Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[SashatheMan]

You can't reason a man out of a belief, he didn't reason himself into!

 

[BradCube]

I'm not sure that this is quite right. Most reasonable theologians accept the scientific method to some degree. If they don't accept that much of science accurately describes reality then they have to do a lot of ad hoc backtracking in order to explain how we manage to launch satellites and communicate with mobile phones. Science is too successful to deny outright.

What appears to be more common, as best as I can tell, is for theologians to claim that there are ways to gain knowledge outside of the scientific method. In other words, they will claim that while the rational (i.e. logical) and empirical (i.e. observational) approaches yield knowledge, they are not the only methods which yield knowledge. Commonly, theologians will suggest that knowledge gained by revelation is a proper form of knowledge which should be given (roughly) equal standing.

Another approach (notably advocated by Alvin Plantinga) is that belief in god is 'properly basic'. The argument relies on an approach which asserts that our beliefs can't rely on an infinite chain of justifying beliefs and so must bottom out somewhere. Some beliefs are hard to justify beyond saying that they are 'clearly true', for example our belief that we can logically conclude "Q" from the combined beliefs "P" and "If P then Q". Such beliefs which we consider clearly true without seeking further justification can be considered 'properly basic'. Thus, in a similar vein, thinkers such as Alvin Plantinga have suggested that the existence of god has a similarly obvious, properly basic quality.

I will admit, of course, that many people do nonetheless deny science from the perspective of religion. However, I believe they are foolish to do so and I suspect that many who deny science do so as part of a gut, or reflex, reaction without thinking through some of the problems involved. (Of course, you can try to deny individual theories and facts espoused by science such as evolution without denying the entire package).

I was just listening to mention of this is a recorded lecture I was listening to today . I tend to agree that we need some sort of foundational unquestionable truths to properly interact and assert anything at all. The leap to God as a properly basic belief seems almost to be illogical - I feel this could be because I am misunderstanding what this sets out to say?

But in essence, yes I agree that we have properly basic beliefs. If we must be skeptical of absolutely everything then I should also be skeptical of my reasons for being skeptical and the logic I am using within that skepticism.


Now I mention this because the lecture I was listening to was in regard to moral objective values. William Lane Craig was presenting the argument that just as the observation of physical surroundings is based upon properly basic beliefs, there is no reason to think that our sense of moral objective value is not also based on properly basic beliefs.

He also put forward the argument (which I'm not sure that I agree with) that stipulating the cause of moral objective values to be merely a product of bio-sociological evolution is an appeal to the genetic fallacy. Any thoughts on this Kfunk?

Good to see that this thread is alive again

 

[KFunk]

I was just listening to mention of this is a recorded lecture I was listening to today . I tend to agree that we need some sort of foundational unquestionable truths to properly interact and assert anything at all. The leap to God as a properly basic belief seems almost to be illogical - I feel this could be because I am misunderstanding what this sets out to say?

No, not really. I don't think that "god exists" is a good candidate for a properly basic belief either. It strikes me as too complex and not nearly apparent enough. The fact that belief in god is largely dictated by local context is enough to suggest that, unlike basic logical laws, it is not always something that the educated mind will jump at.

Now I mention this because the lecture I was listening to was in regard to moral objective values. William Lane Craig was presenting the argument that just as the observation of physical surroundings is based upon properly basic beliefs, there is no reason to think that our sense of moral objective value is not also based on properly basic beliefs.

He also put forward the argument (which I'm not sure that I agree with) that stipulating the cause of moral objective values to be merely a product of bio-sociological evolution is an appeal to the genetic fallacy. Any thoughts on this Kfunk?

Good to see that this thread is alive again

Sadly I am disappearing down the coast briefly but I will try to fire things up when I get back. On Craig's comment: firstly, I don't think the supposed evolutionary origins of our moral sensibilities imply their objectivity. So, in that sense, I agree that they can't be used to provide a rock-firm foundation for objective moral laws. However, I do agree with much of the evolutionary picture of morality and so instead of bolstering 'objective' morality, I see it as undermining it. I would be interested to know what you think about properly basic ethical beliefs and how they might work. I'll discuss things more when I get back.

 

[Jyakai]

No.

 

[Hollieee]

I would just like to point out that sashatheman is a bit of a twit.

And the thing that seems to happen a lot on here is that people only research one side of the argument- the side that they believe to be correct before they begin their researching.
I'm not saying everyone does that, but a lot of people seem to only be interesting in researching and presenting one argument.

Personally I think the creations of the world and it's natural rhythms are way too perfect to just be a random jumble of coincidences.
But hey, that's just me =)

It's nice to think that theres something bigger and more powerful than people out there, as we're pretty damn flawed.
Awesome, but flawed.

