Search by property

Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page provides a simple browsing interface for finding entities described by a property and a named value. Other available search interfaces include the page property search, and the ask query builder.

Search by property

A list of all pages that have property "Page parameters" with value "472<><span> Test</span><><><>0<>0<><><>". Since there have been only a few results, also nearby values are displayed.

Showing below up to 26 results starting with #1.

View (previous 50 | next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)


    

List of results

  • The Air Quotas system cannot account for all the flights of an individual unless it is global  + (1649<><div> If an European citizen buys a ticket subject to Air Quotas outside of the EU, he would escape the system. Including those flights would add complexity.</div><><><>0<>0<><><>)
  • Lawmakers may set poor "mechanism details" initially or later  + (1650<><div> Proponents of the 1650<><div></br>Proponents of the mechanism propose what they consider to be an ideal initial carbon allowance and ideal annual percentage rate of reduction for the allowance. Adverse changes to those numbers may be made by lawmakers in establishing the law. In subsequent years, lawmakers may relax the requirements to accommodate backlash from flyers and the industry. A hollow mechanism could be the outcome, due to the nature of the mechanism and political opportunity to manipulate it.</div><><>Decided by the people-¡-Decided by the people<>0<>1<><><>lt;><>Decided by the people-¡-Decided by the people<>0<>1<><><>)
  • It is insufficient & outdated for the climate emergency  + (1651<><div style="font-size: 90%;">''No content has been entered yet.''</div><><><>0<>0<><><>)
  • The 6% annual reduction in the carbon money distributed to Europeans ensures that airlines cannot exceed this constantly shrinking volume  + (1652<><div style="font-size: 90%;">''No content has been entered yet.''</div><><><>0<>0<><><>)
  • 6% per year  + (1653<><div> The 6% annual reduction in the carbon money distributed to Europeans ensures that airlines cannot exceed this constantly shrinking volume.</div><><><>0<>0<><><>)
  • Forbiden to buy directly  + (1654<><div> To avoid abuse of authority, it would be impossible to buy directly: surpluses would have to be obtained solely from the carbon agency, which would regulate trading by raising the price in line with demand.</div><><><>0<>0<><><>)
  • Forbidden to buy directly  + (1656<><div> To avoid abuse of authority, it would be impossible to buy directly: surpluses would have to be obtained solely from the carbon agency, which would regulate trading by raising the price in line with demand.</div><><><>0<>0<><><>)
  • 83% less in 30 years  + (1657<><div> The 6% annual redu1657<><div></br>The 6% annual reduction in carbon money ensures that airlines can only use as much carbon as they need to keep the planet in balance: 6% less each year, equivalent to 83% less in 30 years.</div><div style="margin-top: 0.75em; font-size: 103%;">'''References'''</div><ul class="references-argument"><li>Alain Trannoy, Pierre-Henri Bono, ''[https://shs.cairn.info/journal-revue-d-economie-politique-2024-4-page-553?tab=resume Revue d'économie politique]'', 2024-4, page 553, Paris, 09/09/2024.</li> </ul><><><>0<>0<><><>nomie politique]'', 2024-4, page 553, Paris, 09/09/2024.</li> </ul><><><>0<>0<><><>)
  • Share the sky  + (1658<><div> The abuse of air t1658<><div></br>The abuse of air travel is considered unfair by those who do not have the resources or the needs: the volume can be reduced by sharing the right to the sky with everyone, which brings recognition and rewards to those who do not use air travel (between 70 and 80% of Europeans).</div><><><>0<>0<><><>etween 70 and 80% of Europeans).</div><><><>0<>0<><><>)
  • 500 carbon points  + (1659<><div> Any citizen get 500 carbon points Ͼ for first year, it's enough for Paris-Athens-Paris or Roma-Stockholm-Roma. Those who want to travel more by flight can buy surpluses, more and more expensive but not forbidden.</div><><><>0<>0<><><>)
  • Modeling  + (1660<><div> Modelling shows that the price of surpluses could double every year, given scarcity (minus 6%) and the fact that many excess citizens won't want to sell their surpluses to help the rich.</div><><><>0<>0<><><>)
  • Only bought officially  + (1661<><div> As allowances can only be bought and sold through the official agency, unidentified carbon points cannot be used.</div><><><>0<>0<><><>)
  • Can only be bought through authorized agency  + (1662<><div> As allowances can only be bought and sold through the authorized agency, unidentified carbon points cannot be used.</div><><><>0<>0<><><>)
  • Decided by the people  + (1663<><div> The strength of the requested national vote is that once a majority has been reached, politicians will no longer be able to change what has been decided by the people.</div><><><>0<>0<><><>)
  • Normalizes flying, in an insufficient response to climate emergency  + (1664<><div> As a substantial g1664<><div></br>As a substantial governmental programme that is expected to endure for the long term, Air Quotas commits a substantial portion of the carbon budget (if indeed there is now any carbon budget left) to the most excessive mode of travel. Society's overall carbon & GHG emissions must plummet, and as a largely unnecessary endeavor flying must plummet the most - much steeper than Air Quotas' 6% per year.</br> “As the scientists discussed several times during [Ireland’s Oireachtas] hearing, the governmental action they are calling for is ‘not easy’ and is ‘politically risky’, because ‘none of it is palatable’ to the public, at least at present. But the climate physics and the now all-too-apparent and rapidly escalating climate impacts show that the only ‘realistic’ course is for politicians, scientists and activists to strive – paraphrasing the words of the four – to make unthinkable policy thinkable, and the unpalatable palatable. There are no easy choices left; the [effective] easy choices evaporated years or decades ago.” </br> Prof. Barry McMullin said that “the scale and urgency of our predicament” requires consideration of policies “outside our previously self-imposed restrictions on what is thinkable”, because climate change physics “just doesn’t bend … just doesn’t care what we [otherwise] regard as realism.”</br> (https://www.resilience.org/stories/2022-02-11/four-scientists-a-few-small-nations-and-making-unthinkable-climate-action-possible/)</div><><><>0<>0<><><>nthinkable-climate-action-possible/)</div><><><>0<>0<><><>)
  • Keeping a close eye  + (1665<><div> Buyers are no longer comparing price alone, but carbon labelling as well, and keeping a close eye on it as they will be limited.</div><><><>0<>0<><><>)
  • Freedom  + (1666<><div> In a mechanism that includes all purchases, everyone has the freedom to choose.</div><><><>0<>0<><><>)
  • Economic theory  + (1667<><div> The economic theor1667<><div></br>The economic theory of the tax is based on the price signal, which is supposed to reduce purchases when the price rises. In fact, it is only effective for individuals with a constrained budget. Most carbon emissions and flight abuse are caused by the ultrarich people with unconstrained budgets: taxes have no reductive effect.</div><><><>0<>0<><><> taxes have no reductive effect.</div><><><>0<>0<><><>)
