Philosophy Forums


There IS a God

PrintPrint


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Last

There IS a God
mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 509
Posted 07/23/09 - 03:14 PM:
quote post
#11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor - this should be given to all kids when they start school.

Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.
Kingt2
RPI Student
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 17, 2007

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 137
Posted 07/23/09 - 03:18 PM:
quote post
#12
1) You've defined atheism as "The belief that there is no god because of the lack of evidence provided by the silly religion of Christianity"; which is clearly false

2) There is no way to show a god's existence based on the fact that atheists may have their reasons for not believing in god all wrong--even if you do that.

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...' -Isaac Asimov
despinozist
Graduate
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2008

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 117
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted 07/23/09 - 04:05 PM:
quote post
#13
"Existence" is not the right kind of predicate under which conditions may be satisfied to guarantee its successful application. All other predicates, when used, presuppose the existence predicate. The existence predicate, roughly, means *the possibility of evidence.*

Thus: "God exists", as the conclusion to an argument or in any use, for that matter, amounts to "God has the possibility of evidence."

In saying "God is almighty," one has presumed that evidence for the predicate "is almighty" can be got at. If one fails to discover or determine the veracity of the claim, then the claim is false.

Basically, you need to give us an account of what it would be like if God were to exist, by appeal to other predicates. The statement "God is almighty" has truth-conditions. "God exists" does not because "is existant" makes it possible for me to say of any proposition that it "has truth-conditions." That is "does exist" means "has possibility of truth-conditions."

But, "truth-conditions" apply to other predicates. "God" is not a predicate. But if you say of a thing, "That is God," then you have to explain just what truth-conditions apply (what it would be like, or what would have to hold, for the proposition "That is God" to be true).

I'll show you differences.
aufbau87
Student
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 08, 2008
Location: Southern California

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 62
Posted 07/23/09 - 07:25 PM:
quote post
#14
matt84 wrote:
Hello everybody.

I'm not sure how to start this post so I guess I'll just dive right in. There IS a God.

I was an Atheist for a long time and am well aware of all the arguments that Atheists use to disprove the existence of God. In this post I'm going to try and show why it is correct to believe in God and also I'm going to attempt to highlight some of the reasons people come to the conclusion that there is no God.


If we're concerned with epistemic reasons for God's existence, the (actual) reasons people come to the conclusion that there is no God is irrelevant. I became a nontheist not for logical reasons, but psychological reasons. Woop-dee-doo. So has the theist.

First of all let's talk about the reasons people decide there is no God.

No evidence is nearly always the usual answer given by Atheists and I'll reply to that accusation in the second part of this post. It is important however that we first understand what we believe and why so let's look at the general narrative that we in the "West" are told is the truth.

1 There is no God


Secularism is the predominant philosophy in the West, but the majority still believe that God exists.

2 The Universe came into existence 13.72 billion years ago, in an event known as the Big Bang


Except in popular science, this is not the consensus. The Big Bang model is untestable insofar as it postulates a singularity from which the big bang putatively arose from. It is testable, however, just when it concerns the universe starting from near singularity. Therefore, "The Universe" begins to exist on the Big Bang model; but that portion of the theory is not testable.

3 We arrived at our current position through a process of Evolution


Agreed, this is the predominant viewpoint.

4 In the infancy of our species we created mythologies and superstitions to explain the existence of the Universe and ourselves


I don't know if this is the consensus in the West. What reasons have anthropologists given us to think that the mythologies and superstitions were created to fulfill some other function, e.g. the existence of changes in environment, seemingly beyond control, e.g. rain, earthquakes, etc.

5 This culminated with the three Abrahmic faiths Judaism, Christianity and Islam

6 We subsequently discovered the scientific method and therefore lost the need for our man made religions

7 We now live in a secular and ever increasingly Atheist society


I agree that the faiths were born out of mythology; but so was science. In any case, a good secular thinker will not waste their time with trying to find the historical origins of belief; we require good epistemic reasons, which consists of scientific reasoning (in the widest sense).

The main stumbling block in the West to accepting that there is a God is Christianity. Christianity is a man made religion, this is fact.

Many people are under the illusion that Jesus started a new religious movement when infact it was Paul who was the founder of Christianity. Jesus was a Jew and came to this world only to try and correct the errors that had crept into the laws handed to the Jews by God. At no point did Jesus attempt to create a new religion and not once did Jesus claim to be God.

