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 14

Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?

aletheist
Professor

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

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 620

Posted 04/21/09 - 01:23 PM:	#31
J. Random Hacker wrote: If that was the case then I wouldn't still be here asking for evidence. Do you mean more evidence? Or are you saying that you have never encountered any evidence whatsoever for the existence of God? J. Random Hacker wrote: 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. What kind of evidence would you consider to be "right"? What would it take to convince you that God exists? J. Random Hacker wrote: No amount of evidence would matter because they are irrational. Is it possible for a rational person to remain convinced about something, no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary? J. Random Hacker wrote: I choose to be rational or irrational. How do you define "rational" and "irrational" in this context?
"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 - 01:28 PM:	#32
Since SnoopDoug is a bit of the underdog here I might as well comment on 180 Proof's post... 180 Proof wrote: Apparently, our best knowledge & experience of reality – that it's indifferent, chaotic, catastrophic, protean – is consistent with the absence of any ‘intelligent design’, divine guidance & miraculous interventions. The countless inconsistencies, on the other hand, between "revealed truths" and all that’s rigorously known about reality (via sciences, histories, etc) cannot be accounted for without begging quite a few questions (e.g. "miracles"). Thus, "agnosticism" is not a coherent option. Whether or not the world was design by what we consider intelligent can not be determined by the limited amount that we know. The only thing that this statement shows us is that 180 Proof wishs that evidence that is availible proves that it isn't possible for God to exist. 180 Proof wrote: For the purposes of this inquiry I treat "god" as an object, and as such require only that this object be attributed at least one property -- some sine qua non -- that makes it that object alone and not another. If "god exists" then it follows that god has some property that differentiates it from "non-god" AND "nonexistent" objects. I will argue that "god" is, at minimum, transcendent – which undeniably distinguishes it from all other objects -- and for that reason does not exist. Are you sure that it is best to assume that God is merely an object? Why not something else like perhaps a process? Or perhaps it might be better not to assume anything at all if one doesn't know what God is. 180 Proof wrote: As far as I can tell the following world religions ascribe transcendence to their respective gods: Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Bahai & Christianity (with qualifications due to ‘divine incarnation’ in Christ). Mystics rhapsodize about a god that transcends language and cannot be described; at best, they say, we can only say what god is not. Theologians profess that god transcends reason and cannot be adequately explained or comprehended; all we can do, they instruct, is submit to, or trust in, the fullness of the mystery of god. And the prophets preach the god transcends being because "god created everything"; for such a god "all things are possible" – nothing is impossible. Surely transcendence distinguishes (this) god from all other "non-god" objects (especially those which we know, or don’t have good reasons to doubt, exist). I do not dispute these confessions but take them at face value and only point out their implications for what is & what is not the case. My argument is quite simple: i. A god that transcends language / predication is a god that is ineffable. Only silence is adequate. ii. A god that transcends reason / explicability is a god that is inexplicable. Only mystery is definite. iii. A god that transcends being / all conditions-relations is a god that is unconditional-nonrelational. "Existence & nonexistence" is indiscernible. Only non-being is necessary. Even if the first two transcendent-aspects of god are only functions of our cognitive limitations, the third cannot merely be a human affectation, otherwise god would only transcend us as "superhuman" instead of, in the greatest sense, as "supernatural", and thus not be (ultimately) transcendent. Is a god that is "not transcendent" in a metaphysical (i.e. ultimate) sense "a god"? None of the great world-religions worship – or their respective theological traditions profess – "non-transcendent gods". Even where Christianity tries to have it both ways by suggesting that its god is "both transcendent and immanent", it’s the transcendent aspect of the Christian god that is the independent variable -- prior to the world it allegedly "created" and within which it’s also "immanent" -- that determines god’s ultimate status. It’s not my point that the concept of "transcendence" is incoherent, or self-contradictory, only that it entails non-being when attributed as a property that nullifies whatever determines the difference between what is & what is not the case, existence & nonexistence. Therefore: I. If god is transcendent, then god is (a) non-being. It does not exist. II. If god is "transcendent and immanent", and if transcendence determines, or is prior to, immanence (as it is prior to the allegedly "created world" in which god is "immanent"), then god is (a) non-being. It does not exist. III. If god is "not transcendent", then god is not god, and therefore is (a) non-being. It does not exist. God does not exist. Consequently, insofar as "theism" presupposes a ‘transcendent god’ it is incoherent, and any arguments premised on "theism" will be unsound. This is the old problem where there are those that have "religious knowledge/experience" then enables them to perceive God while others that don't have it can not. I think it is safe to assume that you are one of those that are unaware or unaffected enough by the things that make others aware and believe in God. Although the existence of people with religious experience by itself isn't proof of God's existence neither is lack of such experience proof that there isn't a God.
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