  • 30 years is too long  + (1668<><div style="font-size: 90%;">''No content has been entered yet.''</div><><><>0<>0<><><>)
  • Power to citizen  + (1669<><div> We need to disting1669<><div></br>We need to distinguish between upstream quotas (consumers) and downstream quotas (producers). They can be complementary. The advantage of upstream quotas for consumers (which cannot be defrauded) is that they give consumers the power to choose how they travel and consume.</div><><><>0<>0<><><>ose how they travel and consume.</div><><><>0<>0<><><>)
  • An annually falling jet fuel cap, applied with free market plus equity regulations, would directly limit emissions  + (1670<><div style="font-size: 90%;">''No content has been entered yet.''</div><><><>0<>0<><><>)
  • The directness & certainty of caps is what is needed.  + (1672<><div style="font-size: 90%;">''No content has been entered yet.''</div><><><>0<>0<><><>)
  • Yes there are alternatives to GAFAM and a lot : https://americaboycott.org  + (1686<><div style="font-size: 90%;">''No content has been entered yet.''</div><><><>0<>0<><><>)
  • Without police, crime would increase as enforcement would drop  + (1691<><div> Crime rates would increase as gangs and criminals would virtually be unstopped. Crime would double and this would be like haiti's crime, but many times worse.</div><><><>0<>0<><><>)
  • Argument test  + (303<><div><div class="bande303<><div><div class="bandeau-avertissement" style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="margin-right: 0.5em; position: relative; bottom: 1px;">[[File: Sensitive-debate.svg | 14px | link=]]</span>This argument is considered [[:Category: Sensitive arguments|sensitive]].<span class="smw-highlighter smwttinline" data-state="inline">[[File: Information.svg | 13px | link= | class=logo-aide]]<div class="smwttcontent">Its content may shock.</br><p>'''Reminder''': the arguments are relayed on Wikidebates only insofar as their presence can be attested in the public space. They are endorsed neither by the contributors of the site, nor by the [[Wikidebates:Laboratory of Methodical Debate|association]] which administers Wikidebates.</p></div></span></div> <div class="bandeau-avertissement" style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="margin-right: 0.5em; position: relative; bottom: 1px;">[[File: Sensitive-debate.svg | 14px | link=]]</span>This argument is considered [[:Category: Fanciful arguments|fanciful]].<span class="smw-highlighter smwttinline" data-state="inline">[[File: Information.svg | 13px | link= | class=logo-aide]]<div class="smwttcontent">A quote is necessary in order to provide proof of the existence of this argument in the public space. Please provide citations to the [[Talk:Argument test|talk page]] showing that conflicting opinions are held on the matter.</br><p>'''Reminder''': according to the <span class="hover-link" data-template="Page description hover" data-parameter1="Wikidebates:Founding Principles"><span>[[Wikidebates:Founding Principles|founding principles]]</span><span class="hover-content-wrapper"></span></span>, an argument has its place on Wikidebates only insofar as its presence can be attested in the public space.</p></div></span></div> <div class="bandeau-avertissement" style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="margin-right: 0.5em; position: relative; bottom: 1px;">[[File: Sensitive-debate.svg | 14px | link=]]</span>This argument is considered [[:Category: Potentially illegal arguments|potentially illegal]].<span class="smw-highlighter smwttinline" data-state="inline">[[File: Information.svg | 13px | link= | class=logo-aide]]<div class="smwttcontent">'''Reminder''': according to the <span class="hover-link" data-template="Page description hover" data-parameter1="Wikidebates:Founding Principles"><span>[[Wikidebates:Founding Principles|founding principles]]</span><span class="hover-content-wrapper"></span></span>, all arguments have their place on Wikidebates provided that they do not contravene the law.</div></span></div></div><div></br> <div class="bandeau-avertissement" style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="margin-right: 0.5em; position: relative; bottom: 1px;">[[File: Sensitive-debate.svg | 14px | link=]]</span>The summary of this argument is yet to be written.<span class="smw-highlighter smwttinline" data-state="inline">[[File: Information.svg | 13px | link= | class=logo-aide]]<div class="smwttcontent">No content has been provided or the text entered corresponds to a note taking. How about writing it?</div></span></div>[[Category: Argument summaries to write]] <div class="bandeau-avertissement" style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="margin-right: 0.5em; position: relative; bottom: 1px;">[[File: Sensitive-debate.svg | 14px | link=]]</span>This summary mixes several arguments.<span class="smw-highlighter smwttinline" data-state="inline">[[File: Information.svg | 13px | link= | class=logo-aide]]<div class="smwttcontent">This summary mixes arguments that need to be dissociated. Create a specific page for each of them.</div></span></div>[[Category: Argument summaries to separate]] <div class="bandeau-avertissement" style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="margin-right: 0.5em; position: relative; bottom: 1px;">[[File: Sensitive-debate.svg | 14px | link=]]</span>The summary of this argument is too long.<span class="smw-highlighter smwttinline" data-state="inline">[[File: Information.svg | 13px | link= | class=logo-aide]]<div class="smwttcontent">It contains redundancies, heavy sentences, or is overall too developed. The text should be lightened.</div></span></div>[[Category: Too long argument summaries]] <div class="bandeau-avertissement" style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="margin-right: 0.5em; position: relative; bottom: 1px;">[[File: Sensitive-debate.svg | 14px | link=]]</span>The summary of this argument is not clear enough.<span class="smw-highlighter smwttinline" data-state="inline">[[File: Information.svg | 13px | link= | class=logo-aide]]<div class="smwttcontent">This summary is confusing, jargon, overly complex or overly telegraphic. It needs to be made more understandable.</div></span></div>[[Category: Unclear argument summaries]] <div class="bandeau-avertissement" style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="margin-right: 0.5em; position: relative; bottom: 1px;">[[File: Sensitive-debate.svg | 14px | link=]]</span>The summary of this argument is disadvantageous.<span class="smw-highlighter smwttinline" data-state="inline">[[File: Information.svg | 13px | link= | class=logo-aide]]<div class="smwttcontent">The argument is presented in a lacunary or caricatured way. A more convincing version needs to be written.</div></span></div>[[Category: Disadvantageous argument summaries]] <div class="bandeau-avertissement" style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="margin-right: 0.5em; position: relative; bottom: 1px;">[[File: Sensitive-debate.svg | 14px | link=]]</span>The style of this summary needs to be reviewed.<span class="smw-highlighter smwttinline" data-state="inline">[[File: Information.svg | 13px | link= | class=logo-aide]]<div class="smwttcontent">This summary is written in a personal ( “I think that…”) or overly familiar way. It needs to be rewritten.</div></span></div>[[Category: Argument summaries to review]]</br> </div><div></br>Blablablabla….