The Teleological Arguement: Has the truth of evolution destroyed it?

[TAquinas21]

It seems to me that The Teleological Argument is logically invalid, and so are all of the arguments presented by Thomas Aquinas, or any other philosopher or theologian for that matter. All such attempts constitute invalid proofs for the “existence” of God, or that the universe was created by our Christian God, or any other god. None of these arguments are valid in the sense that the proofs can be empirically verified or demonstrated to be true or factual, or formally derived, to the satisfaction of a skeptical observer or rigorous logician. There can be no proof – ever .

That God IS, and that God created the universe, will always be an assertion of faith, a starting point for a worldview, not a fact, or truth, that drops out of an observation or argument on a page. I would hope that, after these proofs are presented in today’s seminary classes, that all such proofs are summarily dispatched as the well-intentioned constructs of saintly thinkers, but philosophically untenable.

Does God exist? The question itself is fatally flawed in its very construction. Do we not hold, as Christians, that God created all that exists, all matter and energy, all of life, things seen and unseen – and the rules of thought and logic themselves – He created. And, if nothing existed, not time nor space, that God would still BE – would He not? The observation, manipulation and articulation of things in existence will never produce a scientifically compelling proof of God that IS. By definition, while is omnipresent in our world, God is also transcendent to existence, and not contingent on anything that exists.

That said, faith can reach beyond proof. With this partitioning of faith and reason, reason and scientific observation can function fruitfully without arbitrary constraint rooted in some fear that faith will be discredited by the things we observe and verify through science, in our spatial-temporal world of existence. The worry that science has, or ever can, discredit faith is, in itself, a sign of flawed faith, it reveals a doubt. Scientific exploration is a joyous enterprise, a capacity endowed in our very nature by God.

As to sciences of evolution and cosmology. Each has shown that biological mechanisms, and the universe generally, are so wondrously complex and fruitful in their creative productivity, that one could reasonably, without rational contradiction, assign it all, especially its intrinsic evolutionary dynamic, to the creative God revealed in the Christian tradition, and still hold to the full potential and rigor of scientific discovery in the matters of the existential world.

Science is a powerful method for discovering the secrets in nature, and it delivers powerful capabilities to human hands. That said, there are many things that science enables us to do, that we should not do, and this is where ethicists need to offer guidance.

 

[buffalo]

PNAS Authors Resort to Teleological Language in Failed Attempt to Explain Evolution of Irreducible Complexity

 

[TAquinas21]

It seems to me that The Teleological Argument is logically invalid, and so are all of the arguments presented by Thomas Aquinas, or any other philosopher or theologian for that matter. None of these arguments are valid in the sense that the proofs can be empirically verified or demonstrated to be true or factual, or formally derived, to the satisfaction of a skeptical observer or rigorous logician. There can be no proof – ever .

That God IS, and that God created the universe, will always be an assertion of faith, a starting point for a worldview, not a conclusion that drops out of an observation or argument on a page. I would hope that, after these proofs are presented in today’s seminary Philosophy 101 classes, that all such proofs are summarily dispatched as the well-intentioned constructs of saintly thinkers, but are shown to be philosophically untenable.

Does God exist? The question itself is fatally flawed in its very construction. Do we not hold, as Christians, that God created all that exists, all matter and energy, all of life, things seen and unseen – and the rules of thought and logic themselves. If nothing existed, not time nor space, God would still BE – would He not? The observation, manipulation and articulation of things in existence will never produce a scientifically compelling proof of God that IS. By definition, while God is omnipresent in our world, God is also transcendent to existence, and not contingent on anything that exists.

That said, faith can reach beyond proof. With this partitioning of faith and reason, scientific observation (that includes the reality of evolution), can function fruitfully without arbitrary constraint rooted in some fear that faith will be discredited by the things we observe and verify through science. The worry that science has, or ever can, discredit faith is, in itself, a sign of flawed faith, it reveals a doubt. Scientific exploration is a joyous enterprise, a capacity endowed in our very nature by God.

