Who am I? Why am I here?

[Maranatha]

PLP:

Repeatable experiments would be good! The preponderance of evidence is always a good bet. Generally, logic can’t “prove” anything other than whether or not a concept is coherent. I don’t think logic by itself can’t prove anything true.

Albert Einstein proved the Theory of Relativity logically before repeatable experiments were able to duplicate that proof in the laboratory. Most scientists accepted the logic proof as reality. You standard for proofs is more rigorous than most reasonable people.

Yes, I understand the concept of free will. No, evidence, even evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt does not affect free will. Evidence can show only what is or is not (or what could be and what cannot be); free will is about choosing between two things that are or could be. I could know the truth of God’s existence and still have the free will whether or not to obey.

Yes, I understand you would still have the free will to obey but if you had incontrovertible evidence of God’s existence would you have free will to believe in his existence. Are you free (rationally) to believe in the existence of the earth?

 

[PLP]

RyanL:

Another side question: Is there a site / download where I can hear a strong atheists and weak atheists debate?

I’m unsure about the propriety of off-site links. You can Google for the Internet Infidels Discussion Board. The Secular Web Library (with which IIDB is affiliated) is also a great source for publications by and for nontheists.

 

[Maranatha]

PLP:

It’s definitely a “bad” thing to have proofs of contradictory propositions. Numbers of proofs are not evidence; a single proof is sufficient evidence, the existence of two proofs with contradictory conclusions means that your axioms are contradictory. Preponderance of evidence is essentially an argument from probability.

I wouldn’t call conflicting proofs bad, it just increases uncertainty. In order to once again reduce the uncertainty, we need to explore the arguments against each proof for and against. We can come to a reasonable conclusion by weighing the strength of each argument. Among the proofs for God’s existence, there are stronger and weaker proofs. The arguments against these proofs also range in strength. Since there is only one proof against the existence of God, the strength of the arguments against this proof are critical.

There are two separate senses of “reasonable”: logical and moderate. Just because some position is more moderate does not mean it is more logical.

Did you mean more logical or more reasonable. I think we can agree that most entries on this thread have been logical. The atheists are demanding an unreasonable level of proof.

 

[Sparetherod]

Hey gang,
Sorry…my server has been down since yesterday evening. And sorry if I got a little snippy again…it’s just that tdandh26 is a little annoying with his "you mean to tell meeee…blah, blah…approach to things. Somebody I know really needs to find some info on this thing called evolution besides what the Discovery Institute is putting out. Just wait, I’m sure we’ll all hear about how ridiculous it is, again.

I want to let you know where I’m coming from, since I think there are still questions. I am an atheist simply because I see no real good reason to believe in any god. This does not mean I would not like to believe in some all benevolent god or an eternity of bliss. I certainly don’t hate any god (I would have to know one) and I certainly don’t fear one for what he might do to me. Actually, I would love to see evidence for a god, and UFOs, and ESP, and astral projection, and psychokinesis, and the list goes on. They’re all in the same category for me. Fancifull ideas with no evidence other than testimonials, tradition, faith, or misinterpretation of natural phenomena.
The idea of a god may be a little different, precisely for the reason more people hold to it. Our brains are wired to see causality. All things happen for a reason, don’t they? We are even capable of projecting reasoning or intention onto others; a very helpful survival tool in a social creature. We are also very aware of the difference between living and non-living things. Death confuses us. What happens to the life, the intentions, of the dead? Might it be that it still exists around us, still has intentions, and interacts with us…a nonscientific mind might find this reasonable, and certainly early man saw meaning and intention behind many natural phenomena. Coincidences would drive them crazy. “Hey, I was hoping that guy would just die…and then that tree feel on him.” “Man, the last time we danced, it rained!!” Couple the fact that we tend to presume causes, spirits, intentions, the “evidence” of coincidence, with story telling…and voila, you got religion. It all seemed reasonable to early man, and developed in all cultures, because as I said, we’re wired for it. Religions evolved as well, animism and ancestor worship, to polytheism and then monotheism. With modern religion we don’t even have to give up the spirits of our ancestors…".we’re all going to heaven…but wait, thats only if you believe and behave, because after all, the gods and spirits want something…they still have intentions." Does that make any of this true or real? Of course not. Any religious claim to how the world works can be put to the test, except for the very existence of spirits and gods, which is after all only an idea without attributes. All claims of interaction with us can and have been put to the scientific test and found lacking, which is why we hardly think it’s reasonable to sacrifice goats any more. Prayer and occasional coincidental results still have a powerful influence on the gullible, though. Before the scientific method came along the human mind had no real way of testing his religious theories, we now do and they don’t work, except for the undoubted sense of well being that some claim from belief itself. Can that be replicated in other ways? Yes. So when the magical thinking is revealed as false, all we are left with is the basic question…could gods exist? Who knows? Anyone who caims to have the answer, needs to start their own personal religion, because no two people will believe in the same god. And I would prefer that they kept it to themselves (when it comes to public policy) since they are not likely to have the evidence I will need to believe in their god. Again appeals to faith, tradition, authority, logic word games, emotions, testimonials, all work on many people because they want or need to believe. I’m sure it seems undeniable to them. It’s not. And being an unbeliever is a tremendous freeing of the mind to explore the world and not a release from one’s personal feeling of obligation to act in an ethical way. Contrary to what some think, I do not feel free to murder or rape because life has no meaning to me. I am free, however, to disagree with the false morality I see in the world…honor killings, lack of condom use furthering the HIV crisis, etc.

