Difference between revisions of "God/arguments for"
< God
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→mathematical arguments: decided to make a sub-page for this one) |
(updated layout; smw) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | <hide> | |
| − | [[category:arguments]][[category:religion]]This page documents | + | [[page type::article]] |
| − | + | [[thing type::collection]] | |
| − | + | [[category:arguments]] | |
| − | + | [[category:religion]] | |
| − | + | </hide> | |
| − | + | ==About== | |
| − | + | This page documents commonly advanced [[argument]]s for the existence of [[God]], and any responses or refutations to them. | |
==The List== | ==The List== | ||
''this list is incomplete'' | ''this list is incomplete'' | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
* The [[wikipedia:anthropic argument|anthropic argument]] focuses on basic facts, such as our existence, to prove God. | * The [[wikipedia:anthropic argument|anthropic argument]] focuses on basic facts, such as our existence, to prove God. | ||
* The [[wikipedia:moral argument|moral argument]] argues that objective morality exists and that therefore God exists. | * The [[wikipedia:moral argument|moral argument]] argues that objective morality exists and that therefore God exists. | ||
| − | * The [[wikipedia:transcendental argument for the existence of God]] argues that logic, [[science]], [[ethics]], and other things we take seriously do not make sense if there is no God, and that atheist arguments must therefore ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency. (By contrast, | + | * The [[wikipedia:transcendental argument for the existence of God|transcendental argument for the existence of God]] argues that logic, [[science]], [[ethics]], and other things we take seriously do not make sense if there is no God, and that atheist arguments must therefore ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency. (By contrast, its criticisms include a [[wikipedia:transcendental argument for the existence of God#Criticisms|transcendental argument for the non-existence of God]].) |
* The [[wikipedia:Will to Believe Doctrine|Will to Believe Doctrine]] was pragmatist philosopher William James' attempt to prove God by showing that the adoption of theism as a hypothesis "works" in a believer's life. This doctrine depended heavily on James' pragmatic theory of truth where beliefs are proven by how they work when adopted rather than by proofs before they are believed (a form of the hypothetico-deductive method). | * The [[wikipedia:Will to Believe Doctrine|Will to Believe Doctrine]] was pragmatist philosopher William James' attempt to prove God by showing that the adoption of theism as a hypothesis "works" in a believer's life. This doctrine depended heavily on James' pragmatic theory of truth where beliefs are proven by how they work when adopted rather than by proofs before they are believed (a form of the hypothetico-deductive method). | ||
| + | |||
===arguments from history=== | ===arguments from history=== | ||
* The [[wikipedia:Christological argument|argument from the life of Jesus]] asserts that [[Jesus Christ|Jesus]] claimed to be the Son of God, that in this he was either deluded, deceitful or truthful, and that it is possible to assess Jesus's character sufficiently from the accounts of his life and teaching to rule out the first two possibilities. | * The [[wikipedia:Christological argument|argument from the life of Jesus]] asserts that [[Jesus Christ|Jesus]] claimed to be the Son of God, that in this he was either deluded, deceitful or truthful, and that it is possible to assess Jesus's character sufficiently from the accounts of his life and teaching to rule out the first two possibilities. | ||
| − | * The argument from the Resurrection of Jesus asserts that there is sufficient historical evidence for Jesus's resurrection and that this vindicates his claim to be Son of God and a fortiori God's existence. There is common ground between theists and atheists that if the resurrection occurred substantially as described in the Bible, then Christianity is substantially true; non-Christians simply dispute the premise. | + | * The argument from the Resurrection of Jesus asserts that there is sufficient historical evidence for Jesus's resurrection and that this vindicates his claim to be Son of God and ''a fortiori'' God's existence. There is common ground between theists and atheists that if the resurrection occurred substantially as described in the Bible, then Christianity is substantially true; non-Christians simply dispute the premise. |
* [[Islam]] asserts that the life of Mohammed and especially the giving of the Koran by an Angel similarly vindicates Islam. | * [[Islam]] asserts that the life of Mohammed and especially the giving of the Koran by an Angel similarly vindicates Islam. | ||
| − | * Judaism asserts that God intervened in key specific moments in history, especially at the Exodus and the giving of the [[Ten Commandments]], thus demonstrating his special care for the Jewish people, and a fortiori his existence. | + | * Judaism asserts that God intervened in key specific moments in history, especially at the Exodus and the giving of the [[Ten Commandments]], thus demonstrating his special care for the Jewish people, and ''a fortiori'' his existence. |
* [[Mormonism]] similarly asserts that the miraculous finding of the [[Book of Mormon]] vindicates Mormonism. | * [[Mormonism]] similarly asserts that the miraculous finding of the [[Book of Mormon]] vindicates Mormonism. | ||
| + | ==Reference== | ||
| + | * Wikipedia: | ||
| + | ** [[wikipedia:Existence of God|Existence of God]]: | ||
| + | *** [[wikipedia:Quinquae viae|Quinquae viae]] ("five ways"): the '''unmoved mover''', '''first cause''', '''contingency''', '''degree''', and '''[[argument from design|design]]''' arguments | ||
| + | * {{ironchariots|50 reasons to believe in God}} ("50 reasons to believe in God" email, with responses) | ||
| + | * {{rationalwiki|Category:Arguments for the existence of a god}} | ||