15 Arguments for the Existence of God

Why should one make an argument for the existence of God? Why, moreover, provide fifteen of them? Is it that the evidence for God is so weak, that believers need multiple arguments, working together in their persuasive power, to change the minds of unbelievers? Questions of whether or not these arguments are useful, or if they can actually coerce religious belief has been an area of interesting debate between philosophers for sometime now.

In philosopher Alvin Plantinga’s essay “Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments” (1986), he firsts asks this question: “What are these arguments like, and what role do they play?” [1] Plantinga answers this question by saying that these arguments  are probabilistic either with respect to (1) the premises, (2) the connection of the premises with the conclusion, or (3) both. Furthermore, “[t]hey can serve to bolster and confirm. . . perhaps to convince” [2]. Of course, Plantinga is careful with what it means  for these arguments to be coercive. As he writes, “These arguments are not coercive in the sense that every person is obliged to accept their premises on the pain of irrationality. Maybe just that some or many sensible people do accept their premises (oneself)” [3]. And so, the discussion could go on.

However, I present 15 arguments for the existence of God so that I might establish a strong cumulative case for his existence. This is because some arguments are more so about strong probability (i.e.,the argument religious experience, argument from miracles, etc.) while others can have a demonstrative element to them (i.e., Aquinas’ Third Way). The combination of these given characteristics can (in my opinion) be very effective in a case for theism – particularly, that of Christian theism. These arguments are as follows:

  • (I) The Kalam Cosmological Argument

This argument draws from several lines of evidences (mathematics, science, philosophy) that try to connect the premises with its conclusion – namely, that the universe has a cause of its existence. The argument can be summarized as such: The universe cannot have existed forever in the past. In other words, the universe cannot be past-eternal. Why not? We have reached the present moment. If the universe were past-eternal, we would never reach “the present moment”; an infinite amount of “moments” would have to be realized before we reached the “present moment” (which is absurd). Therefore, the universe must be finite. If the universe is finite (i.e., began to exist), then the universe requires a cause (totally separate from it) to bring it into existence.

This cause must transcend space and time – because it created space and time – and therefore must be timeless and immaterial. But, we ask, what sorts of things that are immaterial and timeless, cause things to exist? We only have two options: (1) Abstract objects or (2) a transcendent Mind. By (1) I simply mean something like a number, but of course abstract objects can’t cause anything to exist (the number 7 has no causal power). Therefore, this cause must be a Mind – which is what believers understand to be God.

  • (II) Leibnizian Cosmological Argument 

Whatever exists has an explanation of its existence. In other words, nothing exists without a reason accounting for that things existence. However, there are two kinds of existence that we have to be clear about: (1) necessary existence and (2) contingent existence. If something necessarily exists, then the explanation of its existence is within itself, not outside of itself.

Philosophers have argued that numbers, properties, and even the laws of logic are all necessarily existent – in the sense that none of these came into existence by some other thing, but rather that they exist by the necessity of their own nature. However, if something is contingently existent, then the reason for its existence is external to it – you and me are contingent, and so is the computer that you are using. The shortcut understanding is this: contingent things have the possibility of existing or not existing, necessary things either must or must not exist. With that understood, the argument is as follows:

  1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence.
  2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
  3. The universe exists.
  4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
  5. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.

Given our terms above, let us restate (1): “Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.” Why doesn’t God have an explanation of his existence, if he exists? or, who created God? God is a necessarily existent being; he requires no external cause to bring about His existence. God just is – and he cannot not be.

  • (III) The Ontological Argument

This is an argument drawing from our idea of God. First, suppose that we were to define God as “the greatest conceivable being” (GCB). Now, let’s assume that GCB only exists in your mind but not in reality. However, isn’t it true that existence in reality is greater than existence in just your mind? A mere idea of 100$ in your pocket is far more lacking in being than a real 100$ in your pocket. Thus, we have the assumption: GCB only exists in your mind. But, existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind. Therefore, GCB must exist in reality as well as in your mind (or else it wouldn’t be the greatest conceivable being). Therefore, the very idea of God suggests that he exists.

