We cannot yet take a position on the current existence of God.

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

What then, are these reasons for thinking that God exists?

I've already given a reason to be a little more sceptical towards the atheistic traditions... Plantinga's EAAN was the example I gave.

 

[Gumph]

Atheists don't, or at least shouldn't, claim there's no God.

Excellent point. I have no idea if there is a God or not. It could go either way.
So I'm looking for an answer as to which way I should side, or whether I should just stay on the fence.

 

[Gumph]

At the very least this dispels with the assumption of atheism.

If by atheism you mean that there is no God, then I am no more an atheist than I am a Christian. I have no assumption that there is no God type creator, so do not need to be convinced otherwise.

What I don't have either though, is any reason to believe that there is a omnipotent, ever present, all powerful Christian God in our midst, right here and now. That is the crux of the matter (no pun intended).

 

[Gumph]

I've already given a reason to be a little more sceptical towards the atheistic traditions... Plantinga's EAAN was the example I gave.

Again depends on what you mean by atheist. I am arguing from the point of a view of a non-Christian. We have no traditions, no groups, no community.

No more so than these structures would exist for say, non-Chinese. I am simply not Chinese, I have no reason to be so.

 

[Goonie]

Not a single historian denies Jesus existed based upon historical evidence. They simply dismiss the miracles listed in those historical observations simply because they do not believe in miracles. So they agree by the same sources that list the miracles that Jesus existed - then deny the miracles attributed to Jesus in those same sources. For no other reason than they do not want to accept those declaration and eyewitness accounts of the miracles while accepting the same eye witness accounts and declarations of his existence. Sounds a bit like picking and choosing what are facts or not to me. The sources are reliable enough to show he existed but unreliable enough to show miracles occurred???

Well if they did that, they would also be accepting miracles in the Koran, the Hindu religous books, and all those other religous books.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You know... Sometimes when I talk to you I get the feeling that you're a teenager who's read Dawkins and Hitchens and not much else. I would imagine that an atheist who's been through college would have heard of and studied Plantinga's EAAN.

You're kind of evading answering a perfectly legit question, imo.

What is the justification for saying that we humans "shouldn't have" these brain abilities?

If that is an argument against "naturalism", then it would mean that "naturalism" somehow predicts that achieving abstract thinking through an evolutionary process is somehow "impossible".

How does it predict that? How and/or why should it be impossible?
In other words, and to repeat the other poster's question: what is the justification for this assertion, that humans should not have such brain functions "if naturalism is true"?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

You're kind of evading answering a perfectly legit question, imo.

What is the justification for saying that we humans "shouldn't have" these brain abilities?

If that is an argument against "naturalism", then it would mean that "naturalism" somehow predicts that achieving abstract thinking through an evolutionary process is somehow "impossible".

How does it predict that? How and/or why should it be impossible?
In other words, and to repeat the other poster's question: what is the justification for this assertion, that humans should not have such brain functions "if naturalism is true"?

EAAN says that it's at the very least problematic that human brains have evolved in order to be able to comprehend notions of truth. Anyone looking at the nature of evolution would agree, nothing about natural selection in any way entails the ability for creatures to notion "truth". This is why the argument has quite a bit of wealth behind it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

EAAN says that it's at the very least problematic that human brains have evolved in order to be able to comprehend notions of truth.

Yes, you already estabished that the argument is saying that. The question is, what is the justification given, for saying that...

Anyone looking at the nature of evolution would agree, nothing about natural selection in any way entails the ability for creatures to notion "truth".

This seems to be the equivalent of answering the question with "because it is" or "it's obvious".

Obviously, it's not obvious or we wouldn't be asking the question.

Having said that, I'm looking at the nature of evolution and I don't see what you seem to be seeing. I'ld say that there is much advantage in evolving such traits.

This is why the argument has quite a bit of wealth behind it.

You keep saying this, but I still haven't seen any justification for the claim that evolution couldn't produce brains with abstract/conceptual reasoning abilities.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well if they did that, they would also be accepting miracles in the Koran, the Hindu religous books, and all those other religous books.

And? So they just have further confirmation that they exist.

Contemporary science offers very different descriptions of how the universe works. Observable laws still operate, but they are activated by chance. Thus, in the emerging picture offered by contemporary science there is a dynamic of structured randomness both in the activity of subatomic particles and in the macro world of evolving stars and planets. In evolutionary perspective, the world appears to be self-creating. It may be a purposeless process, in which case the emergence of human beings is a fortuitous accident. Or it may have purpose, rooted in a Divine Intelligence Who fashioned human beings for Himself.

In any case, science no longer corresponds to anyone's common sense. Whether there is room in such an evolving universe for God — and therefore the kinds of divine action assumed by miracles — is a legitimate, even pressing issue, which contemporary philosophers, theologians, and scientists are pursuing with considerable intellectual vigor.

