Does philosophy favor God exists, or it does not.

Philosophy is a human discipline investigating everything on the basis of reason and intelligence, investigating with focus on the ultimate grounds of existence or reality.

First, it investigages the who, what, when, where, why and how of an event or a fact or a phenomenon or a belief or even what is certainty as distinct from and opposed to doubt.

My on finding is that philosophy favors the existence of God, becaise ultimately God is the explanation for everything, period.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

yrger · 80-89, M

@DocSavage

You tell me, "We know how both babies and roses came to be."

I authored the evidence of God creator from the fact that there are such beauties in our every neighborhood as babies and roses.

This is my explanation:
1. Babies and roses are wonderful beauties in every neighborhood.
2. They didn't create themselves because they came from their parents.
3. And their parents came from parents also and on and on.
4. There was a time when there was no life on earth.
5. There was a time when there was no earth.
6. We can go on and on and on but it is nonsensical.
7. All the time stages of beings which came from earlier beings cannot go on and on indefinitely except in our mind.
8. Our mind depends on our brain organ to work.
9. Man dies sooner or later but definitely certainly.
10. So, with humans there cannot and does not exist the absurd idea of an infinite regress into the past.
11. All the stages of what I call transient existence implicate the reality of an ultimately self-existent first cause.
12. This first cause is God.

Conclusion: God exists as the permanent self-existent origin of all things and all beings that are transient i.e. temporary in time.

[quote]DocSavage · M

Depends on whose philosophy doesn’t it ?
Take your own for example. You started out with the belief that creation was proof of god’s existence. One of your own making.
Later, when you were losing that argument, you switched to love, babies, and roses as the basis of his existence. These are not physical reasons for believing. We know how both babies and roses came to be.
So your claim, is that god is proven through an emotional state.
None of your arguments, are valid. As science and/or human conditions can also explain most, the same results.[/quote]

DocSavage · M

[@yrger/chowderhead
We keep going over the same thing . The ultimate source. The prime mover. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
That ultimate point is the universe itself. Not god. Each and every particle came into existence (from nothing) clustered together, formed the singularity. Which expanded in the Big Bang. No designer needed.
Until, you can come up with a reason to add a god to it, my answer stands. My way works just as well, if not better.
And in case you forgot. The earliest, most primitive, single cell life forms did not make babies. The made copies of themselves asexually. So, your god didn’t come up with the idea.
Roses and babies do not show evidence of your spirit being.

DocSavage · M

[@yrger/chowderhead

Occan’s Razor
[quote] 11. All the stages of what I call transient existence implicate the reality of an ultimately self-existent first cause.
12. This first cause is God.[/quote]
The first cause can just as likely be a self existent universe composed of self existent particles. Step 12 isn’t necessary to the equation. And you have no evidence to support it..