Best argument for existence of god is

pascal wager

:^)

Anselm's ontological imo

Hell nothing in the universe makes much god damn sense, why not

Before the universe there must have been metaphysics because in physics we cannot create the universe from nothing. So then God is metaphysical, so he could of been around then.

> best argument I ever heard paraphrased AWFULLY by me

But he is Love not metaphysical.

this is either a shitpost or you're the stupidest person on this board rn

...

you can't make this shit up

you can, actually

metaphysicist.com/puzzles/many/

what is truth?

truth= reason= God

God doesn't necessarily have to be an actual "person". Humans prescribed characteristics that aligned with good because that was the best way at the time to describe him. They saw that"good" led to truth but they just didn't know how to prove it so they just labeled him a person that was good.

The greeks valued "truth" above all else because they held the doctrine that there is nothing that exists for no reason.

You ever watch water going down a plughole?

The spiral is just the shape that matter being sucked towards a single point coalesces into.

There is nothing designed about it.

You're just moving the goalposts.

No Bronze-age desert-tard would accept that as the definition of God.

And frankly, they knew what God was better than any of you, seeing as they invented him.

...

By god do you mean something separate from all existence?

God is real only because of the people who have faith in his existence. Kind of like Santa Claus. That's not a bad argument Santa Claus comparison aside

its this shit a meme?

Nah, it's the Fibonacci sequence.

Everything you need to know is in this Donald Duck cartoon.

youtube.com/watch?v=AJgkaU08VvY

This. Classic fucking cop-out.
>yeah but god is just like the universe and energy and physics man.

/thread

No part of me remotely believes in a higher being, and it's difficult to imagine anything after death.

but i secretly hope im wrong sometimes desu
itd make things a bit more interesting :~)

Uhh THE BIBLE?? Heard of it you fat, autistic fedora-tipping loser?

Pic related: Doesn't take The Bible at face value.

jerk me off desu

Cosmological argument is shit. It proves an extra physical being, but not God in the sense of classical theism.
Really nigga?
Aqunas' Five Ways. But those are summaries of larger metaphysical proofs and I can't breefly properly explain them just yet.

nigga u don't need one that's why it's called a belief

Both of you are wrong.

1. While many concepts like "truth" can be attributed to God, these things in themselves are not God, nor should you try to associate things (whether physical idols or abstract social concepts) with God. God is either "Everything" or "Creator of Everything"--in each instance God is something beyond human understanding. This is how God has traditionally been understood in all major faiths, though less so when there is more than 1 divine personification.

2. The Bible and other religious texts use metaphors all the time. It isn't moving the goalposts to say "God is Truth" when biblically, it's understood that "God is Love". It's easy to mock a belief in God when "God" is whatever caricature you choose to imagine a believer believes in (usually an "old man in the sky"). I urge you to think more critically about the issue. Read the Qur'an.

Causality

>This is what liberal protestants actually believe

>protestantism

how pleb can you get?

The existence of the universe is acausal, either that or causality extends back forever and there is no first cause, which is again acausal. Causality can't be proved, it's just a category humans think in.

Do you have a single fact to back that up

Acausality can't be proved. Its just a category humans think in.

>god
Specify what you mean
It's wide open, especially lowercase like that

Hindus have been saying this for over 5,000 years. It's not some new age hippie bullshit.

Scientists think the universe is a certain number of years old and that it was created by the Big Bang. They still can't say what was "before" the Big Bang or how something was "created out of nothing". If the Big Bang was the "first cause" of the universe, then it's acausal. If something else caused it, then this "first cause" is acausal, uncaused. etc.

Unmoved mover

To be honest, I just don't know (agnostic).

The truth is only spoken in silence.

the big bazinga is the unmoved mover

My fucking sides user. And I'm the guy who posted the sequence, I'm not even mad. I was don goofed

How can you say there is nothing designed about it? Just because you know the "how" you can't deny it's harmony or know it's origin comparable with other manifestations of nature.

goofy niggle shits

If all that exists is God's creation therefore God must be outside of it. He can't contact us because he is in another dimension.

This is a position on "knowledge" not a position on "belief."

You can believe (or disbelieve) in God without claiming to have knowledge.

What is "outside of creation"? What if there's something outside the outside of creation and an infinite amount of gods outside their creations (but inside another god's creation)?

DING DING DING DING DING

Good album

Nah, it's the higher self theory.

Everything you need to know is in this Avatar The Last Air Bender cartoon.

youtube.com/watch?v=StrbppmsZJw

Read Frazier's Golden Bough and then Jung's Synchronicity

OK HERE WE GO
In this argument we will assume a variant of PSR. The two assumptions will be
a) every dependent being has a cause
b) every positive fact has an explanation
(If a and b are not true, the argument doesn't work, but it seems, to me at least, that most people would agree to both of these assumptions)

Anyway the argument runs as follows.
1) Everything in the world is either a dependent or self existent being.
2) Not every being can be a dependent being
3) Therefore a self existent being must exist.

Now, on to the objections: for each of these it is very important that you keep in mind premise b of PSR:
Obj1. Why can't we have an infinite set of dependent beings?
Response: Even if we assume for the sake of argument that you can (which is a pretty big leap), because of premise b of PSR, you would still need an explanation for the fact of the set, which could not be another dependent being.

Obj2: You are treating the set of dependent beings as a dependent being itself!
Response2: No, we are just asking for the explanation of the fact of the set of dependent beings.

Obj.3. (Feat D. Hume) If you explain the cause of each member of the set of dependent beings, you explain the cause of the set.
Response3: you still haven't given an explanation for the fact of the set's existence tho.

