#teleological argument for the existence of God

[preacheroftruthblog]

Does God Exist? -- Jovan Payes

There is no greater worldview question that divides humans so sharply than the following: does God exist? As a Christian, I believe there are many good reasons to assert that God does exist. This short piece offers a brief overview of these arguments for the existence of the Christian God. The Case For The Christian God The average Christian may think arguing for the existence of God is…

[alevelrs]

The Teleological Argument for the Existence of God

Teleological arguments are design arguments, looks at the purpose of something and from that reasons that God must exist. Attempt to prove God through the concept of design, claims that the world displays God’s purpose or end goal. A posteriori and inductive because they look at experience of the world and draw inferences from it. Indictive because reach conclusions which are statements of probability rather than conclusive proofs.

Aquinas:

Aquinas believed that there are two ways God could be reached: through revelation, and through reason, therefore faith and reason could be combined to reach a better understanding of God. Aquinas put forward 5 ways to demonstrate the existence of God, and his 5th way is teleological.

In this, he argues that intelligent objects (like the arrow of an archer), can only be aimed towards a goal (like the target of an archer), with the guiding presence of an intelligent being (like the archer). This intelligent being, he argues, is God. Everything in nature which is moving but which has no intelligence must be directed to its goal by God. This is known as a design qua purpose argument because it seeks to show that the universe has direction and a goal (a purpose) enabled by God.

Aquinas’ teleological argument makes use of a belief that Aristotle held, that everything in the universe has telos (purpose). However, Aquinas argued that this telos did not come about naturally, but rather there must be an intelligent being behind this purposefulness. For example, Aristotle’s example that ducks have webbed feet for the purpose of swimming faster, Aquinas would argue someone designed the webbed feet. Aquinas thought about what Aristotle noted about nature exhibiting regularities, concluding that there is a guiding hand behind it.

William Paley:

Paley argued that the way things work seem to have been put together deliberately with a purpose, e.g. the eye seems to be constructed deliberately with the purpose to see, which is evidence of design. He puts forward the analogy of the watch: if we found a watch on a heath there would be no natural explanation: after observing how well the watch worked, we would assume that it has some designer, e.g. a watchmaker because of the cogs and springs, this design is not a result of chance. By analogy, we could say the same of nature. This designer is God.

Looking at a watch was similar to looking at the world, or at the human body, and noticing how it all works together – so intricately that one can only infer that there must have been a divine intelligence ordering it.

Paley also argued:

We do not have to have ever seen a watch being made in order to realise that there must have been a maker.

The watch does not have to work perfectly for us still to realise that it must have been designed. (in the same way the universe…)

Even if the watch is broken, there is enough design to suggest a watchmaker: he is not commenting on the quality of the design

Even if we didn’t fully understand the watch, we could still identify design.

Hume’s Criticisms of the Teleological Argument

Hume predates Paley and said that the world is not like a watch - it might be true that a watch looks like it is designed, but it is harder to say that the world has these characteristics.

We only conclude that the watch has been designed because we can conclude that it is different to other things in nature – what can we compare the world to? The world is nature.

Just because we recognise order in this world, doesn’t mean it came from a Divine Creator. We have no standards of order, nothing to compare it to, maybe our world isn’t as ordered as we think. Therefore: analogy isn’t suitable.

Order is just a necessary part of the world’s existence – if everything was random, the world could not exist. This order could have come about by chance.

The world could be said to be more like a vegetable that has the characteristics of intricacy (a complex natural object) rather than a machine like a watch. BUT a vegetable only grows because the laws of biology work- where do these laws come from?

Instead Hume said that given an infinite amount of time all the particles in the universe would be able to combine in every possible combination. Eventually, a stable environment would be created and that would be the world in which we live, therefore the universe is due to randomness rather than a designer.

Hume says we cannot make inferences about the cause (God) by looking at the effects in the world: our world is finite and imperfect, why should God be infinite and perfect? He used the example of a pair of scales: just because we know one side is heavier than the other, doesn’t mean we know the exact weight of the other side. Therefore, just because we see evidence of a designer doesn’t mean we know anything about the nature of the designer. The designer could create the world through trial and error, or could be an infant deity who then abandoned the world, or there could be many designers, or could be immoral – how can we suggest that it is the Christian God? BUT just because we cannot fully understand God, doesn’t mean the argument isn’t logical

Chance Arguments

Chance arguments suggest there are better, more plausible explanations for the apparent design in the world: chance. Ockham’s razor: perhaps chance is a better explanation than God: it is simpler.