If the universe at the smallest sub-atomic level is indeed random chance as science is indeed beginning to postulate - then common sense can not be applied to it any longer. Nothing is certain - all is random chance guided only by the mind of the one who perceives it. If the universe and all we observe is indeed merely what we perceive it to be upon the perception of it, as is now becoming standard dogma in scientific circles, then we all perceive the same random chance creating the same unavoidable laws we understand are active in the universe despite claims of randomness.

So you perceive the same random universe that I perceive - despite it being random and only existing in our perceptions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

All common sense has departed, which means that what one perceives to be a miracle and what one perceives to be random chance - is indeed only in the eye of the beholder in both cases - either reality being completely valid in a universe in which common sense has been deprived.

 

[Goonie]

And? So they just have further confirmation that they exist.

Contemporary science offers very different descriptions of how the universe works. Observable laws still operate, but they are activated by chance. Thus, in the emerging picture offered by contemporary science there is a dynamic of structured randomness both in the activity of subatomic particles and in the macro world of evolving stars and planets. In evolutionary perspective, the world appears to be self-creating. It may be a purposeless process, in which case the emergence of human beings is a fortuitous accident. Or it may have purpose, rooted in a Divine Intelligence Who fashioned human beings for Himself.

In any case, science no longer corresponds to anyone's common sense. Whether there is room in such an evolving universe for God — and therefore the kinds of divine action assumed by miracles — is a legitimate, even pressing issue, which contemporary philosophers, theologians, and scientists are pursuing with considerable intellectual vigor.

If the universe at the smallest sub-atomic level is indeed random chance as science is indeed beginning to postulate - then common sense can not be applied to it any longer. Nothing is certain - all is random chance guided only by the mind of the one who perceives it. If the universe and all we observe is indeed merely what we perceive it to be upon the perception of it, as is now becoming standard dogma in scientific circles, then we all perceive the same random chance creating the same unavoidable laws we understand are active in the universe despite claims of randomness.

So you perceive the same random universe that I perceive - despite it being random and only existing in our perceptions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

All common sense has departed, which means that what one perceives to be a miracle and what one perceives to be random chance - is indeed only in the eye of the beholder in both cases - either reality being completely valid in a universe in which common sense has been deprived.

Reminds me of this quote from Terry Pratchett on scrodingers cat

"In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious."

-- Schrodinger's Moggy explained (Terry Pratchett, Lords and Ladies)

Terry Pratchett, he will be missed.

 

[Tree of Life]

I make the assumption that the Bible is the only source of information at our disposal which may indicate that the Christian God exists here and now. Seeing a physical world around us simply indicates that he may have created this world a while back, but does not indicate that he is still with us.

I propose that we have no way of verifying whether the contents in the Bible are indeed correct, true or even complete. They could very well just be stories made up by men over the centuries, or not. We simply don't know for sure.

Due to this doubt and inability to verify, I propose that the default position should be that "We do not know for sure", and that those that say there is a God and those that say there is no God, need to justify their position.

Kindly show me the fault in my thought process.

I'm not sure what you mean by "knowing for sure". Do we know anything "for sure"? Do we have absolute certainty that any of our beliefs are accurate? I doubt it.

But even then, there's only two choices. Either we choose to trust God in the face of uncertainty or we choose to effectively deny him. "I'm not sure" isn't a complete answer. No one is sure - Christian or non Christian. Christians say: "I'm not sure but I'm going to live as though this is true and trust God." Non Christians say: "I'm not sure but I'm going to live as though is not true and not trust God." We either life in faith or unbelief.

 

[Tree of Life]

Excellent point. I have no idea if there is a God or not. It could go either way.
So I'm looking for an answer as to which way I should side, or whether I should just stay on the fence.

Technically speaking, there is no "on the fence" with the God of the Bible. To believe in him is to submit to the Lordship of his son Jesus. To disbelieve in him is to not submit to the Lordship of his son Jesus. Since the Lordship of Christ extends to all of life, every moment we are either submitting to him or rebelling against him.

God, however, is very patient. He does not immediately discipline or carry out wrath. He gives us much time to repent and to figure things out. He allows us to rebel against him for some time. But he will not allow it forever.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You know... Sometimes when I talk to you I get the feeling that you're a teenager who's read Dawkins and Hitchens and not much else. I would imagine that an atheist who's been through college would have heard of and studied Plantinga's EAAN.

I have been accused of making ad homimen arguments on multiple occasions on these forums. Yet I never have, since whenever I (rightfully) insult someone, I take the time to dismantle their argument for what it is. But here you are suggesting I'm a teenager without answering my question. You are being lazy, so I'll do all the work here and obliterate Plantinga's moronic argument.

On my other thread that you are engaged in, I made a positive case for nihilism on page 2 post #28:

Firstly, no axiomatic system can verify its own axioms, meaning that mathematics is, at the absolute best, a system comprised of nothing but assumptions, definitions, and then the conclusions that follow. Nothing, and I mean nothing, can be proven from assumptions and definitions. There are only conditional proofs; every proof ever demonstrated is conditional upon the truth value of its axioms. We generally make good use of mathematics because we chose axioms which seem to be congruent with reality, but we already see that our system of logic does not apply to the quantum world because electrons can and do interact with themselves, and interfere with themselves, meaning we have to relinquish either the law of excluded middle or the law of identity. That is, these laws not only fail to be true in any absolute sense, but they fail to be true even in our own universe. It only follows that the law of non-contradiction, while seemingly being unfeasible as false in this universe, is still nothing but an assumption which need not be true in all possible realities.

