Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate Discussion » Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist? » Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?

Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?

Page: First 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?

180 Proof
kynic

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

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5125

Posted 06/17/09 - 06:55 PM:	#111
Makarismos wrote: What I would suggest is that this creation might bear little resemblance to a particular persons god, or (if it does) bear little resemblance to a second persons god. We might suggest a third idea which corresponds roughly to these two, and yet still leave out a third persons idea of "God". Of course. This is why I take issue with god-concepts (or god-beliefs) deployed through religious & theological traditions and not merely what this person or that one wholly subjectively means by "god". Merely subjective conceptions are not what's at issue; rather those god-concepts which while subjectively grasped are also ascribed objective (i.e. non-subjective) predicates (e.g. "creator", "law-giver", etc). The point is, Maka, that where ascriptions allege non-subjective effects, or consequences, these ascriptions can be logically examined & empirically tested, and if found incoherent and/or falsified then they do not obtain; it necessarily follows, therefore, that any "god-concept" to which these ascribed predicates (e.g. "creator", "law-giver", etc) -- that do not obtain -- are sine qua non does not have a referent (i.e. is imaginary). Of course we could as you suggest take the commonly held attributes and test for these, but we must then ask ourselves: who are we testing these attributes for? If not ourselves, then only those who hold exactly this beliefe (that god = x y and z). If I'm debating a Sunni Muslim, for instance, then the god-concept in question will be "Al'lah" as interpreted by Sunni tradition. Most believers who enter into debates about "god's existence" have no difficulty acknowledging their own religious tradition's conception of "god". As a skeptic I simply attempt to show that whatever god-concept a religious, or theological, tradition puts forward does not stand up on its own terms under critical examination. So far so good ... This is the problem of ambiguity ... No it's not. You might want it to be but I defy you to find theologians, clerics, seminarians & (traditional) apologists who do not have an unambiguous conception of the "god" they believe in. A concept can be unambiguous & false or unambiguous & incoherent, and I'm a skeptical of those unambiguous "god-concepts" that are false and/or incoherent. "Ambiguous concepts" are simply not at issue since they aren't clear enough to imply anything explicit enough to provoke a controversy. The task of disabiguation is possible in thoery, but never-ending in practice. So what? Just because disambiguation is "never-ending" doesn't imply that terms are not sufficiently disambiguated for the task, or discourse, at hand. Go check out wikipedia, this is done fairly effectively all the time. You seem to find yourself in the absurd position of one defending an idea as intelligible, though demonstrably false, when you have no way of showing this falsity. The god-concept "Yahweh" is ascribed the predicate of "creator" through the early chapters of the Genesis-narrative. This entails a "hypothesis" that the Earth (or universe) was "created" which has been resoundly falsfied in thousands of ways by everyone of the relevant scientific disciplines. If the Biblical "hypothesis" is false, then "Yahweh -- the god-concept that entails it -- is also false. Sure, that concept can be modified to exclude the predicate "creator", but then this modified god-concept will not be the one "believed in" for millenia by devout Jews & Christians or by Muslims who identify the Quranic "Al'lah" with "the god of Abraham" (aka "Yahweh"). Consider this link to an outline of physicist Victor J. Stenger's "God: The Failed Hypothesis": http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Summary.htm There are undeniably countless ways, Maka, to show that traditional (rather than merely subjective) "god-concepts" are false (and/or incoherent). All this aside, I can assure you that the term "god" is certainly currently used in such a way as to render it hopelessly ambiguous. Again, so what? We can engage unambiguous uses of "god". It's simply disingenuous to deny that there are religious traditions for which (their) god-concepts are unambiguous. Edited by 180 Proof on 07/07/09 - 09:48 PM. Reason: Spelling ...
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?]]]

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 06/18/09 - 03:15 AM:	#112
180, I see what your getting at, and I suppose that if I am to be consistent, then I must also take issue with he god concepts used by theologians, as they too attempt to define a god in specific ways through definitions and the listing of certain characteristics. I would then apparently run in to a difficulty with accepting definitions handed down by religious leaders; though strangely, I do not find myself entirely at odds with this approach. My main first complaint when discussing the term "god" was one of ambiguity, and though I stand by this in terms of individual belief, I see now that their are religious institutions whose traditions include a specific definition of god, which individually are unambiguous and can therefore be tested for on a case by case basis. I suppose that a few might be found to be false by this method - but I am convinced that a number will be found to be unproven, or lacking evidence. In such cases I suppose you would go your way, and I would go mine? You speak of the creation of the earth/world/universe as being an event that science and human endeavour has proven to have come about without a designer. I don't think this is quite the case 180, it is rather the case that science and human endeavour have not proven much about the creation of the universe, or of the formation of life. I will grant you the creation of the earth is believed to be quite well understood, and seemingly this did not rely upon any further intervention than natural processes. What I am saying is that science is a fine tool, a marvellous way of looking in to the universe and making predictions. It is not a method for debunking the personal subjective. From the point of view of science, it makes little sense to obey social niceties, as scientifically we have no proof that we ought to say please or thank you, respect others wishes, or refrain from treating people as if they were only complex chemical reactions, rather than sentient beings. The term god can be disambiguated in a number of senses, but if each different person has differing beliefs, and modifies these beliefs in the face of their experience, can we claim to be able to prove them all false? Presumably some will be lunatic, but many will be merely unlikely - and yet impossible to reasonably dispel. I would suggest that the majority of religious people have beliefs which are of this kind. So my second problem compounds the first, and this problem is one of vagueness. A religious person does not always have a definite idea of what it is they are referring to when they use the term "god". If this is so, then it will be impossible for them to define to you what it is they believe in. Are your views so instant upon this point as to demand a definition before accepting a belief exists? Or does your position count these people as atheists, as they do not subscribe to a particular church? I thank you for your post, and it occurs to me that you have struck a chord in my reasoning that perhaps prevents me from accepting a strict definition of "god". Such an acceptance seems absurd to me, when it is used in so many different ways, and so therefore (as you point out) I am committed to disregarding strict definitions, both because they are inherently inflexible, and because they remove the concept of the term from its use. In just the same way as any word changes its meaning, so must the word "god" change its. If any organisation kept a single word alive in an unchanging form for thousands of years - we would expect that word to alter in its meaning in popular use. If we found an ancient dictionary, we would be ill advised to consult it when we wanted to know what someone meant by the word "gay" or "card". cheers 180, pleasure as always. M