The theory of evolution: Mutations allow animals to evolve this happens by chance rather than because of a designer: Darwin’s theory of evolution.  Survival of the fittest: better evolved animals will survive, so nature is responsible for the world rather than God.

BUT F.R. Tennant argued against this with the anthropic principle: there has been too much that has gone right in the world leading to the existence of humankind for it to be chance. For example: in many fundamental laws of nature, if anything was just slightly different, human life could not have happened.  Also, the aesthetic principle: why can we recognise beauty, no evolutionary advantage, must be a divine creator. Perhaps Ockham’s razor? Easiest explanation is that there is a God.

But no matter what happens in the world, the odds are always against it: the odds are against your parents meeting, you being born etc. This doesn’t not rule out the possibility of chance.

[trueconservativepundit]

Genesis 1-11:The Existence and Presence of Almighty God, Part 2

Intelligent Design leaves no room for randomness as one of the ways the universe came into being   By Donald Whitchard Genesis 1:1,Exodus 20:11,Job 26:7,Psalm 33:6,Isaiah 40:28,Acts 17:24   Summary: God’s existence is obvious (Romans 1:18-20) through creation and our conscience.  The evidence is there for anyone willing to take their blinders off, swallow their pride, and humble themselves.   The…

[hyperlexichypatia]

So many ableist and queerphobic (and probably other kinds of bigoted, but I know more about those two) arguments, under examination, just boil down to a teleological fallacy. And we've got to start deconstructing that fallacy at the root if we're going to keep those same arguments from crawling back out of the ooze.

There is no physical attribute or biological process, in humans or any other species, that is "supposed to" or "intended to" or "meant to" be a certain way. That is not a meaningful concept.

"People are supposed to be able to walk a mile without assistance."

No. Perhaps most people can walk a mile without assistance, but many people cannot. There is no "supposed to."

"People with ovaries are intended to be able to get pregnant."

No. Many people with ovaries are able to get pregnant, and some are not. There is no "intended to."

"People are designed to have XX or XY chromosomes."

No. Most people have XX or XY chromosomes, but many do not. There is no "designed to."

"Your child should be sitting up and responding to words when they're 6 months old."

No. Many children are sitting up and responding to words when they're 6 months old, but some are not. "Should" has no place here.

Too often, well-meaning people try to rebut these arguments with some kind of "accepting" teleological argument for "why" disabled/queer people might exist.

"Maybe autistic people exist to be lone shepherds watching the flock. Maybe gay people exist to be adoptive parents for orphans. Maybe people with Down syndrome exist to be peacekeepers and mediators. Maybe ADHD people exist to be creative problem-solvers"

No. These may be social roles that may be well-suited to some people's strengths, but they're not the reason that anyone exists, because people don't exist for a reason. Autistic people exist. Gay people exist. People with Down syndrome exist. ADHD people exist.

This also opens the door to people arguing "What about the BAD disabilities, that don't have a function? What about cancer? What about Tay-Sachs disease? What about cystic fibrosis? What about major depressive disorder? Surely THOSE disabilities aren't supposed to exist!"

And yet they do. People with cancer exist. People with Tay-Sachs disease exist. People with cystic fibrosis exist. People with major depressive disorder exist. They deserve rights and dignity and equality because they are people who exist.

Some people will try to get around this by using "evolved to." "People evolved to practice heterosexual reproduction. People evolved to have two legs and be able to run."

But evolution isn't goal-oriented. It just happens. Having two legs and running and reproducing heterosexually are predominant human traits, but clearly, they are not necessary ones, because you can look around and see people who don't have two legs, people who can't run, people who don't practice heterosexual reproduction.

To be clear, I'm coming from the starting premise that there is no specific "intent" or "purpose" to the biological diversity of life, but I'm not saying that if you do believe in something like creationism or intelligent design, that also isn't a good justification for ableism or queerphobia, because the full range of life's diversity still very much exists. "God didn't make Adam and Steve!" Well, and yet, there, standing before you, are two men, Adam and Steve, partnered to each other, so either you think they weren't created by God (sounds heretical, but what do I know?) or you must accept that Xe did, in fact, create Adam and Steve.

