Atheists and Agnostics

← Back to Forum

1. 
   

   WindSailor
   WindSailor · Jul 10, 2014

   So, I have been researching quite a bit into whether not God exists and whether or not it is rational to believe that. The main piece of "evidence", if you can call it that, is this argument. It tries to find logical reason for God's existence, and I am just curious what you all think. Here is the link to a video that is really short and explains it well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0
2. 
   

   Astronaut
   Astronaut · Jul 11, 2014

   What I'm wondering is: where do they think God came from? They're right about what they said, but then what cause would God have? This argument may be accurate, but irrelevant.
3. 
   

   Astronaut
   Astronaut · Jul 11, 2014

   What I'm wondering is: where do they think God came from? They're right about what they said, but then what cause would God have? This argument may be accurate, but irrelevant.
4. 
   

   WindSailor
   WindSailor · Jul 11, 2014

   Exactly. They are expecting everything else to follow the laws, but God gets a special pass on the need for a cause. Besides, we know quite little about the very beginning of the universe and there is still much to learn, with the coming years, I am sure we will make discoveries. I just feel that is another god of the gaps type of thing.
5. 
   

   Astronaut
   Astronaut · Jul 11, 2014

   Yep.
6. 
   

   Karzkin
   Karzkin · Jul 11, 2014

   Right. Cosmological arguments conveniently ignore the infinite regress that they set up.
7. 
   

   Blackwood
   Blackwood · Jul 14, 2014

   I agree, they are literally contradicting themselves. If they say that these laws exist, and thus that's why a god exists, then they are saying that these laws don't apply to this god, thus if they don't apply to that god, they don't have to anything, contradicting their whole point.
   I also noticed that they failed to specifically mention the big bang theory in words, which is the theory behind the cause of that single point they refer to. Did they have no way to argue against that and ignore it for that reason?
8. 
   

   FrostArmor
   FrostArmor · Aug 16, 2014

   I personally think they don't mention it because that gives rise to a naturalistic plausible cause to the existence of the universe. Also, they don't really point out how they determined that this thing is timeless and spaceless. Honestly, what even is that supposed to mean? I could assert that a timeless, spaceless, and all-powerful transcendent toaster created the universe if I wanted to with that logic. The argument is right in its premises, but it fails to actually prove anything about the existence of said god.
9. 
   

   ExOmelas
   ExOmelas · Aug 17, 2014

   We did this is Philosophy! - but we were told the theory belonged to Saint Thomas Aquinas (which is funny because there is a school named after him in my local city).
   
   Everything in the Universe has a cause, therefore the Universe must have a cause.
   Nu-uh!
   Every football player of Celtic FC has two legs. Celtic FC does not have two legs!
   This argument requires a belief in God to believe in God.
10. 
    

    ExOmelas
    ExOmelas · Aug 17, 2014

    (The Celtic example is called the fallacy of composition)

Sign in to reply to this topic.