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

Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?

J. Random Hacker
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 479

Posted 04/20/09 - 07:49 PM:	#11
If there is a god, that god knows exactly what evidence it would take for me to believe in it and is powerful enough to provide that evidence. The fact that I remain unconvinced is evidence that either such a god does not exist or does not care what I believe.

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 10, 2002

Total Topics: 465
Total Posts: 12173

Posted 04/20/09 - 07:49 PM:	#12
Wosret wrote: I'm very disappointed with the affirmative arguments, especially one from morality, that implies that universal justice is done, which is completely untrue. Anyone who thinks that it is, I think has a warped conception of justice. He hasn't presented it very well, but that's not Kant's argument. Kant makes a point of the fact that justice is not usually done. The argument (which I haven't read in years so my version is shaky too) is that in order to have a sense of what justice is, there has to be a highest good. That highest good is basically defined as god. In short, he argues that if we ought to pursue the highest good then there must be a highest good. If there weren't, our pursuit isn't rational. Kant's version is still a poor argument, and relies on the usual card trick of inserting a cleverly-designed stand-in for god, but it's less trivially so.

J. Random Hacker
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 479

Posted 04/20/09 - 07:55 PM:	#13
Paul wrote: He hasn't presented it very well, but that's not Kant's argument. Kant makes a point of the fact that justice is not usually done. The argument (which I haven't read in years so my version is shaky too) is that in order to have a sense of what justice is, there has to be a highest good. That highest good is basically defined as god. In short, he argues that if we ought to pursue the highest good then there must be a highest good. If there weren't, our pursuit isn't rational. Kant's version is still a poor argument, but it's less trivially so. How does that deal with the Euthyphro Dilemma? Does God choose what is good or is it something that even God is subordinate to? If God decides that beating old ladies to death is good, then is it? If so, isn't goodness rather arbitrary? If even God can't decree that beating old ladies is good then what role does God play in goodness? Isn't God kind of secondary or even superfluous?

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 10, 2002

Total Topics: 465
Total Posts: 12173

Posted 04/20/09 - 11:46 PM:	#14
Checking into the details, I think I've misrepresented Kant a bit. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, there are two slightly different arguments he makes, but neither appear to be directly vulnerable to the Euthyphro dilemma. I was thinking of the second argument: Argument VI: 20. It is rationally and morally necessary to attain the perfect good (happiness arising out of complete virtue). 21. What we are obliged to attain, it must be possible for us to attain. 22. Attaining the perfect good is only possible if natural order and causality are part of an overarching moral order and causality. 23. Moral order and causality are only possible if we postulate a God as their source. So he's not arguing that God is the highest good, only that the perfect good couldn't be obtained without God. Of course this argument is full of other holes, I'll leave those for you to poke. The idea is that in order for being perfectly good to result in being perfectly happy, there must be a god to make it so. Otherwise, being good wouldn't always make you happy (like in reality). It's hard to imagine Kant seriously believed that perfect virtue led to perfect happiness here on Earth, so it would seem that heaven plays a role as the mythical reward for being good. The SEP summarizes: "Human agency is beset by weaknesses that make the attainment of virtue — in the absence of external aid — seem impossible. Human agents are in addition subject to contingencies that can cut short attempts to grow to moral maturity and perfection. The being postulated in (23) has omniscience and omnipotence combined with perfect goodness. Thus it will ensure that the pursuit of a virtuous state is possible through external aid (as in grace) and will promise an immortality where the moral journey can be completed." Seems pretty much the standard Christian view: people are naturally evil and hopeless, but if they seek out God he'll give them a chance to be good. Like all logical proofs, of course, it basically begs the question. I suspect the only reason Kant made the arguments is that he was afraid of being excommunicated after he spent his time debunking all the previous arguments for God. Edited by Paul on 04/20/09 - 11:55 PM

aletheist
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Location: Olathe, KS

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 620

Posted 04/21/09 - 06:38 AM:	#15
J. Random Hacker wrote: If there is a god, that god knows exactly what evidence it would take for me to believe in it and is powerful enough to provide that evidence. The fact that I remain unconvinced is evidence that either such a god does not exist or does not care what I believe. Or freely chooses to let you freely choose whether to believe, rather than compelling you with absolute proof.
"Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

aletheist
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Location: Olathe, KS

