Kenny

As I already pointed out, my post was an attempt to force a clarification of what Koy meant by the word sound as well as inform some of my fellow theists who agreed that there were no sound arguments for God’s existence what the formal definition of sound really is. All that is required for an argument to be sound is that it be valid and that its premises be true. This means that there are an infinite number of sound arguments for the existence of God (since God exists ), even though they may be trivial in nature.

I agree that the particular argument I gave is worthless as an actual argument intended to establish the existence of God or convince others of its truth. But, the clarification I am seeking, I think, is very relevant to this debate. I think that there are a number of sound arguments for the existence of God which are non-question-begging in both a formal and informal sense. These would include certain forms of the ontological argument, transcendental argument, cosmological argument, teleological argument, etc.

Now, I don’t see the point in debating whether or not these arguments are sound in this thread because I recognize that they have been and are being debated in several other threads. I also recognize that a number of people here are not convinced by such arguments. But, that does not mean the arguments are not sound or that they are not good arguments. All it means is that not all parties are willing to accept their premises.

So, what exactly is being demanded when Koy asks for a single sound theistic argument. Does it have to be one that convinces him? If so, all this thread amounts to is the assertion that there are no arguments for the existence of God which Koy finds convincing. Okay; no surprise there. My launching into technicalities was in the interest of seeking clarification on such matters.

God Bless,
Kenny

Tom Sawyer

The only sound argument for a Theist point of view that I can think of is that people want to believe in it.

Belief in God brings order to their universe and a purpose to their lives. It gives them hope that there is something better out there and the things that they do actually have a meaning in the larger scheme of things. When tragedy happens, it was for a reason; when a loved one dies, they've gone to a better place and they will be seen again.

When you tell them that God's a fairy-tale, you're telling them to believe that the universe is a cold, impersonal place that doesn't care about them. There's nothing better out there and there's no larger scheme of things to bring meaning ot their lives. When a tragedy happens, it's because bad things happen for no reason; when a loved one dies, they're gone forever, they'll never be seen again and the same will happen to you one day.

Not believing in God would take away all the hope and meaning from their lives and replace it with nothing. That's why logical arguments so rarely work - they don't care about the logic, they care about what gives them hope and a purpose. The fact that God isn't real is irrelevant; faith in Him brings happiness to them and that's all that really counts.

So pointing out logical inconsistencies in the Bible and reasons that God can't be real is just banging your head against a brick wall. A better question to ask instead of if Theism has a sound argument in favour of it is what does Atheism have to offer Theists? The fact that it's true isn't a selling point.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

The problem with most pro-God arguments (including the one referred to in this thread by hyper-link) is that they seem to accept that their arguments apply to the natural, but not to God.

If existence cannot be eternal (the argument used the term 'infinite', but used it incorrectly. Eternal refers to time. Something can be eternal, yet still exist in finite quantity) by the rules of this argument, then God cannot be eternal, either.

And it is far easier (Occam's Razor) to understand that existence is eternal, than add the additional wrinkle of an eternal God, who is somehow exempt from the 'rules' which prevent the eternal nature of reality/existence/truth.

Lastly, what is the difference between 'weak atheism' and 'agnosticism'?

I've never understood the disinction...

Keith.

Plump-DJ

Hello Keith.

I'd like to if i may respond to your post.

Right. Would you care to expand that for us? I think i see what you're saying but are you implying that the argument is "Special Pleading" with God. (which is a fallacy of course) I think I can see where this is going. The problem for the always existent is not neccesarily the problem for the universe -- or the perimeters of the universe are not neccesarily that of the "God"! If you for a moment accept the argument's validity and we have a proof of such a thing then there exists a number of possiblities for this thing and it's relationship to time, which is the problem for us (the universe) i believe.

Plump

WJ

Atlantic!

Just as a sort of postscript (since I'm not sure if you read my question to you), Vork makes a great point about [the] 'some other tool':

"I don't think you can really demonstrate anything with philosophy; you eventually have to go out into the world, and that requires complex arguments whose soundness is the result of their tremendous reach."


Truly <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Keith Russell

Plump:

I'll try. My main problem with the argument found at: <a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/cosmos.htm" target="_blank">http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/cosmos.htm</a>
is that it equates 'infinite' with 'eternal'. Infinite means 'beyond all quantity', and I would argue--and Mr. Lenardos might agree--that all things are finite.

Yet, matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. They are thus 'eternal'; changing from finite form to finite form, but never coming into being, or going out of being. They are eternal, though they have specific (limited/finite) properties, and exist in finite quantity.

Eternal, but not infinite. Eternal, but finite. (Uncreated, requiring no Creator/God.)

Mr. Lenardos' proposition that the universe cannot be eternal, since that would mean we would have already gone through an 'infinite' past, is simply an elaborate rendition of Xeno's paradox (which has been refuted time and again).

Placing another existence outside the universe allows Mr. Lenardos to 'box in' the universe, giving it a nice, tidy beginning, making it finite. (But, the existence beyond the universe still suffers from Mr. Lenardos' 'infinite regression' problem. Lenardos' addresses this in a very shoddy manner, which I explain below.)

Mr. Lenardos simply states that the universe cannot be 'infinite' (which is true), yet he ignores that it might be eternal (which I believe). He states that there 'must be' something outside the universe, and that this something--whatever it is--is God.

He finishes by stating that God need not be personal or 'all-good', but that he nonetheless believes that God IS personal and good.

He finally makes the claim that God is not bound by the rules of our universe (though he makes little effort to support this with either argument or evidence). He thus claims that a multi-dimensional God is not bounded though our universe must be. Thus, for Mr. Lenardos, God can exist and be infinite, but the universe (reality/existence) cannot be.

