Arguments for the Existence of God

[Archaeopteryx]

According to observation, causes are greater than their effects; universes do not pop into existence out of nothing;

We've never observed "nothing."

non-living unconsciousness does not produce living consciousness; life comes only from life; cells come only from cells; reptiles do not turn into birds; apes do not turn into men; the discovery of dinosaur soft tissue, the presence of C14 in diamonds, the rapid weakening of Earth’s magnetic field, the continued existence of Mercury’s magnetic field suggest a younger Earth and solar system than popularly acknowledged;

You're a Creationist?

we live by sacrifice; rights to life, liberty, and property have a basis in Christian theism;

So does theocracy, which can easily deny you those rights.

the question, Why not be cruel?, cannot be satisfactorily answered apart from Divinely-appointed morality;

Bollocks.

justification by faith excels self-justification by non-faith;

Faith can be used to justify whatever one wishes, so it cannot be relied on for knowledge.

the Gospel provides a better hope than does believing that we are mere accidents produced by mindless forces in a pitilessly indifferent universe.

The universe cannot be indifferent so long as we are not indifferent.

 

[Mediaeval]

Words like vexing really give the wrong impression about this epistemological problem which, in practicality, isn't much of a problem at all. If we we're relying on "knowledge and experience" alone...perhaps your characterization of the problem being vexing would be correct....but we don't.

Accurate tools/instruments and evidence all help make our understanding of the past reasonably useful (in most contexts, but certainly not all). I can provide you with some rather basic scenarios and examples which could show you what I mean if you don't understand....but frankly, I feel like doing that will look like I'm insulting your intelligence. It's your call though, just ask and I will provide.



I don't think Rorty (and I don't know anything about the man like high credentials or field of study) has thought particularly hard or long about this. Why would someone need to justify their moral judgements as "true and authoritative" in order to act on them? You certainly don't need these things to act on any other opinions. It's almost silly to think you would. Imagine, for example, that you think vanilla ice cream is the best flavor in the world. Would you need some sort of basis to show that vanilla ice cream is the best flavor in the world is a "true and authoritative" opinion before you can tell it to someone, or act on it and eat some vanilla ice cream? Of course not...that's rather dumb. Similarly, you don't need and evidence (supernatural or otherwise) to make a moral judgement, declare it, and/or act on it.




You're walking on some really thin philosophical ice...and I have the feeling that you're going to fall through it in about a post or two. Not only does "transcendent, authoritative, obligatory morality exist...but you've definitely not going to find or be able to provide any evidence that it exists, nor will you be able to logically/rationally show it exists. Essentially, you're holding onto a belief without any basis for it whatsoever.



So nice of you to ask. Things like accuracy, evidence, and their track record of explaining phenomena...both observable and not...really solve these so-called "problems" quite easily.

Take for example, my experience of the past of the sun rising yesterday. Not only can I appeal to my experience of it (which while sometimes is faulty, it isn't always) but I can also appeal to the experiences of others....and the uniformity of those experiences lends credibility to my own. Not enough you say? Because it's possible all of our experiences are flawed? That's a fair statement....so we also appeal to instruments that can record the sunrise with remarkable accuracy and compare those to the experiences....and again, the uniformity of those instruments and their correlation to the experiences lends validity to both the accuracy of the experiences and instruments? Still not enough since the instruments can be "wrong" in spite of demonstrated accuracy? This is where the epistemological problems are reaching the level of absurdity. We have, in addition to the experiences and instruments...evidence that the earth rotates upon its axis, in fact....it's a myriad of evidence which is also confirmed by more observations, instruments, and accuracy. We've reached the point where the imperfection of our memory and perception of experiences is no longer a problem at all and rationally...it would be absurd to cast doubt upon the idea that the sun rose yesterday. We've got multiple, accurate, and testable evidences of a past event and literally the only thing Browne could say is "it might not be correct because of the possibility, however slight, that all this evidence is somehow wrong". Of course, he would never actually be able to demonstrate that this evidence is wrong....so that mere possibility, no matter how small, isn't a concern whatsoever.

Does that help explain why Browne's absurd reductionist epistemology isn't actually the problem he believes it is (or should be)?



I don't think you're using "incontrovertible" correctly. You just spent several posts explaining how experiences are unreliable in Browne's argument. To label an experience "incontrovertible" now would require a fair amount of evidence (see my example about the sunrise above....that's an incontrovertible experience). My guess is that Craig won't be able to produce any evidence of his experiences at all.






