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
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:

Re: Over 100 Arguments for the Existence of God

Post #61

Post by Aetixintro »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #60]

FYI: Energy is generally photons in terms of radiation (e.g. light and other radiation of the Magnetic Spectrum). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy (Energy on Wikipedia).

Electromagnetic Spectrum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum. God is energy? "Photonic" nature like ghosts? And what about the "ghost radars", specialized radiological equipment?

Ghost(s) on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost. Please remember, "do not disturb the dead!"
I'm cool! :) - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!

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:

Re: Over 100 Arguments for the Existence of God

Post #62

Post by Aetixintro »

[Replying to brunumb in post #59]

I have not been able to identify a link to a credible source. However, the logic is laid bare and we as community can do several things:
1. Inquire with astronomers doing radio astronomy.
2. Suggest the research angle to identify God (and Heaven, I suppose).
3. Inquire with the observatories controlling the radio-telescopes and suggest the research angle to them if they have no answer to you.
4. Keep researching the frontiers to see if links come about or books and reports are being published.

Good? :)
I'm cool! :) - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!

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 #63

Post by William »

brunumb wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 5:50 pm
The Tanager wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:48 pm I understand energy to be a property that matter has. Energy can thus be examined. Immaterial does not equate to "not being made of anything," it equates to "not being made of anything physical or having no physical properties, such as energy." Being immaterial is still consisting of something, just not something physical. Our technology made to physically examine something, logically, couldn't work.
Not sure that I am following you. Energy, such as electromagnetic radiation, is immaterial by what you are saying. Is that correct? It has properties and we can study it. To my mind it is physical. I still do not understand how there can be anything non-physical other than the imaginary.
The imaginary may be nonphysical/immaterial but this does not mean that what is imagined is not actually real in that it exists as something which can be experienced. We do not know if what we think of as 'imagined' is really imagined or is the result of some type of initial connection we have with a reality which actually exists. Therefore the best position to take on the matter is an Agnostic one.

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 #64

Post by The Tanager »

Definitions
brunumb wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 5:50 pmNot sure that I am following you. Energy, such as electromagnetic radiation, is immaterial by what you are saying. Is that correct? It has properties and we can study it. To my mind it is physical. I still do not understand how there can be anything non-physical other than the imaginary.
No, I'm saying that I think energy is physical. It is a physical property that matter has. I think your definition of 'physical' makes it so that one simply cannot have anything that is non-physical and non-imaginary. Definitions beg any question that they touch upon. 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
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Over 100 Arguments for the Existence of God

Post #65

Post by brunumb »

The Tanager wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 4:57 pm No, I'm saying that I think energy is physical. It is a physical property that matter has.
How is energy a property of matter? Light energy exists independent of matter. Is light a property of matter?
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: Over 100 Arguments for the Existence of God

Post #66

Post by Goat »

The Tanager wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:48 pm Definitions
brunumb wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 6:10 pm
Non-physical, then, would be something like: relating to things not perceived through the senses. A synonym would be immaterial. Something other than matter.
Energy is not matter, although it may be considered as an alternative form of matter since the two are inter-convertible. I do not consider energy as non-physical. What I don't understand is the existence of things that are not made of 'anything', the immaterial. If God exists it must consist of something rather than nothing. That something should have properties and therefore theoretically able to be examined even if we don't have the technology to do that now. Do you consider an immaterial God to be composed of something like another unidentified form of energy?
I understand energy to be a property that matter has. Energy can thus be examined. Immaterial does not equate to "not being made of anything," it equates to "not being made of anything physical or having no physical properties, such as energy." Being immaterial is still consisting of something, just not something physical. Our technology made to physically examine something, logically, couldn't work.


1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Critique #1: I'm shifting the burden
Tcg wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:00 am
What is the most reasonable thing to believe concerning the first premise?
You've failed to support the claim contained in the first unsupported assertion and are now turning to me for help? As I'm sure you are aware it is not my duty to support your claim, but rather yours.
That's not what that question meant. I clearly gave two lines of support in post 52 (look for where it says "First,..." and then "Second,..."). I didn't ask you to offer a reason for my case. I'm saying that given our two options:

(a) Something can come into being from nothing uncaused.
(b) Something can't come into being from nothing uncaused.

and based on the two lines of support I gave (and anything else you want to bring in), which of these two is the more reasonable thing to believe? I think it is clearly (b). If you think I've failed to support this claim, then respond to the points I've said to show how it fails or bring in new information that changes the picture. But I'm clearly not shifting the burden.


Critique #2: Metaphysical intuition carries little weight
brunumb wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 5:58 pmHow much weight are we supposed to put on metaphysical intuition as evidence of anything? It does not demonstrate that something cannot pop into being out of nothing, caused or not.
Metaphysical intuition can certainly play a role in how reasonable one option is over the alternatives. They arise out of our experience of things or knowledge of what concepts mean and entail. We are rational to trust them until we are shown defeaters for such principles.

But I didn't just use metaphysical intuition as support for (b), anyway. I also pointed to the constant confirmation of science towards (b) rather than (a). Science is built on the causal principle. Do people really want to say that this principle should be rejected as true? If so, then you are rejecting much in science.