  • (IV) The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God

This argument has a close friendship with the ontological argument discussed above. Rather than suggesting that real being is associated with the content of the idea of God, another philosopher (René Descartes) is saying that God is such an idea that he must be the cause or the origin of this idea. The argument runs something like this: (1) We have ideas of many things; we have ideas of things that are real (the earth, the sky, etc.), but we also have ideas of things that appear to be innate. As Descartes writes, “Among these ideas, some appear to me to be innate, some adventitious, and some produced by me. For I understand what a thing is, what truth is, what thought is, and I appear to have derived this exclusively from my very own nature” [4].

Descartes thence goes on to have a very tedious discussion about these ideas, but what is important to notice is the next step to his argument: “All that remains for me to ask is how I received this idea of God. For I did not draw it from the senses; it never came upon me unexpectedly, as is usually the case with ideas of sensible things when these things present themselves. . . to the external organs” [5]. Descartes contends that God is the source of the idea he has of God. To finish: “[T]he mere fact that God created me makes it highly plausible that I have somehow been made in his image and likeness, and that I perceive his likeness, in which the idea of God is contained, by means of the same faculty by which I perceive myself” [6].

  • (V) The Argument from Design

We notice that certain things according to our experience have been designed – or, displays a mark of intelligibility. For instance, the house requires a builder, the watch requires a watchmaker, and so on. However, what about the universe? We notice that houses and even watches have properties such as “the adjustment of parts into a whole” and “curious adapting of means to ends.” It is the case that the universe has these properties as well. If the universe does have these properties, then we can say that it is probable that the universe was produced by design. We can put the argument like this:

  1. The universe displays design within the created order.
  2. Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
  3. Not chance.
  4. Therefore, the universe is the product of intelligent design.
  5. Design only comes from a mind, a designer.
  6. Therefore, the universe is the product of an intelligent designer.

(VI) The Moral Argument

There are various types of moral arguments, but one notable form is a sort of argument regarding “objective moral facts.” The argument runs something like this: For every moral action, there must be a general, overall reason that motivates the given action. In other words, there are instrumental reasons (i.e., “I will this because…”) that we give in order to carry out to an overall good – or, a basic or irreducible good. The foundations of the moral life (as Aquinas called them) are things such as life, beauty, friendship, honesty, justice, truth, and so on and so on. How do we account for these things, and why are we accountable to uphold them? There are various questions that we can ask with respect to responsibility, moral obligation, ability, and so forth. But for now, suppose the following:

  • (1) If morality is objective and absolute, then God exists.
  • (2) Morality is objective and absolute.
  • (3) Therefore, God exists.

This argument is saying that the objectivity of the moral law presumes that God exists. In other words, given that certain things are objectively wrong (murder, etc.), or that they can be held to an objective/absolute standard of right and wrong, they presuppose the existence of God – i.e., an authority by which these moral precepts can be established.

(VII) The Argument from Miracles

Contrary to David Hume’s definition (“a violation of a law of nature”) we can better define miracles as “a specific event that would not have happened if only the natural order had been operating” [7]. Thus, our argument may runs as follows:

  • (1) A miracle is an event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.
  • (2) There are numerous well-attested miracles.
  • (3) Therefore there are numerous events whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.
  • (4) Therefore, God exists.

If some extraordinary event is a miracle, then it is due to divine agency, and such agency was at work in this event. However, as Peter Kreeft rightly asks, “Was this event a miracle? If miracles exist, then God must exist. But do miracles exist?” [8] Of course, there are many happenings that count as “extraordinary,” and so, counting those extraordinary events as miracles and thus the intervention of divine agency is a bit of a leap. However, Kreeft rightly recognizes several conditions for being inclined to considering an event a “miracle”:

  • (1) The personal setting of the event for an individual.
  • (2) The religious context of the event.
  • (3) The character and message of the person tied to the event.

(1) and (3) have a close tie with one another, since – even with respect to Jesus Christ – miracles do often (thought not always) involve some given moral authority as well as religious authority which is acknowledged at the occurrence of a miracle. To finish from Kreeft: “[T]here is not really a proof from miracles. If you see some event as a miracle, then the activity of God is seen in this event. There is a movement of the mind from this event to its proper interpretation as miraculous” [9].