I’ll still get to that discussion of evolved ethics at some point.

Later.

 

[reen12]

quote: PLP

I enjoy ideas for their own sake, and I enjoy discussing ideas. It’s my hobby. I also believe I have an ethical duty to seek the truth. Discussions about God touch on all areas of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology (knowlege), ontology (existence), ethics, even aesthetics. While I’m no Hegelian, the concept of thesis-antithesis-synthesis is appealing: Discussion is at its most vigorous and enlightening when an idea is considered in light of its opposite

Interesting opening posts, I must say.

As for employing the dialectic, as you say:

I do not believe anything to be true or false with certainty. Everything which I believe to be true or believe to be false is subject to revision on a new argument or new evidence. Contrawise, the metaphysical ideas that I have which are not subject to revision by argument or evidence I do not believe to be either true or false; they are opinions

What I found of particular interest was the last part of the
last line, in the quote, directly above:

…I do not believe to be either true or false; they are opinions

Two observations:

-the definition of faith : assertions held to be true as a
function of ‘belief.’
Christ: “Blessed are they who have not seen and yet believed.”

-where you employ ‘opinon,’ I prefer the term ‘assertions.’

‘Opinion’ to me, is too vague a noun to serve,
in this instance, IMO. :tiphat:

And, of course - as, no doubt, you are aware - you are
hardly solitary, in your current posture -----> i.e. ‘self-label[ed]’ atheist.
quote: PLP

…is subject to revision on a new argument or new evidence.

One of the most renowned Christians of the 20th c.
was C.S. Lewis, an Oxford don. A compleat atheist, he wrote:
I got on the motorbike, to go visist the zoo. When I started out,
I was an atheist. When I arrived, I believed in God.
i.e. a personal God, interested in the welfare of humans,
who, as God, was in a postion to make demands, in terms
of human behavior.]

The anecdote is just that: an anecdote. Still, interesting,
I think, in terms of a giant intellect, who - based on no
“proof” or “evidence” at all - suddenly ‘believed.’
[If I can find the energy, it would be interesting to
make further note on the definition of the word “e-vidence.”
The word “seen” is employed, in the gospels, at
critical junctures, I think. ]

If one consults Lewis’ biography, even I could construct
a solid case for: early loss in life pre-disposed him to
‘want’ to ‘believe.’ Still, it’s interesting, I think.

Unlike many here on the forums, I would guess, it is
immaterial to me what a given person believes - what
posture is adopted toward the existence/non-existence
of a deity or deities…“personal” or “impersonal.”

What is, is. That is both the definition of reality and
truth - in terms both epistemological and metaphysical.
[And, you’re correct, in that, even aesthetics is affected.]

The fact that I believe in a personal Deity is in no way causal,
in terms of the existence of such an entity.
Either a deity -personal or otherwise - exists or does
not exist.

