Monday, 13 February 2012
-
A Friendly Response to "Is There a God?"
The following is a response to Nidan's post on Revelife: Is There a God?The Combatants
Our minds are indeed filled with great questions, most of which don't even begin to express the enormity of the task of providing accurate answers to those questions. One of the most humbling aspects of asking those questions is encountering the realization that we may not even be equipped to find the answers yet...or ever.
I really enjoyed the description of the three basic positions on the question of God's existence, primarily because it was more even-handed than most such descriptions. The list does omit some important distinctions, but it's pretty impossible to include them all if there's a character limit.
"On the question of God there are three basic positions. They are the Theist, the Agnostic, and the Atheist. Then in those positions people tend to lean on two sides.
- Theists lean from moderate to fundamentalist. (Though I prefer to use the word fanatic to describe them)
- Agnostics tend to lean towards theism or Atheism. (I lean theist)
- Atheists lean from moderate to fanatic as well. (Secular fanatic, specifically)"
So here they are, our contestants in the fight to answer what many people consider to be a great question, some consider to be an interesting question, and others consider to be a meaningless question. Who will win the battle?
The Battlefield
Nidan accurately points out that, in recent history, the public debate between theists and atheists has taken place largely on the battlefield of the questions of origins. Folks want to put forth their favored answers to the following questions: 1.) How did our world come about? 2.) How did we come to be in this world?
Obviously, there are related questions, (i.e. How long did it take for our world to come about?), and there are a variety of disagreements over the answers to those questions as well.
Rather than focusing on the questions and the various answers to them, which makes a discussion about answering the initial question either into a heinously long attempt to provide a comprehensive treatment of the subject or an impossible attempt to provide an account of the topic that is both concise and accurate...
Let's look at the tools we have available to answer questions about our existence, and see if we can pick the right tool for the job before heading into the fray.
The Weapons
As it turns out, we human beings don't have a large number of options when it comes to answering questions about our reality. There are two tools available:
- Reason
- Experience
Our combatants can use their experience or the experience of others to support their positions. They can use reason to construct and deconstruct arguments in support of their positions. And using both is often a possibility. Unfortunately, neither of these weapons work perfectly well in answering questions.
If we use reason to construct arguments in support of our positions, inevitably our opponents will use reason to deconstruct those arguments or attempt to falsify them using experience. If we use experience, our opponents will inevitably provide other experiences with which to counter it, or attempt to use reason to argue that the experience isn't sufficient to provide support for our positions. If we use experience and reason in tandem, those difficulties do not decrease. Sometimes the difficulties are compounded by using them in tandem because our opponents have more opportunities for effective rebuttal.
Some might suggest that if all we have are two lousy blunt weapons that we can't use to win the fight anyway, we should just stop fighting. I would agree that we should stop fighting over the answer to the question. It generally doesn't accomplish anything but headaches and hurt feelings. At the same time, the process of attempting to use those tools in the search for answers can be a great learning experience, especially if we do it in honest collaboration with those who do not share our views and are willing to challenge us in a constructive way.
The Terrain
In any battle, the terrain must be considered. We need to know which ravines we may fall into and which mountains we may have to climb. Speaking of which, I just noticed a boulder in our path.
The Law of Causality
I'm sorry, what law of causality? The Problem of Induction as laid out by David Hume demonstrates fairly well that even if causality exists, we have no rational justification for believing that it does. In addition, any inductive argument we make for our belief tends to simply beg the question or in some cases answer a slightly different question.
And even if we assume that the problem is solved by the means proposed to have solved it in the article referenced above, we still have a ways to go. If the Problem of Induction is solvable, and our belief in causality is rationally justified, then we just get turtles all the way down. I'll just apologize in advance to any turtles in may step on. But up ahead lies a jagged ravine. Let's take a look and see if those turtles can get us across.
Exclusion a Priori
I sympathize with your points about the use of Occam's Razor. I think it's overused and often abused in the debate over God's existence. There are too many instances of simple and yet horrifically wrong theories as well as complex correct ones for folks to be wielding that razor all willy-nilly.
And let's face it, Berkeley's idealism is a devastatingly simple approach to metaphysics, and yet is commonly rejected by the same folks who champion simplicity.
