T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
It implies that you have no reason for believing the particular thing for which there is no evidence for.
If there is no evidence for something, should it be believed or not?
- Status
If there is no evidence for something, should it be believed or not?
T
tonyrey
Guest
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
TruthSeeker
**Leaving the issue of the authorship of the gospels aside for a moment, if a group of people today told you they were abducted by aliens, and they seemed to be very sincere, would you believe them? You will find people who will tell you that today. Now if you read that in gospels that were written 2000 years ago, instead of hearing it from them personally today, would you believe them? Any sane person should say no because eyewitness accounts, much less stories that might have been written 2000 years ago by people who may have known eyewitness, cannot justify belief in miracles.
Now on top of that, lets return to authorship. We have none of the originals. We have no copies signed by the authors. We have very little evidence for determining who wrote them. Even if they were written by an eyewitness (scholars agree that they aren’t), that is not a rational basis for considering all the events in the gospels, such as walking on water, to be true. **
I am able to believe in miracles because I believe in God whose power is unlimited. You think of Jesus as just another man.
You obviously could not believe in a miracle if it hit you over your head.
In fact, if it did hit you over your head, you would explain it away as a delusion of grandeur.
As to abduction by aliens … I believe in that too. Read Elijah.
**Leaving the issue of the authorship of the gospels aside for a moment, if a group of people today told you they were abducted by aliens, and they seemed to be very sincere, would you believe them? You will find people who will tell you that today. Now if you read that in gospels that were written 2000 years ago, instead of hearing it from them personally today, would you believe them? Any sane person should say no because eyewitness accounts, much less stories that might have been written 2000 years ago by people who may have known eyewitness, cannot justify belief in miracles.
Now on top of that, lets return to authorship. We have none of the originals. We have no copies signed by the authors. We have very little evidence for determining who wrote them. Even if they were written by an eyewitness (scholars agree that they aren’t), that is not a rational basis for considering all the events in the gospels, such as walking on water, to be true. **
I am able to believe in miracles because I believe in God whose power is unlimited. You think of Jesus as just another man.
You obviously could not believe in a miracle if it hit you over your head.
In fact, if it did hit you over your head, you would explain it away as a delusion of grandeur.
As to abduction by aliens … I believe in that too. Read Elijah.
P
Pieman333272
Guest
Yes, it does. You can provide a philosophical flaw in the concept of God. Falsifiable. Predictive: I predict that a God exists and designed this. Predictive. (I may have misunderstood you definition of predictive here). Testable: Many of the ideas listed above are untestable. As a matter of fact, a few are unfalsifiable too.
Right, you can verify that by demonstrating no other option can validly or reasonably account for the probability of genes and such as that.
Simply demonstrate a contradiction in God’s traits.
Yeah, only because He isn’t supposed to be one.
I said the word assumption is not being used in the sense of a given without evidence. But you can still prove God when he is an assumption in that sense of the word. Ontological argument. Showing He is the best explanation for facts x, y, and z. Historical and miraculous proofs. Many more.
P
Pieman333272
Guest
Depends. The case would have to be examined, as would the people. “Sincere” eyewitness claims in today’s world are much less likely to be true than ones 2,000 years ago.
R
razredge
Guest
It would depend on the details of the case and whether it was likely to be the best explanation of what happened - do you as an atheist reject the likelihood of alien life existing?
Certainly alien abduction is more plausible than someone rising from the dead.
J
joemccarron
Guest
Do you think its impossible to rationally believe in miracles?
The evidence of the miracles is what it is. It’s sufficient for me to believe but if its not enough for you then its not enough for you. Maybe you will reconsider at another time in your life.
Arguments like this are sort of like arguing if a mile is a long way to go or a short way. :juggle: A mile is a mile. The 4 Gospel accounts are what they are.
The evidence of the miracles is what it is. It’s sufficient for me to believe but if its not enough for you then its not enough for you. Maybe you will reconsider at another time in your life.
Arguments like this are sort of like arguing if a mile is a long way to go or a short way. :juggle: A mile is a mile. The 4 Gospel accounts are what they are.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Um, maybe not.
Rising from the dead at that time may be simply a situation where they just did not have the medical knowledge to discern an actual death situation.
I’m being as charitable as possible here. Aliens are not a good comparison, as we see human life and death here everyday.
As a non theist, I can reject the likelihood of alien life provisionally.
J
Joseph_Kemp
Guest
TruthSeeker60 makes some good points.
TruthSeeker seems to be a rational atheist. And there is nothing wrong with that. I often get along quite well with rational atheists.
TruthSeeker60 wrote: “There’s a lot of organized complexity (in the Universe), but for that to be evidence for the existence of a god, one must demonstrate that it is evidence for a god. What you offered, (“Since humans are capable of imposing order on nature . . .]”) doesn’t logically do this.
This is exactly right. And I say so in the very next paragraph (in my original post.)
However, the possibility that the Universe was created by a highly ordered mind simply cannot be dismissed. It just can’t.
