LuccaCardoso1 said:
Well, that argument is plainly and simply nonsensical. Something does not automatically exist just because it's the most perfect thing you can think of. Actually, there are reasons to think that, exactly because it is the most perfect thing imaginable, it cannot exist, such as the problem of evil: 1. God exists. 2. God is omnipotent, perfectly good and omniscient. 3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils. 4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence. 5. An omnipotent being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence. 6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil. 7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good being, then no evil exists. 8. Evil exists, therefore it's impossible for an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good being to exist.
That's intelligent design, and it's a lie. Not everything in nature has a purpose and nature is far from perfect. One example of that is extinction. If nature was really perfect, no species would ever go extinct. A more specific one is the recurrent laryngeal nerve (Richard Dawkins demonstrated it greatly here), which goes from the brain to the larynx. Instead of going directly, in a straight line, it makes a huge detour, going down to the chest, passing around the arteries and going up again. In giraffes, it means a 4.5m detour (15ft). The list of examples is very long.
Therefore, God? That's just the god of the gaps, just because we don't know how the universe started that doesn't mean god exists. Time is a really complex subject, and I don't have enough knowledge about cosmology to explain it, but from what I know, time will go slower or faster depending on where you are in the universe, so time can go slow enough to don't exist at all.
By that logic, you should believe in every single god, not just the Christian one. If you just believe in one god, your chance of believing in the right god is almost zero. You should also believe in every single thing ever, as long as it doesn't directly affect you negatively. And btw, I don't agree with the phrase "it wouldn't net you any negatives if he didn't exist". |
Again, the ontological argument isn't perfect. But what is extremely flawed is the argument of the problem of evil. Because for no evil to exist, free will would need to be nonexistant. It's a big element of the Christian God that he gave men free will, it's one of THE most important aspects of our religion. For him to deny the possibility of men to do evil would be to deny free will. Basically, God can create a world in which there would be no evil, yet he gave us one where the possibiliyu of evil exists, so we can live in freedom. The problem of evil is such a terrible sham argument it makes my blood boil whenever someone brings it up.
Intelligent design is a product of the teleological argument, but the teleological argument isn't the same as intelligent design and in many respects, the argument is much more complex.
The cosmological argument doesn't necessarily use time, but in the variant which uses time, it starts from the assumption that time has a beginning (which is in all likelihood true).
As for Pascal's Wager. The man is a mathematician, pretty sure he didn't consider other Gods. And anyone with a healthy religious lifestyle will not net you any negatives if God doesn't exist.
