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?

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004

Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 1447

Posted 04/24/09 - 07:29 AM:	#61
Wosret wrote: You asserted that there must be evidence because reasonable people think that there is, and said that I must then think them all unreasonable. I don't, I think they're wrong that there is any evidence. J. Random Hacker posted that he would believe in God if he witnessed a miracle. Perhaps this was all that was required by some and after it happened they became believers. Wosret wrote: Then why doesn't god offer the same level of evidence for its existence that I have for my cat? Why isn't the evidence unambiguous, and clear to all reasonable people? Maybe because the evidence that is required to prove that your cat exists is not the same as the evidence to prove that God exists. Wosret wrote: This is false, as reasonable people can still make mistakes in reasoning, and have numerous cognitive biases that stand in the way of evaluating things optimally. I think that the intelligencia, and academia tend to agree largely on the matter of what constitutes evidence, and what does not. In fact I think that you would agree with me about what kind of things constitute evidence in which situations, the problem would come from you thinking that more things in more contexts constitute evidence than I do. Not always. Experts in complex subjects such as economics often disagree even when presented with the same information. Wosret wrote: Of course I do. I thought that god was a loving parent, not an oppressive tyrant. Why does God have to exists in the way that you conceive that he should? Even a loving parent can seem oppressive to a spoiled child that doesn't know better.
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

Erik
Professor

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Sep 20, 2002
Location: Sierra Madre, CA

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 623

Posted 04/24/09 - 01:28 PM:	#62
Some random thoughts: Wosret wrote: But I rejected your premise that we have free will to believe or disbelieve anything, and argued against it. Hi Worset, I haven't followed the entire thread, so I may have missed some of the context in which this was written, but I did find it to be somewhat confusing and was hoping that you could clear it up for me. As I understand it, it seems as though you're denying in theory what you readily accept in practice. If everything is determined, and we don't have even the slightest bit of freedom to choose between alternative positions (regardless of the evidence) then what exactly is the point of trying to convince someone that your position is more accurate than theirs? This would seem to be a complete waste of time, a "performative self-contradiction" as Whitehead was fond of saying, although I guess you could point out that we just can't help doing so because it was determined in advance that we should act in such a way, and that there's absolutely nothing that we can do about it. Is there a position that attempts to reconcile this apparent conflict between scientific/philosophical speculation which understandably leads to determinism and practical behavior which assumes a certain amount of freedom? Compatibilism? I admit my general ignorance of many philosophical squabbles, such as those involved in the free will vs. determinism debate. Not having read the relevant literature, I would say that my view would be a sort of compromise, i.e. we are neither entirely free nor entirely determined, but exist somewhere between these two extremes. Doubtless there appears to be a certain amount of physical, social, and historical conditioning that exerts a tremendous impact upon our thoughts, beliefs, actions, etc. But there also seems to be a certain element of freedom involved within this predetermined context, as evidenced by many examples in our daily lives. Thanks in advance. ----------- As for this whole God debate, I think is that a much stronger view of God involves not viewing "him" as an extant being, specifically as the highest being within a chain of beings who could in principle be perceived through the senses if he chose to come down from the clouds and show himself - a virtual Santa Claus for adults as 180 Proof likes to say - but rather perhaps as Being itself. This is the view that Paul Tillich, amongst others (Aquinas?), has argued for. From here, you can say that Being itself is not a being, but rather the frame (Heidegger's "clearing") in which beings are understood. A quick explanation. The same thing can "be" in many different ways. A hammer can be a useful tool, an object of scientific study, a weapon in certain cases, the object of a work of art, and many other things. Where is it's being? In the atoms and molecules that compose it? In my head? Between the "subject" and its "object"? It's not as simply to discern as it initally seems, well, at least not to me. Furthermore, historical periods have their own ways of diclosing beings - the world of the ancient Greeks is much different than the world of medieval Christianity, which is in turn much different than our modern world's focus on beings as potential resources to be calculated and expoilted. In other words, the Being of beings appears to transcend their brute physical existence, and is therefore in a certain sense "nothing". But without this no-thing, nothing could be. Yes, I know this sounds like nonsense of the most ridiculous sort, but it relies much more upon phenomenological seeing than the usual methods of argumentation. While paradoxical, this is also not necessarily a type of "mysticism" in which we gain priviledged access to the divine reality that other aren't so fortunate to witness. All of us are thrown amidst beings, with (usually) a pretheoretical understanding of what they are, yet we don't usually notice "it" because it withdraws from our attention precisely in order for things to function unobtrusively. If people want to refer to this.. how should I say?... "divine nothingness" as God, then I see no reason to object, although it admittedly bears little if any resemblance to usual conceptions of deity in the West. This view, as I see it, has many advantages, including the idea that it sees "God" as both immanent and transcendent (suggesting a sort of panentheism), in which Being (God) is actively embedded in and involved with the world without the need to appeal to occasional supernatural interuptions of normal physical processes to explain how God works. But it also leads to many questions regarding the purported omnibenevolence of God, as portrayed by Christianity, and therefore may not be capable of gaining the esteem of most people. It seems much more akin to Heraclitus' world child at play, building up sandcastels simply in order to knock them down. No afterlife is posited, no eternal soul or substances, nor many of the additional trappings commonly associated with religious beliefs. Hence I'm not sure that it would ever appeal to many people or could ever take the place of God as the highest, most powerful being who promises eternal reward if we live according to his dictates. It's a very thisworldy, temporal understanding of the divine in which, at best, we are active participants in the "life of God" so to speak. For what it's worth, I wrote a paper recently as a sort of thought experiment in which I tried to combine this concept of God with the more personal and ostensibly loving God of traditional Christianity. It was admittedly a complete failure, but I'm going to continue to look for a coherent position. I"m definitely an atheist if God is viewed as a particular being, but much more open to the idea of the entire cosmic process representing a sort of divine reality. The tension is between pantheism and panentheism, but I'm beginning to tend towards the latter precisely because I do sense elements of purpose, intention, freedom, and creativity that are not entirely determined, a view which is precluded by strict pantheism if I understand it correctly. Edited by Erik on 04/24/09 - 01:53 PM
I adore simple pleasures. They are the last refuge of the complex. Oscar Wild

