Four arguments against the existence of God

[Esquilax]

I guess turnabout is fair play. But it is a fact that many opponents of the "unmoved mover" think that it is only about efficient cause, as opposed to that One universal principle that does not change despite the changes within and among the plurality of things. This, as opposed to the case of Esquilax that its utility depends on finding some thing among other things, like the Great Pumpkin. Instead what it does do which is confirm the One. From that starting point, one can proceed.

If you don't think that the unmoved mover argument alone is confirmation of the christian god, I'm curious as to why you held it up as positive evidence of god's existence in the first place, and then stopped there.

[RobbyPants]

3. The problem of evil. Reply: it’s the best of all possible worlds.

So, invoke the "God is not omnipotent" quadrant. Fair enough. Do you have any proof this is actually the case?

4. The failure of positive arguments for God's existence. Reply: the unmoved mover argument remains undefeated.

Yes it has. If you can believe in an eternal being, how do you know the universe isn't eternal? Your question can be "answered" by plugging in other things that aren't god into solution.

That, and it can be solved by saying "We don't know. Perhaps we have more to learn about causality, particularly to how it pertains to the universe.". Admitting you don't have an answer is more honest than plugging in one hypothetical, and otherwise unsupported answer and acting like you've solved something.

The cosmological argument makes sense to you because it fits a narrative you already have. Note that this is not the same as "deducing God"; You're assuming God.

[Neo-Scholastic]

… what it does [unmoved mover] do which is confirm the One. From that starting point, one can proceed.

If you don't think that the unmoved mover argument alone is confirmation of the christian god, I'm curious as to why you held it up as positive evidence of god's existence in the first place, and then stopped there.

I stopped because I feel that is all the further someone needs to go to show that belief in a generic god is rational. The Christian conception of God conforms to the “unmoved mover”, although it is more.

[The Grand Nudger]

Rationalizing.........perhaps, is the term you're actually looking for Chad, not rational?

to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rationalize

[Neo-Scholastic]

3. The problem of evil. Reply: it’s the best of all possible worlds.

So, invoke the "God is not omnipotent" quadrant. Fair enough. Do you have any proof this is actually the case?

Do you have any proof that a perfect world is possible while still maintaining human free agency? Without that, the objection from evil drops away.

…the unmoved mover argument remains undefeated.

…If you can believe in an eternal being, how do you know the universe isn't eternal? [/quote]My view allows for the possibility that the physical universe could indeed be eternal. However, anyone can see that the physical universe sits within a larger reality that also includes non-physical features like subjective experience and meaning.

The cosmological argument makes sense to you because it fits a narrative you already have. Note that this is not the same as "deducing God"; You're assuming God.

Not at all. I was an atheist at the time I found this argument convincing.

[Mudhammam]

Do you have any proof that a perfect world is possible while still maintaining human free agency? Without that, the objection from evil drops away.

The Problem of Evil, Christians, and Inconsistency
Even Christian theism asserts that this is not the best of all possible worlds. And certainly it's not difficult to conceive of a world with far less suffering, perhaps none at all, without eliminating "free agency."

My view allows for the possibility that the physical universe could indeed be eternal. However, anyone can see that the physical universe sits within a larger reality that also includes non-physical features like subjective experience and meaning.

You're either claiming that all subjective experience is non-physical, which is of course, plainly silly and buys you nothing, or else you'll have to elaborate on what "non-physical" means in the context you are using it in. Same with meaning. There's nothing non-physical about meaning as it is understood as an abstract thought or intention, which are only observed to be properties of physical systems (humans), albeit limited to the first-person vantage point of said system, not outside of it (Is this how God exists? In the mind only perhaps?).

[Minimalist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

The unmoved mover (Ancient Greek: ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ,[1] ho ou kinoúmenon kineî, "that which moves without being moved") or prime mover (Latin: primum movens) is a monotheistic concept advanced by Aristotle, a polytheist[2][3], as a primary cause or "mover" of all the motion in the universe.[4] As is implicit in the name, the "unmoved mover" moves other things, but is not itself moved by any prior action. In Book 12 (Greek "Λ") of his Metaphysics, Aristotle describes the unmoved mover as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: itself contemplating. He equates this concept also with the Active Intellect. This Aristotelian concept had its roots in cosmological speculations of the earliest Greek "Pre-Socratic" philosophers and became highly influential and widely drawn upon in medieval philosophy and theology. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, elaborated on the Unmoved Mover in the quinque viae.

Do note that this "argument" is merely that. An unsubstantiated premise designed to make fools feel good about themselves.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Do you have any proof that a perfect world is possible while still maintaining human free agency? Without that, the objection from evil drops away.

The Problem of Evil, Christians, and Inconsistency

I feel that my posts on that thread successfully addressed with the issue. You do not. We do not need repeat the discussion here.

My view allows for the possibility that the physical universe could indeed be eternal. However, anyone can see that the physical universe sits within a larger reality that also includes non-physical features like subjective experience and meaning.

You're either claiming that all subjective experience is non-physical, which is of course, plainly silly and buys you nothing,…

All subjective experience is non-physical.

There's nothing non-physical about meaning as it is understood as an abstract thought or intention, which are only observed to be properties of physical systems (humans), albeit limited to the first-person vantage point of said system, not outside of it

First, I object to your term ‘only’. Observed physical properties are observed physical properties, nothing more. These properties should not to be confused with the meaning or intentions we ascribe to them. In semiotic terms, the signs are physical; their significance is not.

Secondly, the process of abstraction requires there to be some abstractable feature distinct from the material of a sensible body or its uniquely manifest formal quality.

Finally, to say that subjective experience is just the first-person vantage of physical events from inside, you beg the question. The first-person experience is the feature that we are trying to explain; you cannot invoke it as the solution.

[Tonus]

Personally, I'd say #4 is all you need. At the end of the day, you don't need to reject an undefined number of god claims; you can simply ignore them until someone brings something worth considering to the table.

Indeed, I'd argue that the order is backwards. With a compelling or undeniable case for the existence of a god, any questions about whether he can/cannot exist are moot.

[Esquilax]

I stopped because I feel that is all the further someone needs to go to show that belief in a generic god is rational. The Christian conception of God conforms to the “unmoved mover”, although it is more.

The trouble is that this isn't true. Even just ignoring the very pertinent fact that the unmoved mover has never been demonstrated to exist, and thus lacks any form of justification, it in itself could not ever show that belief in any form of god, generic or otherwise, to be rational, because it doesn't speak to any form of god. It merely speaks to a cause, which is a necessary precondition for a generic, universe creating god, but not the only one, nor is it a fact that is specific to god claims.

To say that the unmoved mover argument demonstrates that belief in god is rational is roughly the same as saying that the presence of air demonstrates that it is rational to believe that you are standing in the middle of a tornado. The observation is required for the conclusion to be true, but it doesn't even directly point toward the conclusion itself.