Who am I? Why am I here?

[Mijoy2]

PLP:

I’ve chosen these two arguments only on their apparent popularity: They were the first two arguments for the existence of God promulgated in depth in my threads. As I intend to continue posting as long as I have something to say (and, of course, so long as I am welcome here), I’ll get to other arguments in the fullness of time…

Yeah but PW is not a debate targeted toward “does God exist” it is a debate over whether it is rational to allow the theory of PW to influence ones decision to attempt to believe, if one does not. Although it’s an interesting topic, it doesn’t work towards Gods existence.

PLP:

It’s fun and rewarding to find out with confidence that a particular line of discussion is indeed a dead end. As Sherlock Holmes said, “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth.” Of course, Doyle wasn’t a philosopher, and Holmes’ “Law” is an oversimplification (and, of course, has a hidden assumption of naturalism),.

I can see that. Of course I wouldn’t argue with Sherlock Holmes. Not being one for reading novels I have a question. Did Sherlock Holmes really exist?

PLP:

I still do believe that the search for truth is, in no small part, a process of elimination of at least the implausible.

True, although there is likely to be lots of items remaining that are not deemed implausible. I look forward it.

 

[Maranatha]

PLP:

This is simply not the case. It’s helpful to understand the history of Einstein’s ToR.

Maxwell’s theory became mathematically “ugly” under certain kinds of motion and accelleration. Lorentz made an ad hoc patch to the theory to fix the mathematical ugliness, but it was without any sort of physical justification from first principles.

Einstein put the Lorentz contraction on a firm physical basis with the Special Theory of Relativity, but it made physical predictions far beyond electromagnetism. Of course the General Theory of Relativity brought the SToR to accellerating reference frames and constructed a theory of gravity since, according to the GToR, gravity is equivalent to accelleration.

However, Einstein’s theories of Relativity were a matter of great controversy for decades. Einstein won his Nobel primarily on the basis of his work on Quantum Mechanics and not Relativity. Scientists todeay are pretty confident about S&GTor, but even so, they still do test it.

The follow if from: Putting Relativity to the Test
Earthbound Redshift
In 1960, Robert V. Pound and Glen A. Rebka demonstrated that a beam of very high energy gamma rays was ever so slightly redshifted as it climbed out of Earth’s gravity and up an elevator shaft in the Jefferson Tower physics building at Harvard University. The redshift predicted by Einstein’s Field Equations for the 74 ft. tall tower was but two parts in a thousand trillion. The gravitational redshift detected came within ten percent of the computed value. Quite a feat!

The only scientific theory I know about which has received wide support without direct testing is Hawking’s Theory of Black Hole Radiation. However, that theory is accepted without direct evidential support only because it derives straightforwardly from ordinary QM and GToR, which both have strong evidential support. Even so, if we ever get our hands on a black hole, you can bet your house that testing Hawking Radiation will be a top priority.

Reading the history from the same site quoted above clearly shows the geneal acceptance of the GToR, logically proved, before experimentation. It was however observed to be consistent with reality. Your insistence that labratory proof was required before rational acceptance does not seem to be the case.

All science requires experimental support and evidential argument. Although a scientific theory must by logically coherent, logical argument without appeal to experiment can establish scientific truth under only the most narrow, limited circumstances noted above. And under those circumstances, no scientific theory can ever logically prove something fundamental.

Of course not, on both counts. But it’s simply not a component of my own ethical beliefs that it is good to have free will to accept or reject the existence of an entity. I simply do not see rational adherence to fact as objectionably coercive, and I’m simply mystified by the argument that it should be “good” to be free to ignore any fact about the world.

We do have the option to choose how rational we are going to be. Some choose superstition. Some choose balanced rational observation and use of logic. Some choose to require tangible proof and reject logic and observation as the sole basis for proof. The fact that we are rational creatures, and can choose what level of logic is reasonable, is en extraordinary occurrence in nature.

 

[Maranatha]

PLP:

I think it would be helpful here for you to understand the terminology I use with philosophical discussions.

An argument is any set of statements intended to rationally persuade the reader to the conclusion.

A proof is a special kind of argument, an argument which consists of a rigorous logical deduction from premises to a conclusion (a.k.a. theorem). It’s important to note that from this definition, it follows that you cannot “prove” your fundamental premises, since your fundamental premises are not derived from other premises; if they were derived, they would not be fundamental.

