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 13 Last

Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?

J. Random Hacker
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 479

Posted 04/21/09 - 12:04 PM:	#21
aletheist wrote: Or freely chooses to let you freely choose whether to believe, rather than compelling you with absolute proof. You're trying to argue, unsuccessfully, that God doesn't want to overburden me with so much evidence that I'm forced to conclude there is a God. The flaw in your argument is that evidence isn't compelling. There are people that still, despite all evidence to the contrary, maintain that the world is flat. If those people can be provided evidence and still reject it then so can I with evidence for God. No, there's nothing compelling about evidence if you're not a rational person.

aletheist
Professor

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

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 620

Posted 04/21/09 - 12:07 PM:	#22
Wosret wrote: Evidence is evidence for everyone if they are reasonable. What do you mean by "reasonable"? Who gets to decide what constitutes being reasonable? If two people disagree about something, even when presented with the same exact evidence, does this necessarily mean that at least one of them is being unreasonable? Or is it possible for two equally reasonable people to reach different conclusions based on identical evidence? Wosret wrote: Allow me to rephrase: why is believing without proof so important? What I suggested is that free will may be important; perhaps God highly values giving humans the choice whether or not to believe that he exists. Is this unreasonable? Very few (if any) of our beliefs are grounded in absolute proof, so volition inevitably comes into play; as you indicated, all we can do in most cases is to exercise reasonable judgment in weighing the available evidence. Wosret wrote: If God exists, then by default his nature is good. Why? Says who? By who's authority? Again, if God exists (as conceived by most theists), then to what other "standard" or "authority" could anyone possibly appeal?
"Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

J. Random Hacker
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 479

Posted 04/21/09 - 12:21 PM:	#23
aletheist wrote: Again, if God exists (as conceived by most theists), then to what other "standard" or "authority" could anyone possibly appeal? The last time I checked, God has never weighed in on the subject. So, any claims about God are unauthoritative human utterances. Calling yourself a theist doesn't make you infallible.

aletheist
Professor

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

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 620

Posted 04/21/09 - 12:27 PM:	#24
J. Random Hacker wrote: The flaw in your argument is that evidence isn't compelling. Actually, to me that seems be the flaw in your argument. You basically said that if God exists, is omniscient and omnipotent as usually conceived by theists, and wants you to believe that he exists, then he would give you exactly the right evidence to convince you. Since evidence is not compelling, how do you know for sure that he has not already given you the right evidence, and you have simply chosen not to believe? J. Random Hacker wrote: There are people that still, despite all evidence to the contrary, maintain that the world is flat. If those people can be provided evidence and still reject it then so can I with evidence for God. Exactly my point--it is not about the evidence, it is about the will. As with a flat-earther, the fact that you are not convinced that God exists does not mean that God, if he does exist, has somehow failed to provide you with enough evidence. J. Random Hacker wrote: No, there's nothing compelling about evidence if you're not a rational person. Wait, is there something compelling about evidence if you are a rational person? Or do you still ultimately have a choice about what you will believe?
"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 - 12:41 PM:	#25
J. Random Hacker wrote: The last time I checked, God has never weighed in on the subject. So, any claims about God are unauthoritative human utterances. Calling yourself a theist doesn't make you infallible. What does that have to do with anything? You asserted that, if God exists, he must either arbitrarily choose what is good or be subordinate to "goodness" as some kind of external constraint. This is a false dilemma, because there is another rational alternative: If God exists, then whatever is consistent with his essential nature is good. Note that I made no claim about what that nature is, or what is actually good, or even our ability to answer such questions; and I certainly did not claim to be infallible.
"Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

J. Random Hacker
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 479

Posted 04/21/09 - 12:42 PM:	#26
aletheist wrote: Actually, to me that seems be the flaw in your argument. You basically said that if God exists, is omniscient and omnipotent as usually conceived by theists, and wants you to believe that he exists, then he would give you exactly the right evidence to convince you. Since evidence is not compelling, how do you know for sure that he has not already given you the right evidence, and you have simply chosen not to believe? If that was the case then I wouldn't still be here asking for evidence. I would have already received it, rejected it irrationally and become closed-minded like a flat-earther. The fact I'm still here asking for evidence and am genuinely willing to consider it means that I was not supplied the "right" evidence. aletheist wrote: Exactly my point--it is not about the evidence, it is about the will. As with a flat-earther, the fact that you are not convinced that God exists does not mean that God, if he does exist, has somehow failed to provide you with enough evidence. The difference between myself and flat-earthers is that they are not open to evidence. It's not that they simply haven't been given the "right" evidence. No amount of evidence would matter because they are irrational. aletheist wrote: Wait, is there something compelling about evidence if you are a rational person? Or do you still ultimately have a choice about what you will believe? I choose to be rational or irrational.

