homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Why do you believe in God? (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Why do you believe in God?
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I tried listening to the In Our Times episode but I got lost pretty quickly.

Why must God exist if you can imagine a situation where he could exist? I can imagine all kinds of things - say a pink elephant - but how does that make it exist?

Yah. I've never understood that bit either.

Tho Augustine thought everything existed in the mind of God and we could only know things because we participated in the mind of God.......so I wondered if that might be the link somehow....

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by REALLYMAD:
Belief in God to me is now an ontologocal phallacy perpetuated to subjucate the underclass into obedience.

It certainly can be (ab)used in that way-- God as the great spy-in-the-sky, who sees and records everything that our earthly surveillance apparatus hasn't figured out how to catch you at yet. Hence a grotesque emphasis, on the part of compliant religious authorities, on the most private and intimate acts as particularly interesting to the deity, while steering clear of even the cruelest public injustices.
[Projectile]

But then there's the Magnificat: "He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and exalted the humble and meek." The church I love lifts us up, would make princes and princesses of us all. Where else could we have gotten the notion that might does not make right; or that the world's power structures, which leave most of us in the dust, are not facts as unquestionable as the weather?

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:

--- (a more serious reply) I feel an urgent need to thank someone.

This I find very intriguing. I spoke to someone just last week that said she returned to church after 25 years absence precisely for that reason!

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It makes the best sense of all the evidence as a whole. Is that (b)?

Yes it is. Belief in God is by far the more reasonable option than non-belief. I never understand what the new atheists are banging on about when they say theism is irrational.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
REALLYMAD
Apprentice
# 17317

 - Posted      Profile for REALLYMAD   Email REALLYMAD   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
Welcome to the Ship, Reallymad. When you say you "grew out of" believing in God, what did that involve for you? How did you "grow into" whatever you believe now?

Thank you.

A tragic event occured involving a close family friend. At some point I might divulge the details but not just yet.
In fairness my faith had been waning for a while anyway but this acted as the catalyst that tipped me over the edge.

There were no specific eye-opening revelations, no mental fanfares. The air didn't smell any cleaner, colours were no more vivid. But there was a sensation of a weight being lifted, and a somewhat attenuated sense of release. Relief too I suppose.

I would fight for anyone's right to believe in whatever they wish, even though I don't share those beliefs.

--------------------
If a man speaks in the woods and there are no women to hear him, is he still wrong?

Posts: 13 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I tried listening to the In Our Times episode but I got lost pretty quickly.

Why must God exist if you can imagine a situation where he could exist? I can imagine all kinds of things - say a pink elephant - but how does that make it exist? Or is this something about him being all-powerful God which makes it different to all other things?

Yes, necessity. Pink elephants don't necessarily exist, but God has often been defined in that way. In other ways, there is something which could not not exist.

This changes the argument considerably, and demolishes all those arguments, 'I can think of nice Tories, therefore they exist'. Since presumably, Tories are contingent beings, (hang on, though, if they are demonic, maybe they exist necessarily).

Mousethief summarized it beautifully.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I never understood necessity nor contingency either..... [Paranoid]

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So... God exists because he must exist..?

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, one day I suddenly experienced something that could not not exist. It was a big surprise, and I thought, hey, all those medieval theologians were onto something.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Why can't God not exist? I don't understand.

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
So... God exists because he must exist..?

No. The full argument is not that. I'm not sure where mousethief did a summary of it, well, actually based on Gödel's formulation, I suppose.

But, please note, it does not convince me either.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
So... God exists because he must exist..?

Personally, I find the formulation, "I believe because it is impossible" more compelling...

--Tom Clune

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
So... God exists because he must exist..?

No. Rather: God is the sort of being that, if He does exist, his existence is necessary, not contingent.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
OK, sorry still makes no sense.

Even if he exists, surely there is no agreement on the kind of God he is, so how can it be said that his existence is necessary? Necessary for what?

