#Existence of God

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

"If God existed, He would not have created atheists who question his existence." -- Periyar Ramasamy

If god existed, it would be neither necessary nor possible to question his existence.

[rinkwrites]

I'm studying the existence of God, and the cosmological and teleological arguments right now in philosophy, and I just wanted to share some practice q's with y'all.

Does science disprove the existence of God?

Scientists would say that there is much more evidence for the Big Bang than there is for God. For example, the red shift. The red shift is the idea that stars which are further away from us appear to have light towards the infrared side of the visible spectrum, proving that they are moving away from us as their light is moving towards us. Scientists might also say hat we can see evolutions results and we know that we have changed and adapted to become perfect, rather than being created that way like the bible claims we were. There are a lot of other inaccuracies in the bible, such as the fact that the world is much older than the bible claims it to be. They might also point out that there are massive leaps of logic in both the cosmological and teleological arguments, neither of them are logical or reasonable so we shouldn't take them very seriously. Furthermore, scientists might say that there is no definitive proof of God OR definitive proof against God, and we shouldn't believe either until we know for sure

Religious people might say that science can never explain everything, and that we need God to explain some things. Science may say that evolution or the Big Bang is proof against god, but they don't know what caused those things. God could very well have caused both of these things. God could have helped design evolution and carried it through, and he could have been or made the singularity that started the Big Bang. Scientists may claim that they have disproved the bible's claims that the world is 6000 years old, but some theists might say that the bible isn't necessarily all 100% true. Its the morals of the stories, not the stories themselves that matter.

Overall, I think that while currently our science can't explain everything, we will eventually be able to understand everything, and there will  be no more gaps for theists to insert their god into. I think that science does not currently disprove the existence of god fully, but that one day it will.

Is the existence of God unconvincing today?

Atheists might say that people have believed in various Gods and deities for hundreds of thousands of years, but they haven't yet been able to come up with a convincing argument or any proof of God. They might also say that Gods were made up to explain things, such as the Greek saying there was a God called Apollo who drove a sun chariot across the sky, because they did not know that the earth was orbiting the sun, and spinning on its orbit. Science is now able to explain most of the things in this world, so the idea of a God is no longer necessary. They might say we should all stop believing in gods now and just believe in what science can prove. Atheists might also say that we can prove that some of the things in the Bible are incorrect, such as the world being 6000 years old. Due to fossils and rock formations, we can prove that the world is much older than that. Atheists may argue that if that part of the bible is incorrect then why should we beleive the rest of it. Some atheists have also said that the very premise of  God giving us free will is unconvincing, if God is all-knowing then he knows what choice we will make before we even know what we're choosing between, so do we really have a choice in the matter?

Many theists however, would say that we shouldn't be questioning gods existence and trying to prove it. God is transcendent, which means beyond human comprehension. Faith should be inert ad unquestioning, why are we trying to understand something so far beyond us. They might also say that while there are some proven inaccuracies in the bible, it is not the truth of the stories but the morals of them that matter. Whether or not the good Samaritan actually helped out his sworn enemy is irrelevant, the story is just making the point that we should love and care for everyone equally.

Overall I think that there are no convincing arguments for God, and there never have been. In fact there quite possibly never will be. With huge advancements in science everyday, many things which were previously thought of as miracles or the work of the all-powerful being, can now be explained logically.

Does science disprove the cosmological argument?

Some people might say that there is much more evidence for theories such as the Big Bang than there is for the cosmological argument. Scientists have proven that the universe is expanding by seeing the 'red shift'. The 'red shift' is the idea that the light which stars emit appears to be moving down the electromagnetic spectrum, suggesting that the light waves they emit are being stretched as they come towards us. Scientists have said that this means that the universe is expanding outwards slowly, as the very space which the light waves are moving across is getting bigger. Scientists would say that this argument is logical and reasonable, but that the cosmological argument is not. Many people have criticised the cosmological argument for making the big leap from saying 'there is a first uncaused cause' to saying 'this cause must be God'.

Theists might reply by saying that it is all very well for scientists to say that the Big Bang caused the universe, but scientists can't explain what caused the Big Bang. God could have used the Big Bang as his method of creating the universe. Theists might also say that God is transcendent, which means that he is beyond human comprehension. They might say that we are not God, so we cannot understand a universe which He created. They could also say that we should not be trying to explain and prove the existence or non-existence of a being beyond out understanding.

