The most convincing ATHEISTIC argument? [Archive]

flipper

January 30th 2003, 05:15 AM

Pate wrote:

I don't know whether i'm in minority on this, but I don't think that the problem of evil is the best atheistic argument that there is. It seems to be more an emotional problem than intellectual one.

I agree, although for different reasons.

The problem of evil seems to have been the argument that works best for some of the more public Christians-turned-atheists (your Templetons and Barkers, for example). I'm not entirely sure why, although I suspect it may be due to a combination of biblical knowledge and doctrinarial filters.

I don't find it convincing because, at its heart, it seems a theological argument and is therefore pin-dancing to a large extent. I suspect that if I were a theist and accepted the existence of a supreme creator or creators as inevitable and true, then to critique an infinite and omnipotent being would be the height of hubris and intellectual presumption.

I might have problems with reconciling the description of God in the bible as always being a "good" being as I understood the term, but I would check my assumptions first.

There are stronger arguments in favor of atheism, and agnosticism. These are made more so by the generally uncompelling nature of many of the arguments made in favor of theistic existence.

flipper

January 30th 2003, 05:24 AM

Evil does not exist by itself, so Atheist need to stop borrowing from the Christian Worldview

Neither does "good". Or "literature". Or "democracy".

Two massive assumptions being made here - that the concept of "good" and "evil" or "right" and "wrong" are exclusively christian, and that atheists need to "stop" borrowing from any world view. At least, you have to provide some sort of justification for such a bold assertion. Your justification appears to be that "atheists cannot account for the existence of evil", a bold and unsupported supposition in itself, and that they must therefore stop borrowing from the christian perspective.

First, you must prove that this concept is exclusively Christian, and then explain why atheists should not share this term. For example, we might both agree on the existence of evil, but the routes by which we both reached our conclusion that evil acts exist may be very different. Our definitions of evil are also highly likely to differ. You make no allowance for this and you fail to provide any supporting evidence as to why you believe this.

I would have more sympathy for your argument if you stuck the word 'absolute' in front of either term. But you didn't.

Blake Reas

January 30th 2003, 03:35 PM

flipper:
Neither does "good". Or "literature". Or "democracy".

Two massive assumptions being made here - that the concept of "good" and "evil" or "right" and "wrong" are exclusively christian, and that atheists need to "stop" borrowing from any world view. At least, you have to provide some sort of justification for such a bold assertion. Your justification appears to be that "atheists cannot account for the existence of evil", a bold and unsupported supposition in itself, and that they must therefore stop borrowing from the christian perspective.

The atheist cannot account for it most believe in naturalism which says that we are caught in a stream of never ending cause and effect. Just becasue they cannot account for it does not mean it doesn't exist. What basis do they have for believing in these things? You most likely know more than I do on this subject so could you give me some of the arguments for me to look at?

First, you must prove that this concept is exclusively Christian, and then explain why atheists should not share this term. For example, we might both agree on the existence of evil, but the routes by which we both reached our conclusion that evil acts exist may be very different. Our definitions of evil are also highly likely to differ. You make no allowance for this and you fail to provide any supporting evidence as to why you believe this.
I am talking of absolute evil such as torchering babies, september 11, rape, death, etc. They have no basis for saying they where evil with in their worldview unless again I am wrong on this point. I did happen to read a quote from Richard Dawkins in which he said:

(rough paraphrase) "since evolution is true there is no such things as real good or real evil it is just an evolutionary development and it happens to be what we make it.

I would have more sympathy for your argument if you stuck the word 'absolute' in front of either term. But you didn't.

sorry that is what I meant, I have just really started to get into philosophy so forgive me for my amateurness:thumb: !

In Christ,
Blake

Pate

January 30th 2003, 04:07 PM

flipper:
I would have more sympathy for your argument if you stuck the word 'absolute' in front of either term. But you didn't.

