[NT] NTs and God

[TaylorS]

Unifying trend among NTs: If God exists, immanent rather than transcendent.

Leaning #1: Atheism Sheer materialism and empiricism. No immanence and no transcendence.

Leaning #2: Naturalistic Pantheism. God is the substance in the natural chain of events. Everything in Nature obeys universal laws. God=Laws of Nature, therefore all is God. I might not be expressing this well (SolitaryWalker can correct me considering he is much more learned about Spinoza and so on).

Leaning #3: Deism The main one before the 19th century. Rejection of supernatural revelation as a basis of truth, use of reason instead. God(s) is the creator but has no worry about human affairs. There is no direct communication (prayers are useless), but he exists nonetheless.

Personally: atheist who can rationally accept the metaphysics of a pantheist.

I can fit into both #1 and #2 depending on exact definitions

 

[silverchris9]

There is no evidence for the existance of some super-person in the sky so I have no reason to believe in the existance such a being, let alone worship it. People that say "you just gotta have FAITH!!!" make me want to bash my head again the wall.

I get rather annoyed when religious people accuse us non-believers in wanting to get rid of all spiritualness, wonder, and mystery from the world, which is total nonsense. We just don't resort to the concept of "god," a concept I actually find to be an insult to the universe, to explain such feelings.

That's the attitude that irks me. But I have to realize that this is largely the church's fault; we spent so many years being dominant and unquestioned that we sort of forgot that people might actually want to know what rational reasons we have for believing what we believe. On the other hand, your next statement about people who say that you just gotta have faith, well, my sentiments exactly. I understand that "you gotta have faith" works for some people, and I don't begrudge them that. But sometimes we forget that "God is not willing that one should be lost," (that's a paraphrase of Scripture, and I don't know the reference) and that just because "you gotta have faith" works for them, it does not follow that "you gotta have faith" will work for everybody. And so just because somebody wants evidence, we take that as proof that this person (according to our own beliefs!) can just, quite literally, go to hell? We'd rather effectively ensure that you will never even seriously consider Christianity than move out of our own narrow framework for belief in God long enough to have a serious conversation? That's bs, in my book.

And then, of course, I completely agreed with your next statement (if you want proof, read any poem by P.B. Shelly, a firm atheist who believed and affirmed more mystery and wonder in the world than many a Christian) and violently disagreed with your conclusion, that the idea of God is an insult to the universe. Well, hey, my parents always said that if two people agree about everything, one of them is unnecessary. Strong Christian doctrine that understands the Bible well only makes the universe more mysteriously majestic. As one Christian physicist said, "The only God that is dead is the God of the gaps," the mystical figuration whereby any unexplained phenomenon (gravity, for instance) was simply God actively causing things to happen, rather than putting a beautifully organized (and superbly rational!) system in place. God doesn't merely explain such feelings; I believe that He makes them logically coherent, and enhances them. The universe is still mysterious and awesome, but to each mystery and each awesomeness (hurrah for creating nouns) Christianity adds the additional mystery and awesomeness of love, of the fact that a God who already had everything He needed bothered to create all this intricacy and wonder and beauty literally for me. That mystery is as unfathomable and unimaginably complex and multifaceted as the atom... if not as verifiable or falsifiable.

Oh yeah, and I finally finished my above post.

 

[Mycroft]

Science is not a universal tool for reaching conclusions. It surprises me how many atheists assume this.

I define "ration" as the faculty by which real information about the real universe in which we inhabit is attained. As a result, in order for something to be "rational", it must meet the following criteria:

1.) Its premises must be verifiable fact.
2.) The conclusions arrived at on the basis of these premises must be arrived at via logic.

Ration is man's only method available for attaining real information about the universe. Science, as its application, is the only method we have of continually enlarging the available pool of factual premises to arrive at increasingly accurate and encompassing conclusions.

This is not to say that philosophy is without its place. It is, indeed, the purpose of philosophy to address why the pursuit of real information is to be undertaken at all and how the information arrived at ought to be applied. Philosophy is not, however, a means of arriving at real information about the real universe in and of itself.

 

[WithoutaFace]

I define "ration" as the faculty by which real information about the real universe in which we inhabit is attained. As a result, in order for something to be "rational", it must meet the following criteria:

1.) Its premises must be verifiable fact.
2.) The conclusions arrived at on the basis of these premises must be arrived at via logic.

Ration is man's only method available for attaining real information about the universe. Science, as its application, is the only method we have of continually enlarging the available pool of factual premises to arrive at increasingly accurate and encompassing conclusions.

This is not to say that philosophy is without its place. It is, indeed, the purpose of philosophy to address why the pursuit of real information is to be undertaken at all and how the information arrived at ought to be applied. Philosophy is not, however, a means of arriving at real information about the real universe in and of itself.

Well first of all, the terminology wasn't even correct. I think rationale is very closely implicated with philosophy. I think what you meant to say was "ideology." Religions are more like ideologies than philosophy. Ideologies may be formed off of rational philosophies, but they might not do it well.

 

[WithoutaFace]

In essence there is a disparity between ideologies that support religion, and agnostics or atheists who try to disprove religion based off of scientific rationale.

Ideologies can be socio-political or cultural. A lot of the times ideologies are systematic in their own ways, but most of the time will have unbridled faith and adherence despite evidence. Ideologies for the most part dislike disagreement and eschew it. Those with ideologies might listen to facts and postulates from non-believers, and might even agree with some. However, ultimately they will always come up with a rebuke against it. Why would you give you up ideology for some heathen non believer anyway? To convert someone? To make yourself feel better? It does not matter.

