D
Dan123
Guest
Can the argument for God’s existence be used as an argument for anything else besides God? Ideally something that could also be demonstrated to exist using more conventional means?
- Status
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
There’s still potential ambiguity in that wording as it could be interpreted as both as someone that believes that the god/God proposition if false and someone that hasn’t yet concluded that it is true.
There are some other qualifiers that some use to make their position less ambiguous. “strong atheist” (I believe that there are no gods), Agnostic atheist (I can’t say with certainty there there exists or do not exists gods, but until I’m convinced I’m living as though there is not one) and a few others.
But as word usage goes, the usage of terms can and do change over time. Different people in different places may use terms differently. This is more evident when you read old documents. And English speaker may have problems understanding Shakespear or the KJB because of this. Dictionaries are pretty much snapshots of prevailing word usages at the time that their entries were edited and are subject to change with evolution of word usage. People within this thread have expressed their preferences on word usage, and you can find dictionaries that will support about any preference that anyone expresses on usage from respectable publishers. As people often have close attachments to their particular usages it’s not uncommon for disagreements on usages to not move people by much.
W
Wesrock
Guest
You don’t follow. It’s not a matter of proposing a hypothetical being without any supporting evidence and just claiming “this is different.” It’s like feeling heat and proposing that there must be a source of heat, then using reason based on what you know to determine what the source of heat cannot be to learn more about what it is. Or seeing a balloon rise and proposing that there must be some principle by which it rises, and using reason to rule out what cannot be reasons the balloon is rising to narrow down to what that principle is. It’s a rational inquiry backwards from what is known and experienced, not starting with the claim of a unicorn and searching forward for knowledge and experience to support it. We experience the effects and look for a reason/cause. We aren’t starting with the idea of a cause (unicorn) and then looking for its effects (unicorn hoofprints, unicorns reflecting light so they can be seen, etc…)Wesrock:
Can the argument for God’s existence be used as an argument for anything else besides God? Ideally something that could also be demonstrated to exist using more conventional means?
Things exist. Things change. Things are composite. These are observations about reality. Likewise with observing heat and concluding there must be a source of heat, or seeing a balloon rise and concluding there must be a soure or principle to that, there are arguments to be made from these observations that there must be a principle, a reason, for such things to be happening. A first cause or prime mover, if you will. And in doing so you must rule out all things that cannot be a first cause by identifying all properties and attributes that require causes or reasons external to themselves, such as extension through space, changing, being composite, coming into existence, etc… From there it can follow that, based on everything so far, if it necessarily follows that this principle “have” something analgously similar to intelligence and will. The line of argument concludes that there must be one (and only one), eternal, omnipotent, omniscient reality that is the principle (foundation, source, origin) of all other reality, in a sense more real than the reality we experience (analogous to how a dog sitting beside you is more real than the dog you imagine in your head).
Note: I have not given an argument from change, or an argument from contingency, or an argument from composite things, or anything along those lines. I haven’t elaborated on why something that is changing or composite or contingent cannot be the first principle. The information is out there and it’s a lot to go through.
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
Continued…
If you were in an argument with a Creationist, you probably would not feel defeated if the Creationist kept asking “if humans evolved from monkeys, why are monkeys still around?” You probably wouldn’t feel defeated if the Creationist gave a slightly more informed objection such as “there’s no observed evidence of macroevolution.” You’d feel they just didn’t grasp what was even being proposed. You might try to correct strawmen or go over some basics, but you wouldn’t feel obliged to write up your own academic paper that covers the theory of evolution in a comprehensive way from start to finish, nor would you design a course yourself for them to go through. It’s a lot of effort! You might direct them to courses or reading material, though you don’t know if they’ll actually approach such things at all, let alone an open mind.
Likewise, I don’t feel obliged to make an argument from change here and now, or write a textbook on the subject.
I had a second point I wanted to make in this post, but it’s slipped my mind. I’ll cross my fingers and hope it comes back.
