I'm trying to learn more about evidence and philosophical arguments for the existence of God. I've looked at the popular arguments used by Christian apologists (including the Kalam argument by William Craig), but I'm still not really convinced that the traditional God of monotheism exists.
Can anyone provide me with some arguments or evidence that will change my mind?
Thank you.
I'm trying to learn more about evidence and philosophical arguments for the existence of God. I've looked at the popular arguments used by Christian apologists (including the Kalam argument by William Craig), but I'm still not really convinced that the traditional God of monotheism exists.
Can anyone provide me with some arguments or evidence that will change my mind?
Thank you.
I'm trying to learn more about evidence and philosophical arguments for the existence of God. I've looked at the popular arguments used by Christian apologists (including the Kalam argument by William Craig), but I'm still not really convinced that the traditional God of monotheism exists.
Can anyone provide me with some arguments or evidence that will change my mind?
Thank you.
Nope, I believed in extraterrestrials until the LORD of the heavens above and earth below quicken me so being fundamentally flawed it would futile for me to try to change your mind.
Did you think I was talking about you? Nah, how could I know what you would think, I was referring to this LINK
Did you catch the part about American Pharaoh, lol, but speaking about clouds....And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Mark 14:62
Or was that vice versa, any way, ever been to the State Fair of Texas
October 19, 2012
I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Mark 1:8
I guess those that hope that the LORD would cast a living human into a fire will just have to wait.
Of course if it was really the Holy Ghost their would have been signs and wonders, and people speaking in unknown tongues.
Or maybe it was stroke of coincidence
But in conclusion, just seek the truth in honesty and sincerity and to hell with the their lies and deception...
I'm trying to learn more about evidence and philosophical arguments for the existence of God. I've looked at the popular arguments used by Christian apologists (including the Kalam argument by William Craig), but I'm still not really convinced that the traditional God of monotheism exists.
Can anyone provide me with some arguments or evidence that will change my mind?
Thank you.
I'm trying to learn more about evidence and philosophical arguments for the existence of God. I've looked at the popular arguments used by Christian apologists (including the Kalam argument by William Craig), but I'm still not really convinced that the traditional God of monotheism exists.
Can anyone provide me with some arguments or evidence that will change my mind?
Thank you.
B. P. Bowne presented a lucid and even entertaining case in his Philosophy of Theism that knowledge itself is possible only from a theistic perspective. Bowne thus anticipated Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, and Jason Lisle's presuppositional approach (which differs from WLC's evidential approach) and "argument from the impossibility of the contrary." Bowne's book is old enough to be in the public domain and is available on Google Books or at archive.org https://archive.org/details/philosophytheis00bowngoog
I'm trying to learn more about evidence and philosophical arguments for the existence of God. I've looked at the popular arguments used by Christian apologists (including the Kalam argument by William Craig), but I'm still not really convinced that the traditional God of monotheism exists.
Can anyone provide me with some arguments or evidence that will change my mind?
Thank you.
Philosophy is not a practice that can demonstrate if something exists or not, so if someone could convince you of the existence of a specific deity using only philosophical methods, you'd have to be rather gullible.
B. P. Bowne presented a lucid and even entertaining case in his Philosophy of Theism that knowledge itself is possible only from a theistic perspective. Bowne thus anticipated Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, and Jason Lisle's presuppositional approach (which differs from WLC's evidential approach) and "argument from the impossibility of the contrary." Bowne's book is old enough to be in the public domain and is available on Google Books or at archive.org https://archive.org/details/philosophytheis00bowngoog
I find that Bowne and the presuppositionalists make it clear that there is no logically justifiable stopping place between theism and universal skepticism or solipsism.
I'm trying to learn more about evidence and philosophical arguments for the existence of God. I've looked at the popular arguments used by Christian apologists (including the Kalam argument by William Craig), but I'm still not really convinced that the traditional God of monotheism exists.
Can anyone provide me with some arguments or evidence that will change my mind?
Thank you.
I find that Bowne and the presuppositionalists make it clear that there is no logically justifiable stopping place between theism and universal skepticism or solipsism.
I am surprised if they used the word "theism", as the vacuousness of the presuppositionalist arguments are such that they cannot really allow for the consideration that they might be wrong, even to a competing religion.
As for a logical stopping place, all we need do is look to see if we are a point where what we are experiencing is consistent, persistent, observable, measurable, in a manner in which we can make reliable predictions, and for all intents and purposes it *is* reality.
I am surprised if they used the word "theism", as the vacuousness of the presuppositionalist arguments are such that they cannot really allow for the consideration that they might be wrong, even to a competing religion.
As for a logical stopping place, all we need do is look to see if we are a point where what we are experiencing is consistent, persistent, observable, measurable, in a manner in which we can make reliable predictions, and for all intents and purposes it *is* reality.
“Theism” is Bowne’s word. His argument in Philosophy of Theism is gradual—so gradual in fact that he initially uses the term “world-ground” before beginning to use the word “God.”
As for a logical stopping point, to posit “experience” would be arbitrary since in a non-theistic world “experience” cannot be proven to have any necessary connection to reality. Bowne describes this approach, generously, as confusing the uniformity of experience with the necessities of being. From an atheistic, materialistic perspective, experience is simply the product of electro-chemical activity in the brain, again with no necessary connection to reality. In addition, experience assumes that the past actually happened, that our memory is accurate, and that the future will be like the past--none of which assumptions can be proven. Again, as Plantinga points out, "If you believe in evolution & naturalism then you have a reason to believe your faculties are unreliable." All these assumptions based on nothing make “experience” an arbitrary standard of truth and therefore irrational. If you want to assert that experience is a reliable guide, anyway, at least acknowledge that in so doing you are borrowing from a theistic worldview, where alone experience can be justified as a reliable guide to reality.
