25
   

Critical thinking on the existence of God

 
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 04:16 am
@Tuna,
Quote:
@Susmariosep,
Quote:
Dear Tuna [an aside, are you she or he, please?]


Oh, you're a ******* troll. Great.


Well, that escalated rapidly...
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 05:02 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Well, that escalated rapidly...


When it comes to escalation, the more rapid, the more better, I always say!
0 Replies
 
Tuna
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 06:49 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Well, that escalated rapidly...

Not really an escalation. It just occurred to me: "this is a troll."
0 Replies
 
Susmariosep
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 12:59 pm
@neologist,
Neologist says:
Quote:

@Susmariosep,

I define God by his name; in Hebrew, the tetragrammaton יהוה , when transliterated, means "He who causes to become". When I reflect on it, I see it as a declaration of his invincible purpose. So, if the bible is correct, the future He offered to Adam and Eve has not been abandoned.

Just my opinion, of course. I've been wrong before.


And I say to you: Behold a poster indeed, in whom is no guile!

Welcome to my thread, please stay and contribute, you are like a breath of fresh clean air.
Susmariosep
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 01:09 pm
I ask Tuna whether (s)he is a he or a she, because it takes all kinds, like LGBT.

No offense intended.

But I guide myself on this matter by anatomy, predominantly of course, for there are always exceptional medical cases with anatomy.

I imagine doctors and midwives delivering babies are more experienced on exceptional anatomies.

neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 01:16 pm
@Susmariosep,
Let your assessment prove true. I am, however, only middling to average.
I was (sigh) born in New Jersey.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 01:22 pm
@Susmariosep,
But what DOES that have to do with the OP?
0 Replies
 
Susmariosep
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 01:32 pm
What do you, Oh atheists, think about my proof for the existence of God?


Quote:
Susmariosep
Wed 25 Nov, 2015 02:06 am
http://able2know.org/topic/303678-1#post-6075311

[...]

Let us all now go to serious intelligent and of course respectful exchange, let us ask ourselves this question, what is it to prove on critical thinking that something exists in reality.

The objects we want to prove to be existing are in very broad division: (1) things which are within our sense access, like we can see it, hear it, touch it, taste it, and also smell it, and (2) things which we cannot apply our senses to access them, but we have a mind which can reason from truths and facts and logic to come to their existence, because they are connected to the things we have sense access to.

There, that is how we prove the existence of something, by sense access in regard to things which are within our sense reach, and as regards things beyond our sense contact, by reasoning from their connection to things within our sense access.

Here I go, to prove God exists.

First, as I have said already several times, we must have a concept of the thing we want prove existing or not existing.

Take this concept of God as creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning, that is a critical concept of God, critical because it is not frivolous; and that is why some folks not accustomed to critical thinking want to trivialize the concept of God, making it frivolous, by calling God a flying spaghetti monster.

The reason is because they have no genuine ground to deny the existence of a creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning, so the only reaction they can think of -- if think is the appropriate word at all, they try to make fun of the name of God.

[...]

I said that for myself and I hope it is the same also for every intelligent and respectful seeker of knowledge, a cause in the broadest expanse of the word is anything at all which contributes in any way to the existence of something else.

And I also said that for me taking myself as still without knowledge of God existing, the universe is the whole sum totality of existence.

Dear readers and posters here, how do I go about proving that God exists as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning?

Let me go to science, and first of course let us all remind ourselves that science is a discipline grounded on critical thinking, i.e., grounded on truths, facts, and logic.

Science tells us that the universe began to exist some 13.7 billion years ago, and logic tells us that everything with a beginning has need of a cause: so, the universe has a cause.

Next, as the universe is still existing and going about all its vicissitudes faithfully -- that is a fact, logic tells us that the cause which brings it to existence is also the agent operating it to keep it in existence and in active status.

That in sum is the critical thinking that proves the existence of God as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.


So far no one has reacted to my proof for the existence of God.

I am tempted to think say, Oh theists, I have left you speechless.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 01:59 pm
@Susmariosep,
Are you looking for empirical certainty?
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 03:29 pm
@Susmariosep,
Quote:
I am tempted to think say, Oh theists, I have left you speechless.
Not speechless, but among theists, I'm waiting for someone to answer the question of 'So there's proof of a God, how does that affect my life?'

If the answer is 'Well, we should then live a good moral life' that is not filling a unique need here. We don't need proof of God for that, many atheists, governments, etc. advocate that. If we are already living a 'good moral life', so what if there is proof of a God?

What I'm saying is that for that proof to matter, there has to be a need for that God or proof of one. If it matters at all, what change in a life does that call for that hasn't already been called for by other non-theist sources?

Beyond just living a moral life religions call for acceptance of various truisms and rituals but if that's the sum total impact that the existence of God makes, why should anyone care?
Susmariosep
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 05:21 pm
@neologist,
Neologist asks:
Quote:

Are you looking for empirical certainty?



