Philosophical Arguments For Gods Existance

Jul 9, 2014
205
52
28
26
Ever hear of Peter Kreeft? He is a Professor of Philosophy who has accumulated 20 philosophical arguments demonstrating there must be or probably is a God...for example your first argument is called the Kalam Argument...he has said there are no (Zero) philosophical arguments which demonstrate there is no or cannot be any God...

Yes but you can still reasonably infer that it is god, but I don't hold it against atheists who don't believe.
 
Jun 26, 2014
1,037
238
63
60
US
Didn't Aristotle and Socrates use philosophy to reason their way into the existence of a creator?
Gods are different than a creation story.

They are quantifiable concepts. Therefore philosophy can be employed.

When you deal in speculation, philosophy becomes nothing more than a demonstration of spurious logic.

Or for the modern person, a BS session.
 
Jul 25, 2013
3,663
1,313
113
35
Washington, DC
Gods are different than a creation story.

They are quantifiable concepts. Therefore philosophy can be employed.

When you deal in speculation, philosophy becomes nothing more than a demonstration of spurious logic.

Or for the modern person, a BS session.
When I say a creator, I mean God. Though the Greeks didn't have their philosophy and religion together in that era. Though they did realize a creator--that creator being God (rather than the gods).
 
Jun 26, 2014
1,037
238
63
60
US
When I say a creator, I mean God. Though the Greeks didn't have their philosophy and religion together in that era. Though they did realize a creator--that creator being God (rather than the gods).
Aristotle, Plato and Socrates all used philosophy when dealing with their gods. Trying rationalise as they did everything else from daily life to politics to religion.

Neither of these three believed in monotheism.
 
Jul 25, 2013
3,663
1,313
113
35
Washington, DC
Yes it is
I don't know where to begin other than where everyone else has and would. But I had mentioned previously how the classical philosophers did reason their way into the idea of God's existence, though they didn't personally know Him.

St. Thomas Aquinas is very well known for taking what Aristotle had done in writing about Logos and moving forward into the religious aspects of God and going even further with Jesus. The short answer is reviewing Quinque Viae which are the "five proofs."
 
Jul 25, 2013
3,663
1,313
113
35
Washington, DC
Aristotle, Plato and Socrates all used philosophy when dealing with their gods. Trying rationalise as they did everything else from daily life to politics to religion.

Neither of these three believed in monotheism.
Yes, they did. I haven't read much of Plato, but I do know that Aristotle and Socrates did. They didn't quite understand the full nature of God, but they knew of His existence. It's what Aristotle meant when he wrote about the "unmoved mover."
 
Jul 25, 2013
3,663
1,313
113
35
Washington, DC
Aristotle discusses the meaning of being as being. He refers to the unmoved movers, and assigns one to each movement in the heavens and tasks future astronomers with correlating the estimated 47 to 55 motions of the Eudoxan planetary model with the most current and accurate observations.

Not a mover, but movers.
Did you copy this from somewhere? If so, if you were to read on, you'd find this was his beginning thought into AN unmoved mover. He didn't conclude of many movers. He started there and went forward into figuring out that there would only be AN unmoved mover--or at least that there aren't multiple unmoved movers. From my understanding, he wasn't against the idea of multiple movers, but his reasoning didn't bring him to that conclusion. This is why Aquinas continued on with Aristotle's reasoning.
 
Nov 8, 2013
432
160
43
Greenville Tx
Hey I thought this would be a fun little distraction from life. I commonly think about philosophical arguments for god. Usually they just pop in my head and some are actually pretty good. Feel free to add any. Also be sure to get critical and bring up problems with some of them. Lastly the goal of philosophy is to show that the existence of god can be known with reasonable certainty.