Rational people who try to disprove are actually using sound logic. That is the disparity between the two. However, there are those who try to disprove without logic, simply because of intense dislike and ignorance. These people are not rational, just dogmatic and/or zealous, just like the idealistic religious followers.

In the end, I can respect those who speculate based off of sound empirical logic. Who are you going to trust more? The one who speculates based off of palpable facts, or one who bases evidences off of those we have no point of reference to. People who are not even alive, material that claims to have written by so and so. Do you see what I mean now?

 

[Moiety]

I define "ration" as the faculty by which real information about the real universe in which we inhabit is attained. As a result, in order for something to be "rational", it must meet the following criteria:

1.) Its premises must be verifiable fact.
2.) The conclusions arrived at on the basis of these premises must be arrived at via logic.

Ration is man's only method available for attaining real information about the universe. Science, as its application, is the only method we have of continually enlarging the available pool of factual premises to arrive at increasingly accurate and encompassing conclusions.

This is not to say that philosophy is without its place. It is, indeed, the purpose of philosophy to address why the pursuit of real information is to be undertaken at all and how the information arrived at ought to be applied. Philosophy is not, however, a means of arriving at real information about the real universe in and of itself.

What's your definition of verifiable?

 

[Kangirl]

Yeah, failed was harsh language, but it wasn't intended to apply to you. It was intended to apply to people who make the specific statement, "there is no evidence for God". There is a difference between saying, as you do, "I have looked at evidence and I'm not convinced" or even "there may be evidence, but I am not interested in reading it," and making the wholly unfounded statement "there is no evidence for God".

Well then I think it does apply to me, because I don't believe there is any evidence for God. I have looked at what some consider evidence, and I do not consider it evidence. Nor is it my policy to actively avoid evidence - as previously stated, I would be more than happy to be presented with concrete evidence.

Even a theory that the scientific community discards has some evidence for it, or it would have been impossible to even bother to write about.

What??

If you're aware of the existence of a work like Summa Theologica, how can you say there's no evidence for the existence of God?

I am aware of its existence, I have even read excerpts (!) (although my specific area of study is not theological texts) and I say there is no evidence for the existence of god. What exactly is it in Aquinas - what specific part of it are you considering to be evidence? I don't really understand what you're getting at here, I don't think. Aquinas said god exists so he/she/it does? If there is some incontrovertible proof in there, out with it!

Also, regarding your statement that expressing the arguments of brilliant thinkers is the job of believers, weren't the brilliant thinkers believers? Why is it a requirement that some hypothetical brigade of believers recite arguments, when the arguments in their best form are available, say, on the internet? In an argument, yes, it would be the believers responsibility to present the arguments for belief (that was good, btw). But my point is, when you make a minor decision, you look for evidence for and against. When you're making a decision as to whether or not God exists, which changes one's entire metaphysical understanding (and possibly, one's entire life), I would probably make at least a cursory glance at the evidence for and against. And my belief is that it's a part of good teaching, good scholarship, to at least acknowledge the existence of alternative views, and to not dismiss them as unfounded without at least being aware of them.

Why would you assume I haven't made more than a cursory investigation? I have no problem acknowledging alternative points of view, but acknowledgement isn't the same as agreement.

Now, I can't say that I've made enough study of evidence against God, but that's what this discussion is for, right? So I'm really not attacking you, Kangirl, because I really respect people like you who are at least passingly familiar with the fact that some very smart people have argued that God exists, even if you're not convinced by them. My belief is that you are incorrect, but as far as I'm concerned, my respect increases by several orders of magnitude when I find considered statements like yours and Costrin's than when I encounter statements that clearly have no basis in fact, i.e., "there is no evidence for God", unless the statement is qualified I believe in God, but I would never make such an obviously false statement as "there is no evidence for atheism" or "there is no evidence for Darwinism" or "there is no evidence for pantheism," because one trip to the library proves that such statements are demonstrably false.

This has been said repeatedly in this thread, by some of us and I'll say it again: I am NOT trying, nor is it my task here, to *disprove* god. Again, it has been pointed out that disproving something is virtually impossible. Regarding the trip to the library - it's not the books that offer evidence for, for example, Darwinism, it's the facts/evidence that the books contain. The actual, tangible things that exist in the actual, physical world that are evidence for Darwinism. Smart people writing stuff down doesn't make what they're saying true. The evidence they have to back up their theories does - and the writing/books themselves aren't the evidence.

What is "concrete proof" to you? Is it scientific evidence based on observable phenomena, and if not, how much broader is it than this?

Yes. To the first part of the second sentence.

Evidence 1) Anything that begins to exist has a cause
-Support: everything that I have seen that begins to exist has a cause.
Evidence 2) The universe began to exist
-Support: The Big Bang Theory (every time I type this, I keep thinking about the TV show. Okay, sorry, just wanted to say that.)

But you've conceded that it isn't certain that the universe *did* 'begin to exist'...

Hmmm. I thought you mentioned Pascal's Wager but it was in a later post, apparently. Regarding that, doesn't Pascal's Wager specifically concede that there is no rational reason to believe in god?* But that it's best to do so anyway, lest one turn out to be wrong and spend eternity doing backflips in a lake of fire?

*and if you're going to say "there's no reason to disbelieve in god" let me just remind you that I am agnostic. I do not know, nor am I in any way confident that I'm even capable of 'knowing' the true answer to such a question. Unless some long haired dude in a robe comes to my house and does some cool miracles.