Edit: Oh yes, back to special pleading. As I’ve noted, I haven’t elaborated on the argument from change and where all that leads. Such arguments start from rational premises (based on experience and understanding of reality) that “all things that change must have a cause” or “all things that sre composite have a cause.” Note that these statements do NOT read “all things have a cause.” If it’s stated that “all things that change have a cause” it’s not special pleading if I say something that doesn’t change doesn’t need a cause", and likewise for things not composite or contingent. If I state “all things thay are red are fruit” (as wrong as that is) it’s not special pleading to say that the claim doesn’t apply to things that aren’t red. And we would also need to better define terms like “cause” and “contingent.”
Now certainly I don’t expect you to immediately accept all these propositions based on this post. You should have good reason to believe something like “all things that are changing have a cause” and similar statements, and good reason to accept the logic of any arguments that follow from those statements, before you should be expected to accept or believe them or their conclusions (though based on your empirical insistence I expect you would accept some of these, otherwise you’d be doing a lot of special pleading when it comes to religious things…). That’s just being rational and is to be commended.
If you were in an argument with a Creationist, you probably would not feel defeated if the Creationist kept asking “if humans evolved from monkeys, why are monkeys still around?” You probably wouldn’t feel defeated if the Creationist gave a slightly more informed objection such as “there’s no observed evidence of macroevolution.” You’d feel they just didn’t grasp what was even being proposed. You might try to correct strawmen or go over some basics, but you wouldn’t feel obliged to write up your own academic paper that covers the theory of evolution in a comprehensive way from start to finish, nor would you design a course yourself for them to go through. It’s a lot of effort! You might direct them to courses or reading material, though you don’t know if they’ll actually approach such things at all, let alone an open mind.
Likewise, I don’t feel obliged to make an argument from change here and now, or write a textbook on the subject.
I had a second point I wanted to make in this post, but it’s slipped my mind. I’ll cross my fingers and hope it comes back.
Edit: Oh yes, back to special pleading. As I’ve noted, I haven’t elaborated on the argument from change and where all that leads. Such arguments start from rational premises (based on experience and understanding of reality) that “all things that change must have a cause” or “all things that sre composite have a cause.” Note that these statements do NOT read “all things have a cause.” If it’s stated that “all things that change have a cause” it’s not special pleading if I say something that doesn’t change doesn’t need a cause", and likewise for things not composite or contingent. If I state “all things thay are red are fruit” (as wrong as that is) it’s not special pleading to say that the claim doesn’t apply to things that aren’t red. And we would also need to better define terms like “cause” and “contingent.”
Now certainly I don’t expect you to immediately accept all these propositions based on this post. You should have good reason to believe something like “all things that are changing have a cause” and similar statements, and good reason to accept the logic of any arguments that follow from those statements, before you should be expected to accept or believe them or their conclusions (though based on your empirical insistence I expect you would accept some of these, otherwise you’d be doing a lot of special pleading when it comes to religious things…). That’s just being rational and is to be commended.
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
What is love?
What is meaning?
What is identity?
Who are you?
Where did you come from?
How were you created?
Why were you created?
What is joy?
What is peace?
Why does any of it really matter?
Why are you here adamantly presenting your case for “no god”? (welcome!)
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
You’re right here, but the scope of these tools is limited to the material and determinable. Social sciences (which include religion) are labeled as such because they have difficulty consistently meeting these requisite standards.
How the hell do you measure “good” or “happy” in an objective way?
Serious question, btw. Not trying to be antagonizing, here.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
There’s simply no definite word for that - largely by design of language itself. I’m not a Rastafarian. So what’s the specific word that denotes my current status as a person that is not convinced of the truth of Rasafari?mrsdizzyd:
There’s still potential ambiguity in that wording as it could be interpreted as both as someone that believes that the god/God proposition if false and someone that hasn’t yet concluded that it is true.
I’m guessing that in order to describe a status as being something other than a theist, “non-theist” would be the closest to being technically correct if you didn’t like “religiously agnostic”, or “agnostic” in short as most would understand it.
The big issue with “agnosticism” is that most “atheists” I encounter aren’t unbiased in a way that the word requires. They do, typically, believe that there isn’t a god of some sort (no blue-eyed sky fairies). They’re just uncomfortable with the philosophical burden of proof that comes along with the claim.
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
The absurdity of atheism is demonstrated by the fact that you’re here, debating things that you don’t believe in, with people who, if you are honest, you should think crazy.