In any case, I hope that you are enjoying the dialectical
exchange.

Best,

reen12

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Maranatha:

I wouldn’t call conflicting proofs bad, it just increases uncertainty. In order to once again reduce the uncertainty, we need to explore the arguments against each proof for and against. We can come to a reasonable conclusion by weighing the strength of each argument. Among the proofs for God’s existence, there are stronger and weaker proofs. The arguments against these proofs also range in strength. Since there is only one proof against the existence of God, the strength of the arguments against this proof are critical.

…

This is my own personal beef, but it always annoys me when people call arguments like these “proofs.” To prove something is a very specific activity that is hard to undertake outside of mathematics. Proofs cannot range in strength; they either work (and are proofs) or fail (and only purport to be proofs). At this level of philosophical discussion, they’re all arguments. Proof implies a certainity and an indubitability that simply is lacking.

That aside (it’s really more of a linguistic complaint than a philosophical one), I would like to know - what do you think the sole argument against the existence of God is?

 

[Anonymous_1]

EnterTheBowser:

That was not an argument.

I was not referring to a logical argument int he sense of a premise and a conclusion…it is an argument, it is not a deductive argument. But I believe it is rational never the less

plp:

suppose you must call me a liar then, since I do in fact assert with confidence that there is no god. This would be unfortunate, because calling someone a liar is not particularly conducive to maintaining the good will necessary for civil discussion.

While I’m not offended per se by anything, there is little value to me in conversing with someone who does not take my sincerity for granted. With all good luck, you’re simply using a hastily chosen turn of phrase and we will be able to continue the discussion as adults.

Quote:
How could you tell me there is no God without perfect knowledge?

You are conflating confidence with certainty. These words have two different meanings.

Quote:
If you are not completley indifferent to this question, then you must take up agnosticism, any other choice would be absurd. Either you really do not care if there is a God, or you simply do not know. And this must be the foundation: we do not know but we want to. From here we can examine the evidence around us.

Here you are conflating skepticism with indecision. Even though I believe certain things, even though I know certain things, I could still be wrong. The idea that one cannot “know” a false belief is, in my opinion, a giant philosophical red-herring. One might equate “knowledge” with “certainty” and conclude therefore that no knowledge was possible, but there still needs to be a word for a reliable but sometimes fallible or incomplete methodology and to choose on the basis of that methodology to believe things to be true.

Another way of looking at it is that we can know things (i.e. have true beliefs justified for the “right” reasons), but we can’t know that we know any particular thing. It’s pretty easy in philosophy to get wound up in self-referential paradoxes, so you have to watch out.

It’s also noteworthy that, according to your methodology, it is absolutely impossible to know with certainty that God does exist as well; the only rational position for everyone is apatheism (not caring) or agnosticism. This conclusion argues against your own position.

What I was trying to get at PLP was not an attack of character but an attack of argument…

Im trying to point out that the statement There is no God is absurd…And No I dont believe that my proposition undermines my own position that there is a God, because I know there is a God with certainty, I believe there is irrefutable prrof for the existence of God for if there was not each of us would be justified in ignorance or unbelief and we could not be at fault for not knowing God or seeking to know Him or following His ways. Faith in complimentary to rason, it can not contradict it, but there are things we can not know by reason alone, this is what makes faith supra rational

Anyhoo, I do not want to argue you can not argue someone into faith…I believe that if you are truley seeking, you will find.

Im praying for ya’ll

hey do you guys like Sartre?

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Anonymous_1:

I was not referring to a logical argument int he sense of a premise and a conclusion…it is an argument, it is not a deductive argument. But I believe it is rational never the less.

…

Sorry, I realize I did not read what you wrote closely enough. I guess what I would then say is that evolution provides a very nice explanation of how the information in DNA accumulates, and makes no reference to a conscious designer.

hey do you guys like Sartre?

“The Stranger” was the only enjoyable book I read in high school English.

 

[Anonymous_1]

EnterTheBowser:

Sorry, I realize I did not read what you wrote closely enough. I guess what I would then say is that evolution provides a very nice explanation of how the information in DNA accumulates, and makes no reference to a conscious designer.

