For Those Who Are Skeptical About God's Existence

[AlbertBall]

Methinks you BELIEVE that he does not know. That is JUST your personal (subjective) opinion.

Oh yeah nothing like word games, no i do not believe. Knowledge is a word used by all people to describe a certain state (which clearly you know, or else you would not have had the silly face at the end of your post). I am explaining that though he believes he has knowledge, in actual fact he has belief. Playing silly semantical games is not going to aid in resolving bobs misunderstanding.

 

[gentle_atheist]

Oh yeah nothing like word games

Or bad grammar. Excuse me, itinerant1, but it’s not “Methinks,” it’s “I thinks.”

 

[SGHumanist]

In his Third Article on the existence of God Thomas Aquinas posed two proofs. All motion must have a generator and all matter must have a cause. He concluded that neither could move nor cause itself and therefore the original mover and cause had to be God. However, he failed to give proof that matter and energy did not always exist. He simply resolves that by stating “Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order the first is the cause of the intermediate …” and a similar argument in the case of motion, but he established no evidence or logic to prove that impossibility.

“The Laws of Conservation of Mass and Energy” conclude the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less, demonstrating that it is indeed not only possible but probable motion and matter do “go on to infinity” in both directions. Aquinas’ conclusion is not proven because he cannot assume without proof that in an ever expanding and contracting universe matter and motion did not always exist.

The “big bounce” (and the associated theory of loop quantum gravity) or any other theory of the universe allowing the possibility of a continuing universe requires Aquinas to prove matter and energy could not have always existed before he just makes that assumption.

You cannot make a logical argument for the existence of god or any other premise if you simply start your proof with an unproven assumption. In other words, Aquinas must prove his statement “it is not possible to go on to infinity” before his proof could be consider decisive. Why is it not possible to go on to infinity especially when science seems to indicate that there is such a possibility.

 

[itinerant1]

In his Third Article on the existence of God Thomas Aquinas posed two proofs. All motion must have a generator and all matter must have a cause. He concluded that neither could move nor cause itself and therefore the original mover and cause had to be God. However, he failed to give proof that matter and energy did not always exist. He simply resolves that by stating “Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order the first is the cause of the intermediate …” and a similar argument in the case of motion, but he established no evidence or logic to prove that impossibility.

“The Laws of Conservation of Mass and Energy” conclude the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less, demonstrating that it is indeed not only possible but probable motion and matter do “go on to infinity” in both directions. Aquinas’ conclusion is not proven because he cannot assume without proof that in an ever expanding and contracting universe matter and motion did not always exist.

The “big bounce” (and the associated theory of loop quantum gravity) or any other theory of the universe allowing the possibility of a continuing universe requires Aquinas to prove matter and energy could not have always existed before he just makes that assumption.

You cannot make a logical argument for the existence of god or any other premise if you simply start your proof with an unproven assumption. In other words, Aquinas must prove his statement “it is not possible to go on to infinity” before his proof could be consider decisive. Why is it not possible to go on to infinity especially when science seems to indicate that there is such a possibility.

The problem with your post is that you are unaware of the context of Aquinas’ arguments. His arguments presume, for the sake of argument, a universe that has always existed. This is the Aristotelian conception of the universe.

Accordingly, a universe that has always existed nonetheless points to the need for and existence of a prime mover and necessary being that transcends that universe. Also, it is virtually impossible to understand Aquinas’ arguments without some understanding of the metaphysical concepts which compose the arguments, concepts such as “existence”.

In sum, your post is just one more strawman argument among the many others in this thread…

 

[itinerant1]

Or bad grammar. Excuse me, itinerant1, but it’s not “Methinks,” it’s “I thinks.”

Methinks you are right.

 

[itinerant1]

Oh yeah nothing like word games, no i do not believe. Knowledge is a word used by all people to describe a certain state (which clearly you know, or else you would not have had the silly face at the end of your post). I am explaining that though he believes he has knowledge, in actual fact he has belief. Playing silly semantical games is not going to aid in resolving bobs misunderstanding.

you are not going to resolve anything for Bob because you have a penchant for dismissing objections to your statements as “semantics games”. You have exposed yourself to valid criticism by your lack of sound epistemological thinking.

That is, you have not defined your use of the terms “knowledge” or “belief”. Also, you have not explained how it is that you can “know” that a person has “belief” rather than “knowledge” in regard to his own experiences.

Your use of the term “subjective” is wholly inadequate in the context of your implication that the other person’s subjective experience is belief and not knowledge because knowledge, as you said, is “objective” (undefined also).