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 386

Posted 04/24/09 - 03:45 PM:	#63
Can I ask if it is really necessary that God is transcendent? If we by the God-particle doesn't mean the Higgs particle, but something pointing to a God phenomenon of playing a vital role in the formation of consciousness, let's say, hypothetically, what then? If we make some tremendous discovery of finding a vast entity necessary for our being in this universe then what? I don't think it may be necessary to put the God-concept out of reach of experience to argue for the fantastic. All in all, I think of the singularity just as well or even more mind-blowing than the concept of God. Just to make a scientific theory with all its words, jargon and consensus is certainly not enough to make the cut with me! Unfortunately, God is still some way off a description pointing in its direction. So, transcendence, is it really necessary? What do you say? Edit: I'm very irritated by the lack of completeness in the Standard Model in physics, but it may also be a hope with us, believers. Is not like a miracle unravelling just to consider completing the Standard Model? Edited by Aetixintro on 04/24/09 - 03:51 PM
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

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

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

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2874

Posted 04/25/09 - 08:30 AM:	#64
Erik wrote: Some random thoughts: Hi Worset, I haven't followed the entire thread, so I may have missed some of the context in which this was written, but I did find it to be somewhat confusing and was hoping that you could clear it up for me. As I understand it, it seems as though you're denying in theory what you readily accept in practice. If everything is determined, and we don't have even the slightest bit of freedom to choose between alternative positions (regardless of the evidence) then what exactly is the point of trying to convince someone that your position is more accurate than theirs? This would seem to be a complete waste of time, a "performative self-contradiction" as Whitehead was fond of saying, although I guess you could point out that we just can't help doing so because it was determined in advance that we should act in such a way, and that there's absolutely nothing that we can do about it. Is there a position that attempts to reconcile this apparent conflict between scientific/philosophical speculation which understandably leads to determinism and practical behavior which assumes a certain amount of freedom? Compatibilism? I admit my general ignorance of many philosophical squabbles, such as those involved in the free will vs. determinism debate. Not having read the relevant literature, I would say that my view would be a sort of compromise, i.e. we are neither entirely free nor entirely determined, but exist somewhere between these two extremes. Doubtless there appears to be a certain amount of physical, social, and historical conditioning that exerts a tremendous impact upon our thoughts, beliefs, actions, etc. But there also seems to be a certain element of freedom involved within this predetermined context, as evidenced by many examples in our daily lives. Thanks in advance. Well, this does miss the context, I wasn't arguing against free will across the board, but only in that instance, but since I do consider myself a hard determinist, I'll just ignore that, and answer. Though, just to clarify, it was not my point that evidence and proof removes freewill from the equation, that was Aletheist, who was attempting to make the point that god doesn't prove its existence, because proof would remove the freewill element in believing. So I followed the line of reasoning, and asked why freewill only matters in that context, but not when it is about believing that my cat exists, he then said that he meant absolute proof, so I was arguing to keep it within the range of just a lot of evidence. Now, for freewill in general: firstly, it is by no means regardless of evidence, that is precisely what I said denied the choice in the matter. A rational person who understands an overwhelming body of evidence is compelled to believe it is true, and cannot just decide to believe the opposite. Free will would entail evidence being irrelevant, as evidence would be a constraint on the will, it biases it, and coerces it. It is not a waste of time to have discussions because I think that people's decisions are casually related to the past. If someone was rational, and amenable to reason yesterday, then that shouldn't change today, unless something happened to them that resulted in the change, and if someone was irrational, nor amenable to reason yesterday, then that is also unlikely to change today. I expect people's decision making, and thought precesses to be casually related to the past, so their behaviour in the past, should be a good indication of their behaviour in the future. I think you have it quite backward if you think that someone's decision making being casually related to the past implies that it will be random, and whimsical, while someone having a free will that is not casually related to the past would not be. Edited by Wosret on 04/25/09 - 08:51 AM
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

