Ante Up!

[tonyrey]

1. By economical I’m guessing you mean under Occam’s Razor? Not entirely sure, since you didn’t specify.

Nothing can be more economical than **one **Supreme Being.

The problem is that in doing so, you accept an explanation about which we can have no information, and thus a divine being has an infinite information cost.

There is no reason to assume we can have no information about the Supreme Being. The existence of rational beings is a good reason for regarding the Supreme Being as suprarational. The defect of materialism is that the effect is not proportionate to the cause.

The simplest explanation for a rock moving involves laws that we have experimentally determined to exist, saying that God did it makes the explanation infinitely complex, because God is infinitely complex.

Do you think you can understand God in terms of the laws God created?How do you know God is infinitely complex?

1. I don’t even know what this means.

Which term is obscure?

1. How does this follow from the original two statements?

I have not stated that it does…

I think what is being looked for is an argument of the form:

1. Premisses
2. Arguments from those premisses, each of which follows directly from the premisses or from other arguments, and which lead directly to
3. Conclusion: There is a god.

Reasoning need not be syllogistic.

 

[tonyrey]

Actually… real atheism does not acknowledge reality, because such an acknowledgement leads to a first cause, a supreme being, who is all act and has no potency, a necessary being, an efficient cause, a final cause which moves all things by its working, an enormously powerful being who sustains the entire universe, and a tremendously gifted artisan who has created unimaginable beauty and unsurpassing harmony.

Real atheism must deny the most obvious facts about existence.

Furthermore, as Calvin said, the proofs of God can be 100% true, even overwhelmingly so, but that doesn’t mean they are convincing. This is because people don’t want God in their thinking. They don’t want to be called to judgment. They reject his natural revelation and go after wickedness. After a while, as the Scripture says, God will give them over to a debased mind, trading in truth for a lie.

Of course, no amount of wishful thinking is going to change the fact of the matter, when we all have to stand before almighty God and give an account.

I agree that atheism does not acknowledge the fullness of reality because it depersonalises human beings and reduces them to biological machines.

 

[kumarei]

Nothing can be more economical than **one **Supreme Being.

I guess I don’t understand what you mean by economical.

There is no reason to assume we can have no information about the Supreme Being.

I guess I could have worded that better. In order to understand as much about a supreme being as we understand about the laws of nature, we would have to know everything about all of nature, as well as extra things about the supreme being that we have no way of knowing. This means that the complexity of the supreme being is much higher than the complexity of a natural explanation. I’m using an understanding of complexity based on the idea of Occam’s Razor. Are you using a different measure of complexity? If so, what is it?

The existence of rational beings is a good reason for regarding the Supreme Being as suprarational.

Why?

The defect of materialism is that the effect is not proportionate to the cause.

We don’t really understand everything about the universe yet. You mean that when we do, the effect won’t be proportionate to the cause?

Do you think you can understand God in terms of the laws God created?How do you know God is infinitely complex?

Because according to philosophers, and many religious people, he is unknowable, and also encapsulates the complexity of the universe.

Which term is obscure?

None of the terms in and of themselves are obscure, I just don’t understand how they form a coherent idea.

I have not stated that it does…

Sorry, I was assuming that it was. Addressing that point on its own, then:

This seems to be a conclusion. If I don’t already believe it, is there a way of convincing me?

Reasoning need not be syllogistic.

What other types of reasoning do you accept as valid? For myself, I would also accept scientific reasoning, so if you could provide that, I would count it.

 

[JohnDamian]

I guess I don’t understand what you mean by economical.

Economy is the avoidance of an un-necessary plurality.

I guess I could have worded that better. In order to understand as much about a supreme being as we understand about the laws of nature, we would have to know everything about all of nature, as well as extra things about the supreme being that we have no way of knowing. This means that the complexity of the supreme being is much higher than the complexity of a natural explanation. I’m using an understanding of complexity based on the idea of Occam’s Razor. Are you using a different measure of complexity? If so, what is it?

Occams Razor; based upon the understandings of Durandus; Scotus and Alhazen clearly leads to one positing a singular where a plural is not compelled.

