5 Arguments for God’s Existence

#christianity #theology #philosophy #bible #God #jesus #christ #jesuschrist #argument #debate #metaphysics #existence #orthodoxchristianity #orthodox #orthodoxchurch #catholicchurch #catholic #sigma #shorts

[noahchappell-elgie]

Corrections:
1. The Cosmological Argument:
The cosmological argument does not claim ‘everything that exists has a cause’, as this would lead to the obvious problem of ‘well if God exists then what caused Him to exist?’. Instead, causal cosmological arguments (such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument used by people such as Al Ghazali and William Lane Craig) tend to specify conditions such as ‘all things that begin to exist have a cause’. Hence, one can no longer object that God also requires a cause since God never began to exist. Another style of cosmological argument is that of the Contingency Cosmological Argument used by people such as Aquinas and Leibniz which states that ‘all contingent things are caused to exist’ (which also avoids the criticism of ‘well what caused God?’ Since God is an ultimately necessary being, not a contingent one). Thus, it is a straw man to say that the cosmological argument claims ‘everything that exists has a cause’ since this opens up numerous wormholes and makes the argument significantly weaker than its true strength. (I appreciate this might’ve been done out of simplicity for viewers but I don’t think we should weaken our arguments to do so since it may leave unconvinced viewers unconvinced whereas the real and much stronger argument has a much better chance).

To read more and verify my claim that no serious cosmological argument claims ‘everything that exists has a cause’ please read point 1 in this blog by Ed Feser:


2. The Ontological Argument:
The ontological argument does not claim that the concept of God ‘IMPLIES’ that there is actually a God, but rather it argues that the concept of God ENTAILS that there must be such a God by a-priori intuition (a much stronger claim than simply that the existence of God is implied).

I hope these constructive criticisms help. Your videos are great! Keep up the good work!

[Lollololplolpllplpl]

I find the last one the most interesting. Saw a video earlier explaining the need for a divine consciousness through quantum physics

[Iliadic]

I find them all convincing, but the most convincing one is probably Cosmological or Teleological.

[greygods]

the last argument is most interesting to me

[akaTheologic]

1 and 2 were the easiest for me to grasp in my experience

[humano]

Look into the Transcedental Argument for God aka TAG, it’s easily the strongest one.

[FlippyD]

Thomas Aquinas’s exact points! Very good summary

[crunchybroll]

Anything that BEGINS to exist had a cause. God never began to exist he just does

[markishedd]

Honestly, the ontological argument. If you're trying to argue any of these theories in the reality of our mortal existence, the ontological argument's acceptance has the greatest implication for an individual's life.

[daman]

no one ever puts forth a cosmological argument with the premise, "everything that exists has a cause." That would mean God needs a cause

[pavloskaphetes]

So, since god doesn’t have a cause, he doesn’t exist. Perfect. I love it. Job well done.

[beththepotato]

The ontological argument is not the argument that God is so great of a concept that he must exist.
Instead, it argues that God can exist in one possible world, and therefore must exist in all possible worlds because he is a necessary being

[fetch]

hey I'm agnostic so I don't necessarily believe or dispute the idea that is a God but I find these arguments to be generally fallacious, so I want to talk about each one
1. What caused God? To just arbitrarily place an all-powerful being as "the original cause" with no proof other than faith fails to acknowledge the fact that by your own logic God would need His own cause.
2. For this one let me just bring up evolution (which I know a lot of creationists dispute) because evolution would basically follow the process of random small mutations. If these evolutions cause the animal to die quicker, they fade out quickly before the population with the evolution can spread. If it's inconsequential, subsequent breeding will likely see the feature disappear (except in some cases where evolutions WERE useful then became inconsequential leading to them being ubiquitous and not disappearing from the population) and if it's beneficial to the creature, the populations without the mutation would be more likely to die, which means that future generations would be more likely to come from parents that had this beneficial mutation until the population reaches a form best adapted for their environment, which would create the illusion of intelligent design
3. This one is just weak. It basically just says that if I can think of the perfect version of anything then it must exist, which isn't really anything substantial (I feel like I'm missing something with this one, so please let me know)
4. Objective morality DOES NOT EXIST. We have some morals that are societal constants, but the idea of an objective set of morals is laughable. Is the implication that these morals were given through the Christian faith or that they were embedded in humanity naturally? If given through the Christian faith, that would require us to believe that the Christian faith is legitimate, which is paradoxical, as for the argument to be true the Christian faith would have to be true as posited by this argument, the argument needs itself to be true in order to be legitimate, which is fallacious. If the idea is that all beings were given some objective moral compass, then what explains the "savagery" witnessed by Spanish conquistadors that was only considered so because Christian morality had issues with Native American practices? Did God selectively ignore these groups from the beginning of time? That feels quite cruel and unreasonable for an all-loving, omnipotent God.
5. The phenomenon of conscious existence is a mystery that has stumped scientists and philosophers for eons, but to just attribute it to God feels like a pointless arbitrary "solution" just picked to make people shut up about the question.
Let me just say that any or all of these arguments could be true, I don't necessarily think a conscious creator can't exist, and my reasoning could be proven objectively false, but I find that these arguments seem to always have enough holes to poke in them to not really be great at "objectively proving the existence of God".

[richardcrow]

The image of Apilonis the Pagan
Is the one that convinced me.

[jadenalmeida]

Kalam cosmological argument fine tuning argument . Most atheist have stared that fine tuning argument is the best argument

[bachamadu]

From causation, motion, design, morality, and awareness. They are all compelling. It's hard to choose :)

[Theophoruz]

Thank you Telosbound for leading me in the faith of Eastern Orthodoxy, I desire to join the church.

[austinfurgason]

Argument of Design I’d say, I never fell for Athiesm even before Christianity. I have memories as a kid and teenager thinking, “world is so beautiful, and the humans are so much higher then any animal”

[BJohnDoyle]

The argument from morality is most powerful and interesting to me as it is a realm of thought (and action!) that we desperately need, and which is most fruitful to explore, for in pursuing this argument we most learn how to be Godly.

[gabri]

I'll address the arguments as they are presented in the video.
1. In the first argument, if everything that exists has a cause, then if god exists, he would also need a cause. If god can cause himself, then the universe can also cause itself. Furthermore, there is a logical leap from the cause of the universe to god. The universe may have been caused by a force that is not personal or rational, but by some natural force.
2. The 2nd argument can simply be dismissed by the anthropic principle.
3. This argument is probably the weakest. The mere concept of an idea does not make it real. I could imagine that if there are some round objects in the world, then there is a perfect circle somewhere in the universe, which is false, as the minimum distance in the universe is the Planck length, any circle in the real world will have edges, thus not being perfect.
4. There is no objective morality. Some actions seem to be universally evil or good because those actions are strongly selected by competition and natural selection. One might imagine that if a society considers the murder of children a good thing, that society will soon die out. Whereas if a society considers it evil to harm the innocent, that society will prosper, as individuals will avoid harming each other, reproduce more, and engage in more positive social interactions.
5. The lack of scientific knowledge about something does not mean it is a supernatural phenomenon, this is a logical leap. Before the discovery of the electron, lightning could only be explained by supernatural forces, but it actually was never supernatural in origin. A hint that consciousness is physical and natural in origin is that many physical injuries, chemicals, and electrical shocks can alter, modify, or terminate consciousness. Furthermore, AI can already extract some text from the brain just by reading electrical signals, although this technology is in its early stages. I bet science will already crack consciousness in this century.

Overall the 5th one is the most convincing, because the unknown makes people think in a religious way.