be an infinite being (with an infinite regression of ideas, actions, desires, thoughts, etc.), or else 'God'--too--would require a cause.

I think it's far less complicated to assume that the infinite regress occurs as part of the nature/structure of existence, of the universe, than to assume a 'God' outside of the universe, which raises all the other questions with which we deal here on a daily basis.

Keith.

eh · 01-05-2003, 09:25 AM

Exactly how old was this book? It sounds like these 3 main arguments are quite weak, and only would have been effective 100 years ago.

The ontological argument is perhaps the weakest of all, since existence is not a property. A deity that exists, and a deity that only exists as a concept, are indentical. To assert that a concept really exists in actual does nothing to change the concept itself. So imagining a perfect god who exists, is exactly the same as imagining one that does not exist.

The cosmological argument may have worked well hundreds of year ago, but is made useless by the law of energy conservation. So long as energy is conserved, we do not need a prime mover. Energy cannot be destroyed, and there is nothing that forbids an inital state (beginning) of the cosmos.

And of course, the Teleological Argument was reduced to ashes 150 years ago, when Darwin developed his theory of evolution. Since then, the fact of evolution has been established, and the complexity of life can be explained without any need for a magic deity. Since we know that simple structures of nature can evolve to the current complexity, this argument is effectively in the garbage where it belongs.

So we have 3 weak arguments for the existence of god, long since refuted. I would think thiests have come up with better arguments since - but judging by the work of Craig and others, they haven't.

Keith Russell · 01-05-2003, 12:06 PM

eh:

I think you're giving it even more credit than it deserves.

I would think that these arguments would only be effective--maybe--250 years ago...

...or more!

These have been soundly refuted numerous times in the last 200 years.

Keith.

Loden · 01-05-2003, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Exactly how old was this book? It sounds like these 3 main arguments are quite weak, and only would have been effective 100 years ago.

It was published in 1967, but most of the writings are from antiques- Aquinas, for instance.

01-04-2003, 05:48 PM	#1
Loden Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: A town that's about 90% Catholic- erk Posts: 6	The Three Main Arguements for the Existence of a Higher Power I picked up an old philosophy book at a yard sale recently. I thought the section on religion was particurally interesting, especially the part that outlined three main arguements for the existence of a god or gods. Ontological Argument This argument basically says that since God is a perfect being, to implt that s/he does not to exist is to imply that to be perfect is to not exist. It also says that since beings that exist are more perfect than beings that do not exist, asserting that God does not exist would be saying that we are more perfect than the perfect being, a contradiction. I may not have interpreted this exactly right, but that was my take on it. Do I even have to say anything? It tries to argue the existence of God by using that very existence as evidence. The Cosmological Argument The Cosmological Argument is based on the belief (fact?) that everything is caused by something else. For every moving thing, there was something to set it in motion, etc. It says that this implies the existence of a self-sufficient, "necessary" being to begin the chain reaction. IMO, this was the most valid of the three arguments. It's not going to make me change my mind, but it did make me think. The Teleological Argument The third argument is based on the complexity of life. The example the book gave was the fact that the ears of rabbits are formed to focus sounds behind it- the area of greatest danger. It argues that there must have been something behind the scenes, conciously arranging these things. This argument was started well before people knew about evolution. We now have a scientific answer for it. Well, what do you think? Personally, I think that any time you try to logically argue the existence of a higher power, it goes horribly wrong. Religion is based on faith, not reason.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-04-2003, 06:23 PM	#2
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Ontological Argument: This argument basically says that since God is a perfect being, to (imply) that s/he does not to exist is to imply that to be perfect is to not exist. It also says that since beings that exist are more perfect than beings that do not exist, asserting that God does not exist would be saying that we are more perfect than the perfect being, a contradiction. Perfection does not exist. We are not more perfect that 'God' or unicorns; but we exist, and they do not. I may not have interpreted this exactly right, but that was my take on it. Do I even have to say anything? It tries to argue the existence of God by using that very existence as evidence. The Cosmological Argument: The Cosmological Argument is based on the belief (fact?) that everything is caused by something else. For every moving thing, there was something to set it in motion, etc. It says that this implies the existence of a self-sufficient, "necessary" being to begin the chain reaction. This is a contradiction. If everything has a cause, and if 'God' is a thing, then 'God' has to have had a cause, too. IMO, this was the most valid of the three arguments. It's not going to make me change my mind, but it did make me think. The Teleological Argument: The third argument is based on the complexity of life. The example the book gave was the fact that the ears of rabbits are formed to focus sounds behind it- the area of greatest danger. It argues that there must have been something behind the scenes, conciously arranging these things. The 'miracle' would be if life was not suited to life here, but lived nonetheless. The fact that life is suited to the environment on earth, and that our senses are specifically suited to the sensory data available, suggests that life evolved to survive here. Yes, life is designed, but that in no way means that the designer must be a conscious being. A non-conscious process is the simpler explanation. (Occam's Razor, yet again...) Keith.

01-04-2003, 06:43 PM	#4
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Loden: If 'God' could exist without a cause, then the statement 'everything must have a cause' is incorrect. At best, you could say 'everything but 'God'' needs a cause, and you'd have to explain why 'God' is exempt from the rule. If 'God' doesn't require a cause, then why would anything else, either? Keith.

01-04-2003, 07:01 PM	#5
Loden Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: A town that's about 90% Catholic- erk Posts: 6	Ok, I misunderstood this one. I think the argument is actually that everything is either a self-sufficient, necessary being, or caused by something else. Since an infinite regress of causes is impossible, there must be a necessary being that functions as the ultimate source of the entire chain. That doesn't contradict itself, but it doesn't necessarily imply the existence of a god.

01-05-2003, 08:32 AM	#7
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Greetings: But isn't the claim for 'God' arguing in favour of an infinite regress, too? If 'God' was the first cause of the universe, 'God' would still need to be an infinite being (with an infinite regression of ideas, actions, desires, thoughts, etc.), or else 'God'--too--would require a cause. I think it's far less complicated to assume that the infinite regress occurs as part of the nature/structure of existence, of the universe, than to assume a 'God' outside of the universe, which raises all the other questions with which we deal here on a daily basis. Keith.

01-05-2003, 09:25 AM	#8
eh Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Canada Posts: 624	Exactly how old was this book? It sounds like these 3 main arguments are quite weak, and only would have been effective 100 years ago. The ontological argument is perhaps the weakest of all, since existence is not a property. A deity that exists, and a deity that only exists as a concept, are indentical. To assert that a concept really exists in actual does nothing to change the concept itself. So imagining a perfect god who exists, is exactly the same as imagining one that does not exist. The cosmological argument may have worked well hundreds of year ago, but is made useless by the law of energy conservation. So long as energy is conserved, we do not need a prime mover. Energy cannot be destroyed, and there is nothing that forbids an inital state (beginning) of the cosmos. And of course, the Teleological Argument was reduced to ashes 150 years ago, when Darwin developed his theory of evolution. Since then, the fact of evolution has been established, and the complexity of life can be explained without any need for a magic deity. Since we know that simple structures of nature can evolve to the current complexity, this argument is effectively in the garbage where it belongs. So we have 3 weak arguments for the existence of god, long since refuted. I would think thiests have come up with better arguments since - but judging by the work of Craig and others, they haven't.

01-05-2003, 12:06 PM	#9
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	eh: I think you're giving it even more credit than it deserves. I would think that these arguments would only be effective--maybe--250 years ago... ...or more! These have been soundly refuted numerous times in the last 200 years. Keith.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.