5
   

Arguments for and against the belief in God

 
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2010 06:30 pm
@CharmingPhlsphr,
CharmingPhlsphr;154884 wrote:
The point of Anselm's ontological argument is that God's existence is self-evident by the ability to even consider God as that-than-which-nothing-greater-could-be-considered. When one considers that-than-which-nothing-greater-could-be-considered as actually being that-than-which-something-greater-could-be-considered, they are not considering the true God of existence, who is that-than-which-nothing-greater-could-be-considered.


So just because you can think of such a concept, it makes the concept true? I don't accept that definition of something to exist, just because I can imagine something, it does not make it a reality.

CharmingPhlsphr;154884 wrote:

You are only making a blanket assertion without reflecting reality. Truthfully, there are standards which transcend generational and cultural boundaries. In my studies, I have not found one society or culture, wherein it is morally acceptable to murder or steal from another member of said society or culture (one could argue abortion, however). Again, referring back to Augustine in City of God, a thief will take measures to prevent himself from being robbed. All in all, though, this is not necessarily the point of the argument from morality.


I don't think you checked very far. One example I have previously stated was with the Japanese roughly within 12th to 19th century where the ruling class were the samurai. Within this class if any other classes were to insult any samurai it was well within the samurai's rights to kill that person. It was not considered murder to do so. Today it would be considered murder to kill someone for simply insulting you.

CharmingPhlsphr;154884 wrote:

If we consider morality, it is in sharp contrast to human nature, which is primarily selfish and instinctual (redundant, I know, for instinct is inherently selfish). The position of the theist and, more so, the Christian is that the chasm between morality and instinct is so infinitely vast that man could not have crossed by his own means, for the moral act suffers from the instinctual need to do for oneself.


I don't buy this at all. People change all the time, but what you are trying to suggest is that morality was already planted there but if that is the case then why do people change over time? Just look at slavery for example, the bible promotes slavery. It says that slavery is fine yet we have come to the point when we feel that slavery is not fine. So if god were behind these moral values then by all means humans have transcended what god feels is good.

CharmingPhlsphr;154884 wrote:

I do not have anything of importance to say about this. "Beautiful" is certainly subjective and we can only perceive that it is purposeful. We must either take these things as an expression of faith or become offended in the notion that it is beautiful and purposeful.


I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Faith for me is nothing but a guess. Wishful thinking without any thing to base it on.

CharmingPhlsphr;154884 wrote:

The amount of refutations is irrelevant if they are in error and you, so far, gave nothing to support "this has been refuted on many occasions."

Well I have seen several debates on the topic, and they all have refuted the cosmological argument for the existence of god. Not only that but I personally refuted it on this forum even.

http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/secondary-branches-philosophy/philosophy-religion/7363-arguments-against-belief-god-5.html

Refer to post #43

CharmingPhlsphr;154884 wrote:

A far more sustainable version of this argument is the argument from motion. Using Aristotelian logic, Aquinas wrote of this very argument from motion, writing that if the universe's cause was caused by another and regressing infinitely, there would only exist intermediate movers who were moved by another and, thus, nothing would be first moved and, consequently, nothing would be moved at all.


Part of the problem is is to assume that moving is necessary. Is there any other force that would account for moving? For example gravity has as it's property to account for objects moving without any actual object to cause the moving. Gravity is not an object, yet it can cause objects to move. Did Thomas account for this possibility? No and did you consider it? No.

CharmingPhlsphr;154884 wrote:

Nonsense aside (i.e. pink elephant), it is not necessarily wrong to assess that a Creator's existence is the best explanation, but this alone does nothing to support specifically.


See you clearly see that the flying pink elephant is "nonsense" yet I say the belief in god is just as nonsense. How do you know that Zeus is not the actual god and your belief in your god is actually the incorrect belief? How do you know that the flying pink elephant isn't the real god? It shows that you are just picking and choosing what you want god to be.

