Are there ANY valid pro-theistic arguments?

[Lord Kenneth]

If so, theists sure like arguing with fallacy and invalid points... moreso than any valid arguments.

I've had more than enough "You can't prove God doesn't exist!", and such.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

I've had more than enough "You can't prove God doesn't exist!", and such.

Nor likewise can you prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that a being wih properties that differ depending on your interpretation exists. Properties that cannot be quantified, cannot be measured, and in many cases look, and act exactly the same ways as phenomena in nature that are already explained by science.

Great minds have tried....

DesCartes

1. I think therefore I am
2. I have a notion of infinity that I could never have learned through experience.
3. That notion must have been placed there by my creator.
4. That creator has a notion of inifinity which must mean he is not subject to any rules or limits we have come to know, and is therfore by our definition all powerful.
5. An all powerful being would not need to lie to me or create an illusion for my senses to perceive.
6. Therefore the creator is good.
7. My senses are not lying, and the world is not an illusion.

-ergo-

8. I think therefore I am.


St. Anselm

If God is that than which nothing greater can exist, then indeed god must exist. (Since the greatest thing which can exist must also have the property of existence.)


See if you can find the logical errors in those two gems.

[Gideon S]

I *like* to think that there is a part of the human mind that needs a divine being as some sort of complex Joseph Campbell style metaphor, and that it's much easier for many people to actually go the full distance and believe in god or whatever.

However, in thinking of myself as a "post-theistic gnostic" (because I like labels, and adding "post-" to anything makes me feel like I should be wearing a beret and turtleneck) I've realized that the key to any personal philosophy or method spirituality (another paranthetical aside, and one that I'm *SURE* has been covered in depth here on numerous occasions: Spirituality is completely seperate from any religious dogma) is *not* to argue about it. Agree to disagree, that sort of thing.

Personally, no, I can't prove the non-existence of god, because proving a negative is notoriously difficult. I also can't prove that I'm *not* a brain in a jar, being fed artificial stimulus from some supercomputer. Of course, I've never heard a good argument *for* the existence of any god, except that it would make dying a little more comfortable.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Gideon S
Of course, I've never heard a good argument *for* the existence of any god, except that it would make dying a little more comfortable.

Yes, but once again science trumps theology....

It's called "morphine".

[Tez]

I have found that the world has some extremely beautiful places, many of which are completely inhospitable to me for any length of time. Finding beauty in such things seems unlikely to be a product of natural selection. Perhaps I was programmed by God to appreciate beauty that serves no pragmatic function?

Similarly I find some of the mathematics that describes the universe to be amazingly beautiful. However there is vast amounts of equally beautiful mathematics that (apparently) serves no function in describing anything but platonic universes. Why should this hairless ape take delight in such frivolity? Perhaps God is a mathematician, and wanted some of his creation to appreciate mathematics for its own sake.

When I wonder about such things I come close to an understanding of theism.

[Lord Kenneth]

Beauty is subjective. I enjoy rainy days. What does subjective thought have to do with God's objective existence?

[Andonyx]

Men's nipples are necessary to insure that women have them...

It's a by-product to make sure the gene is passed on from both chromosomes.

We naturally shy away from certain smells because their origin could pose a health hazard to us.

Felines are more attracted to mates whose markings are symmetrical. Such markings indicate superior genes for longevity and health.

Your subjective appreciation of beauty may have purposes you have not yet discovered. Or perhaps it's a by-product or another necessary cerebral process.

At any rate it's certainly not an argument for theism.

I'm an audio engineer, and you know what, I can tell just by listening to a sound wave if it is an even multiple or factor of another wave. You can too. It's how we developed the half-tone scale, and it's what we think of as being "in harmony" or "off key."

Our appreciation of music is directly related to it's mathematical relationships, which, as your sig-line suggests, you're aware already.

edited for spelling

[Dub]

Originally posted by Tez
I have found that the world has some extremely beautiful places, many of which are completely inhospitable to me for any length of time. Finding beauty in such things seems unlikely to be a product of natural selection. Perhaps I was programmed by God to appreciate beauty that serves no pragmatic function?


I think that what ppl find beautiful is down to a mixture between nature and nuture. The feeling associated when u experience something beautiful is a serious of chemical reactions. This process is either a bi-product of some other process, which evolved through natural selection, or the process itself evolved through natural selection because the gene(s) responsible for it was good at replicating, probably because the process increased the 'fitness' of the those with the gene as opposed to those without it.

[Andonyx]

Have you tried this over in Religion and Philosophy?

There are probably people more equipped to discuss it hanging out there.

[OXEL]

I suggest moving this thread over to Religion and Philosophy. :)

[RemieV]

Philosophy is rarely going to sound scientific.

[Piscivore]

Neither does necromancy. :)

[RemieV]

Neither does line dancing.

[Piscivore]

My comment was not directed at you, Remi. :p

[RemieV]

It still doesn't. :D

[Piscivore]

It still doesn't. :D

What if your whole line-dancing squad wears lab coats and protective goggles?

[ImaginalDisc]

:notm

[wollery]

I suggest moving this thread over to Religion and Philosophy. :)I suggest not resurrecting four and a half year old threads.

[Zygar]

*Zygar opens a gateway to hell to return the thread from whence it came

[Loss Leader]

I think the best pro-theistic arguments are going to be psycho-social: the ego needs the comfort of a belief in God; religion fosters family coherence; historically, religion has helped instill obedience to a central authority necessary for group survival - those kinds of things.

[JoeEllison]

If so, theists sure like arguing with fallacy and invalid points... moreso than any valid arguments.

I've had more than enough "You can't prove God doesn't exist!", and such.
The closest I've ever heard to a defensible position is "I believe, even though I know there's no evidence". It doesn't trump any real argument, it doesn't win any debates, but it is an honest answer, and it moves the conversation out of the realm of the rational. You can no more debate it than you can debate someone about their favorite color.

[lolurigeller]

Because there are unanswerable questions, which are strangely neither pro-theistic or atheist.

If god created everything who made god?

If the beggining of the universe was the big bang, what came before it?

How do I know I'm the only concious living thing and everyone else is not just a meat puppet made for my amusement?

on and on and on....

[fuelair]

Beauty is subjective. I enjoy rainy days. What does subjective thought have to do with God's objective existence?
The same relationship that philosophy has to do with real life - it may be fun to play with but your existence does not depend on it. Dog's , on the other hand, depends entirely on it.

[Marquis de Carabas]

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a train leaves Pittsburgh heading south at 9:00 on a Saturday while the regular crowd shuffles in?

[Miss Anthrope]

I think the best pro-theistic arguments are going to be psycho-social: the ego needs the comfort of a belief in God; religion fosters family coherence; historically, religion has helped instill obedience to a central authority necessary for group survival - those kinds of things.

These are probably more in the realm of evolutionary psychology and anthropology, but it is probably the most valid answer I can think of.

[Roboramma]

I have found that the world has some extremely beautiful places, many of which are completely inhospitable to me for any length of time. Finding beauty in such things seems unlikely to be a product of natural selection. Perhaps I was programmed by God to appreciate beauty that serves no pragmatic function? It's an interesting point, but I think it leads more in the direction of "what an amazing universe with so much left that we don't fully understand" than in the direction, "I understand that - it's god."
It might seem unlikley that the sense of beauty in inhospitable places could arise from natural selection, but I don't find it implausible.
Some ways that it would make sense to me (none of these is necessarily the correct explanation:
1. This sense of beauty for these specific types of places is directly selected for because those individuals who have it are more likely to explore new parts of their habitat, or to cross difficult terrain, and find new and valuable places beyond those inhospitable places. Our other tendancies will be enough to make those individuals not want to stay in those inhospitable places for long, but the sense of beauty might make them go their when either there is a need, or when times are good enough that they can afford to explore a little.
2. The sense of beauty for these specific types of places is a result of something else that was selected for - for instance a sense of beauty for open spaces (where we can see predators [or prey] from long distances), a varied landscape (because those who find varied landscapes beautiful might be more likely to explore them, and varied landscapes will hide things (behind the next hill) that are of value.
3. It might be an indirect result of something that was selected for - for instance a general liking of symetry, of bright and clear colours, etc.
4. It might be an indirect result of something apparently completely unrelated: for instance, cognition might be faster and more efficient due to a minor change in brain anatomy that happens to have a number of other minor biproducts. One of these might be finding beauty in inhospitable places.

And that's not even looking at cultural explanations. The point is that its concievable that it is an adaptation, and that the adaptive function simply isn't yet known, or it might not be an adaptation, but that doesn't suggest that it isn't a product of evolution. Finally, it might not be a product of evolutoin, but that doesn't suggest that it's a product of god.

I think the answer to the rest of your post follow much the same lines, so I'll leave it as an excerise for the reader. :D

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

MdC,

An Orange!

YBW

[OXEL]

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a train leaves Pittsburgh heading south at 9:00 on a Saturday while the regular crowd shuffles in?
About 27 pounds sterling I think?

[fuelair]

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a train leaves Pittsburgh heading south at 9:00 on a Saturday while the regular crowd shuffles in?
If it is Thursday, 15.7 cords.

[Piscivore]

Five tons of flax.

[Dumbledore]

The closest I've ever heard to a defensible position is "I believe, even though I know there's no evidence". It doesn't trump any real argument, it doesn't win any debates, but it is an honest answer, and it moves the conversation out of the realm of the rational. You can no more debate it than you can debate someone about their favorite color.