On the other hand, one can have knowledge, attain truth, or have a correct understanding of his “subjective” experiences. It is a matter of the mind’s ability to reflect on itself, like taking a mirror and slowly turning it around until you see as a sort of second sight, your own “internal” experiences.

However, the gist of most of your statements is, “I don’t know, therefore you don’t know either.” That also sums up the agnostic’s attitude in reference to the most interesting things in life.

“Know thyself”. Is that statement a semantics game also?

 

[AlbertBall]

you are not going to resolve anything for Bob because you have a penchant for dismissing objections to your statements as “semantics games”. You have exposed yourself to valid criticism by your lack of sound epistemological thinking.

That is, you have not defined your use of the terms “knowledge” or “belief”. Also, you have not explained how it is that you can “know” that a person has “belief” rather than “knowledge” in regard to his own experiences.

Your use of the term “subjective” is wholly inadequate in the context of your implication that the other person’s subjective experience is belief and not knowledge because knowledge, as you said, is “objective” (undefined also).

On the other hand, one can have knowledge, attain truth, or have a correct understanding of his “subjective” experiences. It is a matter of the mind’s ability to reflect on itself, like taking a mirror and slowly turning it around until you see as a sort of second sight, your own “internal” experiences.

However, the gist of most of your statements is, “I don’t know, therefore you don’t know either.” That also sums up the agnostic’s attitude in reference to the most interesting things in life.

“Know thyself”. Is that statement a semantics game also?

Oh! You were serious?

We Often State Our Beliefs as Though They Were Something We Know. They Are Not
In a famous video interview conducted in the late 1050’s by the BBC’s John Petersen with the then aged and esteemed psychologist, Carl Jung, Petersen talks about Jung’s having been raised in a rather strict religious
environment. He then asks Jung if he still believes in God. Reflectively, but with self-assurance, the father or Analytical (Depth) Psychology responds, “I used to believe - Now I know.” Out of respect to his age and reputation, this assertion goes unchallenged and is accepted by the interviewer as a statement of elder wisdom. I’m afraid though that as a paradigm of differentiation between belief and knowledge, it leaves more than a little bit to be desired.

Dictionary definitions lend some beginning insight into these important concepts and their even more important distinctions. According to Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, “belief” is defined (the first definition) as being “… a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.” It later goes on to qualify in that belief does not require objectified evidence. “Knowledge” has, in the first definition, “… the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association.” It goes on to characterize it as “… a branch of learning.” Some things, we believe. Others, we know. Why is so important to be able to distinguish, for ourselves, the one from the other?

The things we believe require no proof or evidence. They are, if you will, articles of faith. We believe them because they are part of and support a larger system of beliefs that we have been working and forming and consolidating since early childhood. They are most often things about which we have no empirical evidence, nor do we feel that we require any. We believe what we believe - accounting for the relative uselessness of the political activities referred to as ‘debates.’ No one is apt to get anything they believe changed by hearing about someone else’s ideas or beliefs

.

• associatedcontent.com/article/353473/knowledge_vs_belief_which_is_which.html

 

[itinerant1]

The things we believe require no proof or evidence. They are, if you will, articles of faith.

A dictionary is place to start so that it is known how one is using the terms, which they assume others already know, but is often not the case.

One go further and investigate the nature itself of knowing and knowledge, its limits etc. In addition, there are different ways of knowing not even touched on in this thread.

Contrary to your statement above, beliefs require or should require evidence. Faith is believing in what one does not see. We take many things on faith such as the fact there was a Civil War, or the War Between the States. Those of us in the 21st century take it on faith. We did not directly experience that war. Nonetheless, there must exist evidence for our belief the Civil War occurred. When one considers the vast amount evidence supporting the belief, we can be certain that there was a Civil War. Our certainty is based on inferences from the evidence.

Some beliefs have stronger supporting evidence than do some of the most obvious things in our immediate experience. Even though this is the case, some folks will still want to actually see and touch the evidence before they assent to the truth of the fact. Others will deny the evidence, even though they have seen and touched it.

Most everything we know is based on belief or faith. I believe China has a huge population even though I have never flown over the country and seen it. But do I have right to that belief? The testimony of so many reliable witnesses is good enough evidence for me.

Intuition is another way of knowing. It is not always reliable but it has sure proven itself in the history of science.

And again, there are human experiences that are not rightly categorized on the psychological level. Still, it is a kind of awareness that is undeniable. “Awareness” is a psychological term and does not do justice to the kind of experience to which I allude.

Such experiences cannot be adequately judged by anyone who has never had a like experience. He will be trying to judge the other from the psychological level that which defies any explanation from that level of knowing. If one wants “proof” that this kind of “awareness” is a reality, there is none I can offer.

