This thread exists to pose a question. I have read twenty arguments for the existence of God and I found it to be quite powerful. I have included the link here. If it doesn't work please tell me. 20 Arguments for the Existence of God
I want to get the opinion of atheists on possible responses or critques to the arguments. Furthermore, I am interested in the opinion of christians on how effective these arguments are for them or have been in debating atheists. I look forward to hearing from both sides.

Originally posted by Eleazar7

This thread exists to pose a question. I have read twenty arguments for the existence of God and I found it to be quite powerful. I have included the link here. If it doesn't work please tell me. 20 Arguments for the Existence of God
I want to get the opinion of atheists on possible responses or critques to the arguments. Furthermore, I am interested in the opinion of christians on how effective these arguments are for them or have been in debating atheists. I look forward to hearing from both sides.

Well - I don't have tons of time tonight, but the first one looks like it is paraphrased right out of the Summa Theologica. It seems to be classic Thomism without the heavy handed Thomistic language.

I think it fails for many reasons. First, it ignores modern understanding of physics. Energy IS change - it is matter in motion. The infinite series argument has been dealt with many times here. It fails when one observes that there is no contradiction with an infinite series in motion.

All in all, I think the argument fails. I'll try to get to the others over the next few days. Thanks for the link! Nice to finally have a question with some content!

Michel

Here's my take on the first 10:

1. The Argument from Change

This argument proposes that a changing universe implies an outside agent actualizing change inside the universe. Even if true, this only suggests some outside agent of change, it does not necessarily imply intelligence.

2. The Argument from Efficient Causality

Similarly, this suggests that there must be something that caused the existence of the know universe. I agree, but this only suggests some sort of cause, it does not necessarily imply intelligence.

3. The Argument from Time and Contingency

An argument that there cann't be a point in history of non-existence. That only suggests some kind of existence in an altered form.

4. The Argument from Degrees of Perfection

This one reminds me of Plato's ideal chair. It postulates that there is a best of all things, but that could just as easily be an imaginary asymptote that we approach rather than an actual existing being. We can also define a standard, such as defining a range of frequencies of light as the color green. We may never see a beam of light that falls entirely within that range, because other colors will mix in to some degree. We can define a perfect meter as the length of some wave, knowing that no matter how hard we try we'll never cut a plank exactly to that length. We can define a perfectly good person as meeting all the best traits we see in people, knowing no one will meet all of those conditions.

5. The Design Argument

The trick here is to find something that is designed. Saying that design is obvious is insufficient.

6. The Kalam Argument

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being.

Again, inferring a cause doesn't necessarily imply an intelligent cause.

7. The Argument from Contingency

1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
2. The universe--the collection of beings in space and time--exists.
3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.
5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

Assuming this is true, it does not necessarily imply an intelligent outside agent.

8. The Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole

This suggests that the parts of the world interract, pointing to an outside intelligence that caused the overall unifying idea. This assumes some sort of overall plan and purpose, which is not necessarily implied by interaction of the parts, but could simply be a sequence of cause and effect involving the particles that were created in the origin of the universe.

9. The Argument from Miracles

1. A miracle is an event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.
2. There are numerous well-attested miracles.
3. Therefore, there are numerous events whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.
4. Therefore God exists.

This argument doesn't work too well for somebody who has never encountered miracles. The existences of the miracles would be taken from hearsay evidence, which could stem from misinterpretation of events, exaggeration, or hoax. Also, there could be other (even supernatural) explanations that do not necessarily point to a God.

10. The Argument from Consciousness

1. We experience the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.
2. Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance.
3. Not blind chance.
4. Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.

Part 2 is flawed in that it assumes there is no non-intelligent mechanism alternative to an intelligent mechanism that leads to intelligence. Although I very much leave open the possibility of that intelligent mechanism, I can also point out that intelligence can be a strong survival factor in natural selection for biologic evolution.

Phew. These are getting longer. Next five.

11. The Argument from Truth

1.Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being.
2. Truth properly resides in a mind.
3. But the human mind is not eternal.
4. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside.

Recognizing truth involves a mind. The true nature of the universe doesn't necessarily require a mind to recognize it.

12. The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God

1. We have ideas of many things.
2. These ideas must arise either from ourselves or from things outside us.
3. One of the ideas we have is the idea of God--an infinite, all-perfect being.
4. This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and no effect can be greater than its cause.
5. Therefore, the idea must have been caused by something outside us which has nothing less than the qualities contained in the idea of God.
6. But only God himself has those qualities.
7. Therefore God himself must be the cause of the idea we have of him.
8. Therefore God exists.

I can't imagine infinity. Can you? I can only think of something as big as I can imagine, and assume that there may be something bigger. I can't imagine that something bigger, because by definition it's already bigger than I can imagine.