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
REALLYMAD
Apprentice
# 17317

 - Posted      Profile for REALLYMAD   Email REALLYMAD   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
Biblebots, eh?

I'm sure you know the type; usually creationists that maddenly cling to the KJV text as God's Word verbatim. On the BBC boards they would avoid any rational discussion regarding the usual standards such as "carbon dating against the 6,000 years age of the world", or the scientific absurdity of a flat earth in a terra-centric orbit.

Instead they unthinkingly and repetitiously default to the base mantra of "It is right because it says so in the bible, the bible is the Word of God and cannot ever be questioned".

They do more for the atheists' cause than atheists do.

--------------------
If a man speaks in the woods and there are no women to hear him, is he still wrong?

Posts: 13 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You know the old joke: read a few creationists, and atheism seems quite attractive.

OK, read a few Gnu Atheists, and suddenly, it's not.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Welease Woderwick

Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424

 - Posted      Profile for Welease Woderwick   Email Welease Woderwick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't think I have a reason any more, I don't think I need one either.

--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details

What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?

Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660

 - Posted      Profile for Drewthealexander     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I never understood necessity nor contingency either..... [Paranoid]

If everything that begins to exist has a cause, and everything we know exists had a beginning, then everything exists contingently. In other words it doesn't have to exist. If everything exist contingently (because its existence depends on - is contingent - on something else) then there must be a metaphysically necessary being. If not, we fall into an infinite regress of causes.

Or to put it in less confusing language, if everything starts there must be a starter that wasn't itself started. We are all optional extras in the universe. God is necessary, not optional.

[ 28. September 2012, 16:15: Message edited by: Drewthealexander ]

Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:


Or to put it in less confusing language, if everything starts there must be a starter that wasn't itself started. We are all optional extras in the universe. God is necessary, not optional.

But then if I can postulate a universe without a beginning, then I don't need a God. Why doesn't he then disappear?

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
REALLYMAD
Apprentice
# 17317

 - Posted      Profile for REALLYMAD   Email REALLYMAD   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh, and I'd be a little unsettled by anyone agreeing with the flawed tenet that "the people are nice".

My experience of the religiously bent quite often contradicts that on a sliding scale, travelling further from "nice" the more fervent the belief.

I'm sure this differs widely depending on the individual.

--------------------
If a man speaks in the woods and there are no women to hear him, is he still wrong?

Posts: 13 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think there are other factors in the idea of necessary existence. For example, I think Anselm is saying that contingency is an obvious imperfection, for it means that, say, a magpie, may well not exist, and indeed, will not exist one day, unless you are a hardened mystic, and declare that this magpie in this moment exists eternally. Fair enough.

By contrast, a being which cannot not exist is closer to perfection, and since God is traditionally defined as a perfect being, his existence has often been seen like that.

But I'm sure that you could define God without invoking necessity, and as I said earlier, I think the ontological argument is rather unconvincing, as it seems to define God into existence, so it seems rather arid.

[ 28. September 2012, 16:40: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692

 - Posted      Profile for Anyuta   Email Anyuta   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
All of the above except reason and fear. Well, some of the people are not so nice. And I might expand parents to cultural heritage, since my parents were mostly cultural Christians.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
OK, sorry still makes no sense.

Even if he exists, surely there is no agreement on the kind of God he is, so how can it be said that his existence is necessary? Necessary for what?

1. Our agreements or disagreements don't change who or what God is.

2. You are equivocating on necessary. God is not necessary for something. YOu're thinking of "necessary" meaning "required" or "needed." The "necessary" this refers to means "not contingently" and specifically in this instance "not dependent on any other thing for its existence either originally (as source) or continuously."

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
But then if I can postulate a universe without a beginning, then I don't need a God. Why doesn't he then disappear?

Why would what you can postulate have any effect on God?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Why would what you can postulate have any effect on God?