How do you suppose this theistic justification of religious experiences works? It's seems like it's going to require a lot of special pleading which naturally won't apply to the experiences of an atheist. This is, of course, that there's no demonstrable evidence that the theist and atheist experience in a manner different from each other.




I'm sorry....it's a bit difficult to see what you're explaining here. Are you saying that all this..."the recognition that theism supports our interests, explains and enriches life, and provides a basis for knowledge and morality".....is actually Browne's justification for assuming the existence of a truth telling god? I'm guessing Browne never studied even basic logic or any philosophy outside of christian philosophy....is that correct?

Not only is his entire justification for a truth telling god completely circular....but one could easily argue every single one of those points as being entirely possible without god at all. Indeed, only the belief in a god, not an actual god himself, is all even a believer would require for those things.

Again though, since the entire justification is circular (if you're arguing that those things exist because of god, you can't simultaneously argue that god exists because of those things...it's circular logic 101)....I don't need to refute any of those points since the argument is logical fallacious.

I'm hoping that you're simply remembering Browne's argument incorrectly and that he said something else....because at this point, his argument is soundly, completely, and in my personal opinion....easily refuted.

[/QUOTE]

“Vexing” and “incontrovertible” were adjectives borrowed from Archaeopteryx’s posts. In my earlier posts in this thread, I addressed or attempted to address some of what you mentioned here. In apparently disagreeing with my contention that transcendent, authoritative, obligatory morality exists, you seemed to differ with Archaeopteryx, which is interesting.

What I have said about the problem of knowledge from an atheistic perspective is not especially controversial. Other thinkers, theist and atheist alike, have noticed.

Rene Descartes: The less powerful they make my original cause [i.e., if I am the accidental product of mindless matter rather than the purposeful product of a skillful, omniscient Creator], the more likely it is that I am so imperfect as to be deceived all the time.
Charles Darwin: With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
Friedrich Nietzsche: Only if we assume a God who is morally our like can “truth” and the search for truth be at all something meaningful and promising of success. This God left aside, the question is permitted whether being deceived is not one of the conditions of life.
G. K. Chesterton: Reason itself is a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.
Thomas Nagel: If we came to believe that our capacity for objective theory (e.g., true beliefs) were the product of natural selection, that would warrant serious skepticism about its results.
Barry Stroud: There is an embarrassing absurdity in [naturalism] that is revealed as soon as the naturalist reflects and acknowledges that he believes his naturalistic theory of the world. … I mean he cannot say it and consistently regard it as true.
Patricia Churchland: Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F’s: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. … Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism’s way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost.
Alvin Plantinga: If you believe in evolution and naturalism then you have a reason to believe your faculties are unreliable.

B. P. Bowne was professor of philosophy in Boston University and literally wrote the book on the philosophical approach known as personalism. It would be a mistake to judge Bowne by the free use I have made of his material.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What I have said about the problem of knowledge from an atheistic perspective is not especially controversial. Other thinkers, theist and atheist alike, have noticed.

What you haven't shown is that theism solves any of these issues, and you haven't responded to suggestions that it actually worsens the situation. The problems under discussion do not arise "from an atheistic perspective." They arise from a contemplation of what it means to know anything at all. The theist is not immune from such problems simply because he declares it so, as you have done.

 

[Mediaeval]

We've never observed "nothing."

That's the point, what has been actually observed rather than inferred. Granted, I was arguably inconsistent in that reply by expanding "observation" to include personally unobserved testimony concerning other people's observations.

 

[Davian]

Here’s the thing. Everybody is a presuppositionalist, including evidentialists.

“The relations of logic to truth depend, then, not upon its perfection as logic, but upon certain pre-logical faculties and certain pre-logical discoveries, upon the possession of those faculties, upon the power of making those discoveries. If a man starts with certain assumptions, he may be a good logician and a good citizen, a wise man, a successful figure. If he starts with certain other assumptions, he may be an equally good logician and a bankrupt, a criminal, a raving lunatic. Logic, then, is not necessarily an instrument for finding truth; on the contrary, truth is necessarily an instrument for using logic—for using it, that is, for the discovery of further truth and for the profit of humanity. Briefly, you can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.” G. K. Chesterton

Then I am not an presuppositionalist, or evidentialist, as you use the words. Any assumptions I have are tentative, and change with new information.

Are you open to the idea that you may be wrong, and that your god is simply a character in a book? Would that not have explanatory power, for why you cannot demonstrate its existence?

 

[Davian]

Ah, the GishGallop™.

