Over 100 Arguments for the Existence of God

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Aetixintro
Site Supporter
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Has thanked: 431 times
Been thanked: 27 times
Contact:

Over 100 Arguments for the Existence of God

Post #1

Post by Aetixintro »



"Over 100 Arguments for the Existence of God" presented by Capturing Christianity on YouTube.
Capturing Christianity wrote:In this video, Dr. Chad McIntosh presents over 100 arguments for the existence of God. Each argument is presented in visual form followed by recommended sources for further research.
4.5 hrs of material. Good resource?

For discussion: Is God finally proved to exist?
I'm cool! :) - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Re: Over 100 Arguments for the Existence of God

Post #71

Post by Diagoras »

The Tanager wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:26 pmI would include human senses aided by other technologies, which seems to be what you are referring to. Am I understanding your point correctly?
Yes, exactly.
I'm not sure what you mean about the definition applying to the antonym "imaginary." I don't think 'imaginary' is an apt antonym of 'physical'.
Apologies, my wording was ambiguous. I meant that stating “imaginary things are those that can’t be perceived by human senses, even if aided by other technologies” would be equally as valid.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Over 100 Arguments for the Existence of God

Post #72

Post by The Tanager »

Diagoras wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:54 pm
I'm not sure what you mean about the definition applying to the antonym "imaginary." I don't think 'imaginary' is an apt antonym of 'physical'.
Apologies, my wording was ambiguous. I meant that stating “imaginary things are those that can’t be perceived by human senses, even if aided by other technologies” would be equally as valid.
Thank you for the clarification. I would agree that imaginary things can't be perceived by human senses, but I would say the following is invalid:

- "those things that can't be perceived by human senses, even if aided by other technologies are imaginary things"

That is, I think it would to use "physical" and "imaginary" as antonyms. Imaginary things are not physical, but not all non-physical things are necessarily imaginary.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Re: Over 100 Arguments for the Existence of God

Post #73

Post by Diagoras »

The Tanager wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 10:18 am Thank you for the clarification. I would agree that imaginary things can't be perceived by human senses, but I would say the following is invalid:

- "those things that can't be perceived by human senses, even if aided by other technologies are imaginary things"

That is, I think it would <be wrong> to use "physical" and "imaginary" as antonyms. Imaginary things are not physical, but not all non-physical things are necessarily imaginary.
<added for clarification>

I suspect you just missed off the bracketed words that I added above - apologies if I’m distorting your point though.

Good catch. I agree, we can describe things like shared emotions for instance.

A mea culpa: I’ve lost track of the initial reason to be debating what’s physical and what’s imaginary. Was it more or less this comment of yours (to Tcg), or was it something else?
Your definition begs the question in favor of naturalism; it does not give logical reasons to believe the physical is all that exists.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Over 100 Arguments for the Existence of God

Post #74

Post by The Tanager »

Diagoras wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:19 pmI suspect you just missed off the bracketed words that I added above - apologies if I’m distorting your point though.
Good catch. Thank you for adding those bracketed words. I do think you are right on how we got to talking about the definitions. I felt that defining 'non-physical' as a synonym for 'imaginary' begs the question in favor of naturalism, while I think definitions should be neutral on such questions.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Re: Over 100 Arguments for the Existence of God

Post #75

Post by Diagoras »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #75]

I suspect the crux of the matter might be better debated in the Philosophy forum, in which I’m ill-equiped to make much of a contribution. For example, I went looking for some ideas on why scientific naturalism might be justified in rejecting the metaphysical and couldn’t find much that I understood. An example’s here:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 017-1335-x

No sense in me offering it in evidence if I don’t understand it, or am even sure if it’s relevant!