But if the "evil" that atheist refers to, is purely subjective, then I don't see much basis for claiming that the existence of such evil is evidence against God's existence. (I may know some ways to get aroud this problem, but I'd like to know how you would do it.)

Pate

January 30th 2003, 04:11 PM

flipper:
There are stronger arguments in favor of atheism, and agnosticism.

So which arguments are the strongest ones, in your opinion?

automatthew

January 30th 2003, 10:22 PM

This is going to sound very anti-rational, but there is no way to soften it:

No argument can account for the existence of the universe without a creator. If you utterly reject this, then there can be no understanding between us. I will contend with you for the sake of those who have not yet sold themselves into foolishness.

The necessity of a creator to account for creation does not, of course, get us anywhere near Christianity without some further assumptions. There may well be convincing arguments against the Judeo-Christian idea of the nature of the creator (though they'll be wrong, too). I haven't come across any.

Matthew

phantaz sunlyk

January 30th 2003, 11:10 PM

**7** say hey automatthew. i was just wondering if you'd indulge me.
you said--

No argument can account for the existence of the universe without a creator.

**8** could i not simply claim that the universe, infact, just "is"? why can God so be described and not other things?
it is not logically incoherent to imagine the universe existing without God. if i'm wrong here, then a very stout proof needs to be brought in.
ya said--

There may well be convincing arguments against the Judeo-Christian idea of the nature of the creator (though they'll be wrong, too).

**7** just outta curiousity, have you ever noticed that every theological construction seems to have its weak spot? for example, re Christianity: God is supposed to be infinite, yet to be personal means to be opposed to a reality that is other, ergo if personal, then not infinite; if infinite, then not personal.
peace.

automatthew

January 31st 2003, 01:04 AM

hi phantaz,

I'm glad my somewhat prickly statement isn't putting people off. You asked:

could i not simply claim that the universe, in fact, just "is"? why can God so be described and not other things?
it is not logically incoherent to imagine the universe existing without God.

That is an important question to address, or rather, to immunize thoughtful people against. May I presume, from your other writings, that you ask this playing the devil's advocate?

----
Adversaries certainly may argue that the universe just is, but this assertion is convincing only to the extent that the listener is susceptible to misdirection. Like the prosecutor who cons the jury into believing that the defendant must prove his innocence, this "argument" drops the burden of proof in the lap of the wrong party. Given existence, those who cry "There is no cause!" are the aggressors, not the defenders. The burden of proof is theirs, and the day one of these challengers brings forth an actual course of reasoning instead of bald assertions and why-nots is the day I'll be soldering my teeth back into my mouth, because they'll have fallen out of my jaw when it hit the floor. While I try to exercise the principle of charity and phrase for my opponents the strongest versions of their arguments, I cannot see a way to make this challenge anything other than a bald denial that a universe needs an explanation.

The second part of phantaz's objection: if God can be said to "just exist," why can't other things, namely the universe?

The obvious answer is "That's a foolish question, and not worth the time to answer." In the presence of an audience, I'd also ask for a remotely plausible reason why I should consider an inanimate, unselfed, non-creating universe to be in the same category as an active, reportedly multi-personal, creating entity. (When I have children, I hope none ever ask, "Why doesn't the nightlight go to sleep like I do? It gets to stay awake all night," because I'll know then that I've brought skeptics into the world, and I'll have to drown them.)

Now, ha-ha funnies aside, that is the answer I first considered. The question, I think, partakes of the flippant at best. But then I remembered how often Chesterton was accused of flippantry when he was mortally serious, and I wondered whether I couldn't do the opposite and from the frivolous fashion the profound. To that end, let's start a new thread under that question:

If God "just exists", why can't the universe?

Matthew

johnransom

January 31st 2003, 01:40 AM

I voted for the problem of evil, but the fact is they are all unconvincing, although not equally. Some are more pathetic than others, especially the argument from unbelief and the incoherence argument (which itself is completely incoherent, despite what Kai Nielsen would claim). Others are not really arguments at all - the big rock problem is an infantile attempt to throw off the unwary and unprepared.