(VIII) The Argument from Reason

C.S. Lewis in chapter 3 of his book Miracles argues that “[a]ll possible knowledge. . . depends on the validity of reasoning” [10]. We trust that our faculties of reasoning are reliable. Lewis believes that we have good reasons for thinking this: “It follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court” [11].

C.S. Lewis, arguing against the idea that the entire physical universe (“Total System”) is all there is (i.e., what he calls, ‘Naturalism’). However, given that we believe our faculties are reliable, why can’t they be reliable under naturalism? Lewis, quoting J.B.S. Haldane, writes: “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms is my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be comprised of atoms” [12]. As Alvin Plantinga argues, we need a reliable source of reason in order to interpret the world. We consider this reliable source of reason to be God. To finish our argument, consider the following:

  1. Either at least some of the fundamental causes of the universe are more like a mind than anything else, or they are not.
  2. If they are not, then it is either impossible or extremely improbable that reason should emerge.
  3. All things being equal, worldviews that render it impossible or extremely improbable that reason should emerge should be rejected in favor of worldviews according to which it is not impossible and not improbable that reason should emerge.
  4. Therefore, we have a good reason to reject all worldviews that reject the claim that the fundamental causes of the universe are more like a mind than anything else. [13]

(IX) The Argument from Beauty (Aesthetic Experience)

To use Alvin Plantinga’s explanation:

  • (AB): “On a naturalistic anthropology, our alleged grasp of beauty and appreciation of (alleged) beauty is to be explained in terms of evolution. . . But miserable and disgusting cacophony (heavy metal rock?) could as well have been what we took to be beautiful. On the theistic view, God recognizes beauty; indeed, it is deeply involved in his very nature. To grasp the beauty of Mozart’s D Minor piano concerto is to grasp something that is objectively there; it is to appreciate what is objectively worthy of appreciation” [14].

However, as I agree with Kreeft: “You either see this one or you don’t” [15].

(X) The Argument from Religious Experience 

Exclusive to your own religious faith may be some sort of experience that points you to a divine reality – at least in the sense that this divine reality is what best explains your religious experience. The argument may be put as follows:

  1. Many people of different eras and of widely different cultures claim to have had an experience of the “divine.”
  2. It is inconceivable that so many people could have been so utterly wrong about the nature and content of their own experience.
  3. Therefore, there exists a “divine” reality that many people of different eras and of widely different cultures have experienced.

Philosopher Richard Swinburne has argued that “[a]n apparent experience (apparent in the epistemic sense) is a real experience (an apparent perception is genuine) if it is caused by that of which it purports to be an experience. My apparent perception of the desk is a real perception if the desk causes. . . light rays to land on my eyes and thereby causes me to have the apparent perception” [16]. Furthermore, he recognizes (despite whether or not they are authentic) that millions and millions of people have once or twice in their lives been aware of God and his guidance. However, he thence furthers the principle of credulity, which says that we ought to believe that things are as they seem to be (in the epistemic sense) unless and until we have evidence that we are mistaken. There are three kinds of evidences:

  • (1) Having evidence where our apparent perceptions under certain conditions were actually not reliable.
  • (2) We may have evidence in particular cases that things are not as they seem.
  • (3) There may be evidence that the apparent experience was not caused by the object purportedly experienced.

To finish on Swinburne’s point: “[I]n the case of religious experiences, as in the case of all other experiences, the onus is on the sceptic to give reason for not believing what seems to be the case. The only way to defeat the claims of religious experience will be to show that the strong balance of evidence is that there is no God. In the absence of that strong balance, religious experience provides significant further evidence that there is a God” [17].

(XI) The Argument from Common Consent

The argument runs something like this: Common to almost all people of every era is belief in God. Either this vast majority of people have been wrong about this existentially profound element in their lives, or they have not. It is more plausible to suppose that they were not wrong. Therefore, it is more plausible to believe that God exists. This argument in a lot of ways is not a case for theism, but does give one considerable reasons for seeing theism as a credible and serious option.

