What is the logic of "proof" that God exists
M isaone game works, imagine a scientist who claims to have discovered a natural source of fluid, by all physico-chemical characteristics except one, corresponding to the water. Its normal boiling point, however, is 200 degrees.
In discussions between theists - atheists this principle often ignored, so the latter is expected open bar to prove that god does not exist. It is often forgotten, for starters, that atheism is not a statement about the existence of evidence that god does not exist, but the other way around - the thesis that there is no evidence for its existence. Moreover, neither theism as the traditional doctrine does not come out with the evidence that God exists, but with arguments that it is necessary and / or possible. For atheists would then be to determine whether the proffered open bar arguments open bar actually follow that God is necessary and / or possible, and to examine the logical foundation theistic claims.
M ade there are sites with lists of 50, even 100 "proof that God exists," it is about a much smaller number of variations of the standard and most commonly used theistic arguments. How are they logically powerful?
First The primary driver. Movement requires drivers. Each driver also requires its drivers. If we continue down the falls into an infinite regress, that is absurd. Therefore, there must be a "first mover that nothing is launched", and that is God.
The argument of the primary drivers suffer from contradictions. open bar From the premise that says that the movement requires drivers, it is concluded that there is a first mover that nothing is launched. But let's say that it can be ignored. There is more logical gaps than this, that and why such a first mover must be God? Further, why it must be the Christian god, that god with characteristics that are attributed to him the Christian holy book? The argument, however, in no way loses its strength (or weakness) if the term "god" is replaced by "flying spaghetti monster" or "Zeus".
Second The first cause or the cosmological argument. Everything that exists must have a cause. The universe exists. Therefore, the universe must have a cause, which in turn is a consequence of some of its causes. To avoid an infinite regression, or absurd, it must be assumed that the first cause is not the consequence of a previous open bar cause. The uncaused first cause is God.
Except that you can not rationally explain why infinite regression less desirable than arbitrarily open bar postulated the First Cause - God - raises open bar the question of why the status neuzrokovanog causes, rather open bar than to God, not to give the universe? If nothing else, the explanation of the origin of the universe would then be simpler and more elegant, it would have one less element. Arbitrary imposition of the original causes of practical products logical error: argument implies an entity whose existence is supposed to prove.
3rd The Ontological Argument. Well, the truth and nobility exist in varying degrees. So there must be something that represents the maximum of these attributes. It's a god. God is a being of the kind you can not imagine a bigger (not in the physical sense). If there was, then it would be possible open bar to imagine it bigger. Therefore, God exists.
It must be famous Bertrand Russell open bar (Bertrand Russell) just this argument had in mind when he said that every ontological argument is a special case of bad grammar (grammar as a set of rules of proper, accurate opinion).
Although people often miss, the ontological argument is practically reversed. Rests on the idea of existence as an attribute. On the contrary, open bar it is the previous fixture. Only after something exists, it may have properties open bar such as goodness, beauty, nobility.
The properties open bar that are attributed to God, namely, that which he attributed to Christianity, born down the ontological problem for theists alike. If God is omniscient, open bar and if we take that Jesus is God, he had to know in advance that they will be sacrificed and resurrected. If he knew what was actually sacrificed? If God is all-powerful, does that mean that you can make a stone that can not raise? If you can not make it, is not all-powerful, if you can do it, but can not pick it up again is not omnipotent.
4th Teleological argument. Although they do not have knowledge about it, the body in nature are directed toward an outcome or goal. Some intelligent open bar being had to provide the purpose and goal of their actions. Therefore, such a being exists and it will be a god.
In the simplest terms, this argument implies in advance what is yet to prove himself. In fact, any attempt to explain something requires a broader context in which to understand the concept or phenomenon whose explanation open bar heavier. The attempt to "explain" the universe implies the existence of something more comprehensive than the universe. The problem is that the universe is all there is. If God existed, he would have to be part of it. If however the explanation of the universe requires postulation of a master of the universe, then the explanation must presuppose a god of his god, and so round.