 

[silverchris9]

I define "ration" as the faculty by which real information about the real universe in which we inhabit is attained. As a result, in order for something to be "rational", it must meet the following criteria:

1.) Its premises must be verifiable fact.
2.) The conclusions arrived at on the basis of these premises must be arrived at via logic.

Ration is man's only method available for attaining real information about the universe. Science, as its application, is the only method we have of continually enlarging the available pool of factual premises to arrive at increasingly accurate and encompassing conclusions.

This is not to say that philosophy is without its place. It is, indeed, the purpose of philosophy to address why the pursuit of real information is to be undertaken at all and how the information arrived at ought to be applied. Philosophy is not, however, a means of arriving at real information about the real universe in and of itself.

I suppose I shouldn't take it upon myself to answer every single post, especially ones that aren't even directed at me, but...

Mycroft, did you notice that your premises assumed your conclusion? Your definition of "verifiable fact" clearly assumes scientific induction.

But what about, say, Descartes, who adored mathematics, coming to the conclusion that "I think, therefore I am" wholly without any scientific evidence whatsoever? (Uber-simplified: I can doubt anything except my own existence, because if I did not exist, I would not exist to be doubting. The fact that I am doubting is proof that I am). If we can establish our own existence without the use of science, what is to prevent us from establishing the existence of other minds (i.e., God) without the use of science?

Furthermore, how can it be that philosophy is a source of knowledge, but somehow not a source of "real information." I can see two possible justifications for this (if you have another one, I'd be interested to hear it):

1) Philosophy does tell us truths, but these truths are in a different class that is somehow inapplicable to arguments about the existence of beings or causes
-How is it that science-less logic can tell me that I exist but not that other minds exist?
2) Philosophy doesn't tell us truths, but gives us ideas which we irrationally choose to live on.
-But this also doesn't make sense. As quoted above, the problem of induction gives us reason to doubt inductive argument (and all scientific arguments are inductive arguments), and yet only philosophy can yield necessary (deductive) conclusions, from the rules of logic themselves, upon which you stated that scientific arguments depend. So, basically, if philosophy can't yield truths using only logical deduction, surely science cannot yield any truth whatsoever using logical deduction with the uncertainty and probability of induction mixed in.

Ultimately, your position seems to rest on verificationism, defined by Alvin Plantinga when he says, "the Verifiability Criterion of Meaning, which said, roughly, that a sentence is meaningful only if either it is analytic, or its truth or falsehood can be determined by empirical or scientific investigation-by the methods of the empirical sciences." That second clause sounds very close to positions that people on this thread have held. But verificationism depends on sense experience, and Plato showed that sense experience is insufficient when he made the argument about circles and triangles. Have you ever seen or otherwise experienced an actual circle or an actual equilateral triangle? That is, have you ever seen a line curved so that absolutely each point is equidistant from a given center? Have you ever seen a triangle in which each leg was the exact same length? No. Now, you have seen circles and triangles that are incredibly close, but if you measured down to the molecular level of whatever substance the thing that you thought was a true circle is made out of, you'd find that one point on one side of the circle extend two molecules further than another point on a different side of the circle. Furthermore, the very fact that the circle has depth and height makes it not a circle, because circles are inherently one-dimensional, and we live in a three-dimensional universe. Nevertheless, you know what a circle is, and you know what a triangle is. You know when a thing is more or less like a circle and more or less like a triangle. Clearly you don't know this because you experienced or saw a circle or triangle. And how are you going to verify that a circle is or is not a given thing? Obviously, you cannot. And yet you know what a circle is.

Now, I finally found my Alvin Plantinga quote. First of all, it asserts, as does wikipedia, that scientists and philosophers alike have given up on logical positivism, verificationism, falsifiability and the assorted ideas. But Plantinga's advice to Christian thinkers was simply to assert the self-evident meaningfulness of statements like "God created the heavens and the earth". There are arguments to support that. What arguments are there to support verificationism? Why should we believe that the only way to derive knowledge is through scientifically verifiable means? There's no argument to support that thesis, and there can't be, since you can't scientifically verify verificationism. Of course, I can't speak as well as Plantinga, so by all means, search this article for the words "verificationism" and then please, if you can, link me to some articles providing justification for verificationism.

I think that I derive real knowledge without experimental verification all the time. Where's the experimental verification for 2+2=4? I reached this conclusion through rational intuition, just like I understood what a circle or an equilateral triangle is, and deduction from rational intuition is just as valid as deduction from experimental verification.



Also, withoutaface, I don't think I'm quite understanding you. Are you saying that some theists behave in this way, or all theists? Also, what reasons do you have for preferring evidence based on "palpable facts" rather than arguments based on "people who aren't even alive anymore"? Because I assure you that the majority of the "palpable facts" dealt with by scientists are based on the work of "people who aren't even alive anymore," and that these scientists even refer to these individuals' work to justify their own premises and conclusions. Can you clarify that?

 

[silverchris9]

Well then I think it does apply to me, because I don't believe there is any evidence for God. I have looked at what some consider evidence, and I do not consider it evidence. Nor is it my policy to actively avoid evidence - as previously stated, I would be more than happy to be presented with concrete evidence.