That is the stance I take. If you are looking for some valid argument that stands up to scientific rigor you will be disappointed, I don't believe there is one. All I can do is point things that lead me to believe in God. No doubt this will not be good enough for the athesits, but then again I am not trying to convert anyone here, just stating my views.

Things that make me believe, feel free to take them apart, I will enjoy seeing your logic behind refuting them.

1. Where did the big bang come from?
2. Life and conscience in general, I understand there are scientific understands of these things but the fact they exist makes me question whether or not their is an ultimate creator.
3. What exists outside of the universe, is there an outside of the universe?
4. The longing for god itself, I understand that there are psychological understandings why we would want their to be a god, but such a deep longing and need for a connection to an ultimate creator makes me wonder if God exists. Furthermore maybe we aren't just fooling ourselves, maybe their is something beyond our comprehension we are suppose to long for?
5. Human knowledge is limited and always will be limited, i.e. our knowledge cannot rule out a creator, nor prove a creator.
6. Ultimately it is just a belief and a feeling. A sense that I have, that isn't going prove it to anyone, but there it is. Have fun, I look forward to your responses!!;)

[Robin]

That is the stance I take. If you are looking for some valid argument that stands up to scientific rigor you will be disappointed, I don't believe there is one. All I can do is point things that lead me to believe in God. No doubt this will not be good enough for the athesits, but then again I am not trying to convert anyone here, just stating my views.

Things that make me believe, feel free to take them apart, I will enjoy seeing your logic behind refuting them.

1. Where did the big bang come from?
Nobody knows. But don't know does not equal God.
2. Life and conscience in general, I understand there are scientific understands of these things but the fact they exist makes me question whether or not their is an ultimate creator.
It seems to me that life and conscience could equally be features of a designed or a non-designed universe, so they don't really contribute anything either way.
3. What exists outside of the universe, is there an outside of the universe?
Again, nobody knows. Maybe a multiverse. Maybe something else. Maybe a God. Don't know does not equal God.
4. The longing for god itself, I understand that there are psychological understandings why we would want their to be a god, but such a deep longing and need for a connection to an ultimate creator makes me wonder if God exists. Furthermore maybe we aren't just fooling ourselves, maybe their is something beyond our comprehension we are suppose to long for?
To those of us without any such deep longing it is hard to say. If this longing was the result of some real God then why don't we all have it?

What form does this longing take? Could it be described in a precise way?
5. Human knowledge is limited and always will be limited, i.e. our knowledge cannot rule out a creator, nor prove a creator.
There is not really much you can prove or rule out, except when doing mathematics. Everything else is a matter of evidence. The evidence for the existence of a God is simply not good.
6. Ultimately it is just a belief and a feeling. A sense that I have, that isn't going prove it to anyone, but there it is.
Can you describe the feeling or sense? I mean I am not asking you to share something deeply personal, but just, could you describe it to yourself in a precise manner? Or is it too vague to describe?

[Dumbledore]

Nobody knows. But don't know does not equal God.

It seems to me that life and conscience could equally be features of a designed or a non-designed universe, so they don't really contribute anything either way.

To those of us without any such deep longing it is hard to say. If this longing was the result of some real God then why don't we all have it?

There is not really much you can prove or rule out, except when doing mathematics. Everything else is a matter of evidence. The evidence for the existence of a God is simply not good.

Can you describe the feeling or sense? I mean I am not asking you to share something deeply personal, but just, could you describe it to yourself in a precise manner? Or is it too vague to describe?

Not knowing does not also disprove God.

This is assuming God is part of a designed universe. What if God does exist and is part of an undesigned universe?

I don't think God would make a longing for God necessary, it would be something you would choose to engage in.

The longing for God, is a longing to connect to something greater than yourself or your species.

Why isn't the evidence for God good? And what is this evidence?

My own personal sense of God, is of being of part of something much greater than myself or humanity. That there is order in the universe, even though I may not understand that order, and no I am not talking about intelligent design or any other such rubbish. And that there is a great source of all things that we will all eventually return to.;)

[Loss Leader]

I am not trying to convert anyone here, just stating my views.


Can't ask for better than that.

[joobz]

Not knowing does not also disprove a tasty bacon sandwich.

This is assuming a tasty bacon sandwich is part of a designed universe. What if a tasty bacon sandwhich does exist and is part of an undesigned universe?

I don't think a tasty bacon sandwich would make a longing for a tasty bacon sandwich necessary, it would be something you would choose to engage in.

The longing for a tasty bacon sandwich, is a longing to connect to something greater than yourself or your species.

Why isn't the evidence for a tasty bacon sandwich good? And what is this evidence?

My own personal sense of a tasty bacon sandwich, is of being of part of something much greater than myself or humanity. That there is order in the universe, even though I may not understand that order, and no I am not talking about intelligent design or any other such rubbish. And that there is a great source of all things that we will all eventually return to.;)
Sorry for the rewording of your post, but by your argument of not-knowing what god is but believing it is there, this holds equal meaning.
Why would or should we choose to apply the word god to such an undefined thing?

[Robin]

Not knowing does not also disprove God.

But what use is a concept you can neither prove nor disprove? If after millenia of the best minds of the world working on the subject the very best you can come up with for the concept is "it can't be disproven", then isn't it perhaps time to give up on the concept?
This is assuming God is part of a designed universe. What if God does exist and is part of an undesigned universe?
Then that would be a God of a very different sort.
I don't think God would make a longing for God necessary, it would be something you would choose to engage in.
Then how can longing for God be part of the reason for believing in him.
Why isn't the evidence for God good? And what is this evidence?
I think that this was the very question posed in the OP. So far we have come up blank. There are a couple of arguments from Mere Christianity, but I don't even think them worthy of mention.

Perhaps some possible reasons there is no good evidence for God is that God is ineffable, God is hiding or God does not exist
My own personal sense of God, is of being of part of something much greater than myself or humanity. That there is order in the universe, even though I may not understand that order, and no I am not talking about intelligent design or any other such rubbish. And that there is a great source of all things that we will all eventually return to.;)
But even a materialist might believe that there is order in the universe (we observe order after all) and that we are part of something greater than man and that we will eventually return to it (or that we were always a part of it). They just wont think that whatever it is has purpose or meaning.

[Matt the Poet]

1. Where did the big bang come from?
2. Life and conscience in general, I understand there are scientific understands of these things but the fact they exist makes me question whether or not their is an ultimate creator.
3. What exists outside of the universe, is there an outside of the universe?
4. The longing for god itself, I understand that there are psychological understandings why we would want their to be a god, but such a deep longing and need for a connection to an ultimate creator makes me wonder if God exists. Furthermore maybe we aren't just fooling ourselves, maybe their is something beyond our comprehension we are suppose to long for?
5. Human knowledge is limited and always will be limited, i.e. our knowledge cannot rule out a creator, nor prove a creator.
6. Ultimately it is just a belief and a feeling. A sense that I have, that isn't going prove it to anyone, but there it is. Have fun, I look forward to your responses!!;)

OK – 4 and 6 are impregnable to logical attack, but you’ve admitted as much yourself. All that I can say is that, yes, sometimes I do feel as though some presence enfolds the world. Sometimes I feel like everyone’s out to get me. I feel all sorts of things. They could be evidence of an underlying truth, they could be deeply embedded stuff generated by my upbringing. They could be what my temporal lobe does to stave off boredom because it isn’t helping me to visualise the forthcoming gazelle hunt like it evolved to. Either way, they are interesting, but not terribly useful.

There are physicists who can answer 1 much better than me, but my limited understanding is that this is something of a non-question when you look at the underlying maths.

2,3 and 5 are where you get into interesting metaphysics. Yes, our senses and understanding are limited. Bees and electric eels, for example, can experience and in some way ‘know about’ the universe in ways that no human ever will. It seems reasonable to me to extend this and assume that there are aspects of reality that no existing conscious being has access to (which is about as close to a meaningful definition of ‘outside the universe’ as I think you can get), and which may be crucial in generating what we perceive as our own existence and consciousness in the world.

Which is as far as I’m prepared to go in defining something that one might call ‘God’. The problem starts when you meld in points 4 and 6 and start imbuing these ‘external aspects’ with human-like consciousness, assuming that they care about how you behave – or, even worse, thinking that you can make meaningful assertions about how they want you to behave.

[Dumbledore]

Sorry for the rewording of your post, but by your argument of not-knowing what god is but believing it is there, this holds equal meaning.
Why would or should we choose to apply the word god to such an undefined thing?

Do you have a better word for it, the word itself means nothing. It is simply the agreed upon word for this concept in our culture. ;)

[Dumbledore]

Which is as far as I’m prepared to go in defining something that one might call ‘God’. The problem starts when you meld in points 4 and 6 and start imbuing these ‘external aspects’ with human-like consciousness, assuming that they care about how you behave – or, even worse, thinking that you can make meaningful assertions about how they want you to behave.

But I don't and neither do many people who believe in God. We assume that we know nothing about God. God is not something that we can define by ourselves, or through our beliefs. We assume that our human consciousness limits use to viewing at best only a tiny sliver of God. Moral codes based on God are simply culturally constructed, we as a culture define these moral codes, not God.:cool:

[joobz]

Do you have a better word for it, the word itself means nothing. It is simply the agreed upon word for this concept in our culture. ;)
How about a tasty bacon Sandwich?:D

BTW, I've enjoyed your posts and find your attitude qutie refreshing.

