M
mikew262
Guest
These claims usually turn out to be true, more times than not.
- Status
M
mikew262
Guest
I said alot fall into the 20-30 crowd, not all.
E
EnterTheBowser
Guest
I like this argument:
1-We don’t understand everything about the universe
2-We have no reason to suppose we can
3-Therefore we cannot know everything about the universe
4-Therefore any belief about the universe is valid
5-Therefore God exists - my God exists
It’s a bad argument. 1 is true but offers no support for three. 2 doesn’t offer strong support for 3 even if it is true. Furthermore, I want to ask: what about falsification and induction do you doubt? These two principles define what science is. What is wrong with them? 4 does not follow from 3 - even if we don’t understand everything, there are things we can conclude are wrong. And 5 is also a bad statement.
On a related note, some people have argued that atheists arbitrarily dismiss those phenomenon that they can’t see/hear/etc - such as a blind person might dismiss a tiger. Now, it seems to me that you don’t want to just talk about those things we know indirectly - for example, even if I can’t see the tiger, I can know it is there by the sound of moving about and the pain as it eats my liver. What you really want to talk about are things which cannot affect us, or things that affect us, in any way. My question is: why suppose that statements about such things are even meaningful? By definition, we have no way of telling whether such things exist, or what properties they have. Consequently we can’t assign a truth-value to statements about them. And if such a statement is neither true nor false, then it’s safe to assume that it’s not a meaningful statement. So sure, assert that a God that we can never know anything about, directly or indirectly, exists. Such a statement is nonsense.
1-We don’t understand everything about the universe
2-We have no reason to suppose we can
3-Therefore we cannot know everything about the universe
4-Therefore any belief about the universe is valid
5-Therefore God exists - my God exists
It’s a bad argument. 1 is true but offers no support for three. 2 doesn’t offer strong support for 3 even if it is true. Furthermore, I want to ask: what about falsification and induction do you doubt? These two principles define what science is. What is wrong with them? 4 does not follow from 3 - even if we don’t understand everything, there are things we can conclude are wrong. And 5 is also a bad statement.
On a related note, some people have argued that atheists arbitrarily dismiss those phenomenon that they can’t see/hear/etc - such as a blind person might dismiss a tiger. Now, it seems to me that you don’t want to just talk about those things we know indirectly - for example, even if I can’t see the tiger, I can know it is there by the sound of moving about and the pain as it eats my liver. What you really want to talk about are things which cannot affect us, or things that affect us, in any way. My question is: why suppose that statements about such things are even meaningful? By definition, we have no way of telling whether such things exist, or what properties they have. Consequently we can’t assign a truth-value to statements about them. And if such a statement is neither true nor false, then it’s safe to assume that it’s not a meaningful statement. So sure, assert that a God that we can never know anything about, directly or indirectly, exists. Such a statement is nonsense.
K
Kristina_P
Guest
Hmm… I’d be hard-pressed to find anyone else who would say that assuming the physical world is all that exists is based on logical fact, but okay.
And yet, we still disagree on the definition of love, because I don’t believe it is limited to emotion, nor do I believe it by nature testable.
No, I’m not a materialist. I just don’t think it’s possible to empirically test all that exists.
I never said I believed you could disprove it, nor did I say I could prove it. Being able to provide evidence for or against something is not the same as being able to prove it. I don’t believe I’m making baseless assertions, but I do believe you don’t recognize the basis for my assertions as valid. This argument, therefore, is pointless. We do not accept the same premises, we do not accept the same definitions, we cannot have a coherent argument.
Unlike you, I don’t believe one can conduct a valid and complete empirical investigation of abstract concepts such as “kind” or “mean-spirited.” I think that evidence can be offered for or against, but any investigation would be incomplete at best. For example, recent posts have been made about the problems of attributing motives to people based only on the incomplete evidence of this forum. Likewise, I cannot make complete judgements about people based on the incomplete evidence of their outward conduct. Again, we differ at the very bottom of your argument, in that I believe there are things that are untestable and unobservable.
