The evidence of the existence of God

[PennyinCanada]

rather it’s the unwarranted assurance with which you hold it.

unwarranted definition : 1. not having a good reason and therefore annoying or unfair: 2. lacking a good reason; unnecessary

How do you know it’s unwarranted?
I’ve gotten out of bed every day for a few decades and asked God ‘What are we doing today?’ I’ve seen a few things. So have many people through the centuries. God can’t resist a person saying that I’m not getting out of bed unless I can grab your hand go with you. It may be a slow day, it may be an adventure. So don’t be testy. Be the guy who wants in on it.

 

[lelinator]

How do you know it’s unwarranted?

Because you claim to know, that which you cannot know. Faith is fine. Have a ton of it. Have two tons of it. But arrogance starts to creep in when you begin to regard your faith, as proof that what you believe to be true, actually is true. Faith doesn’t change the fact that you’re human, and prone to being wrong. So walk in it, and testify to it, but don’t let your faith become arrogance. As if I’m right, and I know that I’m right. Let the humility with which you believe, be the greater light than the hubris with which you believe.

I’ve gotten out of bed every day for a few decades and asked God ‘What are we doing today?’ I’ve seen a few things. So have many people through the centuries. God can’t resist a person saying that I’m not getting out of bed unless I can grab your hand go with you. It may be a slow day, it may be an adventure. So don’t be testy. Be the guy who wants in on it.

We can debate about who’s faith is greater, but I have no need to engage in such things. I am, what I believe that I was always supposed to be, and that is enough. Perhaps not enough for others, but then again, they’re opinion isn’t something that I care about.

 

[FredBloggs]

Can you explain why you think he is begging the question?

Begging the question is where you assume your initial proposition.
Aquinas says, “… and this we call God.” Boom.

Not to mention that Aquinas sets out to prove, through philosophical musings rather than repeatable experiment, that there MUST be a first cause to call God. His whole thought experiment is designed to arrive at a conclusion of “therefore God.”

 

[buffalo]

The idea that some people hold back from doing bad things only because they might be punished is, like I said, terrifying.

That is when people are in the infantile stage of belief. Mature people understand the goodness, truth and love of God. A healthy respect (fear) is not a bad thing either.

 

[FredBloggs]

That is when people are in the infantile stage of belief. Mature people understand the goodness, truth and love of God. A healthy respect (fear) is not a bad thing either.

Fine by me. I’m not going to stand in the way of you calling many of your fellow believers infantile.

 

[knightfall]

Human nature provides an objective foundation of right and wrong, and it is by this measure that atheists can determine moral right and wrong.

It does?? Could you elaborate on this please?

 

[Ghosty1981]

It does?? Could you elaborate on this please?

I already have elaborated this point in this thread. If my previous posts aren’t sufficient then let me know what specifically you want me to address and I will, but I don’t want to stray far from the main topic. If this doesn’t relate directly to a proof of God from morality then I’d rather discuss it elsewhere so as not to clutter up this discussion.

Peace and God bless!

 

[knightfall]

“Human nature provides an objective foundation of right and wrong, and it is by this measure that atheists can determine moral right and wrong.”

That’s the part on which I needed clarity. I’m unclear as to how human nature provides an objective foundation of right and wrong.

My apologies if I’ve missed this in the discussion, and I understand your wish to stay on topic. I believe this does relate to the OP in that if human nature can objectively provide a foundation for morality independent of God, I could better understand your point that God is unnecessary for determining morality.

Peace and God bless you as well.

 

[IWantGod]

through philosophical musings

If using the principle of non-contradiction to inference what necessarily must be true is philosophical musings then i guess there is no convincing you of God’s existence.

rather than repeatable experiment

The first mistake you make is putting forth the idea that repeatable experiment must be involved in-order to inference anything at all. You are another victim of scientism. But repeatable experiments is only required in a context where there is a number of variables involved and any number of them could possibly be true. When dealing with natures in their particularity it is very difficult if not impossible to arrive at a conclusion out of necessity. But that is not true when addressing the act of a things existence in general, such as the fact that a thing cannot begin to exist without a cause. There is only one possible solution to a thing beginning to exist, and that is some kind of cause. Experimentation is not a universal principle of epistemology. But you would know that already wouldn’t you?

 

[Ghosty1981]

That’s the part on which I needed clarity. I’m unclear as to how human nature provides an objective foundation of right and wrong.

No problem, I’ll try to clarify a bit.

