Philosophy Now Forum

LuckyR wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 7:34 am For those who don't download material from unknown sources, can you summarize your argument similarly to the standard 5 summaries you provided?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2023 5:21 pm There are 5 popular arguments for the existence of God as listed below, I don't agree they stand up in a convincing way since they all lack evidence that God was required for any of them.

My argument however does provide evidence.

You can download my Divine Etymology Argument, which provides actual evidence on the link (PDF, MOBI, EPUB)
https://www.androcies.com/DivineEtymology.php

Cosmological Argument:

Premise 1: Everything that exists has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause (a First Cause or Uncaused Cause), which is often identified as God.

Teleological Argument (Argument from Design):

Premise 1: The universe exhibits order, purpose, and complexity.
Premise 2: Such order and complexity imply a purposeful design.
Conclusion: Therefore, there must be an intelligent designer, which is often identified as God.

Ontological Argument:

Premise 1: God is defined as the most perfect being conceivable.
Premise 2: Existence is a perfection.
Conclusion: Therefore, God must exist because the concept of a perfect being includes existence.

Moral Argument:

Premise 1: Objective moral values and duties exist.
Premise 2: The best explanation for the existence of these values is the existence of God.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists as the foundation of objective morality.

Fine-Tuning Argument:

Premise 1: The fundamental constants and conditions of the universe are finely tuned to permit life.
Premise 2: The odds of this fine-tuning occurring by chance are extremely low.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe's fine-tuning suggests a purposeful creator, often identified as God.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 7:34 am For those who don't download material from unknown sources, can you summarize your argument similarly to the standard 5 summaries you provided?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 8:16 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 7:34 am For those who don't download material from unknown sources, can you summarize your argument similarly to the standard 5 summaries you provided?

How's this?

Divine Etymology Argument

P1: Certain key words within the English language exhibit statistically improbable linguistic patterns and connections.

P2: Naturalistic explanations, such as random chance or linguistic evolution, struggle to account for the observed linguistic anomalies.

C: The Divine Etymology argument posits that these linguistic anomalies are more reasonably explained by the influence of a deliberate, transcendent intelligence—referred to as a divine force or creator.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 8:21 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 8:16 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 7:34 am For those who don't download material from unknown sources, can you summarize your argument similarly to the standard 5 summaries you provided?

How's this?

Divine Etymology Argument

P1: Certain key words within the English language exhibit statistically improbable linguistic patterns and connections.

P2: Naturalistic explanations, such as random chance or linguistic evolution, struggle to account for the observed linguistic anomalies.

C: The Divine Etymology argument posits that these linguistic anomalies are more reasonably explained by the influence of a deliberate, transcendent intelligence—referred to as a divine force or creator.

The standard gambit to defeating statistical improbabilities is to disregard Occam's razor and pluralize the contexts to infinity.

This way even the most improbable thing is still a statistical certainty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 8:38 am But there is no infinity required in the argument, in fact the etymological roots of most of the key words only go back a few hundred years at the most, and these roots are still under scrutiny. Their convolution since then has had them arrive in their present form and as P2 basically states, it is unlikely that random chance or the natural evolution of their linguistics can account for their present structure.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 8:42 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 8:38 am But there is no infinity required in the argument, in fact the etymological roots of most of the key words only go back a few hundred years at the most, and these roots are still under scrutiny. Their convolution since then has had them arrive in their present form and as P2 basically states, it is unlikely that random chance or the natural evolution of their linguistics can account for their present structure.

The infinity is required to dismantle the argument.

When you have infinite number of universes evolving in parallel the anthropic principle guarantees precisely the observation that you are observing.

When you have infinite time/entropy/space there's no such thing as "unlikely". You are just the luckiest fish in the ocean of universes to observe precisely this universe. The most improbable universe.

And if you internalize this infinite luck of yours - you get precisely what theists call "meeting God".

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 8:52 am Well it's a good job I don't believe much regarding the concept of 'infinite', it's a garbage void in any equation, and certainly infinite X (including universes) is erroneous.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 8:54 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 8:52 am Well it's a good job I don't believe much regarding the concept of 'infinite', it's a garbage void in any equation, and certainly infinite X (including universes) is erroneous.

Scientists/instrumentalists don't care. Infinities work.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 8:54 am Are they true? Let the philosophers figure that one out.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 1:19 pm They're placeholders for that which the dude crunching numbers knows he needs to replace.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 1:19 pm ..what? when they figure infinity minus 1.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 1:55 pm woteva Skeppy, time for me to retire (but let me reiterate, you introducing the concept of infinities ain't washin' - the universe doesn't and never has or ever will have a state where logic exists for infinity)...thus everyone that has infinities in a mathematical equation is pissing in the wind of chaos.