Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tenek · 05-20-2003, 09:08 PM

It seems that our Big Three - as I get it, anyways - arguments for God all have something a bit wrong with them.

Design: if a sound argument, proves a god.
First Cause: if a sound argument, proves a god.
Ontological: if a sound argument, proves a god.

Then these are suddenly used to justify worship of one particular god. How do you get from Point A - a being created the universe, a being designed the complex life, or a being must exist - to point B - worship (insert god here)? Just because a greater being exist doesn't mean that said greater being has any necessary properties. Something great enough to create the universe doesn't really need to care what some puny little worm on one planet thinks. What have we humans done to merit anything beyond one mortal life? Are we that special, or that arrogant?

On a more personal note, if I'm so incredible that God really cares about me, what the hell am I doing wasting my time debating His existence over the Internet?

babelfish · 05-20-2003, 09:40 PM

I think people in the past turned to science to help them discover God's nature, to help them define God. (At least this is what my Christian friends tell me.) Unfortunately, the more they discovered, the less God seemed to fit in with their preconceived notions of Him. It seemed that God had put his beloved pets, created in His image and likeness, not in the center of the universe with everything revolving around them, but out on some insignificant speck of dust on the edge of an average sized galaxy. And God hadn't made everything nice and orderly, although it may seem like it on the surface; much of nature is chaotic and even the orderly bits sometimes seem jury-rigged.

Then Darwin came along, and, well, you know the rest.

So rather than having discovered God, science kept pushing Him farther and farther away. So now we have everyone sort of speculating about His true nature. Some people cling obstinately to the Bible, or some other holy book, saying that's where one can find a good description of God. Others just make up their own God. I think these people are referred to as New Age. They don't need a book, God speaks to them directly, somehow. And don't try to tell them they've just conjured Him up by using their fertile imagination!

Tenek · 05-21-2003, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by babelfish
I think people in the past turned to science to help them discover God's nature, to help them define God. (At least this is what my Christian friends tell me.) Unfortunately, the more they discovered, the less God seemed to fit in with their preconceived notions of Him. It seemed that God had put his beloved pets, created in His image and likeness, not in the center of the universe with everything revolving around them, but out on some insignificant speck of dust on the edge of an average sized galaxy. And God hadn't made everything nice and orderly, although it may seem like it on the surface; much of nature is chaotic and even the orderly bits sometimes seem jury-rigged.

Then Darwin came along, and, well, you know the rest.

So rather than having discovered God, science kept pushing Him farther and farther away. So now we have everyone sort of speculating about His true nature. Some people cling obstinately to the Bible, or some other holy book, saying that's where one can find a good description of God. Others just make up their own God. I think these people are referred to as New Age. They don't need a book, God speaks to them directly, somehow. And don't try to tell them they've just conjured Him up by using their fertile imagination!

Ok, but how do you make the leap from believing that a god exists - the design argument would likely be the best way of doing so if it had more going for it, i.e. spontaneous creation of complex organisms completely unrelated to contemporary species, or insanely efficient, perfectly adapted from Day One, immutable creatures - to believing in *any* particular one? "God" can have any number of properties, and given that not all religions can be right, it's certainly possible that none are right, and without actual divine intervention, quite likely that none are right.

Calzaer · 05-21-2003, 09:30 AM

This goes back to my Two Tasks of a Theist argument.

1) Prove any god exists
2) Prove your god exists

Without assuming one to accomplish the other, it can't be done.

Pyrrho · 05-21-2003, 11:45 AM

This same basic idea is discussed in another thread:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=53984

(Not that I have any problems with multiple discussions of the same idea. In fact, I think it is a good idea when the original thread becomes very long, though that is not applicable in this case.)

Here is what I said there:

Quote:

I agree [that the jump from the idea that there is a first cause to "God" is unwarranted]. However, the true function of the arguments for the existence of god is not to give any good reason for non-believers to believe, but to help believers to continue to believe. Many are convinced that, with all of the various arguments for the existence of god, that at least one of them must be good enough, and that helps them push doubts from their minds. Of course, a whole lot of bad arguments does nothing to establish a conclusion, but most people don't examine them all sufficiently to know that they are all bad, and most people who examine them are already biased in favor of the conclusion, and therefore are unable to examine the matter fairly and dispassionately. (Having read William Kingdon Clifford's "The Ethics of Belief", you should already know about bias interfering with fairly weighing evidence, as it is a rather significant observation that he makes in that essay.)