  1. Everything that has an effect has a beginning
  2. Everything with a beginning must have a cause
  3. the universe began to exist therefore the universe was created.
*Note some will use the example of causeless particles that appear into existence from nothing. The problem with this is that the particles are dependent on there being physical space.
  1. inanimate objects do not will things to be created and nature cannot transcend itself
  2. Conscious minds will things to be created
  3. Therefore god created the world

  1. Laws require lawmakers
  2. the universe has laws
  3. therefore the universe had a lawmaker
  1. Opposites exist in every field and since there is a physical/natural/our universe/ existence there must be a metaphysical/natural/other universe/existence
Person A "the universe is amazing and the laws of physics may not be the same everywhere."
Person B "Since the laws of physics are not the same everywhere there may be a set of laws that allows for a god to exist."
If subjectivity can support objective claims using rational assertoric logic in the spirit of Aquinas and Aristotle; then is it possible for subjectivity to also in variance then reject all a_priori knowledge subjectively?

Can it be that God in his grand design of "limited man" then "requires faith" unto conversion, and "will distance science" using limitations, which then prevents a secular validation of His own existence?

Yet I am not your antagonist and respect your methodology for potential validation
 
Jul 9, 2014
205
52
28
26
If subjectivity can support objective claims using rational assertoric logic in the spirit of Aquinas and Aristotle; then is it possible for subjectivity to also in variance then reject all a_priori knowledge subjectively?

Can it be that God in his grand design of "limited man" then "requires faith" unto conversion, and "will distance science" using limitations, which then prevents a secular validation of His own existence?

Yet I am not your antagonist and respect your methodology for potential validation
I'm a little confused by what you're asking, but here it goes anyway.


Subjectivity can prove some objective facts. One such example is an ultimate universal code. I do not know how subjective claims can be used to disprove or prove priori knowledge.

God most likely separated his existence from us so that he cannot be directly proven by our limited minds.

It's fine I appreciate the constructive feedback.
 
Feb 2, 2014
6,888
5,853
113
American
www.abdicate.net
To me, prove would only be for those willing to accept it. There's a LOT of proof out there, those that reject only don't accept it. In fact, that's what iniquity means, to disbelieve God, to bend, twist, distort the truth. If God says so, it's the truth and to deny it is to say God's not telling the truth. Christians are some of the biggest offenders.
 
Apr 11, 2014
1,081
731
113
PA, USA
If you truly look for proof, you can find it. Those not interested in proving themselves wrong can't find proof.http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A20&version=ESV
Jeremiah 29:13

You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.

Proverbs 8:17
I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.

Romans 1:20

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
 
Jul 9, 2014
205
52
28
26
1. Rationality can only come from a rational mind.
2. Nature is rational.
3. Therefore, Nature came from a rational mind.
4. That rational mind is God.
 
To know “there is no God”, one would have to know all things, because God could be within what they do not know. Even if one were to have 50% of all the knowledge and experience that would still mean that there is 50% they cannot know nor have experienced. So to know God is not, one has to know all. Now secondly, to know there is no God, one would have to be in all places simultaneously, because God could be revealing Himself only in a place you are not. Thirdly you would have to have known all and been everywhere during all of the past, the present, and the future in case God was revealing Himself when you were not. And finally, you would have to be aware of all that which is and/or has been known or experienced by all individuals of all times, in case He had revealed Himself to only certain peoples at certain times. So in effect, to know there is no God, you would have to be omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, and present for any who may be able to receive illumination or revelation that God is. One then has to be exactly what is called God.


Now consider what is“empirical evidence”…


Empirical = based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic; originating in or based on observation or experience; relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory ; capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.


So to believe there is no God one must be in denial of the empirical evidence of millions of people from every walk of life from every culture (both genders) and all different ages though out all time. Do you deny all this empirical evidence? Many have seen Him (though you may have not). Many have heard His voice (though you may have not). Many have been transformed and forever changed (though maybe not you). Prophecy rebukes the accusation from statistical probabilities (but you cannot see that many things have been prophesied that came to pass). Too many people have been healed (not all) to be blown off by the “mere coincidence “ argument. You can test Him and do what He says, and see for yourself if you do not get the promised result (but some are afraid and like being their own lord). I could go on but you can see how absurd a position it is which believes with any conviction that God is not. Can they disprove God by their observations or experiences or experiments? In more than four centuries it has not been accomplished.
 