The evidence that the Universe MIGHT have been created by a highly ordered mind is impossible to deny. It remains a possibility no matter what. To take any other position would be to cross the line into an absolutism that does not exist. And I don’t think that was TruthSeeker60’s intention at all.
TruthSeeker60 wrote: “…evidence-based inquiry (of which science is a subset) is the best possible way to evaluate claims, and we know nothing (except maybe “I think, therefore I am”) with radical absoluteness.”
This is certainly true. It is a good summation of my own position, as well. There are, of course, some additional things that CAN be known with “radical absoluteness:” The Laws of Logic, for example. But the above statement is certainly accurate for the purposes of this post.
TruthSeeker wrote: “There are ways that an intervention by a god could be reasonably verified to be an intervention from a god.”
I quite agree. I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. My own standards on judging “miracles” are unusually strict - far more so than most other people’s, to the point of near absolutism, I would say. It is good to acknowledge that the actual (reasonable) standards of judging a miracle to be “from God” are a good deal less exacting than my own (totally personal) standards.
TruthSeeker wrote: “I think Antitheist’s point is that there is no reason to think that a god does exist, thus, one aught not believe that a god exists.”
No. I do not believe AntiTheist argues that there is no reason to think that a god exists. Just insufficient evidence. AntiTheist actually says this:
“…we know that in the world revealed by our senses, there is insufficient evidence to accept the claim that gods exist.”
AntiTheist also says: “Faith – by definition – is accepting claims without SUFFICIENT evidence (my emphasis).”
So AntiTheist is saying very clearly that there is still SOME evidence that God exists. Just not sufficient evidence to prove it.
This is quite rational. It is perfectly in line with my own position. If there was no evidence AT ALL for the existence of God, I doubt any rational atheist would bother speaking to Catholics on a rational level about the subject in any way.
TruthSeeker60 wrote: “The theories or hypotheses…that scientists accept are accepted in part because they have those characteristics (of being falsifiable, predictive, and/or testable). The idea that the universe and/or life within it are designed does not. That’s why no scientists takes it seriously and no articles are being published in respected academic journals.”
This, also, is correct. Belief is God is not a “theory,” in the strict scientific sense. It cannot be tested. It cannot be proven. It cannot be falsified (either according to Popper Falsification in the Naïve sense, or in the sense of sophisticated methodological falsification.) It does not lead to new knowledge. It does not unify our existing knowledge. Nor does it open up new avenues of inquiry. Thus, as a scientific theory, belief in God is basically useless. It is just a possibility, which, according to the available evidence, may or may not be true.
As things stand, it is certainly possible to believe that God MIGHT exist, because of certain conditions of evidence in this Universe. Such conditions are not conclusive. So although there are SOME reasons to believe in God, there is still plenty of room for doubt.
Hence rational atheism.
Hence faith.
TruthSeeker seems to be a rational atheist. And there is nothing wrong with that. I often get along quite well with rational atheists.
TruthSeeker60 wrote: “There’s a lot of organized complexity (in the Universe), but for that to be evidence for the existence of a god, one must demonstrate that it is evidence for a god. What you offered, (“Since humans are capable of imposing order on nature . . .]”) doesn’t logically do this.
This is exactly right. And I say so in the very next paragraph (in my original post.)
However, the possibility that the Universe was created by a highly ordered mind simply cannot be dismissed. It just can’t.
The evidence that the Universe MIGHT have been created by a highly ordered mind is impossible to deny. It remains a possibility no matter what. To take any other position would be to cross the line into an absolutism that does not exist. And I don’t think that was TruthSeeker60’s intention at all.
TruthSeeker60 wrote: “…evidence-based inquiry (of which science is a subset) is the best possible way to evaluate claims, and we know nothing (except maybe “I think, therefore I am”) with radical absoluteness.”
This is certainly true. It is a good summation of my own position, as well. There are, of course, some additional things that CAN be known with “radical absoluteness:” The Laws of Logic, for example. But the above statement is certainly accurate for the purposes of this post.
TruthSeeker wrote: “There are ways that an intervention by a god could be reasonably verified to be an intervention from a god.”
I quite agree. I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. My own standards on judging “miracles” are unusually strict - far more so than most other people’s, to the point of near absolutism, I would say. It is good to acknowledge that the actual (reasonable) standards of judging a miracle to be “from God” are a good deal less exacting than my own (totally personal) standards.
TruthSeeker wrote: “I think Antitheist’s point is that there is no reason to think that a god does exist, thus, one aught not believe that a god exists.”
No. I do not believe AntiTheist argues that there is no reason to think that a god exists. Just insufficient evidence. AntiTheist actually says this:
“…we know that in the world revealed by our senses, there is insufficient evidence to accept the claim that gods exist.”
AntiTheist also says: “Faith – by definition – is accepting claims without SUFFICIENT evidence (my emphasis).”
So AntiTheist is saying very clearly that there is still SOME evidence that God exists. Just not sufficient evidence to prove it.