[locustheologicus]

It is obvious, then, that neither the Idea of Good, nor the good that is common, is the chief good that we are looking for… What really is the chief good is the purpose or end that is the cause of what leads to it and is the first of all goods. It is this, then, that goodness itself must be: the end of everything attainable by human action.

This is a quote from Aristotle’s “Eudemian Ethics,” where the philosopher goes on to identify the source of humanity’s ultimate happiness. This pursuit of happiness, eudaimonia, is considered the final end, the purpose of human existence. Christianity has recognized the Good, the final end, within God himself and Jesus attest to this when he tells the rich young man who asks for moral guidance that “There is only one who is good” (Mt. 19:17) or in another version of the story “No one is good but God alone” (Lk. 18:19). As St. John Paul II tells us in reference to Jesus response to the rich young man, “only God can answer the question about what is good, because he is Good itself.” (VS #9)

As Fr. Dominic Legge, OP and Fr. James Brent, OP tells us in the videos above and below, this is what the study of teleology is all about. Aquinas and the scholastic movement borrowed Aristotle’s idea to consider how Christianity understood the ultimate purpose of human existence based on the teachings of Christ.

In his recent encyclical, Dilexit nos, Pope Francis explores the teleological question.

Whenever a person thinks, questions and reflects on his or her true identity, strives to understand the deeper questions of life and to seek God, or experiences the thrill of catching a glimpse of truth, it leads to the realization that our fulfilment as human beings is found in love. In loving, we sense that we come to know the purpose and goal of our existence in this world. Everything comes together in a state of coherence and harmony. It follows that, in contemplating the meaning of our lives, perhaps the most decisive question we can ask is, “Do I have a heart?” - DN #23

We may see where Pope Francis is going in this teleological exploration but it may help us to consider how Catholic doctrine has considered this question. In exploring the teleological question Aquinas and the scholastic community recognized that the ultimate end and purpose for humanity resided in God. In her book, Nature as Reason: A Thomistic theory of the Natural Law, the great thomistic scholar, Jean Porter, would agree with Fr. Legge that recent scientific understanding of both evolutionary and cosmological understandings no longer appeal to “the effects of random chance alone” but “to formal causes, that is to say, explanations which irreducibly refer to the kind of creature that is in question.” (Porter, pg. 98). While the idea of a formal cause does not imply a teleological argument that God is the source and purpose of creation her point is that the concept is no longer scientifically incompatible.

But Aquinas and the scholastic did employ the natural law as a preliminary source of eudaimonia. This is something that Fr. Legge doesn’t go into above but it needs to be considered before we examine spiritual teleology. Pope Francis tells us that the ultimate teleological expression is found with God and the Sacred Heart but before we enter into this spiritual insight the scholastics suggest that there is a natural purpose that we must tend to before we raise the spiritual purpose. We must tend to the wounds of the body before we respond to a broken spirit.

Aquinas presents the idea of teleology as a divine purpose that guides all of creation, including humanity.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of things. For we see that those things which lack reason, such as natural bodies, operate by reason of an end, which is apparent from this, that always or most frequently they operate in the same way, in such a way as to attain what is best. Thus it is plain that they attain an end from intention, and not from chance. But those things which do not have cognition do not move towards an end unless they are directed by another having knowledge and understanding, just as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, there is something with understanding, from which all natural things are ordained towards an end, and this we call God. (ST I 2.3)

Aquinas’ teleological proof of God’s existence presents us with a rational consideration for creation based on the inherent purpose and meaning we believe creation, including humanity, has. What is further suggested is that this purpose, meaning, and goal is what brings a sense of fulfillment to creation and our natural pursuit of happiness.

The scholastic approach to the natural law lends itself to a kind of eudaemonism. That is to say, it lends itself to interpretation in terms of some account of the ultimate purpose or overall goal of human life, understood in terms of happiness, blessedness, or flourishing… When we examine Aquinas’s own eudaemonism, it is striking to see how much of a place he gives to the basic human inclinations. We would not have expected this from his general summary statement of what happiness is - the enjoyment of the vision of God, in supernatural happiness, or the practice of the intellectual and moral virtues, in terrestrial forms of happiness. Yet these claims must be seen in connection with his remark that everyone desires happiness, insofar as she desires that her will be fulfilled; and as we read a little further on, the will is naturally oriented towards certain natural goods. These remarks, in turn, suggest that whatever happiness involves, it must allow some place for the pursuit and attainment of natural goods, a suggestion reinforced by the fact that Aquinas structures the precepts of the natural law in accordance with our natural inclinations. My point is that Aquinas’s more general remarks, especially concerning natural happiness, must be read in conjunction with his analysis of human desire and striving in terms of natural inclinations. In order to count as human happiness or flourishing, any state of affairs must provide for the appropriate and well-ordered pursuit and attainment of at least some of the natural human goods, even as it regulates and places constraints on their enjoyment. (Porter, pg. 81-82).