Erik
Professor

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Sep 20, 2002
Location: Sierra Madre, CA

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 623

Posted 04/25/09 - 09:19 AM:	#65
Wosret wrote: Now, for freewill in general: firstly, it is by no means regardless of evidence, that is precisely what I said denied the choice in the matter. A rational person who understands an overwhelming body of evidence is compelled to believe it is true, and cannot just decide to believe the opposite. Free will would entail evidence being irrelevant, as evidence would be a constraint on the will, it biases it, and coerces it. It is not a waste of time to have discussions because I think that people's decisions are casually related to the past. If someone was rational, and amenable to reason yesterday, then that shouldn't change today, unless something happened to them that resulted in the change, and if someone was irrational, nor amenable to reason yesterday, then that is also unlikely to change today. I expect people's decision making, and thought precesses to be casually related to the past, so their behaviour in the past, should be a good indication of their behaviour in the future. I think you have it quite backward if you think that someone's decision making being casually related to the past implies that it will be random, and whimsical, while someone having a free will that is not casually related to the past would not be. This actually makes quite a bit of sense to me. I'll have to think on it some more, but I would tentatively say that I agree with this view.
I adore simple pleasures. They are the last refuge of the complex. Oscar Wild

180 Proof
kynic

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

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5115

Posted 04/25/09 - 12:55 PM:	#66
dclements wrote: Being a member of this forum for a few years now and knowing 180 Proof's ability to argue his position (and trying to prove that Christian's concept of God exists), it is likely that this debate was over even before it began. Well, how hard is it really to disprove that which is not -- perhaps, cannot be -- proven? (Or rather persuade disbelief in that which is patently incredible?) post no. 8, you wrote: It's interesting that you consider the worst kind of transcendentalism to be the defining characteristic of theism. It's not unreasonable of you, I don't think, given what a lot of religious people say, and I applaud your criticism of it, even though I think there are theists who don't hold that view. Consider this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(religion)#Judaism Rather than defining god myself, I chose the property I find most widely attributed to it (or objects deemed worthy of worship). Of course, the more eccentric a form of theism gets the less representative it is, and I wanted to make the strongest case possible in absence of knowing which form of theism SnoopDoug would be advocating. in post no. 32, you wrote: 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. Isn't a process an object? The term, as I use it, simply denotes a generic what (i.e. quiddity, or what-ever it is) -- not necessarily a "thing" or "person". SnoopDoug, in fact, posits god (i.e. necessary being) as "a being" which is covered by my usage. "Whatever your god is" is what I meant by treating god as an object, and on this basis sought to investigate some sine qua non, or property without which it is not conceived of -- at least by religious theists -- as "god". in post no. 32, you also wrote: 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. I think the question is, and always has been for skeptics, whether or not the interpretation of any experience as "religious" (i.e. miraculous, supernatural, paranormal, etc) is rational, or at minimum, corroborative (i.e. warrantable). bert1 wrote: I really enjoyed reading 180 proof's post. Although I am a theist I think 180 proof thinks pretty clearly about this subject. And I think I probably agree with him/her about the kind of 'transcendental' God s/he characterises. kNoctis wrote: 180 Proof's opening statement argued that a god that isn't transcendent is no god at all, because the attribute that distinguishes the concept of god from the concept of non-god is that a god is claimed to be transcendent. SnoopDoug has responded that the god he is defending is not transcendent in an ineffable sense, but transcendent in the sense that god exists beyond the material universe. He's also proposed that "immaterial, indivisible, simple, bodiless, and so forth" are more applicable identifying attributes of a god than ineffability. I think SnoopDoug's semantic analysis is more accurate when surveying the history of the term 'god' in religions throughout human history, and I'm looking forward to reading 180's response. Really? I suppose you find the survey of the religious uses of the concept of (divine) transcendence linked below to be ad hoc & uninformed by their respective religious traditions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(religion)#Judaism Btw, SnoopDoug does not make the case for a "non-transcendent (i.e. immanent) god" so the point is moot. I was simply covering all the bases prior to learning whether or not he was defending a "transcendent god". Erik wrote: As for this whole God debate, I think is that a much stronger view of God involves not viewing "him" as an extant being, specifically as the highest being within a chain of beings who could in principle be perceived through the senses if he chose to come down from the clouds and show himself - a virtual Santa Claus for adults as 180 Proof likes to say - but rather perhaps as Being itself. This is the view that Paul Tillich, amongst others (Aquinas?), has argued for. From here, you can say that Being itself is not a being, but rather the frame (Heidegger's "clearing") in which beings are understood. I agree, but this is not the god SnoopDoug defends. In any case, my argument addresses an object (i.e. what-ever it is) that religious theists call "god" -- whether "a being" or "being qua being". Aetixintro wrote: Can I ask if it is really necessary that God is transcendent? Is a non-transcendent god "god" in either a religious and/or theistic sense? Examples would be helpful. Edited by 180 Proof on 04/25/09 - 01:39 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?]]]