Nov 8, 2013
432
160
43
Greenville Tx
I'm a little confused by what you're asking, but here it goes anyway.

Subjectivity can prove some objective facts. One such example is an ultimate universal code. I do not know how subjective claims can be used to disprove or prove priori knowledge.
We both are on point with the same line of thought, for we can with wisdom "subjectively embrace a_priori knowledge.”

However to your question, man can also in error as a pure subjective existentialist then reject all a_priori and common knowledge as being true; for there is no “objective-shuttle” that can pass a_priori knowledge from one mind to another without “subjective assessment” there to reason it to truth. In essence we all have a subjective "filter."

God most likely separated his existence from us so that he cannot be directly proven by our limited minds.
I agree

Without faith it is impossible to please God.
 
Nov 8, 2013
432
160
43
Greenville Tx
To know “there is no God”, one would have to know all things, because God could be within what they do not know. Even if one were to have 50% of all the knowledge and experience that would still mean that there is 50% they cannot know nor have experienced. So to know God is not, one has to know all. Now secondly, to know there is no God, one would have to be in all places simultaneously, because God could be revealing Himself only in a place you are not. Thirdly you would have to have known all and been everywhere during all of the past, the present, and the future in case God was revealing Himself when you were not. And finally, you would have to be aware of all that which is and/or has been known or experienced by all individuals of all times, in case He had revealed Himself to only certain peoples at certain times. So in effect, to know there is no God, you would have to be omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, and present for any who may be able to receive illumination or revelation that God is. One then has to be exactly what is called God.


Now consider what is“empirical evidence”…


Empirical = based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic; originating in or based on observation or experience; relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory ; capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.


So to believe there is no God one must be in denial of the empirical evidence of millions of people from every walk of life from every culture (both genders) and all different ages though out all time. Do you deny all this empirical evidence? Many have seen Him (though you may have not). Many have heard His voice (though you may have not). Many have been transformed and forever changed (though maybe not you). Prophecy rebukes the accusation from statistical probabilities (but you cannot see that many things have been prophesied that came to pass). Too many people have been healed (not all) to be blown off by the “mere coincidence “ argument. You can test Him and do what He says, and see for yourself if you do not get the promised result (but some are afraid and like being their own lord). I could go on but you can see how absurd a position it is which believes with any conviction that God is not. Can they disprove God by their observations or experiences or experiments? In more than four centuries it has not been accomplished.
Your dissertation implies that no person on earth can "disprove God." I readily agree with exuberance

For natural man would need to be eternal, immutable, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent to disprove God.

Is it possible that epistemological high-ground is shared with believers and non-believers alike in the philosophical debate of our Lord's existence? For though antagonism in philosophy forces the cry "uncle" for requiring objective proof, the cry also emanates from those who try to disprove our Lord's existence as well.
 

chili

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Senior Moderator
Apr 22, 2008
4,339
1,469
113
GA
Anti-infinite argument

Some will say given an infinite amount of chances anything is possible, even the creation of our universe.

response

You cannot turn a blue ball red by hitting it against wood an infinite amount of times.(unless you cut yourself)

Given an infinite amount of chances results will be produced(+) but things can also be destroyed (-) given the same circumstances. Therefore given infinity chances we would expect to see (+) but we would also expect a (-) to be produced to remove a (+) from existance.

Given an infinite amount of chances anything is possible. Therefore I expect to see inter-dimensional space worms.
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::D:eek::eek: ooo space worms.... well there just might be since God created life and the universe.
My brother thinks we came from amoebas and when we die we go back to amoebas. He is an atheist btw.