I do claim that God can do whatever he wants, and as author of the Scientific laws can bend or break or transcend them as he chooses. I don’t really need to explain how I know this, as I’ve already explained that my beliefs about God are accepted on faith, based on the evidence of scripture and my own conscience, as well as the accounts of those who have witnessed miracles. This is not rationally defensible, but that does not mean I find it unreasonable. Again, I have not claimed to be able to prove anything, nor do I really expect you to disprove anything.
K
Kristina_P
Guest
I agree that it’s a bad argument, so how’s this one?
- We do not know everything about the Universe.
- Therefore, it’s possible that a god or gods may exist.
This doesn’t prove the existence of God anymore than it proves the existence of pink elephants, but there’s no tradition of pink elephants revealing truths about themselves to people, nor accounts of pink elephants performing miracles. I can’t prove the existence of God, and I’ve long ago given up trying to do so with logic. But, I find that, for me, belief in God is reasonable and does not violate any principles of logic or rationality, even if it cannot be wholly defended by these principles.
M
mikew262
Guest
As I and other folks have pointed out, you live in a 3-D concrete world my friend. Your senses are limited to what you can see, feel, smell, and hear (I’m missing a sense here, but oh well). You’ve limited your scope to that. I believe and know there is more to our universe than that. Can I prove it to your 5 sense world? No, I can’t. However, I know it’s there and that God does exist. I feel his presence everyday. God isn’t required to give us visible signs of his presence, however if you look at the many beautiful things in this world, you could certainly take those as signs. I suppose it goes back to having “faith” and believing, and not needing proof.
E
EnterTheBowser
Guest
I posted a link to an amusing attack on Pascal’s Wager a little while back, but I want to spend some time on the more straightforward attacks on it, so that no-one ever mentions the thing again.
The argument:
------------------God exists-----------God does not exist
Theist---------infinite reward----------some constant R
Atheist---------infinite punishment----some constant R
So, as long as there is the slightest chance that God exists, we ought to believe if we are rational agents.
Problems:
There are really more than just two columns on the table. Which God exists? If we’re supposing that one god is logically possible, there’s no reason not to assume that they all are logically possible. And if they all grant infinite rewards to believers and infinite punishment to heathens, which one do we believe in?
What’s this infintiy doing there? Infinity is not a number. And how can a human ever experience an “infinite” reward? Is it a wonderful reward that lasts forever? Well, the human will never actually get an infinite reward - they’ll just get a longer and longer finite one.
Is this really a good reason to believe in God - for want of reward and fear of punishment? It seems like an awfully bad reason to me - and it seems like the sort of reason a just God would disapprove of.
And is this even a good way to make decisions? If we look at the following puzzle, it seems that the calculation underlying Pascal’s Wager is not a good one. plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-stpetersburg/
Furthermore, is it right to say that if there is no God, atheism and theism have the same reward? Perhaps the atheist, having spent their life undeluded and following true principles, will have lead a more meaningful and better life.
Lastly, should we assign a nonzero possibility to the existence of God? If said God is logically impossible in some way, then no.
In other words, Pascal’s Wager is a load of bunk. Don’t use it.
The argument:
------------------God exists-----------God does not exist
Theist---------infinite reward----------some constant R
Atheist---------infinite punishment----some constant R
So, as long as there is the slightest chance that God exists, we ought to believe if we are rational agents.
Problems:
There are really more than just two columns on the table. Which God exists? If we’re supposing that one god is logically possible, there’s no reason not to assume that they all are logically possible. And if they all grant infinite rewards to believers and infinite punishment to heathens, which one do we believe in?
What’s this infintiy doing there? Infinity is not a number. And how can a human ever experience an “infinite” reward? Is it a wonderful reward that lasts forever? Well, the human will never actually get an infinite reward - they’ll just get a longer and longer finite one.
Is this really a good reason to believe in God - for want of reward and fear of punishment? It seems like an awfully bad reason to me - and it seems like the sort of reason a just God would disapprove of.