J. Random Hacker
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 479

Posted 04/21/09 - 01:32 PM:	#33
aletheist wrote: What kind of evidence would you consider to be "right"? A miracle.

aletheist
Professor

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

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 620

Posted 04/21/09 - 02:05 PM:	#34
J. Random Hacker wrote: A miracle. What would constitute a miracle, from your perspective? Since you said that you are "genuinely willing to consider" such evidence, do you honestly believe that miracles are possible? Would you have to witness one firsthand, or would you accept the testimony of other sources that you rationally deem to be reliable and trustworthy?
"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 - 03:11 PM:	#35
aletheist wrote: What would constitute a miracle, from your perspective? A miracle would be something that seems purposeful, is unlikely and is unexplainable due to natural causes. Also, it would need to be subject to independent verification so I can't write it off as a hallucination. aletheist wrote: Since you said that you are "genuinely willing to consider" such evidence, do you honestly believe that miracles are possible? I only believe in logical possibility so anything that is logically possible, is possible. aletheist wrote: Would you have to witness one firsthand, or would you accept the testimony of other sources that you rationally deem to be reliable and trustworthy? It would have to be firsthand.

aletheist
Professor

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

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 620

Posted 04/21/09 - 04:22 PM:	#36
Wosret wrote: 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. Okay, so far so good. Wosret wrote: Evidence is that which implies a conclusion, and something cannot imply two contradictory things, that would violate the law of noncontradiction. Yes, but two different pieces of evidence can imply two different (i.e., contradictory) conclusions. Two equally reasonable people might weigh those two pieces differently, right? Human reason relies on human judgment, which is fallible. Wosret wrote: 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. Only if they happen to agree on the criteria for evaluating the two options. Of course, another possibility is that both parties are mistaken, having failed to take into account other equally reasonable options. Wosret wrote: Believing something is not an act of will. So, do you think that evidence is compelling, such that if God were to provide enough of it, we would have no rational choice but to believe that he exists? Wosret wrote: If god wants people to chose to believe despite sufficient evidence to warrant belief under normal rational circumstances, then god rewards unreason. I suspect that you meant "insufficient" there. Who gets to decide what are "normal rational circumstances"? Wosret wrote: 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. No, God is perfectly good and the standard of morality, period. One does not depend on the other; they are an identity. Wosret wrote: 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 God exists, then morality is objective, because it is simply whatever is (objectively) consistent with his nature. There would be no other authorities to which you could appeal. Wosret wrote: 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. It is not a matter of what God thinks about morality. If God exists, then he is morality, or rather, he is good; his "value judgments" are infallible, and he holds no opinions, only truths. Whatever is "subjective" to God would be "objective" to us.
"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 - 04:34 PM:	#37
J. Random Hacker wrote: A miracle would be something that seems purposeful, is unlikely and is unexplainable due to natural causes. Also, it would need to be subject to independent verification so I can't write it off as a hallucination. Okay, those sound like pretty reasonable criteria to me. J. Random Hacker wrote: I only believe in logical possibility so anything that is logically possible, is possible. So, given your definition above, are miracles "logically possible"? J. Random Hacker wrote: It would have to be firsthand. Ah, there's the rub! If God exists, why would he be obligated to do something extraordinary, within your limited range of direct observation, in order for you to believe that he exists? That seems a bit ad hoc. I assume that you hold that quasars and quarks exist; do you have firsthand experience of them? How about past events or other minds?
"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 - 05:18 PM:	#38
aletheist wrote: Yes, but two different pieces of evidence can imply two different (i.e., contradictory) conclusions. Two equally reasonable people might weigh those two pieces differently, right? Human reason relies on human judgment, which is fallible. This is different than what you said before. Now I simly find the point trivil, and a red herring, as this supposes that there is evidence for the supernatural, or a god, which I certainly do not agree with at all. So, do you think that evidence is compelling, such that if God were to provide enough of it, we would have no rational choice but to believe that he exists? Yes. I suspect that you meant "insufficient" there. Who gets to decide what are "normal rational circumstances"? Just everyday circumstances. The standard of evidence that is required in everyday life. No, God is perfectly good and the standard of morality, period. One does not depend on the other; they are an identity. This is just bald assertion, that you seem unwilling to give a single reason for why it is beyond your say so. Who defines this identify, who says that it is moral, and good? Do you honestly personally find it satisfying to just say it "it is because it is, and that is just the way it is"? Because I certainly do not. If God exists, then morality is objective, because it is simply whatever is (objectively) consistent with his nature. There would be no other authorities to which you could appeal. The standard itself however is a subject, and that makes matter morality is derived from it subjective. I could similarly serve as the moral standard, and it could be objectively ascertained what based fell in line with my moral opinions, but that doesn't render me, the standard, a an objective standard. I could give you a diagram for the most beautiful person, and you could objectively and factually find what best fits the standard, but the standard remains arbitrary. It is not a matter of what God thinks about morality. If God exists, then he is morality, or rather, he is good; his "value judgments" are infallible, and he holds no opinions, only truths. Whatever is "subjective" to God would be "objective" to us. God is not morality, morality is a system, not a thing, god can only be the standard by which the system derived its precepts and values. If what is "good" is merely defined as what god is, then it is meaningless, and I certainly reject such an arbitrary definition. I want a reason for why god is good, and the standard by which good be judged. "That's just the way it is because I say so" is hardly satisfying. I thought that this was a philosophy forum, where philosophy is done, which involves arguments, reason, justifications, discourse, and logical syllogisms. Not an excercise in baseless, and bald assertion. If you think that this is how philosophical disscusion is had, then don't bother replying to this post. Edited by Wosret on 04/21/09 - 05:28 PM
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