Human nature is social, meaning that for a human to develop they require a social environment with other humans. Social living is not a choice, it is a necessity for the brain to develop. Human nature therefore imposes the necessity of social stability on individual humans.

Individual acts that disrupt the social fabric go directly against human nature; discord doesn’t just cause personal difficulties, it inhibits natural human development. Social order is both an outgrowth of human nature and a requirement for its proper function and development. We can’t be human without socialization.

From the perspective of a human individual our nature is an objective fact, not a subjective affectation or choice; we are objectively social, not merely subjectively so. An adult human who has already developed may choose to withdraw and become a hermit, but this choice can only come because they have already grown through socialization. A hermit may not disrupt the social order (unless they are withdrawing support of those who have a natural right to it, such as a father leaving his wife and children) but certain actions such as rape, theft, and murder directly harm the social fabric and are therefore contrary to human nature itself. These acts are therefore immoral because they are contrary to objective human nature.

Obviously some actions that Catholics consider immoral aren’t immoral under this kind of consideration, but the point isn’t that natural law is identical to Divine Law, but rather that natural law is sufficient to determine some real kind of morality, and therefore the reality of morality doesn’t prove that God exists.

Hope that helps!

 

[FredBloggs]

If using the principle of non-contradiction to inference what necessarily must be true is philosophical musings then i guess there is no convincing you of God’s existence.

And if you consider the principle of non-contradiction in this case to be proof of God, then I guess there is no convincing you of its failure as an argument.

The first mistake you make is putting forth the idea that repeatable experiment must be involved in-order to inference anything at all. You are another victim of scientism. But repeatable experiments is only required in a context where there is a number of variables involved and any number of them could possibly be true . When dealing with natures in their particularity it is very difficult if not impossible to arrive at a conclusion out of necessity. But that is not true when addressing the act of a things existence in general, such as the fact that a thing cannot begin to exist without a cause. There is only one possible solution to a thing beginning to exist, and that is some kind of cause. Experimentation is not a universal principle of epistemology. But you would know that already wouldn’t you?

Ok, so if you’re conflating “inference” with “evidence” or “proof” then you and I have no argument. For me, the claim that there exists a supernatural, outside-of-time-and-space being who is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent and can hear all our thoughts, is a claim that needs more than just an Aquinas-style “and this we call God” to take seriously.

Cosmological arguments all fail because they: (a) assert something that cannot be proven way or another (that each effect MUST have a cause); (b) assert that the ultimate cause is the amazing being I mention above; and (c) fail to show why that being is not itself subject to the laws of causality. The rationales for each of these are not sufficiently demonstrated to make it a plausible hypothesis.

Once can use the Cosmological Argument to infer equally valid proof of non-Christian god(s), or indeed magical universe-creating pixies. And yet I suspect you would dismiss those hypotheses.

 

[IWantGod]

Ok, so if you’re conflating “inference” with “evidence” or “proof” then you and I have no argument.

If what is inferred follows necessarily, then it is proof. Just not scientific proof.

The rationales for each of these are not sufficiently demonstrated to make it a plausible hypothesis.

Just because you have decided that the scientific method ought to be the standard for all possible proofs does not mean that you are rationally justified in holding to that standard. Otherwise we would have to use the scientific method in-order to know that things don’t pop out of absolutely nothing by themselves. But that’s not true is it.

can use the Cosmological Argument to infer equally valid proof of non-Christian god(s), or indeed magical universe-creating pixies.

Don’t just assert it, demonstrate it.

And yet I suspect you would dismiss those hypotheses.

Aquinas’ proofs for God are not scientific hypothesis or theories; they are metaphysical demonstrations of why an intelligent uncaused cause with the attributes of God is necessary.

 

[IWantGod]

I am, what I believe that I was always supposed to be, and that is enough.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? How do you know what anything is supposed to be?

 

[buffalo]

Ok, so if you’re conflating “inference” with “evidence” or “proof” then you and I have no argument. For me, the claim that there exists a supernatural, outside-of-time-and-space being who is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent and can hear all our thoughts, is a claim that needs more than just an Aquinas-style “and this we call God” to take seriously.

Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. It is like looking through a telescope at one area and ignoring all the rest of the sky.

 

[lelinator]

No one person can know all the secrets of the universe, but it is within our grasp to be kind. Sometimes that means biting your tongue, but I understand it was too hard to resist.

I hope you’re impressed, 24 straight hours of biting my tongue.

 

[PennyinCanada]

I hope you’re impressed, 24 straight hours of biting my tongue.

