Favorite arguments!

[The Nihilist]

Well he does say in just about every major work he publishes that he isn't a theologian.

Except that then he goes and fumbles around in theology.

 

[MedicMan]

P1: God is omniscient, omnipotent, and so forth
P2: Something that exists in reality is greater than something that exists purely in the mind (for example, a piece of music is always better when heard for real than when you are remembering the concert days later)
P3: If God were only a figment of our collective imaginations, then it would be possible to conceive of a being that was greater than God simply by conceiving of a being that possessed all of God's qualities, but also existed in the real world
P4: No being can be greater than God, thus it is inconsistent of us to be able to conceive of a being that is greater than God
P5: The only way we cannot conceive of a being greater than God is if God exists in the real world

C: God exists in the real world

Thus, God exists, a priori

 

[MedicMan]

My current favourite, however is this:

Any positive integer (m) / zero = infinity

[multiplying both sides by zero]

m = zero x infinity

Therefore a positive but limited thing (creation) can be produced out of zero (nothing) by infinity (God).

That is brilliant I'm doing further maths and philosophy at college, amongst other things, and that really appeals to me

 

[The Nihilist]

Oh, that silly ontological argument

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Oh, that silly ontological argument

The thing that annoys me about the ontological arguments is that I know they don't prove the existence of God even remotely, but I can't for the life of me work out what is wrong with them in formal logic terms. Anyone?

peace

 

[Blackguard_]

I'm going to give the rest of you a chance to critique this before I do it tonight. I see two major problems at first glance, the smaller of which is reasoning by analogy. Two points for anyone who can guess the other one.

Assuming God can be the only source of an objective standard of justice?

 

[The Nihilist]

The thing that annoys me about the ontological arguments is that I know they don't prove the existence of God even remotely, but I can't for the life of me work out what is wrong with them in formal logic terms. Anyone?

peace

The ontological argument rests on an old Platonic valuation about different levels of being. That is, the highest level of being, the forms, exist the most, and all the way down the ladder. These are the same people who define evil as the absense of good. It's really just silly.

 

[The Nihilist]

One of my favorite arguments for the existence of God comes from the book Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis.

In Book II the 1st chapter in Mere Christianity he says his argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. Then he wondered how he got the idea of just and unjust? He says he realized that a person does not call a line crooked unless he/she has some idea of a straight line. He wondered what he was comparing the universe with when he called it unjust. He wondered that if the whole show was bad from A to Z, so to speak, why did he, who was supposed to be part of the show, find himself in such violent reaction against it? He says that a man feels wet when he falls in the water because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet.

Then he says he could have given up his idea of justice by saying that it was just a private idea of his. But if he did that, his argument against God collapsed too- for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please his private fancy.

1. His argument against God does not collapse if he says justice is nonsense. Atheism does not rely on justice, but Christianity does. His argument is not that there is some thing called justice to which God does not answer, but that Christianity is internally inconsistent in saying that God is just and that he let's the weak suffer.
2. A much simpler explanation as to why C.S. Lewis is repulsed by the world exists; one need not posit a God. C.S. Lewis could simply be a wimp.
3. The reasoning by analogy (we feel dry only because we know what it is to be wet) suggests that we understand both good and evil only because we can see the relationship between the two. This puts him in an EXTREMELY hairy position wherein, in order to describe God, who is absolutely good, you must necessarily do so in terms of evil. Therefore, goodness loses its primacy, and suddenly, C.S. Lewis looks a lot more like a Zoarastrian than he does a Christian.
4. Also, it is invalid to say that because our sense perception works this way, then our understanding works the same way. This is the relatively mundane problem with the argument.

 

[EverlastingMan]

1. His argument against God does not collapse if he says justice is nonsense. Atheism does not rely on justice, but Christianity does. His argument is not that there is some thing called justice to which God does not answer, but that Christianity is internally inconsistent in saying that God is just and that he let's the weak suffer.

