Two arguments for the existence of god from analytic philosophy

Well I think they are both good arguments. However there will remain an issue for what you mean by 'God'. If you mean 'a Divine Intelligence' the argument is pretty solid. Einstein believed in a 'God' in the same kind of sense:




Source

Even the uber atheist Richard Dawkins endorses this kind of theism, or deism, in the God Delusion. The first chapter is called 'a very religious non-believer' and refers to statements of this kind by Einstein. (However in a biography of Einstein published subsequently by Walter Isaacson, it is made very clear that Einstein had an even greater disdain for atheists than he did for organised religion.)

(Actually Plantinga's argument is a proper rationalist-metaphysical argument rather similar to the First Cause argument. If every cause requires a cause, then there must be a first cause...and so on.)

Some questions about these proofs: What it the implication of believing in such a God? What difference does it make if it is true or not? How does it affect either the scientist or the ordinary person? Does it carry any sense of moral obligation or is it just conjecture? And if Swinburne's argument is correct, then will it yield enough results to empirically demonstrate the 'existence of God' to a non-believer? Could it form the basis for actual research, or is it more a question of interpretation of the what we already know. (The image that springs to mind is one of those cameras they set up in the forest to capture the elusive Greater Spotted Marmoset...:bigsmile:)

These are some of the thoughts that occur to me. However I am not much of an adversary because I favour theism over atheism. I will let some of the anti-theists have a go. No doubt they will cut them to shreds...

I am not specific, but it works with any notion of god.










I don` t know about it. Plantinga used notions in the fundational theory of justification, or specifically, basic justified belief to make his case. This is to my mind quite different from the notion of "cause".




Very unlikely. The two arguments do not stand alone. They both uses concepts from different areas in philosophy that for the most part anticipates certain objections. For example, Swinburnes uses notions like the inference to the best explanation. This is very atypical of the usual arguments for the existence of god. Because of this connections with other parts of philosophy, any objections rised would have to take into considerations of other parts of philosophy. The more "connected" the concept is to the rest of philosophy, the least likely it would be refuted. The concept of " inference to best explanation" is very established, and plausible as a principle in other parts of philosophy.

This is silly. Let me ask you, would you hand someone 90% of all your time and money off something they claim to be an investment, but give you absolutely no credentials? I don't even think the bravest inverter would get involved with such a situation, yet there are people who willingly accept this argument that religion tries to sell. No one has ever seen the investment pay out, yet there are lots of people tossing in their effort and money without questioning. So how is it, the first investment is absurd but in the other situation it is perfectly acceptable? No one sees the insanity here?

If it is silly because there are theists in the world, then i can` t help you. It is your own personal issue. If it is silly because of something specific regarding the arguments, then we have a problem.




I am not sure i get the "first investment" analogy. Maybe you are thinking of god as some sort of promise of a continuation of life after dead. In such case, you objections have nothing at all do with arguments regarding the existence of god. The two arguments i have for the existence of god do not require a god that cares for humen life, or humen existence for that matter. It could be a evil god that promises eternal pain in the life after. All that such an argument attempt to show is that there is such a being that exist. It does not give us anything specific on what god is like.