[drkitten]

Do you have a better word for it, the word itself means nothing. It is simply the agreed upon word for this concept in our culture.

That's part of the problem, though. The "concept in our culture" is well-named, but not well-defined, almost to the point where two people can be using the same term to talk about two entirely different concepts.

For example, the Deist's Great Watchmaker is almost an entirely different order of being from the Person whom the local born-against have a "personal relationship" to. Michael Behe's God is so dumb that he doesn 't know how to delegate and Fred Phelps' is so busy hating fags he doesn't have time for anything else, while Ken Miller's is so smart that he need not do anything but delegate -- and probably spends all his time watching TV in his office.

[Dumbledore]

But what use is a concept you can neither prove nor disprove? If after millenia of the best minds of the world working on the subject the very best you can come up with for the concept is "it can't be disproven", then isn't it perhaps time to give up on the concept?

Then that would be a God of a very different sort.

Then how can longing for God be part of the reason for believing in him.

I think that this was the very question posed in the OP. So far we have come up blank. There are a couple of arguments from Mere Christianity, but I don't even think them worthy of mention.

Perhaps some possible reasons there is no good evidence for God is that God is ineffable, God is hiding or God does not exist

But even a materialist might believe that there is order in the universe (we observe order after all) and that we are part of something greater than man and that we will eventually return to it (or that we were always a part of it). They just wont think that whatever it is has purpose or meaning.

No I will not give up on the belief in God, I do not think God can be proven nor disproven. I find much use in a being that is beyond human comprehension, mostly in that we have limits, and that the universe and creation has far more to offer than we will ever know.

Yes that would be a very different God, why isn't that view of God ever discussed. We sharply defined our view of God, this is a mistake, especially in thinking we can so sharply define that which we don't know.

Longing for God and the choice to do so, can be a reason for believing in God, because the choice exists. It is not dogmatic,it is really a choice, and it really has to do with what you believe about God.

But this is not evidence for or against God, they are arguments for or against God.

But how do you show that a source of all things, that you are always a part of does not have a purpose or meaning. My point is that I cannot nor can prove that this purpose or meaning exists. I can only point to the flaws in our own understand of the universe and my own beliefs and feelings about the purpose of God. Though I could not tell you definitively what that purpose is.

[Matt the Poet]

Do you have a better word for it, the word itself means nothing. It is simply the agreed upon word for this concept in our culture. ;)

It's not though, is it? Among certain philosophers and theologians it might be, but mention 'god' to most people 'in our culture' and they will be thinking of a concrete, conscious being who has some culturally variable but very specific way of relating to them. Hence the problem with using that word.

If you're going to talk about these concepts properly, I think the way forward is to refuse to use a concrete word at all, and instead force yourself to continuously define what you're on about.

[sphenisc]

Because there are unanswerable questions, which are strangely neither pro-theistic or atheist.

If god created everything who made god?


The clue is in the question.

[Dumbledore]

It's not though, is it? Among certain philosophers and theologians it might be, but mention 'god' to most people 'in our culture' and they will be thinking of a concrete, conscious being who has some culturally variable but very specific way of relating to them. Hence the problem with using that word.

If you're going to talk about these concepts properly, I think the way forward is to refuse to use a concrete word at all, and instead force yourself to continuously define what you're on about.

But I am discussing this concept properly. Just because you are unfamiliar with my concept of God does not make my belief some how wrong, or my use of the word God wrong. You are familiar with a personal Christan God. This is not what I believe in. I believe in an impersonal God. Furthermore I am unclear on my belief in God because God is hard to define, being unknowable and beyond human comprehension and such.

Maybe it is you that should reexamine your notions of God, just because Christan fundies have batted around and perverted the notion of God, does not mean the rest of us believe in such a personal Christan God!:eek:

[Matt the Poet]

I find much use in a being that is beyond human comprehension, mostly in that we have limits, and that the universe and creation has far more to offer than we will ever know.

As I said above, you don't have to go to such lofty places to realise this, electric eels will do. I know that electric eels exist, and I know that they are experiencing a reality that will forever be beyond my ability to directly apprehend. The consciousness of an electric eels is, in this sense, 'ineffable', no?

Yes that would be a very different God, why isn't that view of God ever discussed. We sharply defined our view of God, this is a mistake, especially in thinking we can so sharply define that which we don't know.

I think you might be defining that view more sharply than you claim you are. For a start, you capitalise the word 'God' - indicating, at the very least, that you consider it to be a proper noun - something that uniquely labels an individual, actually existing entity. Secondly, you speak of desiring a 'connection' - for such a thing to be possible or even meaningful puts implicit constraints on what sort of thing this 'God' might be. But the kicker is this...


QUOTE=Dumbledore;2853457]But how do you show that a source of all things, that you are always a part of does not have a purpose or meaning.[QUOTE]
This is a major upgrade on what you're explicitly claiming about 'God'. You've admitted that you can't prove the existence of purpose or meaning in this entity, but slipped through the assertion that this God thingy is 'a source of all things, that you are always a part of'. Which is a bit different from merely being some sort of entity that is outside our comprehension.

[sphenisc]

For a start, you capitalise the word 'God' - indicating, at the very least, that you consider it to be a proper noun - something that uniquely labels an individual, actually existing entity.

I capitalise The Borg.

[Matt the Poet]

But I am discussing this concept properly.

Deep and abiding apologies, Dumbledore - I meant an impersonal 'you' at that point. You are very much discussing it properly, what I meant to suggest was that using the word 'God' hinders that discussion.

If I could discover how to use strike-through here, I'd use 'god' with a line through it, much as Derrida did (after Heidegger) for words like 'being' to indicate concepts that needed urgently to be discussed but couldn't be properly served by language at all.

[drkitten]

I capitalise The Borg.

Or for that matter : Superman, Frodo Baggins, Lilliput, and Cair Paravel (the capital of Narnia).

[Dumbledore]

As I said above, you don't have to go to such lofty places to realise this, electric eels will do. I know that electric eels exist, and I know that they are experiencing a reality that will forever be beyond my ability to directly apprehend. The consciousness of an electric eels is, in this sense, 'ineffable', no?



I think you might be defining that view more sharply than you claim you are. For a start, you capitalise the word 'God' - indicating, at the very least, that you consider it to be a proper noun - something that uniquely labels an individual, actually existing entity. Secondly, you speak of desiring a 'connection' - for such a thing to be possible or even meaningful puts implicit constraints on what sort of thing this 'God' might be. But the kicker is this...

This is a major upgrade on what you're explicitly claiming about 'God'. You've admitted that you can't prove the existence of purpose or meaning in this entity, but slipped through the assertion that this God thingy is 'a source of all things, that you are always a part of'. Which is a bit different from merely being some sort of entity that is outside our comprehension.

No not really, I just believe God is a source to all things, this does not make my belief true or absolute, it is really more of a guess. Hence I don't define how God is the source of all things or how we are all connect to God, this is my mere belief of the unknowable.

Furthermore I capitalize God because it is a concept worthy of capitalization, not because I view God as a personal entity or individual, I also capitalize America, but is not an individual. In the future I would not construe whether a person believes in a personal or individual God from the basis if they capitalize the word God or not! I will admit though that our word for God is sorely limited in really defining what we are talking about.

Finally I am not slipping through any assertions, I do not want to prove God to you! I am stating my belief, nothing else, and my belief counts for less than nothing when it comes to what is actually going on, and if God actually exists or not!;)

[Matt the Poet]

Fair enough - I retract the 'actually existing' part. Superman and The Borg are still things, though. Fictional things, to be sure, but definitely entities to which you can meaningfully refer.

[Matt the Poet]

No not really, I just believe God is a source to all things, this does not make my belief true or absolute, it is really more of a guess. Hence I don't define how God is the source of all things or how we are all connect to God, this is my mere belief of the unknowable.

...

Finally I am not slipping through any assertions, I do not want to prove God to you! I am stating my belief, nothing else, and my belief counts for less than nothing when it comes to what is actually going on, and if God actually exists or not!;)

First off, I know you're not trying to convert me in any way, and I wouldn't be here if you were. By 'slipping through' I meant that your 'source of all things' definition wasn't explicitly acknowledged, unlike 'purpose', as one of the arbitrary properties you have assigned to 'God'.

But I do find your response fascinating. If I've got this right, we both agree that there is very probably stuff that exists outside of actual or potential human experience.

However, you have then chosen to take that stuff and ascribe certain properties to it - properties that you freely admit may be completely wrong but fit with your internal experience of things.

To me, that seems odd - but objectively I'll concede that it's a reasonable way for a thoughtful person to deal with the ineffable (a term which I'm hereby going to use, if there's no objections, in place of your own 'God', which is a bit loaded for my tastes).

Next question, therefore - where does it get you? I can't see any way in which such a thin assertion tells me anything, physical or metaphysical, about how, or why, I live in the world.

[Herzblut]

But what use is a concept you can neither prove nor disprove?
You have more children.

Herzblut

[Robin]

No I will not give up on the belief in God, I do not think God can be proven nor disproven. I find much use in a being that is beyond human comprehension, mostly in that we have limits, and that the universe and creation has far more to offer than we will ever know.
But we know we have limits without the concept of a God. We know that there is more to existence than we will ever know without the concept of a God. What does the concept of God add that we would not have anyway?
Longing for God and the choice to do so, can be a reason for believing in God, because the choice exists.
But the choice doesn't exist, you cannot just choose to long for something. You either long for it or you don't. Longing comes from a desire within you. If you don't have that desire then you can't just insert it into your mind.