“The Stranger” was the only enjoyable book I read in high school English.

do you mean evolution in the neo darwinistic sense of unguided natural processes or do you mean evolution in the sense of a mechanism in palce under the guidance of a Creator to bring about the diversity and complxity of life and existence as we know it?

the efficacy, order and the sheer amount of data encoded in DNA is far superior to our best programming language, and I repeat the assertion that if SETI was to pick up a stream of data equitable to that found in DNA there would be no question: the source of this data was some intelligent life

I believe in a inductive sense that the evidence supports the proposal that it is more probable that existence is the result of purposeful creative wisdom of an omnipotent Creator than that of sheer accident.

In a deductive sense, take Aquainas’s five proofs as solid reason for believing int he existence of a Creator…what is really awesome when you take His deductive reasoning in light of the latest scientific evidence , and here

I know people will want to start arguing about oscillating universes and so on, but I believe no matter how we put it, existence needs to be accounted for.

i really enjoy apologetics because God has give us the ability to reason, and inquire and speculate, but i believe when we do these things they bring us closer to Him. They allow us to delight in His wisdom and in the Truth. Ive said it before Ill say it again I do not believe in an “Indian Giver” God, one who gives us this awesome gift of reason and curiosity and rational thought, and then asks us to forsake it for “blind faith”, as Josh McDowell puts it so eloquently, “My heart can not rejoice in what my mind rejects.”

 

[Anonymous_1]

Anonymous_1:

I was not referring to a logical argument int he sense of a premise and a conclusion…it is an argument, it is not a deductive argument. But I believe it is rational never the less

Im sorry If my statement was uncharitable, certainly not my intentions
What I was trying to get at PLP was not an attack of character but an attack of argument…
Im trying to point out that the statement There is no God is absurd…And No I dont believe that my proposition undermines my own position that there is a God, because I know there is a God with certainty, I believe there is irrefutable prrof for the existence of God for if there was not each of us would be justified in ignorance or unbelief and we could not be at fault for not knowing God or seeking to know Him or following His ways. Faith in complimentary to rason, it can not contradict it, but there are things we can not know by reason alone, this is what makes faith supra rational

Anyhoo, I do not want to argue you can not argue someone into faith…I believe that if you are truley seeking, you will find.

Im praying for ya’ll

hey do you guys like Sartre?

 

[Anonymous_1]

Anonymous_1:

I was not referring to a logical argument int he sense of a premise and a conclusion…it is an argument, it is not a deductive argument. But I believe it is rational never the less

Im sorry if my statement was uncharitable, it certainly was not my intention
What I was trying to get at PLP was not an attack of character but an attack of argument…

Im trying to point out that the statement There is no God is absurd…And No I dont believe that my proposition undermines my own position that there is a God, because I know there is a God with certainty, I believe there is irrefutable prrof for the existence of God for if there was not each of us would be justified in ignorance or unbelief and we could not be at fault for not knowing God or seeking to know Him or following His ways. Faith in complimentary to rason, it can not contradict it, but there are things we can not know by reason alone, this is what makes faith supra rational

Anyhoo, I do not want to argue you can not argue someone into faith…I believe that if you are truley seeking, you will find.

Im praying for ya’ll

hey do you guys like Sartre?

 

[reen12]

quote: Anonymous_1

Im trying to point out that the statement There is no God is absurd…

I beg to differ. That position is not *logically *‘absurd.’

St. Paul wrote, in one of his letters, in essence:
One cannot look around at the complexity of the
universe and not see God in this.

If one wishes to posit the absurdity of the “There is no God”
position, one would have to go with St. Paul.
But basing ‘absurdity’ on St. Paul is…wait for it! …
a faith-based assertion…and not unassailable - in strictly
logical terms.

For, if it were wholly teneble, logically, there might be no
individuals holding atheism. :tiphat:

When, *when *will given people of faith recognize the distinction
between faith and “proof,” a la logical positivism.
‘scientism’ ? ]

The CC teaches that faith is a gift of grace.

The only approach that I’ve seen, that may give
atheists pause, in terms of their stance, is Intelligent
Design. [especially the rotor on the ‘motor’
‘evidence.’ ]…*pace *St. Thomas and his ‘proofs’
for the existence of God.

