![]() | Re: The Teleological Argument For The Existence of God - Part 3 Basically here I make the argument that veritas48's Teleological Argument is based of an implicit ontological argument. |
![]() | Leibnizian Cosmological Argument When paired with the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Leibnizian gives weight as to God being the creator of the universe. The argument can be formulated like this: 1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. 2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. 3) The universe is an existing thing. 4) Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. "An essential property of a being that exits by a necessity of its own nature is that it be eternal, that is to say, without beginning or end. If the universe is not eternal, then if could fail to exist and so does not exist by a necessity of its own nature. But it is precisely the aim of the kalam cosmological argument to show that the universe is not eternal but had a beginning. It would follow that the universe must therefore be contingent in its existence (p. 468)." Philosophical foundations for a christian worldview References: Craig, W. L. (1984). Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (2nd ed.). Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books. Leibniz, G.W.F. von. Monadology. In Leibniz Selections, edited by P. Wiener, 533-52. New York: Schribners, 1951 Moreland, J.P., & Craig, W.L. (2003). Philosophical foundations for a christian worldview. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press Wright, C., & Hale, B. (1992). Nominalism and the contingency of abstract objects, Journal of Philosophy, 89, 128 |
![]() | The Teleological Argument For The Existence of God - Part 1 P1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. P2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance. C. Therefore, it is due to design. Sources: John Leslie, John Barrow, Frank Tippler, William Dembski, William lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, P.C.W. Davies |
![]() | Re: The Teleological Argument For The Existence of God - Part 3 Video Cam Direct Upload |
![]() | The Teleological Argument (St Anne's) AS RS (OCR) Philosophy of Religion revision video. |
![]() | Art Zone - 3D Cosmological argument / Proving the existence of God Does cosmological argument prove the existence of God? The Keyword is cause and effect. Where did the cause come from to create such effect? If nothing just create nothing and cause nothing...then where did the cause come from if it wasn't God? |
![]() | Taking Out The Cosmological Argument Refuting the cosmological argument Uncaused movement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sPhQjGZ8NY Something from nothing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o7ko1_SZU4 music: Iron Maiden - Paschendale |
![]() | Re: The Teleological Argument (1 of 2) Reponse to... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kt7OmRSNOg I need to inject a correction on this video from this one... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xGrVEeqPAo Explanatory filter is busted. Dembski tries to turn probabalistic reasoning into deductive reasoning. Why doesn't the design hypothesis get a probabalistic weighting? An intelligent, immutable designer is incoherent. |
![]() | Deconstruction of the Teleological argument This is my attempt to demonstrate why the argument from design fails on several obvious, and several more subtle levels. I hope that my horrible reading is not insufferable. |
![]() | Teleological Argument gets OWNED! Man this is the most geeky video I have ever made! Honours for This Video: #69 - Most Discussed (Today) #2 - Most Discussed (Today) - Science & Technology #9 - Most Discussed (Today) - Science & Technology - Global #9 - Most Viewed (Today) - Science & Technology #7 - Top Favourites (Today) - Science & Technology #94 - Top Favourites (Today) - Science & Technology - Global #3 - Top Rated (Today) - Science & Technology #20 - Top Rated (Today) - Science & Technology - Global #18 - Top Rated (This Week) - Science & Technology |