</div><blockquote><div><div class="bandeau-avertissement" style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="margin-right: 0.5em; position: relative; bottom: 1px;">[[File: Sensitive-debate.svg | 14px | link=]]</span>This quote is too short.<span class="smw-highlighter smwttinline" data-state="inline">[[File: Information.svg | 13px | link= | class=logo-aide]]<div class="smwttcontent">The selected excerpt does not contain any reasoning or examples. Select a longer excerpt or delete the quote.</div></span></div>[[Category: Too short quotes]] <div class="bandeau-avertissement" style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="margin-right: 0.5em; position: relative; bottom: 1px;">[[File: Sensitive-debate.svg | 14px | link=]]</span>This quote is too long.<span class="smw-highlighter smwttinline" data-state="inline">[[File: Information.svg | 13px | link= | class=logo-aide]]<div class="smwttcontent">The selected excerpt is too long or mixes different arguments. Delete the superfluous passages, if necessary by using the square brackets […], or cut this excerpt into several quotes, each centered on an argument.</div></span></div>[[Category: Too long quotes]] <div class="bandeau-avertissement" style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="margin-right: 0.5em; position: relative; bottom: 1px;">[[File: Sensitive-debate.svg | 14px | link=]]</span>The quote reference is incomplete.<span class="smw-highlighter smwttinline" data-state="inline">[[File: Information.svg | 13px | link= | class=logo-aide]]<div class="smwttcontent">Some important fields (author, title, date, …) have not been filled in. What if you complete them?</div></span></div>[[Category: Incomplete quote references]]</div>“You wish to form an opinion on a given issue? You seek to know the different sides on a given issue, without having to spend hours of research all around the internet? Wikidebates is just for that.”</blockquote></br> <div class="reference-citation">Author not entered.</div><div style="margin-top: 0.75em; font-size: 103%;">'''References'''</div><ul class="references-argument"><li>Alain Finkielkraut, ''Après le relativisme''. <div class="bandeau-avertissement" style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="margin-right: 0.5em; position: relative; bottom: 1px;">[[File: Sensitive-debate.svg | 14px | link=]]</span>Insufficient quality reference<span class="smw-highlighter smwttinline" data-state="inline">[[File: Information.svg | 13px | link= | class=logo-aide]]<div class="smwttcontent">More rigorous or better argued content can be found for this argument.</div></span></div>[[Category: Insufficient quality references]] <div class="bandeau-avertissement" style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="margin-right: 0.5em; position: relative; bottom: 1px;">[[File: Sensitive-debate.svg | 14px | link=]]</span>Incomplete reference<span class="smw-highlighter smwttinline" data-state="inline">[[File: Information.svg | 13px | link= | class=logo-aide]]<div class="smwttcontent">Some important fields have not been filled in. What if you complete them?</div></span></div>[[Category: Incomplete references]]</li> <li></li><li>sdfsdgds. <div class="bandeau-avertissement" style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="margin-right: 0.5em; position: relative; bottom: 1px;">[[File: Sensitive-debate.svg | 14px | link=]]</span>Broken link<span class="smw-highlighter smwttinline" data-state="inline">[[File: Information.svg | 13px | link= | class=logo-aide]]<div class="smwttcontent">The page no longer exists at this address. How about updating the link?</div></span></div>[[Category: Dead links]] <div class="bandeau-avertissement" style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="margin-right: 0.5em; position: relative; bottom: 1px;">[[File: Sensitive-debate.svg | 14px | link=]]</span>Insufficient quality reference<span class="smw-highlighter smwttinline" data-state="inline">[[File: Information.svg | 13px | link= | class=logo-aide]]<div class="smwttcontent">More rigorous or better argued content can be found for this argument.</div></span></div>[[Category: Insufficient quality references]] <div class="bandeau-avertissement" style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="margin-right: 0.5em; position: relative; bottom: 1px;">[[File: Sensitive-debate.svg | 14px | link=]]</span>Incomplete reference<span class="smw-highlighter smwttinline" data-state="inline">[[File: Information.svg | 13px | link= | class=logo-aide]]<div class="smwttcontent">Some important fields have not been filled in. What if you complete them?</div></span></div>[[Category: Incomplete references]]</li></ul><>Argument test 2-¡-Argument test 2 -;- Argument test 2-¡-Argument test 2 -;- Argument test 2-¡-Argument test 2 -;- Argument test 2-¡-Argument test 2 -;- Argument test 2-¡-Argument test 2 -;- Argument test 2-¡-Argument test 2 -;- Argument test 2-¡-Argument test 2<>Argument test 2-¡-Argument test 2<>7<>1<><>Justifications to reorganize<>Objections to reorganizeplete references]]</li></ul><>Argument test 2-¡-Argument test 2 -;- Argument test 2-¡-Argument test 2 -;- Argument test 2-¡-Argument test 2 -;- Argument test 2-¡-Argument test 2 -;- Argument test 2-¡-Argument test 2 -;- Argument test 2-¡-Argument test 2 -;- Argument test 2-¡-Argument test 2<>Argument test 2-¡-Argument test 2<>7<>1<><>Justifications to reorganize<>Objections to reorganize)
  • God is the central creature of the universe. Without Him, nothing would be existent.  + (522<><div> This is a generated summary</div><><><>0<>0<><><>)
  • God is the first cause of the universe  + (533<><div> Looking at the univ533<><div></br>Looking at the universe, we see that every object has a cause, which in turn has a cause, and so, going up the chain of causes, we necessarily arrive at a first cause. God is this first cause.</div><blockquote>“Nothing comes from nothing. Now, there is something; therefore, there has never been anything. This something could not have brought itself into existence, because to do so it would have had to exist before it, which is impossible. Therefore, something else had to bring it into existence. This something else is what Aristotle calls the incausal cause and the immobile motor. Aquinas concludes his proofs of God's existence by saying that it is this being that all men call God.”</blockquote></br> <div class="reference-citation">E. Michael Jones, ''Logos Rising'', p.13.</div><div style="margin-top: 0.75em; font-size: 103%;">'''References'''</div><ul class="references-argument"><li>Frédéric Guillaud, ''Dieu existe'', Éditions du Cerf, Paris, 2013.</li> </ul><>There should be nothing-¡-There should be nothing -;- God exists because there cannot be an infinite number of causes-¡-There cannot be an infinite number of causes -;- God exists because there cannot be an infinite past-¡-There cannot be an infinite past -;- The universe began to exist with the Big Bang-¡-The Big Bang, an absolute singularity, implies the existence of God -;- God is the cause of the existence of beings-¡-God is the cause of the existence of beings -;- Everything that exists has a reason to exist-¡-Everything that exists has a reason to exist -;- Atheism posits a primordial energy whose origin it can never explain.-¡-Atheism posits a primordial energy whose origin it can never explain.<>The principle of causality does not apply to the universe-¡-The principle of causality does not apply to the universe -;- The universe has no cause or reason for being-¡-The universe has no cause or reason for being -;- The universe was created from nothing-¡-The universe was created from nothing -;- The universe has no beginning-¡-The universe has no beginning -;- The universe is contingent-¡-The universe is contingent -;- The first cause is the Big Bang-¡-The first cause is the Big Bang -;- The first cause is an immaterial point-¡-The first cause is an immaterial point -;- Everything has a cause, and God in particular-¡-Everything has a cause, and God in particular -;- There's no reason why God should be the first cause.-¡-There's no reason why God should be the first cause. -;- The first cause is unknowable-¡-The first cause is unknowable -;- God is a filler concept-¡-Taking God as the first cause shifts the question rather than answering it.<>7<>11<><><>is unknowable -;- God is a filler concept-¡-Taking God as the first cause shifts the question rather than answering it.<>7<>11<><><>)
