I just came across what appears to be a slightly different statement of the Argument from Dependency. It seems equivalent but I’ll have to give a little thought to the matter, I’ve a feeling it might be a little weaker. It is stated as such:
The Cosmological Argument from Cause: Every effect has a cause. There cannot be an infinite regress of finite causes. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause or necessary being. This being is God.
Also, while thinking about the Argument from Dependency is a nice mental exercise, I still feel that the argument for the existence of God that has the most impact on people has to be the Anthropological Argument, or the simple assertion that either God exists or there is no basis for morality (ie. there is no such thing as right or wrong). This isn’t a ‘proof’ as such because it does not rule out the possibility that there might be no such thing as absolute morality. However, this idea is one that most people are unwilling to accept. Indeed, there is a certain dichotomy of thought displayed in the actions of the average atheist or agnostic. He or she lives as if right and wrong existed and yet deny (or at least cast doubt upon) the existence of God (or a reason for ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to exist). Like Nietzsche said: “When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet.”
I’ll come back to the anthropological argument in due course.
I’ll also continue on the argument from dependency, I still have to elucidate the nature of this ‘independent thing’, I also might have to tie up a few loose ends.
Of course, while all of these arguments and thoughts are good for aiding the understanding and appreciation of God, they are insignificant compared to the fact that the basis of Christianity is not a simple argument attempting to procure mere belief, but Christianity is centred upon the person of Jesus and his love and resulting sacrifice for mankind, a fact more wonderful than any other. Only an appreciation of this element will lead to a proper understanding.
Have you considered perhaps that an atheists basis for morality comes from themselves? Does an intelligent being need to have rules of behaviour written into the fabric of the universe to know what is appropriate and what is not?
I’m an atheist, or at least an agnostic. I certainly don’t believe in right and wrong in the sense you’re talking about. But that in no way means that morality can be chucked out the window. It is a social construction first and foremost, religion simply formalized and enforced a structure for it.
have you read ‘the idiot’? i think its your line of literature
Heh. I can’t tell if that last one is somebody making fun of me of somebody genuinely recommending Dostoevsky. Probably the former, I suppose.