Overall I think that science does not technically disprove the cosmological argument, there is room for both the Big Bang and the existence of God to be fact. However I also think that the cosmological argument is not a very good argument for the existence of God as it has an obvious leap in logic, and it directly contradicts itself.

Enjoy my shitty eight-markers x

[alevelrs]

Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

Start with observations about how universe works and from this try to explain why it exists. also known as the first cause argument for the existence of God. Fundamentally, the argument is based on the claim that God must exist due to the fact that the existence of the universe requires an explanation, which must be God.

Aquinas’s First Way: the unmoved mover

In Aquinas’s First Way, he concentrated on the existence of change, or motion, in the world.

Everything is both in a state of actuality (how it is) and potentiality (what it might become).

All things that are moved (the potentiality becomes the new actuality) are moved by something else, things can’t move themselves.

The mover is moved by something else, which is moved by something else and then something else.

This cannot go on for infinity because there would be no first mover so nothing would have started moving at all.

So, there must be a first mover.

This first unmoved mover is God.

Aquinas’s Second Way: the uncaused causer

Aquinas’s Second Way is similar to his first, but it focuses on the concept of change.

Nothing can be its own efficient cause because it cannot have existed before itself.

Things that are causes must themselves be caused, otherwise the effect would be taken away.

We cannot go back to infinity (infinite regress is impossible) because there would be no first cause so all later effects couldn’t have happened.

Therefore, there must be a first efficient cause that is not instead caused.

The first uncaused causer is what everyone understands to be God.

Aquinas’s Third Way: contingency and necessity

Everything in nature is contingent, it relies on something to have brought it into existence.

If we trace back, nothing existed, but then nothing could have begun to exist because nothing can come from nothing (everything has to come from something)

Therefore, there needs to be a being that isn’t contingent: a necessary being.

Necessary beings could have their necessity come from another being.

But this cannot go back to infinity.

So, there must be a being that has its own necessity which causes other beings.

This is what people call God.

Gottfried Leibniz

Leibniz raised the question ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’, questioning why anything exists at all. He offered a form of the cosmological argument, based on his Principle of Sufficient Reason which states that everything which exists must have a reason or a cause for its existence. According to the Principle of Sufficient Reason:

If something exists, there must be a reason why that thing exists.

If a statement is true, there must be a reason why that statement is true.

If something happens, there must be a reason why that thing happens.

Whether or not we know the reason why something exists, or is true, or happens, there still must be a reason, known or unknown. It doesn’t matter if it’s eternal or not – we still need a reason for it.

Hume’s Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument

Can we make the jump from Aquinas’s observations to the Christian God? The effect cannot immediately point towards a particular cause because causation is a psychological concept, we cannot make links that are beyond our experience – we could imagine anything to create the universe: a stupid God, a committee of Gods, a demon etc. God is just one of a large number of possible hypotheses.

Is it plausible for anything but a transcendent God to create the universe? Aristotle, Aquinas: need a necessary being that would have to transcend the rest of the universe to exist in a unique, all-powerful way.

When we look at the world, we have only the effect to look at – the cause is hidden from us. He uses the example of a pair of scales with one end hidden from view: we can see that the other end outweighs it, but  we have no means of knowing by how much.

It isn’t necessary to suppose that everything has a cause

Just because everything in the universe has a cause or reason to exist, doesn’t mean the entire universe has a cause or reason to exist (just because you can explain the cause of 20 particles of matter doesn’t mean you can explain the cause of the group of the particles)

Bertrand Russell: just because every human being has a mother, doesn’t mean that the human species as a whole has a mother.

BUT modern science suggests there is a definite beginning to the universe

Hume: Why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent being?’ Why could we not accept that the universe is eternal and the cause of all the things in it rather than looking to God for an explanation

[liskantope]

Aaaand among all the atheist-vs.-apologetic debates I've seen (which are many), the winner for the most bizarre, annoying, and all-around ridiculous goes to... this debate between Matt Dillahunty and Sye "my Christian fundamentalist god exists because every argument that could be used against His existence depends on logical axioms which implicitly affirm His existence, by the way, everybody already knows that God exists, and also I don't explain Biblical content to anyone who doesn't already profess believing it" ten Bruggencate. It was a cheaply amusing two hours of content for me.

