Bathrone

Hi everyone. My first post, thankyou for conducting this website and people for sharing their informed knowledge here. Ive greatly enjoyed reading it so far.

Now, I have maintained that it is impossible to proove God(s) exist. I am an athiest and have scientific confidence, through reasoned inquiry that God does not exist. I would describe myself as a secular humanist.

This guy has come along and presented the following. Honestly, I dont know what hes on about. Granted this shows some ignorance I have - but Im willing to learn and listen to better myself!

"You should know that there have been many rational 'proofs' that argue for the existence of God, such as Rene Descartes' argument from causality and the argument from ontology (similar to Anselm's). Atheists (such as Charles van Doren) and Believers (such as Immanuel Kant) alike have both rejected these logical proofs, though they still aknowldege that there is a rational process in them. "

Thanks

Biff the unclean

When you get into ontology you have pretty much already abandoned rational proofs.
Rational proofs of existential claims are pretty clear cut…you supply a specimen.
If you claim that there is definitely such a thing as a giant squid and you can produce a length of half-rotten tentacle then you are home free. There is no ontologism that is acceptable for squids. Any intuitive feelings you might about over-sized cephalopods can never be presented as proof of their existence.
The same should hold true for any existential claim for any being. The fact that such ontological claims are standard fair for the EOG speaks more of the social clout Theists have rather than what rational proofs actually are.

Ensign Steve

Huh?

I have just recently broken myself of the habit of glossing over words I don't know and actually looking them up. It is a mixed blessing as this practice tends to lead to more questions than it answers (kind of like critical thinking!).

I found this definition from [a href="http://www.m-w.com/"]Miriam Webster[/a]:
"Ontological argument: an argument for the existence of God based upon the meaning of the term God."

Any idea which "meaning of the term God" they are refering to?

I can't figure out from the context of your reply, Biff, if this is even the right definition. Is there a different meaning for ontological argument?

Also, Bathrone, about the argument from causality, is that the argument that says the universe had to have a cause, and that cause was god? If that's the case, that argument falls flat on it's face, because it prompts us to ask "what was the cause of god?" If god is beyond time or beyond causality, there's no reason that the beginning of the universe couldn't be beyond causality, independent of god.

Sorry, I think this post asked more questions than it answered! Hey, we're all here to learn, right?

Jen

Biff the unclean

Huh?
I'm using Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary: Unabridged. In which I found…
onotoolog'icoal är'guoment, in metaphysics an a priori argument for the existence of God, based upon the widespread existence of the idea of God.

And

onotol'oogism, n. the philosophical doctrine that the knowledge of God is immediate and intuitive, and that all other knowledge springs from it.

Both of these remove us from "rational proofs "of existential claims. In fact the very idea of producing a specimen is treated as insanity and blasphemy by believers. However for existential claims made of any being other than God they would rightfully insist on it.

xeren

If it is Anselm, then the definition of God is "Something than which nothing greater can be thought".

Anselm uses this definition to show that god must exist in reality as well as in our thoughts because existing in reality and our thoughts is greater that just existing in our thoughts. And because a god which is "Something than which nothing greater can be thought" would have something greater than itself if it only existed in our thoughts, it must exist in reality as well.

I think I got that right, if I'm off, someone please correct me, I just read this for the first time about 2 weeks ago.

Bathrone

Could you guys please slow down a bit. Im sorry, Im new to this field of study and Im not at the level of you guys. I only recently found out I am a secular humanist, always felt that way just never knew what to call it.

My question is this - could someone please explain what the guy was saying in the words I quoted off him from a novice perspective

Thanks very much

K

Bathrone:

I think it goes along the lines of this. Let's imagine a being which is greater than any other being and call that being God.

Now let's label the traits of some great beings.


Being 1 Being 2
--------- ----------
1. Perfect goodness 1. Perfect goodness
2. Perfect justice 2. Perfect justice
. .
. .
. .
x. Existence x. Non-Existence

Since these two greatest beings are the same in every other way, the being with existence is greater because existence is a more desirable quality than non-existence. Since we defined God as the greatest being that could be imagined, it would have to be the being that existed. Therefore, God must exist.

It's really just a tricky way of begging the question.

Ensign Steve

Bathrone, I'm with you. I think I have learned more in the month since I joined this board than in my entire college carreer, and I have taken 5 different philosophy classes!

I find myself reading posts with a bible in one hand and a dictionary in the other. It's like learning a new language, but it eventually starts making sense. Eventually. LOL!

Good luck to you!

Jen

Jobar

Hi Bathrone, and welcome. Yes this is a great place to learn- and we have a lot of fun, too.

I would say that there have been many *attempts* at rational proofs of God. Trouble is, all the attempts fail, in one way or another. They can just as well be used to prove the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns, or fairies, or Santa Claus, as God.

You should read some of the threads here and watch the dodging and squirming, as the believers attempt to find some way of proving things with no evidence!

Koyaanisqatsi

Bathrone

The "spin" you're looking for comes in the conclusion. Let me break it down:

Note the bolded part. They still acknowledge there is a "rational process" in them. Well, what does that mean? Quite simply, it means that "they" both agree that the syllogisms (i.e., "proofs") follow the rules of modal logic (i.e., "common" logic).

All that means, however, is that the premises of the argument (syllogism) have been set up properly. It doesn't necessarily mean, however, that the premises of the argument are valid (or "sound") or that the conclusion logically follows (i.e., sequitur) from those premises.

In other words, you can be "right" on one level (the superficial, rules and regulations level) when wording a syllogism and still be "wrong" about the conclusion of the syllogism (i.e., the relevant point the argument seeks to prove).

For a quick example (though my formal logic is rusty):

Ten people have cancer.
Those ten people all live in green houses.
Green houses, therefore, caused the cancer.

You can see that there is indeed a "rational process" to that syllogism, but that doesn't mean the conclusion is correct (i.e., that the conclusion follows from the premises provided).

There are many other ways in which this happens. I suggest you seek out a poster here by the name of Clutch for more information, or just type in "logic" to any search engine and then search under "fallacies" for more specific information.