P
PRmerger
Guest
You do understand, AB, that metaphysics “and other issues” also have DOGMAs, yes?
For a dogma is essentially nothing more than a statement about reality.
- Status
For a dogma is essentially nothing more than a statement about reality.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Then, sadly, I will have to play the atheist to your assertion and say: Since you have offered no proof of your ability to articulate an argument for God’s existence, I don’t believe you’ve actually examined, digested, considered and refuted any of them.
(Now, I don’t doubt your sincerity in the matter, of course).
P
PRmerger
Guest
I have no idea what you’re referencing.
Now, since you say you have considered all of them (666 of them, which strains credulity that you’ve considered all of them), please offer some of the better ones, and why they fail.
Also, can you please answer the questions that I previously asked you (I’ve given you more than 4 hours to respond, which seems quite fair).
I am especially interested in the one where I asked why you bolded the 666?
It seems to me that you have some uninformed ideas about what 666 means to Catholicism, but I’d like to know for sure.
Thanks.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Incidentally, what theologian/philosopher/apologist has offered that as an argument?
I know that I’ve been reading theology/philosophy/apologetics for a very long time and haven’t seen that offered as a biggie. Perhaps as an aside it’s been offered, kind of like, “oh, and yeah, to be an atheist you have to deny the intellectual apprehensions* of billions and billions and billions of folks”.
But as for arguments offered by apologists or philosophers/theologians? You can’t offer a single one that’s the best of the worst?
*Apprehension is NOT to be understood in the archaic sense meaning “fear” but rather “grasping the concept”
P
PRmerger
Guest
LOL!
Tell that to the professors in the theology departments.
Their response: “Really? My job here is otiose? I thought my discipline was an actual thing. It turns out that there’s this guy on a Catholic forum who says that my job is inutile”
sigh
Perhaps you forgot you were on a Catholic forum? Faith has never been sufficient for Catholics, Sol.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=539800
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=934294
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=905795
Oh? You mean Martin Luther who was a heretic?
Let me tell you what our Scripture says:
Come, let us reason together!–Isaiah 1:18
Examine everything; hold fast to what is true–1 Thes 5:21
And read Veritatis Splendour and Fides et Ratio, and then we can chat.
A
AgnosticBoy
Guest
The short answer is that it’s possible to hold individual beliefs without those being a worldview, or at least a worldview that you accept with certainty. I hope my points below clears up some misconceptions.
Let me start off by referencing the viewpoint, i.e. agnosticism, before I address any points about individual people who claim to hold the agnostic viewpoint. First, according to Thomas Huxley, agnosticism has no worldview, creeds, or tenets, except one, which is to avoid dogmatism or to not hold any certainty in matters (metaphysics) that are not scientifically nor logically validated. Agnosticism as a behavior or expression would simply involve an approach, way of thinking, arguing/reasoning that avoids dogmatism. Two ways I’ve gone about sustaining my agnosticism is by approaching intellectual matters as if I know nothing about it (starting from scratch or suspending judgement) so as to avoid preconceived beliefs, biases, etc and building from there or by starting out with what I know for sure and progressing from there. Probably no different than the scientific approach which should also be devoid of dogmatism.
As for followers (for a lack of better word) of agnosticism, it’s true that they may hold worldviews if they are not completely or consistently agnostic on every matter, especially when coming from backgrounds where a worldview was instilled in them from a young age. However, an agnostic should not hold any certainty in any of his views unless it can be backed by science and/or logic, so therefore there’s no worldview that I accept as being true. I’ve been able to do this at least when it comes to the issue of God and spirituality.
Compare my point to Christians who always hold that their worldview is true or atheists who do the same when they mix in their worldview with science or make science itself into a worldview.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I think you are right because why should anyone be required to argue for something she believes is wrong.
The usual way of proceeding is that one person presents an argument and then the other person either agrees or tries to refute it.
P
PRmerger
Guest
So if you were in a discussion with someone who doesn’t believe we landed on the moon, you wouldn’t expect him to be able to articulate the evidence for the event, and why he rejects it?
He can simply just assert, “I don’t believe we ever landed on the moon!”
Really?
P
PRmerger
Guest
And just to clarify: no one has asked for the atheist/agnostic to “argue for something she believes is wrong”.
That would be absurd.
What is being asked is a very, very bland question: what argument for God’s existence do you find to be the best, and why does it fail?
It provides some evidence that the person has actually examined both sides.
It provides evidence that the person is actually NOT a fundamentalist reactionary with some emotional knee-jerk oppositional-defiant reaction to religion, but rather a thoughtful, educated thinker.
It also is just a rather fundamental principle of discourse: one should be able to understand the other side’s position, and then offer points to refute.
It’s rather good to be familiar with the arguments you’re rejecting, don’t you think?
Being open minded should be a good thing, no? (As long as, referencing Chesterton, one’s mind closes down on truth
)Addendum: and we ask for what’s the best argument for God’s existence, rather than the worst or the so-so ones, to eliminate waste of time. Let’s just cut to the chase, right?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Imagine you’re in a dialogue with a young earther who asserts: “There are no good reasons to believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old!”
You ask, “Have you examined the reasons people believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old?”
He responds, “Why would I have to do that?”
Or, “Yes, I have, but I don’t have to tell you what they are because, of course, I reject them.”
You would be justified in thinking, “Yeah. This guy hasn’t read a single article that supports the idea that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. He’s rejecting something he has no idea about.”
You ask, “Have you examined the reasons people believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old?”
He responds, “Why would I have to do that?”
Or, “Yes, I have, but I don’t have to tell you what they are because, of course, I reject them.”
You would be justified in thinking, “Yeah. This guy hasn’t read a single article that supports the idea that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. He’s rejecting something he has no idea about.”