[emperornorton47]

[insightfultake]

The Existence of God: A Journey Through Faith and Reason

In the dim glow of evening, as the sun dips below the horizon and casts long shadows across the earth, we find ourselves grappling with an age-old question: Does God exist? This inquiry, as ancient as humanity itself, transcends time and culture, urging us to delve deeper into the very fabric of our existence. It invites us to reflect not only on abstract metaphysical concepts but also on the core of our being—our sense of morality, our struggles, and the intricate tapestry of life that connects us all.....Click here to read more

[hotpinkandlimegreenlovinfangirl]

https://theautisticcatholic.mystrikingly.com/blog/fragment-of-papyrus-scroll-documenting-jesus-s-childhood-discovered

One of my more recent blog posts on The Autistic Catholic.

[noknowshame]

why is religious Christmas imagery all so joyful and pleasant? where is the inherent horror of the birth of Christ? A mother is handed her newborn child, wailing and innocent. Her hands come away sticky. Red. Simply by giving her son life she has already killed him. He is doomed from the beginning. Her love will not save him from suffering. Because the thing cradled in her arms is not a baby, it is a sacrifice: born amongst the other bleating animals whose blood will one day be spilled in the name of what demands it. the night is silent with anticipation. Mary, did you know? That your womb was also a grave?

[problemnyatic]

when will we talk about the willful helplessness epidemic on here. So many people on this god forsaken website demand to have any and all things that exist outside their personal experiences directly, personally pre-chewed and spoonfed to them. And when you do, they'll then ask for you to swallow for them, too, because, you see, in THEIR experience..,

[linusjf]

Bertrand Russell: Cocksureness and doubt

Bertrand Russell (Photo credit: Wikipedia) “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ” —Bertrand Russell.

[slowtumbling]

The Question of Odoacer

In the twilight's hush, a dying king lay,Odoacer, ruler of a realm's decay.His empire crumbled, his strength did wane,And in his heart, there echoed a refrain:"Where is God?" he whispered low,As shadows danced in the fire's glow.In the silence of his chamber dim,He sought solace in a distant hymn.From distant lands, from far and wide,Came tales of gods and deities defied.But in his soul, a…

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

"Atheism is not a religion. It doesn't mean I lack morals. It doesn't mean I worship Satan.

It doesn't mean your god failed to grant my wishes. It isn't a reaction to being hurt by religion. It doesn't mean my life is empty.

It just means I don't believe in the existence of gods."

-- Jacqueline Hadley

And there’s no reason I should.

[flagellant]

yeah we might be brothers in christ but so were cain and abel so shut the fuck up before i decide to find a rock about it

[preacheroftruthblog]

The Butt-Shermer Debate On The Existence Of God -- David W. Hester

On October 25 2023, a debate was held on the campus of Faulkner University. This alone would have made news, but both the topic and the participants drew even more attention. Kyle Butt of Apologetics Press affirmed the existence of God, and Michael Shermer of the Skeptics Society denied. The story of how this debate came to be is interesting. In the spring of 2022, Mitch Henry became the…

[juliakristeva]

to be fully honest this new trend of remaking and sanitizing not only gothic fiction and its genres (hill house, dorian grey, turn of the screw) and horror movies more generally (carrie, the exorcist) point to much more serious cultural movement than the death of art or the death of horror as a genre in the mainstream. specifically it is gesturing to a sanitizing effect in which cultural authority has now deemed the subversive as worthy of living but only if it is a) commodified and b) divested of all its subversive elements. we can play-act at feminism, trans inclusion, and anti-racism as long as it serves a corporate interest and does not actually challenge cultural authorities. we can adopt its aesthetics as something to be sold without actually inhabiting it ideologically. it is the newest manifestation of cultural authorities anesthetizing effect on anything that threatens it and it is becoming more and more prevalent. anyway i want to beat mike flanagan with hammers

[egophiliac]

buckle up lads we're going BACK INTO THE BOOK