News:

The default theme for this site has been updated. For further information, please take a look at the announcement regarding HAF changing its default theme.

Main Menu

Arguments for God

Started by Jac3510, August 27, 2010, 09:33:17 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Thumpalumpacus

And then one might ask, "What caused the causes?" -- or "cause", if you're a theist.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Tank

#31
Another point raised by HS also made me think. What if the first cause doesn't exist any more? There is no guarantee that an entity capable of being a first cause is perforce immortal or sentient or interested. To put a rather tasteless analogy to it, for a dung beetle an elephant is God, it creates a perfect world for the beetle to live in, it doesn't care it created the perfect world for the beetle and eventually it dies.

But yet again we are into intellectual debate for the sake of debate. Nothing Chris has written yet has changed my view of the possibility of the existance of a god or God. There is a lot of beautifully constructed argument but it's all based on itself, it is a perfect circle, just a beautiful perfect circle completely divorced from reality.

The arguments read as though one is constructing a pyramid of immense accuracy and beauty one carefully placed grain of sand at a time until the only possible conclusion is that at the very point of the pyramid sits God. Resplendent in his perfection of existance. The trouble with what I see here, so far, is that there is one critical thing wrong with the pyramid, it is point down and rests on the existance of God in the first place, for which there is no evidence.

I have used the term 'intellectual masturbation' to describe what is going on here, it is mildly derogatory but also very accurate. I'm sure people who engage in this sort of theological debate get immense pleasure from it, I doubt they would do it if they didn't, but because the subject is ethereal and based on the existance of the supernatural the product can only be fruitless. Speculation about speculation is pointless but fun. Speculation followed by experiment is also fun (watch Mythbuters for a very crude example) but requires real world effort. Not that Chris isn't putting in effort, he most definitely is, but in this respect I see it as the sort of effort one puts into riding an exercise bike, the effort isn't really getting us anywhere.

I have called religion institutionalised superstition while the opposite, science, is institutionalised curiosity. Sitting around a camp fire in the middle of the desert with no real idea of how the world works is going to cause speculation about the big questions (such as why did You Bastard fart just as I walked past his arse!) and as humans are an evolved cause and effect machine they are going to want an answer. And at that time there was no possibility of a real answer, so they made shit up as people are want to do in the absence of facts (something we still do today).

So now we are getting a grip on what is really going on, for example evolution. There is no need to invoke a creator anymore. The combined sciences of biology (both taxonomy and genetics), geology and palaeontology have shown how humans came into existance. To deny evolution as the mechanism of production of the biological diversity around us and homo sapiens as part of that biodiversity is simply to deny the scientific method. Darwin was born into a Christian creationist family and set off to discover Gods work. He ended up, after years of soul searching, killing the notion of the biblical creation and thus the voracity of the Bible as an historical document of an worth in describing the mechanisms of creation. Darwin hammered the biggest possible nail into the coffin of God.

In my opinion God is the wishful thinking of people and nothing the Chris has said has, as yet, demonstrated otherwise. But I'm enjoying every word of the debate  :mad:
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

humblesmurph

Quote from: "Tank"snip
In my opinion God is the wishful thinking of people and nothing the Chris has said has, as yet, demonstrated otherwise. But I'm enjoying every word of the debate  :yay:

Recusant

Quote from: "humblesmurf"...isn't it more fun to joust with somebody who can fight back?

In a word, yes.  I'm very grateful that Jac3510 decided to join this forum, and put such effort into the threads he's been involved with, and started.  There have been a few theists that are members here, including but not limited to Reginus and phillysoul11, who have really impressed me with their willingness to take the field and defend the honor of their side in a polite and intelligent manner.  Without people like them and Jac3510, this place wouldn't be the same. To our honorable partners in discourse! :beer:
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


i_am_i

Quote from: "Whitney"Unless I understood incorrectly:  Your friend was basically saying that argument for a first mover has some substance to it if we live in a deterministic universe (one where everything is caused by something) but if quantum physics is correct about uncased events happening frequently that the idea of an uncaused cause (first mover) isn't really much to get excited about.

I'm personally not that impressed by first mover arguments for the above reason...there are simply too many unknowns to confidently say that there is a single first mover let alone that it would be right to call god (the universe could be that first mover if it were simply the natural state of things to exist and all progressed deterministically from there)  That said, I also think first mover arguments probably are about as close to proving god that philosophers have come....they are a good enough reason to not push away the possibility of god even if one isn't convinced due to various holes.

And that raises my question, which is always the same one: where does the possibility, the idea, of god from if not from the human mind?

Maybe a philosopher should come up with a point-by-point argument for just taking the idea of God seriously in the first place.
Call me J


Sapere aude

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "Recusant"
Quote from: "humblesmurf"...isn't it more fun to joust with somebody who can fight back?

In a word, yes.  I'm very grateful that Jac3510 decided to join this forum, and put such effort into the threads he's been involved with, and started.  There have been a few theists that are members here, including but not limited to Reginus and phillysoul11, who have really impressed me with their willingness to take the field and defend the honor of their side in a polite and intelligent manner.  Without people like them and Jac3510, this place wouldn't be the same. To our honorable partners in discourse! :beer:

To quote Churchill, "We have a very daring and skillful opponent, and, may I say across the havoc of war, a great general."