We know that if you can prove two contradictory conclusions from the same set of premises, then the premises themselves contain an internal contradiction. Internally contradictory premises are typically seen as a Bad Thing.

What is most discussed in philosophy are those selfsame fundamental premises. Since “argument” is a more general term than proof, you can argue for fundamental premises even though you cannot, by definition, “prove” them.

For instance, most scientific theories are, structurally, sets of premises. The argument in favor of a scientific theory is that the theory forms the simplest set of premises from which one can derive all the observed evidence. This is not a “proof”, because you are not deriving the scientific theory from any premises. You can, at best, prove that the theory does entail the evidence, but that doesn’t prove the theory true in the deductive sense.

If you merely substitute “argument” and make the quoted sentence: “I wouldn’t call conflicting arguments bad, it just increases uncertainty,” then it becomes uncontroversially acceptable.

You are, of course, free to use whatever terminology you wish, and I’ll just substitute “argument” for “proof” in my own mind when I read your posts, but I think my terminology is a little closer to canonical philosophical usage.

Since proofs are a subset of arguments, I agree you can use the term accurately.

I’m using the most common definition of proof:

1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

Now, if I were to agree that the arguments did not raise to the level of proofs, then I would implicitly concede the debate. I hope you can excuse me if I continue to use the term proof and I will certainly not begrudge your continued use of the term argument.

Indeed.

Do you mean “unreasonable” in the sense of immoderate? Or in the sense of irrational, i.e. contrary to sense and logic? The “correct” level of moderation is usually a matter of subjective opinion. To shamelessy rip off Barry Goldwater, immoderation in the pursuit of truth is no vice, at least not in my opinion.

As an atheist, I’m “demanding” only some reason to doubt atheism to switch my position to agnostic, and I’m demanding only the preponderance of evidence (the weakest standard of legal proof) to conclude theism. I consider this position both moderate and rational.

It is interesting that our universe holds only the weakest proof of the existence of the supernatural. It does leave enough room for doubt so that we have the free will to choose. Ultimately, if our purpose is to love God, pure love requires a choice. Our environment seems to be perfectly setup to allow for this exercise of free will.

 

[Mijoy2]

Maranatha:

.

It is interesting that our universe holds only the weakest proof of the existence of the supernatural. It does leave enough room for doubt so that we have the free will to choose. Ultimately, if our purpose is to love God, pure love requires a choice. Our environment seems to be perfectly setup to allow for this exercise of free will.

Good point and well said.

Sorry though Maranatha…Pats next week!

 

[Maranatha]

PLP:

On the one hand, I don’t believe a comparison of Robertson and Aquinas is at all justified. Unlike Aquinas, Robertson is a greedy, megalomaniac lunatic with a double-digit IQ; he’s also probably a hypocrite to his core.

I believe your being a bit uncharitable toward Rev. Robertson. For one thing, he probably didn’t get to his current position with only a double digit IQ.

On the other hand, someone who says, “That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly, they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell,” might not be held, especially by atheists, to be the most moral person who ever existed.

We are digressing in to theology but, if the circumstance of the damned is ultimately of their own choice, given the amount of inner enlightenment and grace gifted from God, then the moral statement is perfectly appropriate.

As Catholics, we don’t judge the eventual destination of anyone’s soul. You, as an atheist, may not have been given the gifts needed to acknowledge God’s existence. Your apparent moral and ethical orientation and hyper-active search for the truth may be the best you can do with the gifts you have been given. If that is the case, you will are implicitly accepted in to the mystical universal church and would obtain salvation. If we do meet in an afterlife, I look you up and we’ll have a good laugh.

 

[Maranatha]

Mijoy2:

Good point and well said.

Sorry though Maranatha…Pats next week!

Denver’s the Rodney Dangerfield of the NFL this year but that is why they play the game.

 

[reen12]

Hi, Aquinas_1

quote: Aquinas_1

Im not saying that we could possibly understand the things of God, we need faith, but our faith does not contradict rational thought reason. as i said before faith is supra rational.

OK, I’m with you on the above! :tiphat:

Thanks for your patience, in explaining, in more detail, what
you hold.
“…faith does not contradict rational thought…”

I get exasperated, at times, because - the longer I live -
the more clearly I see that I cannot “reason” anyone
into faith. Yet faith is not un-reasonable.

And, like you, I don’t need “proofs” for God’s existence.
I just look around at the complexity of the world and
think: this is no “accident.”