After the death of Jesus it was Paul and his followers who started a new religion based on the theology that Jesus was infact God incarnate who is actually composed of three parts and who came to this world to die so that we may be absolved of the original sin inherited from Adam and Eve.

For the first hundred years or so Christianity was nothing but a cult, up until the moment the Roman Emperor Constantine converted at which point it spread rapidly through the Empire that covered Europe.

In the year 610 a man from Arabia by the name Muhammed claimed to have received a final revelation from God and his movement pushed its way up out of Arabia across Eastern and Northern Africa into Andalusia only to be stopped by a crucial battle in 732 at Tours in France.

Because of this pivotal moment in history Europe was destined to remain under the shadow of Christianity for over a thousand more years.


What I am trying to show here is that the assumption that Atheism is a valid and natural position to hold and is the product of an evolution of ideas is not true.

The reason people in the West, led by our intellectuals and elites, have come to a position of Atheism is in short because of the madness of Christianity.


It is entirely acceptable to reject the notion that God is a Trinity, that He came to this world two thousand years ago in the form of a man to commit suicide on a cross so that we may be redeemed of our sins. That eating and drinking bread and wine consecrated by a priest constitutes consuming the body of Jesus. These ideas are profoundly idiotic and simply not true. Any sane person knows this.

What we in the West have in effect done though is throw the baby out with the bath water. Because we instictively know that Christianity is nonsense we make the mistake of assuming that all religions are nonsense.

This is not the case.


I'll post part two later

Peace
Matt


Interesting take. I agree with you that Christianity is a load of nonsense, in the final analysis; but this is due to issues germane also to theism, in general.

I should also mention this (or make it more explicit):

Merely because atheists are the way they are because of the silliness of Christianity, it does not mean that atheism is not defensible on other, i.e. rational, grounds. So, even if you succeed in showing that atheists really do believe for the reasons you've given, it is entirely irrelevant, from a logical point of view.
180 Proof
kynic
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5123
Posted 07/23/09 - 08:55 PM:
quote post
#15
despinozist wrote:
"Existence" is not the right kind of predicate under which conditions may be satisfied to guarantee its successful application. All other predicates, when used, presuppose the existence predicate. The existence predicate, roughly, means *the possibility of evidence.*

Thus: "God exists", as the conclusion to an argument or in any use, for that matter, amounts to "God has the possibility of evidence."

Basically, you need to give us an account of what it would be like if God were to exist, by appeal to other predicates.

"God" is not a predicate. But if you say of a thing, "That is God," then you have to explain just what truth-conditions apply (what it would be like, or what would have to hold, for the proposition "That is God" to be true).

cool Very apt précis.

The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?"

Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence.

[What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]
Cheshire
Aspect
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 705
Posted 07/23/09 - 10:22 PM:
quote post
#16
Atheism is the result of trying to make sense of religion at any cost.

Or not.
matt84
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 22, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 53
Posted 07/24/09 - 10:28 AM:
Subject: There IS a God Part Two
quote post
#17
Hello all you beautiful people. I have returned to post part two and I have to confess to feeling rather disappointed that some of you have such little faith in your fellow human beings, "Oh he'll never return to post part two".

I'm happy to be here and hopefully I've found a nice happy, thoughtful community in which I can participate in.

Ok let's get down to business.

In my first post I attempted to show in a very brief manner how Atheism is not a valid or logical position to take but merely a rejection of an idea based on false information.

I don't want to beat around the bush any longer so I'm going to jump straight into the main thrust of my argument.

There IS a God.

What would it take for you to believe this premise?

Evidence I hear you shout. Quite right too. A crazy proposition to expect any self regarding person to be expected to dedicate one's life to something that there is no evidence for. Why you might as well believe in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus.

That's why I'm more than happy to tell you that there is ample evidence to support the claim that a transcendental entity created the Universe and placed YOU within it in order to test you and best of all, he loves you and wants you to succeed.

EVIDENCE!!!!

Ok, Ok ha ha.


In a similar vein to the first post I'm quickly going to give a brief history lesson to anyone who might not understand the three Abrahamic faiths and how they fit together.