This is quite rational. It is perfectly in line with my own position. If there was no evidence AT ALL for the existence of God, I doubt any rational atheist would bother speaking to Catholics on a rational level about the subject in any way.
TruthSeeker60 wrote: “The theories or hypotheses…that scientists accept are accepted in part because they have those characteristics (of being falsifiable, predictive, and/or testable). The idea that the universe and/or life within it are designed does not. That’s why no scientists takes it seriously and no articles are being published in respected academic journals.”
This, also, is correct. Belief is God is not a “theory,” in the strict scientific sense. It cannot be tested. It cannot be proven. It cannot be falsified (either according to Popper Falsification in the Naïve sense, or in the sense of sophisticated methodological falsification.) It does not lead to new knowledge. It does not unify our existing knowledge. Nor does it open up new avenues of inquiry. Thus, as a scientific theory, belief in God is basically useless. It is just a possibility, which, according to the available evidence, may or may not be true.
As things stand, it is certainly possible to believe that God MIGHT exist, because of certain conditions of evidence in this Universe. Such conditions are not conclusive. So although there are SOME reasons to believe in God, there is still plenty of room for doubt.
Hence rational atheism.
Hence faith.
T
tonyrey
Guest
You obviously reject the statement by Jesus: “By their fruits you shall know them”…
Then atheists have been wasting their time for 2,000 years!
Science wouldn’t exist if no one had believed the universe is a rational creation by God.
Read Kant. It synthesises all the purposes in the universe.
Atheism is sterile because it is literally a dead end in a closed system. Theism is fertile because it opens the mind to discoveries about the nature of the mind and the most important things in life which are beyond the scope of science.
Atheism is irrational because it reduces reason to an accidental product of purposeless particles.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
tonyrey**
Atheism is sterile because it is literally a dead end in a closed system.**
Or as Chesterton put it:
“What we all dread most is a maze with no center. That is why atheism is only a nightmare.”
Atheism is sterile because it is literally a dead end in a closed system.**
Or as Chesterton put it:
“What we all dread most is a maze with no center. That is why atheism is only a nightmare.”
T
tonyrey
Guest
I’m amazed by a maze without an exit… Eternal life on earth must be the atheist’s daydream.tonyrey**
Atheism is sterile because it is literally a dead end in a closed system.**
Or as Chesterton put it:
“What we all dread most is a maze with no center. That is why atheism is only a nightmare.”
J
Joseph_Kemp
Guest
You wrote: “You obviously reject the statement by Jesus: “By their fruits you shall know them”…”
This statement is utter nonsense. Belief is God is STILL not a “theory,” in the strict scientific sense. It is belief. And there is nothing wrong with that. It cannot be tested. It cannot be proven. This is not an obstacle to faith. It do not see the problem here at all.
When I said that belief in God cannot be falsified, you wrote: “Then atheists have been wasting their time for 2,000 years!”
Are you saying that belief in God CAN be falsified? This is very strange.
There are good reasons not to believe in God. There are also good reasons TO believe in God. The reasons not to are not rationally sufficient to remove belief in God entirely from the realm of possibility. Taken together, the reasons for believing in God form a POSSIBLE case for God’s existence. But not a theory.
I also do not see it possible to achieve a TOTAL falsification the idea of God’s existence. The reasons to believe in God are still good ones. Which is why rational philosophers still maintain the notion of belief in God as being possible at all.
You wrote: “Science wouldn’t exist if no one had believed the universe is a rational creation by God.”
Plenty of pagan societies developed science without a specific belief in a rational God. The ancient Chinese and Egyptians, for example. You are flatly wrong.
I said that belief in God is not a scientific theory because it does not unify our existing knowledge. You replied: “Read Kant. It synthesises all the purposes in the universe.”
I HAVE read Kant. And Kant himself acknowledges that his arguments do not constitute definitive proof of God’s existence. They are not enough establish God’s existence as a genuine scientific theory, or as a synthesis of all knowledge or purposes (in the Universe.)
Here is a quote is taken from a philosophy website. It accurately (and briefly) sums up Kant’s views on the matter:
“Kant believed that the existence of God could never be proved by the cosmological or teleological arguments. (Precisely.) He thus believed that by getting rid of them he could produce his own arguments based on faith rather than reason. It is an inductive argument. Not a deductive one.
(Inductive arguments only make the conclusion SOMEWHAT more likely to be true than not. They are not truth-providing. They are not conclusive. Deductive arguments, on the other hand, provide ACTUAL knowledge. Actual proof, deriving from their premises. Kant’s arguments don’t do that. And thus they cannot be used as the basis of a scientific theory of God’s existence.)
(continued) Kant’s starting point was the premise that there is a general universal sense of justice and good. He argued that it is by and large applicable to the majority of people. An example of this would be if a person were to see another person being bullied. In the majority of cases, the aforementioned person would feel duty bound or obliged to help the victim. This leads to a general sense of morality throughout the World. Although this morality cannot necessarily be proven, it IMPLIES existence of God (My emphasis).”