Er, no. You're referring to an argument different than Lewis'. He was saying that there is injustice, where there should be justice; thus, any just god must not exist. The argument you posit is rather different than the one he mentioned. It's not an argument against a god so much as an argument against a particular idea of god, in this case God (with the capital G).

2. A much simpler explanation as to why C.S. Lewis is repulsed by the world exists; one need not posit a God. C.S. Lewis could simply be a wimp.

Think you mean disgusted rather than repulsed; because repulsed means:
1 : to drive or beat back : [SIZE=-1]REPEL[/SIZE]
2 : to repel by discourtesy, coldness, or denial
3 : to cause repulsion in
(According to Merriam-Webster anyway.)
Now, what you posit could be true. Lewis might have been some freak. However, the fact is that the argument he was trying to debunk was quite a widespread one. It's common then; it's common now. Which means of course that a great many people must be wimps, in fact the majority. But what the majority of people are is called normal; thus those who are not "wimps" would be described as psychotic, or some aggressive sort of term.

3. The reasoning by analogy (we feel dry only because we know what it is to be wet) suggests that we understand both good and evil only because we can see the relationship between the two. This puts him in an EXTREMELY hairy position wherein, in order to describe God, who is absolutely good, you must necessarily do so in terms of evil. Therefore, goodness loses its primacy, and suddenly, C.S. Lewis looks a lot more like a Zoarastrian than he does a Christian.

Well, I know a great many Christians who think the same way of good and evil, though I do not.
Anyway, the analogy can be understood two ways, not just one. Their is your way, of course. And then we could understand it to be saying that we know evil because we know good. This is basically your interpretation flipped over, but it works. For instance, we know that a cake without sugar is wrong because we know that it ought to have sugar. We understand the wrong, in terms of the right. This is how Christian theologians--such as Augustine and, I think, Aquinas--have described it, and it is probably a lot closer to whatever the devil Lewis meant.

4. Also, it is invalid to say that because our sense perception works this way, then our understanding works the same way. This is the relatively mundane problem with the argument.

I think you're thinking to hard into the analogy here mate.

 

[The Nihilist]

Er, no. You're referring to an argument different than Lewis'. He was saying that there is injustice, where there should be justice; thus, any just god must not exist. The argument you posit is rather different than the one he mentioned. It's not an argument against a god so much as an argument against a particular idea of god, in this case God (with the capital G).
Now, what you posit could be true. Lewis might have been some freak. However, the fact is that the argument he was trying to debunk was quite a widespread one. It's common then; it's common now. Which means of course that a great many people must be wimps, in fact the majority. But what the majority of people are is called normal; thus those who are not "wimps" would be described as psychotic, or some aggressive sort of term.
Well, I know a great many Christians who think the same way of good and evil, though I do not.
Anyway, the analogy can be understood two ways, not just one. Their is your way, of course. And then we could understand it to be saying that we know evil because we know good. This is basically your interpretation flipped over, but it works. For instance, we know that a cake without sugar is wrong because we know that it ought to have sugar. We understand the wrong, in terms of the right. This is how Christian theologians--such as Augustine and, I think, Aquinas--have described it, and it is probably a lot closer to whatever the devil Lewis meant.
I think you're thinking to hard into the analogy here mate.

This is when the EAC guidebook tells me to accuse you of being a fundy.
Ok, but seriously. I am not really sure I understand what you are saying about my first point. Are you saying he is arguing against a just god in general, but I have treated it in such a way that it can only be about the Christian God? If that is what you mean, then I do not really see how that changes anything. My criticism is still legitimate. But the fact of the matter is that Lewis is talking about the Christian God, whether he says it explicitly or not.
I think what you are saying about my second point is that everyone agrees that the world is unjust, and so everyone is a wimp, is that right? According to Sam Harris, 87% of Americans never doubt the existence of God. Seems to me like they are not bothered by it, because if they were, they clearly would not believe in God on the grounds that he is unjust.
Ok, see if you can follow my third point, because it is not super easy. Sense perception functions in a way that we only feel one way because we have felt the other way. For example, we take pleasure from eating because we were previously hungry, or we feel wet because we were previously dry. However, if you remain in the water, you no longer feel wet. Similarly, if you remain out of the water, you no longer feel dry. The two rely on each other, and cannot exist without each other.
And no, reasoning by analogy is not valid.
Care to try again, son?

