God And The Philosopher
When I was an undergrad at UCLA I took a philosophy of religion course (and a course on Leibniz) from a visiting professor. He was a fascinating man. A man of many Idiosyncrasies. He was impeccably dressed and well groomed. He wore only two or three suits, and all of them a mixture of green and black. He was one of my favorite professors. And I can’t remember his name.
He gave several arguments for the existence of God which I am passing on to you.
An argument from design:
Why does nature abide by the laws of nature?
The laws of nature are either 1) exceptionalist regularities or 2) universal generalizations
1. If the laws of nature are mere cosmic coincidences (and properly thoughts so), then the seemingly lawful patterns hitherto observed are completely coincidental (and properly thought so).
2. If the seemingly lawful patterns hitherto observed are completely coincidental (and properly thought so), then it is not the case that we ought to expect them to continue.
a. the chances ought to be 50/503. However, we ought to expect the patterns to continue
therefore,
4. It is not the case that the laws of nature are cosmic coincidences (and properly thought so)
I will update this post with another of his arguments when time allows.
this is kind of along the lines of C.S. Lewis… at my church this summer we read mere christianity as a youth group, and lewis does a really good job of explaining this… kind of cool to see that his thought wasn’t unique.
Did you know that GOD does not accept the idea of an atheist,GOD says you willingly choose to NOT believe,or rather accept.Choice, not the idea you choose between believing that there is a GOD or that there isn’t.No,it’s put that you do know,you make the choice to not recognize him in your life,though inside you know HIM to be true.Somehow ,it’s suggesting , in our very core ,we know.
“it is not the case that we ought to expect them to continue.
a. the chances ought to be 50/50
3. However, we ought to expect the patterns to continue”
Is the word ‘ought’ changing its meaning here (from mathematics to morals)? And does this invalidate the argument? I would guess so.
Hi David,
It’s interesting: what is a mathematical ought? Probabilities and numerical calculations make no suggestions, do they?
Or as Hume phrase it over 300 years ago, can we get an “ought” from and “is”.
It isn’t clear to me that “ought” is being used in a mathematical sense, if indeed, it can ever be used in such a sense.
So, I’m not sure the charge of equivocation works here.
“Did you know that GOD does not accept the idea of an atheist,GOD says you willingly choose to NOT believe”
Which GOD says this? If I give you my number can you have HIM call me? I’d like to discuss this further.
PS. Because there are natural laws this proves not only that GOD exists but also that the care bears and their powerful care bare stare.
Congratulations Shannon,
I am currently working on an outline for a reader or text on logic and critical thinking.
And you have provided me with an ideal example for my section on non-sequiturs and the fallacy of missing the point.
Glad I could assist you in your outline.
Also, be sure to pick up my book on Amazon.com entitled “How to miss the point, the Shannon way.”