A Dozen or so Theistic Arguments

[Ishmael]

Plantinga Again. Just when you thought you were managing the other Theistic proof threads fairly well... Here comes the whole enchilada... yummy, Mexican food.

http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/files/Theisticarguments.html

:yipee: :yipee: "La Cucaracha!" :yipee: :yipee:

[Pate]

Actually, it's two dozen (or so) theistic arguments, not just a dozen, as you said. :smile:

Some of those are very good, while others may be less than convincing.

You keep on throwing Plantinga-links to this forum so fast that I haven't got the time to read and comment all of them. ;)

(No, honestly, I would have read the previous one already if I weren't so lazy.)

[Ishmael]

What with Plantinga and and finnally reading Descartes' actual works (not some other person's survey, in other words) my brain is beginning to melt.... :duh:

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

02-25-2003 @ 02:32 PM
Calvinist:

What with Plantinga and and finnally reading Descartes' actual works (not some other person's survey, in other words) my brain is beginning to melt.... :duh:

Calvinist,
Your brain is magnificent; just give yourself some down-time. Get out the game cube between periods of cerebral indulgence....

(I don't actually have a game cube myself, by they come highly recommended!)

[WinAce]

Is that some kind of bizarre parody of theist arguments, or are the ones listed actually convincing to someone... somewhere?

[blowfly]

Today @ 04:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88603#post88603)
WinAce:

Is that some kind of bizarre parody of theist arguments, or are the ones listed actually convincing to someone... somewhere?

I agree. These arguments are attrocious.

But before I start, I hope no-one will confuse a genuine frustration at hearing these arguments knowing that these are considered serious suggestions on some circles, with arrogance and pigheadedness. I'm actually an intelligent and polite person, just genuinely frustrated at hearing some of these arguments. (And also very tired and going to bed soon)

I also hope no-one will confuse the brief, flippant responses with a lack of meaning or relevance. I will take the time to understand each argument properly, and will try to get to the heart of the fallacies instead of dancing around other issues.

I have become hugely suspicious of God-arguments which seem to pluck God out of thin air. The ones I have examined so far have turned out to be intellectual magic tricks, using some ambiguity or sleight of hand to get from A to B. Many of the arguments on the list appear to fall into this category.


A. Propositions and ideas exist only in our minds, basically by definition. The validity of the propositions when compared with reality is a separate matter.

And who says that due to the vast number of ideas, or propositions, that they must have a divine origins? (That is, exist must independantly of the thinker.) He says, "So perhaps we should think of propositions as divine thoughts". Well perhaps we shouldn't, either?? Why should we think this is the case?

B. How on EARTH does this have anything to do with theism? Again, he seems to think that a "set" exists independantly of the thinker, as a material, platonic "form" somehow, hence requiring an ontological existence, or cause. (and somehow, thinks this must have been God) Yet there is no evidence that the abstract thoughts in our minds exist independantly of our minds. A far simpler and more rational explanation is that our minds internally create them, use them, and destroy them, at will.

C. This argument is just surreal.

"But again, there are too many [numbers] for them to arise as a result of human intellectual activity."

He hasn't demonstrated that numbers exist independantly of our minds, like platonic absolutes or forms, and this is a childish suggestion anyway.

I see no reason to invoke a material existence (and hence an ontological foundation) for each individual natural number. A far simpler and rational explanation is that they are merely abstract creations of minds, created, used and destroyed within our minds (and sometimes on paper or computers) by our every whim.

D. OK, comparisons between counterfactuals contain a subjective element - which factors to weight, how much to weight etc... I basically agree with this.

God could potentially compare counterfactuals for similarity, and having an infinite mind, could so so utterly objectively. I basically agree with this.

So what? How does this have anything to do with proving theism?

E. Yes, there are certainly constants in the universe which seem fine tuned to allow for life. Theists have an explanation for this (intelligent design). This is one of the good arguments for an Intelligent Designer.

However, alternatives exist, like the multiverse explanation. Universes can give birth to other universes (and another universe gave birth to ours, hence the big bang). Theoretically, the constants or laws may differ between universes. Therefore, it's merely an inevitability that one should *happen* to have the right settings.

But also, who's to say this is the ONLY configuration that allows some kind of life? Who's to say that other universes with different properties couldn't have non-carbon based life?

F. Paley's watchmaker argument. Another one of the better arguments, but still not convincing on it's own. Order and complexity can emerge spotaneously from natural systems if an appropriate mechanism is present. (like the survival of certain variations in a self replicating scenario)

H. I sure hope this one isn't the "God doesn't necessary NOT exist, therefore he exists" one. I recently dealt with that at www.carm.org. It is one of the truly attrocious and dishonest arguments.