The pursuit of basic human goods and the regulation against intrinsically evil acts has been a moral formula for promoting a natural teleology. The scholastics have helped us develop this moral perspective based on the natural law. From this we will eventually derive the ideas of natural and human rights.

It is important for us to address the basic human goods and in promoting charity and justice the Catholic Church has always recognized that this is a vital part of our mission. Pope Francis however is correct in pointing out that our natural teleology is not sufficient. Having our natural human goods will satisfy us but will not bring fulfillment. For that to happen we require a spiritual teleology that connects us with God, our final cause, which Fr. James Brent, OP discusses below.

A fair critique of this natural law approach which I have covered in the past is that it does not grant us a relational image of God. For Christianity this is a problem becuase Christ presents us with a deeply relational image of God that he goes so far as to call Abba (daddy). To that end Pope Francis suggests that we should look to God but not in the cold rational way that the scholastics present. Rather, we should enter into a warm relationship with the source of our existence. We should explore a teleology that draws us into an inter-relational dynamic with God and one another.

In the end, that Sacred Heart is the unifying principle of all reality, since “Christ is the heart of the world, and the paschal mystery of his death and resurrection is the centre of history, which, because of him, is a history of salvation”. All creatures “are moving forward with us and through us towards a common point of arrival, which is God, in that transcendent fullness where the risen Christ embraces and illumines all things”. - DN #31

This spiritual experience and understanding brings to us a new ontological understanding of who we are. The concept that God is love and that we are made in the image and likeness of God defines us as people who are loved by God, whose ultimate purpose is one with God and the dynamic of divine relationship we call the Holy Trinity. A relationship that Christ opens up to us through his own redemptive sacrifice for humanity.

Entering into the heart of Christ, we feel loved by a human heart filled with affections and emotions like our own. Jesus’ human will freely choose to love us, and that spiritual love is flooded with grace and charity. When we plunge into the depths of his heart, we find ourselves overwhelmed by the immense glory of his infinite love as the eternal Son, which we can no longer separate from his human love. It is precisely in his human love, and not apart from it, that we encounter his divine love: we discover “the infinite in the finite”. -DN #67

The scope of this spiritual teleology impacts how we see ourselves in relationship to one another. There is a social aspect to this spiritual teleology that will now recommit us to the natural teleology that Aquinas and the scholastics see in the natural law. But whereas the natural teleology will allow us to serve ourselves and possibly others based on our own natural preservation self-interest the spiritual teleology motivates us to serve others based on the Love that God has for us and all of creation.

We should not think of this mission of sharing Christ as something only between Jesus and me. Mission is experienced in fellowship with our communities and with the whole Church. If we turn aside from the community, we will be turning aside from Jesus. If we turn our back on the community, our friendship with Jesus will grow cold. This is a fact, and we must never forget it. Love for the brothers and sisters of our communities – religious, parochial, diocesan and others – is a kind of fuel that feeds our friendship with Jesus. Our acts of love for our brothers and sisters in community may well be the best and, at times, the only way that we can witness to others our love for Jesus Christ. He himself said, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn 13:35). This love then becomes service within the community. I never tire of repeating that Jesus told us this in the clearest terms possible: “Just as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Mt 25:40). He now asks you to meet him there, in every one of our brothers and sisters, and especially in the poor, the despised and the abandoned members of society. What a beautiful encounter that can be! DN #212-213

Aquinas and the scholastics presented teleology as it emerged from natural law. This set an important base for a natural teleology that connects with the basic needs of all humanity. But our souls yearn for a deeper meaning and this is the spiritual teleology that Christ offers us through a deep relationship with God.

Below Fr. Brent describes three senses for the purpose and end of creation. The first sense of an end as a conscious intention or purpose for our actions, a goal for what we do. The second sense of an end result of any action, the purpose that they are naturally built for. The third sense is the perfection of what a creature is suppose to accomplish, the flourishing of what it is meant to do.

