Freethought & Rationalism Archive

David Gould · 05-15-2002, 08:03 PM

Metacrock,

Don't we also have the concept of evil? Doesn't it make more sense to argue for a god that contains both good and evil?

Metacrock · 05-15-2002, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by braces_for_impact:
Isn't it presupposition to insist that only one god can exist?

Meta =>No not at all. Because when we Christains use the term "g-o-d" We don't mean just any powerful being that has imortality. We mean a certain thing by that, that is, necessary being, which there can be only one of.

Quote:

If one, why not two? Or three? Or five billion? Perhaps each atom is, in itelf it's own universe and each and every has a creator? See where I'm going with this?

Meta =>First, I told you why, because of Occam. We don't need more than one, Occam says not to multipy entities beyond necessity. Secondly, because God is being itself. there can't be more than one Being itself any more than there could be more than one "that which nothing greater than can be concieved."

Think about it. If you had two things and each was called "that which nothing greater than can be concieved" they would cancel each other out.

Quote:

I myself find atheistic arguments more probable than theistic ones. I have yet to find a theistic argument for 'proof' of god that cannot be picked apart by the correct application of logic.

Meta =>WEll of course you can't. If you could would you be an atheist? But I have yet to you pick apart my fist cause argument. If you haven't discovered it go to the thread by that title. I will bet you you can't defeat my transcendental signifyer argument. I will bet that all you can say about it is "this is just gibberish and has no meaning." But it does have meaning.

Quote:

I see no need to believe in something that 'might' be, as this is undesireable and incredibly inconvienent. Additionally, since some gods supposedly dictate that there followers must have faith, wouldn't proof negate that faith? One does not require faith in the presence of evidence, but in lack of it.

Meta =>NO God is a dead cert. But as for the problem of faith vs. reason, sure to have a spiritual relationship with God you have to have faith. but the logical arguments are just to get people started down the road of thinking about it.

Not that atheists don't make mistakes in logic, I myself have in the past,

Meta =>Naw! say it isn't so! (just fun'n ya)

Quote:

and will probably do so in the future. But to use logic to 'disprove' god, it seems to me one must be specific as to which god you are referring to and what characteristics he has. Even then, all is not certain.

Meta =>to say the least. You can't disprove God because that would require proving the negative. the best you can do is to disprove someone's concept of God.

Quote:

But as to regarding the philosophy as to god existing, I certainly don't consider it a waste of time. It is great mental excersise, and allows you to think both inside and outside of the box. It sharpens verbal and written skills, logical thinking, critical thinking, and I have found it helpful in my daily life to use those skills.

Meta =>I agree with that. But tell me, have you read Hartshorne or Koons? Or even Plantinga? If not than you can't speak of trearing down the God arguments logically.

Metacrock · 05-15-2002, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ender:


Perfect timing, HolyRomanGod.

I've already asked him that, during my first months on his board. I'd like to hear the answer again, tho' since i never got a chance to respond.

~WiGGiN~

Meta =>I really can't understand that way of thinking. One God to an argument so that there is a cosmolgocial God and an ontolgoical God and a moral argument God, that just doesnt' make sense. I can go to washington DC many different ways, its not a different washington if you come from Virginia than if you come from Maryland or whatever.

Metacrock · 05-15-2002, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daggah:


No, Tercel. Aesthetics and feelings are not and have never been evidence for anything, as these exact things have been used to defend belief in polytheistic religions, monotheistic religions that contradict each other, and even UFOs. They can't all be true, so religious experiences, changed lives, and miracles are not useful in determining the truth of a religion.

Therefore, the only rational thing to do is to reject their use as evidence for <insert religion or UFO cult here>.

Meta =>That is total bull. they do prove things, they are good arguments. The only problem is atheists are afriad of feelings. If they werne't they wouldn't be antheists.

If you get past the fear of emotion and consider the nature of reigous experinces it does prove God. becuase they do change lives and nothing else does. They change lives in ways that mere internal states by theselves never do. and there is a ton of empirical evidence to prove that.

Read my debate with Gurdur on the debate board. It's old so I may not be there now.