CharmingPhlsphr;154884 wrote:

Personal experience is not necessarily "misinterpreted experience" or "irrational understanding." My call to come to Christ Jesus is unintelligible to you because you cannot first get past your own presuppositions;


Yes you could make this claim, but I can also make the claim that your own interpretations of your experience is also a presupposition. I like how you accuse me of it but can not even recognize that you are in the same boat. I know why you do this though, because you believe that you are correct and anyone else is false. You make this claim without having any basis for it. So who is really the irrational person here? I am asking for a basis yet you provide none.

CharmingPhlsphr;154884 wrote:

Next, he writes, man is affected by his natural propensity to falsity and that falsity is often included with true and accepted with the whole. If, he concludes, God's existence was solely based on the highest of human reason, with this in mind, we would perpetually remain in the darkest depths of ignorance. It is for this that God gave us faith so that all may partake in the knowledge of God.


This is all assumption. I don't agree with this premise because there is absolutely NO way to determine if it is true. You can argue all you want that humans would never have the ability to reason without the existence of god. I say nonsense since god does not exist and yet humans have the ability to reason. You wouldn't accept that argument would you? So Thoma's argument once again is not supplying a basis, it just assumes the reader would already be a believer in god to even accept his arguments.
CharmingPhlsphr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2010 07:29 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;155037 wrote:
So just because you can think of such a concept, it makes the concept true? I don't accept that definition of something to exist, just because I can imagine something, it does not make it a reality.


You are not reading the message appropriately. The argument is that God, as defined as "that-than-which-nothing-greater-could-be-considered," exists because there is no greater and the possibility that it could be considered as such justifies the position that said Creator exists. Next, Anselm argues that the person who, in considering God, conceives of that god as being in existence solely in the mind, is not truly considering that-than-which-nothing-greater-could-be-considered and is not considering the real God, who is that-that-which-nothing-greater-could-be-considered. Again, considering any potential object of perfection, such as an island, the most perfect hamburger, etc. does not justify that thing's existence, but rather can be considered only on the basis of the prior existence of perfection from which we may know perfection. In a nutshell, considering the most perfect island is possible because of certain elements we inherently recognize from the One whom perfection originated.

Krumple;155037 wrote:
I don't think you checked very far. One example I have previously stated was with the Japanese roughly within 12th to 19th century where the ruling class were the samurai. Within this class if any other classes were to insult any samurai it was well within the samurai's rights to kill that person. It was not considered murder to do so. Today it would be considered murder to kill someone for simply insulting you.


You are only referring to justification for the act of killing, which is not necessarily a constant. Nothing changes in my point.

Krumple;155037 wrote:
I don't buy this at all. People change all the time, but what you are trying to suggest is that morality was already planted there but if that is the case then why do people change over time? Just look at slavery for example, the bible promotes slavery. It says that slavery is fine yet we have come to the point when we feel that slavery is not fine. So if god were behind these moral values then by all means humans have transcended what god feels is good.


The Bible does not promote slavery. We read that it is okay for the Israelites to take on slaves, but that they are to treat them kindly. As for the New Testament, we read of the command for slaves to obey their masters in the same way as Christ was obedient unto death.

Next, you are not being completely honest. The whole concept of instinct is self-preservation, which is in sharp contrast to morality, which most often requires the denial of the self for the benefit of another.

Krumple;155037 wrote:
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Faith for me is nothing but a guess. Wishful thinking without any thing to base it on.


Actually, it was quite clear that I was actually, somewhat, agreeing with you. Subjectivity is not necessarily satisfactory as proof.