However, shouldn’t we be mindful of the fact that just because the vast majority says “X is true”, that doesn’t actually make X true? This is to take note that people are not infallible, and so have the possibility of being wrong about some things very little and some things very big. However, as Kreeft notes:

[B]elieving in God is like having a relationship with a person. If God never existed, neither did this relationship. You were responding with reverence and love to no one; and no one was there to receive and answer your response. It’s as if you believe yourself happily married when in fact you live alone in a dingy apartment. Now, we grant that such mass delusion is conceivable, but what is the likely story?. . . It is more reasonable to believe that God really is there, given such widespread belief in him – unless atheists can come up with a very persuasive explanation for religious belief, one that takes full account of the experience of believers and shows that their experience is best explained as delusion and not insight” [18].

(XII) Pascal’s Wager

French philosopher Blaise Pascal once wrote in his Pensées (‘Thoughts’), “Either God is, or he is not. But to which view shall we be inclined? Reason cannot decide this question. Infinite chaos separates us. At the far end of this infinite distance a coin is being spun that will come down heads or tails. How will you wager?” [19] The particular reason as to why Pascal says, “[r]eason cannot decide this question”, is because the argument is initially intended for skeptics. Thus, at this “infinite distance” (death) a coin is being spun: heads (God) or tails (no God).

Suppose that none of the prior arguments have convinced you – that they are inconclusive. Pascal believes that there still may be an argument left for those who believe that none of these logical demonstrations work to reach their conclusion. This is known as Pascal’s Wager. So, if we can’t obtain a “proof” for God’s existence (i.e., reason can’t decide), where are you going to place your bet? If you place your bet with God, you don’t lose anything, and you gain infinite happiness. Even if God doesn’t exist and you placed your bets with him, you still lose nothing. But if you place your bet against God, you will lose everything: God, eternity, infinite gain, etc.

The Wager gives us a motive to place our bet: “If there is a God of infinite goodness, and he justly deserves my allegiance and faith, I risk doing the greatest injustice by not acknowledging him” [20].

(XIII) The Argument from Evil

There is an anti-theistic argument from evil that says there is real evil in the world: “it isn’t just a matter of personal opinion that the thing in question is abhorrent, and furthermore it doesn’t matter if those who perpetrate it think it is good, and could not be convinced by anything we said” [21]. Thus, the evils in this world would constitute a case against the theistic hypothesis that there is an all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing being who intervenes in our world. However, according to the argument, in a nontheistic universe, the opposite is true: evil would just be a natural outgrowth of natural processes.

So, the reasoning is something like this: The naturalist says that evil is a problem for you; why would a good God allow evil to exist? However, evil is still a problem for him: there really isn’t any evil on a naturalistic perspective. “There is nothing much more to evil – say that sheer horror of the Holocaust, of Pol Pot, or a thousand other villains – than there is to the way in which animals savage each other” [22].

(XIV) The Argument from Simplicity

This is an epistemological argument for God’s existence and runs something like this: according to philosopher Richard Swinburne, God has created us and our “theoretical preferences,” thus leading us to think simplicity has a better chance of being true than does less simplicity. In other words, we are more inclined to think that simple explanations and hypotheses are more likely to be true than long, complex explanations. Hence, if theism is not true, then there is no reason to believe that the simple is more true than the complex.

(XV) The Argument from Desire 

We as human beings have desires. Nature cannot explain these desires because nature cannot satisfy them. The source of our desires require a metaphysical source (“above the physical”) to satisfy the desire. These desires can be:

  • (1) We have a desire for God.
  • (2) We have a desire for life beyond this world.
  • (3) We have a desire for ultimate justice.
  • (4) We have a desire for meaning/ultimate purpose.
  • (5) We have a desire for ultimate truth.
  • (6) We have a desire for spiritual significance.


There are of course many other arguments that can be offered that I have not addressed here. However, given the wide variety of arguments available (some modified and newer versions), if they are used carefully and wisely, they make a substantial case for the conclusion that a being such as God exists.



