Over 100 Arguments for the Existence of God

[Aetixintro]

"Over 100 Arguments for the Existence of God" presented by Capturing Christianity on YouTube.

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?

[The Tanager]

How can you use science, which you admit is the study of physical reality, to connect to non-physical reality?

The connection is made through philosophical argument.

This question of course assumes that there is a non-physical reality simply for the sake of discussion.

No, it does not assume that. Neither does it assume that non-physical reality does not exist. It (rightfully so) leaves that question open.

You've not provided any verifiable evidence that the "immaterial intelligent source" exists.

Why would I need to? My claim is that one logically could not get direct scientific evidence for an immaterial, intelligent source. This principle is true or false whether or not an immaterial, intelligent source exists or not.

One can, however, (at least in theory) build a philosophical argument using scientific observations that points towards the existence of an immaterial, intelligent source. I have not made any such argument in this thread but I'm willing to do so.

[brunumb]

One can, however, (at least in theory) build a philosophical argument using scientific observations that points towards the existence of an immaterial, intelligent source. I have not made any such argument in this thread but I'm willing to do so.

Please 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.

[The Tanager]

Please 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.

To define 'physical' as 'anything that exists' would beg the question in favor of naturalism over the alternatives. If one has an argument for the physical being all that exists, then that would be another matter. To avoid begging that question we must have the physical and non-physical as options. This does not assume the non-physical exists. It simply leaves open the possibility until further reasoning can shed any light one way or the other.

Now, to an argument. Many people offer the Kalam Cosmological Argument in this fashion:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The physical universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the physical universe has a cause.

Many people offer scientific support for premise 2. Personally, I think premise 2 is better supported by philosophical arguments, but this is a well-known example of an argument that builds off of scientific observations. We can look closer at that or, perhaps, look at some of Aquinas' attempts.

[brunumb]

To define 'physical' as 'anything that exists' would beg the question in favor of naturalism over the alternatives. If one has an argument for the physical being all that exists, then that would be another matter. To avoid begging that question we must have the physical and non-physical as options. This does not assume the non-physical exists. It simply leaves open the possibility until further reasoning can shed any light one way or the other.

But what exactly does non-physical mean? To my mind, anything that exists in any form can be classified as physical. The only alternative is the imaginary. Trying to create an alternative to the physical about which we have absolutely no information is akin to creating an imaginary construct. It is clearly a necessity for theists because one has to hide gods somewhere.

So i ask again, what exactly does non-physical mean?

[Tcg]

Now, to an argument. Many people offer the Kalam Cosmological Argument in this fashion:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This is a fail from step one. It is nothing but an unsupported assertion. It is of no more value than the unsupported assertion: "God exists." You might as well skip the argument and simply open with this.


Tcg

[Tcg]

How can you use science, which you admit is the study of physical reality, to connect to non-physical reality?

The connection is made through philosophical argument.

Verifiable evidence is needed to establish the existence of "non-physical reality."

Science has not detected "non-physical reality." Philosophy can't detect "non-physical reality."

0 = 0
0 = 0
0 + 0 = 0

Adding 0 to 0 is of no value.



Tcg

[Goat]

"Over 100 Arguments for the Existence of God" presented by Capturing Christianity on YouTube.

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?

There is a problem with most arguments that are note evidence. Good argument will present objective and tangible evidence to show they are sound. I have not looked at that video, argument via youtube doesn't particularly seem attractive to me. However, I have seen over 100 arguments from Christianity over the years, and they all suffered similar problems. One was not one had objective and tangible evidence for it.

[Goat]

[Replying to Aetixintro in post #1]

I don't understand why even a single argument for God would be needed assuming God is omnipotent and omnipresent as some claim. Think of the things we don't have arguments for:

The argument for the existence of the earth.
The argument for the existence of the sun.
The argument for the existence of humans.
The argument for the existence of water.
The argument for the existence of the moon.
The argument for the existence of non-human animal life.

Why would we need arguments to establish the existence of the most powerful being in existence and one who is said to always be everywhere?


Tcg

The difference of those is we have tangible and objective physical evidence for it.

[Goat]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #7]

Comment to yours.

God seems scientifically proven by radio-astronomy on ghost detection setting (frequency range) way out there on fringes of Universe.

This means God has empirical foundation nowadays.

Yet, the intellectual "play" of Apologetics may be interpreted in this fashion:

1 - Complete Knowledge
Necessary Existing Complete Knowledge implies Possible Existing God and Heaven
Necessary Existing Complete Knowledge
Possible Existing God and Heaven

2 - Definition and Function of God (God is spirit and God has created Universe and all in it)
Necessary Existing Definition implies Possible Existing God
Necessary Existing Definition
Possible Existing God

3 - Meaning
Necessary Existing Meaning implies Possible Existing God
Necessary Existing Meaning
Possible Existing God

4 - Ethics (i.e., 10 Commandments and so on)
Necessary All Objective Ethics implies Possible Existing God
Necessary All Objective Ethics
Possible Existing God

S5 of all deductions 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Necessary Existing Meaning, Ethics, implies Possible, possible, possible, possible Existing God implies Necessary Existing God

Just as we may think of these 100 and some arguments for God as S5 logics 100 and some Possible Existing God that implies Necessary Existing God.

Good?

Fine, those are arguments. Do they actually have any meaning? For example, let's take a look of the assertion 'Necessary existing meaning implies Possibly existing God'. Why? Can you show that to be a true statement?

Also, the term 'complete knowledge'> Can you show that is something more than a made up term and word salad? Does 'complete knowledge' exist? Is knowledge anything more than a metaphysical concept anyway that is made up?

[Goat]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #13]

If true, then yes it means that. Help me to see how this is true.

It turns out as radio-astronomy works as detector within the electromagnetic spectrum as it sends out lots of photons that are reflected back on the detector, God is found, way out there at the fringes of Universe.
The result can be produced on internet-tablets that creates a fantastic reaction with the human soul as a fast dialogue takes place in the mind of the person who views it (fMRI). The same frequency range that's created on these tablets are at the same frequency you can use to see ghosts on Earth. I say it straight: nature is incredible! Better than dreams, even!\

And, it turns out that radio astronomy is testable and repeatable, and we can both create things of magnetic spectrum, and detect it. Can you show that the claim that people thing they are 'detecting god' are actually doing so? Can you give me a testable and repeatable experiment that shows that their 'god experience' is detecting god, rather than a misinterpretation of the thoughts and feelings they have that are happening in their own brain? Can you show a hypothesis on how they could be true? How can you eliminate the possibility that the alternate, more mundane interpenetration is correct

Why do multiple (even a thousand) possibles imply a necessary?

The reason comes down to the description of the deductions in order to produce logical soundness. So you're correct. Not all possibles create a necessary, but maybe some of them, according to the S5 logics. Some kind of triangular fixing of object or something. As said, there is still room for skepticism for the deduction from possible to necessary, so you can get at them whenever it's stated, questioning the premises and the last step from possible to necessary.
E.g., what if you have ingredients of chemistry for an industrial process to make the World a product. Now, not all chemicals can combine into a viable product for the markets, but some do obviously fine! Similarly, some possibles produce a necessary, but not all get to that level logical soundness. It's up to you what you're willing to put faith in.

(Logical) Soundness on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness, some people are not willing to accept that reality is reality. Some say simulation, some say illusion, so on.

So, how can you show the concept of people being receivers for god is sound?