Is He/Isn't He: The God Thread

[always_searching]

As for Aristotle, Aquinas, Plato, any neo-Platonist, Descartes, Anselm, Bonaventure and so forth, those are arguments but not proofs, just as Dawkins (The God Delusion), Hitchens (god is not great) and other non-theists don't provide proofs, just arguments.

 

Ah, Thaddeus! I'm glad I can count on you for an intellectual rebuttal!

 

I implore you for an example of a proof, because I call argumentation that leads to a necessary conclusion a "proof." Otherwise, I'm not sure how one could rationally prove anything...

 

Okay, so it's impossible to prove a negative. I grant you that. However, since God is a positive and there is clear evidence to prove this, please refute the argument from causation.

 

I really would like to know what you hold to be the first mover of existence or the first efficient cause if not god?

 

Perhaps our problem is a semantic one? You call the creator of the universe "big bang," whereas I just see the big bang as an effect caused by God? Or do you believe that existence is infinite/cyclical and had no cause? Though, if that's the case, I would question what you believe is sustaining our existence, if not God?

[northstar1]

Ah, Thaddeus! I'm glad I can count on you for an intellectual rebuttal!

 

I implore you for an example of a proof, because I call argumentation that leads to a necessary conclusion a "proof." Otherwise, I'm not sure how one could rationally prove anything...

 

Okay, so it's impossible to prove a negative. I grant you that. However, since God is a positive and there is clear evidence to prove this, please refute the argument from causation.

 

I really would like to know what you hold to be the first mover of existence or the first efficient cause if not god?

 

Perhaps our problem is a semantic one? You call the creator of the universe "big bang," whereas I just see the big bang as an effect caused by God? Or do you believe that existence is infinite/cyclical and had no cause? Though, if that's the case, I would question what you believe is sustaining our existence, if not God?

 

Where is the clear evidence you speak of that God does exist , or ever has existed?

 

It is a fable, a tale, a story - one which longs for a better deal, to refuse to acccept the inevitability of death.

 

 

 

 

[FONT=Times New Roman][sIZE=3][/sIZE][/FONT]

[quankanne]

believe in the faith and then you will be able to articulate reasons why what you believe is correct

 

same thing can be said about the argument for science: You have to believe in it in order to articulately explain it. Heck, even in my job I've found that unless someone clearly explains a subject that I cannot grasp clearly, I have an incredibly hard time trying to explain to readers. Prime example were the formulas used in 1990 to fund education in Texas, with the "Robin Hood" plan in effect. Until a very patient school superintendent stayed after the meeting and walked me through it, it just didn't make sense. And if he hadn't have done that, my reporting on school finance would have been crap.

 

So, essentially, what you're all saying is that you believe in a god simply because you choose to believe in a god. Is that about right?

 

more like there's an invitation and I heard it. Faith isn't handed out willy-nilly.

[always_searching]

same thing can be said about the argument for science: You have to believe in it in order to articulately explain it.

 

Right. I absolutely agree with you. That is what I was trying to explain in one of my previous posts in this thread when I suggested one needs faith in order to adhere to science as well as religion--faith in our senses not deceiving us, etc.

 

The fact that so many people are willingly blind to certain facts of indubitable certainty regarding God's existence just amazes me. I find it takes much more effort and over-rationalization to not believe than to believe. Of course, that can be said whenever one tries to fit his/her intellectual constructs into a reality that doesn't correspond to those constructs...

[Thaddeus]

The fact that so many people are willingly blind to certain facts of indubitable certainty regarding God's existence just amazes me.

Still waiting to see these "facts."

[northstar1]

Right. I absolutely agree with you. That is what I was trying to explain in one of my previous posts in this thread when I suggested one needs faith in order to adhere to science as well as religion--faith in our senses not deceiving us, etc.

 

The fact that so many people are willingly blind to certain facts of indubitable certainty regarding God's existence just amazes me. I find it takes much more effort and over-rationalization to not believe than to believe. Of course, that can be said whenever one tries to fit his/her intellectual constructs into a reality that doesn't correspond to those constructs...

 

 

Where is this indubitable certainty of God'd existence? Are you basing this solely because the Bible tells you?