From an atheistic, materialistic perspective, experience is simply the product of electro-chemical activity in the brain, again with no necessary connection to reality. In addition, experience assumes that the past actually happened, that our memory is accurate, and that the future will be like the past--none of which assumptions can be proven. Again, as Plantinga points out, "If you believe in evolution & naturalism then you have a reason to believe your faculties are unreliable."
Actually, we know our faculties are unreliable...which is why science makes such prodigious use of instruments. They can actually demonstrate reliability.
What strikes me as most peculiar about these statements though...is that experience assumes that the past actually happened. I mean, certainly he doesn't think experience is the sole factor in assuming that the past happened?
“Theism” is Bowne’s word. His argument in Philosophy of Theism is gradual—so gradual in fact that he initially uses the term “world-ground” before beginning to use the word “God.”
As for a logical stopping point, to posit “experience” would be arbitrary since in a non-theistic world “experience” cannot be proven to have any necessary connection to reality. Bowne describes this approach, generously, as confusing the uniformity of experience with the necessities of being. From an atheistic, materialistic perspective, experience is simply the product of electro-chemical activity in the brain, again with no necessary connection to reality. In addition, experience assumes that the past actually happened, that our memory is accurate, and that the future will be like the past--none of which assumptions can be proven. Again, as Plantinga points out, "If you believe in evolution & naturalism then you have a reason to believe your faculties are unreliable." All these assumptions based on nothing make “experience” an arbitrary standard of truth and therefore irrational. If you want to assert that experience is a reliable guide, anyway, at least acknowledge that in so doing you are borrowing from a theistic worldview, where alone experience can be justified as a reliable guide to reality.
But there is nothing to borrow from theism. That's the problem. Apologists often claim that "atheism cannot account for X, Y, and Z." But then they don't go on to show how theism accounts for X, Y, and Z. In this instance, it's even worse because skeptics of religion acknowledge the shortcomings of our faculties, including our biases and proneness for error. We don't assume that our experiences are infallible. The question of how our experiences relate to the world looms large in philosophy. Like so many other questions that we grapple with though, whether in philosophy, cosmology, or biology, the theist insists that the atheist cannot answer it, while pretending that the theist already has.
I find that Bowne and the presuppositionalists make it clear that there is no logically justifiable stopping place between theism and universal skepticism or solipsism.
“Theism” is Bowne’s word. His argument in Philosophy of Theism is gradual—so gradual in fact that he initially uses the term “world-ground” before beginning to use the word “God.”
As for a logical stopping point, to posit “experience” would be arbitrary since in a non-theistic world “experience” cannot be proven to have any necessary connection to reality.
Same problem with theism, except now you've also got the problem of worrying about an unknowable supernatural being doing unintelligible things you'd never be able to detect. If you're worried that natural processes might not always work the same way you should be really concerned when you add in a magical conscious being pulling on the strings behind the scenes.
Bowne describes this approach, generously, as confusing the uniformity of experience with the necessities of being.
In addition, experience assumes that the past actually happened, that our memory is accurate, and that the future will be like the past--none of which assumptions can be proven.
Could be. On the other hand, unlike philosophy they do actually work at getting us answers about reality.
If you want to assert that experience is a reliable guide, anyway, at least acknowledge that in so doing you are borrowing from a theistic worldview, where alone experience can be justified as a reliable guide to reality.
As for a logical stopping point, to posit “experience” would be arbitrary since in a non-theistic world “experience” cannot be proven to have any necessary connection to reality. Bowne describes this approach, generously, as confusing the uniformity of experience with the necessities of being. From an atheistic, materialistic perspective, experience is simply the product of electro-chemical activity in the brain, again with no necessary connection to reality. In addition, experience assumes that the past actually happened, that our memory is accurate, and that the future will be like the past--none of which assumptions can be proven
Basal assumptions can't be proven, no. But they sure can be tested on general reliability.
Yes, we assume that gravity won't stop working all of a sudden. You do to, because when asked to jump from the Eiffel Tower without a parachute, you'll respectfully decline.
Again, as Plantinga points out, "If you believe in evolution & naturalism then you have a reason to believe your faculties are unreliable."
Yes, our faculties are indeed unreliable.
This is why "testimony" is also the lowest possible form of evidence. Because people can misinterpret what they see. They can be mistaken. They can hallucinate. The human brain is very prone to error.
This is why we have science... because we do NOT simply "trust our senses".
Nope. That's why we design objective tests to verify our conclusions, instead of simply assuming them to be correct.
They are not based on nothing. They are based on a trackrecord of reliability.
When I hop on a plane, I assume I will get to my destination safely. This assumptions is not based on "nothing". It is based on a track record of millions of planes getting safely to their destination each and every day. It is based on statistics that show it to be the safest way to travel.
make “experience” an arbitrary standard of truth and therefore irrational.
If you want to assert that experience is a reliable guide, anyway, at least acknowledge that in so doing you are borrowing from a theistic worldview, where alone experience can be justified as a reliable guide to reality.
The only really good arguments (for me) for the existence of the god of classical theism are the modal ontological argument and an atemporal (nontime-based) version of the inductive cosmological argument. The other arguments are not very convincing.