Jac has the quality of thinking.  No matter that we may disagree, the fact that he takes the time to think is worthy of respect.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

i_am_i

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Jac has the quality of thinking.  No matter that we may disagree, the fact that he takes the time to think is worthy of respect.

I agree, Thump, that the quality of thinking is worthy of respect. But saying, "Okay, we begin with God" is not worthy of respect in my opinion. First I need to be told why we need to begin with God. Until I'm shown that then as far as I'm concerned it's just another "I believe in God and here's why" postulation, no matter how eruditely it's stated.
Call me J


Sapere aude

Jac3510

Just a quick post to let everyone know I'll respond in detail to the three or four threads I'm a part of tomorrow . . . not that we have to post every day, of course, but I understand how it is with new members, especially when they hold to a (very) minority position. The thought can cross someone's mind pretty easily, "Where'd they go?!?"

Besides, it's Sunday . . . ya know, church day and all that! :D
"I want to believe there's a heaven. But I can't not believe there's a hell." ~  Vince Gilligan

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "i_am_i"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Jac has the quality of thinking.  No matter that we may disagree, the fact that he takes the time to think is worthy of respect.

I agree, Thump, that the quality of thinking is worthy of respect. But saying, "Okay, we begin with God" is not worthy of respect in my opinion. First I need to be told why we need to begin with God. Until I'm shown that then as far as I'm concerned it's just another "I believe in God and here's why" postulation, no matter how eruditely it's stated.

Agreed.  Thus, the dependent clause "No matter that we may disagree ...."

I merely think it a good thing to applaud a theist who is willing to put his faith to the fire, and I respect him for it.  Too many believers shelter their belief, as if it is something fragile, to be protected.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Tom62

My 2cts. I find the discussion with Jac very interesting, even though I'm not a philosopher and know very little about philosophy. But the tread leads to nowhere, other than that we will agree with Jac that we disagree.

For me philosophy has always been an experiment in futility, that evolves around a lot of navel staring; an intellectual discussion that is out of touch with "reality". It reminds me of the following joke:

How many philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?

"Hmmm... well there's an interesting question isn't it?"
"Define 'light bulb'..."
"How can you be sure it needs changing?"
The universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on government contract.
Robert A. Heinlein

Parsifal

Jac, if God exists, why doesn't he answer prayers like he claims he would in the Bible?

If he really exists, he does not deserve my worship.
Please support follow my mammoth project to tweet the whole of Darwin's On the Origin of Species at https://twitter.com/OriginsTweeted.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cy

Jac3510

Quote from: "Parsifal"Jac, if God exists, why doesn't he answer prayers like he claims he would in the Bible?

If he really exists, he does not deserve my worship.
The question seems genuine enough (although the "if God exists" is difficult to read. I'm inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt as to sincerity, but the same phrase can easily carry a dismissive tone). The following statement has me wondering whether you are interested in serious dialogue as several of the board members here have demonstrated themselves to be or whether your question is really just a "gotcha."

Rather than spending  a lot of time on a discussion that may prove to be fruitless, let me just ask you a question to help clarify your meaning. Where in the Bible does God claim that He will answer prayers?
"I want to believe there's a heaven. But I can't not believe there's a hell." ~  Vince Gilligan

Reginus

Jac, can you explain and/or rephrase 19?  It's a bit confusing to me.  Also, what are the immediate premises it builds upon?
"The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill

_7654_

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/franciscan ... kluge.html

I don't think you can get to this link. but it talks, in excruciating detail regarding your arguments. i am reading the study, yes it's a philosophical study of another philosophical work :-)

Parsifal

Quote from: "Jac3510"
Quote from: "Parsifal"Jac, if God exists, why doesn't he answer prayers like he claims he would in the Bible?

If he really exists, he does not deserve my worship.
The question seems genuine enough (although the "if God exists" is difficult to read. I'm inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt as to sincerity, but the same phrase can easily carry a dismissive tone). The following statement has me wondering whether you are interested in serious dialogue as several of the board members here have demonstrated themselves to be or whether your question is really just a "gotcha."

Rather than spending  a lot of time on a discussion that may prove to be fruitless, let me just ask you a question to help clarify your meaning. Where in the Bible does God claim that He will answer prayers?

Where?  In several places.  Here is one from Mark.  

QuoteMark 11
11:22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.   
11:23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.   
11:24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

There are several similar passages, the gist of which is: pray, believe and you'll receive.

Now, I know many Christians say that the lack of faith leads to the lack of answered prayer (in 99,99999999% (or something like that) of cases, whereas the remainder is impossible to distinguish from things that would any way have happened, like getting better from a cold, or finding a parking space at the mall).  Otherwise, it wasn't part of God's plan.  But the point is, can so many devout christians really lack faith?  And, nowhere in the Bible does the Lord Jesus say "Whatsoever ye desire, when ye pray and believe that ye received them, AND PROVIDED IT IS PART OF MY PLAN, ye shall receive them.

So, either God lied (but the Bible seems to exclude that possibility) or he doesn't exist.  I'm opting for the latter.
Please support follow my mammoth project to tweet the whole of Darwin's On the Origin of Species at https://twitter.com/OriginsTweeted.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cy