Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency

[bennyboy]

Sure.  I mean, have you asked your beagle though?  You never know.  Mine seems to worship at the alter of Discordia.

You have a beagle?  +1 rep

I may just be assuming.  I'm pretty sure, however, that he lacks a belief in the X-tian God of the Bible, since his reading ability is poor, and he won't sit down and listen with much attention when I try to read the Bible to him.

[Angrboda]

I'll give you yet another example, Neo, on how 'debunking' Aquinas doesn't really take any real 'debunking' exactly, and it's really nothing more than a game that I shall call "Spot The Non-Sequitur". Wanna play? Here we go. Here's the so-called fourth of Aquinas's ways, the one about God's so-called perfection:

1. Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents.

Yep.

2. If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists some other object that has the property to the maximum possible degree.

Yep.

3. there is an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree.

Yep.

4. Hence God exists.

*cough* *cough* non-sequitur *cough* *cough*

Can you spot the non-sequitur?

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_degree

And, to quibble a little more, the 3rd point here is false as well if it's really saying that there's necessarily one object that has ALL properties to the maximum degree. That's another non-sequitur if that is what it is saying.  There's no reason to believe that one object exists that has all of those degrees to their maximum. There may be one object that is the most intelligent, another object that is the most divine, another object that is the strongest, another object that is the fastest, for example, there's absolutely no reason to believe that one object has all those things, to say otherwise is yet again just another non-sequitur.

There's another reason premise three fails. An object which contained all perfections (whatever that means) would include perfect justice and perfect mercy. Since justice consists in giving people what they deserve, and mercy consists in giving people less than they deserve, the two can't be perfectly fulfilled at the same time. The entity in question is incoherent. Thus the fourth way fails. But die-hard kool-aid drinkers like Neo will deny it to their utmost. The fourth way is a really shitty argument. I'm surprised that anyone defends it.

[Cyberman]

That's fair enough. I guess if atheism is described as lack of belief and lack of disbelief, i see no difference between that and agnosticism, or even apathy.

I'm with you on this one. By their definition, my beagle is an atheist. So's my big toenail.

The problem, though, is that "-ism" is usually used to describe a deliberate position or system of thought, and an "-ist" is usually used to describe someone who holds that position or adheres to that system of thought.

Correct. The suffix "-ism" in this case is attached to the word "theism". The prefix "a-" negates it. Hence "not a theist". But obviously that only means I don't believe the things I thought I do, and do believe those I thought I don't. Thanks for you and CL pointing it out to me; I probably would never have known the contents of my mind without you to guide me.

*exits thread

[The Grand Nudger]

There's another reason premise three fails.  An object which contained all perfections (whatever that means) would include perfect justice and perfect mercy.  Since justice consists in giving people what they deserve, and mercy consists in giving people less than they deserve, the two can't be perfectly fulfilled at the same time.  The entity in question is incoherent.  Thus the fourth way fails.  But die-hard kool-aid drinkers like Neo will deny it to their utmost.  The fourth way is a really shitty argument.  I'm surprised that anyone defends it.

I sometimes wonder which is more important to believers.  That the icky folks get what they deserve...or that they themselves don't.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'll give you yet another example, Neo, on how 'debunking' Aquinas doesn't really take any real 'debunking' exactly, and it's really nothing more than a game that I shall call "Spot The Non-Sequitur". Wanna play? Here we go. Here's the so-called fourth of Aquinas's ways, the one about God's so-called perfection:

Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
*cough* *cough* non-sequitur *cough* *cough*

Can you spot the non-sequitur?

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_degree

And, to quibble a little more, the 3rd point here is false as well if it's really saying that there's necessarily one object that has ALL properties to the maximum degree. That's another non-sequitur if that is what it is saying.  There's no reason to believe that one object exists that has all of those degrees to their maximum. There may be one object that is the most intelligent, another object that is the most divine, another object that is the strongest, another object that is the fastest, for example, there's absolutely no reason to believe that one object has all those things, to say otherwise is yet again just another non-sequitur.

There's another reason premise three fails.  An object which contained all perfections (whatever that means) would include perfect justice and perfect mercy.  Since justice consists in giving people what they deserve, and mercy consists in giving people less than they deserve, the two can't be perfectly fulfilled at the same time.  The entity in question is incoherent.  Thus the fourth way fails.  But die-hard kool-aid drinkers like Neo will deny it to their utmost.  The fourth way is a really shitty argument.  I'm surprised that anyone defends it.

Yep. Not to mention that this God would supposedly have the maximum quality of ALL degrees. Not just GOOD degrees, so he'd be maximally evil just as much as maximally good. The only argument against this is the failed argument that evil is merely an absence of goodness, and that failed argument is not only a failure, but it's not even argued for in Thomas Aquinas's 5 ways. And besides, there's no more reason to believe that evil is the absence of goodness than there is to believe that goodness is the absence of evil. And, in fact, I'd be inclined towards the latter.

[The Grand Nudger]

You have a beagle?  +1 rep

Hells yeah, I made a super big deal out of it, pictures of the puppy on the boards.  She's a replacement beagle.  The old one picked a fight with an SUV.  He was gunshy anyway. Easy is better. She can sleep through a 16g and I bought a couple of rabbits for her from the neighbors. 3months old...born killer....now, if I can get her to stop shitting on my bed and trying to put the finishing moves on my feet........

I may just be assuming.  I'm pretty sure, however, that he lacks a belief in the X-tian God of the Bible, since his reading ability is poor, and he won't sit down and listen with much attention when I try to read the Bible to him.

-but what about the eldritch god Ba-Kon? Mine prostrates herself before it;s effigy with enthusiasm. She's a polytheist.

[LadyForCamus]

I mean that the hole is available for anyone to fill with anything.

Edit (I can do better):


Stop stealing lines from my sandwich board!

[Edwardo Piet]

I mean that the hole is available for anyone to fill with anything.

Do I even need to say it?

I mean, to be honest, seen as I've been able to argue well for years now, the next step is to at least embellish my arguments with utter filth. Anal cock pussy juices.

[Catholic_Lady]

I'm with you on this one. By their definition, my beagle is an atheist. So's my big toenail.

The problem, though, is that "-ism" is usually used to describe a deliberate position or system of thought, and an "-ist" is usually used to describe someone who holds that position or adheres to that system of thought.

Correct. The suffix "-ism" in this case is attached to the word "theism". The prefix "a-" negates it. Hence "not a theist". But obviously that only means I don't believe the things I thought I do, and do believe those I thought I don't. Thanks for you and CL pointing it out to me; I probably would never have known the contents of my mind without you to guide me.

*exits thread

What the hell did I do?? I said "fair enough". Sheesh.

[Amarok]

That's fair enough. I guess if atheism is described as lack of belief and lack of disbelief, i see no difference between that and agnosticism, or even apathy.

Atheism is about belief

Agnosticism is about knowledge 

Apathy  is about caring even if you believed and knew it was true