As to sciences of evolution and cosmology. Each has shown that biological mechanisms, and the universe generally, are so wondrously complex and fruitful in their creative productivity, that one could reasonably, without rational contradiction, assign it all, especially its intrinsic evolutionary dynamic, to the creative God revealed in the Christian tradition, without proof as such, and still hold to the full potential and rigor of scientific discovery in the matters of the existential world.

Science is a powerful method for discovering the secrets in nature, and it delivers powerful capabilities to human hands. That said, there are many things that science enables us to do, that we should not do, and this is where ethicists need to offer guidance.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It seems to me that The Teleological Argument is logically invalid, and so are all of the arguments presented by Thomas Aquinas, or any other philosopher or theologian for that matter. None of these arguments are valid in the sense that the proofs can be empirically verified or demonstrated to be true or factual, or formally derived, to the satisfaction of a skeptical observer or rigorous logician.

So you are saying that no rigorous logician has ever found the any argument for God to be valid? Are you seriously going to sit there and type that and expect us to nod our heads as if you’re telling us well informed truth? Or are you simply a victim of a popular delusion that the only rigorous logicians are the ones that disagree with any evidence provided by Christians.

Does God exist? The question itself is fatally flawed in its very construction. Do we not hold, as Christians, that God created all that exists, all matter and energy, all of life, things seen and unseen – and the rules of thought and logic themselves. If nothing existed, not time nor space, God would still BE – would He not?

It depends on the context in which you express the word existence. In the sense of having an act of reality, Christians hold that God brought the particular nature we call the “universe” in to the act of reality; God gave the universe an actuality. But Christians, and especially Catholics do not hold that God created the very nature of existence itself, certainly not to a degree that God possesses a nature that has no existence. Any rational Catholic that is well informed on the nature of his or her beliefs know that God does have the nature of existence, but not in the same way that physical reality exists. They would also call you irrational and ill informed for thinking that God created logic; when in fact it is Gods very nature that is the source of logical truth and is intrinsically logical in its expression. God cannot make a square triangle, since this would contradict his fundamental nature which is absolutely rational. In a very real sense God is logical truth, as much as he is the eternal truth. It would also contradict Gods nature to say that God is nothing at all in an absolute ontological sense. When Christians and saints say that God is nothing; they do not mean that God does not exist. Its a core expression of the Christian faith that God does exist. What they really mean is that God is not physical. What Aquinas would say is that God does not exist in the same way the universe exists; and rather than saying that God is in existence like the universe, we say that God is existence; and this is to say that his actual nature is the very existence that we depend on for reality.

The observation, manipulation and articulation of things in existence will never produce a scientifically compelling proof of God that IS.

We do not require science, and neither do we need to contradict it, in-order to gain rational certainty of Gods existence. Everything you have said, suggests to me that you don’t really understand that nature of the arguments given for God and neither do you fully understand your own faith. It is a core teaching of the faith that Gods existence can be “known” through “reason”; not just by faith alone.

So my question to you is, do you realize that your attitude about Gods existence and what we can know of God, contradicts a core principle teaching of our faith?

Don’t get me wrong; i am not saying that the teleological argument is correct. But it is not a theologically sound position to suggest that reason cannot grasp real and certain evidence of Gods existence. At that the same time that fact does not necessarily mean that proof of God has been produced yet. It just means that principle you must hold it to be a real possibility.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

That said, faith can reach beyond proof.

Why should any reasonable atheist agree to the existence of God if the only basis for that agreement is faith?

 

[greylorn]

It is said that we see things acting for a meaningful purpose and that therefore we must conclude that just like a car or a plane exists to serve an intelligent purpose set forth by a creator, so to we must say that the universe exists to serve an intelligent purpose set forth by some kind of unobservable creator.

Is this a valid conclusion if we also except the theory of evolution? Are they two mutually exclusive ways of viewing biological mechanisms?

This an issue i would like to see people discuss.

You’ve been conned into believing that Darwinist principles of random mutation and natural selection represent a legitimate theory of evolution. Forget that nonsense and read Michael Behe.