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 386

Posted 04/25/09 - 01:11 PM:	#67
180 Proof wrote: Aetixintro wrote: Can I ask if it is really necessary that God is transcendent? Is a non-transcendent god "god" in either a religious and/or theistic sense? Examples would be helpful. I can imagine, somewhere in the future, that we can get to experience some kind of entity-matter and that it therefore is not transcendent, yet at the same time this entity-matter may be more primordial than the singularity or the Big Bang or whatever is behind there. I can also imagine that there is no further need to go beyond the God entity-matter because no matter how it behaves there is not another more ultimate explanation than this. This may be rubbish to some people, but I find it important to point out possibilities, at least for myself while giving others a chance to follow.
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

180 Proof
kynic

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

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5115

Posted 04/25/09 - 01:44 PM:	#68
Aetixintro wrote: I can imagine, somewhere in the future, that we can get to experience some kind of entity-matter and that it therefore is not transcendent, yet at the same time this entity-matter may be more primordial than the singularity or the Big Bang or whatever is behind there. I can also imagine that there is no further need to go beyond the God entity-matter because no matter how it behaves there is not another more ultimate explanation than this. This may be rubbish to some people, but I find it important to point out possibilities, at least for myself while giving others a chance to follow. How is this "more primordial than ... the Big Bang" not transcendent to (i.e. beyond) the universe? Anyway, the debate did not address whether or not 'some future cosmic enigma' is god but whether or not god, as the religious & theists perennially conceive of god, exists. I think what you're saying is interesting (to some) ... but quite besides the point. Edited by 180 Proof on 04/25/09 - 02:11 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?]]]

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 386

Posted 04/25/09 - 01:59 PM:	#69
I haven't written "primoidal", but besides, I don't know the answer to that question. There may be a kind of undetectable substance around that may in turn constitute God or whatever thereof. If I explicate the right way in a thought-experiment it may turn out there is tangibility of the existence of God thus, indirectly, I believe I'm touching the discussion. Thanks for the quick reply.
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

SnoopDoug

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 49

Posted 04/25/09 - 06:32 PM:	#70
Thanks for everyone's thoughts. Incision made a couple points I want to address: Incision wrote: I'm really picking on SnoopDoug now, but it seems that his argument for S5 is question-begging, too. A defense of the S5 axiom really shouldn't be necessary. The reason I pointed to its contrapositive is because many people find that even more intuitively true than the S5 axiom itself. In any case, the S5 axiom is simply a fancy way of saying that if something is necessary, then it must exist in all possible worlds (definition). Likewise, something is impossible if and only if it exists in no possible world (definition). By using this axiom, we find that if a necessary being exists in one possible world, then it exists in all possible worlds. Your other point was that the exact opposite can be proven, e.g., that a necessary being does not exist in one possible world, and therefore exists in no possible world. This is a good discussion-starter, but the difficulty with this is that the objector would have to demonstrate that there is some contradiction with the notion of a necessary being. In other words, something is only impossible if it is contradictory, so one would have to show why a necessary being is contradictory. So, to put it jovially, name that tune. Otherwise, it's the case that a necessary being exists in one, and hence all, possible worlds.

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.