Arguments for the Existence of God

[Chriliman]

As I've explained, the question is unresolvable. There's no way to know if there are unknowable things.

If there are unknowable things, then they are irrelevant to the knowledge of all knowable things. Do you think that's true or not?

If there are unknowable things, then there can be no being that can know all things.

It's impossible to know if there are unknowable things, therefore the above statement is irrelevant to the point being made.

 

[Chriliman]

A belief is something you have accepted as true. However, for that belief to be justified you need evidence in order to accept the belief as a valid one.

Agreed. Do you consider logical truth statements to be evidence of what's actually true?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If there are unknowable things, then they are irrelevant to the knowledge of all knowable things. Do you think that's true or not?

If an unknowable thing affects a knowable thing, then they might be "relevant".

It's impossible to know if there are unknowable things, therefore the above statement is irrelevant to the point being made.

What on earth is the point then?

 

[Chriliman]

If an unknowable thing affects a knowable thing, then they might be "relevant".

If you see X being affected by Y, that means you know something about Y. You know it affects things. You may not know exactly what Y is, but that does not mean you have no knowledge of Y.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If you see X being affected by Y, that means you know something about Y. You know it affects things. You may not know exactly what Y is, but that does not mean you have no knowledge of Y.

And it doesn't mean you do. You could be unaware that Y is affecting X and make the assumption that X changes on its own.

What is the freaking point?

 

[Chriliman]

And it doesn't mean you do. You could be unaware that Y is affecting X and make the assumption that X changes on its own.

Sure, but how does that equal Y being unknowable?

If Y exists, then it's possible to know it exists. If Y does not exist, then it won't affect anything and could then be classified as unknowable.

What is the freaking point?

The point is to exercise our understanding of what's true.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Sure, but how does that equal Y being unknowable?

Because Y is defined as unknowable.

If Y exists, then it's possible to know it exists. If Y does not exist, then it won't affect anything and could then be classified as unknowable.

I can't believe I'm having to say this again...

You CANNOT say that "If Y exists, then it's possible to know it exists", because you can't know if Y is unknowable.

We have gone over this and over this.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

When I say "it's possible to know all things", I'm referring to things that exist, not things that don't exist.

I understand that, but you're ignoring things that may exist but you can't know.

It is possible to know all things(things being things that exist) because it's impossible to know if a thing does not exist.

That doesn't follow, and it doesn't help your argument. That it's impossible to know a thing doesn't exist, doesn't mean that it must be possible to know it does exist.

If all things that exist are knowable, then it is possible to know all things that exist.

Yes.

If some things exist that are unknowable, then it is impossible to know that they exist.

Yes.

If it's impossible to know a thing exists, then it's existence is irrelevant to the knowledge of all things that do exist.

It's not irrelevant because if it does exist, that makes it an unknowable member of the set of all things that do exist. That's the point. Otherwise your argument resolves to 'things you can't know don't exist'. That can't be justified because - by definition - you can't know.

A trivial example of unknowable unknowns is cosmological: we have good evidence that the universe is bigger than what we can observe, and given that it is expanding, this suggests that there are things beyond what we can observe that we can never know. Even if we can't be absolutely sure that this is the case, we can't be certain that it isn't. This makes the claim that all things are knowable is unjustifiable.

 

[Davian]

It has been a long thread. I'll let "John" answer:

“[To] all my Atheist friends.

Let us stop sugar coating it. I know, it’s hard to come out and be blunt with the friendly Theists who frequent sites like this. However in your efforts to “play nice” and “be civil” you actually do them a great disservice.

We are Atheists.

Does this mean a disbelief in gods, or are you sticking to that straw-man atheist you built a ways back?

We believe that the Universe is a great uncaused, random accident.

I don't.

"Accident" implies something else should have happened. What would that have been?

All life in the Universe past and future are the results of random chance acting on itself. While we acknowledge concepts like morality, politeness, civility seem to exist, we know they do not.

Just like waterfalls do not exist. Take away the water, and what do you have?

Our highly evolved brains imagine that these things have a cause or a use, and they have in the past, they’ve allowed life to continue on this planet for a short blip of time. But make no mistake: all our dreams, loves, opinions, and desires are figments of our primordial imagination. They are fleeting electrical signals that fire across our synapses for a moment in time. They served some purpose in the past. They got us here. That’s it. All human achievement and plans for the future are the result of some ancient, evolved brain and accompanying chemical reactions that once served a survival purpose. Ex: I’ll marry and nurture children because my genes demand reproduction, I’ll create because creativity served a survival advantage to my ancient ape ancestors, I’ll build cities and laws because this allowed my ape grandfather time and peace to reproduce and protect his genes. My only directive is to obey my genes. Eat, sleep, reproduce, die.

It can be interpreted that way. The selfish gene, and all that.

That is our bible.

Typically "bibles" do not comport with reality.