Check out the link to one of my arguments:

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/experience/mystical.htm" target="_blank">Mystical experinces</a>

Metacrock · 05-15-2002, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Laera:


How does one discern the truth of a feeling/religious experience/miracle/hallucination? What is an appropriate test of these things that makes us capable of "reasonably discerning their truth?"

[ May 15, 2002: Message edited by: Laera ]

Meta =>There are many good empirical studies which prove that religious experinces:

1) change lives

2) are long term

3) are not destructive but actually postive.

Now there are very few things that have long term postive effects of a life changing nature that are just either pathological or mentally induced. These studies demonstate that religious experience is not mental illness, so there is no reason to attribute it to hallucinations.

Now that doesn't prove conclusively, but it offers a good inductive argument that if one has such experinces it is logical assume that one has expernices some power beyond oneself, and if one has such an expenrience it is logical to go with it.

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/experience/mystical.htm" target="_blank">Mystical experinces</a>

Technos · 05-15-2002, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wordsmyth:


That's interesting because I would say there is more evidence for the existence of Luke Skywalker than for any God.

Amen to that!

Metacrock · 05-15-2002, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorador:
Do you believe the physical world exists? I sincerly hope you do. However what rational evidence do you have for believing that over Solipsism? If you have no rational evidence, then according to you, you have no foundation for that belief. Yet believing in the existence of the world is a fairly major part of any worldview on par with belief in a deity's existence. If you can believe in the physical world's existence over Solipsism without "rational evidence" why not God?

Whether reality exists or does not exist is irrelevant, because even in a Solipsistic world, there is only one way that one can percieve evidence: through one's own senses. And through those senses, evidence is logical, rational in nature. Whether or not reality really does exist is meaningless.

Meta => You are missing the point of the argument (but that's because the others who quoted it first are too sort of). But what you say above "there is only one way one can percieve evidence, through the senses" that's the point. And since that that is true, there is sense in arguing that the experinces are false merely because they rely on the senses. The senses are all we have, and that being the case, the same criteria that allows us to trust our perceptions of the world (regularity and consistency of expenrce) allows us to trust religious experinces.

Quote:

God has not shown himself to me, whether this world really does exist or does not. Thusly, I have no belief in him, because I have recieved nothing that I percieve as any sort of rational evidence, whether or not reality exists.

Meta =>But clearly you are not listening for him to. Your fighting the very notion, refusing to listen to those who have had expernces, you are clealry not open to the possiblity, so why should he? God is not interested in forcing people to believe, God is interested in pepole internalizing love and choosing the good as a free moral agent. So he's not going to hit you over the head. You have to seek him.

Quote:

There are innumerable logical and reasonable arguments for belief, those who say "have faith" are in my experience those who simply don't know any arguments themselves.

We agree on something! Woohaw!

Meta =>Faith is a religious concept, it assumes devotion. Before you can have faith you hvae to have a reason to place fiath in the object of faith, which presumably the arguments can offer.

Quote:

I accept evolution and a ~15 billion year old universe and I am a Christian. As far as I am concerned neither of these things has more than an incidental relevance to my faith.
I was not refering to Archaeology as proving such dubious claims as Young Earth Creationism, but rather things like the accuracy of the Gospels etc - a task which it has succeeded admirably in over the last century or so.

I'm not sure I follow you on this one, here. The accuracy of the Gospels? Can you provide me with a reference of some sort?

Meta => Why assume they aren't? That's an ideolgoical assumption.

Quote:

I don't have enough time right now to give a reasonable treatment to even one of the arguments. One of the other Christian posters might have time if you ask nicely.

Well if you can't back up those logical points then they're not very good tools for debate then, are they? =P

Meta =->Hmm I may have falsely attributed this quote elsewhere. Sorry about that. I have yet to see any logical refutation of the arguments! Most of the time atheist refutation truns on equivocating about the termenology rather than acutally dealing with the logic of an argument.