But here you are. Welcome to the supernatural table!
But here you are. Welcome to the supernatural table!
W
Wesrock
Guest
Just in case it was missed, I substantially amended my post that started with “Continued…”
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Now that’s not super fair. I think atheists aren’t absurd. They just think that claims of god must meet the same scientific standards as any other material claim.
If anything, they may be a bit inconsistent with what they apply that standard to. Most, as an example, believe that “love” exists but they’re not particularly bothered with the lack of material proof beyond theories about consciousness (and theories are all they presently are as the causal direction of emotion cannot be proven).
They often don’t seem to consider that god is not a material claim.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I would imagine that’s true and that there are examples of it.Wesrock:
Can the argument for God’s existence be used as an argument for anything else besides God? Ideally something that could also be demonstrated to exist using more conventional means?
But you may need to specify which argument for the existence of god that you’re alluding to. Honestly, there’re quite a few, naturally with varying degrees of soundness among them.
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
If you militantly believed the earth were flat, or that man did not really land on the moon, I would not spend much time engaging you, as your proposition is pointless and of no consequence (other than I should be concerned for your ignorance. )
If I do spend a bunch of time engaging you, I lend credibility to the importance of the thing debated. If I really feel no imperative toward the subject, there is a beer and a golf game awaiting.
To make a long story short, the persistence of atheism is a better testament to the existence of God than indifference, and so the proposition of atheism is absurd in light of it’s search for objective truths in light of theism. There should be more important things for an atheist to do than debate theism with Catholics day after day. After all, we believe in some patently silly things for materialists. Virgin birth? Incarnation? Ressurection? If you don’t accept the supernatural, why would you waste your time with such silliness?
(welcome atheists, to the theist discussion)
If I do spend a bunch of time engaging you, I lend credibility to the importance of the thing debated. If I really feel no imperative toward the subject, there is a beer and a golf game awaiting.
To make a long story short, the persistence of atheism is a better testament to the existence of God than indifference, and so the proposition of atheism is absurd in light of it’s search for objective truths in light of theism. There should be more important things for an atheist to do than debate theism with Catholics day after day. After all, we believe in some patently silly things for materialists. Virgin birth? Incarnation? Ressurection? If you don’t accept the supernatural, why would you waste your time with such silliness?
(welcome atheists, to the theist discussion)
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I understand.
But we need to deal with atheists on an individual level, just like we request that Christians be dealt with on an individual level.
I’m sure any particular atheist doesn’t like having to answer for stupid, aggressive and immature adherents to their community any more than I like having to answer for a “Christian” moron like Fred Phelps.
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
Of course, point taken that atheists are persons and one does not represent all.
I am addressing the core system of belief.
I am addressing the core system of belief.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
They do often follow a pattern. This new @Damian fellow’s rhetoric is pretty lock-step with that Russell fellow that tried his hand first about a year ago (I’d use the @ function there too, but I don’t recall his full handle).
G
goout
Guest
One of the CA apologists wrote a book on this very subject recently, with the proposition that atheism is part of the testament to the existence of God, Can’t recall who wrote it or the title. “Hostile witnesses” or something.
Yes. Gary MAchuta
Yes. Gary MAchuta
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
The biggest distinction between a lot of “New Atheists” and the older guard is the fairly novel insistence that “knowing” and “believing” are discrete activities.
The Gettier Problem breaks this nonsensical distinction, but it’s often ignored since the faulty distinction is axiomatically core to most novel approaches to atheism - theists be warned.
Last edited:
R
rcwitness
Guest
I think its fair to ask all this and more!!!
The carnal man is content to remain carnal. The man who finds life in the Spirit, hears the Spirit, recognizes the Spirit, is greatful for the Spirit, and joins himself to the Spirit.
We are told by Sacred Revelation that this Spirit is a Person! And a Trinity of a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
When I hear the Gospel, my basic acknowledgment of a Creator is affirmed and revealed with an amazing hope and glory! That we are loved and sought out to have eternal life!
G
goout
Guest
I defer with my 10 characters.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Nope nope nope. The more the merrier. Ain’t my rodeo.
- Status