What you are saying about magnitude runs contrary to univocity; I shall give a lay-example; the sayings of Nicholas of Cusa (see de docta ignorantia I) where the “maximum in quantity is maximum in magnitude; and the minimum in quantitiy is maximum in littleness; removing thereafter maximum and minimum from quantity by abstracting magnitude and littleness; you will see clearly that maximum and minimum coincide”. This statement is clearly simplified; but clearly demonstrates that univocity is the case in individuals. It follows from this (coupled with an understanding that Ockham understood univocity; studying at Oxford only a few years after Scotus taught); that Ockham would have understood that complexity cannot be posited plurivocally or analagorically; and thus complexity is irrelevant to the avoidance of positing a plural where a singular suffices.

What other types of reasoning do you accept as valid? For myself, I would also accept scientific reasoning, so if you could provide that, I would count it.

Ockhams Razor is something you use as a type of reasoning. This is presented in Scotus Tractatus de Primo Principio ch2 no45 as an axiom; and not a syllogistic argument. Yet; you seem to agree with it.

 

[kumarei]

Ockhams Razor is something you use as a type of reasoning. This is presented in Scotus Tractatus de Primo Principio ch2 no45 as an axiom; and not a syllogistic argument. Yet; you seem to agree with it.

I use Occam’s Razor as a scientific heuristic, as it is used by modern scientists. In minimizing the unknows in an equation, you maximize it’s parsimoniousness, and more parsimonious explanations are more likely to be true. If the original intention was to just minimize the number of things, I guess I don’t really subscribe to that.

It’s certainly not a proof of anything, and I don’t believe that it should be used in a proof, but it’s a pretty useful heuristic, and often proves correct.

All I really meant to say is that I don’t consider the use of God in an equation to be simple or parsimonious, because “God” contains infinite unknowns, and as such I have an inherent distrust of the claim that was being made.

It’s hard to argue that point any other way, since it’s not really an argument, but more a statement of belief.

 

[JohnDamian]

The Original “Razor” was “Plurality must never be posited without necessity”

It is to avoid the un-necessary things.

Now Occham applied this Razor to the Eight Arguments from Duns Scotus reacing the conclusion in his “Quodlibeta, I, Q. i” that it is known from reason that “God is that than which nothing is more noble and more perfect”; and that this God is “Known to exist”.

However; Occham argues that we cannot know God exists if we define him as “God is some thing more noble and more perfect than any thing else beside him”. He also states “The trinity of persons cannot be demonstrated” and “the unicity of God cannot be evidently proved”.

However; Occham accepts the Teachings of Bl. Duns Scotus in that God has been demonstrated to exist; exist omnipotently; and exist intellectually; and to exersise will – however Occham rounds off the conclusions of Scotus denying an ability to evidently prove unicity; this is where he clearly disagrees with Scotus on the matter of the First Principle.

To reiterate; God has been evidently proved to exist; and to exist omnipotently; and to exist intellectually; and to exersise the will – this is all that can be “evidently” proved about the nature of God. We cannot “evidently prove” matters such as the trinity; or unicity – thus belief in them is not evidentally or logically certain; wheras belief in the existence of God (and etc.) is logically certain.

God does (may) contain infinite unknowns. However; certain facts are known by inference.

 

[kumarei]

It’s an interesting history lesson, but it isn’t that relevant to the discussion. Ockham may have accepted the arguments that God existed, but I don’t. You say that God has been proved evidently to exist, and I am looking for such a proof.

It’s sort of ironic that I mentioned Occam’s Razor given its original purpose, but that doesn’t necessarily negate the point that I was making.

 

[JohnDamian]

It’s an interesting history lesson, but it isn’t that relevant to the discussion. Ockham may have accepted the arguments that God existed, but I don’t. You say that God has been proved evidently to exist, and I am looking for such a proof.

It’s sort of ironic that I mentioned Occam’s Razor given its original purpose, but that doesn’t necessarily negate the point that I was making.

Sorry for distracting the thread;

The best proof for the existence of God is the Treatise on First Principle; which I have never seen refuted; a link below; (I would also reccoment Occhams commentary from Ord. I) This is the proof that Occham regards as “evidently proven”; although Occham was a spurious deviant from Scotism; and Francis Mayronnes was a more reliable commentator; although it is impossible to get his writings in English.

Incidentally; this is the work that cemented my decision to rejoin the Church; so philosophically literate atheists beware!

