Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God

[ironmonk]

Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God


[url="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm"]http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_...s-existence.htm[/url]


Are you scared to know the truth, if we are wrong, then it'll be easy to prove.



God Bless,
ironmonk

[vianney316]

Thanks for the post...these are great arguments and found in his book "Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions" by Peter Kreeft, Ronald K. Tacelli

[Guest JeffCR07]

Most of the arguments here are very well displayed, though I must say I was very dissapointed with their treatment of Anselm's Ontological Argument. It seems like they are conceeding its invalidity, which is a concession I would not make, however, I understand that in order to deal with all the intricacies of this argument would mean the book would triple in length. Overall, it is a wonderful resource.

[burnsspivey]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_aga...xistence_of_God[/url]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_inconsistent_revelations"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from...ent_revelations[/url]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_problem_of_evil"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_problem_of_evil[/url]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief[/url]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will[/url]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_design"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_design[/url]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_Argument_for_the_Non-existence_of_God"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendenta...xistence_of_God[/url]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism[/url]

And, just for fun:

[url="http://www.palmyra.demon.co.uk/humour/ipu.htm"]http://www.palmyra.demon.co.uk/humour/ipu.htm[/url]

[ironmonk]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 29 2004, 07:34 PM'] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_aga...xistence_of_God[/url]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_inconsistent_revelations"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from...ent_revelations[/url]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_problem_of_evil"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_problem_of_evil[/url]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief[/url]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will[/url]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_design"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_design[/url]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_Argument_for_the_Non-existence_of_God"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendenta...xistence_of_God[/url]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism[/url]

And, just for fun:

[url="http://www.palmyra.demon.co.uk/humour/ipu.htm"]http://www.palmyra.demon.co.uk/humour/ipu.htm[/url] [/quote]
It is a shame you didn't look at or listen to the links posted.

A fool tries to argue a point without hearing the arguement.


God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited December 27, 2004 by ironmonk

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
12/30 - Sixth Day in the Octave of Christmas

The third argument, [i]The Argument from Time and Contingency[/i], doesn't work because this doesn't work:

[quote]3. Suppose that nothing has to be; that is, that nonbeing is a real possibility for everything.
4. Then right now nothing would exist. For
5. If the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed—literally—nothing at all.  But
6. From nothing nothing comes.[/quote]

I'm not arguing against Dr. Kreeft, I'm just saying that this argument doesn't work for this reason. It rests on the logical fallacy incurred by the jump from (3) to (4) (there is no reason to believe that, just because one thing doesn't exist, all things didn't exist simultaneously at one point). Even if I granted that, though, the jump from (3) to (4) assumes that everything that has contingency [i]had[/i] the property of non-being - if we want to say that everything is contingent, what prevents us from saying that the universal quality of non-being won't be realized at some future time?

To answer (5), Aquinas says...

[quote]I answer that, By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist, as was said above of the mystery of the Trinity (32, 1). The reason of this is that the newness of the world cannot be demonstrated on the part of the world itself. For the principle of demonstration is the essence of a thing. Now everything according to its species is abstracted from "here" and "now"; whence it is said that universals are everywhere and always. Hence it cannot be demonstrated that man, or heaven, or a stone were not always. Likewise neither can it be demonstrated on the part of the efficient cause, which acts by will. For the will of God cannot be investigated by reason, except as regards those things which God must will of necessity; and what He wills about creatures is not among these, as was said above (19, 3). But the divine will can be manifested by revelation, on which faith rests. Hence that the world began to exist is an object of faith, but not of demonstration or science. And it is useful to consider this, lest anyone, presuming to demonstrate what is of faith, should bring forward reasons that are not cogent, so as to give occasion to unbelievers to laugh, thinking that on such grounds we believe things that are of faith.

([i]Summa Theologica[/i] Ia q.42 a.2)[/quote]

In the abstract we can prove that the world was created (see Ia q.42 a.1), but from looking around me there is no good reason to believe that the earth at some point did not exist.

(there [i]is[/i] an answer to my objection, btw)

[Pio Nono]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Nov 29 2004, 08:12 AM'] Most of the arguments here are very well displayed, though I must say I was very dissapointed with their treatment of Anselm's Ontological Argument. It seems like they are conceeding its invalidity, which is a concession I would not make, however, I understand that in order to deal with all the intricacies of this argument would mean the book would triple in length. Overall, it is a wonderful resource. [/quote]
JMJ
12/30 - Sixth Day in the Octave of Christmas

Aquinas might actually agree that Anselm's argument doesn't work - check the [i]Summa Theologia[/i] Ia. q. 2 a. 1 - objection 2 and the response are against the Ontological Argument.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
12/30 - Sixth Day in the Octave of Christmas

By the way, I'm not down on trying to prove God's existence through philosophy; I dig philosophy - I'm a philosophy major who loves Aquinas and the neo-Thomist school of the 20th century. I just want to build the strongest case possible, that's all.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Pio, I've done quite a bit of work with the [i]Argumentum Anselmi[/i] and, while I am not certain, at this point I remain persuaded. Gaunilo's argument, as well as those made by Kant and Russell, against Anselm are all invalid arguments, however, I have not read Aquinas' discussion of the matter and I am having trouble finding it online. If you have it, would you mind posting it here, or, if not, do you think you understand his argument enough in order to post it in adequate detail?

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff


Edit: P.S. I am also a philosophy major and, in most cases agree with Aquinas, so my interest in the matter is the same as yours. At this point however, I have been convinced that Anselm's Argument may very well be the [i]most[/i] sound and convincing argument for God, though I grant that it is quite a bit unwieldy when one is forced into the intricacies of the argument.

Edited January 1, 2005 by JeffCR07

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
1/1 - Solemnity of Our Lady

Jeff,

Sure, here's the text:

[quote]Objection 2. Further, [b]those things are said to be self-evident which are known as soon as the terms are known[/b], which the Philosopher (1 Poster. iii) says is true of the first principles of demonstration. Thus, when the nature of a whole and of a part is known, it is at once recognized that every whole is greater than its part. But as soon as the signification of the word "God" is understood, it is at once seen that God exists. [b]For by this word is signified that thing than which nothing greater can be conceived. But that which exists actually and mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally. [/b]Therefore, since as soon as the word "God" is understood it exists mentally, it also follows that it exists actually. Therefore the proposition "God exists" is self-evident.

Reply to Objection 2. Perhaps not everyone who hears this word "God" understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word "God" is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless,[b] it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought[/b]; and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist.

[i]-from the [/i]Summa Theologica[i] Ia. q.2 a.1[/i][/quote]

I've placed in bold what I believe is the essence of Aquinas' argument.