I don't know, that is what I am trying to understand. The position seems to suggest that God's existence is somehow dependent on my inability to imagine a situation whereby he doesn't exist.

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Somebody else step in here. I'm obviously not explaining it well.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Somebody else step in here. I'm obviously not explaining it well.

You'll look back at this in a week or two and find that others aren't engaging at your level. Not that there's anything clever about that, it just is.

A bit like God [Biased]

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jonm
Shipmate
# 1246

 - Posted      Profile for Jonm     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Hmm, OK then, ordered from most to least relevant:

6 Philosophical argument / Reason

Sorry, you've probably been asked this loads of times before, but could you give any pointers to books/papers/thinkers who have led you to this conclusion (mainly asking because of your statement on the Dawkins probability thread that you were a 1 from philosophical arguments)

Yours Impertinently

Jonm

--------------------
"My God, My God, why hast thou accepted me?"---Caedmon's Call

Posts: 264 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
shadeson
Shipmate
# 17132

 - Posted      Profile for shadeson         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suppose c,d & l - feeling, experience and the natural world. However, the arguments that Richard D. uses against my faith are all valid.
In the end it is just trust in something which cannot be in any way proven or disproven. That is what faith is.

What follows may be a load of gibberish, but I would be interested to hear if my own philosophical reason has been expressed in other ways. Not that it means much to my faith, but I am interested in the relationship of ‘time’ to all that exists around us.

It seems to me that in the absence of any ‘mind’ to comprehend it, the universe can have no conceivable duration - or for that matter existence.

Consider the following common experience. When one undergoes deep anaesthetic, time takes a leap, often of many hours, from the first prick of the needle to someone talking to you. You can only be told that time has passed - there is no experience.

We understand from physics that for many millions of years, the state of the ’big bang’ was incapable of forming worlds, let alone life. Therefore it could only have had a duration, if there was a mind to comprehend it. Our observations only imply it had duration because our minds interpret it that way.

The Spirit of God brooded upon the face of the waters………..

Posts: 136 | From: uk | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
shadeson

Your ideas have been discussed a lot in different areas. For example, the physicist Niels Bohr famously said, 'no phenomenon is a phenomenon unless it is an observed phenomenon'. And others have talked about an observable universe having consciousness at its core.

You can also cite Bishop Berkeley's ideas, which are rather similar - esse est percipi - to be is to be perceived.

Of course, this contradicts all the ideas in naturalism and materialism, that there is a universe, separate from our consciousness. This is one of the great philosophical divides, of course.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by REALLYMAD:
Belief in God to me is now an ontologocal phallacy perpetuated to subjucate the underclass into obedience. Generally speaking. But more on that later.

I'm a BBC Religion MB refugee.

Nice post! Ex-BBC too, but I've been here for ages! (I'm also on R&E.)
quote:
Nice to meet you.
Ditto. [Smile]

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Hence a grotesque emphasis, on the part of compliant religious authorities, on the most private and intimate acts as particularly interesting to the deity, while steering clear of even the cruelest public injustices.

That is the best and most concise summary of that aspect of religion that I have ever read.

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, one day I suddenly experienced something that could not not exist. It was a big surprise, and I thought, hey, all those medieval theologians were onto something.

But why did you not, on reflection, credit your brain with the ability to think and imagine any experience you have, I wonder?

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660

 - Posted      Profile for Drewthealexander     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:


Or to put it in less confusing language, if everything starts there must be a starter that wasn't itself started. We are all optional extras in the universe. God is necessary, not optional.

But then if I can postulate a universe without a beginning, then I don't need a God. Why doesn't he then disappear?
Even if the universe doesn't have a beginning that would not, of itself, make God 'disappear.' God's existence is not contingent on the universe having a beginning. That the universe has a beginning, and that God is the cause of it, is a philosophical argument based on our experience of reality. There is scientific evidence to support the proposition - the Standard Model of cosmology (or Big Bang theory). The philosophical argument does not depend on the science, and the science does not conclusively support the argument, but the science certainly supports it.

