Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Solid Arguments for God(s)?

2»

Comments

  • #32
    kelly1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Mr. Loon wrote: »
    I wanted to see if any of the non-believers here have heard any genuinely good arguments for the existence of God, or good reasons to believe?

    Hello, you might try Thomas Aquinas. I haven't read this yet but have a look at his 5 ways arguments and see what you make of it.

    EDIT: Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide sounds like a good read too.


  • #33
    Dr. Loon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,522 ✭✭✭Dr. Loon


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Hello, you might try Thomas Aquinas. I haven't read this yet but have a look at his 5 ways arguments and see what you make of it.

    EDIT: Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide sounds like a good read too.

    Thanks for that. I'm aware of these arguments however, and they are at best, weak. Though probably quite convincing to a 14 year old. I was hoping for something original, but it looks like I won't find that. Cheers though! :)


  • #34
    kelly1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Mr. Loon wrote: »
    Thanks for that. I'm aware of these arguments however, and they are at best, weak. Though probably quite convincing to a 14 year old. I was hoping for something original, but it looks like I won't find that. Cheers though! :)

    Sarcasm noted.


  • #35
    Dr. Loon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,522 ✭✭✭Dr. Loon


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Sarcasm noted.

    Eh? I wasn't being sarcastic!


  • #36
    kelly1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Mr. Loon wrote: »
    Eh? I wasn't being sarcastic!
    Sorry, sarcastic is the wrong word but your post comes across to me as a bit arrogant and dismissive.

    Have you really studied Aquinas in depth and refuted his arguments? I'd like to hear your refutation!


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Dr. Loon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,522 ✭✭✭Dr. Loon


    No I haven't studied him in depth and I won't be. I also won't be refuting all his arguments.

    Read back a bit and you'll see I just wanted genuine "original" arguments for the existence of God(s) for a piece of fiction I'm writing. I also requested we don't start debating. I'm not going to start studying philosphy in depth. Look anywhere you want to see refutations of Aquinas. There are far more intelligent posters on this board that I'm sure would gladly refute these for you also, but it's not why I'm here.

    Apologies if you read it differently, it's not what I intended. I also think that once things start meandering too far into the realm of philosophy, that the argument becomes silly.


  • #38
    Glenster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    Mr. Loon wrote: »
    Thanks for that. I'm aware of these arguments however, and they are at best, weak. Though probably quite convincing to a 14 year old. I was hoping for something original, but it looks like I won't find that. Cheers though! :)


    Passive agressive much?


  • #39
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Sorry, sarcastic is the wrong word but your post comes across to me as a bit arrogant and dismissive.

    Have you really studied Aquinas in depth and refuted his arguments? I'd like to hear your refutation!

    Just read his five arguements here. The first three are actually the same argument (there must be a first first mover/cause/self necessating being because movement/causation/contingent beings canot regress infinitely), and these are flawed for not realising that time-space doesn't regress infinitely either. Since causation (essentially what all three arguments are talking about) is chronologically dependent (happens linearly in time) and time is not eternal, it means causation is not eternal. Therefore things that occur outside of space-time are not subject to our rules of causation (this has recently been explained to your before, see these two threads, here and here, which you yourself starter, to remind you of why in more detail.)
    As it is written in the link above, the fourth argument is flawed in its second statement (things are described as hotter relative to anything colder than them, not to some hottest ideal), its third statement (its nonsense, did the ideal hammer cause the existence of all other hammers?) and the fourth statement is flawed because the previous two are flawed (also because it arbitrarily throws in goodness and perfection, without acknowledging the subjectivity of these words).
    The last argument is made completely ignorant of evolutionary science, not to mention the laws of physics.


  • #40
    Dr. Loon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,522 ✭✭✭Dr. Loon


    Glenster wrote: »
    Passive agressive much?

    I think ye are taking me completely out of context. Jump to conclusions much?

    I'm writing a work of fiction. The character in question is 14 years old. The arguments presented are weak, and not original. They probably wouldn't have convinced me when I was 14.

    I was hoping for some direct experience from someone here. Maybe somebody said something to them to make them think "Hmmm, that's a good argument."

    This isn't the case, so I've indicated it looks like I'm barking up the wrong tree.

    How do you think this is passive agressive? I'm not dismissing anyone. For the purposes of my story, they are weak arguments. I'm not getting into actual arguments here.


  • #41
    uncleoswald
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,616 ✭✭✭uncleoswald


    I don't think your character could be argued into believing in God. Its a gut thing and arguments are formed to support that gut feeling.

    On a side note I have always wondered how someone who had no indoctrination of a certain religion as a child can suddenly whole heartedly embrace that religions beliefs. I just can't get my head around it and I have tried.

    For example, Scientology. Okay so you have taken the Dianetics test thingy and its told you things about yourself that makes sense and you want to learn more. I understand that they drip feed you their beliefs over time but, sooner or later, they have to get around to mentioning Xenu. So what stops someone, who in many cases has gone through life without dedicating themselves to a supernatural cause, from bolting or at least breaking down in floods of laughter until they are escorted off the premises?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    If there were any really strong arguments for God tehre probably wouldn't be any atheists TBH.


  • #43
    Dr. Loon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,522 ✭✭✭Dr. Loon


    uncleoswald wrote: »
    I don't think your character could be argued into believing in God. Its a gut thing and arguments are formed to support that gut feeling.

    But it happens all the time no? Surely an impressionable 14 year old could be (kindly) convinced to believe?

    It isn't necessarily an argument, rather a long series of conversations that convince him. Possibly a tragedy.


  • #44
    uncleoswald
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,616 ✭✭✭uncleoswald


    Mr. Loon wrote: »
    But it happens all the time no? Surely an impressionable 14 year old could be (kindly) convinced to believe?

    It isn't necessarily an argument, rather a long series of conversations that convince him. Possibly a tragedy.

    Yeah but kids are dumb.

    I think a tragedy would help because then the mind could be open for hopeful possibilities. That's what I mean that a belief (even a wishy-washy undefined one) would have to come before the arguments to get a hold.


  • #45
    Dr. Loon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,522 ✭✭✭Dr. Loon


    uncleoswald wrote: »
    Yeah but kids are dumb.

    I think a tragedy would help because then the mind could be open for hopeful possibilities. That's what I mean that a belief (even a wishy-washy undefined one) would have to come before the arguments to get a hold.

    Aye. Good point. A friend of mine has suggested similar. Thanks.


  • #46
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    Rather than an argument, the loss of a loved one (as mentioned) and psychological manipulation, guilt, fear and peer pressure and the influence of adults could be the cause of belief. They often are in reality so why not tackle the real issue and causes of belief, the gradual indoctrination of naive children.


Advertisement