However, the question itself is improper - what should really be asked is: which argument is the most powerful? That is, which one has the greatest ability to discourage faith? Without a doubt, the evil problem is the winner by a mile, with the science disproving God theory also doing quite well in the modern world.

There is also one that I did not see on the list - the "argument from outrage", the idea that God's actions are so offensive He cannot possibly be real. Most skeptics of the Till/Barker mold seem to ascribe to this one.

Finally, arguments are of no import to the typical skeptic, who wouldn't recognize logic if it slapped him in the face.

phantaz sunlyk

January 31st 2003, 01:42 AM

**7** see ya over there....

flipper

January 31st 2003, 02:09 AM

Pate:

So which arguments are the strongest ones, in your opinion?

Oo I can't choose, they're all so delicious.

I'll answer this question later on this evening or tomorrow evening, if I may. It deserves a bit more thought.

flipper

January 31st 2003, 02:11 AM

...and I haven't attended to blake's arguments yet....

What can I say? I'm a bad person.

I'll pick those up tomorrow too.

Ryokan

January 31st 2003, 02:55 PM

I'd say the most convincing arguement isn't the evil one. I'd say the most convincing thing, as an agnostic, is I have never seen a compelling arguement requiring the existence of God, and never having had an experience I felt was anyway related to the divine, why should anyone, with that knowledge and experience, believe?

Also, just because you and I find baby killing, 9/11, and a host of other terrible things evil make them so. That is a emotional response designed to make flipper look bad, rather than advance your agruement. Just because we feel strongly these things are bad doesn't make them so. Communism, Nazism, rascism, vegatarianism, and star wars fans all have similiarly strong convictions about different things that we don't care or feel differently about.

flipper

February 3rd 2003, 01:14 AM

eek - apologies to all for my continued neglect of this thread. I have tried to spend more of this weekend with my family and less in front of the computer. I hope you will all understand...

Shayla

February 3rd 2003, 01:31 AM

I also believe the problem of evil is the most convincing argument but also the probem of suffering. There are so many people suffering from things that aren't evil. Christians get sick, or lose family in accidents. It rains on the just and the unjust, as we know it, but an atheist could see that as our not having a loving God.

Pate

February 3rd 2003, 03:56 AM

flipper:
eek - apologies to all for my continued neglect of this thread. I have tried to spend more of this weekend with my family and less in front of the computer. I hope you will all understand...

Yes, I understand that. Some things are even more important than this forum. ;)

But I'm really interested to know what's the strongest atheistic argument in your opinion, so I hope that you'll answer, sooner or later. :)

Pate

February 4th 2003, 05:14 PM

I'm surprised that no one has voted argument #8 or #9. :)

flipper

February 7th 2003, 04:33 AM

Hello. First, please forgive my tardiness in my replies to these posts. I am "closing the circle" here, as I think I may need to spend less time on these fora for a while. However, your questions were good, and they deserve an answer.

Blake wrote:

The Atheist cannot account for it most believe in naturalism which says that we are caught in a stream of never ending cause and effect. Just becasue they cannot account for it does not mean it doesn't exist. What basis do they have for believing in these things? You most likely know more than I do on this subject so could you give me some of the arguments for me to look at?
Well, I think that most atheists would agree that causes and effects have both beginnings and ends. I can account for the existance of what we might both agree as evil, because I believe that the key to morality is evolutionary. There is a significant amount of evidence to point to the fact that our understanding of right and wrong can both be linked to specific physical locations in the brain and also to particular learning experiences when we are young. Primatology research demonstrates that basic moral behaviours are a necessary function of larger and more complex mammalian groups to maintain cohesiveness and survivability.
Now if you believe that when certain points are reached (zero degrees for water, for example) new emergent behaviours may sometimes arise that would have been hard to predict. I believe that language, law, culture, and literature are examples of these emergent properties when a certain level of intelligence is attained.