 

In my view, science encourages thought, and organized religion encourages submission.

[always_searching]

northstar1 and Thaddeus:

 

Hahaha, oh man...have you guys even read any of my posts?

 

I believe in the Christian God because I have faith in revelation: yes.

 

HOWEVER, and the point I have attempted to stress in all of my posts: God as a First Mover, First Efficient Cause, Necessary Being (i.e. the causal proofs), and a necessarily perfect being (i.e. the ontological proofs) can be demonstrated using reason alone.

 

I'd really rather not regurgitate the arguments for you, since I took tremendous care in doing so in a post in another thread of mine that was deleted.

 

So, if you are interested in proofs and are unwilling to search my suggested reading (Aristotle's Metaphysics, Aquinas' Summa, Anselm's Proslogion, etc.) then look at wikipedia. Here, I'll even make it easier for you (Tony, have mercy and--please--don't delete this!):

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae#The_Five_Ways

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_Arguments

 

 

I've now answered your question Thaddeus. You have yet to answer mine: please disprove these arguments for me--particularly, the former viz. the causal arguments. Of course, this requires that you actually read and consider the arguments--I'm asking for an intellectual debunking, not just a "These aren't proofs," "These aren't intellectually satisfying arguments," etc.. Please address specific areas of the arguments that you find weak and/or fallible.

 

Of course, northstar1, since you find science to encourage thought, you should have no problem with these stipulations, should you too wish to address the arguments.

 

Thanks in advance!

[northstar1]

northstar1 and Thaddeus:

 

Hahaha, oh man...have you guys even read any of my posts?

 

I believe in the Christian God because I have faith in revelation: yes.

 

HOWEVER, and the point I have attempted to stress in all of my posts: God as a First Mover, First Efficient Cause, Necessary Being (i.e. the causal proofs), and a necessarily perfect being (i.e. the ontological proofs) can be demonstrated using reason alone.

 

I'd really rather not regurgitate the arguments for you, since I took tremendous care in doing so in a post in another thread of mine that was deleted.

 

So, if you are interested in proofs and are unwilling to search my suggested reading (Aristotle's Metaphysics, Aquinas' Summa, Anselm's Proslogion, etc.) then look at wikipedia. Here, I'll even make it easier for you (Tony, have mercy and--please--don't delete this!):

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae#The_Five_Ways

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_Arguments

 

 

I've now answered your question Thaddeus. You have yet to answer mine: please disprove these arguments for me--particularly, the former viz. the causal arguments. Of course, this requires that you actually read and consider the arguments--I'm asking for an intellectual debunking, not just a "These aren't proofs," "These aren't intellectually satisfying arguments," etc.. Please address specific areas of the arguments that you find weak and/or fallible.

 

Of course, northstar1, since you find science to encourage thought, you should have no problem with these stipulations, should you too wish to address the arguments.

 

Thanks in advance!

 

Thank you for your reply. Yes, I'm familiar with most of those works (I also took Intro to Philosophy courses in College ; )). So, I know that you are already familair with Kants refute of the above arguments, so I wont' bother to bring that it on the discussion.

 

This is a tough one, I will admit, it relies on Syllogisms.

 

The Ontological Argument seeks to prove that the existence of God is both self evident and logically necessary based solely on the definition of words. But for it to work it relies on value statements whose truth or falsity have not been established.

 

Thus you have a circular argument.

 

Here is another alternate version of the Ontological argument

 

1. All mammals are carnivores.
   
2. Lions are mammals.
   
3. Lions are carnivores.
   

The argument is valid and the conclusion is true. It is, however, a transparently bad argument. The first premise is not itself true. Many mammals are herbivores or omnivores. That the argument is unsound, however, says nothing about the truth value of its conclusion. In other words it has little to stay about the real world, it merely restates itself.

 

(source :Action Skeptics)

 

Again, I'm not going to be changing your mind, and I do appreciate your beliefs in that you are very passionate and well read about them. What it really comes down to is an Atheist, I see truth by looking in the real world. I am only satisfied when I have evidence presented emprically about the universe and the world around me, of which science has and continues to provide me.