But then Fr. Brent then introduces us to the final causality which he says causes us to wonder. This is where we engage in philosophically/theological contemplation. "Reason points us to the answer: behind the natural world so full of teleological activity, there must be a higher Mind, God - who directs all things, and orders all things well."

Beyond the three natural senses Pope Francis would have us consider the final causality and that has us engage in the wonder of why and how God orders all things. For Christians this brings us to the love that God has for us and all creation. To appreciate that love, Pope Francis offers us the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

[cirdesignproject]

Basic theological, philosophical, and historical sources of mankind's knowledge of the resurrection of Jesus Christ

The resurrection of Jesus Christ stands as a cornerstone of Christian faith, drawing upon various theological, philosophical, and historical sources to support its claim. The Bible, particularly the New Testament Gospels, forms the primary theological source, recounting the resurrection and its profound impact on early followers. Philosophically, the concept finds support in arguments such as the teleological and moral arguments, which posit a divine purpose and the existence of God respectively. Historical sources further contribute to the knowledge of the resurrection, including the testimonies of eyewitnesses, extra-biblical accounts, and the growth and endurance of the early Christian movement. Together, these sources provide a foundation for mankind's understanding of the resurrection, shaping Christian beliefs for centuries to come.

In theological terms, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is primarily derived from the accounts found in the New Testament Gospels. The four Gospels, namely Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, provide detailed narratives of Jesus' crucifixion, burial, and subsequent resurrection. These accounts emphasize the empty tomb, appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples and other witnesses, and the transformative impact of the resurrection on early Christian communities. The theological significance of the resurrection lies in its affirmation of Jesus' divinity, victory over sin and death, and the promise of eternal life for believers.

From a philosophical standpoint, arguments supporting the resurrection often draw upon the teleological and moral arguments for the existence of God. The teleological argument posits that the existence of order, purpose, and design in the universe implies the existence of an intelligent creator. The resurrection, seen as an event of divine intervention, aligns with this argument, suggesting that God's purpose and design are manifest in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Similarly, the moral argument posits that objective moral values and duties necessitate the existence of a moral lawgiver. The resurrection, as a demonstration of God's triumph over evil and the ultimate victory of righteousness, aligns with this argument by affirming the existence of a divine moral lawgiver who upholds justice and goodness.

Historically, the resurrection of Jesus finds support in multiple sources. The testimonies of the disciples and other witnesses, as recorded in the New Testament and early Christian writings, attest to their firsthand experiences of encountering the risen Christ. These accounts provide a foundation for the belief in the resurrection among early Christian communities.

Moreover, extra-biblical sources, such as the writings of early Christian apologists and historians, acknowledge the existence of Jesus and the impact of his resurrection on the early Christian movement. The growth and endurance of Christianity itself, despite persecution and opposition, serve as a historical testament to the transformative power of the resurrection in the lives of believers.

In conclusion, mankind's knowledge of the resurrection of Jesus Christ draws from a variety of theological, philosophical, and historical sources. The New Testament Gospels serve as the primary theological account, while philosophical arguments support the plausibility of the resurrection as an act of divine intervention. Additionally, historical testimonies and the endurance of the early Christian movement provide further evidence for the reality of the resurrection. Together, these sources contribute to the understanding and affirmation of the resurrection as a central tenet of Christian faith.

[bobthegalacticcowboy]

CHAT GPT question I asked  today!

WHy does god exisit?

ChatGPT response.

The question of why God exists is a deeply philosophical and theological one, and it has been contemplated by humans for centuries. It's important to note that the existence of God is a matter of personal belief and can vary among different individuals and religious traditions.

From a religious perspective, believers often assert that God exists as a fundamental aspect of their faith. They may argue that God is the creator of the universe, the source of moral principles, or the ultimate purpose behind human existence. Many religious traditions also propose that God's existence provides a framework for understanding the meaning and order in the world.

Philosophical arguments for the existence of God have been put forward by various thinkers throughout history. Some of these arguments include the cosmological argument, which posits that God is the cause or explanation of the existence of the universe, and the teleological argument, which suggests that the order and complexity observed in nature imply an intelligent designer.