Kant’s argument is a MORAL argument for the existence of God. It is not conclusive in any way. Since a general sense of morality exists in most people, Kant argues that perhaps such widespread morality may find its appropriate source in God - supposedly the ultimate source of all morality and goodness.
But there is no way to prove this. You either accept it or you don’t. Kant himself says belief in God’s existence is a matter of FAITH – not reason. God’s existence is thus not a scientific theory at all. It does not unify our knowledge, because it cannot be tested or proven, even with Kant’s arguments. The arguments themselves uphold this view. To say otherwise would be quite wrong.
You said: “Atheism is sterile because it is literally a dead end in a closed system. Theism is fertile because it opens the mind to discoveries about the nature of the mind and the most important things in life which are beyond the scope of science.”
Metaphysics does this same thing very well. Belief in God is not necessary for a person to dwell on the metaphysical (non-physical) nature of the mind, or of consciousness itself.
The metaphysical, self-evident Laws of Logic exist just fine, independent of a belief in God. The study of non-material reason does not depend on a belief in God, either. Hence the existence of plenty of atheistic rational philosophers.
And it is possible to reason well about non-physical moral matters through the use of pure reason, completely divorced from a belief in God. (God Himself actually says this very thing, in the Old Testament – that people are perfectly capable of knowing right from wrong, EVEN WITHOUT HIM.)
I most certainly agree that theism is a much more HOPEFUL system than atheism. I, myself, am a theist. But it would be a deadly mistake to assume that belief in God is necessary for all rational knowledge – knowledge which, as Thomas Aquinas pointed out, ANYONE can obtain, without religion, simply by exercising their reason alone. Any other position is irrational and in disagreement with what Catholic philosophers themselves hold to be true.
P.S. – Any argument for God’s existence must necessarily be inductive, as Kant says. Not deductive. It may POSSIBLY true. But not provably so. Anyone who says otherwise is flatly wrong.
This statement is utter nonsense. Belief is God is STILL not a “theory,” in the strict scientific sense. It is belief. And there is nothing wrong with that. It cannot be tested. It cannot be proven. This is not an obstacle to faith. It do not see the problem here at all.
When I said that belief in God cannot be falsified, you wrote: “Then atheists have been wasting their time for 2,000 years!”
Are you saying that belief in God CAN be falsified? This is very strange.
There are good reasons not to believe in God. There are also good reasons TO believe in God. The reasons not to are not rationally sufficient to remove belief in God entirely from the realm of possibility. Taken together, the reasons for believing in God form a POSSIBLE case for God’s existence. But not a theory.
I also do not see it possible to achieve a TOTAL falsification the idea of God’s existence. The reasons to believe in God are still good ones. Which is why rational philosophers still maintain the notion of belief in God as being possible at all.
You wrote: “Science wouldn’t exist if no one had believed the universe is a rational creation by God.”
Plenty of pagan societies developed science without a specific belief in a rational God. The ancient Chinese and Egyptians, for example. You are flatly wrong.
I said that belief in God is not a scientific theory because it does not unify our existing knowledge. You replied: “Read Kant. It synthesises all the purposes in the universe.”
I HAVE read Kant. And Kant himself acknowledges that his arguments do not constitute definitive proof of God’s existence. They are not enough establish God’s existence as a genuine scientific theory, or as a synthesis of all knowledge or purposes (in the Universe.)
Here is a quote is taken from a philosophy website. It accurately (and briefly) sums up Kant’s views on the matter:
“Kant believed that the existence of God could never be proved by the cosmological or teleological arguments. (Precisely.) He thus believed that by getting rid of them he could produce his own arguments based on faith rather than reason. It is an inductive argument. Not a deductive one.
(Inductive arguments only make the conclusion SOMEWHAT more likely to be true than not. They are not truth-providing. They are not conclusive. Deductive arguments, on the other hand, provide ACTUAL knowledge. Actual proof, deriving from their premises. Kant’s arguments don’t do that. And thus they cannot be used as the basis of a scientific theory of God’s existence.)
(continued) Kant’s starting point was the premise that there is a general universal sense of justice and good. He argued that it is by and large applicable to the majority of people. An example of this would be if a person were to see another person being bullied. In the majority of cases, the aforementioned person would feel duty bound or obliged to help the victim. This leads to a general sense of morality throughout the World. Although this morality cannot necessarily be proven, it IMPLIES existence of God (My emphasis).”
Kant’s argument is a MORAL argument for the existence of God. It is not conclusive in any way. Since a general sense of morality exists in most people, Kant argues that perhaps such widespread morality may find its appropriate source in God - supposedly the ultimate source of all morality and goodness.
But there is no way to prove this. You either accept it or you don’t. Kant himself says belief in God’s existence is a matter of FAITH – not reason. God’s existence is thus not a scientific theory at all. It does not unify our knowledge, because it cannot be tested or proven, even with Kant’s arguments. The arguments themselves uphold this view. To say otherwise would be quite wrong.