13. The Ontological Argument

1. It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone.
2. "God" means "that than which a greater cannot be thought."
3. Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality.
4. Then a greater than God could be thought (namely, a being that has all the qualities our thought of God has plus real existence).
5. But this is impossible, for God is "that than which a greater cannot be thought."
6. Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality.

This assumes that a mind could grasp God, but God has been defined as infinite. Human minds can't grasp the infinite (as far as I know).

14. The Moral Argument

1. Real moral obligation is a fact. We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil.
2. Either the atheistic view of reality is correct or the "religious" one.
3. But the atheistic one is incompatible with there being moral obligation.
4. Therefore the "religious" view of reality is correct.

The first part is not substantiated. The third is incorrect. For example, moral obligation can be a strong species survival trait in natural selection under biologic evolution, as it serves to protect the existence of the species.

15. The Argument from Conscience

1. From something less than me (nature)
2. From me (individual)
3. From others equal to me (society)
4. From something above me (God)

We can agree as a society to follow a comprimise set moral obligations. Obviously not everyone chooses to follow these obligations, and they vary from society to society. If they come from something above, one would expect universal moral standards followed by every society.

Wrapping it up:

16. The Argument from Desire.

1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
3. Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.
4. This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever."

Humans are naturally greedy? I'm not sure that this unfulfilled, nebulous desire can be called a universal trait. There is commonly a desire for things we don't have, but we can usually identify those things we want. When we get the things we want, we can then identify more things we don't have and want. This does not necessarily extend indefinitely, especially since we have very limited lifespans and more than enough things we don't have and would like to acquire.

17. The Argument from Aesthetic Experience

This argument needs a bit more description. There's no indication of why an aesthetic experience would imply God.

18. The Argument from Religious Experience

See the above section on miracles, which is basically the same argument.

19. The Common Consent Argument

1. Belief in God--that Being to whom reverence and worship are properly due--is common to almost all people of every era.
2. Either the vast majority of people have been wrong about this most profound element of their lives or they have not.
3. It is most plausible to believe that they have not.
4. Therefore it is most plausible to believe that God exists.

Obviously religious beliefs have included many gods, or simply supernatural forces of some sort. The claim is that as people learn more about the universe, the beliefs get pared down to just one God. However, this could also mean that as we learn more about the universe even that last God goes away (I'm not suggesting it will, by the way). People have always wanted quick answers to the nature of things, and have imagined gods and other supernatural forces as explanations. Over time, as humans learned more about the universe, the supernatural forces have been pared down. Don't forget that Hinduism and Buddhism are still around and practiced by a significant fraction of the Earth's population, by the way.

20. Pascal's Wager

This could be extended to a myriad of belief systems. If you lack belief in Hinduism, you could be messing up your karma big time, but if you believe in it, you could attain greater inlightenment in this life to help you advance in your next. So if I follow Christianity, I may be screwing myself up or vice versa. And I might condemn myself to Hell under Islam. Pascal's wager only works if you are limited to two choices.


Counter-arguments are welcome, of course.

Originally posted by Eleazar7

This thread exists to pose a question. I have read twenty arguments for the existence of God and I found it to be quite powerful. I have included the link here. If it doesn't work please tell me. 20 Arguments for the Existence of God
I want to get the opinion of atheists on possible responses or critques to the arguments. Furthermore, I am interested in the opinion of christians on how effective these arguments are for them or have been in debating atheists. I look forward to hearing from both sides.

The best arguement I've had with an atheist is you let them know how you stand, they let you know what they think. The best thing to do is tell them that God exists, and that living a good Christian life is best in the end. You're more happy, live better, have a happier marriage and such. And then they figure the rest out on their own. That's the key part, is they figure a majority of it out by themselves. I find it's best that they do that, then for them to feel forced into some belief.

But, some people just don't want to hear it at all.

God bless you brother ...I had thirty questions but i could only get to 11 of them...anyway, I agree with most of these, and p's wager is easily tightened up and made much more effective. The tightened up P's wager WAS one of the thirty questions....too bad!

Originally posted by Eleazar7

This thread exists to pose a question. I have read twenty arguments for the existence of God and I found it to be quite powerful. I have included the link here. If it doesn't work please tell me. 20 Arguments for the Existence of God
I want to get the opinion of atheists on possible responses or critques to the arguments. Furthermore, I am interested in the opinion of christians on how effective these arguments are for them or have been in debating atheists. I look forward to hearing from both sides.

That's an excellent article. I printed it out while at work so I could read it on my own time. I'll probably get back to you in a couple days with a fuller analysis.