I am talking of absolute evil such as torchering babies, september 11, rape, death, etc. They have no basis for saying they where evil with in their worldview unless again I am wrong on this point. I did happen to read a quote from Richard Dawkins in which he said:

(rough paraphrase) "since evolution is true there is no such things as real good or real evil it is just an evolutionary development and it happens to be what we make it.

in the grand universal scheme (a figure of speech), Dawkins is probably right. But fortunately (or unfortunately) we are wrapped up in a minutiae of passing time, social interactions, culture, belief, and indented behavior, as well as limited empathy. We are creatures of our cultures, and perceptions of good and evil are part and parcel of how we live our lives.

I would have more sympathy for your argument if you stuck the word 'absolute' in front of either term. But you didn't.
Sorry that is what I meant, I have just really started to get into philosophy so forgive me for my amateurness
Please, there's no need for an apology. Your questions were good and personally I have increasingly less time for the formalities of philosophical discourse. After all, what has it done for us lately, hm? Not much since the 1940s, I would venture to suggest. Frankly, post modernism is the most interesting thing to come out of philosophy since Camus, and that's a sad commentary on the last century. Don't let those of a more philosophical bent snow you - George Orwell had it absolutely correct about those who are forced to express themselves through obfustication.

flipper

February 7th 2003, 06:12 AM

Right.

*cracks knuckes*

The best arguments for atheism.

I can only offer you my arguments for being an atheist.

My arguments have evolved as I have grown older. When I was but a mere slip of an atheist, I found the argument of the problem of evil quite compelling. I now merely find it a reasonable argument to employ against those who claim that the God described in the bible is completely good in a human sense. Levelling moral accusations against infinite and all-powerful beings is foolish hubris. One could not reasonably expect such a being to be bound by the laws it sets its creation. One might be utterly mystified by its motives, but one would be hard pushed to judge.

So I don't know if what I am about to relate are the best arguments for atheism. They're the arguments that I find convincing. Sufficiently so to live my life without a sense of risk of eternal punishment. Pascal's wager holds no fear for me, because I have reasonable certainty that oblivion is the inevitable lot for every living thing.

Unlike theologists and priests, scientists do not ask us to take them at their word. They do not rely on the power of anecdotal evidence or personal experience (which, let's face it, allows for the pentecostal fire, the ecstasy of the Sufi, the visions of the american indian shaman, the driven fits of the santeria, and the transcendence of the Zen master). All theologies have one thing in common; they lay claim to the existence of supernatural and supranatural causal forces. These are all as different as the traditions and cultures from which they sprang.

Religion has many roles in cultures. One role is reinforcing socially responsible behaviors that help maintain group cohesion, and another is providing explanations for why things are the way that they are in lieu of other more grounded explanations.

The explanations are provided through the observational, experimentational, predictive, and reasoning powers of science. Unlike the disparate and contradictory patterns of world religions, science is both universal and hugely successful at providing other, better explanations for what we see around us.

Rainbows have a more prosaic explanation than as a showy finale to a new covenant. The genetic records of all animal life points to diversity, not some chokepoint 4,000 years ago. The fossil record speaks to the same.

God and Gods once reigned supreme in an absence of other, better, explanations would come along. Now we have many of these, and the role of the supernatural has been forced into gaps where our knowledge has not yet led us - in the case of abiogenesis, gaps that largely exist because of the unsurprising lack of physical evidence for small chemical processes captured by the few remaining reefs of 4 billion year old rock.

Nevertheless, where theists throw up their hands to say "god did it", science pushes onwards. There are hypotheses and experiments that may yet provide us with plausible mechanisms. We even have the makings of experiments to test some hypotheses of the events that sparked the creation of the universe itself.

