Devans99

I have heard about it but never read it. 'A Sphere' demonstrates to 'A Square' the nature of 3D by lowering and raising himself through Flatland. Soun...

As I said, I am not arguing for any particular God. The chances of any particular religion actually being true seem minimal to me, but the chances tha...

Just typical. Everyone says there are flaws but won't say what they are or provide a link to them. I honestly would not post busted arguments; what on...

Seriously, I am not religious. I would like to hear your suggestion (and any counter arguments you can make against God). Well you could for example s...

I do not know which God it is. It could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I know. There is an almost zero chance that any of the worlds religion...

No-one has pointed out any flaws. Care to expand? I don't see for example how anything can logically exist without a first cause. I would just love to...

I think both sides (Theist and Atheist) take a lot of pleasure from promoting their point of view and trying to 'persuade' others to their side. There...

Maybe ask first whether the non-material can exist. I'm of the opinion that it can (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5606/could-god-be-non-ma...

Returning to the OP, the fact is that no-one can prove definitely if there is a God or not. So it is also a fact that everyone should be agnostic. Bot...

'This statement is not provable' means: 1) this is a statement 2) this is not provable IE it is not provable if it is a statement. Also if you read th...

Agreed. It works the other way around too. The universe is so big, God would never be able to find us.

I think that anything that is self contradictory or nonsensical should be classed as a non-statement - such statements disprove themselves if you see ...

https://www.space.com/26078-how-many-stars-are-there.html So there are 1*10^24 stars in the observable universe. God could be anywhere amongst them. S...

These self-denying statements are acceptable according to formal logic and they lead to Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. If it can't be given a truth ...

So in the case of the Godel statement, ‘this statement is not provable’… means 'it is not provable that this is a statement'. If you can’t prove its a...

You can also interpret 'this statement as false' as: 1. this is a statement 2. and it is false So 2 says 1 is false. IE it is not a statement.

I would suggest trying to simplify your life. Paying bills for instance can be automated. Reduce the amount of admin in your life so that you have mor...

I would just add that when human are not behaving logically, they are behaving emotionally. But emotions themselves are 'logical' - they are signals l...

So for example, a hypothesis is that there are certain patterns or ratios in music that we find especially pleasing. Science maybe able to identify th...

OK point taken, there is a moral aspect to religion that I missed. But morality can be defined mathematically quite simply (https://thephilosophyforum...

But emotions are due to glands and chemicals in our brain/bodies. These things are investigable with science. We could correlate the patterns of music...

Its all a simple equality of short term < long term. Music and art are mathematical. See for example the Golden Ratio. Is basically a quest to answer ...

Questions like 'is there a God?', 'is space infinite?' we can collect empirical evidence for. Not all philosophical questions granted, thats why I say...

They both share logic (deductive, inductive, abductive reasoning) as a foundation. If you look at how the two disciplines evolved, it is correct to sa...

Science is inherently inductive. Both the theory of gravity and evolution are inductive knowledge. Most of the stuff we know is known inductively. So ...

Look none of you folks seem to be able to provide either: A) A valid counter argument B) A link to a valid counter argument

What about Thomas's arguments; they are not resting on my definition of infinity? And I think my arguments hinge only on a common sense understanding ...

From the source above: 'Among the activities often identified as characteristic of science are systematic observation and experimentation, inductive a...

There is not on Wikipedia for it. I guess our method is based on: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/

OK, how about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_methodology

There is this excellent site if you have not come across it: https://plato.stanford.edu

I have not posted an argument for a first cause / commentary on the 5 ways before. I'm not sure what you mean? I have barely mentioned maths/infinity ...

No-one has come up with a valid counter argument to it so far.

I wrote out in full here, points 1-6: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1

I'm not quite sure I have the tools to do a pictorial representation. Obviously the first cause argument can be viewed as an inverted pyramid or inver...

I'd argue that it is impossible for something to exist 'always' in time; it would have no start so none of it would exist. So therefore the first caus...

Thanks for hearing the argument out! It is really an extension of an old idea, the prime mover. So I can't claim to have solved this old problem mysel...

Well there is the Big Bang. Looks unnatural. Natural things come in pluralities whereas the Big Bang is a singleton. Unnatural. Also very low entropy ...

But time has a start. Suggesting 'everything' (in terms of all particles) had a start co-incidental with that... the Big Bang. The Big Bang sure looks...

In that case then the arguments Thomas Aquinas and I put forward are arguments for God. It's just most people's definition include the 3Os - the attri...

I'd reiterate, there are many logical and empirical arguments for a prime mover. I have yet to see a logical argument against a prime mover that passe...

I believe science backs my position, both the Big Bang theory and the theory of Eternal Inflation posit a first cause. In order to prove God's existen...

There is a problem with these types of discussions on keeping things scientific rather than religious. Hence I settled on 'first cause' rather than 'G...

I would also point to my supporting arguments here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5242/infinite-being That existing for infinity is imposs...

I would point to the Phlogiston theory as an example of science getting it badly wrong for a long period of time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogi...

In the fullness of time, it will become apparent that much of what we believe today is wrong. That still does not invalidate the usefulness of the por...

Sorry. Can't edit it now.

I would reference points 1 through 6 here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1 As proof that things cannot 'e...

Bump to get more votes (5 votes is not statistically significant).

I don't understand what you mean. I was caused by my parents meaning I was not the first cause for example... If things go back forever, they have no ...