(This argument doesn't prove the existence of God, but it does seem to force one to either 1) Accept that a self-existent being exists, OR 2) Accept the existence of a brute fact, IE. that there are things in the universe which are utterly not explainable (a denial of causality would be under this umbrella, seeing as causality is essential for our understanding of the world).

what comic is this?

Read the fucking filename

But if it's likely that there is a god, (or something like it) how do we know which religion is correct?

If you found proof it wouldn't be faith. God is all about faith.

You don't.

I'm not a believer in God whatsoever but either Aquinas' 5 ways or Levinas' arguments seem the best to me.

what drives nature?

5 ways specifically prove a theistic concepts of God, contrary to this or the cosmological argument. You work from there.

>Read the Qur'an.
>PERFECT book, word of Allah.
>whatever caricature you choose to imagine a believer believes in
>Mohammed flying in a pegasus to heaven.
>Join ISIS
>Explosive an hero
>No 72 virgins
>Sadness in non existence

OP, define god.

for christianity. but for hinduism god is something to understand.

Aquinas' five ways are easily rebutted. Aquinas surely loved noncognitivism.

>No Bronze-age desert-tard would accept that as the definition of God.

That settles it folks, if it's not good enough for sand niggers 2000+ years ago, the entire concept of a higher consciousness or higher power in any form is invalid

No. No evidence = faith required.

There's some but I don't understand how you can jump from "god exists" to "this religion's god exists"

Is there ni faith required for Christianity then?
Or very little anyway?

Faith is required for virtually all religions and cults.

Because there are different proofs. For example, Aquinas argues very specifically for a theistic God and not any other kind. If you accept the proof you can really chose only between a few religions.

But you claim that there is no faith required for things you can prove.
Many Christians are Christian because they are convinced they in fact can factually prove many elements of their faith.

This is not accurate. Aquinas' five ways god is not a theistic one. Also, Aquinas arguments are easily rebutted and rely on heavy noncognitivism.

Haven't claimed that, different user. Even things science can «prove» can only be asserted to be highly probable. Solipsism is not rebuttable. In casual conversation we use «truth» as «most probable». No religion has good evidence.

>This is not accurate. Aquinas' five ways god is not a theistic one.
You have a very poor understanding Aquinas.
But he is easy to misread, considering his very specific language.
>Also, Aquinas arguments are easily rebutted and rely on heavy noncognitivism.
Not easily, considering there are very strong representatives of analytical thomism or neo thomism. Persons such as MacIntyre, Geach, Anscombe, Feser.

Easily enough, they all are special pleading for a special pleading. And yes, it's a deistic god. Why do you say it isn't? The only claims Aquinas makes in Quinque viae are a god's existence and its designing of the universe.
You could make a case that Aquinas' «argument from degree» (4), makes a case for some kind of theistic god, but certainly it doesn't say anything about which one; in fact this argument is the weakest of the lot and says nothing in a lot of words. Aquinas arbitrarily assume there must be perfection, simply because we can think about it. Also fails to say anything about what perfection is.

>Easily enough, they all are special pleading for a special pleading.
What's up with this reddit meme special pleading?
>And yes, it's a deistic god. Why do you say it isn't?
Because the argument is specifically constructed to argue for a God active in the world. That's the whole part of teleology in it is for. Alongside the fact that if you accept the premises the world would stop existing if God stopped willing it throughout its existence ensuring potentiality.
>The only claims Aquinas makes in Quinque viae are a god's existence and its designing of the universe.
Far from it as they can be misunderstood easily if read with a naturalistic perspective and vocabulary.
>You could make a case that Aquinas' «argument from degree» (4), makes a case for some kind of theistic god, but certainly it doesn't say anything about which one; in fact this argument is the weakest of the lot and says nothing in a lot of words.
Argument from potentiality is the strongest one as well as argument from teleology.
The proofs are all also very short, being summaries of larger chapters, meaning it is hardly a lot of words at all.
>Aquinas arbitrarily assume there must be perfection, simply because we can think about it.
He has whole chapters on perfection and he denied onthological proofs of anything.
>Also fails to say anything about what perfection is.
God is perfection for him and for a Christian, as it was written primarily for them, known very well what that would mean, but it's theological much more than philosophical.

>What's up with this reddit meme special pleading?
Special pleading is a logical fallacy, look for it. Understanding logical fallacies is essential to debating. Good luck in your journey.

>the argument is specifically constructed to argue for a God active in the world.
I concede it was specifically constructed to argue for an active god. Nonetheless, it failed in such an endeavour. Even if Aquinas claimed it does, it doesn't. The argument that can get you closer to an active god is the teleological argument; but it doesn't accomplishes the task. It simply proposes design, which needn't be actively guided.

>Far from it as they can be misunderstood easily if read with a naturalistic perspective and vocabulary.

Managed to say nothing while writing words.

>Argument from potentiality is the strongest one as well as argument from teleology.
It is extremely weak. Makes a lot of unfunded assumptions.

>He has whole chapters on perfection and he denied onthological proofs of anything.

The fact that he denies it's onthological, doesn't mean it isn't.

>God is perfection for him and for a Christian

This makes the whole argument to be based on an unfunded assumption.

>known very well what that would mean

I submit this is not true. Christians have never been able to define god's perfection without contradictions or noncognitive workarounds. They don't know what they're talking about.

my math teacher actually showed us this in high school

There is no good argument for the existence of god, nor is there a good argument against the existence of god

"Science is wrong sometimes"

Well, it certainly is if you're just relying on non-evidence-based "reasoning" and violating proof of burden with Russel's Teapot bullshit.

"Science" is a process you dimwit.

A gradual process of discovery.

It doesn't have a set dogma to disprove; it changes constantly with new information.

There are no sacred cows, and people don't kill each other in the street over it.

dude
god
lmao