[always_searching]

Thank you for your reply. Yes, I'm familiar with most of those works (I also took Intro to Philosophy courses in College ; )). So, I know that you are already familair with Kants refute of the above arguments, so I wont' bother to bring that it on the discussion.

 

This is a tough one, I will admit, it relies on Syllogisms.

 

The Ontological Argument seeks to prove that the existence of God is both self evident and logically necessary based solely on the definition of words. But for it to work it relies on value statements whose truth or falsity have not been established.

 

Thus you have a circular argument.

 

Here is another alternate version of the Ontological argument

 

1. All mammals are carnivores.
   
2. Lions are mammals.
   
3. Lions are carnivores.
   

The argument is valid and the conclusion is true. It is, however, a transparently bad argument. The first premise is not itself true. Many mammals are herbivores or omnivores. That the argument is unsound, however, says nothing about the truth value of its conclusion. In other words it has little to stay about the real world, it merely restates itself.

 

(source :Action Skeptics)

 

Again, I'm not going to be changing your mind, and I do appreciate your beliefs in that you are very passionate and well read about them. What it really comes down to is an Atheist, I see truth by looking in the real world. I am only satisfied when I have evidence presented emprically about the universe and the world around me, of which science has and continues to provide me.

 

LOL, if only Intro to Philosophy was the only philosophy class I've taken...it would have saved me many a headache and I wouldn't still be in school doing grad work in the field!

 

Well, speaking of Kant, I'm sure you know that he believed agnosticism was the only logical rational conclusion, yet considered himself a Christian.

 

I'm not sure I see how your example of a syllogism relates to the ontological argument. Perhaps you care to elaborate?

 

It's true that this thread isn't very likely to alter anyone's beliefs. I just think it's interesting to discuss these matters intellectually with no ignorant "You're an idiot for believing in God," or "You're going to hell for not believing in God" comments.

 

Thanks for the response!

[always_searching]

So, I love Rowan Atkinson--not a huge fan of his Mr. Bean skits, but I really love some of his other stuff, this one included:

 

 

Just to give you some background, he is playing Satan and is going through the roster.

 

So. Dang. Funny.

 

He has some other really funny stuff on Christianity--of course, I thought it was funnier before I was Christian, but since it's entirely heretical and might offend some people, I'll refrain from posting them. But I will say that if you look to the right of the video link I've provided, you will see something called "Amazing Jesus" in the suggested videos. When I first saw it, I was on the floor lauging--so funny.

[northstar1]

LOL, if only Intro to Philosophy was the only philosophy class I've taken...it would have saved me many a headache and I wouldn't still be in school doing grad work in the field!

 

Well, speaking of Kant, I'm sure you know that he believed agnosticism was the only logical rational conclusion, yet considered himself a Christian.

 

I'm not sure I see how your example of a syllogism relates to the ontological argument. Perhaps you care to elaborate?

 

It's true that this thread isn't very likely to alter anyone's beliefs. I just think it's interesting to discuss these matters intellectually with no ignorant "You're an idiot for believing in God," or "You're going to hell for not believing in God" comments.

 

Thanks for the response!

 

Yes, I was merely offering Kant as an example of a refute to the argument.

 

Sorry, re: Syllogism, The arguments can be thought of as Sorites, or chained together Syllogisms

[always_searching]

Yes, I was merely offering Kant as an example of a refute to the argument.

 

Sorry, re: Syllogism, The arguments can be thought of as Sorites, or chained together Syllogisms

 

Right, but what aspect of the ontological argument do you find to be a fallacy? I see that the first premise in your example is false, but what specifically in the ontological/causal argument(s) do you find to be false?

 

May I ask, why it is that you are an atheist versus agnostic? I mean, what empirical evidence do you have against God's existence? It would seem to me that you must have something, else you would be agnostic? Why take the stance absolutely against there being a God versus just not knowing either way?

[FleshNBones]

You're categorizing all the posters in this thread, when I have explicitly stated over and over again that there are rational proofs for God's existence as first mover, first efficient cause, a necessary being, etc.?

 

Read Aristotle and Aquinas if you want causal proofs and read Plato, any neo-Platonist, Descartes, Anselm, Bonaventure, etc. if you want ontological proofs.