We deride the Theists for having created myths and holy books.

I deride theists for promoting their many, varied, and contradictory holy books as accurate descriptions of reality.

We imagine ourselves superior.

I don't.

But we too imagine there are reasons to obey laws, be polite, protect the weak etc. Rubbish. We are nurturing a new religion, one where we imagine that such conventions have any basis in reality. Have they allowed life to exist? Absolutely. But who cares? Outside of my greedy little gene’s need to reproduce, there is nothing in my world that stops me from killing you and reproducing with your wife. Only the fear that I might be incarcerated and thus be deprived of the opportunity to do the same with the next guy’s wife stops me.

And for me, reason, compassion, empathy, and relative human wellness, the Silver Rule, and the social contract.

Are you describing how you would act if you realized gods were only characters in books?

You best keep believing then.

Some of my Atheist friends have fooled themselves into acting like the general population. They live in suburban homes, drive Toyota Camrys, attend school plays. But underneath they know the truth. They are a bag of DNA whose only purpose is to make more of themselves. So be nice if you want. Be involved, have polite conversations, be a model citizen.

Is this a bad thing?

Just be aware that while technically an Atheist, you are an inferior one. You’re just a little bit less evolved, that’s all. When you are ready to join me, let me know, I’ll be reproducing with your wife.

Do these strawmen know how they are being misrepresented in these forums?

I know it’s not PC to speak so bluntly about the ramifications of our beliefs, but in our discussions with Theists we sometimes tip toe around what we really know to be factual. Maybe it’s time we Atheists were a little more truthful and let the chips fall where they may. At least that’s what my genes are telling me to say.”

Source: http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/the-inevitable-consequence-of-an-atheistic-worldview/

I don't know of anyone with an "atheistic" worldview. "I'm not convinced" is not a worldview.

Have you considered an approach where you attempt to establish the veracity of your own beliefs, rather than attacking those of others (even if they are only straw-people)?

 

[Chriliman]

Because Y is defined as unknowable.

Do you agree that it's impossible to define something that's unknowable? If not, how would you go about defining something that's unknowable without knowing something about it?

I can't believe I'm having to say this again...

You CANNOT say that "If Y exists, then it's possible to know it exists", because you can't know if Y is unknowable.

You just defined Y as unknowable here:

Because Y is defined as unknowable.

but now you're saying you can't know if Y is unknowable here:

because you can't know if Y is unknowable.

If you can't know, then how did you define it?

 

[Mediaeval]

Don't you do the same thing?



Why?



Why should there be a supreme authority that dictates that to us in order for us to assume moral imperative?



The consequences of our actions do.



That's fallacious, not all opinions are equal. Some opinions are backed with evidence and reasoning, other are not.

Let me ask you a question, why do you think slavery and infanticide is wrong?



The Euthyphro is not a false dilemma.



How does it serve as a reminder that "self-evident objective" morality exists? She wrote something you disagree with, therefore it proves your point? That's a non sequitur.

Personal preference doesn't matter, consequential ethicism is what we use.

The writer’s appeal to morality as something obligatory is an acknowledgement of the moral imperative that we all perceive, independently of our will, by virtue of finding ourselves in relationships with others—parents, teachers, employers, spouses, children. All bring duties upon us that we did not devise for ourselves. Christian theism recognizes these duties and accounts for them as real and worthy. But if man is basically a machine with a meat computer, the necessary product of physical forces and environment, his duties are not real, for automata do not have duties. The sense of duty is just an irksome feeling in the brain. Submit to it or ignore it as you please.
A false dilemma is where a problem is construed as having only two unsatisfactory solutions when there is a good solution available. Such is the case with Christian morality, which is grounded not in an abstract, impersonal good with authority over all, nor in the Divine will, but in the Divine nature, which is itself the standard of all good. Euthyphro does not apply.
Consequentialism still reduces to personal preference. Someone has to evaluate the consequences and decide which are preferable. Consequently, this is not a way of attaining to moral truth, if such exists, since opinions about consequences often contradict each other. A woman’s body, or an infant’s life? A nation free of undesirables—Armenians, Jews, Ukrainians, anti-socialists, excessive carbon producers, the old and infirm, and the surplus population, or a right to life as an intrinsic human right for each individual? Some prefer one consequence, some prefer another, and both may try to pass themselves off, incongruously, as morally superior.

 

[Chriliman]

It's not irrelevant because if it does exist, that makes it an unknowable member of the set of all things that do exist. That's the point.

If one cannot know anything about an unknowable thing, then how can one even logically say that an unknowable thing could exist?

You're claiming to have knowledge about the unknowable, which is a contradiction.

Otherwise your argument resolves to 'things you can't know don't exist'. That can't be justified because - by definition - you can't know.

Saying "things you can't know don't exist" is also a contradiction. I'm saying "It's impossible to know anything about an unknowable thing" Yet you're claiming to know something about the unknowable, which is a contradiction.