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/GODASFIR.HTM

For less complicated discussion; or for people who have little philosophy learnings the slightly inferior argumentation from Kant in Critique of Judgement is a good resource;

oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1217&chapter=97643&layout=html&Itemid=27

For the individual with no philosophy learnings at all then Aquinas five proofs are reasonably acceptable; although they do not stand up to critical scrutiny as well as the above two;

mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasFiveWays_ArgumentAnalysis.htm

 

[tonyrey]

Nothing can be more economical than one Supreme Being.

The smallest number of entities.

There is no reason to assume we can have no information about the Supreme Being.

I guess I could have worded that better. In order to understand as much about a supreme being as we understand about the laws of nature, we would have to know everything about all of nature, as well as extra things about the supreme being that we have no way of knowing.

It is not necessary - or even possible - to understand as much about the Supreme Being as we understand about the laws of nature. All we need to know is that the Supreme Being cannot be less powerful than nature. Otherwise the effect would be greater than the Cause.

This means that the complexity of the supreme being is much higher than the complexity of a natural explanation. I’m using an understanding of complexity based on the idea of Occam’s Razor. Are you using a different measure of complexity? If so, what is it?

There is no obvious reason why spiritual reality should be subject to the laws of natural explanation. One might as well try to understand the intangible mind in terms of the tangible brain.

The existence of rational beings is a good reason for regarding the Supreme Being as suprarational.

Why?

How else do you account for rationality?

The defect of materialism is that the effect is not proportionate to the cause.

We don’t really understand everything about the universe yet. You mean that when we do, the effect won’t be proportionate to the cause?

You are assuming that science can ultimately explain everything.

Do you think you can understand God in terms of the laws God created?How do you know God is infinitely complex?

Because according to philosophers, and many religious people, he is unknowable, and also encapsulates the complexity of the universe.

If God is unknowable you cannot know He is infinitely complex! What people believe has no bearing on the nature of reality.

None of the terms in and of themselves are obscure, I just don’t understand how they form a coherent idea.

Then consider each attribute separately.

This seems to be a conclusion. If I don’t already believe it, is there a way of convincing me?

Can you offer a superior explanation? Can you refute this explanation? If not your rejection of it is unreasonable.

What other types of reasoning do you accept as valid?

Logic, intuition, personal experience and philosophical reasoning.

For myself, I would also accept scientific reasoning, so if you could provide that, I would count it.

Do you base all your conclusions and decisions on scientific reasoning? Can science explain the principles on which it is based?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

For the individual with no philosophy learnings at all then Aquinas five proofs are reasonably acceptable; although they do not stand up to critical scrutiny as well as the above two;

mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasFiveWays_ArgumentAnalysis.htm

Why do you say that?

 

[JohnDamian]

Why do you say that?

Because they do not demonstrate a singular cause; so technically speaking; they do not demonstrate God; any more than they demonstrate per se “cause” “perfection” or “designer”. All the first three ways demonstrate is “cause” to exist; and all the fourth way demonstrates is “perfection” per se; not “perfection” above all others; and the fifth way merely demonstrates “design”; which is even less convincing than the others in the titling as God.

There is no reason to move from “Cause” “Perfection” or “Designer” to God without making a grave error in reason.

 

[kumarei]

@JohnDamian

I’m always interested in learning, so it was a good diversion. Anyway, thanks for the links. I won’t make much comment on the five proofs, other than that I don’t find them especially convincing. Since you seem to think that the Treatise on First Principle is categorically better, I won’t waste time on arguing them. Instead, I’ll read through the Treatise and get back to you with my thoughts.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Because they do not demonstrate a singular cause; so technically speaking; they do not demonstrate God; any more than they demonstrate per se “cause” “perfection” or “designer”. All the first three ways demonstrate is “cause” to exist; and all the fourth way demonstrates is “perfection” per se; not “perfection” above all others; and the fifth way merely demonstrates “design”; which is even less convincing than the others in the titling as God.

There is no reason to move from “Cause” “Perfection” or “Designer” to God without making a grave error in reason.

You saying that I can’t but why can’t I?

 

[JohnDamian]

You saying that I can’t but why can’t I?

We can’t assume because there is a rock; that there is God – without any reasoning.

Nor can we assume because there is a designer; that that designer is God – without any reasoning.

Nor can we assume because there is a causer; that that causer is God – without any reasoning.

Nor can we assume because there is a perfection; that that perfection is God – without any reasoning.

St. Thomas five ways does not explain a chain of reasoning between the Cause/Designer/Perfection and God. Without some valid reasoning we cannot just assume that whatever caused/designed/is most perfect in/- the universe is God.

Aquinas shows that the Cause / Perfection / Designer exists; but he does not explain what or who that is; as such; his arguments do not stand alone.

 

[In_Spiration]

Here.

Until I’ve seen a point-by-point refutation of this, then it’s only reasonable to conclude that theism is true and atheism false, on the basis that I haven’t acknowledged anyone as incontrovertibly meeting the challenge.

If that’s been disproved, then here is a different, more detailed argument. And just for fun, this is the symbolic version of Kurt Godel’s proof. There are many others I’d love to contribute toward everyone’s wonderfully disciplined philosophical quest for truth, but alas, I’ve got to reject some arguments in favor of macro-evolution on a Darwinism forum. Hey, the longer I withhold my agreement – oops, I mean – the longer I maintain my dignified doxastic standards, and my unwillingness to epistemically “settle for less,” then perhaps all my co-deniers and I can convince the courts it’s a controversial issue, maybe even beyond settlement. (After all, it is just a THEORY.)

Keep in mind: all refutations will be subject to my veto by logical fiat. If I’m incapable of grasping the warrant of your counter-argument, then it is clearly not a good argument. If a refutation cannot be proffered in a way that I can understand (i.e., a form that nicely squares with my rejection of its conclusion), then it’s sophistry.

If you take issue with my playing dialectically “hard to get,” then I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree, after, of course, agreeing that any real proof just won’t be all that complicated. Dispute entails the truth of skepticism (unless the dispute is over the justification for my very disputation, naturally, since I need no justification to reject what I simply don’t accept. I mean, come on; why would I dismiss something if it really were shown to be true? Anyone who denies a demonstrated fact is an idiot; and I’m clearly no idiot; ergo, etc.).

 

[kumarei]

@In Spiration
As far as I can see, the problems with the first article are the same as the objections to most cosmological arguments. Premiss 2 is nontrivial, and I would say unproven, and the conclusion skips the steps between “cause” and “God” (possibly because they believe these steps to be beyond debate). It may be that there is a direct line of reasoning between “first cause” and “God,” but unless you define “God” exclusively as first cause, that argument in isolation falls short of a conclusion that God exists.

These are just the issues that are immediately obvious; I haven’t digested it completely. It is late.

I haven’t read the others yet. I have a bit queued up right now, I’ll get back to you on it.

 

[tonyrey]

1. The most adequate and economical explanation of conscious, rational, purposeful, moral and autonomous beings is one Supreme, conscious, rational, purposeful, moral and autonomous Being rather than impersonal events which lack consciousness, rationality, purpose, morality, autonomy and responsibility.
2. The most adequate and economical explanation of reality is in terms of its highest aspects: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love which converge in the Supreme Being.
3. The immense value of existence is the result of benevolent Design rather than blind events.

It is childlike to think “Supreme Being” is a meaningless expression.

The positing of such a supreme being is the LEAST economical explanation available.

Then produce a more economical explanation…

It’s the theoretical worst one can do in terms of reasoning from the evidence, as it uses none of it, and, throwing up one’s hands in frustration at the challenges of ignorance makes the maximally magical and unaccountable answer the “adequate” one.

1. The evidence is the universe of the universe and rational beings.
2. Frustration exists only if purpose is explained away as the result of purposeless events.
3. The maximally magical and unaccountable answer is that of the materialist who eliminates rationality and accountability by attributing everything to irrational processes.
4. To use reason to dispose of reason is the height of absurdity!

It’s only adequate because the magical answer is NOT accountable to the evidence or derived from it, and thus is not challenged or constrained by it. It literally cannot be wrong, or corrected.

If it cannot be wrong, or corrected how can you possibly criticise it and find it defective?

And that, seen as its strength in child-like modes of thought, is actually the mark of its utter poverty as an explanation.

If anything is child-like and savouring of utter poverty it is the explanation that reality consists only of what you can see, taste, smell, hear and touch. A cruder hypothesis has never been devised…

If this kind of thinking has any value at all, if it carries any weight whatsoever intellectual, rather than just being child-like naïveté creeping into what is ostensibly a point of serious pondering, then natural answers have no currency.

“natural” is a nebulous term that has never been clearly defined. It can cover any possible contingency.

They will never be adequate in comparison to superstitions, because superstition has dual overwhelming advantages – 1) it’s not accountable to the facts, and therefore is maximally adequate in light of them, and 2) it’s intuitively/psychologically appealing in its own right, as this is how we came to this faux-reasoning in the first place.

What could be more superstitious than the primitive belief that material objects have the magical power to produce rational beings? !

If this is the best argument for God’s existence, it’s an utter fail.

If that is your sole response to my statements it is utterly worthless. You have failed to produce an alternative explanation of the existence of rational beings… or perhaps you believe they don’t exist…

1. Do you deny the immense value of existence?
2. Do you regard the power of reason as less effective than purposeless processes?
3. Do you believe a person is nothing more than a fortuitous collection of particles?
4. Do you attribute unselfish love to animal instinct?
5. Do you reject the inner reality of your self?

 

[wanstronian]

The best proof for the existence of God is the Treatise on First Principle…
ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/GODASFIR.HTM

I’ve tried to read this before - it’s a nightmare! It’s full of what I suspect to be specific philosophical terms, coupled with 13th Century (or whatever) flowery wording.

For a philosophical layman like myself, it’s impossible to tell whether it proves anything at all! I spent an evening trying to read it; as far as I could make out, it seems to be a sophisticated version of the Cosmological argument, but I’m happy to concede I can’t understand it well enough to comment.

I don’t think that esoteric philosophical language should be necessary to provide proof of a truth claim such as the existence of God. Hence it should be reasonably easy for someone well-versed in philosophical linguistics to interpret and reproduce Scotus in plain language so that it can be assessed on it merits.

Has anybody done this, do you know?

 

[LongJohnSilver]

I don’t think there is a philosophical argument good enough to convince a skeptic of the existence of God.

However, through the mist of the philosophical debate shines a far more simple argument, one that is often overlooked by the religious, and misinterpreted or ignored by the non-religious. It can be seen in this picture:

http://schools-wikipedia.org/images/785/78568.png
*source: Encyclopaedia Britannica, via schools-wikipedia.org/images/785/78568.png

It is the simple fact that less than 3% of the world population is atheistic, and there is no reason to assume that this number is higher than it was 50, 100 or even 800 years ago, nor is there reason to assume that it will be higher 20, 50 or 150 years from now.

Enlightenment theories of how religion would dissapear in the ‘age of reason’, of how people would come to a ‘more natural’ understanding of the world, how scientific knowledge would degrade religion to mere mythical fairytales, how the concept of God would die within the next centuries or even decades, along with the secularization thesis, all proved to be wrong. Organized religion may have declined in some parts of the world, it may have taken other forms, believe and religion itself is very much alive today. The number of atheists worldwide isn’t growing, as the New Atheist movement wants us to believe.

The only argument the atheist has to counter this more than obvious fact, is that since religious groups all believe in different gods there can’t be one true God. But beside the fact that this logic is flawed since it is possible that one group believes in the true God while the others don’t, the argument doesn’t address the core of my argument, namely that the vast majority of the worldwide population somehow has evidence to believe in a supernatural Being. The fact that different religious groups have different images of who and what this Being is, does not counter the argument itself.

The question can now be raised: isn’t it a bit pretentious for such a small group to loudly demand scientific evidence for something that, even without direct scientific or even philosophical proof, seems so obvious to the rest of the world?

 

[wanstronian]

Whoops, sorry, my last post might be a touch confusing.

This is what it should have looked like:

---

The best proof for the existence of God is the Treatise on First Principle…
ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/GODASFIR.HTM

I’ve tried to read this before - it’s a nightmare! It’s full of what I suspect to be specific philosophical terms, coupled with 13th Century (or whatever) flowery wording.

For a philosophical layman like myself, it’s impossible to tell whether it proves anything at all! I spent an evening trying to read it; as far as I could make out, it seems to be a sophisticated version of the Cosmological argument, but I’m happy to concede I can’t understand it well enough to comment.

I don’t think that esoteric philosophical language should be necessary to provide proof of a truth claim such as the existence of God. Hence it should be reasonably easy for someone well-versed in philosophical linguistics to interpret and reproduce Scotus in plain language so that it can be assessed on it merits.

Has anybody done this, do you know?