Or, as St. Thomas put it - as you noted:
Everything that exists has a cause…

Perhaps it would interest you to know that I studied
philosophy in order to discover what human beings
could know - with certainty - through unaided reason.

Let’s just say I was under-whelmed.

Best wishes, Anonymous_1,

reen12

 

[PLP]

Maranatha:

I believe your being a bit uncharitable toward Rev. Robertson. For one thing, he probably didn’t get to his current position with only a double digit IQ.

True, I’ve never seen the results of an IQ test. Even so, he doesn’t appear to be the most… intellectual… person I’ve heard speak.

If that is the case, you will are implicitly accepted in to the mystical universal church and would obtain salvation. If we do meet in an afterlife, I look you up and we’ll have a good laugh.

We will indeed! The first round is on me.

 

[PLP]

reen12:

Perhaps it would interest you to know that I studied
philosophy in order to discover what human beings
could know - with certainty - through unaided reason.

Let’s just say I was under-whelmed.

Likewise. To the extent that philosophy aspires to discover certain knowledge, I believe it has utterly failed. To the extent that it is a continuing dialog on the subject of effective thought, there have been some notable successes.

 

[PLP]

Maranatha:

I’m using the most common definition of proof:

1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

The only type of argument that can, in my (sometimes not-so-humble) opinion, compel belief is rigorous deduction, and even deduction compels belief in the conclusion only to the degree that one believes the premises. Any lower standard can only more or less strongly encourages acceptance.

Now, if I were to agree that the arguments did not raise to the level of proofs, then I would implicitly concede the debate. I hope you can excuse me if I continue to use the term proof and I will certainly not begrudge your continued use of the term argument.

No worries. I’ll keep your terminology in mind!

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Maranatha:

…

It is interesting that our universe holds only the weakest proof of the existence of the supernatural. It does leave enough room for doubt so that we have the free will to choose. Ultimately, if our purpose is to love God, pure love requires a choice. Our environment seems to be perfectly setup to allow for this exercise of free will.

I believe I previously mentioned that there is a definite distinction between acknowleding that God exists and choosing to love God (purely). That being the case, there might indeed be overwhelming evidence and argument in favor of theism without a corresponding loss of freedom to choose to love God (or not).

 

[Maranatha]

Sparetherod:

Maranatha on Aquinas:

No, he wasn’t, and I have a fair grasp of history. Rebellious groups are one thing…people like me and heretics in general are another. Aquinas made no distinction. What if Bush decided to exterminate Mormons for their heresy? Aquinas would have had no problem with that. Apparently the Catholic Church now would, and has apologized for the Inquisition. Why did they apologize?OK, how do they differ? I can learn something here.

Now, you are comparing the policies of Aquinas and Bush, and I believe you ranging far of the main topics of this thread. This may be a good topic for a different thread. If you do open a new thread on St. Thomas Aquinas’ support for capital punishment in the Middle Ages, I’d only ask that you be polite when discussing Saints of the Catholic Church.

I did not say religious wars are the main reason for unbelief. Likewise, secular wars are not the main reason for belief. In fact truly religious wars may be debatably rare. Religion does foster contempt for the “other”, and helps motivate wars that are fought for other reasons. Even when christians have fought each other they try to convince themselves that the enemy aren’t real christians. People, on the other hand, have no reason to kill for atheism. Communists fought for communism, not atheism; these irrational people made communism their faithbased religion, and likewise had disdain for all others. Nazism was an irrational cause held to by many christians as well as atheists. I do not say all believers are fanatics…and you should not lump atheists with fanatical causes and tell me I should take responsibility. Atheism fosters no cause in itself. Religion, like nationalism, does foster the “us vs them” mentality.

You did not comment on my proposition that strife is inevitable with the current world clash of religions that are mutually incompatible. If actual power can be put in secular hands we may avoid some problems, but as I stated there will always be fanatics as long as there are people who can interpret “God’s word” to not tolerate the heretic or infidel. Again, I put Aquinas in that group as well as Osama. Different religion, same results.

Even in the secular societies, religious hierarchies have resisted the more liberal attitudes and freedoms we now take for granted, and then amazingly want to take credit for them now.