First glace though, it seems that like carpe said, there is a simplified offering of Aquinas' 5 proofs of god along with Anselm's Ontological proof, both of which I find flawed. But I'll elaborate after a fuller reading.

Originally posted by Mr. Christopher

The best arguement I've had with an atheist is you let them know how you stand, they let you know what they think. The best thing to do is tell them that God exists, and that living a good Christian life is best in the end. You're more happy, live better, have a happier marriage and such. And then they figure the rest out on their own. That's the key part, is they figure a majority of it out by themselves. I find it's best that they do that, then for them to feel forced into some belief.

But, some people just don't want to hear it at all.

That's a hard case to make when divorce rates among Christians equal or exceed those among nonchristians, the death rates and life spans aren't significantly different, and the suicide rates aren't significantly different. About the only thing we might be able to say is that predominantly Christian countries tend to be wealthier: an odd bost for those who follow the teachings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth.

But I agree with the general sentiment that people need to find their own way.

I think perhaps the most powerful argument a Christian can make is to the down-trodden person suffering under a burden of guilt. The message of unconditional forgiveness and love is a poweful one - it has and will sway many because of the psychological burden it offers to ease.

Michel

Originally posted by Carpedm9587

I think perhaps the most powerful argument a Christian can make is to the down-trodden person suffering under a burden of guilt. The message of unconditional forgiveness and love is a poweful one - it has and will sway many because of the psychological burden it offers to ease.

Alas, if there is no higher standard, who bears the guilt but oneself? When I came to Christ, it wasn't for psychological healing; it was for spiritual redemption. I had no guilt over my sins until I realized that my inequities had offended the God Who gave me life. This is why I feel there is only one primary reason to come to God: because He is willing to take us back, though we don't deserve it. I disagree with the notion of coming to God to have a better life. I am fully behind coming to God (in Christ) because we are living under His holy condemnation, yet He offers a way out. He offers undeserved grace.

Originally posted by Eleazar7

This thread exists to pose a question. I have read twenty arguments for the existence of God and I found it to be quite powerful. I have included the link here. If it doesn't work please tell me. 20 Arguments for the Existence of God
I want to get the opinion of atheists on possible responses or critques to the arguments. Furthermore, I am interested in the opinion of christians on how effective these arguments are for them or have been in debating atheists. I look forward to hearing from both sides.

I guess I'm tackling these in no particular order.

Pascal's Wager is, as the article notes, not an argument for god. It is an argument about fear, not truth. They do a slightly better job about justifying it by making it an argument for "seeking," but even that one is tenuous at best. It creates an false emotional skewing. This can be seen in that one could substitute ANYTHING that is worthy of our faith and allegiance and end up with a "reasonable" argument. We can make it an argument for truth, an argument for justice, an argument for finding a mate in life, and so forth.

As for his three classes of people, Pascal again shows his theistic bias. The classess presume a god actually exists, and that he is right about his "happiness" assumption. I happen to know he's wrong because I'm atheist and I'm not having a problem with happiness.

And if there is no god in existence, as I believe to be true, then the break down would be:

a) those who have sought god and found him, they are reasonable or unreasonable and happy or unhappy

b) those who have sought god and not found him, they are reasonable or unreasonable and happy or unhappy

c) those who have not sought god and not found him, they are reasonable or unreasonable and happy or unhappy

And Pascal seems to forget those who have never sought but still found. They are reasonable or unreasonable and happy or unhappy

Wow - looks like any of us might be reasonable or unreasonable and happy or unhappy. Go figure!

Seriously, the claim that only Christians are truly happy is a canard at best. An argument from emotion that doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Christian abortion, divorce, and suicide rates are not known to be significantly different from nonchristian ones. Of course we can always narrow the definition of Christian to only those people who believe in the Christian god AND are happy, not-aborting, not-divorcing people - but that's a tad circular, don't you think?

Michel

There is a lot to cover there. Each argument could possibly even fill a thread.

#1 The Argument from Change

I can think of at least a couple of problems with this argument. Although things change as a result of other things, the cause of change isn’t necessarily being constantly applied. If I roll a billiard ball on a table, it rolls for several seconds, bouncing of a cushion and changing direction and maybe falling in a hole. But I only affected it at the beginning of its path. A lot of changes occurred later, but I only touched the ball at the start. The argument seems to imply that since the universe is constantly changing, that it needs to have something from the outside constantly causing change. But all of the change happening in the universe is the result of the single Big Bang event, just like the billiard ball’s path was started by me pushing the ball. All change that happens after the Big Bang is the result of interactions of things in the universe with each other.

So if the real source of change came from the Big Bang, this reduces the Argument from Change to the First Cause argument. It’s no longer a separate argument.