According to observation, causes are greater than their effects; universes do not pop into existence out of nothing;

I don't know how they come into existence. I would guess that you think that they need a big helping of Goddidit™. Is that your claim?

non-living unconsciousness does not produce living consciousness;

That's a big claim. Can you define "consciousness" for me, scientifically, so we can evaluate this claim of yours?

life comes only from life; cells come only from cells;

This claim of "life only from life" always puzzles me. In all the definitions of "life" that I have seen, life involves chemical reactions, consuming, excreting, and being subject to entropy. Your claim would imply that your "God" would need to fit this description. Does it?

reptiles do not turn into birds; apes do not turn into men;

Birds are reptiles, and men are apes. Take that up with those that make up the classifications.

the discovery of dinosaur soft tissue, the presence of C14 in diamonds, the rapid weakening of Earth’s magnetic field, the continued existence of Mercury’s magnetic field suggest a younger Earth and solar system than popularly acknowledged;

Tell me about the giant conspiracy that is taking place so that these discoveries will not overturn the current scientific consensus for the age of the cosmos.

we live by sacrifice;

Too vague. Elaborate.

rights to life, liberty, and property have a basis in Christian theism;

For those born in the right place, the right gender, and of the right colour, historically.

the question, Why not be cruel?, cannot be satisfactorily answered apart from Divinely-appointed morality;

If that is the conclusion you have started with, perhaps. For those of us that have never believed that gods are anything but fictional characters in books, you will need to elaborate.

people who practice Jesus Christ’s teaching to treat others the way they would like to be treated are pleasant to deal with

Teachings that long predate the invention of Christianity.

What about the teaching that anything goes, as long as you believe? You have that as your own.

; justification by faith excels self-justification by non-faith;

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Are you simply digging for something - anything - that "justification by faith" is better than? How would you measure that?

the Gospel provides a better hope than does believing that we are mere accidents produced by mindless forces in a pitilessly indifferent universe.

And there we have your biggest objection to observations of reality; if there were no gods, you would be sad. Am I to laugh at this, or feel pity for you?

Do you concede the balance of my post?

 

[Ana the Ist]

“Vexing” and “incontrovertible” were adjectives borrowed from Archaeopteryx’s posts. In my earlier posts in this thread, I addressed or attempted to address some of what you mentioned here. In apparently disagreeing with my contention that transcendent, authoritative, obligatory morality exists, you seemed to differ with Archaeopteryx, which is interesting.

I suppose it might seem interesting...if one mistakenly carries around the idea that there is some "atheist viewpoint" or "atheist worldview". Since no such thing exists, however, it's actually quite normal for myself and other atheists to disagree on any number of topics not related to atheism

What I have said about the problem of knowledge from an atheistic perspective is not especially controversial. Other thinkers, theist and atheist alike, have noticed.

Oh, I have no doubt that this "problem of knowledge" is nothing new....I doubt there's too many atheists on this forum who haven't heard it and don't know/understand it's shortcomings and solutions. The only thing unique about what you've said is your apparent desire to not address the numerous answers to this problem which have already been given to you.

Rene Descartes: The less powerful they make my original cause [i.e., if I am the accidental product of mindless matter rather than the purposeful product of a skillful, omniscient Creator], the more likely it is that I am so imperfect as to be deceived all the time.
Charles Darwin: With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
Friedrich Nietzsche: Only if we assume a God who is morally our like can “truth” and the search for truth be at all something meaningful and promising of success. This God left aside, the question is permitted whether being deceived is not one of the conditions of life.
G. K. Chesterton: Reason itself is a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.
Thomas Nagel: If we came to believe that our capacity for objective theory (e.g., true beliefs) were the product of natural selection, that would warrant serious skepticism about its results.
Barry Stroud: There is an embarrassing absurdity in [naturalism] that is revealed as soon as the naturalist reflects and acknowledges that he believes his naturalistic theory of the world. … I mean he cannot say it and consistently regard it as true.
Patricia Churchland: Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F’s: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. … Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism’s way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost.
Alvin Plantinga: If you believe in evolution and naturalism then you have a reason to believe your faculties are unreliable.

I'm really glad you posted these quotes...it kind of displays where a lot of your reasoning has taken a turn off the road of rationality. You should probably look further into the context of these quotes...because I don't think they're saying what you think they're saying.

B. P. Bowne was professor of philosophy in Boston University and literally wrote the book on the philosophical approach known as personalism. It would be a mistake to judge Bowne by the free use I have made of his material.