Krumple;155037 wrote:
Well I have seen several debates on the topic, and they all have refuted the cosmological argument for the existence of god. Not only that but I personally refuted it on this forum even.

http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/secondary-branches-philosophy/philosophy-religion/7363-arguments-against-belief-god-5.html

Refer to post #43


I read through your post and I am convinced that your entire argument suffers with the issue of inaccuracy through the very terms you were using. There must be a distinction between being infinite and being eternal, for the two are not interchangeable terms. The infinite always has a starting point from which the progression or hypothetical regression of time is endless, whereas the eternal is without beginning or end. Concepts of infinite are much easier to understand than eternity, but the closest that I have come is to postulate that eternity and our concept of "present time,"
which is wholly unintelligible to us, are very similar for they both involve the savoring of moments of time equally. The reason for my position revolves around our inability to savor these moments which pass us by without ceasing, for the moment that a moment arrives, it has instantly passed. God is eternal, that is: without beginning or end.

Krumple;155037 wrote:
Part of the problem is is to assume that moving is necessary. Is there any other force that would account for moving? For example gravity has as it's property to account for objects moving without any actual object to cause the moving. Gravity is not an object, yet it can cause objects to move. Did Thomas account for this possibility? No and did you consider it? No.


You have missed the point. It is the cause of all motion. The fact that anything moves shows that it must have been first moved and if that motion was started by another, which was, in turn, started by another ad infinitum, there would be no preliminary mover which was first unmoved. Aquinas never had to account for your other possibility, nor did I.

Krumple;155037 wrote:
See you clearly see that the flying pink elephant is "nonsense" yet I say the belief in god is just as nonsense. How do you know that Zeus is not the actual god and your belief in your god is actually the incorrect belief? How do you know that the flying pink elephant isn't the real god? It shows that you are just picking and choosing what you want god to be.


Actually, I was also agreeing with you here, in part, as well. This never specifies, nor could it in the way that it is currently presented. Your claim that we just pick and choose is preposterous, but understandable. Those who have been called to Christ Jesus and submit to Him are revealed the nature of who He is by the very Spirit, who's absence in your life keeps you on the outside and blind.

"'But what about you?' he asked. 'Who do you say I am?'
Simon Peter answered, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'

Jesus replied, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.'" (Matthew 16:15-17)

Krumple;155037 wrote:
Yes you could make this claim, but I can also make the claim that your own interpretations of your experience is also a presupposition. I like how you accuse me of it but can not even recognize that you are in the same boat. I know why you do this though, because you believe that you are correct and anyone else is false. You make this claim without having any basis for it. So who is really the irrational person here? I am asking for a basis yet you provide none.


Anyone can make any claim that they wish. The failure rests on your end, though, which states that Christians presuppose God's existence and deity of Jesus. The reason for this failure is that we all come to Jesus from the outside; that is to say that we all come to believe that Christ Jesus is who He said He is from a position of not believing. Many of us were atheists, agnostics, pagans, Muslims, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhists, Daoists, and I was, personally, an adherent to a mixture of Native American mythology and eastern mysticism, which was fueled by an extensive study of the martial arts.

Krumple;155037 wrote:
This is all assumption. I don't agree with this premise because there is absolutely NO way to determine if it is true. You can argue all you want that humans would never have the ability to reason without the existence of god. I say nonsense since god does not exist and yet humans have the ability to reason. You wouldn't accept that argument would you? So Thoma's argument once again is not supplying a basis, it just assumes the reader would already be a believer in god to even accept his arguments.


Your perceived assumption is no less than individual revelation, which, as I stated before, keeps you on the outside. Kierkegaard, I credit, wrote much to say that individuals will never be reasoned into heaven. Aquinas, however, is not stating that man is incapable of reason, but that many are severely unequipped to pursue a life of diligent inquiry.

I do not simply say that humans would be incapable of reason without God, but that all would be incapable of anything without God first existing, which is, of course, the foundation of this discussion.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2010 07:34 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;155032 wrote:
You are funny. If the premises are false then they do not support the conclusion. That also makes the conclusion a fallacy. Nice try but as usual you don't check your work.


But that is not true. For false premises may support the conclusion. Here is an example:

All fish can fly
All reptiles are fish

So, all reptiles can fly.

If the premises are true, then so must the conclusion be true. But all the premises are false, and the conclusion is also false. This argument is not fallacious. It commits no logical fallacy. It is valid.
0 Replies
 
Wisdom Seeker
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2010 08:24 pm
@Alan McDougall,
humans can never understand the nature of god, god is outside the reality we live in, if god done something that is unnecessary for us humans , it is for our greater good.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2010 08:45 pm
@Wisdom Seeker,
Wisdom Seeker;155086 wrote:
humans can never understand the nature of god, god is outside the reality we live in, if god done something that is unnecessary for us humans , it is for our greater good.


Yeah I hear this often but it is a neglect in logic. If it were true then you would never have been able to arrive at god in the first place.

The bible contradicts that notion to start with though. It clearly tries and does define god into terms. But this is called reverse defining. Where first you start off with a definition, but when that definition fails to uphold a desired notation, the definer redefines the term afterward to avoid the previous conflict. Yet, the definer also holds true the first definition and the second as if they were the same.

So if the bible is predefining what god is and yet you are now redefining what god is. It means you must abandon the bible completely because it has already set a definition. To redefine it you would have to remove the previous definition. Since your new definition is in contrast to the old definition, which definition is correct? They can't both be correct. If you say they are, by what criteria are you making that claim if god can not be understood.

The second problem with your argument is that if it is true that god can not be understood, then by all means that god could also be misinterpreted by you. Where you see a good god, that god could just as well be an evil one. Can not claim that god is good or evil then because to hold to your definition god would not be understandable. Therefore god could be evil and if you object to that, then you are objecting to your own definition.
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2010 09:20 pm
@Alan McDougall,
It depends on "what you mean by god".
The traditional orthodox supernatural anthropomorphic, interventionist,law giver, ruler and judge of the world?
or
The "ground of all being" the essence of existence, the underlying rational basis of order,creation and the world.
If fact until you explain "what you mean by god" the question is meaningless.
Wisdom Seeker
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2010 09:42 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;155096 wrote:
Yeah I hear this often but it is a neglect in logic. If it were true then you would never have been able to arrive at god in the first place.

The bible contradicts that notion to start with though. It clearly tries and does define god into terms. But this is called reverse defining. Where first you start off with a definition, but when that definition fails to uphold a desired notation, the definer redefines the term afterward to avoid the previous conflict. Yet, the definer also holds true the first definition and the second as if they were the same.

So if the bible is predefining what god is and yet you are now redefining what god is. It means you must abandon the bible completely because it has already set a definition. To redefine it you would have to remove the previous definition. Since your new definition is in contrast to the old definition, which definition is correct? They can't both be correct. If you say they are, by what criteria are you making that claim if god can not be understood.

The second problem with your argument is that if it is true that god can not be understood, then by all means that god could also be misinterpreted by you. Where you see a good god, that god could just as well be an evil one. Can not claim that god is good or evil then because to hold to your definition god would not be understandable. Therefore god could be evil and if you object to that, then you are objecting to your own definition.


everything in the bible is not correct as it is written,there are some stories splits into two parallel stories, in short there are some confusions, some remain unknown, so there are other references about god like those experience by some saints, some explanations of many theologian, some experience by a common people and even i admit i experience something mysterious that even logic can't explain.

theologians explains that some humans feels god and some are not, it is because it is in the humans itself, if they are really willing to feel god, they will feel it but sometimes they can ignore it.

theologians explain that even humans can't explain they feel or see by logic, they did no even now that it is in the reality.

it is in the human itself if he is willing to know about god, i feel god because i am willing to feel it.
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2010 09:50 pm
@Wisdom Seeker,
Wisdom Seeker;155086 wrote:
humans can never understand the nature of god,


I don't think that god is all that mentally developed really

god seems rather immature

the reaction to Eve's eating of the apple of the tree of knowledge seems to lack an understanding of the beings , Humans , of which god is dealing