[Darth Rotor]

Michael Behe's God is so dumb that he doesn 't know how to delegate and Fred Phelps' is so busy hating fags he doesn't have time for anything else, while Ken Miller's is so smart that he need not do anything but delegate -- and probably spends all his time watching TV in his office.
I'll bet the over on "surfing the internet for pron." He made Eve for a reason, and who the heck is going to fire him for pron surfing at work? :boggled:

DR

[Civilized Worm]

If so, theists sure like arguing with fallacy and invalid points... moreso than any valid arguments.

I've had more than enough "You can't prove God doesn't exist!", and such.


Not knowing does not also disprove God.


It seems not.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I suggest moving this thread over to Religion and Philosophy. :)

I suggest using the report button instead of bumping a 4 year old thread.

And to you newbies who responded to Lord Kenneth, learn some forum lore dammit!

[c4ts]

I suggest moving this thread over to Religion and Philosophy. :)

Ack! Necromancy! Burn the witch!

[Dumbledore]

I capitalise The Borg.

As you should!!!

[Dumbledore]

Next question, therefore - where does it get you? I can't see any way in which such a thin assertion tells me anything, physical or metaphysical, about how, or why, I live in the world.

Well that is a matter of interpretation, my belief in God does not give me a moral or ethical code, but instead it fills me with a feeling of wonder about the universe around me and my role in that universe. I believe that the belief in God does not give you anything, instead it is what you bring to that belief in God. In short what you make of this belief. God is not going to come down and tell you how to live your life and what is right and wrong, you are going to have to figure that out on your own. But instead God is something you choose to believe in that is beyond definition and description but that is still there. What you make of that relationship is up to you, but for me it certainly makes me wonder about the universe and what is really going on! In short this relationship gives me nothing, it really has to do with what I make of this relationship.

[Dumbledore]

But we know we have limits without the concept of a God. We know that there is more to existence than we will ever know without the concept of a God. What does the concept of God add that we would not have anyway?

But the choice doesn't exist, you cannot just choose to long for something. You either long for it or you don't. Longing comes from a desire within you. If you don't have that desire then you can't just insert it into your mind.

You bring up a good point, I would have to say that adding the God concept would bring in more directly the question what is our role in the universe and what is God's. But you are quite correct in asserting that we don't need God to know we have limits, we don't.

I would have to disagree with you about longing. The choice to long for something is a choice inherently. I could choose not to long for God by deciding that I am merely deluding myself by believing in God. In counter to that an atheist could start longing for God by deciding that God does exist. Longing for something is an emotional reaction base on decision, not something that is inherent in a person. Longing for God is based on faith in God which is based on the decision to believe in God.

[Robin]

Longing for God is based on faith in God which is based on the decision to believe in God.
How do you decide to believe something? I would have thought that a contradiction in terms. Or at least, speaking for myself, I could not simply decide to believe something that I didn't believe.

[Dumbledore]

How do you decide to believe something? I would have thought that a contradiction in terms. Or at least, speaking for myself, I could not simply decide to believe something that I didn't believe.

Did you read my posts after this initial post? You would have to decide to believe in God for what ever reason, this happens to quite a few people. After this decision they long for God, this is my point.

For example if you were in a near fatal car accident and you felt that someone or something saved you from death you might choose to believe in God, this does often happen to people. You would then long for God, because you have decided to believe in God. In short you have chosen to long for God.;)

[Nancarrow]

Brains!

BRrraaiiinsss!


BRRRRAAAAIIIIIIIINNNNNNSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:drool:

[Dumbledore]

Brains!

BRrraaiiinsss!


BRRRRAAAAIIIIIIIINNNNNNSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:drool:

Ahhhh, the zombies are finally here, close the gate. (Resident Evil 2):D

[Robin]

Did you read my posts after this initial post?
"this initial post"???? The post I quoted and responded to was not your initial post, it was the your very latest post. I have responded to a number of your posts. What an odd question.
You would have to decide to believe in God for what ever reason, this happens to quite a few people. After this decision they long for God, this is my point.

For example if you were in a near fatal car accident and you felt that someone or something saved you from death you might choose to believe in God, this does often happen to people. You would then long for God, because you have decided to believe in God. In short you have chosen to long for God.;)
I am not denying that people often start to believe in God. I am questioning whether this represents "choosing" to believe in God.

However I don't see that I can get any traction in this issue. Theists on this site and elsewhere seem to be utterly convinced that belief in God is a matter of choice.

I could understand orthodox Christians or Muslims having to believe that atheists are choosing to reject God, because without that the whole concept of Hell becomes contradictory to the nature of God.

But you don't seem to fit the orthodox mold. Making belief a choice would seem to suggest that, not only atheists, but theist are insincere about their beliefs. If you really did believe something it would not be a choice.

[Thanz]

Making belief a choice would seem to suggest that, not only atheists, but theist are insincere about their beliefs. If you really did believe something it would not be a choice.
I am unclear as to what you mean by this. Why does having belief be a choice make it insincere? Why would 'really believing something' not make it a choice?

What you seem to be saying is that you can only really believe in something if you have no choice but to believe. That makes no sense to me.

[Robin]

I am unclear as to what you mean by this. Why does having belief be a choice make it insincere? Why would 'really believing something' not make it a choice?
Belief implies some kind of confidence that something is true. If there was a choice to believe something incompatible then that would imply there was some doubt and therefore a lack of confidence about the truth of the belief.
What you seem to be saying is that you can only really believe in something if you have no choice but to believe. That makes no sense to me.
That is exactly what I am saying. I can't even understand anybody who thinks otherwise. I don't believe in God, not because I am stubborn or rebellious or because I hate God. I couldn't believe in God no matter how hard I tried, because I see no evidence or reasons that could possibly convince me.

But I could if I found some good reason to believe. If I found evidence or reasons that were good enough to convince me then I couldn't help but believe - I couldn't ignore the reasons by choice.

That really goes for any belief. I couldn't choose to believe that the Sun goes round the Earth, nor could you I will bet, no matter how hard I tried.

The very fact that there could be a choice means that there is some doubt about the matter.

[Thanz]

Belief implies some kind of confidence that something is true. If there was a choice to believe something incompatible then that would imply there was some doubt and therefore a lack of confidence about the truth of the belief.
I disagree. You can have perfect confidence in your choice. I believe that I have found the right woman for me. Luckily, she thought I was not too hideous. We have been married for 11 years, and I have perfect condfidence in my choice.

That is exactly what I am saying. I can't even understand anybody who thinks otherwise. I don't believe in God, not because I am stubborn or rebellious or because I hate God. I couldn't believe in God no matter how hard I tried, because I see no evidence or reasons that could possibly convince me.

But I could if I found some good reason to believe. If I found evidence or reasons that were good enough to convince me then I couldn't help but believe - I couldn't ignore the reasons by choice.
By admitting this possiblility, does that make you insincere in your atheism? ;)

Seriously, you are mixing the reasons for the belief with the belief itself. In your example here, you would believe because you chose to accept the evidence. You are taking a far too passive approach to what would be your evaluation of the evidence.

That really goes for any belief. I couldn't choose to believe that the Sun goes round the Earth, nor could you I will bet, no matter how hard I tried.
That just speaks to the level of evidence there is for the earth oribiting the sun, rather than any larger point regarding choosing beliefs. For a large period of time, many did believe the sun rotated the Earth. There may still be some who believe it. Were those in the past insincere? Are those now insincere?

The very fact that there could be a choice means that there is some
doubt about the matter.
So what?

It is like the thing with bravery: The person who is truly brave is not the person who doesn't get scared - it is the person who is scared, but does the heroic thing anyway.

[Robin]

I disagree. You can have perfect confidence in your choice. I believe that I have found the right woman for me. Luckily, she thought I was not too hideous. We have been married for 11 years, and I have perfect condfidence in my choice.
But could you easily choose to believe that you made a ghastly mistake and wasted those 11 years? I don't think you could. So you may have chosen the woman, but you have not chosen to believe that she was the right woman for you.
Seriously, you are mixing the reasons for the belief with the belief itself.
I don't see them as different. The reasons don't go away once a belief is in your mind. So long as you have a belief then those reasons should still be there.
In your example here, you would believe because you chose to accept the evidence. You are taking a far too passive approach to what would be your evaluation of the evidence.
I could choose not to look at, listen to or read the evidence. That would be different than choosing not to believe.

But if I had seen the evidence and it was good then I would have no choice but to believe. I cannot understand how there could be a situation where I had seen good evidence for a proposition and still chose not to believe.

That is why it is sometimes called "compelling" evidence. It compels your to believe.
That just speaks to the level of evidence there is for the earth oribiting the sun, rather than any larger point regarding choosing beliefs. For a large period of time, many did believe the sun rotated the Earth. There may still be some who believe it. Were those in the past insincere? Are those now insincere?
Clearly not, since they were using available evidence.

Oresme, for example, looked at the evidence and concluded that it did not indicate that the Sun orbited the Earth, or the Sun stayed still and the Earth rotated. Yet he said at the end that he still believed the Sun orbited the Earth. That is insincere. He just chose to believe, without any good reason.
So what?