So when we have competing theories regarding the existence of God, how do we decide which is true if not using the principle of parsimony? Here we run into the Problem of the Criterion. I suspect that crossing this particular chasm, if it's possible, could take as many of our years as it takes light years to cross the universe. I don't think we have enough turtles for that.
Conclusion
This isn't intended to be a demonstration that the existence of God cannot be proven, or even that God's existence cannot be supported via rational or empirical means. What I would like the audience to consider is that the attempt to demonstrate God's existence or lack thereof is extraordinarily problematic, and that we may not have so much room to judge our opponents for their lack of solutions to those problems given that we often haven't solved them effectively either.
I look forward to your thoughts on the questions about Christianity and Jesus.
Do you agree or disagree with the above conclusions? Do both sides of the argument have a lack of solutions to the problem? If so, why do we always judge each other so harshly? How can we have a more friendly discussion about the existence of God?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: Nous_Apeiron@xanga
- Name: Sam
- About Me: I'm odd and nerdy, serious about my personal integrity and physical health, care deeply about others, enjoy writing poetry and song in particular, like to understand the world in a deeper way than most, die laughing at excellent satire, and prefer meaningful relationships. Strange, I know. In my interactions with other people, I try to comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable, just like that Jesus guy people are always talking about.
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 6 Views: 0 7009 Comments: 0 404 View all posts by Nous_Apeiron@xanga
Comments (176)
@MagicalMayhem@xanga - The Bible cannot be used in proofs of God. That's why I never used the Bible to support my claim that God exists.
To believe in the Bible, one must first believe in God. So to use the Bible as support for the claim that God exists would be circular reasoning, and thus invalid.
Likewise, your use of the Bible invalidates any of your claims since they have nothing to do with the issue of God's existence.
Your problem is with the validity of the Bible. And that is not the issue being discussed here.
@MagicalMayhem@xanga - You still have not supported your claims with any valid supporting arguments. Going on a tirade against the Bible is a change of subject.
Changing the subject is not a valid support for any claim.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - I don't know any atheists who claim to be able to disprove God, with science or anything else. That's not how you approach unfalsifiable claims.
In fact I don't find science to be very relevant to theology, unless others make physical claims that don't line up with science (biology vs. creationism, geology vs a global flood, prolife vs reproduction and fetal development, et cetera). But they're bringing the theology-science conflict upon themselves. I wouldn't say science disproves God, but I don't have to.
Just about every atheist I know only points out the weaknesses of Theism, religion, and apologetic argumentation.
@When_We_Were_Both_Cats@xanga - Atheists can't even prove atheism. All atheists can do is deny the truth because it interferes with their personal preference that God does not exist.
The atheist answer to any evidence or proof of God's existence is denial and, "I don't buy it." Which is totally irrational.@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - For me it has to do more with full refutation of theistic claims, such as I did by pointing out the weaknesses of the cosmological argument earlier.
Skepticism is NOT denialism.
@When_We_Were_Both_Cats@xanga - You haven't pointed out the weakness of any argument. All you've done is make claims. You claimed that the cosmological argument was weak without explaining why. And you are addressing an argument that no one has made.
All I have done is show how the law of causality brought up by the OP does not apply to God.
Not one you has offered any supporting argumentation to support your claims.
@Nous_Apeiron@xanga - As long as you get to define my argument for me as in, "Both sides believe..." then there is no way to have a sensible discussion.
Nothing I have said here has anything to do with personal preference which is the bread and butter of atheist belief.However, I have successfully countered your claim that law of causality makes the existence of God a result of circular thinking by showing that since God is uncaused he is not subject to causality.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - Well since you seem inclined to conveniently reframe the points I've made as you like, I'm understandably not sympathetic to your plight.
But since it is your stated goal to have a sensible discussion, let's try that.
You suggest that I claimed that the "law of causality makes the existence of God a result of circular thinking," which is patently not the case. I brought up two points related to causality: Hume's Problem of Induction (which suggests that our belief in causality isn't rationally justified) and the Infinite Regress problem (which implies that if we apply the law of causality to our universe we get an infinite causal chain).
