What do you think of atheists

[3sigma]

I have reason to believe my God exists. But as I said in my topic, there is no way anyone can prove to someone else that God exists.

Are you incapable of seeing that your opinion that nothing that can't be proven to exist is worth believing in is completely based on your personal beliefs? This is not a universal truth: it's the rational you chose to justify your own disbelief.

Unlike you, I believe that living in such a way leads to an empty life. I don't agree that just because I can't prove to you that God exists that it's not worth believing in Him.

I’m sure you have reasons to believe your God is real, but I don’t think they are sound reasons and that suspicion is strengthened every time you evade my requests to provide a sound reason. I imagine, also, that you think, probably subconsciously, it is worth believing in your God for the emotional comfort it provides, but that doesn’t mean your belief is true.

You used to believe in God, didn't you? My guess is somewhere down the line, you let someone convince you of this idea, and when you did, you began playing by their rules. For a while, you probably tried to defend your beliefs, taking on the impossible task of trying to prove that God exists to other people, when you should have been trying to prove it to yourself.

Eventually, you grew tired of having to defend your beliefs, and your thirst for certainty became more important than your faith.

No, I’ve never believed in your God or any other gods, and, no, I’m not lying. My parents were atheists; my grandparents were atheists (except for one grandmother who was a staunch believer and always seemed creepy to me as a child); my friends are atheists; and even my work colleagues are atheists. The closest I ever came to believing in such nonsense was my belief in Santa Claus until I was four years old. I’d become suspicious of the Santa Claus story and when I was four, I tried a couple of experiments and determined for myself that Santa Claus was a lie. I confronted my parents with this and, to their great credit, they admitted they had been lying about Santa Claus. I immediately saw that all the other parents were lying as well and that all the children believed them, even though it wasn’t true. That was an important lesson for me. It taught me to use and trust my own reasoning. It taught me that you couldn’t always trust what people tell you. It taught me that even authority figures would lie to you. And it taught me that even though many people may believe something with all their heart and swear to you it is true, it doesn’t mean it is true.

However, don’t think that I was never exposed to religious beliefs as a child. When I started primary school, I discovered that some of the other children attended Sunday school and I thought I might be missing something so I asked my parents if I could try it. They were happy to have me try it, but mentioned that I probably wouldn’t like it. At the first Sunday school, the stories being told seemed to me to be identical to the Santa Claus story, but the difference was that the people telling the stories actually seemed to believe it themselves. It gave me that same feeling of uneasiness one has on encountering a derelict in the street who babbles irrationally and talks to himself or some non-existent companion. However, being a child, I wasn’t going to admit that my parents were right when they said I probably wouldn’t like it so I went along a second time. This time I asked questions similar to those I ask religious believers here today. My parents were told I was no longer welcome at Sunday school and I was asked not to return. Now that I think about it, I received a similar reaction from you. Some things never change.

Love is not just an emotion.
…
Love is more about how it drives you to act rather than what it makes you feel.

God is very similar (probably one reason why they say that God is love). Sometimes you feel Him (rarely), sometimes you don't. The feeling is a sign to the people who have it that God is moving.

You can't study love directly, and you can't study God directly. Neither one can be proven to exist, yet very few deny the existence of love. The difference is it's not convenient for them to believe in God.

If anyone feels God, the world tells them it's all in their heads. It's probably also because they've never experienced God themselves, so whatever they haven't experienced themselves couldn't possibly exist in their minds.

Love is an emotion and, yes, emotions do drive people to act in certain ways. The rest of your response appears to be confirming, repeatedly, that your God is, in fact, similar to an emotion and entirely within your mind.

 

[DataPacRat]

I see. So the invisible pink unicorn thing is yet another attempt at atheism to take a stab at religion based on a strawman argument. I guess the flying spaghetti monster wasn't enough.

Actually, the IPU came years before the FSM - 1990 vs 2005. (And Russell's Teapot came well before both, in 1952.)

None of God's characteristics are contradictory. Only someone who's so passionately against the idea could say so.

If God exists, then naturally He will not have characteristics that contradict each other. However, a number of properties which He is /claimed/, by various people, to have, do indeed contradict each other; this has been known about for thousands of years. As Epicurus put it in the Epicurean Paradox, "Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"

Another doubt-based opinion. "Pascal's wager" as they call it, is a real risk. Pretending or ignoring the possibility will not help anyone. Doing so is to volunteer to be on the losing team.