It is like the thing with bravery: The person who is truly brave is not the person who doesn't get scared - it is the person who is scared, but does the heroic thing anyway.
So the comparable sentence would be "The person who truly believes is not the person that doesn't doubt - it is the person who does doubt but believes anyway.".

Apples and oranges, if something applies to bravery/fear it does not follow that the same principle applies to belief/doubt.

There appear to be three possibilities:
1. Reasons to believe sufficiently outweigh reasons to doubt
2. Reasons to doubt sufficiently outweigh reasons to believe
3. Neither 1 nor 2 is the case.

So in which of these cases would it be reasonable to choose to believe?

[Dumbledore]

"this initial post"???? The post I quoted and responded to was not your initial post, it was the your very latest post. I have responded to a number of your posts. What an odd question.

I am not denying that people often start to believe in God. I am questioning whether this represents "choosing" to believe in God.

However I don't see that I can get any traction in this issue. Theists on this site and elsewhere seem to be utterly convinced that belief in God is a matter of choice.

I could understand orthodox Christians or Muslims having to believe that atheists are choosing to reject God, because without that the whole concept of Hell becomes contradictory to the nature of God.

But you don't seem to fit the orthodox mold. Making belief a choice would seem to suggest that, not only atheists, but theist are insincere about their beliefs. If you really did believe something it would not be a choice.

Why would it not be a choice? I realize what you are saying, it is not a choice like having eggs for breakfast, but it is still a choice. You have to believe in your choice, you can't just say I believe in God today with no real belief behind it. You would have to choose to believe in God and actually believe in your choice. Hence the example with the near fatal car accident, if you feel that something saved you from death you might choose to start believing in God. You are choosing to believe in God and you believe in your choice. I understand your confusion, it is a difficult issue to fully explain and clarify. Nor do people lightly choose or not choose to believe in God, the fact that they must have conviction behind their belief makes the issue of choice in believing in God all the more confusing.

Another example is an atheist one who use to believe in God. At some time in the past this person lost their belief and or conviction that God exists, they then decided that God does not exist. The believe in their choice that God does not exist. If they did not believe in their choice they would of not made that choice not to believe in God.

So in short a person has to choose to believe in God and believe in that choice. If they don't believe in that choice they don't really believe in God. I believe that I have made this as clear as I can.;)

[Dumbledore]

Belief implies some kind of confidence that something is true. If there was a choice to believe something incompatible then that would imply there was some doubt and therefore a lack of confidence about the truth of the belief.

That is exactly what I am saying. I can't even understand anybody who thinks otherwise. I don't believe in God, not because I am stubborn or rebellious or because I hate God. I couldn't believe in God no matter how hard I tried, because I see no evidence or reasons that could possibly convince me.

But I could if I found some good reason to believe. If I found evidence or reasons that were good enough to convince me then I couldn't help but believe - I couldn't ignore the reasons by choice.

That really goes for any belief. I couldn't choose to believe that the Sun goes round the Earth, nor could you I will bet, no matter how hard I tried.

The very fact that there could be a choice means that there is some doubt about the matter.

Ahhhhh!, dawning comprehension!

If you were given evidence of God's existence you would have to choose to believe that evidence, hence choice comes into the picture. Most religious people believe that you cannot give irrefutable evidence that God exists or does not exist. So religious people choose to believe in God even though they have no direct proof of God's existence, and they choose to believe in their choice despite the lack of evidence or proof. Now you will not like this but, atheists do this also, they cannot prove God does not exist, but the choose to believe that God does not exist and they believe in that choice despite the lack of evidence and proof that God does not exist. In short each group chooses to believe in the evidence they have been given even though neither group has irrefutable or conclusive evidence to prove their belief.

[Dumbledore]

So the comparable sentence would be "The person who truly believes is not the person that doesn't doubt - it is the person who does doubt but believes anyway.".



And that would describe me and many other religious people. Doubt in God is part of faith and belief in God. If you blindly believe in God, I don't really believe you gain anything from your relationship with God. But if you challenge your belief and your relationship with God, it becomes a dynamic faith and belief that is able to grow and change. As opposed to blind belief that has no real chance to change or grow. Doubt is important, there is no absolute proof of God, you should doubt what you cannot prove, but you can choose to still believe in God despite the doubt.

[Robin]

Ahhhhh!, dawning comprehension!

If you were given evidence of God's existence you would have to choose to believe that evidence, hence choice comes into the picture.
I have no idea what you are talking about.

If I were given evidence of God's existence I would then evaluate the evidence. If it was sufficient then I would have no choice but to believe. If it were insufficient then I would have no choice except to continue not believing. Where does choice come in?
Most religious people believe that you cannot give irrefutable evidence that God exists or does not exist.
And most irreligious people also believe this.
Now you will not like this but, atheists do this also, they cannot prove God does not exist, but the choose to believe that God does not exist and they believe in that choice despite the lack of evidence and proof that God does not exist.
No, think about it - is there a difference between these?:

1. I don't believe p is true, and
2. I believe p is false

You would have us believe that 1 and 2 are equivalent sentences. But they are not. You have to think carefully about the difference between 1 and 2.

Where there is insufficient evidence for p then (1) above is the only rational position.

So if there is insufficient evidence for the existence of God then the only rational position is "I don't believe in God". In other words - atheism.

[Dumbledore]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

If I were given evidence of God's existence I would then evaluate the evidence. If it was sufficient then I would have no choice but to believe. If it were insufficient then I would have no choice except to continue not believing. Where does choice come in?

And most irreligious people also believe this.

No, think about it - is there a difference between these?:

1. I don't believe p is true, and
2. I believe p is false

You would have us believe that 1 and 2 are equivalent sentences. But they are not. You have to think carefully about the difference between 1 and 2.

Where there is insufficient evidence for p then (1) above is the only rational position.

So if there is insufficient evidence for the existence of God then the only rational position is "I don't believe in God". In other words - atheism.

Sigh I will try this again. In your evaluation of the evidence for God you would have to choose to believe in your evaluation. In short you are making a choice to believe in your evaluation and the evidence. This is where choice comes in, evidence itself does not compel you to believe one thing or another, nor does evaluating that evidence. Your choice to believe in your evaluation and that evidence makes you believe in this supposed evidence for God. This is where choice comes in.

Ahh, you choice to believe that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of God. Now you may argue that I have no hard scientific evidence for the existence of God, and this is true, but that does not mean there is not enough evidence for the existence of God. When I was discussing evidence before, I was assuming that evidence would be limited to scientific evidence that could not be refuted, but actual evidence is not just limited to scientific evidence. What evidence are you using? What evidence do you believe, what evidence do you not believe in? Most people choose to believe in certain types of evidence and not others. In making an absolute statement that there is not enough evidence for the existence of God you must qualify what evidence and what type of evidence you are talking about. Many religious people would disagree with you, there is plenty of "evidence" for the existence of God. However this most likely is not evidence that you yourself would choose to believe in.

Finally I believe, that is I am choosing to believe, that we will have to agree to disagree. If my posts up till now have not convinced you of what I am saying, I doubt this current or future posts will.:)

[Thanz]

If I were given evidence of God's existence I would then evaluate the evidence. If it was sufficient then I would have no choice but to believe. If it were insufficient then I would have no choice except to continue not believing. Where does choice come in?
Choice comes in in the weighing of the evidence for its sufficiency. The evaluation of the evidence involves choices - as in, do you choose to accept the veracity of any particular piece of evidence? What meaning do you choose to ascribe to it? How much weight do you give various pieces of evidence? At what point do you decide that something is more likely than not?

These are all choices - and all of them lead to whether you choose to believe or not. You make it seem like the sufficiency of evidence is determined outside of your own decision making process, as if by magic.

[Dumbledore]

Choice comes in in the weighing of the evidence for its sufficiency. The evaluation of the evidence involves choices - as in, do you choose to accept the veracity of any particular piece of evidence? What meaning do you choose to ascribe to it? How much weight do you give various pieces of evidence? At what point do you decide that something is more likely than not?

These are all choices - and all of them lead to whether you choose to believe or not. You make it seem like the sufficiency of evidence is determined outside of your own decision making process, as if by magic.

Thanks, you just summed up what I was trying to explain, much better than I could. What a great post!:D

[Bri]

Although I imagine that most theists believe in God based on faith and therefore probably don't care all that much about logical arguments for the existence of God, I thought I'd post this reference in case nobody had done so yet:

Wikipedia article: Existence of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_for_the_existence_of_Go d)

See the section "Arguments for the Existence of God" for a list of some arguments for the existence of God.

-Bri

[plumjam]

arguments are fine
you just need to keep in mind that reality is not determined by arguments. If God exists he exists independently of the existence of good or otherwise theistic arguments
history shows that people come to be sure of God's existence through experience/revelation rather than argumentation.

[Bri]

True, reality is not determined by arguments.

The same page has a reference to the Argument from Evil (an argument against the existence of God), which you seem to be alluding to.

Of course, reality is not determined by arguments.

-Bri

[plumjam]

in relation to using arguments for/against the existence of God.. my main thrust would be that this is logically the only possible occasion when argumentation attempts to explain the whole.
As argument uses words and concepts it is using parts of the whole to explain the whole. To adequately explain the whole you would necessarily have to use ALL the parts. An explanation that did not do this would be leaving something out. An argument to explain the whole would therefore have to be infinite.

In our normal modes of argumentation we use parts and their interrelation to explain parts, never the whole.

