Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency

[Mystic]

Love proves value, justice proves value, and value proves unity of justice and love.

You when you do an action and wish to be appreciated believe there is a value to your actions, and love proves everything, because everything has value except for evil that comes out it, which is to be hated by love, except in the good that comes out facing evil with patience and resolve.

You give me diabetes...

Here is the thread: https://atheistforums.org/thread-40867.html

[Edwardo Piet]

Love proves value, justice proves value, and value proves unity of justice and love.

You when you do an action and wish to be appreciated believe there is a value to your actions, and love proves everything, because everything has value except for evil that comes out it, which is to be hated by love, except in the good that comes out facing evil with patience and resolve.

You give me diabetes...

Don't worry, in some cases it can lead to superpowers:

[Amarok]

I just mean it would take some serious, serious faith and dishonesty to myself to believe there exists NO force, not bound by the laws of nature, that could have created the first physical thing to ever have existed.

Your free to that silly argument from credulity. And take the far more reasonable position that a eternal sky wizard who lives in magic land proofed it all into existence with magic powers

---

Here is the thread: https://atheistforums.org/thread-40867.html

It was crap then . It's still crap now .

[The Grand Nudger]

Love proves value, justice proves value, and value proves unity of justice and love.

Hmn, "god" seems to be missing from all of this "proving"........

If you want to talk about love and justice, fine..but you don't..you want to talk about "Allah" and the sleeping princes he hid in the thicket until a handsome muslim man wakes them up with a kiss or somesuch.

[Edwardo Piet]

Love proves value, justice proves value, and value proves unity of justice and love.

Hmn, "god" seems to be missing from all of this "proving"........

If you want to talk about love and justice, fine..but you don't..you want to  talk about "Allah" and the magical princes he hid in the thicket until a handsome muslim man wakes them up with a kiss or somesuch.

Same problem with this uncaused cause shit. Proving an uncaused cause is one thing, proving that that uncaused cause is necessarily God is another. And the latter is never even addressed. Notice how Aquinas merely states at the end that the uncaused cause is understood by everyone to be God. No it fucking isn't, lol. When people say "God created the universe" they are not merely saying "An uncaused cause caused the universe", lol.

They're frigging also saying that this uncasued cause has a mind and an intelligence and has a purpose for you and gives a shit about you, etc. Aquinas doesn't bother to argue for any of that. He merely labels something that isn't God as "God." I could do that with my penis. My penis exists and I understand it to be God so suck it Aquinas.

[Amarok]

If I was not a theist I would be a deist. To me, atheism makes the least logical sense out of all 3.

Too bad atheism is not a position on the origins of the universe .

---

Hmn, "god" seems to be missing from all of this "proving"........

If you want to talk about love and justice, fine..but you don't..you want to  talk about "Allah" and the magical princes he hid in the thicket until a handsome muslim man wakes them up with a kiss or somesuch.

Same problem with this uncaused cause shit. Proving an uncaused cause is one thing, proving that that uncaused cause is necessarily God is another. And the latter is never even addressed. Notice how Aquinas merely states at the end that the uncaused cause is understood by everyone to be God. No it fucking isn't, lol. When people say "God created the universe" they are not merely saying "An uncaused cause caused the universe", lol.

And they have not even gotten to the un caused cause part . They simply can't accept no one knows the prior state of the cosmos . And it's all armchair speculation for now.

[LadyForCamus]

You give me diabetes...

Here is the thread: https://atheistforums.org/thread-40867.html

From your thread:

"We know-"

"We see-"

"The only way to measure-"

"We all have been given-"



In other words: bare assertion, bare assertion, bare assertion, bare assertion.  Got anything else?

---

There is a thread about this. I'm sure you have read it. I not only provided proofs but showed how everyone who replied contradicts themselves in their reply. Even Wallym when he says "there is nothing wrong with hoping..." is a sense affirming the validity of value and If you want to get into this dialogue I will.

Love proves value, justice proves value, and value proves unity of justice and love.

You when you do an action and wish to be appreciated believe there is a value to your actions, and love proves everything, because everything has value except for evil that comes out it, which is to be hated by love, except in the good that comes out facing evil with patience and resolve.