I personally put quite a lot of store on this since the question "why are we here?" is the most fundamental of all philosophical questions. It's not the most compelling reason for my belief in God, but it's one of a number.

Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In fact, somewhere Aquinas makes the point that his arguments for God do not hinge on the 'start' of the universe, since God is the source and sustainer of reality right now, and at every moment. I think this is a useful corrective to the obsession with the Big Bang.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I never understood necessity nor contingency either..... [Paranoid]

If everything that begins to exist has a cause, and everything we know exists had a beginning, then everything exists contingently. In other words it doesn't have to exist. If everything exist contingently (because its existence depends on - is contingent - on something else) then there must be a metaphysically necessary being. If not, we fall into an infinite regress of causes.

Or to put it in less confusing language, if everything starts there must be a starter that wasn't itself started. We are all optional extras in the universe. God is necessary, not optional.

That's actually helpful. Thank you. [Angel]

The issue of infinite regress is a very interesting one IMO.

Some argue that belief in a creator God is just one step back from the big bang theory.

There is some importance in the question - then who made God?

Why should we not regress infinitely?

Alister E. McGrath points out the scientific paradigm is looking for that point of stopping infinite regress by finding "a theory of everything".

Good analogy.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, one day I suddenly experienced something that could not not exist. It was a big surprise, and I thought, hey, all those medieval theologians were onto something.

But why did you not, on reflection, credit your brain with the ability to think and imagine any experience you have, I wonder?
Are you saying that the brain is simply the source of all experience? That seems unlikely to me. I am sure that my brain constructs 'redness', but there is presumably some stuff which triggers it to do that, something like strawberries or flags.

So I don't normally see the brain as source of experience, except stuff like thoughts and dreams, and even these presumably also rest on experiences of stuff that is not-brain. Thus, if I think about strawberries, the thought is constructed by the brain, but are the strawberries?

Well, we are opening a can of worms here. Possibly they are as well!

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
The philosophical argument does not depend on the science, and the science does not conclusively support the argument, but the science certainly supports it.


I recently read that two famous figures had a debate in the 1940's (one an atheist and one a Christian) and that the scientific understanding that the world did not have a beginning (at that time) was good evidence against God.

In the 60's, when the big bang theory was discovered, it was evidence that God did exist, because the universe had a beginning, just like the creation accounts in Genesis said they did.

Funny that. [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
In fact, somewhere Aquinas makes the point that his arguments for God do not hinge on the 'start' of the universe, since God is the source and sustainer of reality right now, and at every moment. I think this is a useful corrective to the obsession with the Big Bang.

Agreed.

Which is why I don't understand how a materialistic Darwinism is supposed to "explain everything".

And why science is supposed to supplant God. [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Of course, cynics argue that one reason for the development of the multiverse idea is to get away from the accursed theistic implications of the Big Bang, specifically, that since the universe could not create itself, something else did, not part of the universe. Errm, what would that be?

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
George Spigot

Outcast
# 253

 - Posted      Profile for George Spigot   Author's homepage   Email George Spigot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The whole "meaning and purpose" aspect is very important to me.

I mean, what's the point otherwise? The answer: "There is no point. Get used to it." doesn't work for me.

How do you get from there is no God to there is no purpose?

--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html

Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Cos the purpose you get from "there is no God" isn't real. It's something you make up to fill a void.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, cynics argue that one reason for the development of the multiverse idea is to get away from the accursed theistic implications of the Big Bang, specifically, that since the universe could not create itself, something else did, not part of the universe. Errm, what would that be?

I'm reading Dawkins God Delusion at the moment for an assignment.

His argument against "God created the universe" is manifold but one particular section that he concludes with says that it's basically not a good answer. The answer still raises a billion questions.

And he's right.

Those of us that believe in God don't ultimately know what God is and how she created the universe and how he managed to be outside time and first cause and prime mover.