  • [1] From Alvin Plantinga, ed. Deane-Peter Baker (Cambridge University Press: 2007) p. 210
  • [2] Ibid.
  • [3] Ibid.
  • [4] René Descartes, Philosophical Essays and Correspondence (Hackett Publishing: 2000) p. 114
  • [5] Ibid., p. 121
  • [6] Ibid.
  • [7] Timothy McGrew, “The Argument from Miracles,” Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. ed. J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig (Wiley-Blackwell: 2012) p. 596. According to McGrew however, “We do not wish to imply that the definition of a miracle as a suspension of physical causation or a violation of physical law is wrong. . . But it is simpler to stipulate that a miracle is an event that would not have happened in the natural order and then to define the natural order as we have done” (ibid.).
  •  [8] Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Catholic Apologetics (Ignatius Press: 2009) p. 69
  • [9] Ibid., pp. 70-71
  • [10] C.S. Lewis, Miracles (HarperOne: 1996) p. 21
  • [11] Ibid.
  • [12] Ibid., p. 22. See J.B.S. Haldane’s Possible Worlds. 
  • [13] This was taken from Victor Reppert, “The Argument from Reason,” Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (2012) p. 347. Reppert’s argument differs from other versions of this argument (e.g., argument from intentionality, argument from mental causation, etc.), but it contains qualifications that I think are considerable to the fundamental characteristics of the original argument.
  • [14] From Alvin Plantinga (2007), p. 226
  • [15] Kreeft and Tacelli, Handbook of Catholic Apologetics (2009), p. 87
  • [16] Richard Swinburne, Is There A God? (Oxford University Press: 2010) p. 114
  • [17] Ibid., p. 118
  • [18] Kreeft and Tacelli, Handbook of Catholic Apologetics (2009), p. 90
  • [19] Quoted from Reason and Responsibility, ed. Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau (Thomson and Wadsworth: 2005) p. 115
  • [20] Kreeft (2009), p. 92
  • [21] Alvin Plantinga (2007), p. 224
  • [22] Ibid., p. 225

10 thoughts on “15 Arguments for the Existence of God

  1. Matthew says:

    The variations of the Cosmological argument are by far the strongest stand alone arguments to me. The rest suffer from some serious logical leaps, un-objectivity, emotional bias, and serious fallacies.

    My first introduction to cosmological arguments was probably when I read “Summa Theologica” with St. Aquinas’s 5 proofs for the existence of God. His first cause or first mover argument fits in the category and was well thought out; I still feel the arguments of Aquinas are the most powerful to this day. Unfortunately, that still isn’t saying much. I’m very familiar with many of William Lain Craig’s work as well as Leibniz and other proponents old and new. The common argument suffers from compositional errors, begging the question, dualism on a large scale, and what I like to call, the “Finding Bigfoot Fallacy”. I think to really convert skeptics or unbelievers there needs to be a solid argument augmented by empirical evidence.

    Sadly, that is one of philosophy’s few shortcomings. I greatly enjoy philosophy, and disagree with Hawking when he calls it dead, but the faults are there, ever more incandescent in our modern world. Reason alone is a dull blade. I like to say that science is the grindstone that sharpens the blade of reason. I agree with Daniel C. Dennett on the goal or even nature of philosophy is to ask the right questions, not necessarily provide the right answers (although sometimes they are close, I’m looking at you Democritus). Due to this, philosophy suffers from using the more scholastic tradition of proof, pure reasoning. While an invaluable exercise, even the most irrefutable of arguments of pure reason can be discarded on grounds of lacking empirical evidence from the real world (doesn’t mean the argument shouldn’t be considered).

    If you would like, I can gladly go in depth on the problems I mentioned above in the arguments. I’m not much of a blogger but I would ardently welcome friendly discourse via email or whatever is most convenient. As I’ve stated in another post I’m a big autodidact. Most of my education stems from science but I’ve spent around 2 years on my own reading philosophy and Christian Theology ( I’ve taken a few classes in the later and only 1 in the former; I’ve also spoken to some doctorate theologians as well since im that kid in class who stays after to speak with the professor haha).