This was a marginally interesting thread.

Then you showed up.

I poked him with a stick, though.  It's my fault.  😏

[Neo-Scholastic]

Source: http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk...thing.html

You just couldn’t resist could you?

He doesn't literally say the words "Therefore God" but that's what he is saying, i.e. that is what he is arguing for…God isn't simply the first cause, God has to at least have an intelligence and be more than simply an uncaused cause, something that Aquinas hasn't argued for…. All Aquinas has done is made an argument for an uncaused cause and labelled that with "God"…. He's not talking about gods at all, he's not even successfuly arguing for a prime mover with a mind or a diest God, let alone a Christian God. He's merely arguing for an uncaused cause, that's it. Merely by asserting "This uncaused cause is God" is a completely bare assertion because it doesn't have the properties of God or the mind of God and it isn't anything like God, it's just an uncaused cause. Literally the only thing it has in common with God is the uncaused cause aspect… If all Aquinas is doing is arguing for the existence of an uncause then he has demonstrated no god at all, not even a deist one. He's demontrated an uncaused cause, at best. And he hasn't even necessarily demonstrated that because he hasn't demonstrated that the universe is necessarily finite.

You have simply taken 1 part out of 5 and saying “Aquinas didn’t argue for that,”, again and again and again, which is simply untrue. Don’t blame Aquinas just because you cannot be bothered to read the next 4 paragraphs.

In question 1 of the Summa, well before the 5W, Aquinas distinguishes between natural revelation and special revelation. He very explicitly states that natural reasoning cannot take you anywhere near the Christian God. But it does get you, in Question 2, to the God of Classical Theism – full stop – which is as follows:

Immutable (1W)
Eternal (2W)
Ground of Being (3W)
Perfection (4W)
Intelligence (5W)

Taken collectively, I do not see how anyone could not recognize that a Being having all these attributes satisfies the fundamental criteria of God for all three Abrahamic religions, and perhaps even Hinduism. Basically everyone.

Aqunias is doing the equivalent of arguing for the existence of a person with a mustache and then saying that because Hitler had a mustache then the person with a mustache must be Hitler.

What Aquinas is really saying is equivalent to seeing the shadow on the wall and recognizing that it is a man’s shadow apart from knowing the exact identity of the person casting the shadow. Natural revelation reveals to everyone - Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Pagans alike – that there is a god without specifically identifying which god. I don’t know why that isn’t obvious to you from a plain reading of the text.

So going back to your assertion that Aquinas has been debunked, you certainly haven’t debunked part 1 of 5.

[Edwardo Piet]

If I was not a theist I would be a deist. To me, atheism makes the least logical sense out of all 3.

Too bad atheism is not a position on the origins of the universe .

My favorite explanation of that point is this:





The word "atheist" is such a pointless word. We're basically doing the equivalent of calling ourselves non-racists, and non-astrologers. Such a label is not needed and contains no content . . . the only reason such a word exists is because of the ridiculous opposite - theism - being so rampant. It's a pity that when asked if we believe in God and we say "no" theists have to say "Oh so you're an atheist then blah blah blah [insert bullshit assumptions about atheists here]". Yes, we're atheists because not believing in gods is what atheism is, but that's all it is, and it's completely empty. We don't need to call ourselves atheists or label ourselves anything. We're atheists, and so are theists with regard to all the countless other gods they don't believe in . . . it's kind of funny that 'atheist' even exists as a label. It's possible to believe in some really crazy things and still be an atheist.

[Catholic_Lady]

If I was not a theist I would be a deist. To me, atheism makes the least logical sense out of all 3.

And I don't mean this as an insult to y'all (I'm sure y'all feel the same way about what I am).

I just mean it would take some serious, serious faith and dishonesty to myself to believe there exists NO force, not bound by the laws of nature, that could have created the first physical thing to ever have existed.

Nope, atheism is the position of not believing that there is this force, not necessarily that this force is not. Regardless, we see no justification for painting a face on it and praying for rain.

Thats what many folks here say, but based on my observation over the past 2 years, it seems very much like for most people here it is indeed a strong disbelief, not simply a lack of belief.

Nonetheless, my point still stands, whether it's worded as lack of belief or disbelief.