On the other hand, atheism is the belief that God does not exist, and atheists argue that the concept of God is either unsupported by evidence or is logically inconsistent. They may point to the lack of empirical evidence for God's existence or highlight the presence of suffering and evil in the world as challenges to the notion of an all-powerful and benevolent deity.

Ultimately, the question of why God exists is a deeply personal one, influenced by individual perspectives, beliefs, and experiences. Different people may find meaning and purpose in different ways, and their understanding of God's existence may vary accordingly.

[vanilla-voyeur]

Briefly mentioned, but it deserves expansion: it's not only that an LGBT person doing literally anything for any amount of time onscreen or offscreen is "LGBT propoganda". It's also that it's Christian persecution. It's a violation of their religious freedom for us to exist.

And again, as OP said, they say it like that "anti-Christian propoganda" so you're imagining something way more explicit and way more direct. Like a scene where Chelsea Brown puts on the TV and it's just a 20 minute video of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris deconstructing the teleological argument for god and ending it with "Hail Satan!" (Tbh I'm an atheist and I would find that tedious. Maybe Chelsea should just stick to getting stoned with her ze/hir gfs)

So an important thing about all those times some conservative paper is writing about how "SOME MOVIE/SHOW IS ANTI-CHRISTIAN LGBT PROPAGANDA!" and then it turns out the thing has, like, one scene where it's implied one character is trans or a high school guy mentions his offscreen boyfriend... This isn't an overreaction, exactly, though it often gets called that.

Because it's never as "bad" as you'd expect from all that. The new peanuts film doesn't star "Chelsea Brown", a transfemme lesbian who uses neopronouns and is in a polycule with three (possibly weed-smoking) girlfriends. As amusing as that'd be... It's always just one lesbian who had a chaste kiss with her wife at a birthday party.

Instead the correct takeaway is that they are telling on themselves exactly how much LGBT content they think is too much:

Any.

The amount of LGBT representation they think is correct is none. It doesn't matter how respectable it is, if they're married, if it's just the most sexless thing you've ever seen, if it's just hinted at and not stated outright or shown... It's too much.

And that's important because it's not exactly what they are saying. They are saying "this has gone too far, this is too much", which might cause people in the middle to agree with them. Someone might go "maybe there is a bunch of naked gay men in the new episode of The Candy Bunch Kids, that doesn't seem appropriate for my 4 year old".

But that's never the case (with the possible exception of the original unpatched SimCopter). It's how they're arguing, yes, but they're arguing it based on the most basic of representation.

And that's an important thing to remember when it comes to things like the "kink at pride" debate. Even if they're saying "this has gone too far, this is too much", there's no amount that you can restrict yourself to that'll make them happy.

You can't win this game; They're lying about the rules. So be yourself proudly and loudly. They'll complain just as much, don't listen to them.

[ikaanews]

THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN

The teleological argument, also known as the argument from design, is a philosophical and theological argument for the existence of God. It posits that the universe and its natural laws exhibit such complexity, order, and purpose that they must have been designed by an intelligent creator. One of the key pieces of evidence cited in the teleological argument is the delicate balance of the…

[philosophystudentorg]

The Teleological Argument: Does Nature's Design Prove God Exists? | PhilosophyStudent.org #shorts

Explore the Teleological Argument, a fascinating philosophical perspective that uses nature’s design as a basis to argue for the existence of God. The argument involves an analogy between human-made or human-designed things and the natural world, from the Greek telos, which means goal, end, or purpose. Please Visit our Website to get more information: https://ift.tt/P0i59Y7 #teleologicalargument…

[narrowroadblog]