 

[Bob4BVM]

I am telling you the difference between belief and knowledge. There is nothing wrong with believing things, we all do, for example i believe my parents love me. However knowledge is different. You don’t know, you believe.

Albert,
Lets see if we can get past the word games…
Do you believe that if you jump up in the air, you will come back down ?
Why do you believe this ?
Because you know it to be true.
That is the kind of ‘belief’ I am talking about here. No difference.
I’d be a fool to not ‘believe’ in the things which i know…from direct experience. As I’ve said in the past to you and others, athiests get VERY quiet when I ask them to provide a better explanation for what has occurred in my life. I’m all ears, but it’s dead quiet.

Itinerant summed it up pretty good in his post with this line:
“I don’t know, therefore you don’t know either.”

I hope ( yes, AND pray) that does not describe your argument.

 

[Bob4BVM]

A dictionary is place to start so that it is known how one is using the terms, which they assume others already know, but is often not the case.

One go further and investigate the nature itself of knowing and knowledge, its limits etc. In addition, there are different ways of knowing not even touched on in this thread.

Contrary to your statement above, beliefs require or should require evidence. Faith is believing in what one does not see. We take many things on faith such as the fact there was a Civil War, or the War Between the States. Those of us in the 21st century take it on faith. We did not directly experience that war. Nonetheless, there must exist evidence for our belief the Civil War occurred. When one considers the vast amount evidence supporting the belief, we can be certain that there was a Civil War. Our certainty is based on inferences from the evidence.

Some beliefs have stronger supporting evidence than do some of the most obvious things in our immediate experience. Even though this is the case, some folks will still want to actually see and touch the evidence before they assent to the truth of the fact. Others will deny the evidence, even though they have seen and touched it.

Most everything we know is based on belief or faith. I believe China has a huge population even though I have never flown over the country and seen it. But do I have right to that belief? The testimony of so many reliable witnesses is good enough evidence for me.

Intuition is another way of knowing. It is not always reliable but it has sure proven itself in the history of science.

And again, there are human experiences that are not rightly categorized on the psychological level. Still, it is a kind of awareness that is undeniable. “Awareness” is a psychological term and does not do justice to the kind of experience to which I allude.

Such experiences cannot be adequately judged by anyone who has never had a like experience. He will be trying to judge the other from the psychological level that which defies any explanation from that level of knowing. If one wants “proof” that this kind of “awareness” is a reality, there is none I can offer.

Itinerant,
Thanks for your clear thinking.
Your examples say it better than I could.
Some of what you say is kind of hard for me to read, because I have been there, ie:

“Even though this is the case, some folks will still want to actually see and touch the evidence before they assent to the truth of the fact. Others will deny the evidence, even though they have seen and touched it.”

Why is that hard for me?
Because in my case, I did NOT want to actually see and touch ANYTHING, I was quite comfortable with my life as it was, (thank you very much ), with my OWN "truth ".

And on top of that, I DID deny the evidence, even after I had seen and touched it.
I took what I can only call divine grace to get my attention. ( Some would call it a 2x4, that fits too ! )

Your cmmts on personal experience sum it up.
Sadly , some things are only knowable thru personal experience.
God’s not hiding from anyone who sincerely wants to know Him.
There are days when I physically ACHE for those who refuse to JUST ASK…

 

[pmcmp]

The universe didn’t have to be created by something. The “big bounce” (which better corresponds to what we now know to be true, and the laws of both relativity and quantum mechanics) postulates a sort of infinite regression (in other words, this universe is merely another in a series of universes which continually expand until reaching a certain threshold, at which time it implodes or rewinds back to a state “near” a singularity, but not quite a singularity, and bounces back or re-inflates, birthing another universe).

Indeed since the universe never reaches the point of a singularity the laws of physics don’t break down as they do in the event a singularity is reached. Therefore, the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) seems to be retained (this law states energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can only transform into different energy states or matter).

Moral of the story, I wouldn’t hang your hat on trying this tact with the average atheist. We tend to know our stuff with regards to science.

How can you be so confident that you know the laws of anything in those other universes? What if our knowledge of physics is fledgling or limited to some locality? I suspect there are some big surprises in store for you. Some of it we call science. Some of it we call religion. Ultimately the two are related. I can’t prove it with our local science, but I know it. Have you ever known something without knowing how you know it?

 

[gentle_atheist]

Sadly , some things are only knowable thru personal experience.
God’s not hiding from anyone who sincerely wants to know Him.
There are days when I physically ACHE for those who refuse to JUST ASK…

If it were that easy – to just ask – then nobody would ever experience the “dark night of the soul.” Mother Teresa “felt no presence of God” for the last 50 years of her life. So consider yourself blessed, an exception to the rule.