This is wrong, as stated by Washington himself. Google the Treaty of Tripoli. Blanket statements that this country was founded on christian principles are patently false. How many of the Ten Commandments are in the Constitution? Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Payne among others were not christians. Preachers in the 1820’s were still wondering when we would have a christian president. The first six were not; they did not believe in the divinity of Christ. Don’t believe me? Google and you shall find. Jefferson said " a priest ridden society shall not long keep it’s freedom." And he was talking specifically about Catholics. Adams election was fought by many sects because they thought he was an atheist. Never hear any of this in sunday school, do you? A bunch of deists and atheists were the only ones able to step outside of dogma and give us a country that had the possibility of avoiding Aquinas’ religious fervor.

I am not trying to figure out Catholics. Don’t take it personally, but it’s the larger question of whether this world will survive it’s religious differences that I am concerned about. Think about it, if most Catholics, and everybody else, simply held to ethics and science, Robertson would not be a fundamentalist christian…he would simply be a deluded idiot and we would all tell him so.

Another good topic for a thread. From my point of view, when societies abandon the mainstream religions, which generally all teach to a great extent similar morals, they almost immediately revert to a culture of death.

The founders of the United States were definitely secular but the vast majority of the people and laws were founded on Christian morals. When, by judicial decree, we abandoned our moral basis, we quickly degraded to a situation where we implemented a genocide against the preborn.

In the French Enlightenment, Christian morals were abandoned almost immediately and the Reign of Terror prevailed. When the Communists government came to power, hugh portions of the population were exterminated.

I’d be happy to discuss further, in a thread that’s on topic.

 

[Maranatha]

PLP:

More will be coming soon. My son is in town for the next week, which will limit my posting time, especially in the evening. Please be patient!

Thanks for the thread so far. It been enjoyable. I’ll also continue posting on this and related threads as time allows.

 

[Maranatha]

EnterTheBowser:

I believe I previously mentioned that there is a definite distinction between acknowleding that God exists and choosing to love God (purely). That being the case, there might indeed be overwhelming evidence and argument in favor of theism without a corresponding loss of freedom to choose to love God (or not).

It seems only logical to conclude that if you had certainty of the existence of your omnipotent and omniscient creator, your choice of whether or not to love Him would be diminished.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Maranatha:

It seems only logical to conclude that if you had certainty of the existence of your omnipotent and omniscient creator, your choice of whether or not to love Him would be diminished.

Why? I don’t mean to be obstinate; I just don’t see the point.

 

[hurst]

Maranatha:

Originally Posted by EnterTheBowser
I believe I previously mentioned that there is a definite distinction between acknowleding that God exists and choosing to love God (purely). That being the case, there might indeed be overwhelming evidence and argument in favor of theism without a corresponding loss of freedom to choose to love God (or not).

It seems only logical to conclude that if you had certainty of the existence of your omnipotent and omniscient creator, your choice of whether or not to love Him would be diminished.

I have to say here that I agree with EnterTheBowser. Knowing that He must exist is not the same as actually knowing and loving Him.

Besides, the kind of certainty we are talking about is natural certainty. This is not opposed to supernatural faith.

In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote:

The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature

Summa Theologica
Whether it can be demonstrated that God exists? Reply to Objection 1
catholicprimer.org/summa/FP/FP002.html#FPQ2A2THEP1

Also, it is Catholic Dogma (cf. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, pp. 18-23)

1. God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things (De fide)

So, it does still allow for supernatural faith.

2. God’s existence is not merely an object of natural rational knowledge, but also an object of supernatural faith (De fide)

Finally, being able to naturally know that God exists is not the same as being able to naturally know God:

3. Our natural knowledge of God in this world is not an immediate, intuitive cognition, but a mediate, abstractive knowledge, because it is attained through the knowledge of creatures (Sent. certa)

4. Our knowledge of God here below is not proper (cognitio propria) but analogical (cognitio analoga or cognitio analogica) (Sent. certa)

5. God’s Nature is incomprehensible to men (De fide)

Now, what is interesting is that the Church teaches about the supernatural.

1. 
   *] The blessed in Heaven possess an immediate intuitive knowledge of the Divine Essence (De fide)
   *] The Immediate Vision of God transcends the natural power of cognition of the human soul, and is therefore supernatural (De fide)
   *] The soul, for the Immediate Vision of God, requires the light of glory (De fide)
   *] God’s Essence is also incomprehensible to the blessed in Heaven (De fide)
   
   It is that last one that, to me, is astounding and telling.
   
   hurst

 

[Neithan]

Interesting thread!
If these questions have already been answered, please direct me to where (as in post #):

PLP,

you do not believe that God exists. How do you discover existence? Is it purely through your five senses? Is all of existence directly perceivable?

