HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » The Cosmological Argument...

Sat Jan 27, 2018, 06:16 PM

The Cosmological Argument.

Dates back to at least Aristotle. If you are unfamiliar with it and with why it fails as an alleged proof for the existence of gods, I suggest reading the wiki page here as a start: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

15 replies, 1675 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 15 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Cosmological Argument. (Original post)
Voltaire2 Jan 2018 OP
yallerdawg Jan 2018 #1
Voltaire2 Jan 2018 #2
TwistOneUp Jan 2018 #3
Voltaire2 Jan 2018 #4
TwistOneUp Jan 2018 #9
Voltaire2 Jan 2018 #11
Mariana Jan 2018 #5
TwistOneUp Jan 2018 #6
Mariana Jan 2018 #7
TwistOneUp Jan 2018 #8
Mariana Jan 2018 #10
TwistOneUp Jan 2018 #12
Iggo Jan 2018 #13
trotsky Jan 2018 #14
Cuthbert Allgood Jan 2018 #15

Response to Voltaire2 (Original post)

Sat Jan 27, 2018, 06:30 PM

1. EVERY philosophical argument...

has a complete and credible "criticism" and dismissal. Every single one of them.

"How do we know" then falls upon which argument you choose to believe, doesn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 27, 2018, 06:35 PM

2. Ok that is a rather naive perspective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voltaire2 (Original post)

Sat Jan 27, 2018, 08:29 PM

3. Heard this quote on Criminal Minds

For the non-believer, no proof is possible;
For the believer, no proof is necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwistOneUp (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 27, 2018, 08:38 PM

4. belief and non belief are not equivalent positions.

The default position for any claim is that it is false until demonstrated otherwise.

Construct a hypothesis that requires the existence of a supernatural entity, a deity, and letís examine the test data and see if the hypothesis holds water. Meanwhile there is no compelling reason to believe that gods exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voltaire2 (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 28, 2018, 02:13 AM

9. Rebuttal

> The default position for any claim is that it is false until demonstrated otherwise.

If we're talking logic, I agree. Otherwise, maybe.

> Construct a hypothesis that requires the existence of a supernatural entity, a deity, and letís examine the test data and see if the hypothesis holds water.

If the hypothesis is true, then *everybody* would have to follow the dogma of that deity. I'm too old to have to report to someone...

> Meanwhile there is no compelling reason to believe that gods exist.

Now that is an interesting statement! Personally, I find that a person's belief begins at some watershed moment, when they are emotionally moved or overwhelmed. For them, it *maybe* is not so much a reason as a need.

I waver between non-believer and "kinda" believer. Depends where my head is at the time... As a logician, belief would run contrary to that thought process. As an emotional human, I can believe.

Never a dull moment! Lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwistOneUp (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 28, 2018, 07:13 AM

11. Ah I see that you are using belief as

shorthand for ďbelief in gods.

There is a reason why it is called ďa leap of faithĒ. The default position is non-belief.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwistOneUp (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 27, 2018, 10:29 PM

5. That's a cute quote, but really, it's false.

Most non-believers would promptly change their minds if compelling evidence came to light.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mariana (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 27, 2018, 11:20 PM

6. If compelling evidence came to mind...

I agree, but: if the "compelling evidence" was proven to be true, then it would no longer be a belief - it would be fact.

And if the compelling evidence could not be proven one way or the other, it would still be a belief.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwistOneUp (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 27, 2018, 11:27 PM

7. It would not be faith.

Is that what you meant to say? Do you think it's impossible to believe things that have been proven to be true? That doesn't make any sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mariana (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 28, 2018, 01:41 AM

8. Yes, thanks

It's not impossible to believe in facts, it's irrelevant.

Belief only comes into play when there are no facts to support an assertion or a hypothesis. If something is a fact then that thing exists whether or not one believes in it.

Thus, belief in something that exists is irrelevant.

I do not need to believe in gravity, or in nuclear weapons. They exist, their existence is a fact, and they exist whether or not I "believe" in them.

Thus, belief is superseded by reality.

If any of this infringes on your dogma, I apologize. I'm not trying to offend you. Perhaps we're arguing semantics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwistOneUp (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 28, 2018, 02:53 AM

10. I have no dogma.

I'm just trying to be clear, and make sure we understand each other.

Definition of belief, in the way I am using it, from Merriam-Webster:

conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon, especially when based on examination of evidence

Definition of faith, in this context:

firm belief in something for which there is no proof

So, faith requires belief, but belief does not require faith.

Moving on ...

That quote is a nice little dig at non-believers, implying they are so closed-minded they'll stubbornly continue to disbelieve a particular deity is real no matter what evidence may be produced in favor of the existence of that deity. I have already explained why that is false.

I don't consider belief to be irrelevant. Laws and policies are made based on the beliefs of the officials in power. When the beliefs they're basing those decisions on conflict with reality, it leads to very serious problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mariana (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 28, 2018, 01:46 PM

12. I looked up the exact quote

It is:

For those who believe, no proof is necessary
For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.
--Stuart Chase

What I find interesting is other people's reactions to the quote.

We could continue to discuss / argue our positions on this quote and it's "implications" as far as they may exist, but it seems to me a bit pedantic.

Thanks for all of your comments!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwistOneUp (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 28, 2018, 03:40 PM

13. For those who don't believe, proof can change that. Proof is definitely possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwistOneUp (Reply #12)

Mon Jan 29, 2018, 09:52 AM

14. Still prejudiced against non-believers.

Show me evidence, and I'll believe. Pretty simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwistOneUp (Reply #12)

Mon Jan 29, 2018, 11:15 AM

15. I disagree. I don't believe that unicorns exist.

Put a unicorn in front of me and a biologist that confirms it isn't just a horse with a horn implant, but actually whatever species we would call the unicorn, and I'd believe. Pretty simple.

Apply that to gods (which seem to have become the focal point of this discussion) and it would be the same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread