Arguments for God's Existence

[Jmd96]

No, I’m talking about when I was a Christian. So my arguments in favour of the existence of God was the only way I could make a case for it being a “properly basic belief”.*

If that’s the case I think you may have been misunderstanding theism as a properly basic belief. From a New York Times article about Alvin Plantinga:

*Mr. Plantinga readily admits that he has no proof that God exists. But he also thinks that doesn’t matter. Belief in God, he argues, is what philosophers call a basic belief: It is no more in need of proof than the belief that the past exists, or that other people have minds, or that one plus one equals two. *

I’ll only touch on this briefly, as you said it risks derailment. But I originally found it compelling because I agreed with the proposal that the Prime Mover was God. Ultimately though I realised that all the properties I cared about God possessing (omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, personal being etc) were outside what was demonstrated by the argument. They were things I’d added on because of my pre-existing beliefs. While the PM supported by the cosmological argument COULD have the properties I cared about God possessing, there was nothing in the argument which said the PM MUST have those properties.*

On the contrary, William Lane Craig argues that the Prime Mover must uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, powerful, and yes, personal. I’m prepared to elaborate on why these are necessary. I think I’d have trouble thoroughly defending the “personal” aspect, though.

Basically I start from what I call first principles, in other words, terms which are axiomatic. These are things like*

“suffering is bad”
“happiness is good”

It doesn’t really matter exactly what words you use or what language you speak in, we all know that “suffering”, “misery”, “agony” refer to negative experiences, things we want to avoid. So I work from those as basic axioms and my ethics emerge from there.*

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this seems to prove my point-- that a non-theistic worldview cannot tell me why something is right or wrong, it simply taks it by faith.

God bless,

 

[Serious]

Mr. Plantinga readily admits that he has no proof that God exists. But he also thinks that doesn’t matter. Belief in God, he argues, is what philosophers call a basic belief: It is no more in need of proof than the belief that the past exists, or that other people have minds, or that one plus one equals two.

Since not all people share that basic belief, Plantinga is wrong. His stance could be “rescued” if he could substantiate that all those who do not share this “basic belief” are clinically insane. After all who cares what insane people think? But as long as sane people do not hold that belief, it is not “basic”.

On the contrary, William Lane Craig argues that the Prime Mover must uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, powerful, and yes, personal. I’m prepared to elaborate on why these are necessary. I think I’d have trouble thoroughly defending the “personal” aspect, though.

Funny list of attributes there. If a being is “timeless”, than that being is not capable of acting. Logically speaking any act involves a change (an act which does not involve a change is an oxymoron). If there is a change, then there is a “before” the change and an “after” the change, which means that there is “time”. Yet this “prime mover” is assumed to have acted, at least once, when he set the ball in motion (so to speak). So the list contains a logical absurdity, and as such it proves that such a being cannot exist. To refute such arguments is not even challenging.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this seems to prove my point-- that a non-theistic worldview cannot tell me why something is right or wrong, it simply taks it by faith.

You are wrong. I don’t need faith to yank by hand back from a hot stove. Not even an animal would expose itself to pain.

 

[ASimon]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this seems to prove my point-- that a non-theistic worldview cannot tell me why something is right or wrong, it simply taks it by faith.

God bless,

The old, withered line from David Hume is that you can’t get an ought from an is. The fact is, we can’t talk about what anything “is” - without having our “oughts” built right into the discussion.

That needless suffering (suffering that doesn’t lead to greater well-being) is “bad” is what you would call a properly basic belief. Anyone who denies that needless suffering is bad either doesn’t understand the implications, or is pretending not to. We don’t need a supernatural authority to explain this concept to us, and from this concept, we can derive a perfectly serviceable system for determining right and wrong.

 

[Perplexity]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this seems to prove my point-- that a non-theistic worldview cannot tell me why something is right or wrong, it simply taks it by faith.

The theistic world-view itself doesn’t tell us why something is right or wrong either.The theist can adopt certain moral positions which attempt to tell us why something is right or wrong, like Divine Command Theory, or Natural Law. But, the theistic world-view common to all theists needn’t incorporate such positions, otherwise, for example, only those theists who accepted Divine Command Theory would be theists! So, any attempt to explain why something is right or wrong will involve auxiliary positions, added to the theistic world view.

The same thing goes for the atheistic world-view. There are numerous moral positions available to the atheist which are intended to explain why something is right or wrong.

 

[Serious]

That needless suffering (suffering that doesn’t lead to greater well-being) is “bad” is what you would call a properly basic belief.

It should be a basic belief, but the funny thing that it is not. There are many people who subscribe to the idea of the so called “free will defense” when discussing needless suffering. Plantinga is one of them. They say that “free will” is soooo important, that it will justify - retroactively - the existence of evil. They do not say that every instance of “evil” must lead to some unspecified “greater good”, they actually admit that there is gratuitous evil in the world. But they say that the existence of free will justifies those sufferings.

Of course they can never explain why the “free will” of the rapist is sooo very important. It is simply hilarious that these (good?) people fight tooth and nail for letting the rapists, murderers and torturers go freely to commit their acts - as long as it is others who suffer the consequences. Of course if they would be on the receiving end of these actions, they would not be so tolerant.

I remember a good joke:
Q: Who is a conservative?
A: It is a liberal who just has been mugged.
Q: Who is a liberal?
A: It is a conservative who has been incorrectly accused of this mugging.

 

[Candide_West]

If that’s the case I think you may have been misunderstanding theism as a properly basic belief. *From a New York Times article about Alvin Plantinga:

*Mr. Plantinga readily admits that he has no proof that God exists. But he also thinks that doesn’t matter. Belief in God, he argues, is what philosophers call a basic belief: It is no more in need of proof than the belief that the past exists, or that other people have minds, or that one plus one equals two. *

Perhaps I am misunderstanding. Let’s discuss.

The key point in the idea of basic beliefs is how you determine if something is or is not a basic belief. It cannot be simply declared by fiat otherwise you leave the door open for anyone else to declare whatever they wish to believe to be a basic belief. So the criteria needs to prevent people declaring that the earth being flat and the sun revolving around it to be a properly basic belief.*

You also need to insure that you cannot using the same criteria decide upon two contradictory statements as both being properly basic beliefs. For obvious reasons.

Would you like to propose a criteria to determine if something is a properly basic belief?*

On the contrary, William Lane Craig argues that the Prime Mover must uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, powerful, and yes, personal. *I’m prepared to elaborate on why these are necessary. *I think I’d have trouble thoroughly defending the “personal” aspect, though.

All those adjectives except powerful and personal would appear to be contained within “timeless” I’m happy to accept a timeless PM for the sake of argument and assuming that by “powerful” we mean “capable of causing the universe” then I’m happy to assume that too.*

The problem comes when we try to go beyond that. What else can we draw from the cosmological argument? The “personal” part does seem to be a key difficulty here, and to me it was always the stumbling block. I’ve seen many attempts to show that the PM must be God (take a look over at “Finite past proves God exists” for a recent example. Again, the writer got to the point of the PM and promptly assumed that it was God (by which he/she meant and omnipotent, omniscient, loving, personal being). But there’s no connecting logic there.*

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this seems to prove my point-- that a non-theistic worldview cannot tell me why something is right or wrong, it simply taks it by faith. *

God bless,

Not quite, essentially I have just selected an axiomatic starting point and work from there. True that it doesn’t tell us WHY these are axioms, but then again neither does maths tell us WHY 2+2 = 4. It is simply axiomatic to the system.

As noted above, there’s a reasonable argument that “suffering is bad” is a “properly basic belief” since (by definition) nobody enjoys suffering. Of course there is some variation in what causes suffering for different people, but suffering itself is always unpleasant.*

 

[TS_Aquinas]

Funny list of attributes there. If a being is “timeless”, than that being is not capable of acting. Logically speaking any act involves a change (an act which does not involve a change is an oxymoron). If there is a change, then there is a “before” the change and an “after” the change, which means that there is “time”. Yet this “prime mover” is assumed to have acted, at least once, when he set the ball in motion (so to speak). So the list contains a logical absurdity, and as such it proves that such a being cannot exist. To refute such arguments is not even challenging.

If this is what Craig argues, then he’s just as mindless as his opponents. I hope you do not think this version of the PM argument has anything to do with the original and true version.

 

[belorg]

If this is what Craig argues, then he’s just as mindless as his opponents. I hope you do not think this version of the PM argument has anything to do with the original and true version.

Unfortunately this IS what Craig argues.
The ‘original and true version’ of the PM argument was not argued by Craig but by Aristotle and later by Aquinas. They argue that the PM must be, among other things, changeless, that is, without change and even without possible change. IOW God must necssesarily be immutable.
But Craig argues (mindlessly?) that God is changeless only until the moment he changes.
I fully agree with Serious here that refuting this argument by Craig is too easy to be challenging.

 

[Gaber]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this seems to prove my point-- that a non-theistic worldview cannot tell me why something is right or wrong, it simply taks it by faith.

God bless,

OK, here is what might be a correction. The Golden Rule has been around for what, 5000 yers? It is based on what seems to be an inate ability humans have, unless they are sociopaths, to put themselves in another’s shoes. And it works brilliantly to be the fondation of a highly successful an “moral” ethic. And it doesn’t depent on theism or non theism, or whch type of either of those one subscribes to. Religions and theisms are explanations the mind makes up by misinterpreting either the Nature world, one’s own experienc,e or the life and meaning of someone who actually had a direct revelation. And we even misinterpret what a direct revelation means, because until you have one you are talking through your hat. Sorry, that’s not being disrespectful, it is only pointing out a dynamic of interior experience irrespective of faith or lack of it.

Why would you want to convince someone of God by argument??? Are you so uncertain yourself that you have to have company in your immaturity? If you did manage to “convince” someone, it would be a mere intelectual agreement, and tentative at that. Discover God yourself, live your discovery, and if someone asks “what happened to you?” tell them to make their own discovery. Then there can be no argument for or agoainst, God just is. And you will also have a superb understanding of why the Goslden Rule is, and why the Great Commandments were given. Understanding comes after experience.

 

[Qoeleth]

The old, withered line from David Hume is that you can’t get an ought from an is. The fact is, we can’t talk about what anything “is” - without having our “oughts” built right into the discussion.

That needless suffering (suffering that doesn’t lead to greater well-being) is “bad” is what you would call a properly basic belief. Anyone who denies that needless suffering is bad either doesn’t understand the implications, or is pretending not to. We don’t need a supernatural authority to explain this concept to us, and from this concept, we can derive a perfectly serviceable system for determining right and wrong.

You are quite right. The fact that “suffering is bad”, and “happiness is good” is analytically true- they are linguistically derivable. And this can, at least in principle, lead to a workable system of morality.

But then, religion, or at least philosophy, helps to clarify where suffering is. For example, a Cynic, or a primitive Christian, would say that wealth and material attachment causes suffering. A “modern capitalist” might say that wealth causes happiness. And thus moral differences emerge from different axiologies.

Now, belief in God would seem to be not so much a matter of evidence, as how one chooses to use the word “God” and “exist”. Some people would say that if something is outside time and space, it does not really “exist”. According to everday usage, that is true. Other people (myself included) prefer to treat “exist” in a non-realist way, and to treat the word “God” as fundamentally undefinable. In this context, it is a foundational belief for me that “God exists”. In some ways, it is an intentionally subversive statement- because I am choosing to use the term “exist” in a way contrary to everyday usage, and thereby to challenge the conceptual foundations of everday life. And all philosophy and religion are, in the sense that they attempt to leave behind the mundane ‘reality’, subversive and deconstructive. Which is surely a wonderful thing.

 

[Gaber]

You are quite right. The fact that “suffering is bad”, and “happiness is good” is analytically true- they are linguistically derivable. And this can, at least in principle, lead to a workable system of morality.