I wouldn't worry about that.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I find that Bowne and the presuppositionalists make it clear that there is no logically justifiable stopping place between theism and universal skepticism or solipsism.

Sure there is. If the god hypothesis has not met its burden of proof, then it's not only justifiable, but logically required to not accept belief until that burden has been met.

I've never heard any apologist, mush less a presuppositional one meet that burden of proof.

 

[Eudaimonist]

According to observation, causes are greater than their effects

There is no such principle in science. You are talking pure pseudo-science from trashy creationists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ana the Ist]

According to observation, causes are greater than their effects....

As Davian pointed out...this is demonstrably wrong. A cause (pulling the trigger on a loaded gun) can have far greater effects than any part of the cause...or causes.

 

[KCfromNC]

If you are going to imply that Christianity causes criminality

Nope, I'm just saying that the evidence doesn't support your claim that theism is the only way to ground morality.

 

[Curious Mind]

When one makes an argument for theism, it would seem that you are making an argument for a whole lot of wrong, as they (religions) cannot all be right.

Not if 'we' are going to reach the 'god' conclusion that you have started with.

Fortunately, there are many other things on which morality can be based, no gods required.

Not once.

Can you define what "supernatural" is in this context. Can it be in any way delineated from "imaginary"?

Sure. We can base it on reason, compassion, human wellness, empathy, the Silver Rule, and/or the social contract.

Again I have to ask what do you mean by "God" in this context; is this the [hypothetical] "God" that will burn for eternity the majority of those that ever lived for reasons beyond their control? How is that not morally bankrupt?

I am not an atheist as you define the term.

Then Craig's experiences can be dismissed as such. Do you concur?

This is the wrong forum for apologetics. If you care.

Did it ever occur to him that out of the thousands of religions and denominations, that only one can be right (if any)? That makes the most of them falsehoods. Possibly all of them.

Theism makes us happy? How weak is that?

False knowledge.

Or, more accurately, a means of control of a populace.

"Wrecking your interests" would make you sad. I have to say, your arguments are not very compelling.

Since when is atheism incompatible with free will? Or are we limited to talking about your strawman atheist?

As an ignostic, perhaps it would be time to ask exactly what do you mean by "God". I gather that we are talking of the "God" character in the Bible, that [allegedly] walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with using a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every object measure to date indistinguishable from nothing?

To hold such a presupposition, would I not have to firstly toss out virtually all of modern scientific knowledge as wildly inaccurate? And this is your "best possible proof"?

I am not an evidentialist, or an atheist, by that definition.

Perhaps if you mean "evidentialist" you should use the word "evidentialist", for the precision that you currently lack.

Brilliant

 

[FireDragon76]

Nope, I'm just saying that the evidence doesn't support your claim that theism is the only way to ground morality.

One might argue more people in jail are theists, because they are looking for redemption. That doesn't make them immoral, in fact I'd say that's a good thing.

Another thing that bothers me about your tone: people in jail are not merely guilty, they are often victims of various forms of oppression and injustice long before they wind up there. Saying they are examples of "bad morality" is naïve and dehumanizing.

 

[Mediaeval]

There is no such principle in science. You are talking pure pseudo-science from trashy creationists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Science always rests on some philosophy, whether in regard to causation or some other thing. Causes are not seen. Their nature is a matter of speculative inference. Just ask Hume and J. S. Mill. “According to observation,” the only original sort of causation we have knowledge of firsthand are the effects that we ourselves have caused using our intellect and volition. To assert that impersonal, unintelligent, non-volitional causes exist and, e.g., have caused the universe and everything in it to come into existence, would be as arbitrary and unsupported an assertion as it would be to posit a flying spaghetti monster. The atheist worldview is therefore absurd, and theism is therefore true.

 

[HitchSlap]

Science always rests on some philosophy, whether in regard to causation or some other thing. Causes are not seen. Their nature is a matter of speculative inference. Just ask Hume and J. S. Mill. “According to observation,” the only original sort of causation we have knowledge of firsthand are the effects that we ourselves have caused using our intellect and volition. To assert that impersonal, unintelligent, non-volitional causes exist and, e.g., have caused the universe and everything in it to come into existence, would be as arbitrary and unsupported an assertion as it would be to posit a flying spaghetti monster. The atheist worldview is therefore absurd, and theism is therefore true.

Lol.

 

[Mediaeval]

Then I am not an presuppositionalist, or evidentialist, as you use the words. Any assumptions I have are tentative, and change with new information.