Ultimately, Leonardos' argument does not address the fact that evidence for the multi-dimensionality of our own universe offers the universe the same possibilities which Mr. Lenardos reserves for God. Nor does it address current cosmological discoveries, which strongly suggest that there was existence prior to the Big Bang. (Again, suggesting that existence is eternal, and thus requires no Creator/God.)

In the end, Mr. Lenardos doesn't offer a reason why he believes in God, just that he chooses to believe. He doesn't offer a reason why he chooses to believe in a personal God, he again only states that he does. He offers no evidence through his argument why the universe, or existence itself, must be conscious--he simply argues that 'there must be something outside our universe' (that 'something' exists, beyond existence--a contradiction he never addresses) and that he chooses to believe that this 'something' is a conscious, volitional God.

Mr. Lenardos' argument is a very elaborate, sometimes elegant, rendition of the 'there must be something' theist argument.

An argument which, after all, really isn't much of an argument at all.

Keith Russell.

Synaesthesia

Tom Piper,
If it was indeed possible to establish God, and the various qualities attributed to him by normal epistemic means, I wouldn't be an atheist, plain and simple.

As it is, the ONLY argument for God is FAITH, which can be used to defend any belief however ridiculous, however false.

Pure logical arguments are, IMHO, simply a way in which theistic (or atheistic) sophistry can get it's thin veneer of rationalism.

Synaesthesia

SOMMS,
Evidence is only possible within an empirical framework. That doesn't mean it's purely subjective and cannot truthfully inform us. I wouldn't be alive if it didn't.

rainbow walking

Hi Plump,
I know “why” he swapped it around, now let’s take a look at how he did it and appeared to get away with it, apparently fooling you in the process.

rw: Apparently Lenardos doesn’t realize that an infinite number of events are completely traversed every time he takes in a breath of air. For instance, how many germs replicate in his intestines at any given second? In the intestines of all humans currently living? How many spiders weave another strand to their web? How many particles of dust settle on the moon? How many quarks pass through his body? The UNIVERSE is defined by such events…yes? Yet each of these events have been completely traversed to allow each successive event its turn to unfold.

rw: I hope you are beginning to see Lenardo’s difficulty in substantiating his assertion that all past events could not be completely traversed forward if the universe is infinitely regressive.

Another thing Lenardos fails to realize is that the number of events backwards, to an observer, will never be the same number of events upon returning to the present, even if the universe has a true beginning. Let me illustrate:

Let’s examine this from both angles, that is to say, from an infinite regress and a finite regress.

The finite regress: The only way Lenny can traverse a FINITE series of events back to the precise nanosecond of time’s beginning and return to the present event is to step out of time in such a way as to be exempt from its forward momentum. From this unique position of time travelLenny might be able to whisk himself back to the exact beginning of the universe, observe the first few series of events, and then whisk himself back to the exact present nanosecond and step back into time with the universe.(Provided he doesn’t get sidetracked in observing some other series of events in another galaxy.) In this way he can establish an exact NUMBER of events that he traversed both forward and backward.

Unfortunately for Lenny he will discover that the number of events backwards will be less than the number forwards. The reason being, just because he steps out of time to investigate his theory doesn’t mean the universe will stop traversing events forward. The number of events Lenny will have to traverse to catch back up with the CURRENT event of the universe will be greater than the number backwards depending on how long Lenny takes to complete his investigations. If Lenny returns to the exact point in time from where he left he will be behind the actual time of the universe and thus non-existent to everyone but himself. So his claim of an identical series of events in both directions fails because the universe will not stop and wait on Lenny to return. All Lenny can observe from his finite position is a specific series of events, not ALL completely traversed events.

And this creates another problem for Lenny. He must follow a specific set of events that actually lead back to the beginning of this universe. He can’t just focus on a planet or star because they formed long after the beginning of the universe. This will only lead him to the formation of a nebulae. Before Lenny can traverse a specific number of events back to a beginning he must isolate THE specific events that will take him to his desired destination, else he ends up following events to a dead end.


The infinite regress: Again Lenny must step out of actual time and proceed backwards along the timeline. If the universe is a series of infinitely regressive events Lenny will never be back, but this in no way means the universe, in its infinite traversing of events forward couldn’t be occurring in this way at this particular time. If we are drifting thru an infinite universe we are just one tiny aspect of an infinite series of events unfolding at a specific pace to each material object that is part of that unfolding. Lenny included.

rw: Again, what Lenny fails to realize is that in the time it took him to type those two sentences an infinite series of events occurred in the present universe. Unless he is omniscient and can tell us the precise number of sub-atomic particles that exist and their trajectory and effect on the universe per nanosecond, the chemical reactions that occur as a result and the effect on every other sub-atomic particle, he has no way to establish a finite number of events that occur in this universe per nanosecond of events. Lenny has committed the fallacy of the excluded middle. His assumption that a finite number can be ascribed to something as vast and ancient as this universe has allowed him to equivocate a finitude to infinity and present it as an eliminated premise in the conclusion of his complex argument.

Conclusion Lenardos has failed to establish that the universe is not a series of infinitely regressive events. His over-simplified argument to exclude an infinite universe is based on propositions that assume rather than establish any valid truth-value consistent to the actuality of this event horizon we call the universe.

Tom Piper

Synaesthesia,

I asked To which you responded, Is your response to be understood as an acknowledgement that there is no sound argument for the existence of Thomas Jefferson or for Socrates, that their respective 'existences' are established by 'normal epistemic means'? If so, will you establish their existences by 'normal epistemic means' for us, please!

Tom