S
Solmyr
Guest
Of course. If all the proponents (doctors of the church or apologists or whatever) could not make a coherent and convincing argument for the validity of their claims, then why should anyone come to their rescue? Let them sharpen their swords and start again.
That is your problem. I offered you a link to those arguments.
I was being “cute”. The number of 666 is the mark of the “beast”. And the site I linked to made 666 “arguments” to support the existence of God. Go back and enjoy them. The way those “arguments” are presented is playful, tongue-in-cheek. But the arguments are taken from the apologist texts.
But I will point out the major absurdity of your “request”. There are two Gods. The biblical God is simple, it is just a mythical figure of an ancient religion - and not a very nice one at that. But the God of the philosophers is a different ballgame. There is no coherent and meaningful definition for God of the “philosophers”. The words describing its attributes are partly meaningless, partly contradictory. When this is pointed out, the usual reply is that those words are just insufficient approximations to describe the one who is indescribable, whose real attributes we cannot even imagine.
Now, when we use the words according to their actual meaning, then the God of the philosophers collapses into a “married bachelor, dressed in the emperor’s clothes”. And no sane person needs to argue against a “married bachelor”. So instead of “nagging”, why don’t you present the definition for God, and explain what the actual words mean - really mean, not just approximately. That might lead to a discussion. But I don’t think you are up to the task. But don’t despair (it would be a sin
), none of the theologians can do it. The final answer is always: “it is a mystery”.
A
Aloysium
Guest
It is the final answer to everything.
That is the nature of reality - fathomless abyss, ultimate uncertainty for those seeking something intellectually solid and certain.
It is what it is.
But, what is it that it is?
And the mind spins round.
B
Bradski
Guest
Beats me. I’m giving you what I personally believe is the least worst argument for God. It’s a very bad argument indeed, but it’s head and shoulders above the rest.
Actually, it’s the least worst argument for Christianity. But please don’t tell me that God and Christianity are separate arguments. Enuff already of the God of Philosophers. That entity is like the Designer in Intelligent Design. Same guy.
People are brought up as Christians and therefore believe in God. I personally know scores of Christians. In fact, when growing up, I didn’t know anyone who WASN’T a Christian.
And not a single one, to the very best of my knowledge, became a Christian because they studied theological or philosophical arguments. Not a single one. I literally didn’t know, or know now, anyone who could iterate a philosophical argument for God. I would put a lot of money on none of them knowing who Anselm or Aquinas was (with the exception of the clergy I knew).
Even those clergy,mInwould be willing to bet, came to Christianity via their upbringing. And THEN learnt the arguments that purported to uphold their existing beliefs.
So, yeah. Lots of people believe in God. Best argument there is. And whar a shocker…
B
Bradski
Guest
Iterate? Good grief, I meant formulate.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
You have just described your own worldview.
You cannot escape having a worldview, and agnosticism is a particularly pernicious one.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
The God of philosophers is a halfway house between atheism and Christianity. That was Thomas Aquinas’ approach to formulating the five proofs. Establish that a Creator might exist, then you can begin to explore **what kind **of a Creator. Deists from Voltaire through Einstein have always recognized the existence of such a Creator God. They could not bring themselves to acknowledging the existence of a personal God, but at least they were on the road that, if followed farther, if they had been able to open their hearts as well as their minds, might have led them to the personal God. That such a path might exist is explicitly or implicitly allowed by everyone in this forum, or why would anyone be in this forum?
S
Solmyr
Guest
“Might exist” simply does not cut it. The God of the philosophers cannot be taken seriously, until the actual attributes of this being are established and shown to be 1) meaningful
2) internally consistent and
3) congruent with the observed reality.
“Might exist” again? First you have to establish the path, before you can start to explore it. And that is what is missing. What are the attributes of God? Are those attributes meaningful? Are they compatible with each other? Are they in harmony with the observed reality?That such a path might exist is explicitly or implicitly allowed by everyone in this forum, or why would anyone be in this forum?
Neither Aquinas, nor anyone else was able to create a coherent definition of God. The usual “bombastic” words, like "omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent, perfectly just, infinitely merciful, non-temporal, infinite, etc… need to be properly established. Not just like “umm, well, they mean - ya’ know - something like this”. And no excuse that God is ineffable, inconceivable, transcendent and other such nonsense. If you cannot explain what God is “supposed to be”, then you already lost the battle to establish his existence.
I am willing to listen. Present the definition, explain the terms, and we can have a conversation. But be precise.
A
AgnosticBoy
Guest
I don’t agree completely with your labelling of agnosticism as a worldview. Agnosticism contains a view or two, but at least it is not a ‘dogmatic’ worldview.You have just described your own worldview.
You cannot escape having a worldview, and agnosticism is a particularly pernicious one.
Definitions
Dogmatism:
- the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others.
- a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
As I said above, the God of Philosophers is incompletely known. Aquinas certainly recognized this, and so the God of Revelation completes our understanding of what or who God is, and even that is not complete, since to know God as he is we have to be in heaven with him.
What you seem to demand is a photo-shoot of God. Ain’t gonna happen.
And even if you got one, you’d doubtless call it a delusional optical illusion.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Both 1 and 2 are not accurate definitions of dogmatism. Dogmatism is simply a rigid way of thinking, whether true or false. Agnosticism is a rigid way of thinking, and, depending on the subject matter, the agnostic’s position might be true or false.
And why is agnosticism not a dogmatism? Or do you doubt that agnosticism is true?
The authentic agnostic would doubt agnosticism.
In my experience, there is no debating an agnostic that gets anywhere because the agnostic has a fallback position on every debate: he will contest the view that you can ever be sure of anything.
Yes, there are many things in life, we cannot be sure of. But there are also many things in life we ought to be sure of if we value our sanity.
- Status