Sorry, I assumed that your definition of evidence was broader than "scientific evidence based on observable phenomena." Then my question must be: what observable phenomenon told you that telling the truth was a good thing? What observable phenomenon allowed you to know that a given attempt at drawing a circle is more or less like a "real circle," since you have never seen a "real circle" (see above)? What observable phenomena justify any moral value which you hold to be true? What observable phenomenon proves to you that you are not, at this moment, dreaming? Descartes gives the hypothetical possibility that there is an evil genius that figured out how to affect your brain such that every time you think "what is two plus two" the evil genius zaps your brain to make you think it is four, despite the fact that it is not, actually, four. What observable phenomena proves that this is not the case? Furthermore, what observable phenomena were used to convict criminals before the widespread availability of DNA testing and the like? Should we throw out all convictions made on the basis of eyewitness testimony, since eyewitness testimony is not scientific evidence based on observable phenomenon, and therefore is not evidence at all? What observable phenomena prove that the only reliable evidence is observable phenomena? Heck, depending on how you define "observable phenomena," how do you justify belief in atoms, in quarks, in electrons? What observable phenomena justify your belief in historical facts? What observable phenomena justify a belief in anything that others tell you? What observable phenomena prove string theory? What observable phenomena prove the Big Bang? Certainly, there's observable phenomena involved, but also purely deductive reasoning. Are you saying that somehow deductive reasoning works when applied to observable phenomena, but without an observable phenomena to base it on, then deductive reasoning ceases to function? If so, what observable phenomenon led you to this conclusion?

Just so that you don't think I'm a complete douchebag, I don't throw out all of these questions merely to be irritating, but because I recognize that you may very well dismiss plenty of them. Costrin was willing to concede that his system of thought doesn't allow for objective moral values, so for me to appeal to objective moral values is pointless. I don't know what you and I agree on, so I just threw out a bunch of stuff that I can't deduce from observable phenomena to see if you agree with any of it.

What??

Well, take the medieval belief in spontaneous generation. People believed that when it rained earthworms were created. They had an observable phenomenon: it rained, earthworms came up. If I were to publish a book on this, it would be based on observable phenomena. Now, when we get more information, that additional information may support a different thesis. But the fact that earthworms come out of the ground when it rains is evidence for spontaneous generation. It is merely evidence that has been supplanted by additional evidence leading to a conclusion that better explains all of the facts.

I am aware of its existence, I have even read excerpts (!) (although my specific area of study is not theological texts) and I say there is no evidence for the existence of god. What exactly is it in Aquinas - what specific part of it are you considering to be evidence? I don't really understand what you're getting at here, I don't think. Aquinas said god exists so he/she/it does? If there is some incontrovertible proof in there, out with it!

Well, Summa Theologica includes many arguments for God's existence, including the First Cause argument, which is essentially Aquinas' statement of the Cosmological Argument I presented here. To clarify, I didn't mean by the word "evidence" the phrase "conclusive proof". Conclusive proof is built on a variety of evidence. Of course, I believe (or at least, I think I believe) that Aquinas' books contain conclusive proof of God's existence. But I wouldn't expect that to be immediately obvious. But the fact that he presents evidence, that meaning information which points towards a specific conclusion, seems to be obvious at first glance. I mean, centuries and centuries of people have written these books defending God's existence, I don't know how you can assume that there is no evidence (otherwise, what were they writing about?), except, of course, when you define evidence to only mean scientific evidence based on observable phenomena, in which case one would have to fast-forward to the teleological argument, which is effectively intelligent design, which is so covered in layers of political controversy and assumed incoherence that I didn't want to argue it. But we can if someone wants to.

Why would you assume I haven't made more than a cursory investigation? I have no problem acknowledging alternative points of view, but acknowledgement isn't the same as agreement.

Again, sorry, my statement was probably confusing because I assumed a definition of evidence broader than "scientific reasoning based on observable phenomena." I don't think you have to agree with a given position to agree that there is evidence for it. There is evidence that Edward de Vere or Christopher Marlowe wrote the plays that are attributed to William Shakespeare, but there is also evidence that William Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to William Shakespeare. If one theory or the other is proven conclusively, or if I ascribe to one theory or another, does the evidence for the other theory suddenly cease to be evidence?

This has been said repeatedly in this thread, by some of us and I'll say it again: I am NOT trying, nor is it my task here, to *disprove* god. Again, it has been pointed out that disproving something is virtually impossible. Regarding the trip to the library - it's not the books that offer evidence for, for example, Darwinism, it's the facts/evidence that the books contain. The actual, tangible things that exist in the actual, physical world that are evidence for Darwinism. Smart people writing stuff down doesn't make what they're saying true. The evidence they have to back up their theories does - and the writing/books themselves aren't the evidence.

I completely agree. When I said "summa theologica" I meant the information contained within Summa Theologica, rather than the mere existence of the text. When I referred to a trip to the library I assumed that the hypothetical visitor would read a text or two and find the evidence within, again, with our differing definitions of evidence.

Why is disproving something virtually impossible? If you can prove Darwinism, don't you inherently disprove, say, a literal seven day interpretation of Genesis? If you can prove that God exists, you disprove that statement "God does not exist."

Yes. To the first part of the second sentence.

See above. Also, it would appear that you only believe the evidence supporting the currently approved theory is actually "evidence". Would the fact that Newton's theory of gravitation was superseded by Einstein's theory of relativity does not make Newton's support for his theories cease to be evidence, in your belief?

But you've conceded that it isn't certain that the universe *did* 'begin to exist'...

Actually, I haven't. I conceded that I can't defend it on the basis of the Big Bang from my current knowledge. But I find the combination of the possibility that the universe did begin at the Big Bang, the logical arguments presented above regarding an actual infinite sufficient to make the argument stand.