You said: “Atheism is sterile because it is literally a dead end in a closed system. Theism is fertile because it opens the mind to discoveries about the nature of the mind and the most important things in life which are beyond the scope of science.”
Metaphysics does this same thing very well. Belief in God is not necessary for a person to dwell on the metaphysical (non-physical) nature of the mind, or of consciousness itself.
The metaphysical, self-evident Laws of Logic exist just fine, independent of a belief in God. The study of non-material reason does not depend on a belief in God, either. Hence the existence of plenty of atheistic rational philosophers.
And it is possible to reason well about non-physical moral matters through the use of pure reason, completely divorced from a belief in God. (God Himself actually says this very thing, in the Old Testament – that people are perfectly capable of knowing right from wrong, EVEN WITHOUT HIM.)
I most certainly agree that theism is a much more HOPEFUL system than atheism. I, myself, am a theist. But it would be a deadly mistake to assume that belief in God is necessary for all rational knowledge – knowledge which, as Thomas Aquinas pointed out, ANYONE can obtain, without religion, simply by exercising their reason alone. Any other position is irrational and in disagreement with what Catholic philosophers themselves hold to be true.
P.S. – Any argument for God’s existence must necessarily be inductive, as Kant says. Not deductive. It may POSSIBLY true. But not provably so. Anyone who says otherwise is flatly wrong.
T
tonyrey
Guest
J
Joseph_Kemp
Guest
You wrote: “The Church… teaches that the existence of God can be known by the light of reason.”
If you are saying that the Church teaches that reason has unquestionably proven the existence of God beyond all reasonable doubt, you are flatly wrong.
When I said “Taken together, the reasons for believing in God form a POSSIBLE case for God’s existence. But not a theory”, you said: “This is not orthodox Catholic teaching.”
Yes it is. You are wrong about this too. Every Catholic philosopher IN THE WORLD holds this view, including the Pope. It is the very basis of our faith. Reason by itself is not ultimately sufficient to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the existence of God. That is why, in the absence of conclusive rational proof of God’s existence, anyone who believes in God believes through the use of their faith.
It is utterly absurd to hold otherwise.
You wrote: “If (there) are good reasons (to believe that God exists,)the existence of God is not merely possible but highly probable.
There are good reasons for believing that God does not exist at all. The Problem of Evil, for example. This is a very, very compelling reason for the non-existence of God. It has never been shown rationally how evil could come into existence from an all-good God.
Pope John Paul II wrote clearly about this in his philosophy. Evil can only arise by twisting something that is otherwise good (Sex, for example. Sex is good in marriage, but becomes evil when people start cheating on each other.) But the Pope points out that how evil originally arose from the goodness of God is mysterious. Nobody knows the answer. We may never know.
The Church does not shy away from questions like this. It embraces them. Not to do so would be dishonest. But no matter how compelling the reasons for God’s existence might be, there are still powerful reasons indeed for God’s non-existence. So it does not follow that the existence of God is “highly probable,” as if it was some kind of “near fact,” or “virtual certainty.” There are still plenty of good reasons to doubt God. But strong as those reasons are, they are not enough to ENTIRELY overwhelm the possibility of God’s existence. If you insist that the existence of God is “highly probable,” as if it is a “near fact,” you are absolutely wrong.
When I wrote: “Plenty of pagan societies developed science without a specific belief in a rational God”, you replied: “The rise of science in Christian and Moslem countries has far outstripped those of pagan societies.”
But pagan societies DID develop sciences. So it IS possible to develop science without belief in a rational God. To say otherwise is simply wrong.
(Incidentally, whoever designed the pagan Egyptian pyramids was absolutely brilliant. A very advanced scientist, who understood how to design a structure to hold back natural deterioration over an extraordinarily long time. It is weird how people tend to overlook this.)
You wrote: “I have not suggested it is impossible to reason well about non-physical moral matters through the use of pure reason, completely divorced from a belief in God.”
You certainly implied it. Immediately before this, you wrote:
“Atheist metaphysics is generally associated with physicalism which rejects the mind as a non-physical entity and regards intangible realities as mental constructs.”
You imply that a lack of belief in God generally inclines rational philosophers to think only about physical things. This is absolutely false. “Atheist” metaphysics deals very concretely with the study of non-physical “intangibles.” Atheist rational philosophers often use the exact same logic that theists do when reasoning about mind, consciousness and moral matters. Get out more.
You said: “I have not suggested belief in God is necessary for all rational knowledge.”
Yes you did.
You wrote previously: “Read Kant. It synthesises all the purposes in the universe.”
You said ALL purposes. Which, I must logically conclude, includes all rational knowledge, as well. (That IS the context in which we were talking.) I cannot believe you would contradict yourself like this. This is very weak reasoning.
When I wrote: “Any argument for God’s existence must necessarily be inductive, as Kant says. Not deductive”, you wrote “I have not even suggested it is deductive.”