You mistake my objection to Pascal's wager. The main difficulty I see is that it assumes there are only two options - to believe, or to not believe. However, looking at reality, one can either not-believe, or believe in Christianity, or in Islam, or Judaism, or Hinduism, or Shinto, or any of a wide variety of other religions... and each of them claims that if you don't believe in /that/ particular religion, then you're no better off than if you believed in nothing at all.

If there is no God, when we die, we're all in the same boat anyway. If we're right, then we're not.

There's nothing to gain from atheism. My life is not enslaved by my religion, it is enriched by it. Even if I were wrong, "liberating me" from my beliefs would only do me harm.

I have no expectation that you will change your beliefs - the most I'm hoping to accomplish by posting this forum is to gain a greater understanding of others' beliefs, and for others to gain a greater understanding of mine.

I don't know how your beliefs lead you to live your life differently than if you lacked those beliefs, so there isn't really anything I can say about whether you'd be 'harmed' by lacking them. However - that seems to me to be the entirely wrong perspective. The truth matters. Believing true things matters. If the only reason you wish to believe a false something is because you would be 'harmed' by believing a true thing, then that is as poor a reason for believing it as it would be to practice <abhorrent political ideology> just to avoid being harmed by its members.

If there is no afterlife, then when you die, you won't be able to care about your family anymore.

That is entirely true. However, you don't mention a rather important point: /I'm not dead yet/. And while I'm still alive, I still care what the fate of my family /will be/, even /if/ I won't be there to see how it all works out. Just like if my brother were to move to Madagascar and never call or write, so that /I/ never learn of his fate, I'd still want the best for him.

And when they die, and eventually the whole world will pass away, then nothing will be remembered. The end result will be the same no matter what we do.

Even if we could create a computer version of ourselves, that technology would not last forever. This planet will not always be habitable. We will never be able to escape our own solar system, so when our planet is gone, so are we.

The technology already exists to allow us to leave our solar system; it's called the "Orion drive", and isn't being used mainly due to the political difficulties involved in setting off large numbers of nuclear explosives even for peaceful purposes.

Extending your argument from 'solar system is inescapable' to 'physical universe is inescapable' is problematic, as we simply don't have enough data at present to say with any certainty what the future of the universe will be. It is entirely possible that the future of our universe will be something resembling Tipler's 'Omega Point', which potentially allows for an infinite amount of subjective time even with a finite amount of time, space, and matter. Or perhaps some aspects of brane theory will turn out to be correct, and by the time this universe starts getting tired, we'll have long since migrated elsewhere. The point is that, at present, we /don't know/, and so it's pretty much silly to make any definitive statements about what the universe will be like more than a certain number of billion years from now.

On the other hand, if there is an afterlife, then everything we do matters. Nothing will be forgotten, and every event has an never ending chain of events attached to it.

Why should I believe that? (That's my favorite question, by the way, and the closest I have to a motto. ) Why would the supernatural/afterlife realm be assured of any more permanence than the physical universe would be, if the physical universe is finite?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Another doubt-based opinion. "Pascal's wager" as they call it, is a real risk. Pretending or ignoring the possibility will not help anyone. Doing so is to volunteer to be on the losing team.

If there is no God, when we die, we're all in the same boat anyway. If we're right, then we're not.

There's nothing to gain from atheism. My life is not enslaved by my religion, it is enriched by it. Even if I were wrong, "liberating me" from my beliefs would only do me harm.

Typical myopia. If there is a God then there is also the chance that this God will send the believers to hell while the atheists, and other unbelievers, get to enjoy heaven.

Pretending or ignoring the possibility will not help ... and so on and so forth, blah blah blah.

Pascal's wager is about as trashy as it gets. And myopic.

 

[badtim]

i seriously worry about people who use pascal's wager in this day and age. pascal himself just dismissed objections to it, such as the "wrong god" issue, based on the perceived supremacy of christianity in his day.

On the other hand, if there is an afterlife, then everything we do matters. Nothing will be forgotten, and every event has an never ending chain of events attached to it.

Depends on the afterlife.