So, to sum up, theistic argument, although it can be interesting, is ultimately doomed. This, of course, does not necessitate the conclusion that God does not exist. Rather, as in my earlier post, reality is not dependent on argument.
:)

[Dumbledore]

in relation to using arguments for/against the existence of God.. my main thrust would be that this is logically the only possible occasion when argumentation attempts to explain the whole.
As argument uses words and concepts it is using parts of the whole to explain the whole. To adequately explain the whole you would necessarily have to use ALL the parts. An explanation that did not do this would be leaving something out. An argument to explain the whole would therefore have to be infinite.

In our normal modes of argumentation we use parts and their interrelation to explain parts, never the whole.

So, to sum up, theistic argument, although it can be interesting, is ultimately doomed. This, of course, does not necessitate the conclusion that God does not exist. Rather, as in my earlier post, reality is not dependent on argument.
:)

I have to agree with you, how do you convey the existence of an infinite being with limited words!:)

[theBigShagboski]

I'm currently embroiled in what I call the "God Battle" between a Catholic friend and myself. They have almost exclusively revolved around logical arguments (her one attempt at real evidence, the miracle of Fatima, was "a scientifically documented miracle," even if there were scientific theories as to a giant spinning sun, clearly that people's clothes dried quickly was enough... that one didn't last long, nor did her argument that religious people do more good in the world than atheists, missing the whole point of "the God Delusion," which prompted it). Since she is a law student, this has been tough.

But how do you argue against these? According to her, the only way to prove and understand god is via Pure Reason, which is why Aristotle and Plato were so incredibly accurate about the "divine" (non-Christian) God. She's now going to throw Anselm and Descartes at me in Round Three.

Am I just fighting a never-ending battle? It seems to me that logic can prove nearly anything you want it to if you don't base it on observable evidence - which then makes me ask: how does Pure Reason, which can prove just about anything, undeniably show the existence of God?

(By the way, one of my arguments against Anselm's Ontology, which was written in the OP:

1. To exist, a being must occupy space, whether in this universe or without.
2. To occupy space, there must be a set of laws governing the state of existence.
3. For existence to be governed by laws in order to exist in space, it is limited.
3. God exists (assumed for the argument)
4. If God is that which is greater than we can concieve, he is infinite and limitless, since our perception is limited by our imagination.
5. Therefore, God is not limitless, therefore God does not exist.)

[Dumbledore]

I'm currently embroiled in what I call the "God Battle" between a Catholic friend and myself. They have almost exclusively revolved around logical arguments (her one attempt at real evidence, the miracle of Fatima, was "a scientifically documented miracle," even if there were scientific theories as to a giant spinning sun, clearly that people's clothes dried quickly was enough... that one didn't last long, nor did her argument that religious people do more good in the world than atheists, missing the whole point of "the God Delusion," which prompted it). Since she is a law student, this has been tough.

But how do you argue against these? According to her, the only way to prove and understand god is via Pure Reason, which is why Aristotle and Plato were so incredibly accurate about the "divine" (non-Christian) God. She's now going to throw Anselm and Descartes at me in Round Three.

Am I just fighting a never-ending battle? It seems to me that logic can prove nearly anything you want it to if you don't base it on observable evidence - which then makes me ask: how does Pure Reason, which can prove just about anything, undeniably show the existence of God?

(By the way, one of my arguments against Anselm's Ontology, which was written in the OP:

1. To exist, a being must occupy space, whether in this universe or without.
2. To occupy space, there must be a set of laws governing the state of existence.
3. For existence to be governed by laws in order to exist in space, it is limited.
3. God exists (assumed for the argument)
4. If God is that which is greater than we can concieve, he is infinite and limitless, since our perception is limited by our imagination.
5. Therefore, God is not limitless, therefore God does not exist.)

I don't think you can win this argument against a true believer. You are quite correct, logic can be used to justify just about anything. ;)

[Bri]

1. To exist, a being must occupy space, whether in this universe or without.
2. To occupy space, there must be a set of laws governing the state of existence.
3. For existence to be governed by laws in order to exist in space, it is limited.
3. God exists (assumed for the argument)
4. If God is that which is greater than we can concieve, he is infinite and limitless, since our perception is limited by our imagination.
5. Therefore, God is not limitless, therefore God does not exist.)

I'm not sure that (1) is a premise that most Christians would agree with (also, what does it mean to occupy space outside of this universe?). Assuming that space is a subset of God rather than the other way around, statement (2) doesn't pertain to God (he isn't limited by space).

I don't think your friend can prove God via logic, nor do I think you can disprove God via logic. It's a matter of whether you choose to believe something based on faith, or whether you choose only to believe something based on evidence. A fairly decent argument is to point out that your friend doesn't believe in other gods (or invisible unicorns) for the same reason you don't believe in their God -- because of the lack of evidence.

-Bri

[theBigShagboski]

I have done so, however this leads to the argument that all we are left with is pure reason to determine God. Her belief is that pure reason leads to the undeniable need for God (she also throws the "First Cause" argument at me, answering the "Why is God First Cause" with "because there needs to be a first cause, so that is God" circular argument).

It is a fun argument to have, because it just goes back and forth with (what I think to be) thought-out points, but I just wonder where Dawkins gets the energy to do it over and over and over wth more bizarre arguments than this.

On my argument: I understand the criticism, thank you. Christians would probably throw it out. I use the term "space" for lack of a better term. But if God is "there," then he has to be "somewhere." And if he is "somewhere," there has to be some "where" for him to be. It doesn't have to be in our universe, but if there is no "where" for him to be, he is "nowhere" and doesn't exist. But if God is "somewhere," in that "where" there must a means to measure or define existence by virtue of knowing that it exists. If that is the case, the measurement of existence limits the existing, disproving the infinite God. (I find this logically follows, but am still up for suggestions)

I know it's a fool's errand, but it's fun to try ;-)

[Bri]

I have done so, however this leads to the argument that all we are left with is pure reason to determine God.

In my opinion, it leads to the fact that we cannot determine God (or lack thereof) using pure reason or anything else.

Her belief is that pure reason leads to the undeniable need for God (she also throws the "First Cause" argument at me, answering the "Why is God First Cause" with "because there needs to be a first cause, so that is God" circular argument).

Even if there must be a "first cause" (and it's not clear that there must) there is no evidence by which one would assume it to be God. "We don't know what caused the universe" isn't the same as "God caused the universe."

It is a fun argument to have, because it just goes back and forth with (what I think to be) thought-out points, but I just wonder where Dawkins gets the energy to do it over and over and over wth more bizarre arguments than this.

I just don't think that God can be proved or disproved, so although it's certainly an interesting discussion, go into it realizing that there have been no definitive answers in the last several thousands of years and you won't likely stumble upon one during the course of the discussion.

On my argument: I understand the criticism, thank you. Christians would probably throw it out. I use the term "space" for lack of a better term. But if God is "there," then he has to be "somewhere." And if he is "somewhere," there has to be some "where" for him to be. It doesn't have to be in our universe, but if there is no "where" for him to be, he is "nowhere" and doesn't exist. But if God is "somewhere," in that "where" there must a means to measure or define existence by virtue of knowing that it exists. If that is the case, the measurement of existence limits the existing, disproving the infinite God. (I find this logically follows, but am still up for suggestions)

I think I understand your argument, but I think that logically God must exist outside of the universe in order to have created it. It seems that "somewhere" as you describe it must be inside the universe.

I'm not certain I understand what you mean by "there must a means to measure or define existence by virtue of knowing that it exists." In fact, we don't know that God exists (even if he does), therefore I'm not certain that there must be a way of measuring or defining his existence (even if he does exist).

I know it's a fool's errand, but it's fun to try ;-)

In my opinion, you seem to be approaching it with the correct attitude! Good luck!

-Bri

[theBigShagboski]

In my opinion, it leads to the fact that we cannot determine God (or lack thereof) using pure reason or anything else.

Absolutely right. This is the sticking point in the God Battle, I think. I have said this before, but my opponent insists that Reason leads to proof of his existence (precisely because the universe itself doesn't show God - though she didn't answer my question: "If God created the science we now discover, why did he make it so astoundingly difficult to find proof of Him in that science?")

Even if there must be a "first cause" (and it's not clear that there must) there is no evidence by which one would assume it to be God. "We don't know what caused the universe" isn't the same as "God caused the universe."

My issue with the "First Cause" argument is: where do you decide that the thing which caused our universe is the First Cause? Why not the thing that caused the thing which caused our universe? Or the thing which caused the thing which caused our universe? And once you have determined that, which one of that string of creators is God? Is God that which created us, or that which created the creator of the creator?

Also, in reading the God Delusion (which my opponent is doing now), she seems to be taking the opinion that Dawkins is trying to say "God is unprovable," not that God is unobserved to the "there is zero evidence that he exists." And though I have reiterated that, it seems to not being understood. Why is the big misunderstanding by most people the concept that Atheism is a "faith" with all the answers of denying God, when Atheism is quite obviously the state of waiting for the answers? I'm sure there are those who believe without doubt that God doesn't exist, but everyone on this forum, and all the main atheists in the world don't deny him, merely say "We don't see any reasonable evidence that he is there and the universe gets along fine without him."

I just don't think that God can be proved or disproved, so although it's certainly an interesting discussion, go into it realizing that there have been no definitive answers in the last several thousands of years and you won't likely stumble upon one during the course of the discussion.

