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 Last

Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 10, 2002

Total Topics: 465
Total Posts: 12173

Posted 04/19/09 - 12:56 AM: Subject: Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?	#1
The debate between 180 Proof and SnoopDoug is over here. This discussion subforum thread is for other posters to discuss that debate while it progresses and after it concludes.

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004

Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 1447

Posted 04/19/09 - 05:06 AM:	#2
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. However, even if the common belief in God is highly improbable and even implausible it doesn't make it a given the God does not exist or that everyone shouldn't believe in God. I highly doubt that if there was nothing to the belief that society would continue with such wishful thinking if it was really detrimental. It is even plausible that God exists in ways different than which the common man conceives of him. The God that is presented to us in Jehovah witness literature sitting on a throne with a glowing head and wearing a gown while being surrounded by winged loved ones that have passed isn't the only possible way in which he can exist. There are many people in history that have had a religious experience that have in there own words been touched by God that go against what people often think of what God is. 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?
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 04/19/09 - 05:52 AM:	#3
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. The entirety of nature works on perhaps the most unjust principles imaginable. Luck, and congenital advantageous attributes are rewarded, while the unfortunate, containing less congenital advantageous traits are ripped apart, starve, or die parasite, and disease ridden. The world is grossly unjust, and not even conceivably by an act of human will. Those sentient beings that are unlucky enough to not be born the best in a world with limited resources, suffer all of the consequences that go with that -- and I hear no one suggesting any type of universal justice for them. The villain, in this case, is the system itself. Not only do I find such an argument utterly unconvincing, but I find it down right offensive. If people accept such a warped view of justice, then I fear the implications on their behavior towards others within the world. Justice and morality is something we share with other thinking and feeling agents in the world, and we must look to each other to discover what is appropriate, not to the system of our creation, not to the nature of our circumstances, and definitely not to purported deities of which only a self-professed select few have access.
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004

Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 1447

Posted 04/19/09 - 07:42 AM:	#4
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. The entirety of nature works on perhaps the most unjust principles imaginable. Luck, and congenital advantageous attributes are rewarded, while the unfortunate, containing less congenital advantageous traits are ripped apart, starve, or die parasite, and disease ridden. The world is grossly unjust, and not even conceivably by an act of human will. Those sentient beings that are unlucky enough to not be born the best in a world with limited resources, suffer all of the consequences that go with that -- and I hear no one suggesting any type of universal justice for them. The villain, in this case, is the system itself. Not only do I find such an argument utterly unconvincing, but I find it down right offensive. If people accept such a warped view of justice, then I fear the implications on their behavior towards others within the world. Justice and morality is something we share with other thinking and feeling agents in the world, and we must look to each other to discover what is appropriate, not to the system of our creation, not to the nature of our circumstances, and definitely not to purported deities of which only a self-professed select few have access. Of course, this assumes that God's concepts of justice and morality are not that different than your own.
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 04/19/09 - 07:55 AM:	#5
dclements wrote: Of course, this assumes that God's concepts of justice and morality are not that different than your own. I'd have to for the argument to be even intelligible. Though in actuality I surely don't share the same concept of justice and morality with everyone, or no one could make such an argument, and I said as much in my rebuke of it.
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004

Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 1447

Posted 04/19/09 - 10:15 AM:	#6
Wosret wrote: I'd have to for the argument to be even intelligible. Though in actuality I surely don't share the same concept of justice and morality with everyone, or no one could make such an argument, and I said as much in my rebuke of it. In some Eastern beliefs they try not to see the worlds as 'Good' vs 'Evil' The reason for this is that they believe that as soon as someone labels something as 'evil' they are unable to be 100% rational in dealing with problems that involve things that are labeled evil. Instead they try to think as everything as part of a necessary process and understand why 'evil' things exist and what part they play in the world around us. When some westerns first hear about this concept it makes no sense how anyone can not imagine how people with such beliefs survive. However if they think about it more, they are able to understand it. The point I'm trying to make is that there are people here on earth that view morality so differently that many of the beliefs will be alien to them. If this is true for people trying to understand each others beliefs isn't it plausible that God's concept of morality can also be different?
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 04/19/09 - 11:03 AM:	#7
No, it is not plausible. The argument doesn't make sense otherwise. It does not stipulate what is just, and what is unjust, what is moral, and what is immoral. It is thus implied that these things are apparent, or that I must use my own discretion. It is after all at its foundation an appeal to desire and emotion. I want justice to be done, and I think that most people do -- so outlining what qualifies would just breed unnecessary conflict when all you are attempting to do is foster a conclusion that appeals to people on a visceral level.
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

bert1
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
Location: Morecambe, UK