And even ID would simply serve up an intelligent
Agent…not a personal God.

Faith is a gift of* grace*.

reen12 :tiphat:

 

[Lapsed]

EnterTheBowser:

Alright…

Pascal’s Wager runs as follows: the evidence concerning the existence of the Christian God is not certain either way. Additionally, we must choose whether to believe or not, because it’s an important question. So, which side should we take? We then look at a decision table which tells us the rewards in the four possible situations::

G exists__~G exists
Atheism___negative infinity_____some finite A
Theism___infinite_______some finite B

So obviously, regardless of how improbable the existence of God is, we should believe in God.

Now, I have said the following: the evidence is not conclusive either way regarding the existence of the God Sally. Sally is a “petty” God who wants us to believe in proposition X (which is also uncertain in the way that so much knowledge is ultimately uncertain). So we look at a decision table:

________Sally exists~Sally exists
Believe X_______infinite__________finite A
Disbelieve X____negative infinite____finite B

Following Pascal’s logic, it is a good idea to believe that X is true. But I can construct an identical argument for ~X. So if the form of Pascal’s Wager is correct, it is reasonable to believe both X and ~X (for some uncertain X). So the form of Pascal’s Wager is unsound.

As has already been pointed out, Pascal’s Wager constitutes neither an evidence nor a proof for the existence of God. It is rather an argument for living as though God exists irregardless of His actual existence.

That said, this deconstruction labours under the fallacy of the stolen concept. Pascal’s Wager is specific to the Christian God and is therefore only valid within its original context. When the underlying premise is removed, that the God in question is specifically the Christian God, the wager becomes invalid.

Where Pascal’s Wager actually fails is if when we die we find out Sally was in charge all along, in which case we all lose. Pascal’s wager only functions in an either/or environment, which was more or less the case in Pascal’s culture when he formulated his wager.

Under Pascal’s Wager, the atheist who hedges his bets by choosing to live as though Christianity is true regardless of his convictions is going to be in as much trouble as the rest of us if it turns out we Christians have been wrong all along and Sally is indeed a merciless god.

I’m forced to agree with the atheists that Pascal’s Wager doesn’t work. It’s a good thing my faith isn’t dependent on such twists of logic.

 

[reen12]

quote: lapsed

I’m forced to agree with the atheists that Pascal’s Wager doesn’t work. It’s a good thing my faith isn’t dependent on such twists of logic.

Glad to hear this…

reen12 :tiphat:

 

[Lapsed]

PLP:

Read my posts and you’ll find out at least what makes me tick. Atheists are hardly a monolithic bloc; we have a wide variety of opinions and beliefs.

If I thought atheists were a monolithic bloc, I wouldn’t have had to keep wondering after getting to know my first atheist.

I find one of the most curious things about humans is our abiltiy to look at the same things and come to such vastly different conclusions based on the same information. After all, I see the glass as half full…

 

[Anonymous_1]

reen12:

quote: Anonymous_1

I beg to differ. That position is not *logically *‘absurd.’

St. Paul wrote, in one of his letters, in essence:
One cannot look around at the complexity of the
universe and not see God in this.

If one wishes to posit the absurdity of the “There is no God”
position, one would have to go with St. Paul.
But basing ‘absurdity’ on St. Paul is…wait for it! …
a faith-based assertion…and not unassailable - in strictly
logical terms.

For, if it were wholly teneble, logically, there might be no
atheists. :tiphat:

When, *when *will people of faith recognize the distinction
between faith and “proof,” a la logical positivism.
‘scientism’ ? ]

The CC teaches that faith is a gift of grace.

The only approach that I’ve seen, that may give
atheists pause, in terms of their stance, is Intelligent
Design. [especially the rotor on the ‘motor’
‘evidence.’ ]…*pace *St. Thomas and his ‘proofs’
for the existence of God.

And even ID would simply serve up an intelligent
Agent…not a personal God.

Faith is a gift of* grace*.

reen12 :tiphat:

Going back to what I said earlier about there being both high probability of the existence of God using inductive reasoning…and what I hold to be irrefutable proof, the deductive reasoning of St. Thomas Aquainas…

However, I reaffirm my proposition that to say there is no God is absurd becasue without perfect knowledge one can not take this stance reasonably, I believe they are forced to at least agnosticism, or indifference. I understand people are attempting to undermine this argument by saying im confusing certainty with reasoned probabilit even though I disagree with this.

