So do we have good reasons to believe in Thor, God of Thunder?

On: Tuesday, February 19, 2013

I will just take 3 basic undefeated good reasons:

1) Argument from Contingency
2) Teleological Argument from fine-tuning
3) Evidence of Interaction

Contingency Argument:
Premise 1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).

Premise 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is Thor, God of Thunder.[1]

Premise 3. The universe exists.

From 1 and 3 it logically follows that:

Premise 4. The universe has an explanation of its existence.

And from 2 and 4 the conclusion logically follows:

Premise 5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is Thor, God of Thunder.[2]


P1: There are only two possible explanations of existing entities there should be little opposing doubt.

P2: Here we see a logical validation. If an opponent disagrees with P2 he would have to assert a valid proof of a self-existent universe or valid proof that the cause of the universe itself was caused by a contingent cause and would be susceptible to infinite regression:

- We can see it is far more reasonable to conclude:

o The universe was caused and is not self-existent. For an opponent to disagree here would necessitate a powerful quality and quantity of evidence to buck the consensus of scholarship.

o The cause of the universe needs to be self-existent to avoid infinite regression. It is far more reasonable to avoid self-contradictory explanations like infinite regression.

o Thor is by definition a self-existent being capable of causing the universe.

Given that we have a powerful explanation for the universe (supported by Historical interaction with said Being) it is completely logical to conclude the veracity of this premise. An opponent might respond of “some unknown self existent force ‘could’ generated the universe, how could I know its Thor, God of Thunder?” To assert such a rebuttal would deny the mountains of claims of interaction with said intelligent self existent and the fact no such metaphysical self-existent force is known save the Mind of Thor, God of Thunder.[3]

P3: Should be obvious to the honest logician.

P4: With the concession of 1 and 3 as most will, this necessarily follows.

P5 Again with the concession of 2 and 4 this necessarily follows.

Teleological argument)

“That question is: why do design arguments remain so durable if empirical evidence is inferentially ambiguous, the arguments logically controversial, and the conclusions vociferously disputed? One possibility is that they really are better arguments than most philosophical critics concede. Another possibility is that design intuitions do not rest upon inferences at all."  Stanford Philosophy Dept.

Premise 1. The Fine-Tuning of the universe was due to physical necessity, chance or design.
Premise 2. It was not by physical necessity or chance.
Premise 3. Thus it was by design.

The question the Teleological is trying to determine is the source of the pattern of the Fine-Tuning. If there is any doubts to the veracity of the fine-tuning an opponent would have to tackle a mountain evidence. Hopefully we can both leave that for another debate.

P1. It could not have been Physical Necessity. The first physical cause of the universe could not have had a physical cause. It is direct asserted by Stephen Hawking and Mlodinow.

“It appears that the fundamental numbers, and even the form, of the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic or physical principle”

– To contend Physical necessity generated the constants would be a massive burden. It is far more reasonable to reject a physical cause due to the logical contradiction as the scholars have done.

P2. Chance by itself generates nothing. Without a physical impetus chance does not operate. Chance has yet to generate anything without a physical principle behind it. Chance behaves unlike actual at a mere level.

P3. This leaves Design as the only option. We look to understand that the preponderate evidence is concluded as valid when we review systems of design (not complexity).

After having ruled out the first two possible causes we can easily conclude design as the most plausible conclusion.

Evidence of Interaction:
If there is a designer, is there evidence of his presence and interaction on earth?

I submit, to start, evidence of the Testimonies for review.

Quality – We are not citing Pastors, Priests, hucksters or social deviants claims of interaction with Thor, God of Thunder [4], but countless educated, well adjusted Atheist heathens and idol worshipers claim this interaction.

Quantity –You can haul in countless individuals and document their claims. You can examine both the recorded and present claims to then see the overarching consistency that permeates the claims.

Dissociative claims – Any of the claims of other gods can be categorized and be easily delineated that indeed these people have encountered different gods as per the Thorean claim of as a multitude of supernatural beings exist to thwart the Designers Plan.

All Hail to Thor, God of Thunder [5]


0 comments on "So do we have good reasons to believe in Thor, God of Thunder?"

Post a Comment