But then, religion, or at least philosophy, helps to clarify where suffering is. For example, a Cynic, or a primitive Christian, would say that wealth and material attachment causes suffering. A “modern capitalist” might say that wealth causes happiness. And thus moral differences emerge from different axiologies.

Now, belief in God would seem to be not so much a matter of evidence, as how one chooses to use the word “God” and “exist”. Some people would say that if something is outside time and space, it does not really “exist”. According to everday usage, that is true. Other people (myself included) prefer to treat “exist” in a non-realist way, and to treat the word “God” as fundamentally undefinable. In this context, it is a foundational belief for me that “God exists”. In some ways, it is an intentionally subversive statement- because I am choosing to use the term “exist” in a way contrary to everyday usage, and thereby to challenge the conceptual foundations of everday life. And all philosophy and religion are, in the sense that they attempt to leave behind the mundane ‘reality’, subversive and deconstructive. Which is surely a wonderful thing.

Yes, anything that challenges our view of the world and ourselves can be useful if we are sufficiently stable, say at the level of understanding that our thoughts are things and that who we are is different and contents to what we are. Most don’t make that distinction or have any experiential awareness of any state “beyond the mind,” a place upon which the most practical philosophies found themselves, as far as I can see. There is an argument that Chistianity does this, but in a circumloquatious way, while others are more direct about it. Kind of strange, since Catholicisim is at root an Eastern religion, but them most of the faithful don’t delve even a little bit into the first 300 years of the history of our faith.

As to your use of “exists” as refering to God, it may not be nearly enough of a provocation. It might be to an atheist, because then you have an either/or dynamic happening which can sustain an argument. But at some point belief becomes insufficient and more energetic work on oneself needs to be done to develop what might appear as a spiritual life to onlookers. Or one can be graced. That can happen even to atheists, lol!

All that is to say that very few delve past the superficial “God exists/doesn’t exist” phase, which as limited as it is can be highly functonal despit being at the root divisive. So at the end such arguments are functionally useless other than to eventually, perhaps and with grace, to make one receptive to something that is beyond belief.

 

[punkforchrist]

Craig typically doesn’t defend the argument from motion for a Prime Mover. This argument, which has its origins in Plato and Aristotle, allows for the existence of an infinitely-old universe. Craig defends the kalam cosmological argument, which requires that the universe had a beginning. He goes on to say that God exists timelessly sans the universe, but that God becomes temporal at the moment of creation. Craig’s view is not that God is immutable.

For Aristotle, God is immutable. He states that God moves things passively. Imagine gazing at a beautiful painting. You are “moved” by it as a result of its beauty. By analogy, whatever is in motion is ultimately moved by the Prime Mover because they are attracted to it as their natural end. Aristotle’s Prime Mover, therefore, can move things without itself being in motion.

 

[Gaber]

Craig typically doesn’t defend the argument from motion for a Prime Mover. This argument, which has its origins in Plato and Aristotle, allows for the existence of an infinitely-old universe. Craig defends the kalam cosmological argument, which requires that the universe had a beginning. He goes on to say that God exists timelessly sans the universe, but that God becomes temporal at the moment of creation. Craig’s view is not that God is immutable.

For Aristotle, God is immutable. He states that God moves things passively. Imagine gazing at a beautiful painting. You are “moved” by it as a result of its beauty. By analogy, whatever is in motion is ultimately moved by the Prime Mover because they are attracted to it as their natural end. Aristotle’s Prime Mover, therefore, can move things without itself being in motion.

Yes, but these are arguments, not the place from which St. Francis made the statement you quote as your signature. That place needs no argument. It just IS.

 

[greylorn]

If that’s the case I think you may have been misunderstanding theism as a properly basic belief. From a New York Times article about Alvin Plantinga:

*Mr. Plantinga readily admits that he has no proof that God exists. But he also thinks that doesn’t matter. Belief in God, he argues, is what philosophers call a basic belief: It is no more in need of proof than the belief that the past exists, or that other people have minds, or that one plus one equals two. *

On the contrary, William Lane Craig argues that the Prime Mover must uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, powerful, and yes, personal. I’m prepared to elaborate on why these are necessary. I think I’d have trouble thoroughly defending the “personal” aspect, though.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this seems to prove my point-- that a non-theistic worldview cannot tell me why something is right or wrong, it simply taks it by faith.