And is this even a good way to make decisions? If we look at the following puzzle, it seems that the calculation underlying Pascal’s Wager is not a good one. plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-stpetersburg/
Furthermore, is it right to say that if there is no God, atheism and theism have the same reward? Perhaps the atheist, having spent their life undeluded and following true principles, will have lead a more meaningful and better life.
Lastly, should we assign a nonzero possibility to the existence of God? If said God is logically impossible in some way, then no.
In other words, Pascal’s Wager is a load of bunk. Don’t use it.
E
EnterTheBowser
Guest
Kristina P.:
And even if a God is logically possible, there might remain good reasons to not believe in it. On one hand, if we have absolutely no evidence either for or against its existence, I would appeal to parsimony. But there might also be evidence against its existence - for example, pancreatic cancer and a loving God.
For certain kinds of God - the logically possible kind - then yes, it is possible that they exist. And it’s true, we do have accounts of miracles and revealed truths. But there are two problems here. First, while we might have accounts of miracles and revealed truths, we don’t have good evidence for these things. Second, we also have accounts of alien abductions, miracles performed by other gods (see Odyssey), and so forth.
And even if a God is logically possible, there might remain good reasons to not believe in it. On one hand, if we have absolutely no evidence either for or against its existence, I would appeal to parsimony. But there might also be evidence against its existence - for example, pancreatic cancer and a loving God.
K
Kristina_P
Guest
And… we agree. The difference is in interpretation of the evidence around us (and in differences in personal experience, of course). Considering that I believe faith to be a mystical gift, I’m not about to say that my interpretation is logically or rationally superior to anyone else’s. Also, presupposing the existence of a god, I find the Christian God to be most easily supportable, but that’s beside the point.
M
mikew262
Guest
I suppose my comment was condescending. I feel its true, but I understand how it would anger you. I apologize. Its a bad habit of mine when I feel I’m pounding my head against the wall trying to make a younger person understand something, and they don’t come around to my way of thinking. My bad.
FYI, I’m retired Air Force.
E
estesbob
Guest
Great Thinkers of the last 2,000 years
Jesus Christ-1-33 AD. Founded the Catholic Church, explained he was the Son of God. Died for our sins.
Augustine if Hippo. 354-430 AD Converted at 30 His writings on Scripture, morality and devotion to God and the Church are still read today.
John of the Cross 1542-1591 Great Sipritual and contemplative
author.
Thomas Aquinas-1225-1274 Brilliant theologist, writer and premiere Dr of the Church .Wrote “The City of God”
Copernicus. -1473 -1543 Devout Catholic Priest who advanced the theory that the planets orbit the Sun
Descartes -1596-1650 Catholic Philosopher famous for, among oher things, for his “proof” of the existence Of God -“I think, therefore I am…”
Edith Stein 1891-1942 Brilliant Jewish Intellectual she became an atheist and then converted to Catholocism and entered the Convent. Martyred at Auschwitz. Proclaimed Doctor of the Church
TySixtus-spent 8 months at sea where it was revealed to him that all those listed above we not great thinkers at all in that they believed and worshiped a non-existent God. Also determned that rock music brings as much joy as religion and god, if he does exist, is a baby killer.
Jesus Christ-1-33 AD. Founded the Catholic Church, explained he was the Son of God. Died for our sins.
Augustine if Hippo. 354-430 AD Converted at 30 His writings on Scripture, morality and devotion to God and the Church are still read today.
John of the Cross 1542-1591 Great Sipritual and contemplative
author.
Thomas Aquinas-1225-1274 Brilliant theologist, writer and premiere Dr of the Church .Wrote “The City of God”
Copernicus. -1473 -1543 Devout Catholic Priest who advanced the theory that the planets orbit the Sun
Descartes -1596-1650 Catholic Philosopher famous for, among oher things, for his “proof” of the existence Of God -“I think, therefore I am…”
Edith Stein 1891-1942 Brilliant Jewish Intellectual she became an atheist and then converted to Catholocism and entered the Convent. Martyred at Auschwitz. Proclaimed Doctor of the Church
TySixtus-spent 8 months at sea where it was revealed to him that all those listed above we not great thinkers at all in that they believed and worshiped a non-existent God. Also determned that rock music brings as much joy as religion and god, if he does exist, is a baby killer.