 

[EverlastingMan]

This is when the EAC guidebook tells me to accuse you of being a fundy.
Ok, but seriously. I am not really sure I understand what you are saying about my first point. Are you saying he is arguing against a just god in general, but I have treated it in such a way that it can only be about the Christian God? If that is what you mean, then I do not really see how that changes anything. My criticism is still legitimate. But the fact of the matter is that Lewis is talking about the Christian God, whether he says it explicitly or not.

You got half of my point. I'll check back and see about whether or not he was talking about God or god. I've always seen it the latter way. And yes it does rather matter. If on the one hand he is arguing against god than your point about God doesn't matter in the slightest. It's like a person arguing against the existence of kind people by showing that one person is mean.

I think what you are saying about my second point is that everyone agrees that the world is unjust, and so everyone is a wimp, is that right? According to Sam Harris, 87% of Americans never doubt the existence of God. Seems to me like they are not bothered by it, because if they were, they clearly would not believe in God on the grounds that he is unjust.

If you're using that statistic to say that most people don't think the world is unjust than you're wrong. If you're saying that because most people aren't bothered by the apparent lack of compatibility between God and justice, then yes. But really, who cares? If they believe, then obviously they don't think they're wrong.

Ok, see if you can follow my third point, because it is not super easy. Sense perception functions in a way that we only feel one way because we have felt the other way. For example, we take pleasure from eating because we were previously hungry, or we feel wet because we were previously dry. However, if you remain in the water, you no longer feel wet. Similarly, if you remain out of the water, you no longer feel dry. The two rely on each other, and cannot exist without each other.

You're not, reasoning by analogy are you?! 'Cause that's all I see there.

Your analogy isn't all that great either. The sensation of being in "dry" doesn't depend on my having been previously wet, only my noticing. My body is receiving the same information and translating it into the same sensation when I have been out of the water for days as when I have just dried off; I merely have become accustomed to the sensation of being dry.

Besides that you missed my point entirely, or simply disregarded it, or maybe just made it rather confusing. You are saying we understand one in terms of the other, and that's great. You can look at it that way if you like. I'm saying, there's also another way to look at that analogy, and that is to understand each of the things in terms of one of them or in terms of something distinct from both of them.

And no, reasoning by analogy is not valid.

Of course not. But using an analogy to show your reasoning, which if I recall is what he was doing, is valid. If not, then there is no philosophy in existence that is valid. And since this appears to be your response to my 4th point, I really wasn't making a point so much as an aside.

Care to try again, son?

Feeling condescending now, are we?

 

[Lisa0315]

I know we're mostly atheists here, but what's your favorite argument for the existence of God? Don't tell us why it's wrong, either, it'll be like a puzzle! I'll post mine later.

Also, don't post anything wherein you secretly define atheism as the belief that no one believes in God. It's way too soon and won't be funny.

Ooh, I have several.

1) I use Spiritual Knowledge vs Physical knowledge often.

2) I have used that children are born with a knowledge of God and later toss that knowledge away if they are not nurtured into God's family.

3) Circular logic is a particular favorite of mine.

4) I also claim that the No True Scotsman fallacy does not apply to Christians because we have a perfect example to follow. (Jesus is our True Scotsman)

I will see if I can think of others, but we will go with these for now. (Rubs hands together eagerly anticipating fun debate with Recovering Philosopher)

Lisa

 

[David Gould]

Lewis is basically asking where we get our sense of right and wrong from.

What he fails to address is the sense is not an abstract one; it is a concrete one. We react against or for certain actions or properties in the world.