I am puzzled by St. Paul’s criticism of the Jews for not believing in the Gospel given the fact that Paul himself did not believe until he got the 2x4 treatment on the road to Damascus. It makes me skeptical of Paul’s story. I would think that Paul would say to the Jews, “I understand. I didn’t believe either until God spoke to me.”

 

[itinerant1]

The universe didn’t have to be created by something. The “big bounce” (which better corresponds to what we now know to be true, and the laws of both relativity and quantum mechanics) postulates a sort of infinite regression (in other words, this universe is merely another in a series of universes which continually expand until reaching a certain threshold, at which time it implodes or rewinds back to a state “near” a singularity, but not quite a singularity, and bounces back or re-inflates, birthing another universe).

Indeed since the universe never reaches the point of a singularity the laws of physics don’t break down as they do in the event a singularity is reached. Therefore, the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) seems to be retained (this law states energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can only transform into different energy states or matter).

Moral of the story, I wouldn’t hang your hat on trying this tact with the average atheist. We tend to know our stuff with regards to science.

If you really knew your “stuff with regards to science” then you would know there is not the slightest bit of scientific evidence for your statement, “this universe is merely another in a series of universes.”

 

[itinerant1]

If it were that easy – to just ask – then nobody would ever experience the “dark night of the soul.” Mother Teresa “felt no presence of God” for the last 50 years of her life. So consider yourself blessed, an exception to the rule.

I am puzzled by St. Paul’s criticism of the Jews for not believing in the Gospel given the fact that Paul himself did not believe until he got the 2x4 treatment on the road to Damascus. It makes me skeptical of Paul’s story. I would think that Paul would say to the Jews, “I understand. I didn’t believe either until God spoke to me.”

Many Christians in Paul’s time did not believe or trust Paul either, and for some time, because he had been an avid persecutor of Christians. It was ten or eleven years after Paul’s conversion before he preached the Gospel openly. Every conversion story is unique as the individual. St. Augustine’s was gloriously pagan before his conversion, which did not involve getting knocked out of the saddle by a divine whacking as occurred with Paul.

Paul, being a Jew, and trained by Gamaliel, was a fervent defender of Judaism. This unique background contributed to him being ideal as a Christian missionary to the Jews. If anyone understood, Paul understood what it was like to be a Jew and not believe in the Gospel message. One might think that since Paul was such an ideal candidate for the apostolic vocation, God infallibly procured his conversion.

 

[AlbertBall]

Most everything we know is based on belief or faith. I believe China has a huge population even though I have never flown over the country and seen it. But do I have right to that belief? The testimony of so many reliable witnesses is good enough evidence for me.

I would argue that would be knowledge. Knowledge is a subset of belief. You can believe everything that you know, however one does NOT know everything they believe.

 

[AlbertBall]

Albert,
Lets see if we can get past the word games…
Do you believe that if you jump up in the air, you will come back down ?
Why do you believe this ?
Because you know it to be true.
That is the kind of ‘belief’ I am talking about here. No difference.
I’d be a fool to not ‘believe’ in the things which i know…from direct experience. As I’ve said in the past to you and others, athiests get VERY quiet when I ask them to provide a better explanation for what has occurred in my life. I’m all ears, but it’s dead quiet.

Itinerant summed it up pretty good in his post with this line:
“I don’t know, therefore you don’t know either.”

I hope ( yes, AND pray) that does not describe your argument.

I know that if i jump in to the air i will fall back to the ground based on empirical evidence, consistency, and an understanding of why i will fall back to the ground. I can also DEMONSTRATE that i will fall back to the earth.

Once you can provide me with empirical evidence, an understanding of the processes behind your experience, and DEMONSTRATE the validity of your experience to me. I will agree it is the same thing.

 

[itinerant1]

I know that if i jump in to the air i will fall back to the ground based on empirical evidence, consistency, and an understanding of why i will fall back to the ground. I can also DEMONSTRATE that i will fall back to the earth.

Once you can provide me with empirical evidence, an understanding of the processes behind your experience, and DEMONSTRATE the validity of your experience to me. I will agree it is the same thing.

Falling back to the earth and landing on your head is hardly relevant or comparable to spiritual experiences.

What is most revealing is that you believe things about the universe that do not meet your own criterion for verification as you have expressed here.

The ultimate reason for this discrepancy, if it could ever be faced and acknowledged for what it is, would tell the entire story of AlbertBall.

 

[AlbertBall]

Falling back to the earth and landing on your head is hardly relevant or comparable to spiritual experiences.