Pascal's Wager: Why Belief in God is a Safer Bet

Pascal’s Wager is a relevant argument for those who find themselves questioning the existence of God. Many people struggle with faith and belief in a higher power because they feel that there is simply not enough concrete evidence to prove that God exists. However, Blaise Pascal, a renowned mathematician, physicist, and philosopher of the 17th century, believed that it is rational to believe in God, even in the absence of concrete evidence. How did he arrive at this conclusion? Let's explore Pascal's Wager and why it is an important concept for belief in God. What is Pascal's Wager? Pascal's Wager is a philosophical argument that suggests that it is safer to believe in God, even if there is no empirical evidence to support His existence. Pascal believed that the potential rewards of believing in God far outweighed the potential costs of not believing. In essence, he argued that if you believe in God and He does exist, then you stand to gain eternal happiness in heaven. However, if God does not exist, you may have lived a moral and fulfilling life, but the loss would be catastrophic compared to the potential gains of eternal life. Why Pascal's Wager Matters Despite being put forth hundreds of years ago, Pascal's Wager remains a relevant concept for believers today. The wager forces us to examine our beliefs and understand how they impact our lives. If we believe in God, we are more likely to live our lives with purpose, morality, and compassion. The Bible encourages us to have faith in God, reminding us in Hebrews 11:1 that "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Faith can give us hope, strength, and direction, even in the toughest of times. Pascal's wager also recognizes that we cannot prove the existence of God through empirical evidence. However, we can use reason and probability to make an educated conclusion about His existence. In fact, many scientists and academics believe in God precisely because they see evidence of His handiwork in the complexity and order of the universe (see my post on the Teleological Argument). Counterarguments and Criticisms Of course, Pascal's Wager is not without its fair share of critics. Some argue that the wager is too simplistic and fails to take into account the complexities and nuances of belief. They claim that genuine, heartfelt faith cannot be based solely on the potential rewards or consequences of belief. To be sure, faith requires personal conviction and a willingness to trust in something greater than oneself. Despite the criticisms leveled against it, Pascal's Wager remains an important concept for belief in God. The wager encourages us to explore our beliefs, understand the role that they play in our lives, and recognize the potential rewards and consequences of those beliefs. Whether you are a scientist, a philosopher, a believer, or someone who is simply curious about the existence of God, Pascal's Wager can help you make an educated decision about the nature of the universe and your place in it. With faith, hope, and love, anything is possible, even if we cannot prove it empirically. For more about Pascal, consider this book: Read the full article

[alevelrs]

Evidential Problem of Evil

The evidential problem of evil is an a posteriori approach that begins with our own experience of evil and suffering and then look for the best possible explanation for our observations. It focuses on both the presence of natural and moral evil in the world and questions why God would create the universe knowing such examples of evil and suffering would occur.

John Stuart Mill argues that the natural world is full of evidence of evil, giving powerful examples of the way in which people and other animals suffer. He argues against those who use a posteriori arguments in support of the existence of a good God, claiming that the evidence rather points to a sadistic God. He writes that the things we punish humans for, nature does every day, such as killing and torture. In saying this, he argues against supporters of the teleological arguments such as William Paley.

He thus uses this argument to support the view that if there is a God, He does not seem to be benevolent – we cannot look to Him or to nature as a guide for our own moral behaviour, and we cannot worship him for His goodness.

William L. Rowe also gave some examples of evil. "In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering." Arguably, God could have prevented this suffering, but doesn’t. Rowe also cites the example of human evil where an innocent child is a victim of violence and thereby suffers.

The evidential problem of evil can be considered to be weak as we cannot disprove God like the logical problem, we can only make His existence less probable. We also cannot compare our experiences to God, epistemic distance means we can’t understand him so we cannot objectively measure the probability of Him existing.

[ramblingsofamuskrat]

Critically compare Plato’s form of the good with Aristotle’s prime mover. ‘Aristotelian teleology is outdated’ – Discuss. Critically compare Plato’s hierarchy of the forms with Aristotle’s four causes.

‘Discussion of the mind-body distinction is a category error’ – Critically assess this view.Is the concept of the soul best understood metaphorically or as a reality?Assess the philosophical language of soul, mind and body in Plato and Aristotle’s work.‘The soul is the way the body behaves and lives’ – Discuss.Analyse the metaphysics of consciousness.

Is a posteriori a more successful form of argument than a priori?Is God’s existence better proven by a priori or a posteriori argument?‘A priori argument is stronger than a posteriori’ – Discuss.Assess Aquinas’ 5th way“The teleological argument fails due to the challenge of evolution” – Discuss.Does evolution disprove the teleological argument?

Is a posteriori a more successful form of argument than a priori? ‘A priori argument is stronger than a posteriori’ – Discuss. Assess Gaunilo’s criticisms of the ontological argument. Assess Kant’s criticisms of the ontological argument

Are corporate religious experiences more reliable than individual experiences? How successful are the views and main conclusions of William James? Does the influence religious experiences have show they have a supernatural source? ‘Conversion experiences are more reliable than mystical experiences’ – How far do you agree?

