Home

 

Hi! Welcome to the Wiki on God.

 

The purpose of this Wiki book is to explore the subject of Religion. This Wiki is structured into two propositions, one for and one against the existence of God. Under each proposition are a set of supporting arguments. Under each argument is one or more counter-arguments.

 

Click on a proposition, and then follow the arguments and counter-arguments. This will start you traveling through a maze of concepts and ideas.

Here are the two propositions:

1. I Believe In God

2. I Don't Believe In God



Home | Index See Z) Development Plans for future ideas and arguments.


1. I Believe In God

Arguments supporting the existence of God:

Contingency Argument
Morality Argument
No Counterproof Argument
Possibility Argument
Fine-tuned Universe Argument
Super-natural Phenomena Argument
The Desire Argument
Inadequacy of Science Argument
The Feeling Argument

Home


Home | Index


2. I Don't Believe In God

Arguments against the existence of God

All Is Nature
Utilitarian Argument
No Proof Argument
Flawed Design
The Need Argument
The Anthropomorphism Argument
The Argument From Evil
Abscence Argument
The Rationality Argument
Ontological Argument

Home


Home | Index


Abscence Argument

The longer something fails to manifest, the less likely it is that it exists. This will never constitute PROOF that it doesn't exist, but simply likelyhood. The question is then "Is it reasonable to believe in something that appears to be highly unlikely?".

Not being able to prove that something doesn't exist is not in itself proof that it does exist!

The existence or non-existence of a particular thing or phenomenon is tied to the probability that this thing or phenomenon will be experienced by us at some time.

Quantum physics deals with probability all the time.

We can say that a student exists even thought he never comes to class. But there will be a point when we start to doubt his existence, and eventually, when enough time has gone by, we will loose all faith that this student actually exists, and simply call him a myth, and eventually an invention.

"I have always believed in Father Christmas. Now I'm 53 and I still haven't seen him, nor has he left presents, even though I continue to leave a note on the fireplace every year. Am I still justified to not lose hope?"

Counter-argument: Super-natural Phenomena Argument


Home | Index


All is Nature

Even though apparently miraculous events cannot be explained at the moment, they will be at some point in the future, as we develop better tools to probe our world.

Galileo, Newton and Darwin show how previously unexplainable events become explainable. This pattern of dicovery will continue.

Furthermore, the vast majority of events in Nature are now understood by science, there are few unexplained supernatural phenomena.

Counter-argument: Imponderables Argument


Home | Index


Big-brother Argument

The belief in God is very convenient for governments and rulers. As governments arose, so did religion, as means for social cohesion. Religious rituals made people trust each other and function better as a community. This makes them healthier and more controlled. Evil requires secrecy, while a religious community is open and self-regulating.

God was invoked by governments and rulers as a way to instill fear of punishment, and so maintained order and the rule of law.

Counter-argument: The Love Argument


Home | Index


Contingency Argument

I believe in God because...every system must have another, larger system that encapsulates and supports it.

For example: a cloud must have a larger atmospehere of humidity and heat transfer in order to form. The system of humidity and heat transfer requires a planet that sustains it. The planet requires a solar system. The solar system requires a galaxy. The galaxy require a universe. The universe started with a Big Bang. The Big Bang was started by God.

Counter-arguments:
Pre-Big Bang
Infinite Regression Argument


Home | Index


Entropy Argument

There is evidence that the universe is getting more and more chaotic, with events becoming more and more disordered and random. If I look at natural phenomena today, I see a lot of randomness (the way a leaf falls, the way the wind blows, etc.).

Why would an intelligent designer abandon his creation, and let it careen out of control?

Back to Fine-tuned Universe Argument


Home | Index


epistemology

Epistemology (from Greek epist?m?, meaning "knowledge, science", and logos, meaning "study of") is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge.

It addresses the questions: What is knowledge? How is knowledge acquired? To what extent is it possible for a given subject or entity to be known?

Back to Ontological Argument


Home | Index


Fine-tuned Universe Argument

The laws of nature are such that any small variation would not have permitted life on our planet. The chance that all these perfectly adjusted laws could have happened by mere chance are so small that we must think that there was an intelligent designer that established the values, like 'g', boiling point, melting point, etc.