I have never met anyone who came to believe in a god based solely on any of the arguments that people commonly give. I doubt that anyone has ever become a Christian based on those arguments.

If you decide to take a look at Clifford's essay, it is a three-part essay, in which he makes some effort to explain what he means by "sufficient evidence". Beware of severely edited versions. A complete version can be found via:

http://ajburger.homestead.com/ethics.html

So, to directly answer your question, people use a leap of faith to bridge the gap between the conclusion of those faulty arguments and whatever god they already believe in.

babelfish · 05-21-2003, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tenek
Ok, but how do you make the leap from believing that a god exists - the design argument would likely be the best way of doing so if it had more going for it, i.e. spontaneous creation of complex organisms completely unrelated to contemporary species, or insanely efficient, perfectly adapted from Day One, immutable creatures - to believing in *any* particular one? "God" can have any number of properties, and given that not all religions can be right, it's certainly possible that none are right, and without actual divine intervention, quite likely that none are right.

That's just it, you have to make the leap. In the end, there is nobody who can tell you what God is like, you have to decide for yourself. You get to choose which Holy Book you want to believe, or discard all Holy Books and just use your imagination.

Then, after you've figured it all out, and convinced yourself that what you believe is "The Truth," you have to get together with a group of people who believe similarly. You may not believe exactly as they do, but close enough to be comfortable. Then, you have to convince yourself that all other beliefs are inferior to yours.

I think it must have been so much easier to define God hundreds of years ago, before those pesky scientists started discovering natural explanations for spectacular phenomena like volcanoes, thunderstorms, the human eye, etc.

johngalt · 05-21-2003, 05:26 PM

well, um, you prove that god exists and i will believe you.

omnia · 05-22-2003, 04:43 AM

...or you could just go with "a god" and claim science tells you about its nature.

I, personally, don't find any three of the "a god" arguments at all compelling (hence I often am labeled an atheist, as well I may be I dunno). However, assuming they are sound arguments, why do you need a leap to any particular god? I personally would say, yes, logic and science can show you the nature of god, if you are so inclined to believe in the first place. I personally am very moved by the natural world and be science, and see them as evidence of god's nature.

If I'm not an atheist, I'm a pantheist. "God" is energy, and hence everything. Does energy in the holistic sense have a consciousness? I would argue so, but either way it has little application, as if it does have consciousness it's nothing like the vengeful, judging god of the bible, as we and our consciouness are part of it. It's more like the tao, it simply is.

I'm sure I had more of a point to make, but I'm rather tired and was just posting to distract myself from exams, so my apologies if I'm incoherent or impertinent. (or unable to spell...) *goes back to lurking*

SpaceNut · 05-23-2003, 09:13 AM

Hi, this is my first post. I have been in lurk mode for about 3 years. I don't like posting but I was thinking about the following assertion

***the one true will of the one true God***

with Calzaer's conditions about "The two tasks of a theist".

Can GOD (in case 1) be limited to "one true God"? Can GOD be limited to "one true will"? Logically, it seems absurd that any limitation can be put on such a concept.

One can agree that one's own personal god (as in case 2) might be limited to one plan and one form. But how does one resolve the contradiction which arises when we try to go from a limited god form to an unlimited form of GOD?

I don't think theists who believe in "the one true will of the one true God" have an answer to this question.

Jobar · 05-23-2003, 09:35 PM

Welcome, omnia and SpaceNut. Always glad to hear from our usually-silent audience.

Omnia, if you have lurked long, you may know that I call myself an atheist/pantheist, and have gone to some lengths trying to show how the two positions are compatable, and provide us with a complete philosophical worldview, as atheism alone does not. If you want to read more about this, PM me and I'll send along a list of relevant threads.

05-20-2003, 09:08 PM	#1
Tenek Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 979	A god vs. your God It seems that our Big Three - as I get it, anyways - arguments for God all have something a bit wrong with them. Design: if a sound argument, proves a god. First Cause: if a sound argument, proves a god. Ontological: if a sound argument, proves a god. Then these are suddenly used to justify worship of one particular god. How do you get from Point A - a being created the universe, a being designed the complex life, or a being must exist - to point B - worship (insert god here)? Just because a greater being exist doesn't mean that said greater being has any necessary properties. Something great enough to create the universe doesn't really need to care what some puny little worm on one planet thinks. What have we humans done to merit anything beyond one mortal life? Are we that special, or that arrogant? On a more personal note, if I'm so incredible that God really cares about me, what the hell am I doing wasting my time debating His existence over the Internet?

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

05-20-2003, 09:40 PM	#2
babelfish Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Augusta, Maine, USA Posts: 2,046	I think people in the past turned to science to help them discover God's nature, to help them define God. (At least this is what my Christian friends tell me.) Unfortunately, the more they discovered, the less God seemed to fit in with their preconceived notions of Him. It seemed that God had put his beloved pets, created in His image and likeness, not in the center of the universe with everything revolving around them, but out on some insignificant speck of dust on the edge of an average sized galaxy. And God hadn't made everything nice and orderly, although it may seem like it on the surface; much of nature is chaotic and even the orderly bits sometimes seem jury-rigged. Then Darwin came along, and, well, you know the rest. So rather than having discovered God, science kept pushing Him farther and farther away. So now we have everyone sort of speculating about His true nature. Some people cling obstinately to the Bible, or some other holy book, saying that's where one can find a good description of God. Others just make up their own God. I think these people are referred to as New Age. They don't need a book, God speaks to them directly, somehow. And don't try to tell them they've just conjured Him up by using their fertile imagination!

05-21-2003, 09:30 AM	#4
Calzaer Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 2,762	This goes back to my Two Tasks of a Theist argument. 1) Prove any god exists 2) Prove your god exists Without assuming one to accomplish the other, it can't be done.

05-21-2003, 05:26 PM	#7
johngalt Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 204	well, um, you prove that god exists and i will believe you.

05-22-2003, 04:43 AM	#8
omnia Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: US/UK Posts: 9	...or you could just go with "a god" and claim science tells you about its nature. I, personally, don't find any three of the "a god" arguments at all compelling (hence I often am labeled an atheist, as well I may be I dunno). However, assuming they are sound arguments, why do you need a leap to any particular god? I personally would say, yes, logic and science can show you the nature of god, if you are so inclined to believe in the first place. I personally am very moved by the natural world and be science, and see them as evidence of god's nature. If I'm not an atheist, I'm a pantheist. "God" is energy, and hence everything. Does energy in the holistic sense have a consciousness? I would argue so, but either way it has little application, as if it does have consciousness it's nothing like the vengeful, judging god of the bible, as we and our consciouness are part of it. It's more like the tao, it simply is. I'm sure I had more of a point to make, but I'm rather tired and was just posting to distract myself from exams, so my apologies if I'm incoherent or impertinent. (or unable to spell...) goes back to lurking

05-23-2003, 09:13 AM	#9
SpaceNut New Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3	Hi, this is my first post. I have been in lurk mode for about 3 years. I don't like posting but I was thinking about the following assertion *the one true will of the one true God* with Calzaer's conditions about "The two tasks of a theist". Can GOD (in case 1) be limited to "one true God"? Can GOD be limited to "one true will"? Logically, it seems absurd that any limitation can be put on such a concept. One can agree that one's own personal god (as in case 2) might be limited to one plan and one form. But how does one resolve the contradiction which arises when we try to go from a limited god form to an unlimited form of GOD? I don't think theists who believe in "the one true will of the one true God" have an answer to this question.

05-23-2003, 09:35 PM	#10
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Welcome, omnia and SpaceNut. Always glad to hear from our usually-silent audience. Omnia, if you have lurked long, you may know that I call myself an atheist/pantheist, and have gone to some lengths trying to show how the two positions are compatable, and provide us with a complete philosophical worldview, as atheism alone does not. If you want to read more about this, PM me and I'll send along a list of relevant threads.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.