  • The order and complexity of the world presuppose a Creator God  + (534<><div style="font-size: 90%;"534<><div style="font-size: 90%;">''No content has been entered yet.''</div><>God gives an account of the world's master plan-¡-God gives an account of the world's master plan -;- God explains the laws of nature-¡-God explains the laws of nature -;- God explains the highly improbable adjustment of the universe's fundamental constants-¡-God explains the highly improbable adjustment of the universe's fundamental constants -;- God explains the appearance of life-¡-God explains the appearance of life -;- God explains the creation, adaptation and complexity of species-¡-God explains the creation, adaptation and complexity of species -;- God explains the emergence and complexity of human language-¡-God explains the emergence and complexity of human language -;- God explains the existence of consciousness-¡-God explains the existence of consciousness<>God is an inexplicable explanation-¡-God is an inexplicable explanation -;- Science explains the order and complexity of the world-¡-Science explains the order and complexity of the world -;- A God in the image of man is too human to be credible-¡-Assuming a creator with a human face is not credible -;- The order and complexity of the world presuppose only a supreme Intelligence indifferent to mankind.-¡-The order and complexity of the world presuppose only a supreme Intelligence indifferent to mankind. -;- The notion of order is a projection of the human mind-¡-The notion of order is a projection of the human mind -;- The world is not orderly but chaotic-¡-The world is not orderly but chaotic -;- God is but the name of our ignorance-¡-To take God as an explanation is to commit an argument of ignorance.<>7<>7<><><>God as an explanation is to commit an argument of ignorance.<>7<>7<><><>)
  • There are divine interventions  + (535<><div style="font-size: 90%;"535<><div style="font-size: 90%;">''No content has been entered yet.''</div><>Miracles attest to God's direct intervention-¡-Miracles -;- Mystical experiences attest to the presence of God-¡-Mystical experiences -;- Manifestations of Providence attest to God's intervention-¡-Manifestations of Providence -;- Revelations preserved in sacred texts attest to God's intervention-¡-Revelations preserved in sacred texts<>Claims of divine intervention are based on unreliable evidence-¡-Claims of divine intervention are based on unreliable evidence -;- So-called divine intervention is based on a superstitious conception of the world.-¡-So-called divine intervention is based on a superstitious conception of the world. -;- What we attribute to divine intervention is a natural phenomenon.-¡-What we attribute to divine intervention is a natural phenomenon. -;- Biblical miracles have a rational explanation-¡-Biblical miracles have a rational explanation -;- The content of sacred texts varies enormously from one religion to another-¡-The content of sacred texts varies enormously from one religion to another<>4<>5<><><> sacred texts varies enormously from one religion to another<>4<>5<><><>)
  • God created a morality independent of men  + (536<><div> There is a moral la536<><div></br>There is a moral law that cannot be explained by simple biology: human beings obey principles that do not correspond to their own interests, but to the Good. Instead of following their own immediate interest or pleasure, human beings can sacrifice themselves for others, protecting the sick or the elderly. These behaviors are part of a duty-to-be that does not correspond to any natural necessity. "Doing good" does not exist among animals. Man can extract himself from the natural given, from the struggle for survival, to imagine a "duty-to-be", a morality, a better world, which correspond to nothing in the natural world. This awareness of goodness and morality can only be explained by the fact that God has placed them within us.</div><><>Moral values are relative to a given society-¡-Moral values are relative to a given society -;- Moral values evolve over time-¡-Moral values evolve over time -;- Moral values are human creations-¡-Moral values are human creations -;- Moral values are the result of evolution-¡-Moral values are the result of evolution -;- Moral values attributed to God are only a projection of our mind-¡-Moral values attributed to God are only a projection of our mind -;- Morals may differ among followers of the same religion-¡-Morals may differ among followers of the same religion -;- Even the church's morality isn't set in stone-¡-Even the morals of a religion evolve as society evolves -;- Events interpreted as divine punishment are not consistent with alleged religious morality-¡-Events interpreted as divine punishment are not consistent with objective morality. -;- The illusion of objective morality is just a tool of social control-¡-The illusion of objective morality is just a tool of social control -;- Morality independent of men does not prove the existence of God (Appeal to ignorance)-¡-Morality independent of men does not prove the existence of God<>0<>10<><><>lity independent of men does not prove the existence of God<>0<>10<><><>)
  • Only God is the guarantor of the reality and veracity of the world.  + (537<><div style="font-size: 90%;"537<><div style="font-size: 90%;">''No content has been entered yet.''</div><>Only the hypothesis of God takes us out of solipsism-¡-Only the hypothesis of God takes us out of solipsism -;- Only the God hypothesis takes us out of perspectivism-¡-Only the God hypothesis takes us out of perspectivism -;- Only God can establish logical and mathematical truths-¡-Only God can establish logical and mathematical truths -;- Only the God hypothesis explains the coincidence of mathematics and reality-¡-Only the God hypothesis explains the coincidence of mathematics and reality<>Mathematics was created to describe reality, hence its coincidence-¡-Mathematics was created to describe reality, hence its coincidence<>4<>1<><><>atics was created to describe reality, hence its coincidence<>4<>1<><><>)