Complete list of constants that fine-tune the Universe:

http://tts.imtranslator.net/ZN2u

...

Counter-arguments:
Opportunity Argument
Entropy Argument


Home | Index


Flawed Design

The design of the planet is flawed, because life is programmed to be aggressive and to build up defences against agression, leading to a world governed by deterrence rather than love.

We Cannot Question Argument


Home | Index


Imponderables Argument

Science cannot answer questions like "Why is there a Universe?", "Why are we here?", "Where are we going?", "What happens after we die?", "Why is g = 9.8 m/s squared.

Counter-argument: Ontological Argument


Home | Index


Inadequacy of Science

Science will never be an adequate tool to explain all that happens in the universe: consciousness, morality, love, etc. The scientific method cannot presume to be the only way that we can ultimately know the entire universe.

Counter-argument:

Home


Home | Index


Inadequacy of Science Argument

Science will never be an adequate tool to explain all that happens in the universe: consciousness, morality, love, instinct, in other words answers to the "why" questions, or unscientific questions. Moral issues, history, the law, politics, philosophy, literature, and thoughts are all outside the province of science. The scientific method cannot presume to be the only way that we can ultimately know the entire universe. The laws of physics are incomplete, and reflect the limits of human knowledge, so we cannot think of the universe as purely deterministic. (Ref: Ian Hutchinson)

It is not unreasonable to use God to answer questions like: 1) Why is there a Universe? 2) What is our purpose? 3) What comes after death?

Furthermore, the more we progress with science, the more unanswerable questions arise! This means that science amplifies the presence of God!

Counter-argument: The Rationality Argument


Home | Index


Incomplete Theory Argument

Many theories in physics have mathematical singularities of one kind or another. Equations for these physical theories predict that the ball of mass of some quantity becomes infinite or increases without limit. This is generally a sign for a missing piece in the theory.


Home | Index


Index

43 Pages


Home | Index


Infinite Regression Argument

There is no reason why there should be an initial creator, since the question can always be asked "Who created the creator?"

Back to Contingency Argument


Home | Index


Instant Gratification Argument

Some people do not, by nature, have the patience for delayed gratification that love requires. They prefer the rewards here and now, by whatever means.

Home


Home | Index


Manifestation Argument

We can always learn something about the nature of a creator by observing the nature of his creation. In other words, the nature of the creator is manifested through the creation. Therefore, by studying the universe, we will come closer and closer to understanding the nature of God and the nature of his plan.

Home


Home | Index


Morality Argument

I believe in God because...religion and the belief in God makes people more honest, generous and caring. Therefore morality is an independent quality of the universe, and must have had a creator.

Let us remember that atheist societies, like Communist China and Bolshevik Russia, have killed millions, whereas the Inquisition killed only a few thousand.

Counter-argument: Utilitarian Argument


Home | Index


No Counterproof Argument

Since you can't proove that God doesn't exist, then I have every right to claim that God exists.

Counter-argument: Abscence Argument


Home | Index


No Proof Argument

There is no proof that God exists, nor that any supernatural phenomena exist, like miracles, resurrection, virgin birth. Therefore you can't claim that God exists.

Counter-argument:
Possibility Argument
The Feeling Argument


Home | Index


Ontological Argument

Some questions are unanswered either because we haven't yet developed the tools to probe the question, or because they must remain unanswered for reasons relating to ontology and epistemology.

Home


Home | Index


ontology

From Greek ontos = "being; that which is", and logia = "science, study, theory"

The branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.

Back to Imponderables Argument


Home | Index


Opportunity Argument

Complexity and eventually life will grasp whatever opportunities it has to develop. If g would have equalled 100 m/s squared, then life would be different. If ice didn't float on water, then fish of a different kind would have emerged.

Furthermore, epigenetics shows that environmental changes drive biological adaptations, so that the Cambrian Explosion may well have been an invoked response to a rapid environmantal change. There is no need to wait millions of years for random mutations to come up with the succesful adaptation.