    For philosophy I’ve read everything from Socratic dialogues and platos republic to the works of Nietzsche, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Locke and more. I’m definitely lacking in knowledge though, something I’m sure I can gain from speaking with you as you seem far more educated than I. When it comes to Theology I’ve studied both the old and New Testament as well as the obvious famous names such as Aquinas and Augustine including the more religious philosophers hitherto. During this epoch I’ve spent a lot of time studying evolutionary biology as well as intelligent design.

    Good post as usual though, I look forward to hearing from you and possibly a more convenient avenue of discourse.

    1. Ryan Scarbel says:


      “Reason alone is a dull blade. I like to say that science is the grindstone that sharpens the blade of reason.”
      Is that statement a scientific one? Can you test that statement with the scientific method? How did you REASON to that conclusion? I think you can see the point I am making here; the only attacks one can make on philosophy are philosophical ones. Any argument used to attack the value of philosophy effectively refutes itself. Philosophy is a necessary tool. The question is; are you using good philosophy or bad philosophy?
      The point of the metaphysical arguments that Aquinas uses is that the conclusions follow necessarily. Any scientific argument or argument using “physical evidence” is merely probabilistic and therefore weaker than the airtight metaphysical demonstrations. Science does not at all supersede metaphysics, in fact, science is completely dependent on a multitude of metaphysical assumptions such as the fact that this world has patterns and regularities; our senses are at least partially reliable sources of information about this world; the laws of logic and mathematics apply objectively outside of our mind; our cognitive abilities allow us to understand these laws and can reliably take us from empirical evidence to conclusions about the physical world. You get the idea here.

      I love science also, I spent two years in undergrad as a physics major, but many of the questions at hand in the God debate are metaphysical ones, not scientific ones. Metaphysics can get very difficult and it is easy to jump to the conclusion that philosophy is all just semantics, but just because something is abstract, does not make it irrelevant or useless. I would encourage you to not underestimate the importance of philosophy in all that you do. It is cool that you are searching for answers and trying to understand these things, the world needs more people like you!


      1. Matthew says:

        Thank you for the interesting response Ryan!

        Of course the statement is not scientific. I have no experimental basis for it, it is not the result of a hypothesis and subsequent attempts of falsification and replication. It was an attempt to show the epistemic limits of philosophy, and you have shown the epistemic limits of science; I agree with you completely. The reason I made that statement is when there are questions that science has the ability to answer, science is more well suited. I do not mean to demean philosophy as I often venerate the subject in discussion and appreciate it’s value to both science and everyday life. It’s impossible (to me) to attack philosophy in a scientific way, it would have to be something similar to David Humes. Philosophy is extremely valuable; without the philosophy of science, the demarcation problem in science would lack many answers that guide everyday scientific inquiry and categorizing of findings. I definitely do not underestimate it’s importance.

        Depending on the subject at hand, empirical arguments can be stronger than metaphysical arguments. True they are probabilistic, but the argument with the most supporting evidence and has yet to be falsified after many independent replications is a better guide than reasoning from metaphysical axioms. The metaphysical claims about causality etc. have been shown to be slightly off once we look into quantum mechanics and how such observed principles within the universe can not be applied to it’s origin or even pre-Planck Time. I agree the God debate is a metaphysical one and if also think scientists should not bother, except when the arguments have scientifically investigateable aspects.

        Metaphysics should follow or at least try to follow, the current science or it’s doomed to be very ineffective as an argument. If there is no science to follow in that particular claim, if it’s currently out of scope, then it’s free game. I think metaphysical arguments are superior when they follow the current and most robust scientific evidence and reason effectively from that point. Obviously a metaphysical argument is useless in determining how the presynaptic neuron releases neurotransmitters or if it does not then why, do most neurons have the similar firing threshold of -50mv or does it vary between neuronal class, are gap junctions more efficient at the transferring of impulses or are chemical synapses etc. These are all questions metaphysics is, in my opinion, not neededin order to answer. But if the questions are more along the lines of: does God exist? Is qualia simply an illusion or supervening on the physical or neither? Then it is not necessarily the place of science to partake in that discourse (unless there is something science can actually add).