Have you noticed that most arguments tend to use answers from thousands of years ago, though? I'm sure there are plenty of atheistic examples, but I notice that the names which come up frequently are Plato, Aristotle, the Bible, and more recently Descartes, Anselm, etc. Is it telilng that "pure reason" which proves God comes from before an extended knowledge of the universe? Shouldn't reason incorporate the changing knowledge?


I think I understand your argument, but I think that logically God must exist outside of the universe in order to have created it. It seems that "somewhere" as you describe it must be inside the universe.

Maybe it is my limited 3-dimensional mindset, but assuming God exists outside the universe, then creating the universe created that universe "somewhere." I'd say that that could be argued for God-less existence, too, but at least making the assumption that God existed to create the universe, then there was something (God) existing somewhere to create a new something (the universe) where the first something (God) was. Even if the universe was a subset of God, as you say, there had to be God somewhere for the universe to be a subset of.


I'm not certain I understand what you mean by "there must a means to measure or define existence by virtue of knowing that it exists."

Sorry... I'll try to clarify:

Also, just to point out that from my actual reasoning earlier, I'm assuming that God exists to show that the contradiction that he can't. I take the definition from Anselm's argument, and make a response to it.

In our universe, Gravity, Electromagnetism, and the nuclear forces define its existence. Without those forces, matter would not have any coherence at all. I don't know quantum mechanics well enough to say that if matter had no coherence, it doesn't exist entirely, but our universe is defined, and we can exist in it because of those forces, and the three dimensions (plus time). I wonder if the Big Bang would have happened without all of those things operating in some form on the matter in the singularity (but I'm a history student, not a physicist :cool: )

Extending that, if God exists "somewhere," then there must be something which defines how that somewhere exists or operates, otherwise nothing could exist there. It doesn't have to be our fundamental laws or dimensions, but to have space for a thing such as God to exist in requires some establishment that it is there in the first place. Does that make more sense, of have I even confused myself?

In fact, we don't know that God exists (even if he does), therefore I'm not certain that there must be a way of measuring or defining his existence (even if he does exist).

Just to refer to above, for the purpose of my original reasoning, I assumed God existed. Otherwise, hell if I know if he's there :-)


In my opinion, you seem to be approaching it with the correct attitude! Good luck!

-Bri

Thank you, and after lurking for like four months, I knew that if I could get constructive discussion on arguments, this would be the place to go :-) I hope I haven't hijacked the original thread too much.

[Robin]

Choice comes in in the weighing of the evidence for its sufficiency. The evaluation of the evidence involves choices - as in, do you choose to accept the veracity of any particular piece of evidence? What meaning do you choose to ascribe to it? How much weight do you give various pieces of evidence?
This does not really help your case much. If a belief were chosen based on a bunch of other choices then it makes it seem less sincere than ever.

After all if you were on trial and the jury could not determine the veracity of a particular piece of evidence against you, but simply chose to accept it then how happy would that make you?

If evidence might have more than one meaning, and the jury chose to ascribe a particular meaning of it, rather than attempt to determine the true meaning of it, would you consider it a fair verdict?

If the jury simply chose to give weight to different pieces of evidence, rather than determining what weight they really should have, would you consider it a fair verdict?

In short would you be happy if a jury, rather than attemping to determine your guilt beyond reasonable doubt, simply chose to believe you were guilty?
You make it seem like the sufficiency of evidence is determined outside of your own decision making process, as if by magic.
On the contrary, you make it seem like the sufficiency of evidence is determined entirely by your own decision making process.
At what point do you decide that something is more likely than not?
As I say, I never decide that something is more likely than not.

[Bri]

Absolutely right. This is the sticking point in the God Battle, I think. I have said this before, but my opponent insists that Reason leads to proof of his existence (precisely because the universe itself doesn't show God - though she didn't answer my question: "If God created the science we now discover, why did he make it so astoundingly difficult to find proof of Him in that science?")

I'm quite sure I don't understand this "proof." God exists because there is no evidence of God? The universe doesn't show invisible unicorns either, so does that mean that they must exist?

My issue with the "First Cause" argument is: where do you decide that the thing which caused our universe is the First Cause? Why not the thing that caused the thing which caused our universe? Or the thing which caused the thing which caused our universe? And once you have determined that, which one of that string of creators is God? Is God that which created us, or that which created the creator of the creator?

Her argument will be that there must be an uncaused cause at the beginning of it. Of course, that's not entirely clear. Even if it is true, there is no reason to assume that the uncaused cause was God.

Also, in reading the God Delusion (which my opponent is doing now), she seems to be taking the opinion that Dawkins is trying to say "God is unprovable," not that God is unobserved to the "there is zero evidence that he exists." And though I have reiterated that, it seems to not being understood.

If God exists and is omnipotent, he could potentially reveal himself to us and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he exists. Short of that, even if God is unprovable by us, I'm not sure how that advances her argument that God must exist. Invisible unicorns are also unprovable by us, but that doesn't mean they exist.

Why is the big misunderstanding by most people the concept that Atheism is a "faith" with all the answers of denying God, when Atheism is quite obviously the state of waiting for the answers?

I think the misunderstanding stems from the fact that there are multiple categories of atheism. Atheism simply means not having a belief in God, which could mean that you have a belief that there are no Gods (strong atheism) or it could mean that you have no belief one way or the other (weak atheism).

I'm sure there are those who believe without doubt that God doesn't exist, but everyone on this forum, and all the main atheists in the world don't deny him, merely say "We don't see any reasonable evidence that he is there and the universe gets along fine without him."

I think there are some on this forum who are strong atheists, and hold a positive belief that God does not exist. Some weak atheists would agree with your friend that belief that God doesn't exist is based on faith rather than evidence. That doesn't change the fact that her belief that God exists is based on faith rather than evidence.

Additionally, most strong atheists don't claim to know for a fact that God doesn't exist, but rather claim that the (lack of) evidence seems to point that direction. It's possible that some strong atheists may contend that any definition of God is inherently contradictory or that various attributes of God cannot logically exist at the same time.

Your friend seems to be overstating her claim about the existence of God by stating that it is a logical fact rather than a belief based on faith.

Have you noticed that most arguments tend to use answers from thousands of years ago, though? I'm sure there are plenty of atheistic examples, but I notice that the names which come up frequently are Plato, Aristotle, the Bible, and more recently Descartes, Anselm, etc. Is it telilng that "pure reason" which proves God comes from before an extended knowledge of the universe? Shouldn't reason incorporate the changing knowledge?

To be honest, most of the arguments both for and against the existence of God are thousands of years old. Unfortunately, in all that time, nobody has come up with anything that would definitively prove prove of disprove the existence of God. That ought to tell you something!

Maybe it is my limited 3-dimensional mindset, but assuming God exists outside the universe, then creating the universe created that universe "somewhere." I'd say that that could be argued for God-less existence, too, but at least making the assumption that God existed to create the universe, then there was something (God) existing somewhere to create a new something (the universe) where the first something (God) was. Even if the universe was a subset of God, as you say, there had to be God somewhere for the universe to be a subset of.

Outside of the universe, I'm not sure "somewhere" makes any sense. Yes, in order for God to have created the universe, he must have existed. But if he exists outside of the universe (which he must if he created the universe) then I'm not sure what we can really know about the nature of that existence. For example, I don't think we could know that God must occupy space.

Does that make more sense, of have I even confused myself?

It may very well make sense, but you've definitely confused me! Perhaps someone else can comment on your argument. Meanwhile, I'll read it over again and get back to you!

Just to refer to above, for the purpose of my original reasoning, I assumed God existed. Otherwise, hell if I know if he's there :-)

I understand that you assume that he does exist in order to try to prove a logical contradiction (thus proving that he doesn't exist). However, you said "there must a means to measure or define existence by virtue of knowing that it exists" which I took to mean that if we knew that God existed, then there must be a way to measure it (otherwise we wouldn't know). True enough, but the reality is that we DON'T know. Therefore, he may exist or he may not, and there may be a way for us to measure it and there may not.

Thank you, and after lurking for like four months, I knew that if I could get constructive discussion on arguments, this would be the place to go :-) I hope I haven't hijacked the original thread too much.

I kind of entered into this thread in the middle too, so I can't speak for those who were here from the start. Unfortunately, I don't think I can ultimately be much help to you because I don't think you can prove that God doesn't exist. But nor do I believe that your friend can prove that God does exist, so I may be of more help there.

-Bri

[plumjam]

if it were left up to argument then there wouldn't have been much genuine religion. history shows that the real movers and shakers in religion are those who have claimed direct experience of the divine. for further enlightenment on this i would thoroughly recommend William James 'Varieties of Religious Experience', and Evelyn Underhill's 'Mysticism' - both classics in their field. :)

[theBigShagboski]

I'm quite sure I don't understand this "proof." God exists because there is no evidence of God? The universe doesn't show invisible unicorns either, so does that mean that they must exist?

I don't get it, either :-) I think the approach from her perspective is this: When reasoned logically about the nature of existance, it is seen through he deductive reasoning that existence requires a higher intelligence to exist itself.

Nothing put forth has done anything of the sort, instead presented arbitrary decisions that say "We need this to make it work, so I will state it is so." I have yet to argue it properly, using Einstein's Cosmological Constant as example of "what not to do." (apparently a constant is considered more necessary now, but when he did it he was acting under assumptions of a static universe)


Her argument will be that there must be an uncaused cause at the beginning of it. Of course, that's not entirely clear. Even if it is true, there is no reason to assume that the uncaused cause was God.