Biological evolution of life forms over extended periods of time is a well demonstrated fact, but Darwinism is a bogus explanation for it.

It represents evidence for creation by an intelligent being, or beings. However, the time scale involved suggests that none of these beings are either omnipotent or omniscient, else they’d not have taken quite so long. The biological record is clear evidence of an engineering process. It is, moreover, an extremely complex, long term engineering process, which has resulted in us. To assume that any entities capable of such a project did so without point or purpose strikes me as absurd.

So, blow off Darwinism as a valid theory of evolution, accept the notion of a non-omnipotent, non-omniscient God, and you’re cool.

There are no other possibilities which fit the available data, so you might as well go with it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

greylorn

**It represents evidence for creation by an intelligent being, or beings. However, the time scale involved suggests that none of these beings are either omnipotent or omniscient, else they’d not have taken quite so long. **

How do you know God can’t be a good deal more patient than you seem to be?

And why would the power of an omnipotent and omniscient God be diminished by the fact that He is a good deal more patient than you are? Would you have preferred that He did it literally in seven 24 hour days?

 

[greylorn]

greylorn

**It represents evidence for creation by an intelligent being, or beings. However, the time scale involved suggests that none of these beings are either omnipotent or omniscient, else they’d not have taken quite so long. **

How do you know God can’t be a good deal more patient than you seem to be?

And why would the power of an omnipotent and omniscient God be diminished by the fact that He is a good deal more patient than you are? Would you have preferred that He did it literally in seven 24 hour days?

Your God-concept is traditional, and different from mine. It is obsolete, and inconsistent with reality, IMO. I’ve addressed my detailed objections to it on other CAF threads, years ago. Having addressed various dogma-derived assertions elsewhere, to no particular success, I see no point in trying to argue on your doctrinal terms, or (metaphorically) in throwing more pearls before even fatter swine, who generally seem happiest with their customary diet. (c.f:Matthew 7:6).

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Your God-concept is traditional, and different from mine. It is obsolete, and inconsistent with reality, IMO. I’ve addressed my detailed objections to it on other CAF threads, years ago. Having addressed various dogma-derived assertions elsewhere, to no particular success, I see no point in trying to argue on your doctrinal terms, or (metaphorically) in throwing more pearls before even fatter swine, who generally seem happiest with their customary diet. (c.f:Matthew 7:6).

So… your day was that bad too eh

Grey, what’s your opinion on Dr. Richard L. Deem’s works?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

greylorn

Originally Posted by greylorn View Post
Your God-concept is traditional, and different from mine. It is obsolete, and inconsistent with reality, IMO. I’ve addressed my detailed objections to it on other CAF threads, years ago. Having addressed various dogma-derived assertions elsewhere, to no particular success, I see no point in trying to argue on your doctrinal terms, or (metaphorically) in throwing more pearls before even fatter swine, who generally seem happiest with their customary diet. (c.f:Matthew 7:6).

Swine will eat anything. A traditionalist will not. A Jewish traditionalist will not even eat swine.

 

[TAquinas21]

There is no valid logical proof for the existence of God. If there were, don’t you think everyone in the world would know about it? It would be printed on T-shirts! No faith is required to accept Einstein’s E=mC2, or 2+3 = 5, because we are compelled by verification and inference, respectively. The first equation is verified by empirical measurement, and the second is a formal truth, within the formal system of mathematics where axioms and rules of inference are rigorously defined. Faith, not proof, is at the basis for belief in God. If there were a proof for the existence of God, or empirical evidence, then everyone would be COMPELLED to accept the FACT of God’s existence, but there isn’t either of these bases.

All that said, it is reasonable to believe in God (Google William James), since: (1) there is no evidence to the contrary; (2) the question is momentous (important), and when embraced correctly, life is enhanced through belief; (3) taking a position on the question is unavoidable (unless the questioner decides to be agnostic). Failure to embrace belief, in a sense, is non-belief, so everyone is forced to make the decision on that question, and even passive avoidance of the question constitutes a decision (non-belief). It is reasonable to believe in God.

