Comments on: Arguments for God’s Existence http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2006/arguments-for-gods-existence/ Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:48:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Barry Carey http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2006/arguments-for-gods-existence/#comment-2582 Barry Carey Fri, 04 Aug 2006 11:42:21 +0000 http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2006/arguments-for-gods-existence/#comment-2582 Dmitri, I enjoyed Dr. Hall's lectures immensely. Perhaps "rejected" is too strong a word because he doesn't think that they carry no weight whatsoever. As you state, he just doesn't think they prove God's existence. I still think however he asks them to prove too much when he also places the burden of proving God is morally perfect on these arguments. Dmitri, I enjoyed Dr. Hall’s lectures immensely. Perhaps “rejected” is too strong a word because he doesn’t think that they carry no weight whatsoever. As you state, he just doesn’t think they prove God’s existence. I still think however he asks them to prove too much when he also places the burden of proving God is morally perfect on these arguments.

]]> By: Dmitri http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2006/arguments-for-gods-existence/#comment-2578 Dmitri Fri, 04 Aug 2006 05:19:22 +0000 http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2006/arguments-for-gods-existence/#comment-2578 I accidentally stumbled on this post while searching for something else. I've listened to Dr Hall's lectures myself and I think you are misinterpreting his arguments. He rejects cosmological argument not because of his definition of God but because he argues that external influence is not necessary for something to happen. Similarly he rejects teleological argument because it can be contradicted by evolutionary theory - useful features of things remain and propagate while not so useful die out. He doesn't reject any of these theories - just declares a "Scottish verdict" - Not Proven. I accidentally stumbled on this post while searching for something else. I’ve listened to Dr Hall’s lectures myself and I think you are misinterpreting his arguments. He rejects cosmological argument not because of his definition of God but because he argues that external influence is not necessary for something to happen.
Similarly he rejects teleological argument because it can be contradicted by evolutionary theory - useful features of things remain and propagate while not so useful die out.
He doesn’t reject any of these theories - just declares a “Scottish verdict” - Not Proven.

]]> By: Jason Leary http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2006/arguments-for-gods-existence/#comment-2191 Jason Leary Sat, 15 Jul 2006 18:35:59 +0000 http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2006/arguments-for-gods-existence/#comment-2191 The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God makes darn Good sense--especially in light of the addentums and qualifications made to the original argument as presented by Anselm of Canterbury ..addentums presented by Alvin Plantinga and yet another contemporary analytic thinker, whose name right now eludes . The Cosmological Argument makes sense to in light of the overwhelming evidence from astrophysics for the Big Bang . Especially in light of the apparent evidence--that there isn't likely going to be a Big Crunch . The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God makes darn Good sense–especially in light of the addentums and qualifications made to the original argument as presented by Anselm of Canterbury ..addentums presented by Alvin Plantinga and yet another contemporary analytic thinker, whose name right now eludes .

The Cosmological Argument makes sense to in light of the overwhelming evidence from astrophysics for the Big Bang . Especially in light of the apparent evidence–that there isn’t likely going to be a Big Crunch .

]]> 4294967295