Is the logical or evidential problem of evil the greater challenge to belief?Is it easier to show that God’s existence lacks evidence than that it is logically impossible?‘Augustine solves the logical problem of evil’ – DiscussDoes Augustine’s theodicy succeed against the evidential problem of evil?‘Hick cannot solve the evidential problem of evil’ – How far do you agree?How successfully can the evidental problem of evil be addressed through the explanation of soul-making?

Assess Anselm’s four-dimensionalist approach. Does Anselm’s four-dimensionalist approach adequately explain divine action in time? Evaluate Boethius’ view of divine action and time. Critically compare Anselm with Swinburne on God’s relationship with time. “It is not necessary to resolve the apparent conflicts between divine attributes” – Discuss.

Does Aquinas’ analogical approach support effective expression of language about God? Is symbolic religious language comprehensible?

Assess Mitchell’s contribution to the falsification symposiumIs religious language a form of life?To what extent is Aquinas’ analogical view of religious language valuable in the philosophy of religion.Should non-cognitive approaches influence interpretation of religious texts?

Where are you pulling these ideas from?!?! Genuinely...

[jumbo10]

What Is The Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God?

The ontological argument is an argument based not on observation of the world (like the cosmological and teleological arguments) but rather from reason alone. Specifically, the ontological argument reasons from the study of being (ontology). The first and most popular form goes back to St. Anselm in the 11th century A.D. He begins with stating that the concept of God is “a being than which no…

[eyeceonline]

Chat.OpenAI.com: What Does The Bible Say On...

--- [1] The Existence of God

The existence of God is a topic that has been debated for centuries by philosophers, theologians, and scientists. While there is no single answer that everyone agrees on, there are many arguments both for and against the existence of God.

One of the most common arguments for the existence of God is the cosmological argument, which suggests that the universe must have had a cause, and that cause must have been God. Proponents of this argument point to the fact that everything in the universe has a cause, and therefore the universe itself must have had a cause as well.

Another argument for the existence of God is the teleological argument, which suggests that the complexity and order of the universe are evidence of a designer. Proponents of this argument point to things like the precision with which the laws of physics operate, and the intricate design of living organisms as evidence that the universe was created by a conscious being.

On the other hand, there are also many arguments against the existence of God. One of the most common is the problem of evil, which suggests that the existence of evil and suffering in the world is incompatible with the idea of an all-powerful, all-loving God. If God is all-powerful, why does he allow evil to exist? And if God is all-loving, why does he allow people to suffer?

Another argument against the existence of God is the argument from non-belief, which suggests that the fact that some people do not believe in God is evidence that God does not exist. Proponents of this argument point out that if God were real and truly desired a relationship with humans, he would make himself known to everyone.

Ultimately, the existence of God is a matter of faith and belief, rather than empirical proof. While there are many arguments both for and against the existence of God, ultimately it is up to each individual to decide for themselves what they believe. --- [2] Being Late to Church There are no specific Bible verses that address being late to church. However, there are several verses that speak to the importance of gathering together with other believers and the value of prioritizing worship: 1. Hebrews 10:25 - “And let us not neglect our meeting together, as some people do, but encourage one another, especially now that the day of his return is drawing near.” 2. Psalm 122:1 - “I was glad when they said to me, 'Let us go to the house of the Lord!'” 3. Matthew 18:20 - “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” 4. Acts 2:42 - “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” 5. Colossians 3:16 - “Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts.” These verses emphasize the importance of regularly coming together with other believers to worship, encourage one another, and grow in faith. While being punctual is important, the focus should be on the purpose and value of gathering with fellow believers, rather than a legalistic adherence to a specific time. --- [3] Dating in the 21st Century/Modern Social Practice The Bible does not provide specific instructions on dating as a modern social practice. However, it does contain principles and guidelines that can be applied to relationships in general.

For example, the Bible teaches that Christians should not be unequally yoked with non-Christians (2 Corinthians 6:14), meaning that they should not enter into relationships where their values and beliefs are fundamentally different.

Additionally, the Bible teaches that Christians should avoid sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 6:18) and should strive for purity and holiness in their relationships (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5). The Bible also stresses the importance of treating others with love, respect, and kindness (Matthew 22:39, 1 Corinthians 13:4-7), which can be applied to dating relationships as well. Overall, while the Bible does not provide a specific blueprint for dating, its principles can be applied to help Christians navigate relationships in a way that honors God and promotes healthy, loving connections with others.