Consider the fact that there exist things which you and I *know *exist by our senses, which many creatures can not know, and even many people who lack these five sense can only accept on faith. For example, how would you convince a man born blind of the existence of the moon and stars, of light in general? He cannot hear, taste, smell or feel them. If a man born blind was a strict empiricist, he would reject the existence of many things which those of us blessed with all five senses accept without question.

It would not be wise for a man born blind to base his reason purely on his four senses, since he cannot perceive everything that exists. He would need to rely on natural reason and faith that light exists–there are humans who live and move about him with much greater ease than he does, for example, and he could then quite naturally conclude that they possess an ability which he doesn’t. It is by natural reason that the man comes to accept the existence of sight. It is by faith that he comes to accept the existence of things which sight indirectly reveals to him–light–through the mediation of his human family and friends.

In much the same way do many of us theists see the reasonability of the existence of God. That we cannot directly perceive God is not a very good basis for disbelieving in his existence, since that leaves us with the problem of existence itself–where does everything come from? and why? etc. the classic cosmological and teleological arguments for God still stand as perfectly reasonable. The general lack of any atheistic teleological argument is a rather large hole in reasoning for me personally. Frankly, theism has more positive arguments in favour of it than atheism. The only real positive argument which I (in my admittedly limited experience) have come across in favour of atheism is the Problem of Evil. Even that can not really get any farther than a minimalist deism.
The atheist’s main argument is ‘I can not see, hear, feel, taste, or smell it… therefore it does not exist.’ However, you cannot see, hear, feel, taste, or smell the thoughts/ideas in my mind—but they exist nevertheless, they are real. You logically deduce that they exist, not sensibly induce.

Basically, I’m curious about the lack of evidence which you reference–is it the lack of directly perceivable evidence? If so, how do you justify your conclusion (the positive assertion of no God) in light of the fact that not everything which you yourself know to exist is directly perceivable to everyone (namely, those who lack one or more of the normal five human senses)?
Is it a lack of logical, resonable evidence? If so, where is this lack as you understand it?

 

[Sparetherod]

From my point of view, when societies abandon the mainstream religions, which generally all teach to a great extent similar morals, they almost immediately revert to a culture of death.

If your point of view sees the successful secular post-christian societies of Europe…as cultures of death, then you must be right.
Neither of us seems to be making headway, and I sense your annoyance, so I will say good bye.

Best of luck,
Rod

 

[Sparetherod]

It is by natural reason that the man comes to accept the existence of sight. It is by faith that he comes to accept the existence of things which sight indirectly reveals to him–light–through the mediation of his human family and friends.

I would argue that it is not faith but reason also which allows him to conclude that everyone is not lying to him. Imagine his dilemma if only 50% of people told him there were really stars in the sky. If neither could prove the position, should he believe it just because some say it just feels good to believe?

In much the same way do many of us theists see the reasonability of the existence of God.

90% say it feels good to believe. That still doesn’t make it true, does it? Since your proofs fall flat, us blind folks still only have the feel good argument to go by.

The atheist’s main argument is ‘I can not see, hear, feel, taste, or smell it… therefore it does not exist.’ However, you cannot see, hear, feel, taste, or smell the thoughts/ideas in my mind—but they exist nevertheless, they are real. You logically deduce that they exist, not sensibly induce

Be careful of bad analogies, they over simplify and look foolish.
Actually I can sense the consequences of your thoughts in what they produce…actions, writings, etc. This is the same way I deduce that magnetism is real…it interacts with us. You deduce a god that has no real interaction with us…I reject that, as I would a unicorn, fairy, etc.

Later.

 

[john_doran]

Sparetherod:

Actually I can sense the consequences of your thoughts in what they produce…actions, writings, etc. This is the same way I deduce that magnetism is real…it interacts with us.

as a matter of fact, you cannot perceive other minds - you infer their existence, but cannot deductively prove it. just as you cannot deductively prove the reiability of youre senses, or the existence of the real world. and so on.

Sparetherod:

You deduce a god that has no real interaction with us…I reject that, as I would a unicorn, fairy, etc.

not true - (catholic) theists perceive what they take to the the actions of god all the time, in the same way that you believe you perceive the interactions of human minds. the problem, of course, is that you think you have a better argument for belief in other minds than we do for belief in god…

can you provide it for us?