If there are reasons why we react against or for something that have nothing to do with whether they are abstractly 'good' or 'evil' then the whole problem vanishes.

For example, if we react against being horribly tortured, there is an obvious reason why, and it has nothing to do with whether being horribly tortured is 'evil' or not.

If we move the question down a layer to, 'Why does being horribly tortured hurt?' it simply comes down to the fact that pain is a warning mechanism that helps us prevent damage.

No need for any transcendance there. And if there is no need in that instance, maybe there is no need in any other instance - maybe all of our reactions for and against things have reasons.

 

[David Gould]

Children certainly seem to rapidly develop the notion of ascribing intelligent agency to their environment. In Daniel Wegner's excellent book 'The Illusion of Conscious Will' there are some very good examples of research on children in this regard - things sunk in baths because the little man inside them wanted them to sink; they would float because the little man wanted them to float.

However, I would tend to put our hardwired tendency to ascribe agency to everything as a survival trait.

 

[Lisa0315]

Children certainly seem to rapidly develop the notion of ascribing intelligent agency to their environment. In Daniel Wegner's excellent book 'The Illusion of Conscious Will' there are some very good examples of research on children in this regard - things sunk in baths because the little man inside them wanted them to sink; they would float because the little man wanted them to float.

However, I would tend to put our hardwired tendency to ascribe agency to everything as a survival trait.

Interesting. Tell me more.

You know Scripture observed this as well. It is said that no one has an excuse because we are born with the knowledge of God. This seems to be the same instinct you are speaking of. I and Scripture call this knowledge of God. You call it a survival trait. Could it not possibly be both?

Lisa

 

[David Gould]

Interesting. Tell me more.

If someone is walking on the savannah and the grasses sway, they have a choice: they can ascribe it to the wind or to something that intends them harm.

If it is something that intends them harm, and they have guessed that it was the wind, their survival prospects drop. If it is the wind, and they have guessed that it is something that intends them harm, they have not really lost much, except some minutes of heightened alertness.

That is the basic argument for it being a survival trait.

You know Scripture observed this as well. It is said that no one has an excuse because we are born with the knowledge of God. This seems to be the same instinct you are speaking of. I and Scripture call this knowledge of God. You call it a survival trait. Could it not possibly be both?

Lisa

It could be both. But it is very non-specific. As can be seen, children have a sense that there is agency, but tend to ascribe it to simpler things than omnipotent deitieis. For example, 'The little man in that floating object,' is not really a good description of the Christian deity.

I hardly think that someone could be justly blamed for not believing that Jesus was the son of God and died for our sins over some feeling that events have some intent behind them.

 

[The Nihilist]

You got half of my point. I'll check back and see about whether or not he was talking about God or god. I've always seen it the latter way. And yes it does rather matter. If on the one hand he is arguing against god than your point about God doesn't matter in the slightest. It's like a person arguing against the existence of kind people by showing that one person is mean.

His original argument that the injustice in the world means that there is no god can only be used against concepts of a god that are both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. I think you're saying that it isn't sufficient to take out, say, polytheism, and I agree with that.

You're not, reasoning by analogy are you?! 'Cause that's all I see there.
Your analogy isn't all that great either. The sensation of being in "dry" doesn't depend on my having been previously wet, only my noticing. My body is receiving the same information and translating it into the same sensation when I have been out of the water for days as when I have just dried off; I merely have become accustomed to the sensation of being dry.
Besides that you missed my point entirely, or simply disregarded it, or maybe just made it rather confusing. You are saying we understand one in terms of the other, and that's great. You can look at it that way if you like. I'm saying, there's also another way to look at that analogy, and that is to understand each of the things in terms of one of them or in terms of something distinct from both of them.

The analogy isn't mine, and no, it's not a great analogy. But then, Lewis is a bad theologian.
I'm not sure why you think getting accustomed to being dry is different from no longer feeling dry.
But if you do believe what you say, then you must also say that the fish does in fact feel wet, and, if we are to stick with Lewis's (faulty) analogy, then we do not need to first experience justice to understand injustice, nor vice versa.
My main problem with the analogy is that, by the nature of sense perception, the implication is that we can understand neither good nor evil independently, but only together.