B
buffalo
Guest
Progress! #3 actually does follow. If we could know everything there is to know about the universe wwe would be God by definition for God is all knowing.
#2 - Science made the definition not I. If you must wrestle with the scientists about this one.
Any belief about the universe is not valid. The universe can be only one way to be true.
Back to the Catholic Catechism on this one - [34](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/34.htm’)
The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.10
K
Kristina_P
Guest
This is not advancing the discussion, nor is it an example of Christian charity. I know we can all get a little overheated, and I’ve certainly been terse, but there’s no reason to get personal. Besides, there’s a long list of great thinkers who didn’t believe in a god or who believed in a different god from ours.
M
mikew262
Guest
While I’m sure Ty won’t appreciate it, your comment speaks volumes and plus is a little humorous. :clapping:
M
mikew262
Guest
Kristina P.:
Its not my comment, but point taken. Thanks for the attitude adjustment.
E
estesbob
Guest
Kristina P.:
You advance the discusison any way you want. My opinion is there is not a discussion to advance. Tysixtus has already stated no one can prove the exisitence of God to his satisfaction-which is of course part and parcel of the the usual cut n paste atheist talking points that passes for deabte on this topic…
Oh really-so I am to give as much credence to the rants of a newly proclaimed atheist as i am the people I listed? I think not.
You advance the discusison any way you want. My opinion is there is not a discussion to advance. Tysixtus has already stated no one can prove the exisitence of God to his satisfaction-which is of course part and parcel of the the usual cut n paste atheist talking points that passes for deabte on this topic…
K
Kristina_P
Guest
I didn’t say you should give his remarks equal credence, but you should give him respect as a human being. Your opinions on the discussion are fine. I also think it’s rather pointless. But your unkind attack was not fine behavior for a Christian. Keep in mind that while you may not respect his arguments, TySixtus is a person with a soul, just like you, and he matters to God.
Ah, I see he has added that I should save my lectures…
E
estesbob
Guest
Kristina P.:
BTW-I just read you profile. Thank you for your service to our country.
E
estesbob
Guest
Kristina P. said:
And just as quickly dropped…
E
EnterTheBowser
Guest
I don’t mean to comment on the “bad vibes” present in this forum, but I do want to make a factual correction to the post regarding great thinkers. Descartes’s statement “Cogito ergo sum” or “I think, therefore I am” was not intended as a proof of the existence of God. It was intended to be the one thing that no person could ever doubt - their own existence.
On to more important matters.
buffalo:
I’d also like to see some support from a philosopher of science, or a scientist for that matter, for 2, before you claim that it is part of the definition of science.
And the argument you present:
1-If we could know everything, then we’d be omniscient
2-If we were omniscient, we’d be God
3-Therefore we can’t know everything
is not a good argument. Additionally, it is a strawman - I did not assert that we can know every fact. But knowing every fact is a bit different from understanding how the universe operates - understanding the basic laws of physics.
Katrina: I am curious. What do you mean by “faith is a mystical gift”?
On to more important matters.
To begin with, at most the catechism you quote is a version of the cosmological argument, worded in a rather obtuse way. The problem is that it brings nothing to the discussion - I’ve attacked the cosmological argument, so you ought to defend it, rather than restate it.
I’d also like to see some support from a philosopher of science, or a scientist for that matter, for 2, before you claim that it is part of the definition of science.
And the argument you present:
1-If we could know everything, then we’d be omniscient
2-If we were omniscient, we’d be God
3-Therefore we can’t know everything
is not a good argument. Additionally, it is a strawman - I did not assert that we can know every fact. But knowing every fact is a bit different from understanding how the universe operates - understanding the basic laws of physics.
Katrina: I am curious. What do you mean by “faith is a mystical gift”?
- Status