 

I mean, if you are so unwilling to look into this on your own, I will gladly take the time to post them for you to satisfy your craving for rational argumentation.

 

It seems to me that you are the one choosing--choosing not to believe, since you are entirely ignoring many empirical i.e. scientific approaches to proving the existence of a god. Since a vast majority of people in the world do believe in God, it seems that you are the one who has the burden to disprove him.

 

Actually, since I agree with many others here that the most natural rational solution tends toward agnosticism, or a theism that doesn't predicate anything of god (which might as well be an agnosticism), I suppose the burden falls on both of our sides to prove or to disprove him. Regardless, I don't recall you giving one proof for why God does not exist, yet I've attempted to indicate quite a few for why He does.

While these proofs exist, generally speaking, they don't matter. I don't think anybody was seriously convinced by them one way or another. They only reason athiests like to talk about logic is because they think it is a weakness for the believers. Maybe they are also being self-righteous and smug. They can talk about the burden of proof, but that doesn't matter because no matter how much proof you have, they will never be satisfied. These people would feel right at home in the OJ Simpson jury (murder trial). They have an outcome they want to see and everything else is inconsequential.

[always_searching]

While these proofs exist, generally speaking, they don't matter. I don't think anybody was seriously convinced by them one way or another. They only reason athiests like to talk about logic is because they think it is a weakness for the believers. Maybe they are also being self-righteous and smug. They can talk about the burden of proof, but that doesn't matter because no matter how much proof you have, they will never be satisfied. These people would feel right at home in the OJ Simpson jury (murder trial). They have an outcome they want to see and everything else is inconsequential.

 

Actually, I was an agnostic for many years--the causal proofs are what convinced me of theism!

 

That being said, J.L. Mackie--I'm fairly certain that's who it was--did have me doubting for awhile, but I came back to the first mover eventually.

 

Now, as far as being Christian/Catholic is concerned: that took an illumined experience and faith.

 

Anyway, I agree with the aspect that there's not much that I, nor anyone else could do to prove theism to an atheist, as one has to be open to such a possibility in order to see the proof, which is why most atheists don't consider the causal and ontological arguments proofs to begin with.

 

Oh well. It still makes for interesting discussion!

[Thaddeus]

Actually, I was an agnostic for many years--the causal proofs are what convinced me of theism!

 

That being said, J.L. Mackie--I'm fairly certain that's who it was--did have me doubting for awhile, but I came back to the first mover eventually.

 

Now, as far as being Christian/Catholic is concerned: that took an illumined experience and faith.

 

Anyway, I agree with the aspect that there's not much that I, nor anyone else could do to prove theism to an atheist, as one has to be open to such a possibility in order to see the proof, which is why most atheists don't consider the causal and ontological arguments proofs to begin with.

 

Oh well. It still makes for interesting discussion!

Funny you mention this, a_s, because my process was exactly the opposite. I believed the proofs because it was what I wanted to believe. But as soon as I learned more and got a better understanding of why those proofs aren't proofs at all, combined with some other experiences, it because abundantly clear to me that I could not fundamentally make a decision as to whether my faith was grounded in anything or not.

 

That's why I ended up in the Kant-ian camp.

 

That could change tomorrow, though. Evidence is everything. If I'm presented, or come across, substantial evidence for the existence of a Christian-type god, then I'd be hypocritical to deny his existence. I just haven't seen the evidence yet.

[always_searching]

Funny you mention this, a_s, because my process was exactly the opposite. I believed the proofs because it was what I wanted to believe. But as soon as I learned more and got a better understanding of why those proofs aren't proofs at all, combined with some other experiences, it because abundantly clear to me that I could not fundamentally make a decision as to whether my faith was grounded in anything or not.

 

That's why I ended up in the Kant-ian camp.

 

That could change tomorrow, though. Evidence is everything. If I'm presented, or come across, substantial evidence for the existence of a Christian-type god, then I'd be hypocritical to deny his existence. I just haven't seen the evidence yet.