I have experienced God a number of times. On rare occasion, I've even experienced a few miracles. But when the world tries to tell me that it's all in my head, it takes some faith not to cave in and believe them.

Like what?

 

[Skavau]

Another doubt-based opinion. "Pascal's wager" as they call it, is a real risk. Pretending or ignoring the possibility will not help anyone. Doing so is to volunteer to be on the losing team.

If there is no God, when we die, we're all in the same boat anyway. If we're right, then we're not.

There's nothing to gain from atheism. My life is not enslaved by my religion, it is enriched by it. Even if I were wrong, "liberating me" from my beliefs would only do me harm.

What an immoral injunction. So you support people changing their beliefs based on self-interest? Do you not for one second think that an omniscient superpower with a keen eye for judgment might just see through one's reasoning for that?

Also, it is worth adding that any deity that would invoke retribution for not believing, or for not accepting vicarious redemption is a deity not worth worshiping. Being tortured in hell is immoral and there is simply no argument against it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

There's nothing to gain from atheism.

Of course there is... integrity. Perhaps this does not lead you personally to atheism, but it leads me there, and it is sacred beyond measure.

BTW, this video provides a concise refutation of Pascal's Wager:

YouTube - Betting on infinity

My life is not enslaved by my religion, it is enriched by it.

I believe you. My nontheistic philosophy enriches my life.

If there is no afterlife, then when you die, you won't be able to care about your family anymore. And when they die, and eventually the whole world will pass away, then nothing will be remembered. The end result will be the same no matter what we do.

The "end result" doesn't matter. It is only life that matters.

On the other hand, if there is an afterlife, then everything we do matters. Nothing will be forgotten, and every event has an never ending chain of events attached to it.

If an "event" is meaningless by itself, how will it acquire meaning by having a never ending chain of equally meaningless-in-themselves events attached to it? If the events in our finite lives are meaningless, what will remembering that meaninglessness for an eternity contribute? If every event is just a means to some infinitely distant future, how can any event, or even any chain of events, have meaning? Must we wait forever to find meaning?

Life is an end-in-itself. There is no reason why life must be infinite in order to have meaning, because life is laden with meaning. Everything we do matters to us now, while we are alive. Life is the realm of meaning. Death does not erase the fact that we have lived and found meaning.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[angelA18]

I am not so familiar with the flow and I think that the right of each that we can not forbid, it is to maintain harmony between the people and make peace in the world

 

[JediMobius]

I'd like to point out that you live in america the self proclaimed christian nation that would be a theocracy if it it wasnt for that the seperation of church and state which has been chipped away at daily for decades now and whenever someone points that out they are in the public opinion unamerican even if the courts rule in their favor. Where mega churches are filled to the brim and the message of hell is thrown at anyone that looks like they might not be in the same believe as the followers. Where Atheists are polled to be less trusted then muslims as a minority and actually have less representation than the jews dispite outnumbering them. A political system where you will get character assassinated if you forgot to praise god during your speech. And an opposition to scientific understanding of the world if it clashes in someway with their personal interpretation of the bible.

I'm ashamed of this self-proclaimed Christian Nation for not living up to that proclamation.

Also, not at all convinced the separation of church and state has been weakening over time. Quite the opposite lately. And the message of hell is very important to Christian doctrine, by the way. The gospel is useless without it. Isn't it judgmental to assume that any talk of hell from the pulpit is judgmental?

I think you point out correctly those atheists you meet have a problem with the institution of religion as it keeps trying to invade politics and force their religious believes on others. Its nothing against christianity in specific however, it it mearly the religion that is commiting all these acts, im sure if it where a hindu religious institution that was doing it they'd have railed against that aswell.

That's certainly the perception, but is it the truth? It is the function of Christianity to spread the word. It is the function of any faith to underpin an individual's ideals and so naturally affect the individual's political beliefs. I'm not sure what you mean by "force" religious beliefs on others. I was under the impression that the majority of Christians only go to the extremes of argument and discussion and no further, if they go that far at all.

Thats not to say ofcourse there are not many good christians who recognize these practises for what they are and rail against them just as much or harder then the atheists themselfs. I think you'd have a hard time finding an atheist who will say Kenneth Miller is a 'brainless idiot' dispite that he is a christian, so its not really christianity itself they are opposing.