I. This argument assumes we are contingent, which isn't necessarily the case. And there is a difference between ontological necessity and logical necessity.

And even if it were shown we WERE contingent, why SHOULD it be God? Sure, he's a possible candidate, but that doesn't make him a likely candidate.

J. "But clearly the best candidate for being the being who has designed our cognitive faculties would be God."

This isn't clear to me in the slightest. Were we to be intelligently designed, we could have been given far greater cognitive faculties. And why shouldn't it be the Master Invisible Pink Unicorn instead of "God"? This is merely an extension of Paley's watchmaker argument, not an independant argument in itself, as well as being the god-of-the-gaps argument. (though I can't even see the gap in the first place)

K. Seems to be suggesting "well how can you trust evolution to give you proper cognitive faculties?" Well how do you know the world wasn't created last thursday? And how would you know that you knew? And how would you know you weren't being fooled somehow?

And how would you know that God exists, to have confidence that you're not being fooled? It uses the very processes it brings into question, thus crippling itself.

L. "If theism is true, then some reason to think the more simple has a better chance of being true than the less simple; for God has created both us and our theoretical preferences and the world; and it is reasonable to think that he would adapt the one to the other. ... If theism is not true, however, there would seem to be no reason to think that the simple is more likely to be true than the complex."

No, this simply boils down to the "Goddidit" explanation, which isn't an explanation and has no predictive power. This explanation of why "simple = more likely" doesn't tell us why "simple = less likely", other than a smug "Goddidit".

And there's no reason to accept this explanation, even if no alternatives existed. Just because only one explanation is available, doesn't mean it's highly likely.

M. Zactly the same problem as L. We don't have to accept that "God happened to make it this way" just because it's the only explanation available. And anyway, we past IS like the future in many ways - we've documented and observed this. It's not entirely unjustified to have this inclination.

N. Again, this argument cripples itself by bringing into question the processes it uses.

O. See above. This really cracked me up:

"Now as a matter of fact we can't take this skepticism seriously; and, indeed, if we are created by God we need not take it seriously, for God would not permit us to be deceived in this massive way."

Of course, but how do you know that God wouldn't deceive you? And how do you establish that God created us in the first place? Using the very processes you bring into question!

This reasoning here is so attrocious and irrelevant, I'm torn between cracking up on the floor in uncontrollable laughter, and profound frustration that these are considered serious suggestions.

Q. OK, we learn and deduce things. Theism means we can trust our thoughts, atheims means we can't. Therefore, God exists. Ummm... but you used the very processes you brought into question to prove this. Therefore, the argument begs the question. And the argument is merely another "your-brain-in-a-vat" variant anyway - bizzare conspiracy theories.

R. Moral arguments. As he doesn't prove that absolute morals exist, rather that we naturally feel disgusted and guilty about things (no-one disagrees), these are all irrelevant to establishing God's actual existence.

I believe morals are beneficial to ensure certain things, like security, peace, and other social values. This doesn't not mean they must have a divine origin.

S. "What is the explanation of the correlation between physical and psychical properties? Presumably there is an explanation of it; but also it will have to be, as Adams and Swinburne say, a personal, nonscientific explanation. The most plausible suggestion would involve our being created that way by God."

HUH???? Maybe the explanation is that our five senses tell our brains what they physically sense and our brains psychically form a mental image??? And we ended up this way because organisms being able to do this survived better than organisms that couldn't???

T. "Man-woman, parent-child, family, friendship, love of college, church, country--many different manifestations. Evolutionary explanation: these adaptive and have survival value. Evolutionarily useful for male and female human beings, like male and female hippopotami, to get together to have children colts) and stay together to raise them; and the same for the other manifestations of love. The theistic account: vastly more to it than that: reflects the basic structure and nature of reality; God himself is love. "

Big deal. Sure this gives us warm fuzzies, but how does this make God's existence logically more likely?

U. "On a naturalistic anthropology, our alleged grasp and appreciation of (alleged) beauty is to be explained in terms of evolution: somehow arose in the course of evolution, and something about its early manifestations had survival value."

Incorrect. Our appreciation of beauty may simply be a side affect of something else (emotions + advanced reasoning abilities?), not something with inherant survival value.

"But miserable and disgusting cacophony (heavy metal rock?) could as well have been what we took to be beautiful."

Correct. Beauty exists in the eye of the beholder, not as a property of the beheld.

"On the theistic view, God recognizes beauty; indeed, it is deeply involved in his very nature. To grasp the beauty of a Mozart's D Minor piano concerto is to grasp something that is objectively there; it is to appreciate what is objectively worthy of appreciation."

