How can theism still be successful or at least have supporters with its more likely than not that a B Theory of time exists and ruins the cosmological argument for God. Plus the argument for contingency always runs into the problem of modal collapse. At this point I feel like giving up on theism as these problems make theism unbelievably, theoretically, and philosophically absurd.
If it’s proven that the B-theory of time is true would it arguably be the single most devastating threat to the Kalam Cosmological Argument? I know that theists like William Lain Craig rely on an A theory of time for his argument work, hence why it would be worrisome if the other theory is true. Would this also mean that Quantum Mechanics disprove God?
What I mean by controversial I mean by philosophical views that are either not perfect and have flaws or views that are considered unpopular by the grand philosophical field (ie theism or the belief that free will isn’t real)
The logical scenario where every true statement becomes necessarily true, eliminating all contingent (optional or dependent) facts and leaving only one possible world.
Does the cosmological argument by Spinoza and Lebiniz use the PSR heavily to prove their arguments and how have other theists who propose the cosmological argument avoid this problem?
Hey philosophical theists on this sub, how have you guys managed to stay confident with your arguments despite the arguments against theism in the field of philosophy?
Hey philosophical theists on this sub, how have you guys managed to stay confident with your arguments despite the arguments against theism in the field of philosophy?
I’ve been looking through many posts on this subreddit about arguments for God and it seems to be that most, if not all the arguments for God are bad. There was a post about the Ontological Argument that was literally about why the argument is bad, despite the argument being considered one of the better arguments. No matter which one I search up, every argument for God is received with so much negativity and criticism that I question if there’s a single one that is respected by the general philosophy community. I really am starting to lose hope if theism can ever be respected as a valid philosophical position when most of the philosophical community finds the arguments laughable and terrible.
Do they believe objective morality exist in the same realm or category as pure logic within the universe, is it an abstract logical truth with existence and the universe, or that it’s objectively true cause its moral truths that all moral agents unanimously agree on?
Just to clarify, yes I know I already posted this today but my explanation and question wasn’t made as clear as it should’ve so I reposted this with better clarification.
Some people may point out that a neutral or amoral creator God could exist and would not run into the problem of evil but wouldn’t a being who is morally at the highest peak be more powerful than a creator God who consists of flaws. Two opposites can’t coexist together, especially all good and all evil, which are both complete opposites and one of them is flaw which an all powerful creator God can’t have in order to be considered an all powerful creator God.
How do theists respond to this?
Some people may point out that a a neutral god could exist but wouldn’t a being who morally is at the highest peak be more legitimate than a god who consists of flaws. Two opposites can’t coexist together, especially all good and all evil, which are both complete opposites and one of them is flaw which a god can’t have in order to be considered a god.
How do theists respond to this?
Hi I’m curious as toe whether or not the Quran explicitly claims to be metaphorical and if said metaphors are the reason why there are historical and scientific inaccuracies.
To make it quick and simple
I exist, I accidentally crushed an ant, causing suffering and murder is bad, I caused suffering and murder to an ant. Was I better off not existing
What arguments do philosophers give against this argument or arguments that go against misanthropy in general.
This is a question to vegans, if a human accidentally kills a fly, does that hold the same moral weight as a human killing a cow or a human killing a human because it still ends with a human killing another animal.
This is not meant to make fun of or demean vegans, Im genuinely curious.
I watched this video by Alex O’Connor (link below), in it he argues that it makes no sense why we have a red line put on videogames for curtain forms of violence like rape compared to killing and running over people in games like GTA
I’m curious how philosophers would respond to this problem.
Link to the vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as6HjqjWDCM
I live a standard normal life with friends, family, goods, and pleasures. But I’m starting to potentially learn that all that means nothing when suffering exists. If suffering is more important than the existence of happiness and pleasures than my enjoyment in life probably doesn’t matter. Why should I feel any sense of happiness or even think the world can be a good place when extreme amounts of suffering are happening in this world right now.
Is there really an asymmetry between pleasure and pain and is so does my point still stand. I just need an answer cause I’m starting to believe that I can never find life enjoyable when suffering exists.