But back to proofs. All of the proofs for the existence of God are shown to be flawed in any Philosophy 101 course you want to take. This is a true fact. You will see Catholic apologists on TV articulating these proofs, and while they are inspiring on an emotional level for someone that has already embraced belief, they fail in their logical rigor. All Catholic as well as secular philosophers know this.

We can look out into the cosmos and into the depth of complexity in life, and fall to our knees in the awe, and conclude for ourselves, that there must be a God. In this way, science is revealing more mystery about the universe than in solves, even as it moves forward to discover and explain more and more. Modern science has provided a better inspirational basis for belief than we have ever had. I have often thought, that if a scientist were to discover and understand the full depth of the universe in its physical/mathematical complexity, and she were given only a few hundred words to write it down, she would write the Genesis story, and convey the truth as an allegory.

To the atheist responder to my post: If an atheist is looking for a proof for the existence of God as a basis for belief, he’s looking for a unicorn. If you think you’ve found a proof, that is a mistake. Faith is more powerful that proof, however, so long as facts are not ignored, belief is reasonable and belief will enhance life. But, religion is a dangerous thing, however. Be careful what religion you wrap around your belief.

About “existence” and splitting hairs about the term “existing.” In my Catholic upbringing, I learned that everything that exists was created by God, and God is not contingent upon anything in existence. He created everything that exists. Which would mean that if everything that exists were to no longer exist, go away, God would still “be there.” Is this “still being there” “existence?” Or do we need a different word or phrase, like “transcendent Being.” So God does not have the same sort of “existence” as we humans have, and that space and energy and rocks have. So in that sense, looking for the “ordinary existence” of God is a flawed question, based on our definition of God and His nature. We can attribute all that exists to God’s creative act, and God is omnipresent, but this “existence as we experience it” is something applicable to the material world, and things that emerge from the material world. God is neither rooted in existing things, nor emergent from existing things.

Can God make a square triangle? It would seem a contradiction to suggest that He can. But in non-Euclidian geometries, and in quantum physics science is discovering a lot of counter intuitive formalisms and facts in nature have been discovered to be real. Theologians and philosophers have made some serious errors in the past, where they make statements about physical reality based on dogmatic or scripture-based positions – what can and cannot be real in the existential world. They not infrequently find themselves backtracking. Use caution when assigning limitations to what God can and cannot do; we may find he already has done what we say he can’t do.

Religion is wrapped around belief in God. There’s a lot to choose from out there. I have found that Catholicism, approached with an intellectual skepticism, is the best religion out there. Catholicism is not monolithic in its forms of expression. Liberal intellectuals in the Jesuit order will spar with the conservatives. There are near fundamentalists on the far right, that are still fixated on the Latin Mass, and many of these Traditionalists still hold the universe is 6,000 years old. Way over to the left, there are some “near neo-pagans” and post modernists that even think abortion is OK. In some cultures in South America, and other places, Catholicism is polluted with local myth and cultural practices that have nothing to do with liturgy prescribed by Rome. Choose carefully. Catholicism is a Big Tent, in spite of its centrally prescribed catechism.

Find your spot on the spectrum. Believe carefully! Everything that can be found right or wrong with other religions, can be found in Catholicism. It’s the most interesting and stimulating, religion out there, and it’s as old as the hills. Its intellectual legacy touches just about everything in Western thought, reaching back to the ancient Greeks, right up to the hottest philosophical debate today. If you’re shopping, look carefully here.

For me, I like the slightly-left-of-center Jesuit outlook on things; a lot of inquiry into the evolution of human thought and worldviews.

Again, religion is a dangerous thing. Believe carefully!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

TAquinas

For me, I like the slightly-left-of-center Jesuit outlook on things; a lot of inquiry into the evolution of human thought and worldviews.

Wish I could agree, as almost everything else you said was spot on.

In my experience there has been nothing slightly-left-of-center about the Jesuits. And why on earth would slightly-left-of center be preferable to slightly-right-of-center?