Another problem with this argument is that is commits the fallacy of composition. It assumes that what is true for things inside the universe must be true for the universe as a whole, which might not be.

The argument also states, “It is not a changing thing; it is the unchanging Source of change.” But how can something that doesn’t change cause something else to change? Where did this rule come from? Can you even imagine something that doesn’t change? What it must be like?

And as was already mentioned, even if change comes from outside the universe (is there even such a thing as “outside the universe”?), it could be anything. There’s no reason to assert it’s some sort of god. I could just as easily make the argument that since so much change in nature is caused by non-conscious objects—the acorn’s growth is cause by sun, water and soil—that the universe as a whole must also be caused by a non-conscious object. I wouldn’t make that argument; but it makes just as much sense.


#20 Pascal’s Wager

Pascal’s Wager is one of the weakest arguments for the existence of God. In fact, the authors even concede that it is not a proof for the existence of God. There are several problems with it. First, it presents the problem as an either-or situation of believing God exists or not. But it ignores the fact that there are many alleged gods. Betting on the wrong god means that you will wind up in the hell of some other god.

Second, it works by way of threat. Anyone could invent any imaginary entity and arbitrarily declare that it will do you harm if you don’t believe in it. So according to Pascal’s Wager, it is now a “safe bet” to believe this thing exists. But conjuring up a worse threat doesn’t make the thing any more real. Pascal’s Wager is a poor method for determining what is true and what is false.

Third, the argument ignores probabilities. The assumption is that the existence and non-existence of God have equal probability. But usually, if something has a very low probability of being true, then a harsh outcome carries less weight.

Fourth, it may be that god does not approve of faith which is based on a self-interested wager. Perhaps he prefers honest skepticism.

#17. The Argument from Aesthetic Experience

There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach.
Therefore there must be a God.

You either see this one or you don't.

I guess I don’t. The authors got a bit lazy on this one and decided they couldn’t express their argument.

Translated, I believe what they are saying is, “When I listen to Bach I get strong, positive emotional feelings. Therefore, god exists.” Unfortunately, one thing does not prove the other. No question Bach has written some very moving music. But how does that mean a god exists? Our emotions are an internal reaction to things we see and hear. They are not some kind of supernatural sensory device.

I enjoy Bach a lot. But that is a matter of taste. For someone who doesn’t like Bach, does god not exist? I happen to not care for Mozart that much; not as much as most people. So what should I infer about gods?

Originally posted by NJon

Alas, if there is no higher standard, who bears the guilt but oneself? When I came to Christ, it wasn't for psychological healing; it was for spiritual redemption. I had no guilt over my sins until I realized that my inequities had offended the God Who gave me life. This is why I feel there is only one primary reason to come to God: because He is willing to take us back, though we don't deserve it. I disagree with the notion of coming to God to have a better life. I am fully behind coming to God (in Christ) because we are living under His holy condemnation, yet He offers a way out. He offers undeserved grace.

Well, whether you were aware of it at the start or not, NJon, it looks like you eventually accepted the "I am sinful and in need of redemption" bit eventually. I tend to take the position that if someone begins to express such a sentiment, it must have been in there to begin with.

However, I find most of the messages I hear on Christian radio, in Christian writings, and even here on TWeb is about reducing or eliminating the burden of guilt. God forgives all - redeems all - covers sin under a blanket of redemption.

It is indeed a powerful message for the psychologically (spiritually, if you prefer) weary. Probably the best tool in the Christian "convincing" arsenal.

Michel

Originally posted by Carpedm9587

Well, whether you were aware of it at the start or not, NJon, it looks like you eventually accepted the "I am sinful and in need of redemption" bit eventually. I tend to take the position that if someone begins to express such a sentiment, it must have been in there to begin with.

However, I find most of the messages I hear on Christian radio, in Christian writings, and even here on TWeb is about reducing or eliminating the burden of guilt. God forgives all - redeems all - covers sin under a blanket of redemption.

It is indeed a powerful message for the psychologically (spiritually, if you prefer) weary. Probably the best tool in the Christian "convincing" arsenal.

Michel

My contention is that there is a difference between psychological and spiritual suffering/guilt. When I surrendered to Christ, it's because I knew I had sinned against Heaven, not because I felt guilty for wronging other people.

To God I declared, "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight" (Psalm 51:4)

Originally posted by NJon

My contention is that there is a difference between psychological and spiritual suffering/guilt. When I surrendered to Christ, it's because I knew I had sinned against Heaven, not because I felt guilty for wronging other people.

To God I declared, "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight" (Psalm 51:4)

Guilt is guilt, NJon - whatever we dress it up to be.

Originally posted by Carpedm9587

Guilt is guilt, NJon - whatever we dress it up to be.

Obviously we disagree on that.