Critique #3: Some interpretations of Quantum Mechanics disprove this premise
Goat wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 9:07 pmYou made a claim. That claim is 'Everything that beings to exist has a cause'. How do you know that? Can you show that to be true? Now, the first premise might be true in classical physics, but it is denied in some interpretations of quantum mechanics. In 2015, they were able to detect and manipulate virtual particles. Let's see you show the cause of virtual particles. Some interpretations of quantum mechanics are that they have no cause.
There is a difference between an interpretation and the truth. Many scientists today are doubting the traditional Copenhagen interpretation and exploring deterministic theories like Bohm's. Quantum cosmologists are especially wary of the Copenhagen interpretation because it would require an observer existing outside of the known universe to collapse the wave function of the universe.

But let's assume indeterminism. Even on that interpretation virtual particles don't come into being out of nothing. They are spontaneous fluctuations of the energy in a subatomic vacuum. The vacuum is an inderterministic cause of their origination. The vacuum is not "nothing," it has a structure and is subject to physical laws. Thus the principle remains.
Well, energy has physical properties. So, it's physical. It can be physically described, and measure.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

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 #67

Post by Tcg »

Aetixintro wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 8:17 pm For discussion: Is God finally proved to exist?
The question remains, why would God need even one argument to prove his existence?

Has God been proved? As we see whenever arguments for the existence of God are discussed, these arguments convince those who already believed in God prior to encountering them. Does this prove God existence? Perhaps for those who needed no argumentation for his existence to start with.

It's not much of a feat though. Convincing those who already believe in God that he exists. It's about as difficult as convincing flat-earthers that the earth is flat.


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
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 #68

Post by The Tanager »

Definitions
brunumb wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 6:34 pmHow is energy a property of matter? Light energy exists independent of matter. Is light a property of matter?
I appear to be incorrectly using physical and material as syonyms. My thought was that since energy is transferred between objects, that it is a property matter has but I can see that this is wrong. Thank you for showing me that.

It still begs the question to define physical as "anything that exists in any form," with the antonym being "imaginary". I think it still works that physical things are those perceived through the senses. Perhaps it can be improved but it won't be improved by begging the question in favor of naturalism. Non-physical would still be something like: "relating to things not perceived through the senses" and whether such things exist or not is still left open.


The good of arguments
Tcg wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 10:43 pmThe question remains, why would God need even one argument to prove his existence?
Reality (including God, if God exists) needs no argument to prove its existence for it to exist. All human beliefs about reality (including God, if God exists) can have arguments made concerning it. Scientific beliefs have arguments behind them being true. Arguments from God should be and are no different. It is our human nature that calls for arguments for all of our beliefs.
Tcg wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 10:43 pmHas God been proved? As we see whenever arguments for the existence of God are discussed, these arguments convince those who already believed in God prior to encountering them. Does this prove God existence? Perhaps for those who needed no argumentation for his existence to start with.

It's not much of a feat though. Convincing those who already believe in God that he exists. It's about as difficult as convincing flat-earthers that the earth is flat.
Some people have been converted by arguments. But not even that proves God's existence. The reasonableness of an argument is not measured through people being persuaded by it or not because reason alone is not why people hold the beliefs they do.


1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Does anyone have any more to say concerning what I left the discussion off with? (1) I'm clearly not shifting the burden, (2) metaphysical intuition can carry some weight but I appealed to scientific confirmation on top of that, (3) indeterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics, assuming they are true, do not contradict premise 1.

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 #69

Post by Diagoras »

The Tanager wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 2:13 pm Definitions
brunumb wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 6:34 pmHow is energy a property of matter? Light energy exists independent of matter. Is light a property of matter?
I appear to be incorrectly using physical and material as syonyms. My thought was that since energy is transferred between objects, that it is a property matter has but I can see that this is wrong. Thank you for showing me that.

It still begs the question to define physical as "anything that exists in any form," with the antonym being "imaginary". I think it still works that physical things are those perceived through the senses. Perhaps it can be improved but it won't be improved by begging the question in favor of naturalism. Non-physical would still be something like: "relating to things not perceived through the senses" and whether such things exist or not is still left open.
Energy and matter are essentially two sides of the same coin, related through Einstein’s most famous equation. Perhaps a point more suited for the Science forum though, so I’ll stop there.

A question about ‘perceived through the senses’ though: are you suggesting only human senses? Neutrinos exist yet stream through our bodies constantly without being in any way sensed. If you refined the definition to include ‘by direct or indirect means’, I’d be in agreement, since neutrino detection experiments do produce results - visible on a monitor to us. Then the definition similarly applies to the antonym “imaginary”.

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 #70

Post by The Tanager »

Diagoras wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 4:12 pmA question about ‘perceived through the senses’ though: are you suggesting only human senses? Neutrinos exist yet stream through our bodies constantly without being in any way sensed. If you refined the definition to include ‘by direct or indirect means’, I’d be in agreement, since neutrino detection experiments do produce results - visible on a monitor to us. Then the definition similarly applies to the antonym “imaginary”.
I would include human senses aided by other technologies, which seems to be what you are referring to. Am I understanding your point correctly?

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'.

Post Reply