The question is ultimately just delayed.

How would you respond to that?

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jonm:
Sorry, you've probably been asked this loads of times before, but could you give any pointers to books/papers/thinkers who have led you to this conclusion (mainly asking because of your statement on the Dawkins probability thread that you were a 1 from philosophical arguments)

First, I believe the so-called cosmological arguments of the Thomistic kind. The original you can find here. But these arguments are easy to misunderstand, see for example Feser's summary of common misunderstandings. (See also Feser's roundup for further reading material. I am being a bit lazy here though in not going through my books to see where I myself actually learned things from. For sure there was something in Herbert McCabe's books, probably in "God Matters".)

Second, in the mode of these arguments one can make several others, I even provided one myself: "A random proof of God". (My proof will make particular sense to anyone who has done typical analyses of dynamical systems, and has been considering trajectories in phase space - I believe.) I'm not sure that I would say that any one particular variant is "the" proof for me. It's more that there's a conceptual core behind them all that I find compelling.

Third, I also quite like Robert Spaemann's grammatical proof (see the last two pages for a very short summary, the other sources for this that I know are unfortunately all in German). I think this poof is sufficiently different from the other proofs above to open up new ways of approaching this. In particular because it has to do with mind. I think mind is a very dangerous thing for atheists...

As far as real proof goes, that's pretty much it. I've read lots of other stuff that makes the existence of God seem rather plausible (from Anselm to Swinburne). But not with the same compelling force...

And yes, none of the above proves the Christian God, merely a God compatible with what Christians believe.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Um. Dear. Sweet. Ingo.

Could you possibly summarise in your own words?

Some of us lesser beings have a hard time with Aquinas and other Very Clever People.

And you know what they say. If you cant explain it simply, you don't understand it yourself. [Biased]

[ 29. September 2012, 13:59: Message edited by: Evensong ]

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think I should probably delete this post but I haven't...!
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Are you saying that the brain is simply the source of all experience?

No, not the source, since the sources are everything that is experienced by the senses from the natural world, but yes, the brain is then the store of every single thought and idea that it creates and synthesises from the information it has.
quote:
That seems unlikely to me. I am sure that my brain constructs 'redness', but there is presumably some stuff which triggers it to do that, something like strawberries or flags.
However, whether each of us sees the colour red in exactly the same way doesn't really matter from an evolutionary point of view, does it, since the ability to do so was obviously a survival trait. There is no other place for the storage, and creation of thoughts, ideas, concepts, whether concrete or abstract, is there?
quote:
So I don't normally see the brain as source of experience, except stuff like thoughts and dreams, and even these presumably also rest on experiences of stuff that is not-brain. Thus, if I think about strawberries, the thought is constructed by the brain, but are the strawberries?
I agree with you actually , but as soon as any experience happens and is recorded, then it becomes part of the brain.*
quote:
[Q B]Well, we are opening a can of worms here. Possibly they are as well! [/QB]
*cCalling an evolutionary biologist! Calling an evolutionary biologist!... [Smile]
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Jonm
Shipmate
# 1246

 - Posted      Profile for Jonm     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonm:
Sorry, you've probably been asked this loads of times before, but could you give any pointers to books/papers/thinkers who have led you to this conclusion (mainly asking because of your statement on the Dawkins probability thread that you were a 1 from philosophical arguments)

First, ...

<snip>
And yes, none of the above proves the Christian God, merely a God compatible with what Christians believe.

Thanks very much. Will read.

--------------------
"My God, My God, why hast thou accepted me?"---Caedmon's Call

Posts: 264 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jonm
Shipmate
# 1246

 - Posted      Profile for Jonm     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonm:
Sorry, you've probably been asked this loads of times before, but could you give any pointers to books/papers/thinkers who have led you to this conclusion (mainly asking because of your statement on the Dawkins probability thread that you were a 1 from philosophical arguments)

First, ...