  • God's existence is contained in his concept  + (538<><div> By definition, God 538<><div></br>By definition, God is perfect. If God is perfect, then he lacks nothing: he enjoys all attributes, including that of existing. Therefore, God exists.</div><blockquote>“The fool himself is therefore forced to admit that there is, at least in the intelligence, something above which thought can conceive nothing, since when he hears about this supreme being, whoever he may be, he understands what he hears, and that everything that is understood exists in the intelligence. Now, this supreme being, above which thought can conceive nothing, cannot exist in intelligence alone; for, supposing this to be the case, there is nothing to prevent us from conceiving it as also existing in reality, which is a mode of existence superior to the first. If, then, the supreme being existed in intelligence alone, there would be something that thought could conceive of above it; it would no longer be the being par excellence, which implies contradiction. There is therefore without doubt, both in intelligence and in reality, a being above which thought can conceive nothing.”</blockquote></br> <div class="reference-citation">Anselme, ''[https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Proslogion Proslogion]''.</div><>Mathematician Kurt Gödel formalized an ontological proof of God's existence-¡-Mathematician Kurt Gödel formalized an ontological proof of God's existence -;- It's logically irrational to say that God doesn't exist-¡-It's logically irrational to say that God doesn't exist<>God's perfection does not imply his existence-¡-Perfection does not imply existence -;- Existence is not a predicate-¡-Existence is not a predicate -;- The existence of God cannot be demonstrated conceptually-¡-Existence cannot be demonstrated conceptually -;- The argument is circular, because to be perfect, you have to be-¡-The argument is circular, because to be perfect, you have to be<>2<>4<><><>ct, you have to be-¡-The argument is circular, because to be perfect, you have to be<>2<>4<><><>)
  • We have concepts within us that only God could have created.  + (539<><div style="font-size: 90%;"539<><div style="font-size: 90%;">''No content has been entered yet.''</div><>Only God could have placed the concept of unity within us.-¡-Only God could have placed the concept of unity within us. -;- Only God could have placed the concept of infinity within us.-¡-Only God could have placed the concept of infinity within us. -;- Only God could have placed the concept of perfection within us.-¡-Only God could have placed the concept of perfection within us.<>The concepts of unity, infinity and perfection are acquired during the individual's cognitive development.-¡-These concepts are acquired during the individual's cognitive development -;- The concepts of unity, infinity and perfection have been acquired through the evolution of the human species.-¡-These concepts have been acquired through the evolution of the human species<>3<>2<><><>ave been acquired through the evolution of the human species<>3<>2<><><>)
  • The God hypothesis is simpler than the atheist hypothesis  + (540<><blockquote>“Thus, three 540<><blockquote>“Thus, three rival theses put forward an ultimate explanation for all observable phenomena. They must be examined using the four criteria for evaluating explanatory scenarios analyzed in Chapter II. [...] Applying the four criteria boils down to this: the theory of ultimate explanation that is most likely to be true is the simplest theory that predicts observable phenomena, whereas without this theory, we would not expect these phenomena. The thesis developed here is that theism provides by far the simplest explanation of all phenomena. Materialism, as I shall show, is not a simple hypothesis, and there is a category of phenomena that, most probably, it will never be able to explain. And humanism [the mixed theory that "the existence and functioning of the factors involved in explanation in terms of persons cannot be fully explained in terms of inanimate objects", and vice versa] is an even less simple hypothesis than materialism. [...] the great complexity of materialism comes from the postulate that any complete explanation of the behavior of things is given by the properties and dispositions of an immense (and perhaps infinite) number of material objects. Each of these is made up of atoms; atoms are made up of fundamental particles, such as electrons and protons; some, in turn, are made up of quarks and, as far as we know at present, quarks are made up of sub-quarks. [Theism asserts that a single substance, God, causes and sustains the existence of all other existing objects. It also asserts that every property possessed by every other substance is due to the fact that God is its cause or enables it to exist. The hallmark of a simple explanation is that it postulates a small number of causes. In this respect, there can be no simpler explanation than one that postulates a single cause. Theism is simpler than polytheism. Moreover, to this single cause, which is a person, theism attributes the properties that are essential to persons with an infinite degree [...]. The hypothesis of an infinitely powerful, infinitely knowing and infinitely free person is the hypothesis of a person whose capacity for action, knowledge and freedom are without limit (except those of logic). Scientists have always considered it simpler to assume that a quantity has an infinite degree than to assume an extremely large finite degree, and have always done so when this assumption made no difference to the prediction of observations.”</blockquote></br> <div class="reference-citation">Richard Swinburne, ''Is there a God?'', p.46-48, Ithaca, Paris, 2009.</div><><>The very existence of God is anything but simple-¡-The opposite is true: the very existence of God is anything but simple.<>0<>1<><><>-The opposite is true: the very existence of God is anything but simple.<>0<>1<><><>)
  • Human nature aspires to God  + (541<><div style="font-size: 90%;"541<><div style="font-size: 90%;">''No content has been entered yet.''</div><>Human beings aspire to infinite love-¡-Human beings aspire to infinite love -;- As they develop, human beings undergo transcendent experiences-¡-As they develop, human beings undergo transcendent experiences -;- Nature could not endow man with a need without an object-¡-Nature could not endow man with a need without an object -;- Apart from very rare (and short-lived) exceptions, all societies have a spiritual dimension.-¡-Apart from very rare (and short-lived) exceptions, all societies have a spiritual dimension.<>It just proves a universal need to believe in a higher entity, not its existence.-¡-The human need to believe in a god does not prove his existence.<>4<>1<><><>human need to believe in a god does not prove his existence.<>4<>1<><><>)
  • God's existence can be experienced with immediate certainty  + (542<><div> The existence of Go542<><div></br>The existence of God can be experienced directly in privileged moments when life seems full of meaning and the universe adorned with supernatural beauty. These moments belong to art and poetry, and can be experienced when listening to certain sacred music or in intense moments of love. More quietly, it can be faith experienced as self-evident that imposes itself on certain people. These subjective experiences are accompanied by a feeling of certainty and evidence that nothing can shake. The existence of such experiences raises the question: aren't they proof (not rational, but experienced) of God's existence? If not, can they be explained in a down-to-earth, even reductionist way? Where do these transcendent emotions come from?</div><>The certainty of faith-¡-The certainty of faith -;- Mystical experiences attest to the presence of God-¡-Mystical experiences -;- The experience of love-¡-The experience of love -;- Contemplating sacred art-¡-Contemplating sacred art -;- Contemplating nature-¡-Contemplating nature<>These are subjective experiences-¡-These are subjective experiences -;- These are infantile feelings that invade adult consciousness, leading it to believe in an illusory completeness.-¡-These are infantile feelings that invade adult consciousness, leading it to believe in an illusory completeness. -;- Faced with the world, we can also be subjectively certain that God doesn't exist, that everything is absurd...-¡-Faced with the world, we can also be subjectively certain that God doesn't exist, that everything is absurd... -;- Even if the phenomenon has a divine origin, the deities to whom these transcendences are attributed vary.-¡-Even if the phenomenon has a divine origin, the deities to whom these transcendences are attributed vary.<>5<>4<><><>he deities to whom these transcendences are attributed vary.<>5<>4<><><>)