God bless,

Any competent argument for God’s existence must begin with a complete definition of God, else it is worthless. One must prove first that the properties themselves are possible, and move from there to a justification for the idea that an entity embodying these properties might exist, and from there to proof of existence.

Anything else is simply a relatively mindless exercise, taking one’s favorite dogma out for a walk.

Unless Plantinga defines and justifies the attributes of the entity he calls :“God,” his arguments are worthless.

Craig completely fails to justify, much less prove the properties he assigns to God. IMO his arguments and conclusions are of no value, except to mollify and reassure those who are already believers in the traditional God-concept.

The property of omnipotence cannot be proven, because to prove such a property it must be demonstrated. From the laws of relativistic physics it is clear that a single use of omnipotent power would destroy the universe.

And, as I’vw explained in detail in previous posts, an omniscient entity cannot think creatively. IMO a Creator who cannot think creatively, cannot create, meaning that he cannot be a Creator. An unthinking being who simply possesses knowledge is uninteresting in other respects as well-- we have enough mindless college perfessers already.

 

[Gaber]

I myself might ammed that to read “…possesses information, or book learning,” as distinct from actual knowledge which comes from experience and understanding. My experience is, say in driving a car, my ability to do that was hypothetical or theoretical at one point, became a matter of information at another, was practiced with heavy doses of thinking at another, and evolved into the ability to do it by attention to feel and sound later,as my mind and muscles came to “know” what to do without thinking out every step. Generally we might say that what is known is done by feel. Maths might even fall into this category. Remember th story of the benzene ring? Or how many mathemeticians say they think and think and think and then, unbidden, bingo! Darn, that sounds really zen! Similarly with other creative pursuits at their levels and degrees of maturity.

 

[Gorgias]

Any competent argument for God’s existence must begin with a complete definition of God, else it is worthless.

Anyone who presumes that a complete definition of God, as given by a finite creature, is possible, is foolish. This, however, does not constitute a proof of the non-existence of God. However, it would seem that it possible to infer the existence of God, based on God’s effects, as experienced in creation.

One must prove first that the properties themselves are possible, and move from there to a justification for the idea that an entity embodying these properties might exist, and from there to proof of existence.

And how would one who exists in the context of a physical universe prove properties that are posited to exist outside that universe, in a purely non-physical context? Just curious. ‘Cause if your standard admits of no means to meet it, then you’re not asking us to engage in rational discussion; you’re simply obliquely telling us to go away and quit bothering you. Just sayin’…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Yet this “prime mover” is assumed to have acted, at least once, when he set the ball in motion (so to speak). So the list contains a logical absurdity, and as such it proves that such a being cannot exist. To refute such arguments is not even challenging. **

Serious, seriously, get a grip on your logic.

In God there is no before or after. These are temporal concepts describing temporal existence. God created time and therefore is not subject to being ruled by his creation. To refute such an argument as yours “is not even challenging,” as you would say (have said).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

greylorn

Any competent argument for God’s existence must begin with a complete definition of God, else it is worthless.

When I deduce from certain sounds, vibrations, smells, etc. that some is coming toward me around the next corner, do I have to have a “complete definition” of that something before I can believe that it exists?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

greylorn

And, as I’vw explained in detail in previous posts, an omniscient entity cannot think creatively. IMO a Creator who cannot think creatively, cannot create, meaning that he cannot be a Creator.

Sorry I missed those posts. They must have been humdingers!

 

[Serious]

In God there is no before or after. These are temporal concepts describing temporal existence. God created time and therefore is not subject to being ruled by his creation. To refute such an argument as yours “is not even challenging,” as you would say (have said).

Usual nonsense. Any ACTION involves a CHANGE. Any change involves a before and an after. Boring to point out such elementary logical errors.