<snip>
And yes, none of the above proves the Christian God, merely a God compatible with what Christians believe.

Thanks very much. Will read.

--------------------
"My God, My God, why hast thou accepted me?"---Caedmon's Call

Posts: 264 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411

 - Posted      Profile for Jay-Emm     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by REALLYMAD:
...
Belief in God to me is now an ontologocal fallacy perpetuated to subjucate the underclass into obedience. Generally speaking. But more on that later.

One odd thing is that in many ways the 'reality' described by the Bible isn't the sort of thing you'd expect from something with that effect. Which isn't to say the church and synagogue haven't managed to bury it. (for one thing, the mere act having a king is seen as an act of rebellion against God)

In a sense the atheist portrayal of reality is much more what you'd design to support the bad sides of capitalism and underclassism.
(although one look at the 20thC makes the point that reality is more complex)

To take a pile of curses from the end of Deut (I was looking for the King quote, but it's a reasonable highlight of what got focused on)
quote:

Cursed be anyone who

dishonors his father or his mother.

moves his neighbor's landmark.

misleads a blind man on the road.

perverts the justice due to the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.

lies with his father's wife, because he has uncovered his father's nakedness.

lies with any kind of animal.

lies with his sister, whether the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother.

lies with his mother-in-law.

strikes down his neighbor in secret.

takes a bribe to shed innocent blood.

does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’

there's the pile of obsessed with sex ones, one heirachial (parents), one status quo (bounderies), but most of the obedience is towards the even-lower classes.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm reading Dawkins God Delusion at the moment for an assignment.

<thumbsup/ok> emoticon!! If you get a chance to hear him reading it, even just a little of it, you will see why I think he has one of the[/I] best voices for audio books!
quote:
His argument against "God created the universe" is manifold but one particular section that he concludes with says that it's basically not a good answer. The answer still raises a billion questions.
And, therefore of course in my opinion, the answer has to remain a 'we don't know exactly yet,' not, 'God'!
quote:
And he's right.
And another of those emoticons!
quote:
Those of us that believe in God don't ultimately know what God is and how she created the universe and how he managed to be outside time and first cause and prime mover.

The question is ultimately just delayed.
[
Until when, would you say?
[QUOTE]How would you respond to that?

Do you think you will be reading, 'Against All Gods' by A C Grayling? It's a smallish, slim book which was recommended to me recently and one of my readers is reading a chapter each week to me. It is in our opinion excellent and is vastly more accessible than another of his books we tried a couple of years back, where we couldn't even understand the introduction so we gave up after a few pages of Chapter 1!

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, cynics argue that one reason for the development of the multiverse idea is to get away from the accursed theistic implications of the Big Bang, specifically, that since the universe could not create itself, something else did, not part of the universe. Errm, what would that be?

I'm reading Dawkins God Delusion at the moment for an assignment.

His argument against "God created the universe" is manifold but one particular section that he concludes with says that it's basically not a good answer. The answer still raises a billion questions.

And he's right.

Those of us that believe in God don't ultimately know what God is and how she created the universe and how he managed to be outside time and first cause and prime mover.

The question is ultimately just delayed.

How would you respond to that?

Well, I think I would respond to you differently from my response to Prof Dawkins.

He is basically saying that every explanation must itself be explained. This is just daft. The classic argument here is if we found artefacts on Mars, say a broken down tractor. We could say it is an artefact, because of its obvious design features. But would we say, ah, but we cannot say this, because we don't understand who made it? No.

Another point about Prof D., which I have been rather hammering on about, is that covertly he assumes a naturalistic framework, so he is really saying that God should be explained within that, which is not just daft, but perverse.

But then, at another level, surely all theists would accept that they don't understand the nature of God, or how she does things? I don't count creationists as theists. Does this mean that we should not believe in God?