  • Freedom is inexplicable within the framework of materialism  + (543<><div> In the materialist 543<><div></br>In the materialist framework, all beings are mechanically determined by the biological and social forces that act upon them. Free will means that the individual can extricate himself from these forces and make choices sui generis, stemming from an indeterminate and free consciousness. This is nonsense in a materialistic world, and proves the existence of a spirit beyond matter, or even of a God who created this spirit.</div><>If we bet that freedom exists, we must bet on God.-¡-If we bet that freedom exists, we must bet on God.<>Man is determined-¡-Freedom doesn't exist -;- Sartre's existentialists believe in freedom and deny the existence of God-¡-Sartre's existentialists believe in freedom and deny the existence of God -;- If God is omniscient, creation and freedom are useless-¡-The hypothesis of an omniscient god renders freedom useless -;- Human freedom" as we observe it can perfectly well be seen as the result of biological and social forces alone.-¡-Human freedom as we observe it can perfectly well be seen as the result of biological and social forces alone.<>1<>4<><><>be seen as the result of biological and social forces alone.<>1<>4<><><>)
  • No evidence of a god  + (544<><div> In our common exper544<><div></br>In our common experience, we don't perceive God; history is not influenced by any kind of providence, but is the result of human actions; nature is indifferent, with failures (species that have disappeared without descendants, bushy development, etc.). To support the idea of God, religions offer only uncertain reasoning, irrational "faith" (which contradicts the faith of other religions) or subjective, more or less illusory experiences (mystical experiences). The hypothesis of God is therefore gratuitous.</div><>It's up to the person who advances a thesis to prove it.-¡-It's up to the person who advances a thesis to prove it. -;- No experiment proves the existence of God-¡-No experiment proves the existence of God -;- Awakening experiences show that there is no god-¡-Awakening experiences show that there is no god -;- There are no "back worlds" where God would stand-¡-There are no "back worlds" where God would stand -;- If God existed, there should be clear evidence of it.-¡-If God existed, there should be clear evidence of it. -;- God is too complex a hypothesis-¡-God is too complex a hypothesis -;- God is a useless hypothesis-¡-God is a useless hypothesis -;- Arguments in favor of the existence of God are just as much in favor of the existence of parody religions.-¡-Arguments in favor of the existence of God are just as much in favor of the existence of parody religions.<>Nothing proves the non-existence of God-¡-Nothing proves the non-existence of God -;- Absence of proof is not proof of absence-¡-Absence of proof is not proof of absence -;- God's existence is revealed in sacred texts-¡-God's existence is revealed in sacred texts -;- Some people say they have experienced God-¡-Some people say they have experienced God -;- Many people believe in God, including famous scientists-¡-Many people believe in God, including famous scientists -;- God's existence cannot be grasped through evidence-¡-God's existence cannot be grasped through evidence -;- The universe is not self-sufficient-¡-The universe is not self-sufficient<>8<>7<><><>is not self-sufficient-¡-The universe is not self-sufficient<>8<>7<><><>)
  • There is no spirit outside matter  + (545<><div> God is supposed to 545<><div></br>God is supposed to be an immaterial entity (since we can't see or touch him). This concept is based on the spiritualist idea that there are immaterial beings and realities. But this assumption is gratuitous: we know of no immaterial reality without physical support.</div><>The existence of a mind outside matter goes against our neurological knowledge-¡-The existence of a mind outside matter goes against our neurological knowledge<>Contemporary science is shaking the philosophical foundations on which materialism rests.-¡-Contemporary science is shaking the philosophical foundations on which materialism rests. -;- Near-death experiences show consciousness independent of the brain-¡-Near-death experiences show consciousness independent of the brain -;- Several so-called paranormal phenomena show the action of the spirit beyond a physical medium-¡-Several so-called paranormal phenomena show the action of the spirit beyond a physical medium -;- Consciousness cannot be explained by matter-¡-Consciousness cannot be explained by matter -;- Mathematics exists in a reality independent of matter-¡-Mathematics exists in a reality independent of matter -;- The laws of nature do not come from matter but organize matter-¡-The laws of nature do not come from matter but organize matter -;- Materialism is an irrefutable theory-¡-Materialism is an irrefutable theory -;- Our scientific paradigm must be modified in the light of psi experiences-¡-Our scientific paradigm must be modified in the light of psi experiences<>1<>8<><><>ic paradigm must be modified in the light of psi experiences<>1<>8<><><>)
  • There is too much suffering and injustice for there to be a god  + (546<><div> Evil is often synon546<><div></br>Evil is often synonymous with undeserved and unjust suffering: the victims who die in terrorist attacks or concentration camps, the victims of natural disasters, and so on.</br></br>Throughout history, we have seen innocent victims, not only of misfortunes brought about by human will (wars, genocide, crimes etc.), but also of misfortunes deriving from natural forces (tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, epidemics etc.).</br></br>So not only is man a wolf to man, but nature spares no one, and both the just and the unjust are struck down. This shows an indifferent universe, following its own course and obeying implacable laws. There is no room in this configuration for a God of love or mercy, concerned with human beings and their destiny, which is subject to chance.</div><>Human life is absurd-¡-Human life is absurd -;- The suffering of the innocent contradicts God's goodness-¡-The suffering of the innocent contradicts God's goodness -;- Animal suffering is unjust-¡-Animal suffering is unjust -;- History has no meaning-¡-History has no meaning -;- Nature is cruel-¡-Nature is cruel -;- God's so-called representatives on earth don't always lead by example-¡-God's representatives on earth don't always lead by example -;- The suffering of newborn babies is unfair-¡-The suffering of newborn babies is unfair<>God is not all-powerful-¡-God is not all-powerful -;- God permits evil because of freedom-¡-God permits evil because of freedom -;- God needs conflict to advance his plan in history-¡-God needs conflict to advance his plan in history -;- God did not create evil, which exists from all eternity.