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 620

Posted 04/21/09 - 06:42 AM:	#16
J. Random Hacker wrote: Does God choose what is good or is it something that even God is subordinate to? This is a false dichotomy; if God exists, then what is good is simply whatever is consistent with God's own nature. The relationship is an identity, not subordination one way or the other.
"Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2874

Posted 04/21/09 - 07:11 AM:	#17
aletheist wrote: Or freely chooses to let you freely choose whether to believe, rather than compelling you with absolute proof. What is believing without evidence so important? This is a false dichotomy; if God exists, then what is good is simply whatever is consistent with God's own nature. The relationship is an identity, not subordination one way or the other. You don't understand the dichotomy. Under what standard is god's nature good? If what is good is judged simply by god's nature, then it is still arbitrary.
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

aletheist
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Location: Olathe, KS

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 620

Posted 04/21/09 - 08:09 AM:	#18
Wosret wrote: What is believing without evidence so important? Who said anything about "believing without evidence"? If you present the same exact evidence to two different people, will they inevitably reach the same conclusion from it, even if they are predisposed to reach different verdicts? If God exists, why would he be obligated to satisfy every individual human's specific evidential criteria? Wosret wrote: Under what standard is god's nature good? If what is good is judged simply by god's nature, then it is still arbitrary. If God exists, then by default his nature is good. What is arbitrary about that? What other standard could there possibly be?
"Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004

Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 1447

Posted 04/21/09 - 09:42 AM:	#19
Paul wrote: These are entirely different issues. Nobody can debate that the concept of gods have been useful in establishing societal order and building common culture. Some atheists would also argue religion makes people happy. If people believe in God for pragmatic reasons that it isn't completely irrational to believe in God, since pragmatic reasons are rational reasons after all. Pragmatic reasons are both rational and moral reasons to believe in something.. Paul wrote: Whether people should believe in god depends on your values. You could argue that the belief serves a positive role on utilitarian or other ethical grounds, which I would concede for a few religions (quakers, unitarians), though contest for most. Just because some people have used an ideology for ill doesn't mean that it is wrong. Doctors use to kill more patients than they saved since medicine at the time was more dangerous then just leaving people alone. However we do not believe medicine is bad since in the long run can save more people. it is pretty much a given that any system of belief can be used for ill will if used by people that want to do so. Paul wrote: God being highly improbable/implausible does mean that a rationally motivated person wouldn't believe in god. It may not be "a given" but that doesn't mean it can be rationally believed any more than any conspiracy theory can be believed on the grounds that it can't be proven wrong. Nothing can be proved wrong (see any global skeptical hypothesis). God may be highly improbable/implausible for some only because the way they think he exists makes it seem that way, but there may be other ways in which he can exist and different perspectives one may have which makes it more probable/plausible. Paul wrote: Is it possible that some of these people have access to knowledge than might even alter 180 proof's belief in that God does not exist? Everything is technically possible, but since you don't have any rational grounds to believe it there's no point in bringing it up. (Unless you're making the value argument that rationality is secondary to other considerations. But voluntary self-delusion probably isn't popular on a philosophy forum.) How does an adult tell a child what it is like to be a responsible adult? Is there anything they can say in five minutes that would convince the child not to do some of the foolish things they did and make them more aware of the world so they are more prepared for life? Even if one has knowledge or evidence of something it isn't a given that they can simply explain it to others. BTW. It is interesting to debate a topic with someone where once I was on the con and they were pro and then have it the other way around.
No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2874

Posted 04/21/09 - 10:24 AM:	#20
aletheist wrote: Who said anything about "believing without evidence"? If you present the same exact evidence to two different people, will they inevitably reach the same conclusion from it, even if they are predisposed to reach different verdicts? If God exists, why would he be obligated to satisfy every individual human's specific evidential criteria? Evidence is evidence for everyone if they are reasonable. If evidence is so subjective, then nothing could be proven, it would be just another interpretation that the earth goes round the sun rather than the sun going round the earth. "Proof" in a non-mathematical, or logical sense is merely a lot of evidence, so this seems like a strange semantic quibble to me. Allow me to rephrase: why is believing without proof so important? If God exists, then by default his nature is good. Why? Says who? By who's authority? Edited by Wosret on 04/21/09 - 10:34 AM
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

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.