Hmmm. I thought you mentioned Pascal's Wager but it was in a later post, apparently. Regarding that, doesn't Pascal's Wager specifically concede that there is no rational reason to believe in god?* But that it's best to do so anyway, lest one turn out to be wrong and spend eternity doing backflips in a lake of fire?

Yeah, that's kinda why I didn't bother with Pascal's. I think I was going to try to use it in a specific way, but Pascal's just doesn't really work with people. And no, Pascal's Wager does not by any means concede that there's no rational reason to believe in god. In fact, Pascal holds that, given that there is a logical possibility both that God exists and that God doesn't exist (this is the premise that I assume you dispute), then it follows that, in the absence of any other evidence, it is safer, more in line with self-preservationist instincts, and hence more rational to believe in God, since to disbelieve in God gains you nothing, but to believe in God allows you to avoid the possibility (however small) of "doing backflips in a lake of fire" (which is a rather unsophisticated view of hell, but it's one most fundamentalists propound, so I can't blame anyone for citing it), and also gains you the possibility (however small) of spending eternity in bliss. Rather than say that there's no rational reason, it provides a rational reason based on the idea that it is rational to do what is in one's self interest. Now, I don't believe that Pascal's Wager has ever actually caused anyone to have sincere faith in Christ, so it's not worth mentioning. But it's rationality would not seem to be in question, even if you disagree with the premise that "there is a chance (however small) that God exists". But you said that you were an agnostic, and so you would seem to affirm this premise.

*and if you're going to say "there's no reason to disbelieve in god" let me just remind you that I am agnostic. I do not know, nor am I in any way confident that I'm even capable of 'knowing' the true answer to such a question. Unless some long haired dude in a robe comes to my house and does some cool miracles.

I'm going to assume you're joking and don't want me to launch into a lengthy defense of the resurrection...? jk. I understand that impulse.

 

[Synarch]

What do NTs think of God, and how do they relate to Him ?
Three Christian-culture NTs I know admit either indifference or little understanding of what they call "religion."

Is it possible for an NT to be interested in God ?

I am interested in God for a few reasons:

1. I intuit faith as something beyond rationality. Faith itself requires belief in something beyond comprehension. As such, I think there is room for faith in approaching the fundamental questions of existence. The real question to me is, does faith work at improving life?
2. I find moral principles to have a multiplier effect with respect to improving human life. Even if a biological basis could be found for morality, morality would not lose its potency and would remain a topic for spiritual relationship to the universe.
3. I am interested in settling questions of despair in my own life. I am willing to entertain the idea of choosing to believe in God (even in the face of a lack of evidence) in order to put such questions to bed, as they interfere with a proper appreciation for and approach to life. From my perspective, an atheistic view of the universe does not emotionally satisfy my need for meaning. If I have to belief in something fictitious to derive my meaning, so be it. The only question to me is "does it work", not "is it true". Truth means many things.

 

[silverchris9]

If I may insinuate myself into this comment as well, Synarch, it seems to me that you have a rational intuition of the basic "better-and-worse" of existence. You can tell when something "works" or makes it "better" and when something "doesn't work" and makes it "worse". You get from this starting point to the possibility of God existing, no? I consider your "need for meaning" to be an intuition of the fact that the universe has meaning. Reason then supports or fails to support this intuition, but ultimately, the intuition can be more important. This is much the same as it is for me. My intuition tells me that life is inherently superior to death. This is the starting point from which I "reason" to the existence of God, and then after that there is what I do literally believe to be that God communicates with me, and then I find a perfectly logical reason: if God has a mind, why would he not communicate? (of course, there's room to doubt that God has a mind, but you understand the rationality involved, no?) Everything else is simply evidence which follows naturally from the real existence of God. I mean, since God exists, there necessarily follows some observable, logical result from His action. There's always evidence for what is. Even as I argue, I am not 100% certain (more like 90-95%) that reason can completely prove the existence of God. Perhaps something else is required. My hypothetical model would go something like this: reason gets you 95% of the way there, and then intuition, realization, gets you the rest of the way.


Also, Costrin, I noticed that you mentioned a "good feeling" about doing something good. I presume you consider this to be an evolved response? Would you similarly consider the "bad feeling" one gets when one hears about death (not merely the death of someone that one has an emotional attachment to, but say, something like the Holocaust, or the genocide in Darfur)?

 

[Costrin]

And there is logical evidence for Pantheism, but now that I'm aware of how you use the word evidence, I would probably agree that Pantheism makes untestible and unfalsifiable claims.

Oooh, that's good. Atheism defined as "an absence of belief" rather than a claim "God does not exist." I suppose it would put the burden of proof on the theist, at least until the atheist makes any negative claim against Christianity, which would necessarily be support for the claim "God does not exist". Of course, the two statements have no pragmatic difference whatsoever, but logic and semantics are like twin brothers (thanks, Aristotle), so I don't have any choice but to deal with it.

So then, the refusal to affirm is a position, whereas an affirmation or a negation is a theory. That's something interesting to think on.