What?? What? No way.
You’re a rock star!
Hope you didn’t hurt yourself. That’s a tough one.

 

[knightfall]

No problem, I’ll try to clarify a bit.

Thank you for your detailed explanation.

It seems as though you’re arguing that it is the good of society that shapes human nature, hence your comment that “… certain actions such as rape, theft, and murder directly harm the social fabric and are therefore contrary to human nature itself.”

I’ll admit up front that I don’t completely understand and I’ll perhaps leave it to the more erudite to comment. I’ll just point out where you lost me

Human nature therefore imposes the necessity of social stability on individual humans.

This seemed very circular to me. I won’t argue against the importance of a stable society for human development, but to say that human nature imposes this necessity, confuses me. In addition, what happens to the development of human nature during an unstable society, e.g. during wartime? Yes, humans commit atrocities during war, but compassion and selflessness are also known to arise during this time. Think, Schindler’s List.

Social order is both an outgrowth of human nature and a requirement for its proper function and development.

Which social order? Nazi Germany was a social order. Was this a requirement for the development of human nature? And in order to say no, would it not be necessary to appeal to something higher than the nebulous society to condemn the atrocities of that specific social order?

There are other points I didn’t get, but perhaps you’re right … this discussion may derail the initial question and may be best suited for another thread. Thank you for your thoughts.

God bless.

 

[Ghosty1981]

It seems as though you’re arguing that it is the good of society that shapes human nature, hence your comment that “… certain actions such as rape, theft, and murder directly harm the social fabric and are therefore contrary to human nature itself .”

It isn’t the good of society that shapes human nature. Human nature is social, and the individiual human requires a healthy society to develop to its fullest. This is ultimately about individual development, not social well-being. Human nature exists in individuals, and human individuals are social by nature, so social well-being serves human nature as it nurtures individual humans.

This seemed very circular to me. I won’t argue against the importance of a stable society for human development, but to say that human nature imposes this necessity, confuses me.

A human without a social network literally can’t survive physically until they are almost fully developed because human children require social support for even basic physical survival. Furthermore, the human brain will remain stunted and unable perform basic reasoning if the child does not experience social interaction during the critical early years of development. This isn’t a matter of simply being socially awkward if not exposed to social interaction, but rather wholesale cognitive (both physical and psychological) development being permanently stunted if a stable social environment isn’t provided for a developing child.

In addition, what happens to the development of human nature during an unstable society, e.g. during wartime?

Such children typically suffer significant developmental delays and difficulties. Social disruption is poison to human development. Even if some come through unscathed the general tendency is for significant problems to arise. Neglect and abuse make for poor nests of human development.

Which social order? Nazi Germany was a social order. Was this a requirement for the development of human nature? And in order to say no, would it not be necessary to appeal to something higher than the nebulous society to condemn the atrocities of that specific social order?

Some societies are healthier and more moral than others. Yes, Nazi Germany was a social order that supported some humans’ development, as opposed to all children being left bereft of social support and being unable to develop into functioning adults. Insofar as Nazi Germany disrupted the human development of vast swaths of society (the various “undesirables”), however, it went grossly against human nature. The fact that any atheist can point to how Nazi society was unhealthy and contrary to human nature indicates that moral norms in themselves don’t necessitate a Divine Being.

We can evaluate groups like the Nazis and see that their actions utterly disrupted human development and well-being, and therefore go against objective human nature. This doesn’t prove that there is a God.

Peace and God bless!

 

[SPBlitz]

I don’t think he was asking for the definition of begging the question, he was asking why you think Aquinas is begging the question - your response of “and this we call God” is a strawman and not a very rigorous refutation of him.

Also, your standard for proof seems to be pretty close to Scietism - which is itself obviously begging the question. Why are you so sure that the only grounds for belief have to be scientific in nature?

 

[FredBloggs]

I don’t think he was asking for the definition of begging the question, he was asking why you think Aquinas is begging the question

And I answered that question

your response of “and this we call God” is a strawman and not a very rigorous refutation of him.

I completely disagree. Aquinas’s end goal is to prove God, so he creates an arbitrary uncaused cause and then asserts, “it’s God.” He’s goal-seeking - begging the question.

Also, your standard for proof seems to be pretty close to Scietism - which is itself obviously begging the question. Why are you so sure that the only grounds for belief have to be scientific in nature?

Well, because it’s the only approach that has ever provided independent, verifiable truths about our world. As Dawkins said, “it works… b*tches.”

That approach is hardly begging the question.