If you would like me to argue that the law of causality makes the existence of God a result of circular thinking, then I suppose I could give it a try, but I don't think it would be a very good argument. There are better ways to make the argument that a belief in God is a result of circular thinking, and those arguments I will just leave to the atheists who like to make them.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - "All I have done is show how the law of causality brought up by the OP does not apply to God."
Great. So the law of causality doesn't apply to God because we have an uncaused God. That does sound suspiciously like circular thinking, but let's just assume it's totally valid. Where does that leave us?
@MagicalMayhem@xanga - @When_We_Were_Both_Cats@xanga - @Nous_Apeiron@xanga - @sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - @too_pretty_to_die@xanga@RobertLeeRE@xanga - You You cannot prove religion. If you could, it wouldn't be faith, it would be fact. You can all argue about it til your faces turn blue. And using philosophy isn't really the best way to prove anything. You can spin it for use on both sides of the argument and each argument can be just as sound as the last.
@neversettlefordecent@xanga -
You cannot deny the existance of a loving involved God logicly. If you could it wouldn't bother you so much that you had to keep visiting Christian blogs to comment on things you supposedly already deny.
You know the truth in your heart. Scripture says that if you are ashamed of God's only Son Jesus and deny Him and His exhistance to the world He in the end on judgment day will deny He ever knew you. So repent to God of all this rediculous nonsense. You know the real truth cuts through all this bologni. Come into the light and confess your sins once and for all. God loves you and so do we. you [Know] it takes way more faith to believe there is no creator for his planned creation are everywhere on everything. Come to where the load on your shoulders is light and easier to believe that has all the answers.
@RobertLeeRE@xanga - i wasn't seeking them out, the post was on xanga's home page under featured blogs and I was interested in what people had to say. I never denied the existence or tried to prove the existence of a god, I just stated that there is no scientific way to prove it and that it is useless to argue it.
And for the record, I do have religion. I'm wiccan.
But before you start going on about how I need to "find God" (well, your god you would mean) I've already been exposed to it for as long as I've been alive. Christianity, in my opinion, is garbage. I went to a Catholic school for 9 years, and all they seemed to care about was the money they were leaching from my parents.
@neversettlefordecent@xanga -
Well, many of us do believe there is enough evidence for [a] loving God that is involved in the history of mankind.
We feel God's fingerprints can be seen in history which is evidence (historical) that God has given us salvation freely if only we repent of the worship of all the false gods we surround ourselves with and the sins we insist on committing. All truth and wisdom of how we should live comes from God's words in the bible.
God confirmed this through his Son Jesus Christ. We know this by all the miracles done by Christ, He even overcame death on the 3rd day with extensive eyewitness accounts. These claims cannot be denied.
The only evidence lacking is there is lack of eyewitness accounts claiming Christ was a fraud or lunitic or had a twin brother. Either Christ exhisted or He didn't. These things can be proven and are real requiring no faith. So when you say there is no evidence of a loving God that is not true. The evidence is quite overwhelming and can be proven by the many sciences.
To claim there is lack of evidence, there was no Jesus, he was a fraud, or that had a twin brother. This is so nonsensical it is laughable at best.
But here is some truth for those whom have ears to hear: Some important truth, that the scientific evidence for a loving God is quite overwhelming, that a loving God [does] exist, [does] visit a confused lost world manipulating history periodically to save people, to judge others, casting some into everlating torment where there is weeping, some know as Hell, others entering everlasting life in the kingdom of heaven.
As a person that believes in Wicca you are so close to the truth. Just come a little further into the light, the truth where the load is light and your burdens are nonexhistant. All you have to do is repent in your heart, ask God to forgive you and ask Jesus into your heart. Then all the angels in heaven will rejoice over your salvation. Now doesn't that sound great?
So maybe, just maybe we are all asking the wrong question. Instead of asking does God exist which focus the truth like a laser beam. The laser beam is this: Do you [you] believe God? Do you [you] believe what God says? Do you [you] believe God's witnesses? You know, there was a person they didn't believe a little over two thousand years ago, even after all the miracles and eyewitness accounts. Christ claimed He was the Son of God the Father. He claimed that all who see Him have seen the Father.
Now how about you.Do you believe God? Do you believe what he said? Do you agree everyone sins? Do you repent of these sins and ask His Son Jesus to come into your heart and trust Him to save you on judgment day? Do you?