Back to Fine-tuned Universe Argument


Home | Index


Possibility Argument

Even though I have not seen God, there is a possibility that God exists, and I want to believe that he does.

Even if I have not seen or experienced a direct manifestation of God (like a miracle, or a resurrection], this does not constitute proof that it didn't happen at some time in the past, or that it will not happen in some time in the future.

Abscence Argument


Home | Index


Pre-Big Bang

The Big Bang may not be the start of everything. Maybe we are looking at the Big Bang as though through a prism, which is distorting what we see, making it look like a starting point in time.

Counter-argument: Singularity Argument

 


Home | Index


Singularity Argument

I believe in God because...According to general relativity, the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity, at which point time, and hence existence, began to flow.

Counter-argument: Incomplete Theory Argument


Home | Index


Super-natural Phenomena Argument

I have experienced miracles and events, like healings and good fortune, that cannot be explained by science. Therefore God exists, since only God can explain their occurrance.

Counter-argument: All is Nature


Home | Index


The Anthropomorphism Argument

God is an extension of our childhood need for a father figure, a larger being which comforts us and gives us a sense of security when the world seems unsettling and menacing.

References: Ludwig Feuerbach

Home


Home | Index


The Argument from Evil

If God is infinitely good, infinitely loving and infinitely powerful, then how, in good conscience, can he allow evil to occcur in the world, be it natural evil (diseases, earthquakes, and other natural calamities), OR man-made evil (war, torture, and other man-made cruelty)?

Counter-argument: The Free Will Argument

Home


Home | Index


The Desire Argument

Since only a pesonal relationship with God satisfies man's deepest desire for fulfillment and happiness, i.e. that which cannot be quenched by material wealth, then this proves that God is a very real entity.

References: Saint Augustine.

Counter-argument:

The Anthropomorphism Argument


Home | Index


The Feeling Argument

I believe in God because I feel his presence, and I don't have to explain it to anyone. I don't have a need to prove his presence rationally.

Home


Home | Index


The Free Will Argument

Man has been given free will, over which God does not have control. If Man chooses to depart from goodness, then he does so at his own peril.

Counter-argument: The Argument from Evil

Home


Home | Index


The Love Argument

If love is utilitarian, then why doesn't everyone adopt it? Some people don't and cannot be forced to adopt it, even with the threat of punishment.

Counter-argument: Instant Gratification Argument


Home | Index


The Need Argument

We don't need God. We have all the tools we need to survide physically, psychologically and mentally on this planet. Those who say they believe in God are really saying that they NEED God, because he brings hope and comfort to a difficult situation (for example the disposessed Mexicans or the penniless Indians). But need does not mean that what is needed exists. In fact, need rather supports the argument that God has been created by Man to fulfill a function, rather than the other way round.

Back Home


Home | Index


The Rationality Argument

Nothing makes any sense outside of rationality. We can say that unexplained events have an irrational cause, but in actual fact they are just misunderstood. Rationality is the primary category under which even faith is articulated. The moment we describe the object we have faith in as being loving, forgiving, all-powerful, we are invoking rational categories. It is senseless to then say that rationality is a limiting modus operandi.

To say that God is the cause when something cannot be explained in any rational way is tantamount to saying that the cause is unknown, which is 100% correct, but explains nothing.

Counter-argument The Feeling Argument


Home | Index

 


Utilitarian Argument

Love is a utilitarian, convenient, and fundamentally selfish, sentiment, that provides happiness and security in return for giving it. It is not an exceptional moral attribute.

Counter-argument: The Love Argument


Home | Index


We Cannot Question Argument

I believe in God because...we cannot presume to understand God's plan, he has resons for doing things certain ways, but we just don't have the capacity to understand them.

Counter-argument: Manifestation Argument


Home | Index


Z) Development Plans

When this religion Wiki is complete, create a Flash app that gives two cartoon characters the chance to debate each other with sound bites. You would click on different responses, as labeled in the Wiki.

Additional arguments:

[God is Omniscient]

Home


Notebook exported on Monday, 14 July 2014, 12:45:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time