With the emergence and expansion of creationism, and then the "theory" of intelligent design (ID), a teleological argument has gained in importance, followed by the proliferation of its various formulations. All, however, are important
M isaone game works, imagine a scientist who claims to have discovered a natural source of fluid, by all physico-chemical characteristics except one, corresponding to the water. Its normal boiling point, however, is 200 degrees.
In discussions between theists - atheists this principle often ignored, so the latter is expected open bar to prove that god does not exist. It is often forgotten, for starters, that atheism is not a statement about the existence of evidence that god does not exist, but the other way around - the thesis that there is no evidence for its existence. Moreover, neither theism as the traditional doctrine does not come out with the evidence that God exists, but with arguments that it is necessary and / or possible. For atheists would then be to determine whether the proffered open bar arguments open bar actually follow that God is necessary and / or possible, and to examine the logical foundation theistic claims.
M ade there are sites with lists of 50, even 100 "proof that God exists," it is about a much smaller number of variations of the standard and most commonly used theistic arguments. How are they logically powerful?
First The primary driver. Movement requires drivers. Each driver also requires its drivers. If we continue down the falls into an infinite regress, that is absurd. Therefore, there must be a "first mover that nothing is launched", and that is God.
The argument of the primary drivers suffer from contradictions. open bar From the premise that says that the movement requires drivers, it is concluded that there is a first mover that nothing is launched. But let's say that it can be ignored. There is more logical gaps than this, that and why such a first mover must be God? Further, why it must be the Christian god, that god with characteristics that are attributed to him the Christian holy book? The argument, however, in no way loses its strength (or weakness) if the term "god" is replaced by "flying spaghetti monster" or "Zeus".
Second The first cause or the cosmological argument. Everything that exists must have a cause. The universe exists. Therefore, the universe must have a cause, which in turn is a consequence of some of its causes. To avoid an infinite regression, or absurd, it must be assumed that the first cause is not the consequence of a previous open bar cause. The uncaused first cause is God.
Except that you can not rationally explain why infinite regression less desirable than arbitrarily open bar postulated the First Cause - God - raises open bar the question of why the status neuzrokovanog causes, rather open bar than to God, not to give the universe? If nothing else, the explanation of the origin of the universe would then be simpler and more elegant, it would have one less element. Arbitrary imposition of the original causes of practical products logical error: argument implies an entity whose existence is supposed to prove.
3rd The Ontological Argument. Well, the truth and nobility exist in varying degrees. So there must be something that represents the maximum of these attributes. It's a god. God is a being of the kind you can not imagine a bigger (not in the physical sense). If there was, then it would be possible open bar to imagine it bigger. Therefore, God exists.
It must be famous Bertrand Russell open bar (Bertrand Russell) just this argument had in mind when he said that every ontological argument is a special case of bad grammar (grammar as a set of rules of proper, accurate opinion).
Although people often miss, the ontological argument is practically reversed. Rests on the idea of existence as an attribute. On the contrary, open bar it is the previous fixture. Only after something exists, it may have properties open bar such as goodness, beauty, nobility.
The properties open bar that are attributed to God, namely, that which he attributed to Christianity, born down the ontological problem for theists alike. If God is omniscient, open bar and if we take that Jesus is God, he had to know in advance that they will be sacrificed and resurrected. If he knew what was actually sacrificed? If God is all-powerful, does that mean that you can make a stone that can not raise? If you can not make it, is not all-powerful, if you can do it, but can not pick it up again is not omnipotent.
4th Teleological argument. Although they do not have knowledge about it, the body in nature are directed toward an outcome or goal. Some intelligent open bar being had to provide the purpose and goal of their actions. Therefore, such a being exists and it will be a god.
In the simplest terms, this argument implies in advance what is yet to prove himself. In fact, any attempt to explain something requires a broader context in which to understand the concept or phenomenon whose explanation open bar heavier. The attempt to "explain" the universe implies the existence of something more comprehensive than the universe. The problem is that the universe is all there is. If God existed, he would have to be part of it. If however the explanation of the universe requires postulation of a master of the universe, then the explanation must presuppose a god of his god, and so round.
With the emergence and expansion of creationism, and then the "theory" of intelligent design (ID), a teleological argument has gained in importance, followed by the proliferation of its various formulations. All, however, are important
No comments:
Post a Comment