        Long story short this is an argument among philosophers. I don’t think the God debate has a place in science unless specific premises are scientifically incorrect or evidence is known. For me personally, I’m more of a scientist and not much a philosopher although I was interested and did my fair share of research and class work. I appreciate your response, and look forward to a follow up as I’m interested in what you would like to add!

    2. Steven Dunn says:


      You should know that I greatly respect you and your inclination for dialogue. I also admire your dedication to these subjects and the spirit that you apply to them. However, I do see a hint of layman-understanding in you.

      When we would discuss philosophical matters over email and I would recommend readings on the subject, I was not so much offering suggestions that I thought you find interesting but rather preliminary texts that are essential (or at least helpful) to understand the extent of the conversation – something you don’t exactly show efficiency in. This became further evident when I read your comments on metaphysics, philosophy, and scholasticism.

      Before you and I could continue to discuss any further issues, I would suggest that you just have a little bit more of a grip on the things you are talking about. I don’t say this to discourage or push you away from discussion, but rather because I do respect you very much. I am glad to see that you admit that you do not have an “impressive” understanding in philosophy, although the issue is just deeper than that. Rather than explain or summarize particular examples in your paragraph(s), I am just going to leave it at that.

      I hope you’ve had a great summer,
      Steven D.

      1. Matthew says:


        Instead of doing what anyone knowledgable in a subject would have done, that is, a point by point breakdown or specific refutation or correction on points, you respond with the most patronizing and condescending collection of words I have yet to read. I am not sure as to your motives, but I can easily respond in kind.

        I detected a hint of layman-understanding in you in regards to a scientific understanding of current and ongoing research on the mind as well as Quantum Mechanics. So the myriad reading opportunities I offered to you myself are also to enlighten your current, if anything, rudimentary grasp of neuroscience and better understanding of how QM actually relates to systems of above the subatomic level (neuronal spiking destroying quantum information etc.). I could easily have dismissed your writings on the grounds of your layman-understanding, but I engaged and provided strong scientifically sound rebuttals to what you had brought up that can be discussed under that light; all instead of picking at your lack of experience and education in the relevant fields.

        As far as I am aware, I did not notice any damning gaps in philosophical knowledge in my response to your version of the PZ argument and the one presented in “The Conscious Mind”. I should Note that I actually find his position on consciousness respectable and his interest in the Integrated Information Theory should be shared among other philosophers. If I had glaring mistakes, these could have been easily pointed out instead of playing the you don’t understand card (which I just as easily can play).

        The discussion on Dualism is not “philosophers only” as is the vibe I am getting from your comment. There are valid scientific criticisms I have made about it and the reasons why it flies in the face of well substantiated propositions in Neuroscience. Some philosophical objections to Dualism raise the same issues and invoke the phrase Deus Ex Machina in attempts at refutation. I do not think what I have said can be so gently spirited away by “You know nothing about philosophy, go read more philosophy.” If I missed something crucial in your position, it was most likely not fleshed out or explained as you mostly hid behind the words of others (in my opinion) making the discussion meaningless and as consequence should be left to the people you or I quote.

        I appreciate the opening compliments but I see this as none other than a patronizing circumlocution. I am no philosopher, and you are no scientist. The way we approach these problems is too different and would apparently require preliminary reading from the both of us. If you understand this, then I have no further qualms. If not, then my suspicions are corroborated. Excuse me if I come off spiteful, but that is how I viewed your response.


  2. Profetens sekretær says:

    The prophetic Word witness that God exists. Today it is important to understand the signs of our time.

    – God created the world in six days, the seventh He rested.
    – Enoch was raptured and Noah saved by tribulation.
    – Hebrews return to Israel.
    – Israel soon 70 years.
    – Plagues, the fourth seal.
    – Bloodmoons, the sixth seal.


    – The Temple in Jerusalem.
    – Conflict East against West.
    – World divides into 10 regions.
    – Mark of the Beast –> spiritual death?
    – The last Pope (St. Malachy prophecy).
    – Chrislam is moving on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s