Yes, you did. You even quoted me Kant’s EXACT WORDS in that context:
“For the theoretical reflective Judgement physical Teleology sufficiently proves from the purposes of nature an intelligent World-Cause; for the practical Judgement moral Teleology establishes (shortened)…the practical reality of that Idea, by bringing in the reality which it has for the Judgement in a theoretical point of view.”
This is NOT deductive proof of God. It is clear from Kant’s wording that it is not. It is just a longer way of saying what I already summarized. Kant’s moral argument, together with the argument for God’s existence from physical evidence, makes it SOMEWHAT more possible that God exists. Still inductive. Not deductive. And not conclusive in any way.
And so we are back where we started. I stand by what I said before: “Any argument for God’s existence must necessarily be inductive, as Kant says. Not deductive. It may POSSIBLY true. But not provably so. Anyone who says otherwise is flatly wrong.”
So far you have not provided one single good reason for me to change my mind. To my knowledge (and to Kant’s), no such reason is rationally possible.
If you are saying that the Church teaches that reason has unquestionably proven the existence of God beyond all reasonable doubt, you are flatly wrong.
When I said “Taken together, the reasons for believing in God form a POSSIBLE case for God’s existence. But not a theory”, you said: “This is not orthodox Catholic teaching.”
Yes it is. You are wrong about this too. Every Catholic philosopher IN THE WORLD holds this view, including the Pope. It is the very basis of our faith. Reason by itself is not ultimately sufficient to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the existence of God. That is why, in the absence of conclusive rational proof of God’s existence, anyone who believes in God believes through the use of their faith.
It is utterly absurd to hold otherwise.
You wrote: “If (there) are good reasons (to believe that God exists,)the existence of God is not merely possible but highly probable.
There are good reasons for believing that God does not exist at all. The Problem of Evil, for example. This is a very, very compelling reason for the non-existence of God. It has never been shown rationally how evil could come into existence from an all-good God.
Pope John Paul II wrote clearly about this in his philosophy. Evil can only arise by twisting something that is otherwise good (Sex, for example. Sex is good in marriage, but becomes evil when people start cheating on each other.) But the Pope points out that how evil originally arose from the goodness of God is mysterious. Nobody knows the answer. We may never know.
The Church does not shy away from questions like this. It embraces them. Not to do so would be dishonest. But no matter how compelling the reasons for God’s existence might be, there are still powerful reasons indeed for God’s non-existence. So it does not follow that the existence of God is “highly probable,” as if it was some kind of “near fact,” or “virtual certainty.” There are still plenty of good reasons to doubt God. But strong as those reasons are, they are not enough to ENTIRELY overwhelm the possibility of God’s existence. If you insist that the existence of God is “highly probable,” as if it is a “near fact,” you are absolutely wrong.
When I wrote: “Plenty of pagan societies developed science without a specific belief in a rational God”, you replied: “The rise of science in Christian and Moslem countries has far outstripped those of pagan societies.”
But pagan societies DID develop sciences. So it IS possible to develop science without belief in a rational God. To say otherwise is simply wrong.
(Incidentally, whoever designed the pagan Egyptian pyramids was absolutely brilliant. A very advanced scientist, who understood how to design a structure to hold back natural deterioration over an extraordinarily long time. It is weird how people tend to overlook this.)
You wrote: “I have not suggested it is impossible to reason well about non-physical moral matters through the use of pure reason, completely divorced from a belief in God.”
You certainly implied it. Immediately before this, you wrote:
“Atheist metaphysics is generally associated with physicalism which rejects the mind as a non-physical entity and regards intangible realities as mental constructs.”
You imply that a lack of belief in God generally inclines rational philosophers to think only about physical things. This is absolutely false. “Atheist” metaphysics deals very concretely with the study of non-physical “intangibles.” Atheist rational philosophers often use the exact same logic that theists do when reasoning about mind, consciousness and moral matters. Get out more.
You said: “I have not suggested belief in God is necessary for all rational knowledge.”
Yes you did.
You wrote previously: “Read Kant. It synthesises all the purposes in the universe.”
You said ALL purposes. Which, I must logically conclude, includes all rational knowledge, as well. (That IS the context in which we were talking.) I cannot believe you would contradict yourself like this. This is very weak reasoning.
When I wrote: “Any argument for God’s existence must necessarily be inductive, as Kant says. Not deductive”, you wrote “I have not even suggested it is deductive.”
Yes, you did. You even quoted me Kant’s EXACT WORDS in that context:
“For the theoretical reflective Judgement physical Teleology sufficiently proves from the purposes of nature an intelligent World-Cause; for the practical Judgement moral Teleology establishes (shortened)…the practical reality of that Idea, by bringing in the reality which it has for the Judgement in a theoretical point of view.”
This is NOT deductive proof of God. It is clear from Kant’s wording that it is not. It is just a longer way of saying what I already summarized. Kant’s moral argument, together with the argument for God’s existence from physical evidence, makes it SOMEWHAT more possible that God exists. Still inductive. Not deductive. And not conclusive in any way.