Do you [you] believ God?
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - Wow, you're getting really good at avoiding answering questions. I see you've done that with not only myself, but everyone here who has disagreed with you. Let me put it to you this way, I could tell you that unicorns exist, except conveniently, they are invisible, just like your god. They also live outside of time and even live in another universe so, again like your god, there is nothing you can tell me to disprove the existence of unicorns. The burden of proof would be on my shoulders to prove the existence of unicorns, wouldn't you agree?
You are the one who believes your god exists, now it's you with the burden of proof on your shoulders. You claim there is so much evidence in science and mathematics that your god exists. Please, I'd love to see this evidence. Could you do that for me, or are you just going to tip-toe around this question too?
@neversettlefordecent@xanga - Have you read a biology book? Though I cannot prove that a creator of some sort does not exist, we have now learned how our species has come to be, and it certainly wasn't from clay or a rib. I can tell you that biology has at least proven MANY aspects of the bible to be false.
@MagicalMayhem@xanga -
Sometimestheycomebackanyway is correct.
The weaknesses of the argument have not been pointed out by the author. It is silly to make an argument without giving the evidence just as he says.How can there be a debate without considering the pros and cons of that same debate? The author is avoiding answering to these important weaknesses of his argument. The author has over simplified the issue. There are just too many questions that the author is avoiding.The person making the claim has a burden of proof to prove that claim. The author still hasn't even come close, in fact his avoidance, if anything, is becoming quite clear.
God is not invisible and has showed up in history. The last time He did this was as Jesus Christ, the Son given by the Father for our sins. Without Jesus Christ it is highly likely Islam would have taken over the world and you would be speaking Islamic. so God has appeared, has given us the bible and this issue is laughable to be compared to as a unicorn. Is your mind so small you cannot discuss an issue honestly?
Obviously you cannot read a biology book for nothing in the bible has been proven to be false by any biology book. Even the author would not be so ignorant, as you, to have made such an incorrect silly statement.
Only theories were laid out as possibilitys, and that is all they are is theories,possibilities, possible explanations for the unexplained. Do you know how many fraudulent claims were made in science biology books of the past? You seem to not understand what theory is defined as. You need to re-read your Biology book for you are making false ignorant claims.
@MagicalMayhem@xanga - You folks are doing what atheists always do: change the subject, redefine the other person's argument and blame him for changing the subject and redefining the argument.
God is not in the same class of things as the unicorn. So if you think God is like unicorns I can understand why you are have trouble making any sense of the topic.
In order to deal with the topic God you have to think logically and scientifically, not like a children's fairy tale. It's hard to have discussion with atheists because they try and turn everything into a child's fairy tale.
The reason you do this is because in order to be an atheist you have to give up thinking. You have to believe in fairy tales. And because you believe in fairy tales you think everyone else does too.
@Nous_Apeiron@xanga - I brought up two points related to causality: Hume's Problem of Induction (which suggests that our belief in causality isn't rationally justified)
That is an example of a claim you make with absolutely no reasoning to support it. Why is causality not rationally justified?
Let me tell you what I already told you: Causality is not rationally justified because it leads to a circular argument.
But that is only the case with created or caused things. God is uncaused, therefore the law of causality is not applicable here.
The law of causality does not belong in this article. It is a non sequiter just like every single argument being made here by you and your atheist brethren.
@MagicalMayhem@xanga - I think you misread what I wrote. I am not on a "side", I was stating that you cannot prove the existence of god, through science, philosophy, whatever. It is impossible to prove that god exists. That's why religion is called your "faith". You believe it because it's in your heart, not because science proved it. And yes I know that science has disproved many things in the bible. I'm not even Christian actually.
@neversettlefordecent@xanga - The proof that God exists is a simple one. It is done with simple logic.
Fideist (faith only) Christians such as yourself have a lot in common with atheists in that you completely forsake reason and base everything you believe on faith only.
@RobertLeeRE@xanga -
"God confirmed this through his Son Jesus Christ. We know this by all the miracles done by Christ, He even overcame death on the 3rd day with extensive eyewitness accounts. These claims cannot be denied."
There are also (many) eye witnesses that say they have seen aliens, should we be so willing to believe them too?
