By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Do you believe in God? Why/Why not?

 

Do you believe in any god?

Yes 63 36.21%
 
No 111 63.79%
 
Total:174
WolfpackN64 on 28 August 2018
Peh said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Yes you can, that's why you have the division between necessary and contingent beings.

Is this the cosmological argument?

It is.



Around the Network
Rogerioandrade on 28 August 2018

Wow.... this discussion will never end here at VgChartz. Once in a while we have a new thread about this subject



vivster on 28 August 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
Peh said:

Is this the cosmological argument?

It is.

All these arguments about the existence of god are all very nice but where are the arguments that god actually has the qualities as described in theist doctrines? For all we know he might've just created the big bang and then fucked off. After all, you don't need a god if you have near infinite random chance and evolution to get where we are now.

If god really was just there to create the universe and nothing else, then his existence is absolutely meaningless to any inhabitants of the universe that followed.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Peh on 28 August 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
Peh said:

Is this the cosmological argument?

It is.

Isn't it a logical fallacy to place god as the first cause, which would end up in the god of the gaps argument? 



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

WolfpackN64 on 28 August 2018
Peh said:
WolfpackN64 said:

It is.

Isn't it a logical fallacy to place god as the first cause, which would end up in the god of the gaps argument? 

People are quick to claim that. But the cosmological argument builds up an argument for God being the first cause. It does not depart from the fact that we don't know (which would be a god of the gaps argument). the GothG argument is mostly aimed against the teleological argument, and it's a counterargument, not a logical fallacy.



Around the Network
JWeinCom on 28 August 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
JWeinCom said:

If you acknowledge that complex things (like god) can exist without a creator, you can no longer argue that cells need a creator because they are complex.

If you try to get out of this problem by saying that god is the only thing that didn't need to be created, then that is a logical fallacy called special pleading.  You can't just say "this thing is the one exception to the rule", unless you can give a valid justification to the rule.  

Either complex things always need to be designed, or they don't.  You can't have it both ways.

Yes you can, that's why you have the division between necessary and contingent beings.

I mean, you can, but you'd be committing a logical fallacy.  

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/163/Special-Pleading



WolfpackN64 on 28 August 2018
JWeinCom said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Yes you can, that's why you have the division between necessary and contingent beings.

I mean, you can, but you'd be committing a logical fallacy.  

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/163/Special-Pleading

Again, not the case since the argument builds up a necessary being from the structure of a contingent being. It does not create a necessary being with special rights to make the argument work, the entire argument builds up to the distinction between necessary and contingent beings.



Peh on 28 August 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
Peh said:

Isn't it a logical fallacy to place god as the first cause, which would end up in the god of the gaps argument? 

People are quick to claim that. But the cosmological argument builds up an argument for God being the first cause. It does not depart from the fact that we don't know (which would be a god of the gaps argument). the GothG argument is mostly aimed against the teleological argument, and it's a counterargument, not a logical fallacy.

I can agree with there being a first cause, but I don't see the logical conclusion in it being a god responsible for the first cause out of all other possibilities. That's a non sequitur. And if you claim it to be a god, than it is a GothG argument -> argument from ignorance.  And if you go deeper into the rabbit hole you'll end up on a special pleading. 



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

WolfpackN64 on 28 August 2018
Peh said:
WolfpackN64 said:

People are quick to claim that. But the cosmological argument builds up an argument for God being the first cause. It does not depart from the fact that we don't know (which would be a god of the gaps argument). the GothG argument is mostly aimed against the teleological argument, and it's a counterargument, not a logical fallacy.

I can agree with there being a first cause, but I don't see the logical conclusion in it being a god responsible for the first cause out of all other possibilities. That's a non sequitur. And if you claim it to be a god, than it is a GothG argument -> argument from ignorance.  And if you go deeper into the rabbit hole you'll end up on a special pleading. 

I understand your position. I agree the strongest criticism against the Cosmological argument is that: does God really follow from it? But I maintain that the GotG argument and special pleading aren't properly aplicable here.



JWeinCom on 28 August 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
JWeinCom said:

I mean, you can, but you'd be committing a logical fallacy.  

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/163/Special-Pleading

Again, not the case since the argument builds up a necessary being from the structure of a contingent being. It does not create a necessary being with special rights to make the argument work, the entire argument builds up to the distinction between necessary and contingent beings.

No such argument was presented in this topic, so I'm not sure what you're referring to.