Gilborn
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 19, 2009
Location: Dallas, Texas

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 06/19/09 - 10:43 PM:	#113
Is God willing to prevent evil, but unable? Then his is omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both willing and able? Then whence comes evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? ~Epicurus, 341 BC - 270 BC
"Wise is the man who speaks in riddles, a fool of a man who hears the riddles and thinks the man wise." ~ Philip E. Brazeale

MarchHare
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 23, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 190

Posted 06/23/09 - 02:58 PM:	#114
The problems of proving too many gods with theistic arguments (eg. I've rarely comes across arguments that can prove Jehovah but not Cthulhu) is part of a broad category of problems I have with gnostic theism, specifically that there's an incoherence in the methods of inquiry that they use, which was touched on in the debate. Gaunilo's Island as a response to the ontological argument is a good example of this and almost always the gnostic theist is left having to use special pleading. The problems with Pascal's Wager are another example: the reasons for choosing one god to apply the wager to are arbitrary, unless that is one can disprove every other possible deity. On the other hand, if you look at the methods of inquiry that are used and respected in the secular sphere, such as the natural sciences, the striving for coherent inquiry is brutally intense: if a piece of equipment is used to prove the existence of one particle, while the equipment opens up the door to the existence of another particle which the person performing the proof denies exists, there will be blood. Indeed, the history of science is as much a history of reforming science's tools and methods as it is about discoveries; I'm thinking of the move away from Arisotle, the progression from Bacon's experimental views, the Newtonian and post-Newtonian revolutions etc. Since I'm new here, I might as well state my views on gods: towards most gods (including the Christian god) I'm a gnostic atheist; towards certain less committal models of god (particularly the "deistic" gods) I'm an ignostic atheist.
Doubt requires a reason to doubt. Nothing is immune from potential doubt. The correct response to a question isn't always to try to give the question's answer.

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 225

Posted 07/02/09 - 03:17 PM:	#115
MarchHare wrote: (eg. I've rarely comes across arguments that can prove Jehovah but not Cthulhu) I would be very curious to know the arguments for God that you have been coming across that fail to observe the rather important conceptual distinctions between between different deities. The ontological argument could not be used to prove the existence of, say, Zeus, because nowhere in Greek mythology is that figure held to be perfect. Nor could you use a cosmological argument to prove Thor because nowhere in Norse mythology is Thor reckonned a Prime mover or first cause.

MarchHare
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 23, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 190

Posted 07/07/09 - 11:12 AM:	#116
thewatcher wrote: I would be very curious to know the arguments for God that you have been coming across that fail to observe the rather important conceptual distinctions between between different deities. The ontological argument could not be used to prove the existence of, say, Zeus, because nowhere in Greek mythology is that figure held to be perfect. Nor could you use a cosmological argument to prove Thor because nowhere in Norse mythology is Thor reckonned a Prime mover or first cause. I didn't say ALL the gods, but "too many" gods or at least more than the person proposing the argument aimed to prove. For the sake of fun- We all have an idea of absolute terrifying cosmic horror, which is why "cosmic horror" is a meaningful term. By definition, the source of the idea of cosmic horror could not be terrestrial; therefore, it must have an extraterrestrial source. This source must be Cthulhu. - which is a flippant example, but others can be proposed. There can be as many beings "proven" by the ontological argument as there are concepts of perfection; any entity or force that one defines as a creator can is "proven" by the cosmological argument. Indeed, the flipside of your post is that all one has to do is claim that the proposed entity holds the relevant property and it is "proven" by the arguments that were originally intended to prove just one specific deity. Incidentally, a polytheist can have a transcendant orgy with the reasoning established by Christian apologists: the cosmological argument proves Zeus (since it proves Gaia and Uranus, whose existence necessitates the existence of Zeus); the ontological argument is famously open "abuse" since perfection isn't the only thing predicate that can be said necessitates existence etc. To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens: even if you get one of the arguments for the existence of God to work, you've still got 99% of your work cut out for you. There is still the matter of (a) establishing an epistemology about the nature of the deity; (b) the elimination of all possible competing deities; (c) the reasoned attribution of the properties of one's desired God to the entity one has proven; (d) confirmation of sufficient correspondance between the deity and the actions spoken about in the religion; (e) the avoidance, at all times, of any possible argumentum ad absurdum resulting from ANY of the preceding procedures. No-one has got very far with the arguments for the existence of God thus far, but no-one has even been able to make a serious effort in BEGINNING (a)-(e). Thomas Aquinas tried in the second half of the Summa Theologia and became a broken man as a result; I seriously doubt there will ever be a Christian thinker to even hold a candle to Aquinas's genius.
Doubt requires a reason to doubt. Nothing is immune from potential doubt. The correct response to a question isn't always to try to give the question's answer.