J. Random Hacker
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 479

Posted 04/21/09 - 12:48 PM:	#27
aletheist wrote: If God exists, then whatever is consistent with his essential nature is good. The same dilemma applies. Who chooses God's nature? If God chooses his own nature then God could choose that his nature is to rape and murder thereby making rape and murder morally good. This means goodness is arbitrary. If God doesn't choose his own nature and instead God's nature is chosen for him then God is subordinate and has no authority over goodness. Appealing to God's nature, while a common tactic, doesn't work.

aletheist
Professor

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

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 620

Posted 04/21/09 - 01:12 PM:	#28
Are we going to keep double posting on two different threads? I propose that we shift all further discussion about the relationship between goodness and God to the other one here. J. Random Hacker wrote: The same dilemma applies. Who chooses God's nature? This is like asking, "Who designed the Designer?" Both questions involve category mistakes. Most theists conceive of God as not only omniscient and omnipotent, but also eternal and unchanging. If God exists, then no one chose his nature, and no one designed him; he just is. J. Random Hacker wrote: Appealing to God's nature, while a common tactic, doesn't work. With all due respect, neither does simply restating your false dilemma.
"Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

J. Random Hacker
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 479

Posted 04/21/09 - 01:17 PM:	#29
aletheist wrote: Most theists conceive of God as not only omniscient and omnipotent, but also eternal and unchanging. If God exists, then no one chose his nature, and no one designed him; he just is. Then God's nature just is and is therefore uncontrolled and undecided by God. If God's nature just is to rape and murder then rape and murder are moral actions. aletheist wrote: With all due respect, you seem to be the one trying to skirt the issue by simply restating your false dilemma. I had to restate it because you only retreated your argument one step backwards but still within reach of the dilemma.

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

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

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2874

Posted 04/21/09 - 01:19 PM:	#30
aletheist wrote: What do you mean by "reasonable"? Who gets to decide what constitutes being reasonable? If two people disagree about something, even when presented with the same exact evidence, does this necessarily mean that at least one of them is being unreasonable? Or is it possible for two equally reasonable people to reach different conclusions based on identical evidence? People that are reasonable are amenable to reason, demonstrate proper reasoning skills as has been established by generations of discourse, and can draw proper logical inferences. Evidence is that which implies a conclusion, and something cannot imply two contradictory things, that would violate the law of noncontradiction. One of the people in your scenario has made a mistake, and if they are indeed reasonable, then the correct person should be able to demonstrate to them where they have gone wrong. What I suggested is that free will may be important; perhaps God highly values giving humans the choice whether or not to believe that he exists. Is this unreasonable? Very few (if any) of our beliefs are grounded in absolute proof, so volition inevitably comes into play; as you indicated, all we can do in most cases is to exercise reasonable judgment in weighing the available evidence. Believing something is not an act of will. I cannot chose to not believe that I will die if I jump from a cliff, and then no longer feel fear as I jump. I cannot stop believing that my cat is lying beside me of an act of will. I believe what is evidant to me, and disbelieve what is evidently not. If god wants people to chose to believe despite sufficient evidence to warrant belief under normal rational circumstances, then god rewards unreason. Again, if God exists (as conceived by most theists), then to what other "standard" or "authority" could anyone possibly appeal? This is circular. God is the standard of morality because god is perfectly good, and god is perfectly good because god is the standard of morality. It is also irrelevant, it matters not whether or not you think god ought to be the moral standard one appeals to (which you have after all only given your opinion that one ought to, and not given an actual reason as to why) then it is still no less arbitrary. At least if morality were objective then it would be rational to say that god would be the best authority to appeal to because god would be the most rational and knowledgeable of moral truths, and although other authorities could use reason and evidence to establish moral truths, none could do so nearly as well as god. If however the sourse of morality is merely a subject (god), and is thus subjective, then I see no reason to care what god thinks about morality, if I disagree, then it is a clash of value judgments, and opinions, and those are neither right nor wrong, so I might as well go with what I think.
"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 13 Last

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