 

Well, if you don't mind my inquiring further into the matter, why leave the Kantian camp (as Kant's philosophy leads only to agnosticism--though, he considered himself Christian) if you don't feel you can prove or disprove God's existence? I get that the arguments didn't compel you to theism, but, given your requirements for empirically scientific knowledge, shouldn't you still be agnostic rather than an atheist?

 

I suppose my question to you is what made you absolutely deny His existence, versus just claiming it's something you cannot possibly affirm or deny with reason alone?

[always_searching]

Or are you agnostic, Thaddeus? For some reason, I'm under the assumption you're an atheist. Probably because of chatting with northstar1...

[Enema]

May I ask, why it is that you are an atheist versus agnostic? I mean, what empirical evidence do you have against God's existence? It would seem to me that you must have something, else you would be agnostic? Why take the stance absolutely against there being a God versus just not knowing either way?

 

You've poked at the atheist/agnostic/theist distinction a few times now.

 

Being an atheist just means you lack a belief in god. It doesn't necessarily follow that you are militant about gods non-existence.

 

You can be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist.

 

There's a good example of an agnostic theist right here in this thread: Clicky

 

Technically, agnosticism is the only rational position as you can't know anything for sure. (the old addage: "proof is for maths and alcohol" comes to mind). It saves time and is simpler to just drop the "agnostic" and stick with theist/atheist. Quibbling about labels for people is just a red herring.

[always_searching]

You've poked at the atheist/agnostic/theist distinction a few times now.

 

Being an atheist just means you lack a belief in god. It doesn't necessarily follow that you are militant about gods non-existence.

 

You can be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist.

 

There's a good example of an agnostic theist right here in this thread: Clicky

 

Technically, agnosticism is the only rational position as you can't know anything for sure. (the old addage: "proof is for maths and alcohol" comes to mind). It saves time and is simpler to just drop the "agnostic" and stick with theist/atheist. Quibbling about labels for people is just a red herring.

 

LOL, indeed I have!

 

Aren't "theist" and "atheist" merely labels as well?

 

Actually, agnosticism (the etymology of the word meaning "no knowledge")in the strictest sense implies someone who doesn't feel that he/she can take a stance on God's existence. Saying "God exists," or "God does not exist" are entirely impossible to prove either way.

 

Now, one can be a theist and claim that God is ineffable, which is a type of theistic agnosticism, yes.

 

However, I'm not sure how someone who claims that God does not exist (which etymologically speaking is exactly what "atheism" means) can also claim to know nothing regarding his inexistence, which is exactly what agnosticism (by its very terminology) suggests--if He's inexistent, then it would seem that there's nothing to know, or, conversely, not know.

[always_searching]

Also, I should note that I find making distinctions to be one of the most (if not the most) important aspects of philosophical discourse.

 

As such, I find the agnostic distinction to be imperative to the discussion.

[Thaddeus]

Or are you agnostic, Thaddeus? For some reason, I'm under the assumption you're an atheist. Probably because of chatting with northstar1...

I bounce back and forth between agnosticism and atheism depending on how much coffee I've had.

 

I'm a complex guy!

[always_searching]

I bounce back and forth between agnosticism and atheism depending on how much coffee I've had.

 

I'm a complex guy!

 

 

LOL, so the more coffee you have, the more...agnostic you become? If so, maybe if you really load up on caffeine you'll become a theist?

 

Anyway, that's how it usually works for me: I'm not so sure when I first wake up, but after about 3 cups of coffee, some sweet tea, and a chocolate bar or two, I'm a devout Catholic!

[Thaddeus]

LOL, so the more coffee you have, the more...agnostic you become? If so, maybe if you really load up on caffeine you'll become a theist?

Yea, something like that. Benjamin Franklin said, "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." Same could be said for coffee, I s'pose.

 

Of course, he also wrote a book called Fart Proudly (yes, he really did, I'm not making this up) so whether he was kidding or not is an open question.

[northstar1]

Or are you agnostic, Thaddeus? For some reason, I'm under the assumption you're an atheist. Probably because of chatting with northstar1...

 

 

Yes, you are confusing us. I'm the one who is unshakeably Atheist

[always_searching]

Yes, you are confusing us. I'm the one who is unshakeably Atheist

 

Have some coffee and get back with us...