What is most revealing is that you believe things about the universe that do not meet your own criterion for verification as you have expressed here.

The ultimate reason for this discrepancy, if it could ever be faced and acknowledged for what it is, would tell the entire story of AlbertBall.

I was not the one trying to compare the two…

Bob - “Do you believe that if you jump up in the air, you will come back down ?
Why do you believe this ?
Because you know it to be true.
That is the kind of ‘belief’ I am talking about here. No difference.”

I was just pointing out the two are very different and it seems you agree with me.

“What is most revealing is that you** believe **things about the universe that do not meet your own criterion for verification as you have expressed here.”

You are correct that i believe certain things that do not meet the criteria for knowledge. Hence why they are beliefs, NOT knowledge.

 

[itinerant1]

I was not the one trying to compare the two…

I was just pointing out the two are very different and it seems you agree with me.

You are correct that i believe certain things that do not meet the criteria for knowledge. Hence why they are beliefs, NOT knowledge.

I actually realize that you were not making a comparison. However, I see your argument as entailing a category error by applying an empiriological criterion of evidence to that which transcends the empirical.

You may respsond that we cannot have knowledge of that which is not empirically verifiable. However, you may hold to beliefs about the universe such as that it is infinite, or that it has always existed, or that is subsists of itself and requires no transcendant cause for its existence. Of these beliefs there is not the slightest scientific evidence. So, why do you maintain beliefs for which there is no scientific evidence?

From your position, which holds to a rather tenuous view of the universe, you require empiriological evidence before you accept that which by its very nature or description is not subject to such verification.

You call such matters "beliefs’ by applying your criterion for evidence. However, you have not justified your limitation or constriction of human knowledge to the empirical realm. Hence, you are tenous ground here too, by assserting that spiritual experiences are a matter of belief only and not knowledge.

Since you have not made a compelling argument that humans attain a type of knowledge that is not limited to physical reality, you have no solid ground for your position.

In addition, I will assert without reservation that you cannot prove that the only reality that exists is physical in nature. Since, you cannot make that argument then your own position that says spiritual or non-material reality is either non-existent or not knowable is not a matter of knowledge on your part. It is a sort of philosophic faith or belief on your part, but one for which there is no evidence, no more evidence than your belief that the universe is eternal.

In sum, you are arguing from an extremely weak position when you assert that another person’s report of their spiritual experiences is not knowledge. So why even pursue such an argument when you are not standing on solid ground. That is what was implied by falling to the Earth and landing on your head.

Your own position is characterized by opinion only without supporting evidence. You are in fact in a position which can be characterized by “I don’t know, and therefore you don’t know either.” And that is the attitude which many see as cognitively limited for reasons that cannot be rationally justified.

Irecall the title of a science fiction novel as appropriate here in which an idiot savant knows how to fix almost any machine and knows how to fix the future even better. The title is “I Knows What I Knows”. I do know what I know and it is not limited to the empirical realm. There are, as I previously indicated, different ways of knowing.

 

[itinerant1]

The universe didn’t have to be created by something. The “big bounce” (which better corresponds to what we now know to be true, and the laws of both relativity and quantum mechanics) postulates a sort of infinite regression (in other words, this universe is merely another in a series of universes which continually expand until reaching a certain threshold, at which time it implodes or rewinds back to a state “near” a singularity, but not quite a singularity, and bounces back or re-inflates, birthing another universe).

Indeed since the universe never reaches the point of a singularity the laws of physics don’t break down as they do in the event a singularity is reached. Therefore, the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) seems to be retained (this law states energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can only transform into different energy states or matter).

Moral of the story, I wouldn’t hang your hat on trying this tact with the average atheist. We tend to know our stuff with regards to science.

First, the bad news: The “big bounce” theory you are sporting has been tossed into the cosmic dust bin of defunct ideas.

Previously, it was debatable whether the universe would continue its expansion, or if the combined gravity of all matter would slow, stop, and eventually reverse the expansion. The debate is now over, and the winners have been announced. The debate was settled by the discovery that the expansion is accelerating. Acceleration of the expansion means the universe will expand forever, and most certainly – it will not re-collapse.

However, eventually, through proton decay, stars will lose their mass; every galaxy will die and their corpses obliterated. Not a single proton will remain in the universe. The leftovers will be low-energy photons, some sub-atomic particles that don’t decay, and black holes.

Much further down the road not traveled, black holes will evaporate due to Hawking radiation. And the Universe will be a place that is Cold…Dark. And Dead. (Game over!)

Now for the good news: All of this will not happen anytime soon. There is still time left to figure out whether God exists.