Secondly, you will notice that in every spoken language on earth, all words are defined in terms of other words. So if we have a sentence like, "The ball is red," and we replace "ball" with its definition, then we have a longer sentence; since we will never arrive at a word which requires no definition, it follows that this process iterates indefinitely. Logic and mathematics avoid this by employing primitive terms that have no definition. So in mathematics, the equality "2+2=4" can be expressed as the function+:ZxZ --> Z such that +(2,2)=2+2=4. This decomposes further because we construct the natural numbers where 0=Ø, 1=Øunion{Ø}={Ø}, 2={Ø}union{{Ø}}={Ø,{Ø}}, and etc., and also an ordered pair (a,b) is defined as {a, {b}} so that +(2,2)=2+2=4 is expressed entirely in primitive, undefined terms: +({Ø,{Ø}},{{Ø,{Ø}}}) is contained in {Ø,{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}},{Ø,{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}}}}, and vice versa.

So we see that logic and mathematics are the use of terms that have no meaning which are said to be expressing an unverifiable assumption that is then used to conditionally prove another arbitrary statement which also decomposes into terms that have no meaning.

I would add to this that truth does not exist in an absolute sense since it cannot possibly be coherently expressed in any absolute terms. Truth must be expressed in terms of language, and no language exists without being either circular or essentially meaningless.

The only objection anyone can come up with is something like this:

Truth exists. Proof:

Suppose truth exists. Then we are done. Suppose truth does not exist. Then it is true that truth does not exist, so something true exists. Therefore, in either case, truth must exist.

The problem with this, obviously, is that the argument assumes the validity of the law of non contradiction, ~(X·~X). The law of non contradiction is nothing but an assumption expressed in terms which have no meaning.

So Plantinga is right, quite clumsily, that we cannot ever find truth, but his reasons for this are absurd to say the least.

Just try to understand that all logic is conditional, and we can use it as an intellectual tool, but beyond that there is no deeper meaning to it whatsoever.

 

[Tree of Life]

For the record, @Nihilist Virus , are you or are you not a teenager?

 

[Tree of Life]

Secondly, you will notice that in every spoken language on earth, all words are defined in terms of other words. So if we have a sentence like, "The ball is red," and we replace "ball" with its definition, then we have a longer sentence; since we will never arrive at a word which requires no definition, it follows that this process iterates indefinitely.

So we see that logic and mathematics are the use of terms that have no meaning which are said to be expressing an unverifiable assumption that is then used to conditionally prove another arbitrary statement which also decomposes into terms that have no meaning.

This is not quite true. Ostensious definition is the act of pointing at something in reality. Many times when someone asks: "what do you mean by 'red ball'"? All we can do it point to a red ball. Here words are directly attached to their referents and no further words are needed.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

For the record, @Nihilist Virus , are you or are you not a teenager?

For the record, that is none of your business, is irrelevant, is offensive, and immature to ask.

Also, for the record, my age has been on my profile since day one so we see what kind of research skills you possess.

This is not quite true. Ostensious definition is the act of pointing at something in reality. Many times when someone asks: "what do you mean by 'red ball'"? All we can do it point to a red ball. Here words are directly attached to their referents and no further words are needed.

Ignorant reasoning. If you point to a red billiard ball and say, "Red ball," it cannot be said that you are also saying a red basketball is also a ball. Such primitive correlation does not generate an ambient definition of anything. Furthermore, there is no way to know if you mean to be defining the red ball as such or naming it "red ball."

 

[Tree of Life]

Ignorant reasoning. If you point to a red billiard ball and say, "Red ball," it cannot be said that you are also saying a red basketball is also a ball. Such primitive correlation does not generate an ambient definition of anything. Furthermore, there is no way to know if you mean to be defining the red ball as such or naming it "red ball."

Huh? You should take a class on linguistics. Or read a book. Or an article. Even a very basic survey will cover the idea of ostensious definition.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Huh? You should take a class on linguistics. Or read a book. Or an article. Even a very basic survey will cover the idea of ostensious definition.

Explain why what I said was wrong.

 

[OzSpen]

Additional contemporary and independent, corroborating evidence is a good place to start.

It also kind of goes together with the content of the claims.
The more fantastical the claims, the more additional evidence will be required.

The stories of the bible have very very little such additional extra-biblical evidence, if at all.

That's not providing examples of criteria you use to determine if any document is historically reliable. How do you know Josephus and Tacitus are reliable witnesses?

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's not providing examples of criteria you use to determine if any document is historically reliable.

It's even better. It's a standard. A methodology.

How do you know Josephus and Tacitus are reliable witnesses?

Neither of them are witnesses, as they weren't even born at the time jesus supposedly roamed the earth.