Oh, OK. This is how things are in the theistic view. So? How does this make the theistic view more likely?

V. "Fun, pleasure, humor, play, enjoyment. (Maybe not all to be thought of in the same way.) Playing: evolution: an adaptive means of preparing for adult life (so that engaging in this sort of thing as an adult suggests a case of arrested development). But surely there is more to it than that."

Well hello, welcome to the real world! No there isn't necessarily *surely* more to it.

X. I suspect there isn't.

Y. Highly relevant to warm fuzzies, irrelevant to theism.

Z. Just because the idea of "God" can be used to plug various problems and answer various questions, doesn't make that explanation more likely. I can create an idea of "Flub", which other properties, which also helps some of the philosophical questions.

[AtheistArchon]

- Very well said, blowfly. I call these types of arguments "talking god into existence". My own favorite argument of this type is Anselm's argument.

[sacre]

I feel I must point out the introduction to the arguments...


These arguments are not coercive in the sense that every person is obliged to accept their premises on pain of irrationality. Maybe just that some or many sensible people do accept their premises (oneself)

What are these arguments like, and what role do they play? They are probabilistic, either with respect to the premises, or with respect to the connection between the premises and conclusion, or both. They can serve to bolster and confirm ('helps' a la John Calvin); perhaps to convince.

That is to say, these arguments could be valid for someone who accepts the premises, which nobody is obliged to do. Not to be disrespectful, then, but it only seems like pride that anyone would bother to try to disprove any of these arguments when they don't even claim to prove anything necessarily in the first place.

That having been said, I must take issue with the notes, also.

[quoteI've been arguing that theistic belief does not (in general) need argument either for deontological justification, or for positive epistemic status, (or for Foley rationality or Alstonian justification)); belief in God is properly basic.[/quote]

It doesn't need deontological justification or positive epistemic status if the believer is weak-minded. That is to say, if we are willing to believe lies and propaganda, theistic belief barely even needs information. Of course, I am a Christian, and I am such because I believe that theistic belief has deontological justification and positive epistemic status.

Anyway, this isn't really on the subject, so I'll be quiet now.

Godspeed,
R

[Satori]

Wow, a bunch of people desparately trying to validate their feeble various god theories with something tangible.

"Theistic Arguments"? They would be funny if they were not so very, very, very sad and desparate. Oh boy.

My condolences for your extreme short-sightedness and desparation to keep the "faith", I hope that someday you will all overcome this affliction and stop trying to make reality jive with the various delusions and fabrications which are indicative of human society.

Wake up.

Satori

[dawnghost]

Yesterday @ 11:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95549#post95549)
Satori:
Wow, a bunch of people desparately trying to validate their feeble various god theories with something tangible.

"Theistic Arguments"? They would be funny if they were not so very, very, very sad and desparate. Oh boy.


oh boy indeed. talking from that pedestal where you're clearly at, I'd imagine that you'd be able to spell, at least.

and by the way, will you ever state anything different from "I'm sorry for you" and "I'll try to open a few eyes"?

why don't you post an official challenge on the subject you're most qualified in, Satori? come on, the Coach's Quarters is here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=34). last time you visited us with your wisdom, you refrained from issuing a challenge with all the strength that you had.

come on now. don't feel sorry for us. help us.
isn't that the noble thing to do?

if you can't be graceful in the way you spell, at least display the self-honesty you boast so much about.

[John Powell]

SACRE:
That is to say, these arguments could be valid for someone who accepts the premises, which nobody is obliged to do.


POWELL:
Don't you mean "could be used as arguments in support of their belief . . ."?

If you really meant "valid" here then what about the following syllogism, is it valid?

1. if p then q.
2. p.
3. therefore q.

If you say, "yes, it's valid," would it still be valid if p = "dogs fly" and q = "snakes sing opera"?

Logicians would claim this to be a valid deductive argument with the given substitution, but not a sound argument because one or more of the premises are false.

Do you disagree with them?

John Powell

[blowfly]

<<<That is to say, these arguments could be valid for someone who accepts the premises, which nobody is obliged to do.>>>

Of course. But for a lot of the arguments, the conclusion (God exists) doesn't follow from the premises in the first place.


<<<Not to be disrespectful, then, but it only seems like pride that anyone would bother to try to disprove any of these arguments when they don't even claim to prove anything necessarily in the first place.>>>

Pardon? I want to confidently assert "these arguments don't work", but if I assert that, I have to back it up with evidence. Responding to each of the arguments was the required evidence.

And without being disrespectful, as someone else pointed out, it's a very sad state of affairs with apologetics when people must resort to arguments of this calibre. (like "there are heaps of numbers, therefore God exists!!".)

Cheers,
-blowfly