-¡-God did not create evil, which exists from all eternity. -;- God, in evolution, needs conflict to become self-aware-¡-God, in evolution, needs conflict to become self-aware -;- Evil is due to a cosmic accident unforeseen by God-¡-Evil is due to a cosmic accident unforeseen by God -;- Evil is an illusion-¡-Evil is an illusion -;- The existence of evil is the punishment inflicted by God-¡-The existence of evil is the punishment inflicted by God -;- Our world is the best of all possible worlds-¡-Our world is the best of all possible worlds -;- Evil contributes to a greater good-¡-Evil contributes to a greater good -;- God is not good-¡-God is not good -;- Man does not have to judge God-¡-Man does not have to judge God -;- The existence of evil is a mystery-¡-The existence of evil is a mystery -;- Natural evil allows God to communicate a message to mankind-¡-Natural evil allows God to communicate a message to mankind -;- The harm suffered in this life will be compensated for in the afterlife.-¡-The harm suffered in this life will be compensated for in the afterlife. -;- The definition of God in this debate implies no morality (Straw Man)-¡-The definition of God in this debate does not imply any morality<>7<>16<><><>efinition of God in this debate does not imply any morality<>7<>16<><><>)
  • Religions contradict each other  + (547<><div style="font-size: 90%;"547<><div style="font-size: 90%;">''No content has been entered yet.''</div><><>Religions come together-¡-Religions come together -;- Whether or not religions contradict each other in no way refutes the existence of God.-¡-Whether or not religions contradict each other in no way refutes the existence of God.<>0<>2<><><>ontradict each other in no way refutes the existence of God.<>0<>2<><><>)
  • Human freedom contradicts the existence of a god  + (548<><div> For Sartre, man doe548<><div></br>For Sartre, man does not correspond to what he should be if God had created him: he should have finalities inscribed in him, have been made to achieve a goal, conform to a Law. But "if man [...] cannot be defined, it is because he is first of all nothing. Only then will he be, and he will be as he has become. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. Man is not only as he conceives himself, but as he wills himself" ("Existentialism is a humanism"). Unlike a washing machine, man does not have a "good program" for use; if God existed, God would limit this situation of man open to all possibilities and making himself. The religious conception is wrong, because man creates himself within a horizon of possibilities.</div><blockquote>“If God does not exist, there is a being in whom existence precedes essence, a being that exists before it can be defined by any concept, and this being is man [...]. What does it mean here that existence precedes essence? It means that man first exists, encounters himself, arises in the world, and then defines himself. If man, as existentialism conceives him, is not definable, it's because he is first of all nothing. He will only be afterwards, and will only be as he has made himself. Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God to conceive it. Man is not only as he conceives himself, but as he wills himself, and as he conceives himself after existence [...], as he wills himself after this impulse towards existence, man is nothing other than as he makes himself.”</blockquote></br> <div class="reference-citation">Jean-Paul Sartre, ''[https://la-philosophie.com/sartre-lexistentialisme-est-un-humanisme-commentaire#Version_pdf_de_l8217oeuvre Existentialism is a humanism]''.</div><>Human freedom cannot be reconciled with divine omnipotence-¡-Human freedom cannot be reconciled with divine omnipotence<>There is no such thing as free will-¡-There is no such thing as free will -;- God created man to be self-determining-¡-God created man to be self-determining -;- The human being has a structure that includes the transcendent dimension-¡-The human being has a structure that includes the transcendent dimension -;- Freedom is inexplicable within the framework of materialism-¡-Freedom is inexplicable within the framework of materialism<>1<>4<><><>amework of materialism-¡-Freedom is inexplicable within the framework of materialism<>1<>4<><><>)
  • The absence of human freedom contradicts the existence of a god  + (549<><div> If God existed and 549<><div></br>If God existed and "judged" men, they should be free. But they are not. So there is no God-judge.</div><>The more we learn about man, the more determinisms we discover.-¡-The more we learn about man, the more determinisms we discover. -;- Man is genetically determined-¡-Man is genetically determined -;- Man is determined by his social and cultural environment-¡-Man is determined by his social and cultural environment -;- Man is determined by his early childhood-¡-Man is determined by his early childhood -;- Man is determined by the historical period in which he finds himself-¡-Man is determined by the historical period in which he finds himself -;- Free will is an illusory sensation-¡-Free will is an illusory sensation<>Man is free-¡-Man is free -;- The quantum particles that make up the brain are indeterministic-¡-The quantum particles that make up the brain are indeterministic -;- There's always an unexplained element of freedom-¡-There's always an unexplained element of freedom -;- Man chooses between several determinisms-¡-Man chooses between several determinisms -;- We are obliged to live as if we were free: determinism is unbearable.-¡-We are obliged to live as if we were free: determinism is unbearable.<>6<>5<><><>liged to live as if we were free: determinism is unbearable.<>6<>5<><><>)
  • God is a contradictory concept  + (550<><div style="font-size: 90%;"550<><div style="font-size: 90%;">''No content has been entered yet.''</div><>The concept of omnipotence is contradictory-¡-The concept of omnipotence is contradictory -;- God's omnipotence cannot be reconciled with the freedom assumed by religions.-¡-God's omnipotence cannot be reconciled with the freedom assumed by religions. -;- If God is omniscient, creation and freedom are useless-¡-If God is omniscient, creation and freedom are useless -;- If God is infinite, everything is God-¡-If God is infinite, everything is God -;- Biblical accounts are incompatible with God's omniscience and omnipotence-¡-Biblical accounts are incompatible with God's omniscience and omnipotence -;- Bible stories are self-contradictory-¡-Bible stories are self-contradictory -;- God is described as all-powerful, but paradoxically endowed with typically human flaws.-¡-God is described as all-powerful, but paradoxically endowed with typically human flaws. -;- Nothing can exist outside space and time-¡-Nothing can exist outside space and time -;- The concepts of omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible-¡-The concepts of omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible<><>9<>0<><><>mniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible<><>9<>0<><><>)