I expected better

or this about us being controlled by god ?

it is

Quote:
god is outside the reality we live in,


if there is a god ( it matters not to me , to clear ) then its about time this god got back inside



Quote:
if god done something that is unnecessary for us humans , it is for our greater good.


still waiting for the evidence then...........
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 01:03 am
@prothero,
prothero;155106 wrote:
It depends on "what you mean by god".
The traditional orthodox supernatural anthropomorphic, interventionist,law giver, ruler and judge of the world?
or
The "ground of all being" the essence of existence, the underlying rational basis of order,creation and the world.
If fact until you explain "what you mean by god" the question is meaningless.


Here is the thing. If god were the second definition and not the first, shouldn't the bible reflect that? If the bible were inspired or intended by this god, why wouldn't god have provided the correct definition? If you know your own nature, you wouldn't make a mistake about presenting it to someone else. Are you saying they simply could not fathom the second definition? So god when with the first definition and let them deal with the redefinition later? That is absurd. It should have been correct from the start so there wouldn't be any confusion, yet it is not correct and thus confusion.

What we are really seeing here is that people today need to redefine god because the old definition just does not live up to the expectations. The old definition causes problems which are easily dismissed through current logic and understanding. Now you see people trying to redefine it so as not accept the fact that god is just what ever anyone wants it to be. Completely imaginary.
0 Replies
 
Leafish
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 10:31 am
@Alan McDougall,
It's funny, I don't believe in a god yet I've found myself agreeing with most of what Alan McDougall has been saying (who evidently does).

Alan McDougall;124970 wrote:
XRIS we observe the essence of the Creator God in his visible creation, you and me and all the rest of the universe!


If god is in everything, does that mean we have to worship everything, including ourselves?

I understand where the concept of god comes from but I think one of his many other names, "the life" would be more fitting. I think there's an equilibrium of existence in the universe, not one being that exceeds all (as the connotations of the word "god" would imply I guess). Gilding only one part of existence in the shape of an idol only results in the opposite end of the scale lowering.

I believe the marvel of consciousness has the ability to be either heaven, hell or somewhere in between and are not actual places. There doesn't have to be a reason to have your heart filled with joy when you look at nature in all it's beauty. And when you consider nature is just matter/perceptions, this consistency of beauty can be carried over to literally any perception. A depressing concrete jungle on a stormy day might not seem too uplifting but when you consider it is just the innocent, beautiful universe in one of it's many appearances there's no reason to not find bliss in being able to look at it.

I think that this essence of bliss is perhaps personified as a god and thus possibly takes your eye off the real truth, sitting back and leaving it to this amazing being, waiting to die so you can get into a heaven for the rest of eternity.

I think beauty can also be seen in the human being, no matter who it is. Hitler was once an innocent baby who grew up to percieve certain thoughts based on his personal experiences. He was obviously evil and highly deluded with what thoughts were telling him what was acceptable. But had that have been mother Teressa in his place things would have turned out the exact same way, and vice versa. The only thing that differentiates us an individual between all other sentinent beings is just what delusions cloud your perceptions.

The qualities of what is defined as god are every where. If all delusions were gotten rid of we'd realise we're in heaven already.

That's not to say I can't disprove a creator of humanity, but I don't think the concept of worship coinsides with the equality of the universe.
0 Replies
 
walkingaround
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 03:52 pm
@Alan McDougall,
I would imagine something that is "being greater than which cannot be conceived" as something that could exist and not exist at the same time. And also it could switch back and forth from existing to not existing, as it pleases. Also, it would be able to neither exist nor not exist.
That would be much greater than something that exists.
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 05:56 pm
@walkingaround,
I do not understand why we are doing this: you either believe in God or you dont. Actually you could believe in a whole assortment of gods. But usually that means you rule out the Judeo-Christian God when you resort to polytheism. So even then youre an atheist in some sense. Strange.... but then again you could believe in Him while being a polytheist, which would (I think) lead to contradictions. How silliness abounds.