Yup. And it is precisely this reason that I typically don't have to look things up when debating a theist. Burden of proof is on them to provide evidence for the claim that God exists. Usually by the time I've waded through the sea of fallacies they make and are able to ask for evidence, they tend to disappear.[/quote]

No, no, no not at all. I haven't been able to catch you in what I thought to be such a simple error. If I have to be specific, those comments were directed towards individuals such as withoutaface and lazyhappy who genuinely believe, not that there is no convincing evidence, but that there is no evidence whatsoever, for Christianity. Of course, now that I've talked with you more, I realize that their position might have been that there's no testable and falsifiable evidence, which would be less lamentable, but still, the statement, just on its face, really really bothers me. And I don't think that it's just the fault of believers (although it's definately partially our fault) but also people who refuse to accept the existence of God yet also refuse to look for evidence that God does exist. It's just the responsible intellectual thing to do, which is why we're having this conversation, not only to convince but also to learn. But I'm much more willing to budge on this point that others; it could very well be that believers are the only one's whose responsibility it is to present this evidence. I suppose that's not one of those deeply-held, unshakeable ENFP values (although I do get into those further down...).[/quote]

I didn't mean to imply that you thought that I was doing so, but rather, if I did, I trust you would point that out.

I wonder if that has anything at all to do with type differences. It seems like the kind of thing that would just be a preference.

Dunno. I don't have enough data to make a generalized rule on this.

Yay problem of induction! I just learned problem of induction last semester, and I know Augustine has some stuff about that, so it's lookup time again. But yes, good point. I made a similar one above (not the same argument, but you know, similar conclusions) using Kant.

Okay, I've studied up some, and here's some arguments for the finitude of the universe. I haven't gotten to the ones that are Big Bang = finitude, but maybe I'll find those later. For the moment:

1) Philosophical absurdity of an actual infinite. Say that there existed a library containing an infinite number of books. Say again that half of the books were red and half of the books were black. If there was indeed an actual infinite number of books, then all of the red books + all of the black books would = all of the red books, because infinity/2 = infinity. So each "half" of the books is also all of the books. Inductively unlikely and it violates the law of noncontradition: how can "half" be "all"? It's a philosophical absurdity, and more significantly, it undermines the very laws of logic whereby we came to conclude that the universe is infinite. Logic (hypothetically) tells us that the universe is infinite, but the universe is infinite implies that logic doesn't work.

Well, couldn't the universe have always existed, and be of a finite size?

2) Furthermore, imagine that every book in the library had a number on its spine. Since there are an infinite number of books, every number that exists is represented on the spine of one of the books. Say then that we added one more book to the number of books. There would be no number that we could add to this number of books; it would be logically impossible to count. Yet inductively, we are familiar with the principle that everything that exists in reality can be counted. Furthermore, say we just assigned the book the number infinity + 1, and we have infinity + 1 books. But infinity + 1 = infinity, so then we would have added a book and not added a book, because the number of books did not increase (it is the same number).

This is covered in this website:

Infinity and paradoxes (near the bottom).

The idea is that the same thing that applies to the number of books applies to the number of days, hours, seconds, minutes, half-lives of uranium, or whatever measure of time one chooses, so that an actual infinite number of time demarcations is impossible. By the way, both of these arguments are shamelessly plagiarized from "Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology," which is a book co-written by William Lane Craig which would appear to address the issue from a fairly balanced perspective (it was also co-written by an atheist arguing against Craig). It looks to be good reading (and quite a few pages are apparently readable on Google Books for free.

But could this not also apply to God itself?

If Hitler's perspective is just as objectively valid as MLKs (and I'm not ready to grant that, but defending objective morality requires God, IMO, or as I might say, God is part of the "necessary structure" of support for objectivity of morality, no matter what Plato and Aristotle say), then this would be a good enough reason for me to reject a purely rational and objective point of view. This would disqualify me from rationality, I know, but I would sooner concede the insufficiency of logic than subjectivity of morals.

I'm not sure what is so bad about subjective morals. Clearly there will be conflicting morals, but at least there is some things societies can use to construct a shared set of morals that the majority can agree with. Things like happiness, sadness, love, anger, emotions in general basically. From an evolutionary perspective, emotions evolved to give humans a reason to work together.

You have a really complex take on this issue; it appears to me to be more complex than simple relativism. Before I attack it, let me attempt to understand it better. The Olympics analogy was very effective earlier (which is odd, because generally I detest sports metaphors). So, a given thing is only "better" or "worse" relative to a given situation or set of goals. So "good" and "bad" are really "effective" and "ineffective," no?

Essentially. My goal is happiness (and I would suspect, the goal of most humans), so anything that interferes with that, is "bad". But say you became happy by stealing or rape? Well, that's fine, go ahead then, but be sure to also factor in the possible consequences, such as being caught and going to jail for the rest of your life, which is generally not a happy thing.

But then, how do you condemn a murderer? Heck, how do you justify punishing criminals at all? Good thieves are very, very effective. Serial killers are effective. Should, then, they be praised, rather than censured? Is this a Nietzschean system, wherein, since the most effective is the most good, a super-effective individual (ubermensch-like) arises and "defines" morality for a given people group?

Well, clearly, murderers and thieves are contrary to the goals of society, so therefore they can and should be punished. Others might condemn them, but personally, I don't condemn people at all. The murderers and thieves clearly felt that murdering and thieving would advance their goals, whatever they were, and to condemn someone for working towards their goals is hypocritical. However, the actions of the murderers and thieves interfere with my goals, so I would take action to stop them.

Ah, this is covered under the idea of hierarchy of values. Certainly, at certain times the good of knowledge (as opposed to ignorance) is superceded by the good of mental stability. Certainly, at certain times, the good of order is superceded by the good of freedom. To make it even clearer, the Christian would say that the good of sexual relations (because pleasure is a good, although many Christian denominations would refute that opinon) is superceded by the good of having one sexual partnership throughout one's life. The Christian would say that the good of a woman choosing what to do with her own body is superceded by the good of protecting the life of a fetus, in the case of abortion. And yet, although one good is superceded by another, in all of these cases, each one of those things were a good and never ceased to be a good. Because one good is not the best, it does not follow that that said good ceases to be an objective good; it is merely not best in that situation.

