Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism
| 4668 | 1389238 |
I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done.
I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
- 4,668 Replies
In philosophy, the cosmological argument is still one of the most compelling arguments for the existence of God. And this argument recognises certain features of our universe as evidence for the existence of God.
Isn't that the teleological argument? From what I've read, cosmological only relates to the fact that there is a universe.
Isn't that the teleological argument? From what I've read, cosmological only relates to the fact that there is a universe.
Those two arguments tend to get conflated - even amongst philosophers. But you're basically right - the cosmological argument looks at the universe (or existence itself) as evidence for God. The ancient versions are pretty basic and defeasible, but more modern versions are quite sophisticated and interesting.
To be clear, I don't do philosophy of religion, so this is kind of out of my wheelhouse. And, as an atheist, I don't personally find these arguments compelling. But many philosophers I know who are theists would count cosmological arguments (or, at least, their premises) amongst their evidence for their belief in God.
And he did it wrong, because the Bible specifies the parts which are not to be taken literally. The flat-Earth part should be taken literally.
How do you know? Check my previous post. The only way to know this is to read the bible in ancient language (the language it was originally in)
To be clear, I don't do philosophy of religion, so this is kind of out of my wheelhouse.
It isn't even in my general field of study. I'm just working from distant memory and wikipedia. On that note; does anyone even use the ontological argument or argument from degree anymore?
does anyone even use the ontological argument or argument from degree anymore?
Well, the argument from degree is a kind of ontological argument. But as far as I know, it's been put to rest. (That being said, philosophers sometimes like to introduce new versions of terrible arguments, and I wouldn't be aware of these.)
The ontological argument is still out there. But philosophy departments are pushing more and more towards impact and outreach. So a big part of that is teaming up with other departments (such as physics, cosmology, and astrophysics). This move puts the ontological argument on the proverbial back burner.
You must be logged in to post a reply!