That's like saying that we cannot have a notion of the transcendent, unless we fully understand it, but if we did, of course it could not be the transcendent.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
George Spigot

Outcast
# 253

 - Posted      Profile for George Spigot   Author's homepage   Email George Spigot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Cos the purpose you get from "there is no God" isn't real. It's something you make up to fill a void.

You see I have a completely opposite viewpoint. If as many theists tell me this life is but a pale shadow of what's to come, a short blip in a sea of infinity. If we are all judged by a being who's sense of justice is "far above my own", if I could spend my entire life doing what I judged to be good works only to find that I had fallen way short of this beings idea of perfection. If in fact the only way to be good turns out to be somehow making myself "love" this being....... That's a reality that seems pointless to me.

We make our own purpose in the short amount of time we have before death and the shortness of life actually adds meaning to it.

If we take the Christian view that god judges all by gods standard then everyone is in a rigged game with no exit. No one has the free choice to disagree with the rules or morals of the system. You end up being "given" one purpose. Seems pretty pointless to me.

If we take another Christian view that, "All are saved" and all have an eternal life then yet again things become pretty pointless. Where is the motivation to get anything done? With no time limits and presumably all things provided for then what is there left to do?

--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html

Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Um. Dear. Sweet. Ingo. Could you possibly summarise in your own words? Some of us lesser beings have a hard time with Aquinas and other Very Clever People. And you know what they say. If you cant explain it simply, you don't understand it yourself. [Biased]

Well, I will do one of the seven (one of which was anyway mine). There are two ways in which one can consider a causal chain. On one hand cause understood in a temporal manner: first this, then this, next that... You kick a ball, it flies into the goal, you score, later you win the game. That is not the sort of chain underlying the "first cause" argument. On the other hand, cause understood in a logical-hierarchical manner: this is based on that which relies on this and is founded on that... The nail is driven in the wall due to the hammer impacting on its head because of the triceps in the arm holding the hammer extending as commanded by the incoming nerve impulses. Note that time is not of essence for this, we are talking about (more or less) simultaneous actions in terms of "logically-hierarchically" prior causes. Even if there are temporal chains (the nerve impulses arrive slightly before the muscle contractions), that's not what we are thinking about here. We think about what must be for something else to change. In modern scientific terms this is what undergirds the search for the "fundamental forces" of nature.

Now, change always requires a cause. (Irrespective of whether it is stochastic or deterministic.) We see that these causes come in a logical-hierarchical sense other changes. The nail is driven in the wall because of the hammer impacting. Etc. But this kind of causal chain, the non-temporal one, must end. We cannot for ever say "this is based on that" without there being a final underlying cause. (Whereas me may be able to say "this came before that" forever.) This would be like building a column from the top down, but never connecting to the ground. It cannot stand on its own, because its weight does not rest on the ground.

It is also clear that what we must end with is something that causes, but is not being caused (again, not understood in a temporal manner, but in a logical-hierarchical sense). This "First Cause" is then what we call God. It is important to point out that the universe could be eternal and would still require this "First Cause".

Another important point to make is the relationship with fundamental physics. Modern physics describes regularities between observed entities, or theoretical entities constructed from observed entities, nothing more and nothing less. It is possible that fundamental physics will penetrate to the very core of the "first causal" activity in some regular aspect. But a description of regularity is not "being". A description in terms of Newton mechanics of a hammer hitting a nail is not the same as an actual hammer actually hitting an actual nail. Thus it is not enough to propose some mathematical equation of fundamental physics as "First Cause". A descriptions has no being of its own. We would still have to ask what is actually doing this.

Basically, this argument says that everything need something else to power it, considered in the here and now. But if you look to the very ground of it all, what is the juice that drives it? What steps the universe ever one Planck time forward? What breathes life into the mathematical descriptions of fundamental physics? What is the green light, the go signal, the push, the driver, the tick to the tock? Something must be saying "Let there be light", and there was light... All the time. Forever and ever. And that we call God.

[ 30. September 2012, 10:24: Message edited by: IngoB ]

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools