lpetrich

I think that several of the favorite "proofs of God" are non sequiturs, because rival creeds could easily make use of them, and because parsimony suggests something more like Deism than like traditional Xianity, a deity who keeps aloof from humanity.

A First Cause, for example, could simply be a First Cause and nothing more, without any special interest in what happens further down the chain of causation.

Family Man

Fine tuning also. Besides the other problems with that argument, which God caused the fine tuning? Why specifically the Christian God?

Primal

Well it is questionable even whether parsomony would suggest Deism or a sort of Supernatural force, like Karma or Fate.

Philip Osborne

I think that several of the favorite "proofs of God" are non sequiturs, because rival creeds could easily make use of them, and because parsimony suggests something more like Deism than like traditional Xianity, a deity who keeps aloof from humanity.

A First Cause, for example, could simply be a First Cause and nothing more, without any special interest in what happens further down the chain of causation.

Most traditional theistic arguments are supposed to be part of a cumulative case for theism. For instance, no cosmological argument could prove the veracity of the Bible or any religious text. Nor does proving a First Cause necessarily prove that the First Cause is all perfect, or even intelligent. However, a cosmological argument taken together with a design argument might make the theistic conclusion much more plausible than either argument would do on its own. So I don't think that we must require any single theistic argument to prove that the First Cause or grand designer must have all and only the attributes of the Christian or Jewish or Muslim God.

On the other hand, some theologians, such as St. Thomas, have attempted to construct a natural theology that derives all the basic attributes of God; I don't think Aquinas' system is entirely successful, since many of the Aristotelian assumptions crucial to his theology ("potentiality" would be an important example) are badly dated. However, this route of thought might be a promising one for theists.

That's just my two cents.

Sincerely,

Philip

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: Philip Osborne ]</p>

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Philip Osborne:

"Most traditional theistic arguments are supposed to be part of a cumulative case for theism. For instance, no cosmological argument could prove the veracity of the Bible or any religious text. Nor does proving a First Cause necessarily prove that the First Cause is all perfect, or even intelligent. However, a cosmological argument taken together with a design argument might make the theistic conclusion much more plausible than either argument would do on its own. So I don't think that we must require any single theistic argument to prove that the First Cause or grand designer must have all and only the attributes of the Christian or Jewish or Muslim God."

I guess this is the best route for apologists to take, but reviewing the arguments in my heard cursorily doesn't seem very convincing. If we limit ourselves to the a posteriori evidential arguments, we seem to be left with cosmological, teleological, and evidential moral arguments. Unless the cosmological argument(s) in use demonstrate some kind of intelligence -- which in my experience is their biggest hurdle -- the teleological argument(s) in use almost must stand on their own. Are there other evidential arguments you'd marshall to make your case?

AtlanticCitySlave

I don't see how a rival creed making use of an argument makes the argument a non-sequitor. It seems easy to me that both muslims and christians could use the same cosmological argument for a cumulative case for the existence of God. I personally don't know anyone who thinks any single argument proves the existence of God, but rather they all say there is better reason to think God exists than doesn't exist (following Swinburne it seems).

I know what you mean though, and I guess that's why we call them traditional in a sense. At least when I took intro to philosophy the traditional cosmological argument was made with the conclusion being that God exists. And yeah, it was a non-sequitor (which of course, at the time, none of us rejects could figure out until the teacher told us). I just don't think anyone falls for it anymore. (Unless you're me in intro to philosophy freshman year.)

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: AtlanticCitySlave ]</p>

Keith Russell

Greetings:

If they've been disproved, as I believe all of them (the ones I've heard, anyway) why continue to call them 'Proofs of God'?

That's my question.

Keith.

hinduwoman

There is a sect in Hinduism that believes something like this. They call themselves Daughters of Brahma (founded and managed for a long time exclusively by females). According to them, once Brahma created the world, he lost interest in his creation and went away to dwell in his Heavenly sphere. The world is full of suffering precisely because god is not present in the world and has no interest in it. The golden age will come when he returns.

Wonder how the Christians will react to this bit of argument about suffering?