Nor is it Christianity the laud in the case of Kenneth Miller. Plenty atheists, whether well-known on this forum or across the globe, are unabashedly vocal about how foolish Christianity is and how intellectually inferior its believers.

All of that said, Yes I think often you see atheists focusing a bit much on mocking religion in one way or another without making very good points really and just pointing at things that to an outsider seem rediculous like the eating of the real flesh of jesus and drinking blood. Some think that poking fun at religion is a good way to get people to think about it, others feel that mockery is never the right path, I dont know. I just know it makes me laugh. Even though I know im laughing at the treasured believes of other people they seem rediculous to me its a lil like laughing at funniest home video's, you know its not quite right but its just too funny.

Regarding open and closed mindedness, I do not know. It seems to me the words are often distorted to mean if you critically examine something before accepting it you are closeminded. But I stress I mostly see that kind of behaviour from paranormal believers like.. "If you cant believe urrey geller can bend spoons with his paranormal powers you are so close minded" you'd have to help me in the right direction to understand where you are coming from on this.

The common conclusion of an atheist regarding one's belief that the universe is divinely created is a condemnation of closed-mindedness. Likewise if one doubts the role of science to definitively provide answers about origins of life and the universe. However, no matter what side of any issue one takes, I would think closed-mindedness is best defined by a certain proverb. A conclusion is simply where one tires of thinking. It's in this spirit that one can be open-minded without having to accept each new proposal, but to think through the proposal fully and weigh its worth rationally.

 

[JediMobius]

Why would they proclaim their atheism unless they did have some bone to pick?

Perhaps proclaim is the wrong idea. I meant in the same sense that your icon there says you're an atheist, so are the individuals with whom I've discussed Christianity - the minority of which discussions have been pleasant. That's not to say (though the disclaimer should not be logically necessary) that atheists are the only group of people I've found obstinately and aggressively argumentative individuals. There are plenty Christians on this site and others who jump to conclusions and belittle opposing views.

Further, it should be noted how many atheists have more-or-less flocked to Christian sites. Everyone is invited, of course, it's just that I doubt the majority of atheists came here without a bone to pick, much less to actually understand faith or Christianity specifically.

BTW, some Christians have quite the bone to pick with atheism. It's not uncommon even these days to find atheists blamed for the horrors of communism.

So, am I expected to account for every niche of Christianity because I made a generalization, and further, labeled it as such? Are you suggesting a chicken-egg sort of vicious cycle? More to the point, while I have a bone to pick with those certain internet trolls, mainly atheists who believe atheism is the only rational spiritual position to take, I do not have a bone to pick with atheism. Atheism doesn't get under my skin. I'd imagine the disbelief in any spiritual reality doesn't likewise annoy most Christians either; at least, not nearly as much as direct attacks on faith and Christian individuals.

Atheists are human, so I imagine so. However, having a bone to pick with someone does not necessarily mean that someone is close-minded.

My statement comes from the way certain atheists have used the terms, not from having a disagreement in the first place. Again, I was making a generalization. Each encounter was unique, and to detail them would be extremely time-consuming.

 

[JediMobius]

I've met a few atheists who couldn't care less about religion or who truly feel that it's a good thing. I used to be one of those atheists, actually. Not anymore however. I do feel it's a moral duty to educate people and help them critically analyze heir own beliefs in the hopes that they'll follow a creed that is consistent with logic and the observable and demonstrable.

To be honest, most Christians (and theists in general) don't really know what open-mindedness means. When they use the phrase "closed-minded," what they really mean is "not in agreement with me."

Naw, most people don't know what closed-mindedness is, it actually has nothing to do with one's philosophical or theological bent.

 

[JediMobius]

St. Thomas Aquinas:
The Existence of God can be proved in five ways.
Argument Analysis of the Five Ways © 2004 Theodore Gracyk
The First Way: Argument from Motion

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
2. Nothing exists prior to itself.
3. Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.
4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.
5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
6. The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
7. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

1. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
2. Assume that every being is a contingent being.
3. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
4. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
5. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
6. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
7. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
8. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
9. Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
10. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

1. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
2. Predications of degree require reference to the &#8220;uttermost&#8221; case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
3. The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
4. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

1. We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
2. Most natural things lack knowledge.
3. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
4. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

 

[singpeace]

I'm just a little curious as to what most christian people think of atheists.