I find the title to be overly ambiguous. Its almost too painful to bear. Its like distasteful drapes in a beautiful, victorian mansion: a complete eyesore.
walkingaround
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 06:10 pm
@Ding an Sich,
i found the title quite difficult as well.
and your comparation with the victorian house is compelling. But isnt it also relying too much on the idea that gedeankengebaeude (buildings of thought) should be beautiful, or did i get you wrong?
best
0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 06:17 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Victorian houses are intricate like the talk of God. The title is ugly and ambiguous, like the drapes. It sours the whole thread. Better still is that some of the people that talk of God are ambiguous in their approach to the subject as well, turning the whole home into some hovel that is unrecognizable from its former days.
0 Replies
 
walkingaround
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 08:18 pm
@Alan McDougall,
as a nonnative english speaker i had to look up the word hovel , didnt know it. hovel reminds me of walden by thoreau, which I am just reading. A hovel requires much less work than a victorian house, you agree.....?
i dont know if you refer to me as somebody of "those people"....
I cannot think of this topic as anything else than ambiguous or otherwise it would be simplifiing....
and refering to something in terms of "than former days".... hmmmm, i dont think it is of any value to crave for things lost, unless in fiction. escapism. its always easy to assume that things in the past were better..... because we were not there.Smile

---------- Post added 05-17-2010 at 10:22 PM ----------

If "god" has any properties, elitism is certainly not one of them
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 09:08 am
@walkingaround,
walkingaround;165529 wrote:
as a nonnative english speaker i had to look up the word hovel , didnt know it. hovel reminds me of walden by thoreau, which I am just reading. A hovel requires much less work than a victorian house, you agree.....?
i dont know if you refer to me as somebody of "those people"....
I cannot think of this topic as anything else than ambiguous or otherwise it would be simplifiing....
and refering to something in terms of "than former days".... hmmmm, i dont think it is of any value to crave for things lost, unless in fiction. escapism. its always easy to assume that things in the past were better..... because we were not there.Smile

---------- Post added 05-17-2010 at 10:22 PM ----------

If "god" has any properties, elitism is certainly not one of them


We are starting off with a thread that already has ugly drapes while degenerating the rest of our discussion with inane quibbling about God. So we have reduced our fine Victorian house, with ugly drapes, into a hovel thats a waste of time. Im sincerly opting for everyone first defining their God and then moving on to prove it. But this seems to only cause us more problems as certain individuals cannot even do that properly.

So God's not an elitist? May I inquire as to why this is the case?
0 Replies
 
walkingaround
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 09:42 am
@Alan McDougall,
First/:
Your assumtion that we started with a "fine victorian house" I would like to see proven, or at least explained. Your metaphor is in itself quite ambiguos and, actually, holds just some value as fictional literature, but nothing else.

---------- Post added 05-18-2010 at 12:33 PM ----------

And , even more, why would a beautiful house be any better than an ugly one? who cares if its beautiful or not?

God is not elistist ,people are. Thats what i wanted to say. And some people even project their own elitism onto god. how lonely they must be......

---------- Post added 05-18-2010 at 12:42 PM ----------

come to think of it, i dont like the way this thread is going . i'm out
jamestowell
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 May, 2012 03:34 am
@kennethamy,
The topic refers to "belief in God" and not "proof of God". I have sufficient evidence to make the choice to believe in God, whereas I certainly don't claim to have a proof that God exists. There's a big difference.
I am looking for a better way of phrasing it using a discussion at: Edit [Moderator]: Link removed
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 May, 2012 01:26 pm
@walkingaround,
Your God is not an elitist yet he ranks people into those who belong in heaven forever and those belong in hell forever. Question
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 May, 2012 03:21 pm
if you back into Ancient Hisory , god is not a belief , but real

thats the thing

this is what I have learned
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/12/2024 at 05:38:38