" These things can be proven and are real requiring no faith. So when you say there is no evidence of a loving God that is not true. The evidence is quite overwhelming and can be proven by the many sciences."
Can you cite and provide links to exactly what sciences have proven the existence of the Christian god?
"As a person that believes in Wicca you are so close to the truth. Just come a little further into the light, the truth where the load is light and your burdens are nonexhistant. All you have to do is repent in your heart, ask God to forgive you and ask Jesus into your heart. Then all the angels in heaven will rejoice over your salvation. Now doesn't that sound great?"
I don't know why I would want to do this. I have been in his "light" before (yes, there was a time where I was fully believing in god, went to teen bible studies, youth groups,..for a while I was even apart of the Jr. Holy Name Society). I feel great in my religion now and loved by the God and Goddess. My heart feels more open and light than it ever has before. Maybe it is you who should turn to Wicca.
"So maybe, just maybe we are all asking the wrong question "
I never actually had a side on this. I didn't comment originally to prove or disprove that god exists. I believe everyone has a right to believe in what they choose to believe in without people belittling their beliefs of fighting that their religion/lack of religion is better. All I was saying is that, there is no hard-evidence that is widely accepted as FACT that ANY god from ANY religion exists. I cannot even say that MY gods exist. I just believe in them based on faith.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - you're not even reading what I'm saying. I have stated before that I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN. Please, for god's sake (no pun intended) READ what the other person has said before you move on to leave a snarky, condescending comment.
And if proof that God exists can be done with simple logic, couldn't I use that same logic that any god from any religion exists?
@neversettlefordecent@xanga - This is what you said:
I was stating that you cannot prove the existence of god, through science, philosophy, whatever. It is impossible to prove that god exists.I understood you perfectly.
Logic, properly used, leads to truth. The premises used to arrive at a conclusion must be true for the conclusion to be true.
Go ahead and try to use logic to prove that God does not exist. It will be refreshing since no atheist I've ever seen knows anything about the correct use of logic.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga -
You may have understood what you read, but you obviously just skimmed what I read since you didn't get the whole "I am not Christian."
you assumed I'm atheist, I am not atheist either. Just figured I should note that.
Well first, I would actually like you to use logic to prove to me that god DOES exist, and then I will provide my "logical" objections.
@neversettlefordecent@xanga -
Is that it? is that all the evidence you have to deny God's existance? Aliens that supposedly came to earth in some grainy picture with scanty visual claims? You might as well be in the flat earthsociety! Do you have no thinking ability to think for yourself instead of quoting someone's argument against the existnce of a loving God that is concerned for your eternal soul!
These things have never been proven yet the existance, birth of Jesus Christ, eyewitness accounts, death and ressurection have been proven and you better get your ducks straight for He is coming back, maybe even today. If you do not repent before these things it is sad to say you will be eternally lost. You know just because you were involved in a church when young doesn't mean you were a real believer. It also doesn't mean you were really given the evidence for God properly. I would reccomend you to reevalute for Christianity when properly studied is really the only logical most advanced world religion. No offense meant but Wicca seems to me almost like what I would imagine some barbaric tribe in the Amazon would believe. Can you please explain to me the difference? I really would like to know.
I find it sad you have strayed off the path of truth into Wiccism. No offense but don't you find Wiccism a little primitive in compared to Christianity? Why come back you say? To avoid God's consequences for the worship of false gods, idols that do not speak and spiritism. Some may call this similar to witchcraft, but I am not sure of your specific beliefs, I only know the bible warns against them.
So, you can play all the games you like, but in your heart you do know the truth, everyone does. All know this truth for all of creation speaks of these things.
No one is belittling here, and if I came across that way I apologise. But truth does sometimes cause people stress for it demands an accountability to the sins they commit and cover up. But you must understand this: Do you realize most all Christians believe that on judgment day you will be cast into the eternal lake of fire? Does this concern you?
To be honest I really do not know what Wicca believes, other then Pagan, how are good people and bad people defined by Wicca? The bible gives us the 10 commandments and Jesus.
If you will just let go of your sin and proud stance God could cleanse your soul and you will ideed be blessed.
@neversettlefordecent@xanga - What you are or are not has no bearing on whether the existence of God is provable.
You said that the existence of God was not provable. I disagreed.