• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Arguments for the Existence of God

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
According to observation, causes are greater than their effects; universes do not pop into existence out of nothing;
We've never observed "nothing."
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.
 
Upvote 0

Mediaeval

baptizatus sum
Sep 24, 2012
857
185
✟44,873.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
[/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.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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.
 
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

Mediaeval

baptizatus sum
Sep 24, 2012
857
185
✟44,873.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
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.
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
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?
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
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?
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

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.


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.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟59,815.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
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.
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,738
58
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟126,756.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
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
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0

Curious Mind

New Member
Jun 6, 2016
3
3
41
Alabama
✟22,638.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Brilliant
 
Reactions: Davian
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,402
20,706
Orlando, Florida
✟1,503,190.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
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.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mediaeval

baptizatus sum
Sep 24, 2012
857
185
✟44,873.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
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.
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟288,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Lol.

 
Reactions: Davian
Upvote 0

Mediaeval

baptizatus sum
Sep 24, 2012
857
185
✟44,873.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
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.
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
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)?
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
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.
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?
 
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
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?
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,738
58
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟126,756.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
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.


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
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0