Thanks. Given that all logical arguments rest on unproven and unprovable assumptions, and all your assumptions are tentative, it follows that all your conclusions are likewise tentative, which amounts to universal skepticism. This illustrates my original point (post #10), viz., that there is no logical stopping point between theism and universal skepticism or solipsism.

 

[Davian]

“Vexing” and “incontrovertible” were adjectives borrowed from Archaeopteryx’s posts. In my earlier posts in this thread, I addressed or attempted to address some of what you mentioned here. In apparently disagreeing with my contention that transcendent, authoritative, obligatory morality exists, you seemed to differ with Archaeopteryx, which is interesting.

What I have said about the problem of knowledge from an atheistic perspective <snip>

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)?

 

[Davian]

Science always rests on some philosophy, whether in regard to causation or some other thing. Causes are not seen. Their nature is a matter of speculative inference.

As is the need for them, in the field of astrophysics.

Just ask Hume and J. S. Mill. “According to observation,” the only original sort of causation we have knowledge of firsthand are the effects that we ourselves have caused using our intellect and volition. To assert that impersonal, unintelligent, non-volitional causes exist and, e.g., have caused the universe and everything in it to come into existence, would be as arbitrary and unsupported an assertion as it would be to posit a flying spaghetti monster.

Or some character that [allegedly] walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with using a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every object measure to date indistinguishable from nothing.

The atheist worldview is therefore absurd,

I am not area of this "atheist worldview". What does it entail, beyond a position on the existence of deities?

and theism is therefore true.

I see you are repeating your earlier mistake of referring to theism as some sort of homogenous concept, when, in reality, the mutually exclusive nature of religions necessitates that they all be wrong. Okay, perhaps one of them could be right, but the evidence does not support that.

Will you alter your use of the word accordingly, or are you stuck with it based on your presuppositions and reference material you rode in on?

 

[Davian]

Thanks. Given that all logical arguments rest on unproven and unprovable assumptions, and all your assumptions are tentative, it follows that all your conclusions are likewise tentative, which amounts to universal skepticism.

But I do not hold to "unproven and unprovable" assumptions; I can use evidence and experimentation.

I cannot prove to you that you will die or be seriously injured when you attempt to walk across a busy freeway at night with your eyes closed, but I will rest on the assumption that it would be likely.

This illustrates my original point (post #10),

Or, it shows that you are attempting to misrepresent my position, which I find to be intellectually dishonest.

viz., that there is no logical stopping point between theism

Theism being (almost completely) wrong, as religions cannot all be right. And they could all be wrong.

and universal skepticism or solipsism.

And the solipsism arguments fail, in that if what we experience is consistent, persistent, observable, measurable, and behaves in a manner in which we can make reliable predictions, for all intents and purposes it *is* reality.

Did I not mention that earlier?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Science always rests on some philosophy, whether in regard to causation or some other thing.

Yes, "cause" is a philosophical concept. However, observation does not support the principle that a cause is "greater" than its effect. That strikes me as a rationalistic philosophical judgment, and not a very convincing one.

Causes are not seen. Their nature is a matter of speculative inference. Just ask Hume and J. S. Mill.

You really shouldn't drop Hume's name around me, I think that he is too epistemologically skeptical. While we may infer causes, they are seen firsthand. We don't see the abstract concept "cause", but we see the entity that is a cause, and the cause-effect relationship can be modeled and understood for what it is. This happens in science all of the time.

“According to observation,” the only original sort of causation we have knowledge of firsthand are the effects that we ourselves have caused using our intellect and volition.

Nonsense. We have firsthand knowledge of all cause-effect interactions that we can observe.

To assert that impersonal, unintelligent, non-volitional causes exist and, e.g., have caused the universe and everything in it to come into existence, would be as arbitrary and unsupported an assertion as it would be to posit a flying spaghetti monster.

That is philosophy gone retarded, which is the essence of Hume's ultra-skepticism. It's one step away from solipsism.

The atheist worldview is therefore absurd, and theism is therefore true.

That is absurd. Even if you were right that impersonal causes are "arbitrary and unsupported", so are theistic causes, and theism would be just as absurd. You can't support one option by knocking down another.

Your approach is self-defeating. It is the nuclear option that involves selecting the most useless epistemology in order to defeat one truth claim, and then to pretend that it doesn't simply nuke all other truth claims. It is a completely vapid form of philosophy that really should be called sophistry.


eudaimonia,

Mark