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Over 100 Arguments for the Existence of God

Post #76

Post by Tcg »

Diagoras wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:19 pm
A mea culpa: I’ve lost track of the initial reason to be debating what’s physical and what’s imaginary. Was it more or less this comment of yours (to Tcg), or was it something else?
Your definition begs the question in favor of naturalism; it does not give logical reasons to believe the physical is all that exists.
It's hard to imagine that this could be a response to one of my posts given I don't recall ever stating a definition that would apply here. If my memory is faulty perhaps a link to a post where I stated such could be provided to refresh my memory. Otherwise, a more accurate account should be provided.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Over 100 Arguments for the Existence of God

Post #77

Post by William »

The Tanager wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 10:18 am
Diagoras wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:54 pm
I'm not sure what you mean about the definition applying to the antonym "imaginary." I don't think 'imaginary' is an apt antonym of 'physical'.
Apologies, my wording was ambiguous. I meant that stating “imaginary things are those that can’t be perceived by human senses, even if aided by other technologies” would be equally as valid.
Thank you for the clarification. I would agree that imaginary things can't be perceived by human senses, but I would say the following is invalid:

- "those things that can't be perceived by human senses, even if aided by other technologies are imaginary things"

That is, I think it would to use "physical" and "imaginary" as antonyms. Imaginary things are not physical, but not all non-physical things are necessarily imaginary.
This bodes well with the fact that the human forms we occupy are known to only be able to perceive certain things within a certain range of frequencies...so if we were to somehow occupy no form then all frequencies could be perceived as real experience...but the superimposed effect would render all as incomprehensible [unless of course in being formless, we could comprehend such naturally...]

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Over 100 Arguments for the Existence of God

Post #78

Post by The Tanager »

Definitions

My comment about begging the question in favor of naturalism was a response to brunumb. Here is brunumb's initial post:
brunumb wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 5:19 pmPlease do. I am also interested in an explanation of the term non-physical. To me, anything that exists in any form whatsoever can be regarded as 'physical'. the alternative is simply nothingness.
Brunumb then asked for a different set of definitions (for physical and non-physical) in post 44. That has (currently) culminated in my post 68 where:

1. physical should be defined as something like: 'that which can be perceived through the senses'(where I corrected 'is' to read 'can be') and

2. non-physical as something like: 'relating to things not perceivable through the senses alone' (where I've added 'alone' just now since sense data could conceivably be used in a wider argument to establish the truth of its existence)

These definitions leave open the question of whether anything non-physical actually exists in reality or not.


Arguments for the existence of the non-physical

The above part of the thread started before we focused on one actual argument for God's existence (the Kalam Cosmological Argument). If that argument is sound, then it would mean that a non-physical entity at least did actually exist in reality at some point.

Critique #1: We have good arguments against the existence of the non-physical.
Diagoras wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 1:07 amI suspect the crux of the matter might be better debated in the Philosophy forum, in which I’m ill-equiped to make much of a contribution. For example, I went looking for some ideas on why scientific naturalism might be justified in rejecting the metaphysical and couldn’t find much that I understood. An example’s here:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 017-1335-x

No sense in me offering it in evidence if I don’t understand it, or am even sure if it’s relevant!
Bradley's article seems to me to be about how metaphysical claims cannot be justified over against their alternatives, mainly due to a "narrow notion of evidence" that he holds, but here he footnotes other papers, instead of explaining what his notion of evidence is more directly. Both naturalism and supernaturalism are metaphysical claims. So, to apply this to our discussion, I think Bradley's logic would say that we cannot justify the existence of the non-physical or the existence of only physical things. Theists and naturalists would both be unjustified in their assertions. Trying to justify either position is pointless because it can't be done. But, again, I'm not sure why he thinks that is true. It's possible that he thinks scientific naturalism is not a metaphysical position but, if so, he's simply wrong.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Re: Over 100 Arguments for the Existence of God

Post #79

Post by Diagoras »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #79]

Thanks for clarifying the initial question that I mistakenly thought came from Tcg, as well as summarising the article I linked to in a way that makes sense.

I’ll try to go back and pick up from an earlier part of the discussion now. :)

Post Reply