2. The Cosmological Arguments
Mon, 01/21/2008 - 18:04 — admin
TEACHER: Empirical arguments have been put forward for many thousands of years by theists attempting to prove that God exists and for an equal amount of time atheists and skeptics have picked at their arguments and attempted to tear them to pieces. From what you've already stated, Michael, I take it that you are familiar with both the arguments and their refutations?
MICHAEL: Well, yes, to some degree I am. I've read Thomas Aquinas' five proofs, and also Anselm's ontological argument.
TEACHER: And of course David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding?
MICHAEL: Yes.
TEACHER: Well, then, let's review the arguments and also their criticisms and see what merits and demerits we can discover. With the exception of Anselm's ontological proof, the others can alt be grouped under the common banner of cosmological proofs; at least when we consider the term “cosmological proofs” in its more liberal sense, i.e., as any and alt arguments in support of God's existence which draw their strength from observation of, or reflection on, the natural world. All of these arguments which deal with the order, cause, motion, design, and so forth of the universe tend to overlap each other. Nevertheless, we have to consider the various points individually even though some skipping back and forth may be necessary: Why don't we start with the argument from design? Can you state it as Hume has?
SEEKING SATISFACTION If you identify your body as yourself, you will try to satisfy yourself by trying to satisfy your body. You’ll think, “I am the body and I want to be happy, I want to be satisfied.” Thus, you’ll try to satisfy the belly, the tongue, the genitals, the ears, the eyes, the nose, and so on, believing that this will bring you the inner satisfaction and happiness you crave. But sense gratification does not satisfy. This is further evidence that you are not the body. No matter how much sense pleasure you have, you are still never satisfied within.2. The Cosmological Arguments
Science of Identity Foundation – Chris Butler Speaks
TEACHER: Empirical arguments have been put forward for many thousands of years by theists attempting to prove that God exists and for an equal amount of time atheists and skeptics have picked at their arguments and attempted to tear them to pieces. From what you've already stated, Michael, I take it that you are familiar with both the arguments and their refutations?
MICHAEL: Well, yes, to some degree I am. I've read Thomas Aquinas' five proofs, and also Anselm's ontological argument.
TEACHER: And of course David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding?
MICHAEL: Yes.
TEACHER: Well, then, let's review the arguments and also their criticisms and see what merits and demerits we can discover. With the exception of Anselm's ontological proof, the others can alt be grouped under the common banner of cosmological proofs; at least when we consider the term “cosmological proofs” in its more liberal sense, i.e., as any and alt arguments in support of God's existence which draw their strength from observation of, or reflection on, the natural world. All of these arguments which deal with the order, cause, motion, design, and so forth of the universe tend to overlap each other. Nevertheless, we have to consider the various points individually even though some skipping back and forth may be necessary: Why don't we start with the argument from design? Can you state it as Hume has?