And if after examining the arguments presented by those who propogate Intelligent Design we come to the conclusion that there was a Intelligent Creator, we must then seek to know who this Creator is or be indifferent or take up the stance that this Creator is unknowable. The truth is that throughout history there have been uncountable ideas as to what God is like, and what He wants. And unless God Himself revealed Himself and His ways to us, we would each be justified in believing whatever we wanted, even indifference.

However, as a Catholic I assert that God has revealed Himself to us in a way that only He could, through the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy in the Person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Word made Flesh,the Manifestation of the Creator, the visible Image of the invisible God. And that God has approved and affirmed this person of Jesus through His Word, His Works, His virtue and by raising Him from the dead

faith is a gift of grace…
thus why i hold you can not argue someone into it…thus why I will pray for ya’ll

 

[Lapsed]

PLP:

Sure, I believe it’s knowable. I just don’t believe that I can be certain about it.

PLP, would you mind explaining this position further? It seems to me that knowledge without certainty is belief and not knowledge. Perhaps you could delineate your epistemology.

 

[reen12]

Dear lapsed,

Faith is the evidence of things unseen…St. Paul
Hebrews 11:1

usccb.org/nab/bible/hebrews/hebrews11.htm

Really, I think that the matter rests on the word
e-vidence. “Obvious…”

Best,

reen12

gotta go make lunch; I’ll be back

 

[Sparetherod]

I wouldn’t call conflicting proofs bad, it just increases uncertainty.

…to the point of making the results useless.

because I know there is a God with certainty, I believe there is irrefutable prrof for the existence of God for if there was not each of us would be justified in ignorance or unbelief and we could not be at fault for not knowing God or seeking to know Him or following His ways.

This certainty, with the follow up that others are guilty in their ignorance…and then dangerous, is precisely how Aquinas justified frying a few people a while back. Do not tell me it couldn’t happen again. What if Pat Robertson or even Aquinas had written our Constitution? I realize most believers here would consider themselves too moderate to allow such a thing to happen, but moderates are precisely the reason that extremist have a leg to stand on…you, the majority, essentially validate their belief in the Bible…and they have read it…and it does allow retribution against sinners and infidels of all sorts. Or was Aquinas insane? I do not know how secular societies will remain free if this is not rejected, and I do not know how, in a world of WMDs, we will survive the clash of religious beliefs that are mutually incompatible. Secularists like the founding fathers knew this. (many quotes if you’re interested) This inescapable tendancy to clash with the infidel is the inherent danger in religion that has gone way past the golden rule. Religion served a societal purpose when we where homogenous, but will be a constant source of strife in the secular world.

Sorry, but the insinuation that I am at fault for not believing, peeves me.

 

[Sparetherod]

However, I reaffirm my proposition that to say there is no God is absurd becasue without perfect knowledge one can not take this stance reasonably, I believe they are forced to at least agnosticism, or indifference.

I don’t really see any reason to belabor the point. If I say there is no god, or my couch will not stand up and talk to me…I am agnostic only to the point that I will not deny that I could be wrong.

The truth is that throughout history there have been uncountable ideas as to what God is like, and what He wants. And unless God Himself revealed Himself and His ways to us, we would each be justified in believing whatever we wanted, even indifference.

Why you think your faith is the only true one, is my question. You are an atheist when it comes to all other religions…they think you’re wrong…not just me.

The only approach that I’ve seen, that may give
atheists pause, in terms of their stance, is Intelligent
Design. [especially the rotor on the ‘motor’
'evidence.

This really gives no pause at all, as I am confident that there are natural explanations…as there is in this case, and any miracle you might name. It is telling though, how those of faith and the IDers (same people) are constantly hoping for real evidence to convince the rest of us. You want real proof too, not just logic word games. Say you get your proof…what was all that argument earlier about losing Free Will if evidence forces us to believe? Seems silly.

I’m forced to agree with the atheists that Pascal’s Wager doesn’t work.

Thanks.
[/quote]