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 235

Posted 04/20/09 - 02:34 AM:	#8
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. If it's OK, I 'd like to offer my own response to the post in this thread, even though I'm not in the debate. 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. Agreed. 180 proof wrote: 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. I'm not sure I follow your inference here. Sure, there may be plenty of inconsistencies between 'revealed truths' and empirical findings. The agnostic just says he's not sure how to resolve them, doesn't he? Is that an inconsistency? It's only a quibble, though, so no matter. 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. Well, I completely agree with your inferences here, but I wouldn't characterise God as an object. For me, God is substance and constitutes objects, but is not itself one of them. 180 proof wrote: Mystics rhapsodize about a god that transcends language and cannot be described; at best, they say, we can only say what god is not. Language is generally well set up for talking about objects. It's not surprising that mystics (and by mystics I mean people who I think have had religious experience, not just theoretical obscurantists) tend to talk in negatives if God is not an object. I agree, though, that we need to be able to specify some properties of God if we are to make any sense talking about God. I opt for an interpretation the three omnis (omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence). 180 proof wrote: 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. Yeah, I don't really agree with the theologians and prophets you speak about if that's what they say. Or at least, I would want to heavily qualify and interpret those conceptions of God. 180 proof wrote: 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. Again, I wouldn't want to defend the conception of God you argue against. I don't like that kind of obscurantist transcendentalism. 180 proof wrote: 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". I don't know much about theology, so I can't comment on what they profess. I'd be surprised if all theologians interpret transcendence the way you do, though, although I'm sure some would. I come across your concept of transcendence more in the less educated and intelligent religious minds. I suspect they have it as an easy escape route. 'You can't understand it because God is ineffable, but it's true nevertheless, you just have to have faith' type of response. 180 proof wrote: 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. Acknowledged. 180 proof wrote: 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. Agreed, according to your definitions. 180 proof wrote: Consequently, insofar as "theism" presupposes a ‘transcendent god’ it is incoherent, and any arguments premised on "theism" will be unsound. 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. For me, the central characteristic of the theist is that he thinks mind/consciousness/sentience was present at least at the beginning of the universe and probably before. There is a lot of diversity among theists, but I venture to say that that is common to all of them, including me. It might not be a sufficient condition for theism, but we'd need to agree on a more detailed definition to determine that.
"Like a ungroomed dog in which the desired look is it’s long hair but it has been so unattended to, that combing is impractical, and it might be better if the hair was cut and attended to as it grows back." d_martin

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004

Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 1447

Posted 04/20/09 - 03:37 AM:	#9
Wosret wrote: No, it is not plausible. The argument doesn't make sense otherwise. It does not stipulate what is just, and what is unjust, what is moral, and what is immoral. It is thus implied that these things are apparent, or that I must use my own discretion. It is after all at its foundation an appeal to desire and emotion. I want justice to be done, and I think that most people do -- so outlining what qualifies would just breed unnecessary conflict when all you are attempting to do is foster a conclusion that appeals to people on a visceral level. I can tell you what I believe is just and moral, but for me and every other person I know are biased by our own experiences and we are unable to define what true objective morality is. Although not knowing how God works and how he thinks doesn't sit well with some one should realize that you have be God to understand.
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

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 10, 2002

Total Topics: 465
Total Posts: 12173

Posted 04/20/09 - 07:37 PM:	#10
dclements wrote: However, even if the common belief in God is highly improbable and even implausible it doesn't make it a given the God does not exist or that everyone shouldn't believe in God. 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. 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. 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). 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.) Edited by Paul on 04/20/09 - 07:43 PM

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

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