So yes, pain is better than non-pain, and if we lived in an ideal world, pain would not be necessary to gain knowledge, because all possible goods would be actual in every situation. But since we live in a flawed world, not all possible goods are attainable, and one good must be sacrificed for another. It's like moral economics.

Moral economics, eh? That makes sense. So basically, all of these things are good, but some are contradictory to an extent. So it's a fine balancing act to get the most possible. So I agree this would work, if indeed there were objective good and bad (which I of course disagree with, and elaborate in other parts of this post)

Okay, I was trying to re-figure out the Molinist position well enough to state it coherently here. Let me know if I've done a decent job. I think that some Christians that hold to Molinism would argue that God IS actually omniscient, but uses a process more like eternally completed deduction to arrive at His knowledge: He has "foreknowledge" which roughly corresponds to your "non time-related data". This would include (but not be at all limited to) perfect knowledge of how people (who He created) work, sort of like a super-Shakespeare, as well as the inherent characteristics (insofar as inherent characteristics exist, which I suppose is not at all if you're an existence-precedes-essence person) of all of the people who would ever live. In consequence, God would have "middle knowledge" of counterfactuals, that is, he would not so much foreknow as predict with 100% accuracy what person x would do in situation y. This would allow Him to know (or perhaps more accurately, imagine) every possible universe He could create; that is, every possible chain of events depending upon which actions He Himself took. Then He actualized (created) one particular possible universe, which is the actual universe in which we live. Consequently, at the creation of this particular universe, He did know exactly what would and will happen throughout time on the basis of His actions and His perfect prediction of how humans would/will behave. I think it's like your system, except that the omniscience of God allows Him to "figure out" what will happen despite the butterfly effect, and furthermore, He did this "figuring out" before He created the universe. Of course, this falls apart if there's something about the butterfly effect that makes knowledge of the future logically impossible rather than too difficult for anyone to do (rather like the difference between infinity and uncountability)

It's not much for Ockham's Razor, but it's a pretty good theory.

So basically, sort of a Calvanist position? Wouldn't that negate free will though? God chose the universe he wanted, knowing exactly everything that was going to happen. He knew beforehand who was and wasn't going to believe in and worship him, who was destined for salvation, and who wasn't? I may think I'm choosing not to believe in God, and I am technically, but not really. He knew exactly how my mind works, and exactly what information I would receive, and he knew that I would end up not believing in him. Furthermore, if he does indeed send people to hell, he would have known beforehand, and yet he still chose this universe where he does that, I would be forced to conclude that God is an evil bastard. Why would he not create a universe where all people would end up believing in him and would all go to heaven?

Hmmm. I probably agree with that, although it might have implications which I find distasteful. (Which is more of my feeling-ness. I say, "can this be true" and then decide why it is true or false. This is not to say, of course, that I could never be convinced that something I decided "couldn't" be true isn't true, but merely that it would take a lot longer, and probably some-ick-"soul-searching" (I hate outworn terminology)). I really think some good study of Augustine would be productive to me in this discussion (which is really somewhat of a concession; I've just about run out of my own resources, so I should probably capitulate, right?)

Okay, my post is now less disastrously incomplete (and better spelled).

And I have now finished replying to your post. I left out some parts where you weren't arguing anything (at least, I think you weren't), merely stating meta-level discussion, hope you don't mind.

 

[Costrin]

Also, Costrin, I noticed that you mentioned a "good feeling" about doing something good. I presume you consider this to be an evolved response? Would you similarly consider the "bad feeling" one gets when one hears about death (not merely the death of someone that one has an emotional attachment to, but say, something like the Holocaust, or the genocide in Darfur)?

I think I covered this a littler in my response to your previous post. Yes, I do consider this an evolved response. Emotions evolved so that humans would work together. The good feeling leads toward people helping one another, and the species as a whole survives better and reproduces more. If there's anything in my view of the universe that gives meaning to life, it's emotions. Regardless of the origin, happiness is the main driving force in our lives, is it not? I don't need God to be happy. I am happy if I am able to research and contemplate my theories, and have debates such as this one. I get joy from simple things like eating good food, playing games, hanging out with my friends, and most nebulous of all, love. Sure, love may just be a chemical reaction, but it's powerful, and I like it (ban love, it's a highly addicting drug with many negative side effects!).

So yeah, there may be no objective meaning to life, but you are perfectly capable of defining your own goals and values.

@Synarch especially, but anyone who's interested,
Daylight Atheism blog has many posts on this subject (everything in 'The Garden' section), for starters I might recommend this one, or this article from Ebon Musings (same author).

 

[WithoutaFace]

Well, seriously I can't say yet that I have been convinced that God does or does not exist. I don't have concrete evidence of either. I also have "evidence" that pink elephants exist in space. You can't see them though. Check out this esoteric bookshop in downtown Los Angeles. There's proof all in there. But I do recall the topic of the discussion being opinions about religion with respect to some NTs, right?

And my opinion is that belief in a God makes me complacent. Maybe not for others, but it does for me. I just want to live life with no expectancy of reward. I want to be good, and do good for the sake of good. That's it.

 

[Costrin]

But I do recall the topic of the discussion being opinions about religion with respect to some NTs, right?

Been a long while since that's been the topic.

