Archive Today will help you look at paywalled content the way search engines see it.
Depending on severity, you might be warned before adverse action is taken.
Application of warnings or bans will be subject to moderator discretion. Feel free to appeal. If changes to the guidelines are necessary, they will be adjusted.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a group that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of any other group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you you will be banned on sight.
Provable means able to provide proof to the moderation, and, if necessary, to the community.
~ /c/nostupidquestions
If you want your space listed in this sidebar and it is especially relevant to the atheist or skeptic communities, PM DancingPickle and we'll have a look!
This is mostly YouTube at the moment. Podcasts and similar media - especially on federated platforms - may also feature here.
Start here...
...proceed here.
As a community with an interest in providing the best resources to its members, the following wiki links are provided as historical reference until we can establish our own.
"Everything exists because something caused it to exist, therefore God exists."
Two problems:
Who says the source of creation has to be God? Couldn't it just as easily be solar radiation cooking primordial amino acids until they did something interesting?
If God exists, and everything that exists was created by something, who created God? If you admit God is eternal and had no creator, that breaks the model of "everything exists because it was created."
Let me see if I can save anyone else the trouble of clicking on that link...
The video is around 14 minutes long and I'd say about 95% of it is just psuedo intellectual/psuedo scientific jibberish designed to make the concept sound more impressive than it actually is and also to make the narrator sound considerably smarter than he actually is.
The message basically boils down to "god definitely exists because it just has to otherwise we wouldn't all still be here existing"
It's as good of a pointless argument as any other I suppose, but not exactly groundbreaking or in any way convincing.
The narrator uses a lot of overly clinical terminology and nonsense sentences that run in circles around each other to try and make his point sound very complicated and "scientific", but it basically still boils down to "god exists because I say so, and if you still don't believe it's because you're not smart enough to understand the concept of god"
π₯±
OP might consider posting this kind of psuedo scientific click bait in a philosophy community instead next time.
π
While you may not agree with the argument, this was certainly a "groundbreaking" argument when it was made.
Using pure logic to make a coherent argument for the existence of God, Avicenna lived between 970 - 1037, it was definitely "new" when he made the argument.
Oh I have no doubt that this philosophical breakthrough was considered earth shattering 1000 years ago! OPs question however was if it is the "best argument for God's existence". I say it is not.
Being conveyed to me today in 2024 in this extremely pretentious video it sounds almost condescending and doesn't actually explain anything. The convoluted and contrived way the narrator delivers the information makes it sound like a grift to trick people into not asking questions.
As I said before, the entire essence of what was said in this video is "god is so far above you that you will never actually understand why anything happens so shut up and keep worshipping just in case" Which really is the same message that every religious leader has been pushing for as long as religion has been around, even if it's dressed up in the context of "scientific discovery"
I think you missed the point. The argument wasn't precisely new when he made it, what was new was his use of Aristatilian logic to "prove" the existence of God. The proof requires that God be singular thus the god of the Islamic world (also the Jewish). The tri-part God of the Christian religions is therefore a corruption.
The video doesn't really do a good job of covering the importance of his argument in the history of philosophy.
As an atheist, I don't find the argument itself very compelling. The historical context is quite interesting.
Why would a god need anyone to argue whether or not it exists? Too shy to show itself to the world on a regular basis?
If thatβs the best argument ya gotβ¦.
β¦..
β¦
Maybe ya need to reconsider some things. Itβs circular arguments so tangled, itβs best to just toss it.
Is This The Best Argument For God's Existence?
Probably, and that's sad because it's such a weak one that several people have already dismantled in the comments here.
The first part is not bad but it falls apart after that.
I haven't watched the video, but I remember Avicena's arguments on God's existence was easily debunked by a random geezer on Quora