I my self am completely fine with atheists, the only thing that makes me angry is when they try to deconvert me. Luckily however that has only happened about 1-2 times.

Now just why did you post a question like that, Squiggley?

You know it's a green light for slinging hash.


Why am I answering this question?

Well since I'm here, I'm a Christian Minister for 18 years so far. I LOVE Atheists!

 

[SithDoughnut]

Because I'm bored, and it's been a while since I've seen this...

The First Way: Argument from Motion

The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.

Why not?

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Well I don't. The problem with first cause arguments is that all they do is (potentially) establish that there is a first cause. Proponents of this argument seem to assume that you can make the leap from "first cause" to "God" and not have to show any logical reasoning for that step.

The other issue is that it doesn't explain why God is immune to the argument - it's just an assumption made to hold the conclusion up.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

This is exactly the same argument as the first.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

Again, exactly the same argument. Why Aquinas thought he could re-phrase one argument three times and have each stand separately is beyond me.

Of course, you could say that God is defined as the first cause, but that renders the term largely meaningless, as it could apply to anything. The Big Bang could be God, if it was the first cause.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

I like this one, but it translates to "I want it to be so it is true". Given that perfection is a subjective viewpoint, this argument leaves you with a different God for every person. It also rides on the assumption that perfection exists seperately to the human mind, which it again makes no effort to demonstrate.

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

Ah, the best one. I have truly no idea how this one is even still around.

We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.

Major assumption, right here. Why not? And the argument does not take into account an alternative to chance or a designer - evolution, for example.

The real problem with these arguments is that they don't actually get anywhere. The best they can do is leave someone with a vague concept of "God", which remains entirely undefined and could be anything from the ultimate creator of all to a magic talking alligator. The best any logical argument can do by itself is demonstrate that something is logical - so this is in no way a proof.

That being said, it is often said that these arguments must be studied in context (why the important contextual factors are left out of the arguments is beyond me - a good argument should stand on its own), so I probably should get round to reading some more Aquinas, Aristotle, and the like at some point. Anybody know of anywhere online where I could find the texts? I'm in Japan, and besides, I don't see much point in paying for a book way beyond copyright and when the author is most assuredly dead.

 

[3sigma]

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.
Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Every one of these arguments can be reduced to, “I don’t know what it was or how it happened therefore God did it”. Saying “God did it” is an admission of ignorance and defeat. It is a condensed way of saying, “I don't know how it happened, but not knowing makes me feel insecure so I'm going to assume a simple explanation that reinforces my comforting religious beliefs and I'm unable or unwilling to investigate the matter any further.”

 

[JediMobius]

Every one of these arguments can be reduced to, “I don’t know what it was or how it happened therefore God did it”. Saying “God did it” is an admission of ignorance and defeat. It is a condensed way of saying, “I don't know how it happened, but not knowing makes me feel insecure so I'm going to assume a simple explanation that reinforces my comforting religious beliefs and I'm unable or unwilling to investigate the matter any further.”

Reducing an argument to "God did it." and assuming its successful reduction isn't any better. It is a condensed way of saying, "I already know what you're thinking, because you're a theist, and your arguments must be reduced thusly since every Christian mind clearly has this identical thought process."

It's like a Reductio Ad Hominem Non=Sequitur Straw Man.

 

[JediMobius]

Because I'm bored, and it's been a while since I've seen this...

Why not?

Entropy?

Well I don't. The problem with first cause arguments is that all they do is (potentially) establish that there is a first cause. Proponents of this argument seem to assume that you can make the leap from "first cause" to "God" and not have to show any logical reasoning for that step.

The other issue is that it doesn't explain why God is immune to the argument - it's just an assumption made to hold the conclusion up.

I believe the point of "everyone understands this to be God" is that God (by definition infinite and omnipotent, among other things) is the only possible first cause which could be immune to the argument. God is the one exception to the rule that everything in motion has a cause.

This is exactly the same argument as the first.

Again, exactly the same argument. Why Aquinas thought he could re-phrase one argument three times and have each stand separately is beyond me.

No room for nuance?

Of course, you could say that God is defined as the first cause, but that renders the term largely meaningless, as it could apply to anything. The Big Bang could be God, if it was the first cause.