Why is campaigning for the rights of sodomites, which the Jesuits have done with spectacular effect at their universities, better than campaigning for the rights of the unborn, which the Jesuits have done with decidedly less than spectacular effect anywhere?

catholicnewsagency.com/news/jesuit_university_says_support_to_gay_organizations_is_the_catholic_thing_to_do/

lifesitenews.com/news/jesuit-leadership-defends-pro-abortion-organization-denounced-by-mexican-ca/

I don’t mean to derail this thread, so if you like, please reply by starting a new thread and letting me know. I’ll join you there. Thanks.

 

[greylorn]

So… your day was that bad too eh

Grey, what’s your opinion on Dr. Richard L. Deem’s works?

Trevor,
Yeah. I’m allotted one good day each month, and that day wasn’t it.

I’d not heard of Deem before your mention. 20 minutes of googling gave me the general picture of a strong I.D. proponent, but I could not find anything which piqued my interest, like some snazzy ideas unthought of previously.

I’ve read several I.D. books and found no problem with their arguments— some were excellent, but they all seem dedicated to a common focus, that of justifying the truth of the Bible.

Their approach reflects that of the heavily-credentialed participants in a Creationist vs. Evolutionist debate I attended long ago, in which both sides successfully (IMO) demonstrated that the other side was wrong. I managed to get a question in during a Q & A session:
*You’ve all done an excellent job of proving that the other side is wrong. However, you’ve not established any reason for us to assume that proving one side wrong makes the other side right. What you’ve actually done is demonstrate the need for an explanation of creation which is entirely different from either of yours. Why not scrap all your beliefs and get together on the development of a whole new theory? *

I’ve never seen an I.D. presentation or book which has addressed this question.

The best clue I could find as to Deem’s philosophical position came from a book review he’s done of someone else’s book, where he wrote, "*An integration of biblical theology and science is sorely needed,… *

IMO that is impossible, mainly because biblical theology defines a God Who cannot be evaluated in the context and terms of science. The God of Christianity is a spirit, which is essentially defined as an entity not subject to the laws and constraints of the physical universe.

Since I find it logically impossible for an entity to have created a universe to which it is not somehow connected, I’ll probably not become an R.L. Deem fan anytime soon.

The only scientist whose works offer an irrefutable take on I.D. is Michael Behe. He uses microbiology to demonstrate the worthlessness of Darwinian principles, but never declares that because of it, his (Catholic) beliefs are necessarily correct. That’s honest.

 

[RobbyS]

It seems to me that The Teleological Argument is logically invalid, and so are all of the arguments presented by Thomas Aquinas, or any other philosopher or theologian for that matter. All such attempts constitute invalid proofs for the “existence” of God, or that the universe was created by our Christian God, or any other god. None of these arguments are valid in the sense that the proofs can be empirically verified or demonstrated to be true or factual, or formally derived, to the satisfaction of a skeptical observer or rigorous logician. There can be no proof – ever .

That God IS, and that God created the universe, will always be an assertion of faith, a starting point for a worldview, not a fact, or truth, that drops out of an observation or argument on a page. I would hope that, after these proofs are presented in today’s seminary classes, that all such proofs are summarily dispatched as the well-intentioned constructs of saintly thinkers, but philosophically untenable.

Does God exist? The question itself is fatally flawed in its very construction. Do we not hold, as Christians, that God created all that exists, all matter and energy, all of life, things seen and unseen – and the rules of thought and logic themselves – He created. And, if nothing existed, not time nor space, that God would still BE – would He not? The observation, manipulation and articulation of things in existence will never produce a scientifically compelling proof of God that IS. By definition, while is omnipresent in our world, God is also transcendent to existence, and not contingent on anything that exists.

That said, faith can reach beyond proof. With this partitioning of faith and reason, reason and scientific observation can function fruitfully without arbitrary constraint rooted in some fear that faith will be discredited by the things we observe and verify through science, in our spatial-temporal world of existence. The worry that science has, or ever can, discredit faith is, in itself, a sign of flawed faith, it reveals a doubt. Scientific exploration is a joyous enterprise, a capacity endowed in our very nature by God.

