Stop Speculating About God: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Stop Speculating About God » Stop Speculating About God

Stop Speculating About God
If we were supposed to know we would know--for sure.

Page: 1 2 3 4

Stop Speculating About God

Soylent
People Eater

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 20, 2004

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 90

Posted 11/02/09 - 05:55 AM:	#21
I wonder what gives Theseus the licence to speculate about God but not the rest of us. Theseus has speculated that God is unknowable and consequently his position is the end of philosophical investigation on the matter. I suppose the only reason we would have to accept that position is to do our own speculating and discover it for ourselves or else just take Theseus' word for it. Suppose however that God is not the unknowable but rather the well hidden. Perhaps God imbued humanity with the ability to reason in order to discover God. It would seem reasonable then to keep searching. Furthermore, although I maintain that agnosticism is the most logically defensible position regarding deism, once you start describing the properties of God it is fair game to analyze those properties to determine the possibility of such a being existing. In other words, while it might be impossible to determine the existence of god, we can rule out conceptions of God that contain inherent contradictions.

Go_
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 24, 2005

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 93

Posted 11/02/09 - 08:58 AM:	#22
atightropewalker wrote: I want [philosophy] to say 'I can't verify this with the evidence but I believe the evidence to show' because in philosophy there is no right answer other than right answer for you. IOW, you believe that truth is relative? I doubt that you can persuasively defend that view but you are welcome to try.

Go_
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 24, 2005

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 93

Posted 11/02/09 - 09:08 AM:	#23
Soylent wrote: In other words, while it might be impossible to determine the existence of god, we can rule out conceptions of God that contain inherent contradictions. Why do you say that it might be impossible to determine the existence of God? Why might that be so? Question: How do we go about determining the existence of anything, including gods, if not by searching for evidence of the thing's existence? If no such evidence of existence is found, then on what basis might we rationally form a belief that the thing exists? None. There is no basis. In the absence of evidence that a thing exists, we have no reason to believe that the thing exists. The mere possibility that the thing exists is not even the tiniest reason to believe that the putative thing actually does exist.

Soylent
People Eater

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 20, 2004

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 90

Posted 11/02/09 - 09:57 AM:	#24
I said it might be impossible to determine the existence of god, not God. I find the distinction significant when talking about the possibility of beings. There are all sorts of beings that one cannot know for sure they do not exist, but that doesn't give one free reign to believe in such beings. . I do not believe in pink unicorns as much as a do not believe in the existence of god, despite not being able to conclusively show that neither exists. As for the existence of God, at least the concept of a pink unicorn does not demand that I suspend logic and posit incoherent properties.

Go_
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 24, 2005

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 93

Posted 11/02/09 - 01:51 PM:	#25
Soylent wrote: I said it might be impossible to determine the existence of god, not God. Why do you say that it might be impossible to determine the existence of god? Do you have any reasons for making such a claim? I don't see how it might be impossible to determine the existence of god or anything else that might possibly exist. Your statement seems to be self-refuting. Maybe rather than "impossible" you mean "extremely unlikely." It might help if you defined "god" as you are using the term here.

atightropewalker
On par with an amoeba.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 129

Posted 11/02/09 - 02:23 PM:	#26
Go_ wrote: IOW, you believe that truth is relative? I doubt that you can persuasively defend that view but you are welcome to try. Whats to say what is true for me is true for you. Now I'm saying science can bring us to a meeting place of knowledge, we mostly arrive at gravity. Belief could take us to a meeting point (we may arrive at God). But I'm saying that philosophy is relative and everyones true philosophy is their own, thats why we haven't reached a consensus in philosophy at all. Maybe in time we'll arrive at such a point but I don't see it happening. Of course we must amend our truth if other 'truths' seem more correct and we must act as if our truths are certain. I believe in my philosophy so I put it out there in the hopes others will follow. But we must be prepared to amend them if a better answer makes itself clear. Your life is not something you can defer to authority. Which is why, obviously, you can feel free to not believe this post. So basically, where as science give us universal truths I honestly believe philosophy cannot. In life we act on a mixture of belief and facts. Do you honestly think we'll ever prove beyond doubt what is right and what is wrong? I know I don't. And we do (mostly) add actual evidence into our conception of good and bad. You don't have the right to hold your own science (not least because it is something physical external to you we can all verify - the same is not possible of your thoughts, your values, your philosophy) but you have the right to hold your own philosophy. I wouldn't let anyone else tell me my philosophy but I will entertain their ideas in the hope that I learn more about my philosophy.
"An honest religious thinker is like a tightrope walker. He almost looks as though he were walking on nothing but air. His support is the slenderest imaginable. And yet it really is possible to walk on it." - Ludwig Wittgenstein 'It is the duty of the human understanding to understand that there are things which it cannot understand...' - Søren Kierkegaard