God, after creating the world and everything in it, sent very many Prophets to guide his children and keep them on the right path. Where ever there were people, no matter the time or place, God sent a Prophet to guide them. According to Qur'an there have been 124,000 Prophets upon the planet. The ancient tribe we know as the Jews were originally known as the Hebrews or Israelites and God sent them a Prophet (Moses) and chose to make a covenant with them. In simple terms He chose the Jews to be a shining light to humanity to show what could be achieved when you follow God's advice. Unfortunately for various reasons, some innocent some not so, God's laws became corrupted. Enter Jesus.
As I explained in the first post Jesus walked upon the Earth and did perform miracles however his only "mission" was to restore the laws that God had given the Jews previously.
Contrary to Jesus and all the advice God had given humanity, human beings were determined to worship someone other than God and decided that Jesus was infact God himself. Follow two thousand years of contradictions and word games. How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin???
Enter Muhammed.
In the year 610 a merchant from Mecca began to recieve what he claimed were messages from God. For the next 22 years up until his death Muhammed recieved many messages which upon his death, for fear of being lost, were compiled together in the form of a book.

Ok so I am going to make a bold statement.

Qur'an is the word of God and Muhammed was his final messenger.

Before I go any further I plead with you to enter into this discussion with an open mind and more importantly an open heart. It is the simplest task in the world to find reasons to reject something if you don't want to believe in it in the first place. All I can ask is that you search for TRUTH. No prejudices no assumptions. It really does take a sincere individual to discover the truth. I hope I have not given anyone any reason so far to doubt my sincerity and surely there can be no doubt that I have nothing to gain by trying to persaude you of the veracity of my claim.

Here we go.

Qur'an is proof of the existence of God.

Qur'an was and is a miraculous revelation given to Muhammed by the Angel Gabriel acting on the behalf of God. The messages vouchsafed to Muhammed by God are in the original Arabic form unparalled, superlative, peerless and profoundly awe inspiring. To listen to Qur'an (which means recitation in Arabic) is to listen to God. The message given to Muhammed can be read or listened to in the exact original form anywhere and at anytime by anyone in the world at the present time.

Now I know that many of you reading this are going to be rather disappointed that Qur'an is my only evidence for the existence of God but please bear with me.

If I was to walk up to you on the street and tell you that I had the strength of one hundred men you would have the choice to believe or disbelieve. Most probably (hopefully) you would choose not to believe me.
However if I immediately walked over to a large truck and proceeded to lift it above my head with ease you would be forced to reconsider. Why?
Because the only way I could have performed the task you witnessed was if I did infact have the strength of one hundred men.

Similarly Qur'an can be judged in this manner.

What does Qur'an contain?
How did it come about?
Who delivered it?
Most importantly, is it possible Muhammed could have composed Qur'an himself?

These are all questions that you will have to find answers to, but I am more than happy to help.

In the third part of this post I hope to answer all your questions regarding Muhammed, Qur'an and Islam that I am sure you will be desperate to throw at me.

Peace and Love
Matt
Crackers
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 519
Posted 07/24/09 - 11:51 AM:
quote post
#18
matt84 wrote:
Qur'an is proof of the existence of God.


If we are going to accept that the Qur'an is proof of the existence of God then I see no reason as to why we shouldn't take The Lord of The Rings to be proof of the existence of Gandalf.
Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 387
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted 07/24/09 - 11:59 AM:
quote post
#19
But The Lord of The Rings hasn't been given to your prophet J. R. R. Tolkien by the angel Gabriel acting on God's behalf. Crackers, don't you see? grin

Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II
I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want
despinozist
Graduate
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2008

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 117
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted 07/24/09 - 12:22 PM:
quote post
#20
You argue by analogy?

No one believes that by analogical reasoning one can give a full explanans from the explanandum. Since you're reasoning by analogy, you should understand that you're reasoning by analogy and that one can question the base of the analogy itself. Moreover, one can obviously raise question as to the limits of analogical arguments in general.

That is,

*IF* you were to lift a truck or heavy object by your own physical powers. You need to demonstrate that the antecedent is in fact true.

It's of utmost condescension, I think, to come to a philosophy forum and to chant the dictum: Only accept those thesis or conditionals that have true evidence which support their conclusions!

Of course we're going to "judge in that manner." That's the whole point of argumentation.

It is required that *reasons* are given so as to make for acceptability of the antecedent of your argument. You have not done this at all. And reminding us to "remember basic logic" is disheartening and insulting, really.

I'll show you differences.
Download thread as

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Last



Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.