Well, you could, but I wouldn't and I don't think Aquinas would either. Besides, the Big Bang is not the first cause, right? A first cause would have to be something not subject to the laws which govern every resulting chain of events. Further, the first cause would have to be the cause of those very laws (and constants and such).

I like this one, but it translates to "I want it to be so it is true". Given that perfection is a subjective viewpoint, this argument leaves you with a different God for every person. It also rides on the assumption that perfection exists seperately to the human mind, which it again makes no effort to demonstrate.

Now, hold on. This whole translates-to business is highly subjective. Personification and characterization are not generally good analysis, and this is something like either. Moving on.

If something called perfection is subjective, how can it be perfect? Subjectivity is all about changing moments. What's perfect at the time is not always perfect. But we already have a concept for this in relevance and appropriateness. If something can truly be said to be perfect, it does not need to change and never has changed. Regardless, I assume Aquinas was addressing perfections in the universe in the sense of general harmony among systems, not that we all see the sky and think it's perfect.

In fact, he does demonstrate that perfection exists outside the human mind, though not directly. Predication of degree is based on an utmost. In the instance of heat, there is something which is hottest. Now, I may not know what exists that is ultimately the hottest, but I can know that something is. I can also predicate what is hotter and what is cooler based on the coldest and hottest that I do know to exist. So, while each individual predication of degree may be subjective without a standardized measurement, the subjective is based on something objective.

In everything that can be given degrees, there is a least and a most. If you can't agree that there is something perfect in existence, you should at least agree there is something that is most good. This most good need not be subjective, either. True, what I think is most good might not be to anyone else, and might not even profit my existence at all. However, there are things which are good whether everyone's perception agrees or not. This is how we uphold certain unalienable rights regardless of subjectivity on the matter.

Ah, the best one.

I have truly no idea how this one is even still around.

Major assumption, right here. Why not? And the argument does not take into account an alternative to chance or a designer - evolution, for example.

Well, I would argue that evolution is an inanimate designer which, if not governed by chance, must be governed by an outside force, or itself. Having no intelligence in itself, how can it direct itself? Yet it has direction, so it must have been directed by some mechanism or designer. Chance as a force could not account for the upward direction of progress. Chance, where it can be observed, is just as likely to regress an event as to advance it. This is why chance cannot move events toward any kind of goal.

The real problem with these arguments is that they don't actually get anywhere. The best they can do is leave someone with a vague concept of "God", which remains entirely undefined and could be anything from the ultimate creator of all to a magic talking alligator. The best any logical argument can do by itself is demonstrate that something is logical - so this is in no way a proof.

At the risk of splitting hairs, it's as plausible you don't get anywhere with the arguments of your own accord, not because the arguments are insufficient.

The problem with this supposed vagueness is that in the context of Aquinas's time, the concept of God had not yet been subject to relativism. Still, it behooves the argument not to define God too strictly. Beyond absurd extrapolation, there are certain qualities God must possess which can be reasoned with and against what others have discovered to be such, and more reliably, from the very source. It is not within the scope of these arguments to prove God's essence, only God's existence.

That being said, it is often said that these arguments must be studied in context (why the important contextual factors are left out of the arguments is beyond me - a good argument should stand on its own), so I probably should get round to reading some more Aquinas, Aristotle, and the like at some point. Anybody know of anywhere online where I could find the texts? I'm in Japan, and besides, I don't see much point in paying for a book way beyond copyright and when the author is most assuredly dead.

I'd imagine it would be hard to anticipate what context is necessary to include, and would differ for each generation. Any argument that stands on its own today may suffer similar problems in the future. Though possibly all knowledge could be preserved, all common knowledge is entirely dynamic.

Here's Aquinas's Summa, not sure where to find the rest, but I'd imagine if you wiki Aristotle, you can pick a text to search. This came up on the first page of results for Summa Theologica
SUMMA THEOLOGICA: Home

 

[SithDoughnut]

Entropy?

That assumes that the Big Bang is not part of an infinite chain. I'm not saying it's true, or even likely, but if you're going to make absolute proofs then you need absolute evidence.

I believe the point of "everyone understands this to be God" is that God (by definition infinite and omnipotent, among other things) is the only possible first cause which could be immune to the argument. God is the one exception to the rule that everything in motion has a cause.