This wasn't a particularly well structured post, so I apologise. I'm feeling quite content and that seems to compel me to add my thoughts.
I should really be doing chemistry thought. Whoops.
If anyone happens to know the balanced chemical equation for reacting Iron(III)oxide with sulphuric acid, you're quite welcome to PM me.
Dinner time.
=)

 

[KFunk]

I
Personally I think the creations of the world and it's natural rhythms are way too perfect to just be a random jumble of coincidences.
But hey, that's just me =)

It's nice to think that theres something bigger and more powerful than people out there, as we're pretty damn flawed.
Awesome, but flawed.

Sadly, the fact that a proposition such as 'god exists' is appealing doesn't amount to its being true, even on many pragmatist accounts. I have come to reject many (seemingly) comforting theories, such as those which endorse god, free will, and objective morality. Many people dislike having such beliefs undermined, understandably, but at the end of the day we have to realise that the primary aim of reason isn't to help us sleep at night.

 

[seano77]

No, no. God existing is not appealing. Trust me. As a Christian, God existing means I can't do what I want. Trusting my life to His will means that I want to obey, not go and get drunk, steal stuff, lie, etc. (Not saying you do, I'm saying everyone does). Don't trick yourself into unbelief by pretending God is the easy way out. Trusting God is not easy. Being a Christian is not easy. Thats why Jesus talks about the small and narrow path leading to salvation. Narrow paths are hard to stay on. Wide paths are easy. Doing what I want is easy. Rejecting the Truth is easy, it frees people to do what they want. Not what God made us for.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Please, not being able to get drunk, steal stuff, lie etc

versus

A life after death, a universal justice for all, an idea that humankind was not created by accident, the sense of never really being alone.

Sure I won't argue that being christian isn't easy, but God existing is not appealling? Please.

You believe because you understand that there are plus sides with believing.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

No, no. God existing is not appealing. Trust me. As a Christian, God existing means I can't do what I want. Trusting my life to His will means that I want to obey, not go and get drunk, steal stuff, lie, etc.

Don't forget you can't eat seafood

My main problem with the bible (apart from it being made up) is the fact that it didn't come with a companion guide ("Preacher's Edition") to tell you how to interpret what's literal and what we can disregard as an allegory.*

At least the Quran has the Hadiths which give a bit of context and extra info, with the Bible you're left guessing what to believe and what to laugh off, and everyone's got their own opinion.

If you really do believe though you'd be best to not eat seafood, stone people and so on, lest you get it wrong.

*they never tell you what it's an allegory for, notice that?

 

[ur_inner_child]

True that. You already overcame the hard part; believing.

Repent and all is wonderful.

 

[seano77]

Why do it? Because I have examined the evidence reasonably and I believe we should believe what we have reasoned to be true. Whether it is convenient or not. I hope you agree.
I understand the perceived benefits of eternity etc.. but I'm saying it is hard to live obediently as a Christian because those are benefits to come. However, it would be naive of me to believe for that reason alone. I believe because I have tested it to be true- and the truth demands a relationship with God.

Do you really doubt my reason and logic and sensibility so much that you think I would believe because if I didnt believe there would be eternal pain? If I didnt believe, I wouldnt believe there was eternal pain... so i could get on with living how i want and getting drunk etc.

That seafood argument is so funny. Its old testament. Those laws were for those people of that context. Research man.

The bible should be taken literally like any other text. If there is a metaphor or allegory, treat it as one. Simple. And Jesus does explain His parables occaisionally.

Its not easy being Christian. Actually sticking up for what you know to be true. Not rejecting Truth for the sake of my own pleasures.

 

[seano77]

Even then you don't have to really believe as long as you really feel sorry.
w
a
i
t

lolluther.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with what you're talking about?

 

[seano77]

Be that as it may, I find it utterly indulgent of the human race to think that whatever beings or the like may exist, are at all interested in the affairs of humans.
There is no proof of Christ's miracles, he speaks only

Just as Jesus condoned Slavery, and now that's outdated right? Literal truths be damned! Society moves on and on.

I trust you haven't read ulysses, or hell, even fear and loathing in las vegas.

Why would you bother doing that, Jesus died to wipe the slate clean for your sins, go do your thing, enjoy life and then repent at the last moment.

You're equally as saved as Captain Mr Pious who never toes a foot over the line.

But please, tell us more about your self-piety and sacrifice, I'm dying to know. Does God make you cut yourself as well?

The historical text, namely; the bible speaks of Christs miracles. I trust you don't think it historical.

Could you please direct me to the passage where he condones slavery? I believe he speaks of it because it was part of their culture. I don't believe he condoned it.