Quote:

1) No empirical evidence can prove the existence of the external world, other minds, or the reality of history, or other such basic things.
2) We do not find this epistemological dilemma debilitating on a daily basis because we assume that if our experiences are consistent and regular than we can navigate in "reality" whether it is ultimately illusory of not.
3) Consistency and regularity of personal experience is the key.
4) religious experience can also be regular and consistent, perhaps not to the same degree, but in the same way.
5) therefore, we have as much justification for assuming religious belief based upon experince as for assuming the reality of the external world or the existence of other minds.

1)Like I said, whether or not those things really exist is irrelevant, because our actions within that world, real or not, give us the perception of the consequences of our actions. Things in the world can be deduced through logic, and so one must act as though the world really did exist in order to garner the appropriate results from your actions.

Meta =>The point is not how to prove that things really exist. The point is that you assume they do. If you live in the world nad work and go school and drive a car and wear clothes ect. than you assume that the world is real. You do that based upon two things; the regularity of expenrces of the world and the consistancy of experinces of the world. Those same two criteria are true of God expernces too, so there's no reason why they shouldn't be trusted as well.

Metacrock · 05-15-2002, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Gould:
Metacrock,

Don't we also have the concept of evil? Doesn't it make more sense to argue for a god that contains both good and evil?

Meta =>Not if you are an Augustinaian like me. To Agustien Evil was just the absense of the Good.

Technos · 05-15-2002, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock:


Meta => I don't understand your reasoning there. If the arguments prove that there must be a God, than God exists. What's the problem? Proving "which God" is a silly concept. There's no such thing as "which God." God is the only God and the only question is "what does God want, what is God like?" There is no pantheon of gods competing for existence with one another. So if the arguments prove any sort of God then that is the God ther is.

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: Metacrock ]

So says the MONOTHEIST meta. All gods look the same to me Meta. Hindus have more than one god, and so do many other religions of the world. It seems we have something in common meta, you disbelieve in gods, I just disbelieve in 1 more than you do. Which god is a question among theist, your monopolistic religion still fails to smother out the competition, and now us heathen atheist are on the rise, whatever do you do?

Meta, I want you to understand something, something that seems to elude you to this day. To Atheist YOUR god is no better of than the many gods of the hindus. You're in no better position than muslims or pagans. When you say god, we don't see an image of any specific deity, or imagine your specific deity apart from those of other cults. It's time you learned what most theist are too damn inept to understand, atheist disbelieve in all gods, and you're not going to be treated any different from a polytheist, deal with it!

Sorry guys, this whole monopolistic attitude religionist often have pisses me off, big time. If a theist too damn stupid to realize that s/he has competition (aside from us atheist) then s/he shouldn't even be here IMO.

[ May 15, 2002: Message edited by: Technos ]

Ender · 05-15-2002, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Metacrock: I really can't understand that way of thinking.

Maybe this will help- when you adopt different methodologies to rehabilitate the concept of God, how do you justify using methods that are not congruent with one another?

Quote:

Metacrock: One God to an argument so that there is a cosmolgocial God and an ontolgoical God and a moral argument God, that just doesnt' make sense.

Remember what Kant said? He claimed that the teleological and the cosmo arguments for God's existence depended on the ontology of God's existence.

Quote:

Metacrock: I can go to washington DC many different ways, its not a different washington if you come from Virginia than if you come from Maryland or whatever.

This analogy does not work for several reasons- DC is a fixed position on the map and in reality, whereas we're talking about the ineffable and the various ways of appropriating an understanding of the "ineffable." There is a reason why Aquinas stuck to largely empirical methods in arguing for God's existence while disagreeing/criticizing/ and refuting Anselm's ontological arguments- it's called consistency of philosophical methodology.

If you are arguing for a pluralist approach, how do you know that there are 35 legit ones and not 49 or just 1? why stop at 35? Is this the result of the pervasion of perspectivism in 20th century theology?

Isn't it disingenuous to say that all the arguments refer to only the personal Christian God, albeit a liberal concept? Can you explain to me why the Medieval practice of borrowing the greek philosophers' Gods and adding their religious convictions were legitimate?
~WiGGiN~

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-15-2002, 08:03 PM	#41
David Gould Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 759	Metacrock, Don't we also have the concept of evil? Doesn't it make more sense to argue for a god that contains both good and evil?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.