And so we are back where we started. I stand by what I said before: “Any argument for God’s existence must necessarily be inductive, as Kant says. Not deductive. It may POSSIBLY true. But not provably so. Anyone who says otherwise is flatly wrong.”
So far you have not provided one single good reason for me to change my mind. To my knowledge (and to Kant’s), no such reason is rationally possible.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I’m afraid you are the one who is flatly wrong:
(Anti-Modernist oath promulgated by Pope Pius X)
It is not necessary to show how evil could come into existence from an all-good God! Physical evil comes from finitude and moral evil come from free will.
Really? Then so was Pope Pius X:
(Anti-Modernist oath promulgated by Pope Pius X)
“The rise of science in Christian and Moslem countries** has far outstripped** those of pagan societies.”
I specified physicalism:.
Your rudeness infringes Forum Rule 1:
Refer to page 391 of the Critique of Pure Reason:
books.google.co.uk/books?id=mt1qSnq8PsoC&pg=PA391&lpg=PA391&dq=kant+"the+highest+formal+unity+teleological&source=bl&ots=tRjfpM_H74&sig=q-Tmg5l-wsSIpwEdqFB1jwE5qAQ&hl=en&ei=9O7cTeTzOMSa8QPQocT8Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q&f=true
I have** never **suggested it is deductive.
I do suggest that you learn how to use the quote facility…
R
razredge
Guest
There are good reasons to believe and good reasons to disbelieve too.
I’m not sure you can become a believer solely by looking at the evidence - I think belief really does require a leap of faith.
I’m not sure you can become a believer solely by looking at the evidence - I think belief really does require a leap of faith.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
razredge
**I’m not sure you can become a believer solely by looking at the evidence - I think belief really does require a leap of faith. **
So does atheism! And everything in between. 
**I’m not sure you can become a believer solely by looking at the evidence - I think belief really does require a leap of faith. **
So does atheism!
And everything in between.
J
Joseph_Kemp
Guest
You quoted from the Anti-Modernist oath promulgated by Pope Pius X:
“God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (cf. Rom. 1:20), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated…”
The Oath Against Modernism is a statement of faith. Not absolute truth.
It is the POSITION of the Roman Catholic Church that God can be known through reason. But this is simply because it is reasonable to suppose that a rational God can be known through reason. Thus you will see statements like the Oath Against Modernism show up here and there. It doesn’t mean that the Church has proven the existence of God on the level of a workable scientific theory. It most certainly has not. This is beyond question. It should be the ONLY point under discussion here.
Any rational “proofs” for God’s existence necessarily fall within the realm of rational philosophy. And the Catholic Church very specifically does not endorse any particular brand of philosophy.
“The Church has no philosophy of her own nor does she canonize any one particular philosophy in preference to others. The underlying reason for this reluctance is that, even when it engages theology, philosophy must remain faithful to its own principles and methods. Otherwise there would be no guarantee that it would remain oriented to truth and that it was moving towards truth by way of a process governed by reason.” (Pope John Paul II, “Fides et Ratio.”)
So although some of the “proofs” of God’s existence by St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Anslem, and other philosophers may be compelling, the Church does not hold that Catholics are obligated to believe them. They are mere extras. They are not part of the Deposit of Faith. It is not binding on Catholics to regard any particular rational “proof” for God’s existence as necessary for salvation.
This is very wise, because every rational “proof” for the existence of God that I am aware of has an element of inductive (uncertain) reasoning in it. They are not deductive proofs. They are not absolutely conclusive. Even Kant’s arguments, as you pointed out, are also inductive, and not absolutely conclusive. Which is why the Church does not obligate us to believe them.
YOU WROTE: “It is not necessary to show how evil could come into existence from an all-good God!”
It is if you want EVERYBODY to believe in God, theist and non-theist alike. Belief in God SHOULD be rational. Entirely. The Catholic Church is right to continue striving for this understanding. It may not reach it. But it is still good to try. I find it sad and intellectually disappointing that you do not feel the same way.
YOU WROTE: “The rise of science in Christian and Moslem countries has far outstripped those of pagan societies.”
I believe your original statement on science read: “Science wouldn’t exist if no one had believed the universe is a rational creation by God.”
You have since admitted in the quotation above this one that pagan societies have developed science. You thus believe that science CAN exist without belief that the universe “is a rational creation by God.” You have thus contradicted your original statement. You have solidly admitted you were wrong.
I originally wrote: “It (belief in God) does not unify our existing knowledge.”
To which you replied “Read Kant. It synthesises all the purposes in the universe.”
So it is clear you are saying that Kant’s work holds that belief in God unifies ALL our existing knowledge.
But Kant himself admits that his arguments are not deductive (conclusive). So even if they DO unify our knowledge, they do not do so in a scientifically useful (deductive) way. Inductive arguments CANNOT serve as the foundation for a scientifically workable, deductive theory. Science, by its very nature, is deductive. Which is why scientists do not regard the existence of God to be part of science theory at all.