  • Human existence is no match for God  + (551<><div style="font-size: 90%;"551<><div style="font-size: 90%;">''No content has been entered yet.''</div><>Human existence is an epiphenomenon in the universe-¡-Human existence is an epiphenomenon in the universe -;- Man is too mediocre to have been created by God-¡-Man is too mediocre to have been created by God<>God is incomprehensible-¡-God is incomprehensible<>2<>1<><><>God<>God is incomprehensible-¡-God is incomprehensible<>2<>1<><><>)
  • God is an invention  + (552<><div style="font-size: 90%;"552<><div style="font-size: 90%;">''No content has been entered yet.''</div><>The concept of God is a human invention-¡-The concept of God is a human invention -;- The concept of God is a creation of evolution-¡-The concept of God is a creation of evolution -;- God is an extrapolation of effects onto cause-¡-God is an extrapolation of effects onto cause -;- The moral values we attribute to God are actually our own.-¡-The moral values we attribute to God are actually our own. -;- God is a tool to muzzle our cognitive dissonance-¡-God is a tool to muzzle our cognitive dissonance<><>5<>0<><><>e-¡-God is a tool to muzzle our cognitive dissonance<><>5<>0<><><>)
  • God is but the name of our ignorance  + (553<><blockquote>“Undoubtedly,553<><blockquote>“Undoubtedly, there is still much that is unknown, dark and misunderstood by us in the universe; undoubtedly, new gaps in our knowledge will always open up, as old gaps are filled. But we see no region in which it would be impossible for us to find the explanation of phenomena by turning to the simple physical facts - those that occur when two billiard balls meet, or when a stone falls, or to the chemical facts we see around us. So far, these "mechanical" facts suffice to explain all of Nature's life. Nowhere have they failed us: and we do not foresee the probability of ever discovering a region where mechanical facts would no longer suffice. Nothing, so far, leads us to suspect its existence.”</blockquote></br> <div class="reference-citation">Kropotkin, ''[https://auprochainchapitre.wordpress.com/bibliotheque/la-science-moderne-et-lanarchie/ Modern science and anarchy]'', 1913.</div><>God is a filler concept-¡-God is a filler concept -;- We must accept the mystery-¡-We must accept the mystery -;- Many religious explanations have been replaced by scientific ones.-¡-Many religious explanations have been replaced by scientific ones. -;- The biblical accounts are consistent with the paucity of human knowledge at the time they were written.-¡-The biblical accounts are consistent with the paucity of human knowledge at the time they were written.<>Science cannot explain the existence of physical phenomena and laws-¡-Science cannot explain the existence of physical phenomena and laws -;- Certain future explanations of science are taking shape that run counter to materialism.-¡-Certain future explanations of science are taking shape that run counter to materialism. -;- Contemporary science is shaking the philosophical foundations on which materialism rests.-¡-The more fundamental research advances, the more it moves in the direction of spiritualism<>4<>3<><><>al research advances, the more it moves in the direction of spiritualism<>4<>3<><><>)
  • Arguments for the existence of God are all argumentative biases  + (554<><div style="font-size: 90%;"554<><div style="font-size: 90%;">''No content has been entered yet.''</div><>Reversing the burden of proof-¡-Reversing the burden of proof -;- Panglossian reasoning-¡-Panglossian reasoning -;- Argument from ignorance-¡-Argument from ignorance -;- Circular reasoning-¡-Circular reasoning -;- A call to nature-¡-A call to nature -;- Belief in the justice of the world-¡-Belief in the justice of the world -;- Intentionality bias-¡-Intentionality bias -;- Argumentative mille-feuille-¡-Argumentative mille-feuille -;- False dilemma-¡-False dilemma<>Non sequitur-¡-Non sequitur -;- Generalization-¡-Hasty generalization<>9<>2<><><>tur-¡-Non sequitur -;- Generalization-¡-Hasty generalization<>9<>2<><><>)
  • The universe is too empty, too ancient and too vast to correspond to the God of religions.  + (555<><div style="font-size: 90%;"555<><div style="font-size: 90%;">''No content has been entered yet.''</div><>The Bible claims that the universe has existed for 6,000 years, which is false.-¡-The Bible claims that the universe has existed for 6,000 years, which is false. -;- There are 100 billion empty galaxies that serve no divine purpose.-¡-There are 100 billion empty galaxies that serve no divine purpose. -;- Thousands of species have become extinct and are of no use to the divine project.-¡-Thousands of species have become extinct and are of no use to the divine project. -;- Monotheistic religions appeared very late in our history.-¡-Monotheistic religions appeared very late in our history.<>God needed this immensity of means to develop man and intelligence.-¡-God needed this immensity of means to develop man and intelligence. -;- God is beyond our understanding-¡-God is beyond our understanding -;- The immensity of the universe shows God's greatness-¡-The immensity of the universe shows God's greatness -;- The universe is not empty: it has been, is or will be populated by multiple beings.-¡-The universe is not empty: it has been, is or will be populated by multiple beings. -;- The universe as it is confirms the existence of an infinite, indifferent God like the Hindu Brahman.-¡-The universe as it is confirms the existence of an infinite, indifferent God like the Hindu Brahman.<>4<>5<><><>ence of an infinite, indifferent God like the Hindu Brahman.<>4<>5<><><>)
  • There should be nothing  + (556<><div> There is no such th556<><div></br>There is no such thing as "spontaneous generation", or objects that suddenly appear out of the absolute void. "From nothing, nothing is born. So there is a necessary cause for the universe. This cause is Being, Substance (that which stands "beneath").</div><blockquote>“Now we need to move on to metaphysics, using the great principle, not commonly used, that nothing happens without sufficient reason; that is, nothing happens without it being possible for someone who knows enough about things to give a reason sufficient to determine why it is so, and not otherwise. Once this principle has been established, the first question we are entitled to ask is: Why is there something rather than nothing? For nothing is simpler and easier than something.”</blockquote></br> <div class="reference-citation">Leibniz, ''[https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Principes_de_la_nature_et_de_la_gr%C3%A2ce_fond%C3%A9s_en_raison Principles of nature and grace based on reason]'', 1710.</div><div style="margin-top: 0.75em; font-size: 103%;">'''References'''</div><ul class="references-argument"><li>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUGeEbDC9Uk Lawrence Krauss - A Universe from Nothing VOST Français].</li></ul><><>Considering that God is the first cause explains nothing-¡-Considering that God is the first cause explains nothing -;- A universe made from nothing is possible, says Lawrence Krauss-¡-The universe from nothing is possible -;- Nothingness is not governed by laws, so nothing prevents it from generating the universe.-¡-Since nothingness is not governed by laws, nothing prevents it from generating the universe. -;- Creation ex-nihilo-¡-Creation ex-nihilo<>0<>4<><><>s is not governed by laws, nothing prevents it from generating the universe. -;- Creation ex-nihilo-¡-Creation ex-nihilo<>0<>4<><><>)