A trivial example of unknowable unknowns is cosmological: we have good evidence that the universe is bigger than what we can observe, and given that it is expanding, this suggests that there are things beyond what we can observe that we can never know. Even if we can't be absolutely sure that this is the case, we can't be certain that it isn't. This makes the claim that all things are knowable is unjustifiable.

I'm not making the claim that all things are knowable, I am making the claim that it's possible that all things are knowable. When you said "Even if we can't be absolutely sure that this is the case, we can't be certain that it isn't.", you're proving my point that it's possible to know those things that are beyond because we're not absolutely certain that we can't.

 

[Chriliman]

I understand that, but you're ignoring things that may exist but you can't know.

How would one acknowledge something that they can't know?

I ignore the unknowable because it's logical to do so. I do not ignore the unknown because it's always possible to know more about that which exists.

I'm not concerned with the unknowable because it's pointless to be concerned with it.

This will be my last post, I do hope this discussion has been helpful to someone

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If one cannot know anything about an unknowable thing, then how can one even logically say that an unknowable thing could exist?

You're claiming to have knowledge about the unknowable, which is a contradiction.
...

You're confusing & conflating ontology and epistemology. It's already been explained why your original statement was invalid.

e.t.a. That some things can be known does not imply that therefore it is possible to know all things.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm not concerned with the unknowable because it's pointless to be concerned with it.

Whether your concerned with it or not has no bearing on whether your statement is valid.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The writer’s appeal to morality as something obligatory is an acknowledgement of the moral imperative that we all perceive, independently of our will, by virtue of finding ourselves in relationships with others—parents, teachers, employers, spouses, children. All bring duties upon us that we did not devise for ourselves. Christian theism recognizes these duties and accounts for them as real and worthy. But if man is basically a machine with a meat computer, the necessary product of physical forces and environment, his duties are not real, for automata do not have duties. The sense of duty is just an irksome feeling in the brain. Submit to it or ignore it as you please.

How does Christian theism account for them as real and worthy? Why wouldn't they be real and worthy absent Christian theism? Again, in almost every one of your posts in this thread you make assertions with little effort to support them.

A false dilemma is where a problem is construed as having only two unsatisfactory solutions when there is a good solution available. Such is the case with Christian morality, which is grounded not in an abstract, impersonal good with authority over all, nor in the Divine will, but in the Divine nature, which is itself the standard of all good. Euthyphro does not apply.

So is something good because it is part of his nature or is it part of his nature because it is good? You've simply shifted the problem from God's will to his nature.

 

[Mediaeval]

How does Christian theism account for them as real and worthy? Why wouldn't they be real and worthy absent Christian theism? Again, in almost every one of your posts in this thread you make assertions with little effort to support them.

So is something good because it is part of his nature or is it part of his nature because it is good? You've simply shifted the problem from God's will to his nature.

The point in relation to Euthyphro is that God does not arbitrarily or capriciously make or define what is good. God’s nature or God Himself is simply the good and definitive of all good. Apart from Him, good would not exist. Good and evil would be merely subjective opinions, amoral feelings in the machinery of the human brain responding to amoral stimuli.

 

[devolved]

I think you are equivocating the concept of good with a concept of God. Good is a consequentual judgement that's contextual. How can you equivocate contextual judgement of consequences... and make it into an attribute that lacks any such context?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The point in relation to Euthyphro is that God does not arbitrarily or capriciously make or define what is good. God’s nature or God Himself is simply the good and definitive of all good. Apart from Him, good would not exist. Good and evil would be merely subjective opinions, amoral feelings in the machinery of the human brain responding to amoral stimuli.

What would it mean then to say that he is a "just God"? Such an evaluation implies that you are judging his character or actions according to some other standard or criteria. Yet going by what you have said, whatever he is or does automatically becomes "just," in which case calling him a "just God" is equivalent to saying that he is what he is and does what he does.

Apart from Him, good would not exist. Good and evil would be merely subjective opinions, amoral feelings in the machinery of the human brain responding to amoral stimuli.

This does not follow, or at least, you have yet to argue for it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If all subjective beings agree that life is good, how is that not a recognized objective goodness of life?

Well, to start with, not all beings agree on that, since plenty of them kill other beings and others even kill themselves.

Secondly, if all people agree on a subjective matter, it doesn't become an objective one purely because of that consensus.

Keep in mind that we don't actually know if there was ever a time when no subjective being existed

Except that we do know that there was such a time. No life existed at the start of the universe, for example.

, you'd have to know all things in order to know that

Not at all.

I don't have to know everything about everything, to know some things.

, but if you knew all things then you'd be considered God.

It's not even clear to me why a god would know everything.
People simply declare it to be so. It's not like they can prove that or something....
They can't even demonstrate that this god is anything more then a figment of their imagination...