J. Random Hacker
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 479

Posted 04/21/09 - 05:49 PM:	#39
aletheist wrote: So, given your definition above, are miracles "logically possible"? They can't be ruled out a priori. aletheist wrote: Ah, there's the rub! If God exists, why would he be obligated to do something extraordinary, within your limited range of direct observation, in order for you to believe that he exists? Miracles are extraordinary to me but why would they be a problem for a creature with unlimited power? aletheist wrote: I assume that you hold that quasars and quarks exist; do you have firsthand experience of them? How about past events or other minds? Quasars and quarks have scientific evidence to back them up.

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 10, 2002

Total Topics: 465
Total Posts: 12173

Posted 04/21/09 - 06:18 PM:	#40
dclements wrote: 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.. Do you realize what you're saying? A 99.999% rational argument which rests one choice to not care about truth (as you are making, declaring that pragmatism is more important than truth) is not any more likely to be true than a 1% rational argument. An argument is either entirely rational or it's worthless. In symbolic logic, if you assume P & ~P you can conclude anything in the universe you want with perfectly logical steps from the premise. Of course, philosophy is constantly abused by these people who enjoy the feeling that they're justifying their beliefs by applying layers and layers of logic to the little irrational premise which allows them to conclude what they've already decided to believe while claiming they got it out of the logic. At any rate, to me, by far the strongest argument for atheism is the fact that the primary concern of the religious is indeed pragmatic rather than about reality. One of the easiest tests of the truth of anything is whether people who don't want it to be true still believe it. You'll notice only people who want religion to be true ever become religious. Whenever someone stops wanting it to be true, they inevitably turn to atheism. Just because some people have used an ideology for ill doesn't mean that it is wrong. If the majority of adherents have a twisted concept of morality which holds back progress and attempts to suppress human freedom -- as I would say is certainly true of religion -- then that does make it wrong. In virtually every society, religion is the force of convervativism fighting to prevent people from being allowed to make their own choices -- whether that be fighting homosexuals and abortions today, or women not long ago, or people of other religions in much of the world. As I mentioned, there are a few exceptions like the (liberal sect of) quakers. They've consistently been ahead of the moral curve promoting progress and rights, but I attribute that to their emphasis on the "inner light" and non-dogmatism which makes them less tied down by religion. 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. If you can't even describe how you think he exists, your assertion is senseless. You seem to be trying the classic externalist leap of getting some external party to know stuff for you so you can claim to get it by slight of hand. Edited by Paul on 04/21/09 - 06:26 PM

Page: 1 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.