Thank you for your good point about why i dont just live a life of sin and repent at the end: I would say that I couldn't live my life knowing that I am rejecting the truth. Rejecting the opportunity to know God and help others know Him. Also, the most important point as to why I don't do that is that I don't know when I am going to die. I couldn't risk that.

And to that bit about God making me cut myself; lets keep it nice aye? I'm all for passion and argument- but lets not offend.

 

[KFunk]

Don't trick yourself into unbelief by pretending God is the easy way out. Trusting God is not easy. Being a Christian is not easy. Thats why Jesus talks about the small and narrow path leading to salvation. Narrow paths are hard to stay on. Wide paths are easy. Doing what I want is easy. Rejecting the Truth is easy, it frees people to do what they want. Not what God made us for.

True, but in many respects belief in god does present as an appealing option. It gets rid of the apparent meaninglessness and existential angst that an atheist is likely to be left with. It gives purpose (apparently), moral guidance and the potential for everlasting happiness.

Nonetheless, I appreciate the conflict that you're trying to point out. It brings to mind the philosopher Kierkegaard who examined the conflict between the hedonistic/aesthetic life and the ethical/religious life. Often I make general points, directed at anyone who cares to read, with reference to particular posts. My intent was not to imply that your beliefs were based solely on wishful thinking, rather I realised part of your post could be read in that sort of vein and decided to make a general point.

 

[KFunk]

"Without the freedom to offend freedom of speech ceases to exist" - Salman Rushdie

Perhaps then, as with freedom of action which includes freedom to commit murder, freedom of speech is not the absolute good it is often held to be in rhetorical settings?

 

[seano77]

Even Thomas Aquinas said he would not believe were it for Christ's miracles. I don't think it would be going too far to say that the Bible mentioning Christ's miracles would not be considered self serving

Self-serving to who? Who gains from people rejecting their own desires and pleasures?

Ephesians 6:5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

Titus 2:9 Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;

Seems to me like not condemning it would be condoning it.

Seems to me this teaching is about humility and knowing our place in society. Like honouring your father and mother. The author of these books did not condone it. They merely stated that obedience in this situation is the right thing to do? Who says these servents were not treated well, anyway? Like a butler or maid?

It's your life, man. I don't begrudge you doing what's wrong, I just feel sorry that you're not going out and tearing it up because you fear it will condemn you forever.

Seems to me that's a level of torture that even a fascist state couldn't inflict upon others. Torturous imprisonment of the mind.



"Without the freedom to offend freedom of speech ceases to exist" - Salman Rushdie

Level of torture living for what you think is true, aye? I wouldn't expect you to torture yourself with truth either.

 

[seano77]

True, but in many respects belief in god does present as an appealing option. It gets rid of the apparent meaninglessness and existential angst that an atheist is likely to be left with. It gives purpose (apparently), moral guidance and the potential for everlasting happiness.

Nonetheless, I appreciate the conflict that you're trying to point out. It brings to mind the philosopher Kierkegaard who examined the conflict between the hedonistic/aesthetic life and the ethical/religious life. Often I make general points, directed at anyone who cares to read, with reference to particular posts. My intent was not to imply that your beliefs were based solely on wishful thinking, rather I realised part of your post could be read in that sort of vein and decided to make a general point.

I appreciate your points. Thank you.

 

[seano77]

We all commit sins every single day, what's wrong with committing a few more if you're fully aware of God's love?

Yes I agree with this. We all sin every day. And Christians can fall into the trap of sinning, then feeling sorry then sinning again. Heck, that happens to me so much. BUT. the definition of repentence is not just 'sorry God'. Repentence means an active rejection of sin. It means you will strive actively to never do it again. But we all fail. Admitted. Thats why God's grace is so amazing. But if we reject God's grace for what it is: he will not grant it to us. If we wish to live a life without Him, He merely grants us our wish for eternity.

 

[seano77]

god existing is very appealing. and not get drunk? lie? steal stuff(lol) ? you think people dont believe in god because they wont be able to steal stuff? those things have nothing to do with truth. i would trade all my limbs for eternal life wave: sup god).
most people dont believe in god because they believe there is no good logical reason to. do you have any reasons why you believe in what you do?

I'm glad you are attracted to the idea of eternal life. Those things have to do with the Truth of God that I am referring to, if you know what I mean. Like how sin separates us from God and if we fail to acknowledge the truth then we saty separated from him. The reason I believe is that I think there is a good, logical reason to it. I'd encourage you to watch this because Ravi Zacharias puts it much better than I:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Id2Ik4whVr8

The main reason is that I believe Jesus' claims are accurate. He also describes the human condition correctly. He speaks to the human heart in a way no other does. Its almost as if he knows us intimately. Like he created us..

 

[seano77]

So you believe that Hell is merely the absence of God?

Yes- but I don't think the word merely suits that phrase.