As to sciences of evolution and cosmology. Each has shown that biological mechanisms, and the universe generally, are so wondrously complex and fruitful in their creative productivity, that one could reasonably, without rational contradiction, assign it all, especially its intrinsic evolutionary dynamic, to the creative God revealed in the Christian tradition, and still hold to the full potential and rigor of scientific discovery in the matters of the existential world.

Science is a powerful method for discovering the secrets in nature, and it delivers powerful capabilities to human hands. That said, there are many things that science enables us to do, that we should not do, and this is where ethicists need to offer guidance.

The “proofs” that St. Thomas offers are actually arguments that aim to persuade reasonable men, not proofs in the matthematical sense, which we can call tautological except that they coincide with the appearaneces of things about us.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

RobbyS

**The “proofs” that St. Thomas offers are actually arguments that aim to persuade reasonable men, not proofs in the matthematical sense, which we can call tautological except that they coincide with the appearaneces of things about us. **

Isaac Newton Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.
“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Newton saw in the laws of nature at least a hint of Divine teleology, if not actual proof.

 

[fhansen]

It is said that we see things acting for a meaningful purpose and that therefore we must conclude that just like a car or a plane exists to serve an intelligent purpose set forth by a creator, so to we must say that the universe exists to serve an intelligent purpose set forth by some kind of unobservable creator.

Is this a valid conclusion if we also except the theory of evolution? Are they two mutually exclusive ways of viewing biological mechanisms?

This an issue i would like to see people discuss.

I haven’t seen where evolution could proceed from the production of the simplest life forms (let alone, before that, from inanimate to animate form) to, say, human beings, by natural selection alone. I think a helping hand would be in order in any case-too complex a process.

 

[buffalo]

I haven’t seen where evolution could proceed from the production of the simplest life forms (let alone, before that, from inanimate to animate form) to, say, human beings, by natural selection alone. I think a helping hand would be in order in any case-too complex a process.

Right. And now we know that natural selection is a conservative process, not a creative one.

Dr. Thomas Seiler of Germany

At the end he also addresses IDvolution. A clarification - God breathed the super language of DNA not the molecule.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

There is no valid logical proof for the existence of God.

Saying so doesn’t make it so. The only way you can challenge the proofs is by attacking the nature of rationality itself, but by doing so you lose the rational high ground and thus lose any objective rational basis for making the challenge in the first place.

If there were, don’t you think everyone in the world would know about it?

This assumes that everybody is properly informed, has a proper understanding, and has the capacity to recognize the validity of the argument. And i can think of a few other reasons why people would deny the validity of the arguments which have nothing to do with rationality. Not to mention, every refutation i have seen is base on either a failure to understand the rational and epistemological principles driving the argument, or its based on a warped understanding of the epistemological reach of science. Every argument i see against God is usually a straw-man, a misrepresentation. I have not come across any refutation that is valid, and each one attempts in some way to deny rational principles in order to achieve victory. The failure to come to terms with the proofs of Gods existence are based on anti-rationality, warped epistemology, and pseudo-science.

It would be printed on T-shirts! No faith is required to accept Einstein’s E=mC2, or 2+3 = 5, because we are compelled by verification and inference, respectively.

The truths of maths is easier to know because it can be purely abstract. I can know that 2+2= 4 is true without reference to a sensory object, partly because its truth is not dependent on objects, and because i know the meaning of the symbols and why the answer follows from those symbols. The concepts are simpler to grasp. But metaphysical truth requires you to have a conceptual understand of being as being and why certain rational truths apply to being objectively. We are-dealing with a different level of epistemology and conceptuality. This is why it is easier to question truths like “every effect needs a cause”, than it is to question 2+2 =4. Once we know the meaning of the symbols which comprise the latter, we need only connect the dots. The former however, requires a higher degree of conceptual understanding before we can comprehend why the answer follows necessarily and meaningfully.