Belief in God’s existence can only be arrived at by INDUCTIVE reasoning, as Kant says. God MIGHT exist. But then again, He might not. There is not enough reason or evidence to move belief in God’s existence out of the realm of faith and into the arena of knowledge. And all the inductive reasoning in the world does not add up to a scientifically workable (deductive) theory of ANYTHING.
YOU WROTE: “I have never suggested it (any argument for God’s existence) is deductive.”
You suggested it very clearly. You even quoted me the Oath Against Modernism, by which you imply that the Church ITSELF believes that rational philosophical arguments for God’s existence are deductive (conclusive), when they clearly are not. Even Kant’s arguments are not deductive, but this didn’t stop you from mentioning them as if they were. (“It synthesizes all the purposes in the universe.”)
In short, all you have done is to confirm what I have already said: “Any argument for God’s existence must necessarily be inductive…Not deductive. It may POSSIBLY true. But not provably so. Anyone who says otherwise is flatly wrong.”
“God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (cf. Rom. 1:20), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated…”
The Oath Against Modernism is a statement of faith. Not absolute truth.
It is the POSITION of the Roman Catholic Church that God can be known through reason. But this is simply because it is reasonable to suppose that a rational God can be known through reason. Thus you will see statements like the Oath Against Modernism show up here and there. It doesn’t mean that the Church has proven the existence of God on the level of a workable scientific theory. It most certainly has not. This is beyond question. It should be the ONLY point under discussion here.
Any rational “proofs” for God’s existence necessarily fall within the realm of rational philosophy. And the Catholic Church very specifically does not endorse any particular brand of philosophy.
“The Church has no philosophy of her own nor does she canonize any one particular philosophy in preference to others. The underlying reason for this reluctance is that, even when it engages theology, philosophy must remain faithful to its own principles and methods. Otherwise there would be no guarantee that it would remain oriented to truth and that it was moving towards truth by way of a process governed by reason.” (Pope John Paul II, “Fides et Ratio.”)
So although some of the “proofs” of God’s existence by St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Anslem, and other philosophers may be compelling, the Church does not hold that Catholics are obligated to believe them. They are mere extras. They are not part of the Deposit of Faith. It is not binding on Catholics to regard any particular rational “proof” for God’s existence as necessary for salvation.
This is very wise, because every rational “proof” for the existence of God that I am aware of has an element of inductive (uncertain) reasoning in it. They are not deductive proofs. They are not absolutely conclusive. Even Kant’s arguments, as you pointed out, are also inductive, and not absolutely conclusive. Which is why the Church does not obligate us to believe them.
YOU WROTE: “It is not necessary to show how evil could come into existence from an all-good God!”
It is if you want EVERYBODY to believe in God, theist and non-theist alike. Belief in God SHOULD be rational. Entirely. The Catholic Church is right to continue striving for this understanding. It may not reach it. But it is still good to try. I find it sad and intellectually disappointing that you do not feel the same way.
YOU WROTE: “The rise of science in Christian and Moslem countries has far outstripped those of pagan societies.”
I believe your original statement on science read: “Science wouldn’t exist if no one had believed the universe is a rational creation by God.”
You have since admitted in the quotation above this one that pagan societies have developed science. You thus believe that science CAN exist without belief that the universe “is a rational creation by God.” You have thus contradicted your original statement. You have solidly admitted you were wrong.
I originally wrote: “It (belief in God) does not unify our existing knowledge.”
To which you replied “Read Kant. It synthesises all the purposes in the universe.”
So it is clear you are saying that Kant’s work holds that belief in God unifies ALL our existing knowledge.
But Kant himself admits that his arguments are not deductive (conclusive). So even if they DO unify our knowledge, they do not do so in a scientifically useful (deductive) way. Inductive arguments CANNOT serve as the foundation for a scientifically workable, deductive theory. Science, by its very nature, is deductive. Which is why scientists do not regard the existence of God to be part of science theory at all.
Belief in God’s existence can only be arrived at by INDUCTIVE reasoning, as Kant says. God MIGHT exist. But then again, He might not. There is not enough reason or evidence to move belief in God’s existence out of the realm of faith and into the arena of knowledge. And all the inductive reasoning in the world does not add up to a scientifically workable (deductive) theory of ANYTHING.
YOU WROTE: “I have never suggested it (any argument for God’s existence) is deductive.”
You suggested it very clearly. You even quoted me the Oath Against Modernism, by which you imply that the Church ITSELF believes that rational philosophical arguments for God’s existence are deductive (conclusive), when they clearly are not. Even Kant’s arguments are not deductive, but this didn’t stop you from mentioning them as if they were. (“It synthesizes all the purposes in the universe.”)
In short, all you have done is to confirm what I have already said: “Any argument for God’s existence must necessarily be inductive…Not deductive. It may POSSIBLY true. But not provably so. Anyone who says otherwise is flatly wrong.”
R
razredge
Guest
True, most atheists have unfounded beliefs that objective morality exists which is also a complete leap of faith.razredge
So does atheism!
- Status