@Krumple,
Krumple;149187 wrote:1 is a fallacy. You have not shown at all that a god exists in reality. You can't make a claim and call it a truth without verifying it. So this argument fails.
The point of Anselm's ontological argument is that God's existence is self-evident by the ability to even consider God as that-than-which-nothing-greater-could-be-considered. When one considers that-than-which-
nothing-greater-could-be-considered as actually being that-than-which-
something-greater-could-be-considered, they are not considering the true God of existence, who is that-than-which-nothing-greater-could-be-considered. A common argument against this is not necessarily that it is just wrong because it is wrong and unvalidated, but rather issues with other potential considerations, such as the most perfect island one could consider or the most perfect whatever. Augustine argued in the City of God that our ability to perceive what is good or perfect derives from the original standard of perfect (God), because it could not be perceived without understanding, first, what makes a truly good thing good; this is an important addition because we then conclude that our considerations of the most perfect islands and whatnot are derived from our understanding of perfection from the standard of perfection (God).
Krumple;149187 wrote:Objective moral values do NOT exist. Argument 2 is a fallacy.
You are only making a blanket assertion without reflecting reality. Truthfully, there
are standards which transcend generational and cultural boundaries. In my studies, I have not found one society or culture, wherein it is morally acceptable to murder or steal from another member of said society or culture (one could argue abortion, however). Again, referring back to Augustine in City of God, a thief will take measures to prevent himself from being robbed. All in all, though, this is not necessarily the point of the argument from morality.
If we consider morality, it is in
sharp contrast to human nature, which is primarily selfish and instinctual (redundant, I know, for instinct is inherently selfish). The position of the theist and, more so, the Christian is that the chasm between morality and instinct is so infinitely vast that man could not have crossed by his own means, for the moral act suffers from the instinctual need to do for oneself. One could argue as Nietzsche did in The Gay Science that the act is based on an incredible desire for possession, fueled by avarice and lust. We argue, though, that this boundary can only be established by the very Creator of our existence, because, with man, this is impossible.
Krumple;149187 wrote:Argument 3 is a fallacy. You can not presuppose that by having a subjective view of the universe that it is in some way designed to be that way.
I do not have anything of importance to say about this. "Beautiful" is certainly subjective and we can only perceive that it is purposeful. We must either take these things as an expression of faith or become offended in the notion that it is beautiful and purposeful.
Krumple;149187 wrote:This has been refuted on many occasions. Argument 2 of 4 is a fallacy. You can't make this claim.
The amount of refutations is irrelevant if they are in error and you, so far, gave nothing to support "this has been refuted on many occasions." They certainly can claim that and be quite sound. I am reminded of Hawking's classic text, A Brief History of Time, wherein he wrote of the discovery of a universe which is
not static, but expanding from a singularity and how this left many scientists in a panic to shut the door on the possibility of the existence of a Creator. While the Cosmological Argument is not a sustainable argument on its own, it compliments the whole nicely.
A far more sustainable version of this argument is the argument from motion. Using Aristotelian logic, Aquinas wrote of this very argument from motion, writing that if the universe's cause was caused by another and regressing infinitely, there would only exist intermediate movers who were moved by another and, thus, nothing would be first moved and, consequently, nothing would be moved at all.
Krumple;149187 wrote:It is not even an explanation at all. Why not say Zeus did it all? How do you know it wasn't the flying pink elephant that made everything?
Nonsense aside (i.e. pink elephant), it is not necessarily wrong to assess that a Creator's existence is the best explanation, but this alone does nothing to support specifically.
Krumple;149187 wrote:This can be attributed to misinterpreted experience. Irrational understanding. Just like the above arguments are fallacies. You jump to conclusions without any valid evidence and bent reasoning.
Personal experience is not necessarily "misinterpreted experience" or "irrational understanding." My call to come to Christ Jesus is unintelligible to you because you cannot first get past your own presuppositions; this is, ultimately, the substance of faith. In regards to Christianity, each individual is revealed, individually, as to the existence of God and the necessity of faith in Christ. We believe, not because we are reasoned into the faith, as it were, through man, but because we are
given faith by God. Referring back to Aquinas, in book one of Summa Contra Gentiles, we read his reasoning that a life of diligent inquiry, which all philosophers, scientists, and general scholars attempt to pursue, is impeded by three distinct problems of human life:
1. Physical inability in that some are physically unable to pursue this life. We see this in the contrast between genuine genius and the common layperson and how some are just naturally capable of higher reasoning.
2. Temporal concerns in that many cannot pursue a life of diligent inquiry because of the temporal matters of life, from home life and monetary needs.
3. Indolence in that many cannot sustain a life of diligent inquiry because of their own desires and pursuits, which is seen, most often, in youths.
Next, he writes, man is affected by his natural propensity to falsity and that falsity is often included with true and accepted with the whole. If, he concludes, God's existence was solely based on the highest of human reason, with this in mind, we would perpetually remain in the darkest depths of ignorance. It is for this that God gave us faith so that all may partake in the knowledge of God.