Firstly, why is your definition true?

Secondly, why is God the only possible cause? Is it because all the other causes are impossible (for example a wizard who exists outside of time and space, but is not omnipotent or infinite, or something literally coming from nothing), or because you are defining God as the first cause?

No room for nuance?

Not in a logical argument. Or, at least, there's no need for it.

Well, you could, but I wouldn't and I don't think Aquinas would either. Besides, the Big Bang is not the first cause, right? A first cause would have to be something not subject to the laws which govern every resulting chain of events. Further, the first cause would have to be the cause of those very laws (and constants and such).

And that eliminates the Big Bang as a potential first cause how? Given that the laws of physics (and the resultant cause and effect) came into being after the Big Bang, why assume that it is part of a chain that began after it?

If something called perfection is subjective, how can it be perfect?

Because perfection is an individual opinion, like the concept of a favourite.

Subjectivity is all about changing moments. What's perfect at the time is not always perfect. But we already have a concept for this in relevance and appropriateness. If something can truly be said to be perfect, it does not need to change and never has changed. Regardless, I assume Aquinas was addressing perfections in the universe in the sense of general harmony among systems, not that we all see the sky and think it's perfect.

So his argument is actually "there is a balance, therefore God exists"?

In fact, he does demonstrate that perfection exists outside the human mind, though not directly...<snip>...However, there are things which are good whether everyone's perception agrees or not. This is how we uphold certain unalienable rights regardless of subjectivity on the matter.

Can you give an example of something that has always been good (even survival is not desired by those who commit suicide), or an unalienable right that has always existed? I can't think of one.

Well, I would argue that evolution is an inanimate designer which, if not governed by chance, must be governed by an outside force, or itself. Having no intelligence in itself, how can it direct itself? Yet it has direction, so it must have been directed by some mechanism or designer.

Evolution is aimless, but it does follow a logical path. There is no need for a designer, but it's not chance either. There is a middle ground that Aquinas did not deal with, which is understandable because the option wasn't available to him at the time. However, it's here now, and it needs to be included.

At the risk of splitting hairs, it's as plausible you don't get anywhere with the arguments of your own accord, not because the arguments are insufficient.

Possibly, but the arguments leave huge gaps where there should be further logical steps, generally regarding the whole "first cause = God" argument. If God is really the only possibility, the argument should demonstrate this. It should not be assumed that the reader will just go with it.

The problem with this supposed vagueness is that in the context of Aquinas's time, the concept of God had not yet been subject to relativism. Still, it behooves the argument not to define God too strictly. Beyond absurd extrapolation, there are certain qualities God must possess which can be reasoned with and against what others have discovered to be such, and more reliably, from the very source. It is not within the scope of these arguments to prove God's essence, only God's existence.

What are these qualities and how do you know God has them?

I'd imagine it would be hard to anticipate what context is necessary to include, and would differ for each generation. Any argument that stands on its own today may suffer similar problems in the future. Though possibly all knowledge could be preserved, all common knowledge is entirely dynamic.

I'm completely in agreement with you here, which is why Aquinas' arguments should at least be somewhat updated to keep up with the world as we understand it.

Here's Aquinas's Summa, not sure where to find the rest, but I'd imagine if you wiki Aristotle, you can pick a text to search. This came up on the first page of results for Summa Theologica
SUMMA THEOLOGICA: Home

Thanks, I've found some promising sites as well, so I'll have a look.

 

[3sigma]

Reducing an argument to "God did it." and assuming its successful reduction isn't any better.

Well then go ahead and prove that &#8220;God did it&#8221; is the true and comprehensive explanation for the beginning of the universe and not just a credulous assumption. Show us that you really do know how the universe began. If you want to claim your God did it then prove beyond reasonable doubt that your God is real and created the universe. And, no, those five arguments don&#8217;t do that. They only do what I stated earlier. They label something unknown as &#8220;God&#8221; for no sound reason. As SithDoughnut has already shown, they are riddled with errors, fallacies and misapprehensions.

 

[badtim]

really? Aquinas? this stuff was demolished, in any number of ways, by thinkers ranging from Spinoza to Hume to Kant.

might as well throw in St Anselm too. not even Plantinga buys this stuff.

 

[Received]

What do I think of atheists?

I think they're dead sexy, that's what.