does life matter
put the arguments here pls
Maximally Great Being = G*d
Each individual one does not give strong evidence that a maximally great being exists, but if you put them together, they are quite compelling.
The kalam cosmological argument goes like this: Everything that began to exist must have a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore the universe must have a cause.
The cosmological argument from contingency goes like this: Everything that exists has a reason for its existence, either by the necessity of its own nature, or it being caused into existence by something else (contingent). The universe is contingent. Therefore, there must be a necessary being that created the universe. (This one is heavily philosophical, so if you need clarification, just ask).
The teleological argument goes like this: The universe has just the right properties for life to come about. It is highly improbably that those properties came about naturally. Therefore there must be a designer.
The ontological argument is the hardest to understand, but is the least controversial among philosophers. It goes like this: It is possible that maximal greatness is exemplified. In some possible world, maximal greatness is exemplified. If there is a maximally great being in one possible world, the maximally great being exists in every possible world. If the maximally great being exists in every possible world, it exists in the actual world. If it exists in the actual world, it exists. Therefore, there is a maximally great being. (Clarification may be provided)
The moral argument goes like this: If a maximally great being does not exist, objective morals do not exist. Objective morals exist. Therefore, a maximally great being exists
ok,in true nihilistic fashion im just gonna say that i dont care about anything you guys say and i dont even know why im still following this thread so im unfollowing cuz i got better stuff to do than watch random people argue for nothing
I’m not a skeptic here; I just want some evidence in your favor and not in mine.
"At this stage, using the standards applied to any other area of science, the case for psychic functioning has been scientifically proven," says Jessica Utts, a statistics professor at the University of California, Davis, who specializes in evaluating parapsychology research.
A quote from 30 years ago.
If it's not repeatable, it's either not real, or is functionally the same as something that is not real. Either way, not worth paying attention to.
I haven't read all the pages, but I assume you've hijaked the threat with a lot of nonsense.
What are his flaws in thinking?
Perhaps saying that William Lane Craig is flawed may not have been the most-accurate way for me to describe it but, more like, whilst I do regard him as being very highly extremely intelligent and incredibly well-sophisticated, I suppose you could say it's more of a «semantics» issue between a guy like me versus him - I don't define «God» the same way which I'll elaborate further towards the end of this post; then again it also happens with the «materialists» who define «science» in all manners of «appeal-to-authority» logical-fallacies which I find unconvincing due to the various self-contradictions;
ok next time be a little more clear
Now, the Christian people like to define God as being a «being» of all love or only love, and, I am forced to disagree with this, because, it contradicts the definition of «all-powerful»
Ummm… no?
which necessarily means that it must have capabilities/abilities that are definitely not in the category of love nor of being loving
Sure, it might have the abilities, but I think you’re confusing being omnipotent with being able to do anything and everything. Being omnipotent does not mean you can do any and all things, it just means you can do what you desire to without any difficulty. If His essential nature and character is completely unchanging, necessary, and loving whilst being omnipotent, there is no possible way he could deny love and do non-loving things. This is more of a misconception of omnipotency than anything.
, but, like those girls (and sometimes even guys) in abusive-relationships who refuse to acknowledge that the «abuse» they experience is anything other than «love» from their partner
that’s not love
, the religious people have not reconciled the seeming «injustice» that happens in life (evils, wars, crimes, et-cetera) that I can deem as being truly rationally fair or logically just
It has been shown by many that there is no logical contradiction between the existence of evil and the existence of an omnipotent, good being.
Via that logic then anything that was published more than 30 years ago has no validity;
Incorrect.
it means unhappy and unrewarding life makes u happy enough to live. but this is too tricky a choice, be simpler and life will be easier)
it means unhappy and unrewarding life makes u happy enough to live. but this is too tricky a choice, be simpler and life will be easier)
If you can answer one of the biggest questions asked in the entire history of humanity with 2 sentences, I doubt your answer.
to whom? to me it’s more interesting if life matters to you. as in plural you ![]()
to whom? to me it’s more interesting if life matters to you. as in plural you
Plural you?
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.