Phaedruswax
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 104

Posted 08/06/09 - 04:39 AM:	#117
I have to say, I agree with 180 proof's portion of the argument. A being which is said to have been the origins of all that exists apparently contradicts itself. And honestly, SnoopDoug's argument seemed a little similar to pascal's wager. God exists because it is reasonable to believe it does, doesn't seem reasonable to me.

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 559

Posted 08/10/09 - 02:14 PM:	#118
Makarismos wrote: 180, I see what your getting at... You speak of the creation of the earth/world/universe as being an event that science and human endeavour has proven to have come about without a designer. I don't think this is quite the case 180, it is rather the case that science and human endeavour have not proven much about the creation of the universe, or of the formation of life. I will grant you the creation of the earth is believed to be quite well understood, and seemingly this did not rely upon any further intervention than natural processes. M If you fellows don't mind my stepping in... I have pointed out among a few posts outside of this discussion that it is relevant (especially here) to consider that though a thing can be deemed to have come forth from the current state of the universe via a natural process, as I believe it is that case that most if not all things can, this does not preclude that it also was not designed. That is not to say that it was, only that naturalness does not necessarily lead one posit the absence of design. Of course this needs qualification, namely that that it could be the case, for instance, that the designer is all that is, and that from within the system 'all that is' we cannot help but perceive the design as what is natural to 'all that is'; we miss the designed-nature because it is imperceptible from within. That is to say that nature could be isomorphic to a god-concept, and that any supernatural acting thing would by its nature not be perceptible withing 'all that is'. This would not include religion or individual-specific god-concepts as discussed above, but might be construed as the same as a designer-god (without any of the other things attached, ie. morals action, etc.). I, at least, cannot see the path to take to preclude a natural process by a lack of a designer, but have hoped to find someone who has the profound capacity to make me think deeper, or more simply if that is the case, about this subject. I have, for instance, found it hard to say that when we realized that the emergence of life and consciousness in our universe could be described by the evolutionary model we at once did away with any notion of intelligence inherent in the universe. In short, I feel like: "Of course we will know the universe in terms of 'natural processes', that is all there is for us to see, but that is apparently not all there is to talk about meaningfully", namely because my paradigm is effected by the omega point question "why" of all the "hows" that I can ask about meaningfully given the epistemology of the scientific method. And paradigms are very important to me as a human being (it appears they are important to all of us that engage in philosophy). Edited by rigelrover on 08/10/09 - 07:25 PM
I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation. If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself, then 'true' mystery does exist.

brainpharte
Huh?

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 07, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 962

Posted 08/10/09 - 06:12 PM:	#119
I have long been convinced that there were two Kant's--The one who wrote the Critique of Pure Reason, and his demented cousin of the same name who wrote most of the other stuff. SnoopSoug wrote: Kant's Practical Axiological Argument 1. Moral behavior is rational. 2. Moral behavior is rational if and only if justice will be done. 3. Justice will be done if and only if God exists. 4. Therefore, God exists. Briefly, if God does not exist, then justice will not be done. Many good people will die miserably, and many bad people will die in comfort; and, we will all have the same destiny. This would make moral behavior irrational. Yet, moral behavior is not irrational. Therefore, we have solid practical grounds for believing in God and an afterlife. It is rational for people in a given society to abide ny the moral guidelines of that society for purely pragmatic, emotional, and psychological reasons, independently of any alleged ultimate justice in the afterlife. Therefore (2) is false, and (3) and (4) do not follow.
"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."

Jubal Harshaw
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 18, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 48

Posted 08/21/09 - 07:28 AM:	#120
brainpharte wrote: I have long been convinced that there were two Kant's--The one who wrote the Critique of Pure Reason, and his demented cousin of the same name who wrote most of the other stuff. It is rational for people in a given society to abide ny the moral guidelines of that society for purely pragmatic, emotional, and psychological reasons, independently of any alleged ultimate justice in the afterlife. Therefore (2) is false, and (3) and (4) do not follow. I disagree. It is rational for a person to abide by the moral guidelines he accepts ONLY for the reason that he accepts them.

Page: First 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

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