 

[WithoutaFace]

Well but seriously, a god does exist because our universe is so complex and things are so ordered. If you think of our universe as a complex system and compare it to the mechanisms of a watch, you can't help but think: "Hey god does exist, if a watch is an ordered system like our universe" Why? Because the watch needed a watchmaker. Intelligent design = need of a creator.

However, the atheist says that we are too anthropomorphic. We are likening everything through our schema, and the analogy is weak at best. Therefore God cannot be examined because of our inability to comprehend something that we cannot understand.

But the believer is having none of that, because god is omnipresent; so if he is omnipresent he exists everywhere in the universe, including planet earth. Since he exists everywhere on Earth, that must mean that we can physically or rationally contemplate and define God's existence. Whether it is through mathematics, pure logic, or physics, it can be done.

Until the atheist/agnostic has an answer for that, I believe the ball is in the believer's court for now. I apologize for my nauseating textbook regurgitations.

 

[Mycroft]

What's your definition of verifiable?

1.) falsifiable
2.) repeatable

Silverchris:

It has been my observation that people inclined to believe in a thing for which there is no evidence will approach debate in three stages:

- By pointing out all of the flaws in theories for which there is evidence.

When the basis of this strategy is shown to be fallacious, they move on to:

- Attacking ration

When people raise eyebrows at this approach, they finally move on to:

- Questioning the veracity of perception itself

You've done quite the job of demonstrating this procession, verbosity aside.

 

[silverchris9]

1.) falsifiable
2.) repeatable

Silverchris:

It has been my observation that people inclined to believe in a thing for which there is no evidence will approach debate in three stages:

- By pointing out all of the flaws in theories for which there is evidence.

When the basis of this strategy is shown to be fallacious, they move on to:

- Attacking ration

When people raise eyebrows at this approach, they finally move on to:

- Questioning the veracity of perception itself

You've done quite the job of demonstrating this procession, verbosity aside.

1) I am attacking "ration" insofar as I find it to be defined excessively narrowly, because there are types of knowledge upon which my arguments depend which are accessible through rationality but not science. I fail to see the irrationality of this strategy. Again, I encourage you to study your positions of falsifiability and repeatability. While they are effective for the scientific method, I believe that you will find that it has fallen out of favor with philosophers and scientists alike as the sole basis for knowledge. Consider reading this wikipedia article. Also consider the fact that under falsifiability, the statement "there is at least one electron" is totally meaningless.

2) I do not question the veracity of perception itself. I can only assume that you came to this conclusion through a misreading of my posts. I believe completely in the veracity of perception. I do not believe that the veracity of perception can be adequately defended using scientific means, because to do so tends to be rather circular. Consider this: if the veracity of perception is to be held true, then it must be justified on some grounds that do not assume the veracity of perception. Do you hold that these grounds are capable only of demonstrating the veracity of perception, and insufficient to demonstrate anything else?

3) I believe that you have come to these conclusions, quite rationally, I might add, because you have a definition of "ration" that a priori makes claims regarding the existence of God meaningless. It is impossible to provide evidence for a meaningless proposition, so the theist arguing with you is forced to either argue negatively (since you have denied him the opportunity to work positively) or attack your framework of understanding so that he may argue positively.

4) I might also note that you are providing no positive evidence, nor demonstrating the falsity of anything, nor providing evidence for your falsifiability and repeatability criteria. Consequently, I should probably stop arguing with you, since we are making claims about each other's style of argument, rather than having any productive dialogue whatsoever.

5) You are aware that ad hominem is a fallacy, no?

And thanks, about the verbosity.

(Costrin, I'm of course going to hold up my end of our discussion, but your posts require rather a lot more thinking, and therefore effort, and since I'm home sick, it's gonna take me a minute to muster some.)

 

[Moiety]

1.) falsifiable
2.) repeatable

Have you reached any conclusion as to the verifiability of the existence of God?

If you don't consider it verifiable then there is no point in arguing about the lack of logic when people deal with this subject. Logic would have no place in the conversation in the first place.

 

[Totenkindly]

Well but seriously, a god does exist because our universe is so complex and things are so ordered. If you think of our universe as a complex system and compare it to the mechanisms of a watch, you can't help but think: "Hey god does exist, if a watch is an ordered system like our universe" Why? Because the watch needed a watchmaker. Intelligent design = need of a creator.

That's a big assumption, considered we're still debating the viability of a self-ordered system.

Creationists tend to stack the deck once things seem complicated enough -- "there is no way *I* can imagine for this system to have developed and self-organized, therefore it must have needed a watchmaker."

That claim has yet to be shown to be true. In fact, the more we learn, the more we realize there's a lot of self-organization with the system(s). The biggest question is root origin: Could it have originally STARTED on its own? Or did something have to give it all a big push?

But the believer is having none of that, because god is omnipresent; so if he is omnipresent he exists everywhere in the universe, including planet earth. Since he exists everywhere on Earth, that must mean that we can physically or rationally contemplate and define God's existence. Whether it is through mathematics, pure logic, or physics, it can be done.

?

For starter's, what if there are aspects of God that you cannot observe because they exist outside the realm of your senses? Since you could only see the tip of the iceberg (or the fin above the water, so to speak), there's no way you could be sure of what you're imagining beneath the waves.

Until the atheist/agnostic has an answer for that, I believe the ball is in the believer's court for now. I apologize for my nauseating textbook regurgitations.

Don't copy out of a textbook, engage!
What you said isn't conclusive in the least... and I say that as a Christian agnostic, not an atheist.