Of course not. But using an analogy to show your reasoning, which if I recall is what he was doing, is valid. If not, then there is no philosophy in existence that is valid. And since this appears to be your response to my 4th point, I really wasn't making a point so much as an aside.

You are half right. His argument hinges on the assumption that sense perception works in the same way as the understanding, in that we must experience both a thing and its opposite in order to experience either of them.. The problem is that there is no reason to believe that the understanding works in the same way as sense perception in this manner.

Feeling condescending now, are we?

Just giving what I got.

 

[Lisa0315]

If someone is walking on the savannah and the grasses sway, they have a choice: they can ascribe it to the wind or to something that intends them harm.

If it is something that intends them harm, and they have guessed that it was the wind, their survival prospects drop. If it is the wind, and they have guessed that it is something that intends them harm, they have not really lost much, except some minutes of heightened alertness.

That is the basic argument for it being a survival trait.





It could be both. But it is very non-specific. As can be seen, children have a sense that there is agency, but tend to ascribe it to simpler things than omnipotent deitieis. For example, 'The little man in that floating object,' is not really a good description of the Christian deity.

I hardly think that someone could be justly blamed for not believing that Jesus was the son of God and died for our sins over some feeling that events have some intent behind them.

I happen to agree, and if I understand scripture correctly, so does God. I believe that those who have not heard the gospel will be judged on their actions, and that small inborn knowledge of God should direct them to act according to His law. For example, murder is universally unacceptable. Even in Canabalistic tribes, there are rules of who you may or may not kill and eat. Innocent blood is universal, and THIS is the law of God and knowledge of God that I believe the Bible speaks about.

Those who have heard the gospel on the other hand will be judged according to whether or not that have accepted Christ.

Lisa

 

[David Gould]

I happen to agree, and if I understand scripture correctly, so does God. I believe that those who have not heard the gospel will be judged on their actions, and that small inborn knowledge of God should direct them to act according to His law. For example, murder is universally unacceptable. Even in Canabalistic tribes, there are rules of who you may or may not kill and eat. Innocent blood is universal, and THIS is the law of God and knowledge of God that I believe the Bible speaks about.

Those who have heard the gospel on the other hand will be judged according to whether or not that have accepted Christ.

Lisa

Hmm. Murder - killing against the law - may be universally unacceptable (except for those who break the law ...) but you would hardly argue that the thousands of people sacrificed by the Aztecs was acceptable, would you? Yet it was acceptable - and legal - for them.

I am also unclear what you mean by the idea 'innocent blood' being universal. As an example, in Greek and Roman times, it was routine to kill every baby and toddler in cities which had to be stormed (as opposed to those which surrendered) during warfare. This was to encourage other cities to surrender. Also, there was no market for slaves so young. One popular method was grabbing their ankles and dashing their brains out on walls. This action was perfectly legal, and not considered 'murder' in any sense.

 

[Lisa0315]

Hmm. Murder - killing against the law - may be universally unacceptable (except for those who break the law ...) but you would hardly argue that the thousands of people sacrificed by the Aztecs was acceptable, would you? Yet it was acceptable - and legal - for them.

I am also unclear what you mean by the idea 'innocent blood' being universal. As an example, in Greek and Roman times, it was routine to kill every baby and toddler in cities which had to be stormed (as opposed to those which surrendered) during warfare. This was to encourage other cities to surrender. Also, there was no market for slaves so young. One popular method was grabbing their ankles and dashing their brains out on walls. This action was perfectly legal, and not considered 'murder' in any sense.

But...regardless of how we view this, it was governed by law. The fact that taking life is governed at all regardless of how horrible it seems to us now, this governing of the act reflects the knowledge of a higher order of law which I call God.

Lisa