The same person that would say that 2+2 is 4, can be the very same person who questions the rationality of the universe; some are even keen to speculate the possibility that the universe came from nothing at all. While they might be genius at maths and science, they are completely ignorant of the metaphysical basis upon which the former subjects are dependent in-order to preserve a rational and meaningful understanding of truth.

Faith, not proof, is at the basis for belief in God.

I have faith in Gods Christian message of salvation. However, i have certain knowledge (certainty being defined as knowledge which follows necessarily from rational absolutes) of a supreme ultimate reality that has an intellect and a will. This is not contrary to Catholic teaching; and in fact it is perfectly consistent.

All that said, it is reasonable to believe in God (Google William James), since: (1) there is no evidence to the contrary; (2) the question is momentous (important), and when embraced correctly, life is enhanced through belief; (3) taking a position on the question is unavoidable (unless the questioner decides to be agnostic).

This does not give me any reason why i ought to believe in a God for which there is no rational evidence. It merely suggests that perhaps ones life will be enhanced; but thats a matter of opinion and is contradicted when you come across people who are happy without God.

Failure to embrace belief, in a sense, is non-belief, so everyone is forced to make the decision on that question, and even passive avoidance of the question constitutes a decision (non-belief). It is reasonable to believe in God.

Saying that its reasonable does not tell me that it is, and why should i not believe in some other God or Gods, if the only basis for belief is practicality and convenience?

But back to proofs. All of the proofs for the existence of God are shown to be flawed in any Philosophy 101 course you want to take. This is a true fact. You will see Catholic apologists on TV articulating these proofs, and while they are inspiring on an emotional level for someone that has already embraced belief, they fail in their logical rigor. All Catholic as well as secular philosophers know this.

An argument from authority, which doesn’t really tell me if the arguments are true or not, but rather that there are those members of society who disagree with the truth or fail to understand.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

We can look out into the cosmos and into the depth of complexity in life, and fall to our knees in the awe, and conclude for ourselves, that there must be a God.

Pure Emotionalism.

In this way, science is revealing more mystery about the universe than in solves, even as it moves forward to discover and explain more and more. Modern science has provided a better inspirational basis for belief than we have ever had.

Science has also revealed millions of years of evolution full of death and slaughter. One must ask, why would God create such a world? Where is the inspiration in that? If there is a God, it does not immediately appear to be the God of Christianity. How will you argue otherwise, when there isn’t even any evidence for God’s existence let alone evidence that he is perfectly good?

To the atheist responder to my post: If an atheist is looking for a proof for the existence of God as a basis for belief, he’s looking for a unicorn.

I really don’t understand why its necessary to make such a statement. That same atheist will tell you that belief in God with out rational evidence is synonymous in nature to believing in a unicorn. They will say its not rational. They will say its purely a fantasy invented to escape from the cold reality of our meaningless existence; and instead of being brave, you have chosen to hide behind your cowardly blind faith. How will you argue your case against such a person if not with rational evidence of God? It is not immediately clear why somebody should believe in any God without evidence, and while you personally might find it pleasing to believe, there is certainly no ought for anyone else.

You are basically saying that you should believe things based merely upon their utility or capacity to give some kind of pleasure or comfort. Your belief is purely a comfort belief. With that in mind, you could believe anything. I think that at least some atheists have a genuine fear of gullibility including a phobia of existential dishonesty that is to be respected.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

MindOverMatter

You are basically saying that you should believe things based merely upon their utility or capacity to give some kind of pleasure or comfort. Your belief is purely a comfort belief. With that in mind, you could believe anything. I think that at least some atheists have a genuine fear of gullibility including a phobia of existential dishonesty that is to be respected.

The value (utility) of a thing is not usually an argument offered for its truthfulness. If that were so, the same point you have made could be turned against the atheist position, which finds various positive values in disbelief.

As Pascal said, the belief in God is fraught with difficulties for both the believer and the unbeliever: the believer’s fear that religion may, after all, not be true; and the unbeliever’s fear that it may, after all, be true!

Hoping that a thing is truth is another matter altogether. Why not hope that there is a merciful God? But why on earth hope that there is no God at all, merciful or otherwise?