Precisely, or that there must be an uncaused cause... I'm sure we could argue that in a void of no-time (where God exists, which is why he is the uncaused cause, I believe), there is no temporal chronology in which to determine that said Uncaused Cause could cause something to happen. ;-)


If God exists and is omnipotent, he could potentially reveal himself to us and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he exists. Short of that, even if God is unprovable by us, I'm not sure how that advances her argument that God must exist. Invisible unicorns are also unprovable by us, but that doesn't mean they exist.

And that, I think, is where reason comes in. Because as I say, if God created the universe, then he was a scientist, of sorts. He'd understand how the universe reveals itself through science, and would totally leave us a figurative fruit basket in chemistry or something. It doesn't stand to reason why he would use a malfunctioning, ambiguous system as the only way of revealing the omnipotent all-powerful creator of the universe.

I think there are some on this forum who are strong atheists, and hold a positive belief that God does not exist.

<snippage to save space>

Additionally, most strong atheists don't claim to know for a fact that God doesn't exist, but rather claim that the (lack of) evidence seems to point that direction.

Which is why I say that Atheism (and indeed, science) is waiting for answers. If the proverbial fruit basket WAS waiting at the chemical doorstep with a note that says "Enjoy the apples, luv God!" The strong atheists might just change their mind. I find the strong atheist philosophy is still not exclusively faith-based, because there are reams of numbers, observations, and reproduceable evidence that withstand a peer review to support at least the thought which leads to strong atheism. The most the Christian has is a book with dubious historical accuracy (though that didn't stop my friend from saying that the "eyewitness accounts" of the Bible written at least 200 years after the events took place is enough evidence for her... great law student ;-p)

Your friend seems to be overstating her claim about the existence of God by stating that it is a logical fact rather than a belief based on faith.

I think you're right.

But if he exists outside of the universe (which he must if he created the universe) then I'm not sure what we can really know about the nature of that existence. For example, I don't think we could know that God must occupy space.

I see what you're saying - the best we can hope for is a guess as to what lies outside of our universe, and even then we are biased with limited imaginations. Point taken!

It may very well make sense, but you've definitely confused me! Perhaps someone else can comment on your argument. Meanwhile, I'll read it over again and get back to you!

I'd love to hear back from anyone, really. I've enjoyed reading the forums over the months, so I signed up and took the opportunity. My arguing skills are sorely lacking so really appreciate the nitpicking over languge and clarifying the reasoning that you folks do over here.


I understand that you assume that he does exist in order to try to prove a logical contradiction (thus proving that he doesn't exist). However, you said "there must a means to measure or define existence by virtue of knowing that it exists" which I took to mean that if we knew that God existed, then there must be a way to measure it (otherwise we wouldn't know). True enough, but the reality is that we DON'T know. Therefore, he may exist or he may not, and there may be a way for us to measure it and there may not.

OH! I see. My mistake in word choice. I meant that under the assumption that he exists (in the argument), his existence itself defines and limits him, since there is a specific nature to the place he occupies.

I kind of entered into this thread in the middle too, so I can't speak for those who were here from the start. Unfortunately, I don't think I can ultimately be much help to you because I don't think you can prove that God doesn't exist.

I can't, and she can't - you're totally right about that. All I can hope is that I can open her eyes to different ways of approaching the matter, just as you are doing now. So thank you nonetheless!

[Robin]

This is where choice comes in, evidence itself does not compel you to believe one thing or another, nor does evaluating that evidence.
Well let me ask you After evaluating the evidence that the Earth orbits the Sun, would it be possible to choose to believe that the Sun orbits the Earth?
Ahh, you choice to believe that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of God. Now you may argue that I have no hard scientific evidence for the existence of God, and this is true, but that does not mean there is not enough evidence for the existence of God. When I was discussing evidence before, I was assuming that evidence would be limited to scientific evidence that could not be refuted, but actual evidence is not just limited to scientific evidence.
And I never suggested that it was. For example I believe I love my children, although there could not be scientific evidence for this.
What evidence are you using? What evidence do you believe, what evidence do you not believe in?
I am still waiting for someone to supply the evidence. I know of no evidence for the existence of God. Perhaps you can suggest some.
Most people choose to believe in certain types of evidence and not others. In making an absolute statement that there is not enough evidence for the existence of God you must qualify what evidence and what type of evidence you are talking about.
What I said was, the evidence was not good. Most religions cite the Scriptures, but do I need to explain why the scriptures are not good evidence? Some people cite personal experience. But unfortunately most are rather vague about what that personal experience is.

I do not buy the Argument from Design, from first cause or Pascal's Wager, or the various Ontological arguments. I do not buy Lewis's "either Christianity is true or Jesus was mad or a liar so Christianity must be true". I do not buy Lewis's "if there is a moral law then there must be a lawgiver" argument either. I do not buy Plantinga's "if materialism were true then we would have a monkey mind and what does a monkey know" argument.

I do not buy the fine-tuned universe argument.

So there, I have specified the types of arguments I have heard to support the existence of God. Do you want me to go into exactly why these arguments do not convince me?
Many religious people would disagree with you, there is plenty of "evidence" for the existence of God.
Such as?
However this most likely is not evidence that you yourself would choose to believe in.
Try me.
Finally I believe, that is I am choosing to believe, that we will have to agree to disagree. If my posts up till now have not convinced you of what I am saying, I doubt this current or future posts will.:)
But would you say that you have presented any evidence in any sense for the existence of God?

[Bri]

I don't get it, either :-) I think the approach from her perspective is this: When reasoned logically about the nature of existance, it is seen through he deductive reasoning that existence requires a higher intelligence to exist itself.

Sorry, but that's wishful thinking rather than logic as far as I can tell. And if true, then God would require a higher intelligence than God to exist.

Precisely, or that there must be an uncaused cause... I'm sure we could argue that in a void of no-time (where God exists, which is why he is the uncaused cause, I believe), there is no temporal chronology in which to determine that said Uncaused Cause could cause something to happen. ;-)

There is the argument that the concept of "uncaused cause" is meaningless because there was no time before t=0. There is also the theory that it "just happened by chance." The bottom line is that we don't know. However, not knowing does not lead to the logical conclusion that it must have been God.

And that, I think, is where reason comes in. Because as I say, if God created the universe, then he was a scientist, of sorts. He'd understand how the universe reveals itself through science, and would totally leave us a figurative fruit basket in chemistry or something. It doesn't stand to reason why he would use a malfunctioning, ambiguous system as the only way of revealing the omnipotent all-powerful creator of the universe.

One thing is very clear: if an omnipotent God exists and wants us to know of his existence, we would know of his existence. Therefore, it can be concluded that if God exists he doesn't want us to know of his existence.

Which is why I say that Atheism (and indeed, science) is waiting for answers.

Absolutely. The difference between science and faith is that without evidence for either "A" or "B" science says "we don't know" whereas faith says "it must be C!"

If the proverbial fruit basket WAS waiting at the chemical doorstep with a note that says "Enjoy the apples, luv God!" The strong atheists might just change their mind.

It would take some pretty definitive evidence I would think (probably more than a basket of apples) but your point is well-taken. That said, I think it's a minority of theists who are so solidified in their beliefs that they wouldn't look at similarly obvious evidence that there is no God.

I find the strong atheist philosophy is still not exclusively faith-based, because there are reams of numbers, observations, and reproduceable evidence that withstand a peer review to support at least the thought which leads to strong atheism.

I'm not certain which "reams of numbers, observations, and reproduceable evidence" you've seen that disprove the existence of either invisible unicorns or God. It would be difficult indeed to produce evidence to prove the nonexistence of anything.

In my opinion, when the evidence doesn't clearly point to either direction but your belief points to one or the other, it's a faith-based belief by definition. The problem is that "clearly" is a subjective term. How clear does it have to be to hold a belief? I think we all hold beliefs without clear evidence all the time -- we generally call them "opinions." I think it's valid for a theist to hold an opinion about God just as it's valid for an atheist to hold an opinion about God, as long as they admit that it's just an opinion.

The most the Christian has is a book with dubious historical accuracy (though that didn't stop my friend from saying that the "eyewitness accounts" of the Bible written at least 200 years after the events took place is enough evidence for her... great law student ;-p)

Here I will completely agree with you as to how solid the evidence for the existence of God is.

I see what you're saying - the best we can hope for is a guess as to what lies outside of our universe, and even then we are biased with limited imaginations. Point taken!

Yes, exactly.

I'd love to hear back from anyone, really. I've enjoyed reading the forums over the months, so I signed up and took the opportunity. My arguing skills are sorely lacking so really appreciate the nitpicking over languge and clarifying the reasoning that you folks do over here.

If you want to take another stab at clarifying your argument, I'd be happy to nitpick. I'm sure others would as well.

OH! I see. My mistake in word choice. I meant that under the assumption that he exists (in the argument), his existence itself defines and limits him, since there is a specific nature to the place he occupies.

OK, I see. I don't buy it, but I understand what you're saying. I'm not sure we can know anything at all about the nature of anything outside of our universe.

I can't, and she can't - you're totally right about that. All I can hope is that I can open her eyes to different ways of approaching the matter, just as you are doing now. So thank you nonetheless!

Perhaps you can at least convince her that her belief that God exists is only an opinion. If she can get that far, she should at least be able to see things from your point of view, even if she disagrees with you.

-Bri