4 Unique Arguments for God's Existence - PhilosophyCraft

What do you think of these arguments? Which is the most compelling to you?
In this video we discuss four unique arguments for God's existence, all while continuing our spelunking expedition!
If you enjoyed the video, make sure to like and subscribe!

[@cipher6601]

Second argument: The argument from experience 1. "If there are genuine religous experiences of God, then God exists." There's a ton of explanations for why people would experience something they considered spiritual. 2. "There are genuine religious experiences of God." And a lot of them conflict each other. I have a Mormon friend who says that the Holy Spirit came to him when he was reading the book of Mormon and confirmed that it was all true. I also have a friend who said Jesus came to him consecutively in a dream and showed him all that he had done, of which, he says didn't match with what the Book of Mormon says. Both of them had contradictory experiences. They can't both be right, but they can both be wrong. Conclusion: "God exists" I disagree with your premise.

[@cipher6601]

Third argument: Argument from the resurrection 1. "If Jesus resurrected, then God exists." I swear if you say he actually resurrected when there isn't even close to a concensuous to this among historians. 2. "Jesus rose from the dead." With what evidence? Conclusion: "Therefore God exists." 💀

[@cipher6601]

First argument: The moral argument 1. "If objective moral values and duties exist, then God exists." I disagree with the idea that objective moral values and duties would mean any kind of God exists. If objective morality exists, it would be unbound by any subject and would be a brute fact of existence. Even if your God existed and morality came from your God, it would still be subjective with your God being the subject to interpret it. 2. "Objective moral values and duties exist." I disagree with the idea that objective moral values and duties exist. Conclusion: "God exists." I disagree with this premise.

[@obiwankenobi2520]

Thanks for doing this so I don’t have to

[@NewsCartridge]

Not only that but you can also interpret this argument that the state is god because the state is a "law giver" and has "universal and timeless authority." This of course, would be nonsense.

[@NewsCartridge]

But they also say that following the state is not a tenable position, and I have no idea what they mean because that's what millions of people do each day, regardless of whether or not they are following religion.

[@cipher6601]

@@NewsCartridge There's also just no consensus throughout all of civilization on what serves as objectively immoral. Rape? Rape in the past was permissable and acceptable as a weapon of war. Pedophilia? Not too long ago, child brides use to be legalized and normalized in other civilizations. Killing babies? Infanticide was a common practice, mostly performed by the Spartans, but also by other civilizations to breed strong warriors and to help make sure there are enough resources for the civilization. Pretty much any horrible thing you can think of, the odds are that it used to be legalized, permissable and normalized by another society. And while I don't think these things are objectively wrong because I have no reason to think objective morality exists, nor am I willing to concede to my emotions on whether or not these are objectively wrong just because I strongly do think they're wrong. I do think that these acts are wrong because we live in a time where we can see the sociological and psychological harms these kinds of things can do. And as someone who prioritizes human well-being, that is why I think they are wrong. Because they hurt people.

[@NewsCartridge]

"..It's almost impossible to prove anything 100% scientifically..." You said these words. You said these words in a video. A video you recorded with a computer. A computer that you used to upload that file to another computer. That computer now allows other people to view the video that you created through their own computers. Do you get the irony or do you really think it's almost impossible to prove anything 100% scientifically? Or do we need to go into how files are not only stored, but how global file distribution systems work?

[@Ash嘉恩071]

I dont even think his arguments were that compelling, but this is a stupid comment. Of course you can't prove anything 100% scientifically, science is literally based on inductive reasoning.

[@NewsCartridge]

@@Ash嘉恩071 So I cannot prove with 100% accuracy that the earth is a spheroid?

[@Ash嘉恩071]

@NewsCartridge of course you can't. It's certainly possible that all of the information that you get is false. I'm not saying it is, and it's very probably(like just to give a random number 99.9999%) true, but it's certainly possible and not 100%. Why? Because science operates on inductive reasoning and not deductive reasoning. Any philosopher of science and probably most scientists would tell you this. The point here is that just because you can't prove anything scientifically 100%, you can't therefore say that God exists.

[@NewsCartridge]

@@Ash嘉恩071 You realize we have picture of the Earth from all sides, right? We absolutely can prove the either is a spheroid with 100% accuracy and certainty. Saying there is no evidence of god is not saying there is no god, it's saying any god has yet to be proven.

[@NewsCartridge]

In response to your 4th argument: Is it wise or understandable to believe in Zeus or Odin?

[@NewsCartridge]

I hope you are alright.

[@oldbatwit5102]

Talks drivel for a while then gibbers.

[@cipher6601]

Fourth argument: Pascal's Wager This is literally the worst argument in favor of Christianity, especially since it isn't even an argument of Christianity. I have just as much reason to trust in Jewdism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc as i have a reason to trust in Christianity given this argument.

[@NewsCartridge]

I believe the recognition of other gods would be against their own world view. Christianity says "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," because when I previously asked them about this, they did not answer.

[@cipher6601]

@@NewsCartridge If I was to make my best guess, I'd assume YHWH was referring to "man-made religions" rather than it being him admitting that other Gods actually exist. The Bible depicts many times, specifically in the book of Joshua, that if YHWH leaves the Israelites alone for 3 seconds, they immediately start creating new Gods to worship. The case with the Golden Bull is also a good example of this.

[@cipher6601]

@@NewsCartridge Also, if you pay attention to the list of the 10 Commandments, he actually goes on to break the 10th Commandment in the 2nd Commandment. Exodus 20:17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female slave, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” The 10th Commandment as it reads is basically YHWH telling the Israelites not to be envious. However, in the 2nd Commandment, YHWH describes himself as a "jealous God". Exodus 20:4 through 20:6 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.” To be jealous of someone is to also be envious. Meaning YHWH actually breaks one of his own Commandments while giving a speech about a totally different Commandment.