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 241

Posted 11/02/09 - 04:38 PM:	#27
It seems that the OP is attempting to deal with something akin to the problem of Divine Hiddenness. One possible solution to why a benevolent all-powerful God would not reveal Himself to the whole of humanity in a universally acceptable and comprehensible fashion is precisely that it is impossible to reveal anything in a universally acceptable and comprehensible fashion. The world is a mix of different systems of intelligibility and what is comprehensible to one group in one sense, might be incomprehensible to another group (or only comprehensible in a very different sense). C.f Foucault's work on the subject. This might be, at least, something of the preliminary reason for the existence of the problem. A more theological approach might be that there is some divine purpose behind a degree of obscurity. For instance, it may be that the need to overcome the challenges embodied in things like cultural and religious differences are an essential component of living morally/preparing for the afterlife/approaching some ultimate truth/living by the example of Christ/the Prophets/Etc. Likewise, it could be a means of warning us away from the sin of pride (consider the mythology behind the Tower of Babel). A little less exotic would be the simple epistemic problem of interpreting divine messages even within the context of a particular system of intelligibility. For instance, as an acquaintance of various other cultures, could I really determine, in good faith, whether that glowing being preaching holiness to me is an angel rather than, say, a bodhisatva or a Hindu god? Or, for that matter, how could I tell that such a being is not a technologically advanced alien? The implications of Clarke's Third Law seem to weigh heavily on this problem.

Go_
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 24, 2005

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 93

Posted 11/03/09 - 12:23 AM:	#28
atightropewalker wrote: Go_ wrote: IOW, you believe that truth is relative? I doubt that you can persuasively defend that view but you are welcome to try. Whats to say what is true for me is true for you. Logic. To say that truth is relative is self-refuting. In essence, it is to say that truth is nonexistent. Now I'm saying science can bring us to a meeting place of knowledge, we mostly arrive at gravity. How do you define knowledge if you do not believe truth exists? If you say that you believe that truth exists, then how are you defining "truth" if you believe that different people can believe contradictory things and, at the same time, both be correct? Belief could take us to a meeting point (we may arrive at God). Belief can take anyone anywhere as far as I know, to truth or to falsity. But I'm saying that philosophy is relative and everyones true philosophy is their own, thats why we haven't reached a consensus in philosophy at all. Perhaps you're using 'philosophy' in a rather loose fashion to mean something like 'an average person's worldview, which is largely uncritically constructed'? Among professional philosophers, OTOH, tentative consensus has been reached in a number of areas. Maybe in time we'll arrive at such a point but I don't see it happening. Of course we must amend our truth if other 'truths' seem more correct and we must act as if our truths are certain. I believe in my philosophy so I put it out there in the hopes others will follow. But we must be prepared to amend them if a better answer makes itself clear. Your life is not something you can defer to authority. Which is why, obviously, you can feel free to not believe this post. So basically, where as science give us universal truths I honestly believe philosophy cannot. Science cannot and does not claim to give us universal truth. All scientific knowledge is provisional. In life we act on a mixture of belief and facts. Do you honestly think we'll ever prove beyond doubt what is right and what is wrong? I know I don't.[quote] You would have to define what you mean by "right" and "wrong" for me to answer that question. In general, I'll say that nothing will be proved beyond doubt. Not the shape of the earth, not that the computer monitor that you believe you see actually exists, not that the next step you take will be on solid ground -- nothing. [quote]And we do (mostly) add actual evidence into our conception of good and bad. You don't have the right to hold your own science (not least because it is something physical external to you we can all verify - the same is not possible of your thoughts, your values, your philosophy) but you have the right to hold your own philosophy. I wouldn't let anyone else tell me my philosophy but I will entertain their ideas in the hope that I learn more about my philosophy. I disagree. Philosophy is much more than simple moral belief about the nature of good and evil.

123savethewhales
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 346

Posted 11/03/09 - 01:28 AM:	#29
I don't think speculation is necessarily a problem, so long as we are honest enough to admit our finding as speculation. Rather I think the problem comes when we overuse the word "rational" as a justification for making concrete factual claims with insufficient information. This phenomenon seems to extends far beyond the God problem (just look at economists).
Keep it simple.

Levo
Mind Distortion

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 5

Posted 11/13/09 - 07:16 PM:	#30
I think as people who may call themselves philosopher's we should all take a more open minded approach. For every good and hard argument against God, there is one just as well for it. The Original poster mentions that if we don't know for sure, its because we aren't mean to, before I carry on let me tell you that (no offence to you) I dislike the need to talk about Religion and talking about it as a whole, but then really just talking about Christianity which you seem to not know much about. Christianity puts a big emphasis on Faith over knowledge, therefore your argument already becomes invalid since in God's eyes we are meant to believe in him, not prove his existence. Think about this, if we all knew for sure, there would be no point in Earth as this life as we know it is simply an aftermath of Adam's sin (eating the forbidden fruit) therefore we are mortal, and by the free will given to us by God we can choose to reach out to him or not, God wants us to prove our faith in him, that isn't possible if there is no uncertainty in this world. Believers must always understand fundamental science and logic to back up some of their arguments whilst critics/atheists/whatever seem to just take shots at the bible where it seems easy without really understanding the principles of them. Can you, for one day, open heartedly and truthfully accept at least the possibility of God? you might find it a very enlightening experience even if your believes do not change.
"Trusting and credulous as I am, it is normal for me to be continually on my guard and not to read a supernatural significance into events too quickly. One must never get excited about mystery, so that mystery may come on its own and not find the path confined by our impatience to make contact with it."

Page: 1 2 3 4

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