What I understand by empirical certainty is that founded upon our contact with things which are accessible to our sense perception, for example we are certain of the nose in our face.

The other kind of certainty is what I will call logical certainty, it is founded upon reasoning on truths, facts, and logic or valid rules of reasoning to the existence of something that is beyond our sense perception, for example the existence of our forebears, and all the way to the existence of God in concept as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning; in brief logical certainty is founded upon critical thinking.

Here is my definition of critical thinking: methods of arriving at the existence of something by investigation grounded on truths, facts, and logic.

0 Replies
 
Susmariosep
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 06:09 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot says:
Quote:
@Susmariosep,
Quote:

I am tempted to think say, Oh theists, I have left you speechless.

Not speechless, but among theists, I'm waiting for someone to answer the question of 'So there's proof of a God, how does that affect my life?'

If the answer is 'Well, we should then live a good moral life' that is not filling a unique need here. We don't need proof of God for that, many atheists, governments, etc. advocate that. If we are already living a 'good moral life', so what if there is proof of a God?

What I'm saying is that for that proof to matter, there has to be a need for that God or proof of one. If it matters at all, what change in a life does that call for that hasn't already been called for by other non-theist sources?

Beyond just living a moral life religions call for acceptance of various truisms and rituals but if that's the sum total impact that the existence of God makes, why should anyone care?



I understand your concern, it is namely, "Is God as per concept the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning, also the ultimate author of man's morality"?

I confess that I find that question to be most puzzling, and as a personal assessment of the God of the Old Testament, I will tell God, "God. You certainty had a very bad press in the Old Testament, it is a great discredit to You confected by Your socalled Chosen People, with whom You supposedly according to Biblical texts entered into a covenant, the mark of which is the circumcised prepuce of the male members of Your socalled Chosen People."

What I do now for a religion is to continue in my Christian faith in regard to morality, but I reserve to my own critical thinking in difficult instances of moral living, to make my own decision what to do or to not do, and I will exchange thoughts with God when I face Him.

Fr. Copleston and Sir B. Russell had a BBC aired debate on God way back in 1948:
Quote:
Bertrand Russell and FC Copleston Debate the Existence of...

Bertrand Russell and F.C. Copleston Debate the Existence of God, 1948 ... F.C. Copleston and Bertrand Russell squared off on BBC radio for a debate...


I have always thought of doing an analytical commentary on that debate, but owing to my indolent nature have not so far come to it -- yet.

My own impression is that Russell comes out very un-intelligent and un-logical in that debate, on all issues (part 2 on morality) touched upon. Fr. Copleston in that debate conducted himself with the utmost perfect picture of a very learned and gentleman intellectual who behaved according to the greatest rigor of critical thinking, and courtesy with accommodation toward Russell.

0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 08:48 pm
@Susmariosep,
Quote:
Take this concept of God as creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning,


You failed at the very first step. No need to even address the rest of the word wrangling.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2015 08:54 pm
@FBM,
True.
No reason to assume only one conclusion.
0 Replies
 
Susmariosep
 
  0  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 03:52 am
You see, dear readers here, I have this idea that if atheists be intelligent and respectful, and really want to come to the determination God exists or not, then I will invite them to first work with me to arrive at what I might call the parameters of the exchange of thoughts.

The first parameter for us both to work out together to agree on, is on the concept of God to be mutually employed to come to the conclusion: that yes God exists corresponding to the agreed on concept of God; or no, God does not exist as corresponding to the concept agreed on about God.

But so far I have not been able to win over atheists to agree with me to work on this first parameter, no matter what attempts founded on critical thinking I employed to make them see the merits of the first parameter.

So, I will now instead try to invite atheists, that they be the ones to present the parameters of the exchange on God exists or not, and I will agree with them on the parameters one by one, in order that we from both sides having worked out agreed on parameters, we will exchange thoughts to come to the conclusion, God does not exist or God exists.

Okay, Oh atheists, please present your first parameter a tentative one of course, and we will work it out together to come to a concurred on first parameter to be mutually observed in the exchange of thoughts, for each side to prove God does not exist, in favor of atheists, or God exists, in favor of me, the theist.

So, Oh atheists, what do you say about my proposal?
FBM
 
  4  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 03:57 am
@Susmariosep,
Quote:
So, Oh atheists, what do you say about my proposal?


It's snotty, disingenuous and condescending.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 04:07 am
What amazes me the most about this joker is that he believes he is engaged in critical thinking.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 04:10 am
@Setanta,
Tell me about it.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 05:20 am
@Susmariosep,
Sus (or anyone else who wants to answer), Have you said whether or not you accept Layman's explaination for why there has to be a 'first cause'?

It's a pretty good argument unless you accept either infinite regression or infinite loops.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 05:26 am
Why do people have such a hard time spelling explanation? It's just hilarious how many people write explain-ation. Can't they hear the pronunciation when they say it?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/19/2019 at 12:05:00