Supernatural explanations have been steadily forced out of our understanding of the world around us in favor of rational and materialist explanations. These have served us extremely well in the past and I see no reason for why this should not continue. Attempts to infuse science with theism fail again and again to make predictions, provide falsifications, attempt to explain mechanisms. They are, in short, unable to stand because their authors cannot ideologically allow falsification. They are sand walls built against a rising tide.

Yes, people believe in supernatural events. But people believe many non-rational things, like astrology, horoscopes, ESP, and in aliens (and there is much more evidence in favor of UFOs and alien abduction - thousands living eyewitnesses, film and still footage, even radar evidence - than there is for the alleged resurrection of Jesus). We have a propensity for the irrational.

Does this mean I am anti-theist? Not really. I cannot prove God does not exist. Nor can I prove that unicorns do not. I believe that it is possible to be a rational and scientific theist, if you accept much on faith, and that you do not attempt to shoehorn your faith into science, but I don't really think that a God or Gods are the simplest or most logical explanation.

On the plus side, religion has brought man many benefits and boons in art, music, architecture, literature, and social organization. I am not anti-religious, but for me, religious explanations for why things are the way they are are utterly disatisfying and have proven to be inaccurate so many times as to be utterly untrustworthy.

Pate

February 9th 2003, 04:54 AM

Flipper, thanks for your response. What you just wrote, seems very much like that "Science makes God unnecessary"-argument which I included in the options of my poll. But apparently you didn't vote for that, because it currently has 0 votes.

flipper

February 9th 2003, 11:10 PM

Yup, that's a fair description of my position, but I generally don't do polls.

I didn't vote because I don't really see the point in them, on chat fora at least. I mean, what exactly is this going to show?

That an unrepresentative number of people (even within this web site) with unspecified beliefs (although it is likely that most respondents will be christian due to the apparent composition of said site) have preferences for arguments (and they may not even be familiar with all of them) that come from a world-view they don't even share...

Bearing that in mind, will it help you if I vote? If so, then I will.

Blake Reas

February 9th 2003, 11:10 PM

flipper:
Hello. First, please forgive my tardiness in my replies to these posts. I am "closing the circle" here, as I think I may need to spend less time on these fora for a while. However, your questions were good, and they deserve an answer.

Blake wrote:

Well, I think that most atheists would agree that causes and effects have both beginnings and ends. I can account for the existance of what we might both agree as evil, because I believe that the key to morality is evolutionary. There is a significant amount of evidence to point to the fact that our understanding of right and wrong can both be linked to specific physical locations in the brain and also to particular learning experiences when we are young. Primatology research demonstrates that basic moral behaviours are a necessary function of larger and more complex mammalian groups to maintain cohesiveness and survivability.
Now if you believe that when certain points are reached (zero degrees for water, for example) new emergent behaviours may sometimes arise that would have been hard to predict. I believe that language, law, culture, and literature are examples of these emergent properties when a certain level of intelligence is attained.

in the grand universal scheme (a figure of speech), Dawkins is probably right. But fortunately (or unfortunately) we are wrapped up in a minutiae of passing time, social interactions, culture, belief, and indented behavior, as well as limited empathy. We are creatures of our cultures, and perceptions of good and evil are part and parcel of how we live our lives.

Please, there's no need for an apology. Your questions were good and personally I have increasingly less time for the formalities of philosophical discourse. After all, what has it done for us lately, hm? Not much since the 1940s, I would venture to suggest. Frankly, post modernism is the most interesting thing to come out of philosophy since Camus, and that's a sad commentary on the last century. Don't let those of a more philosophical bent snow you - George Orwell had it absolutely correct about those who are forced to express themselves through obfustication.

As I look down through the Philosophers that I know of I think that Nietzsce was the most brilliant Atheist philosopher. He was the only one that had the balls to say that if God was dead then life is meaningless and so are Morals, Logic etc! His statement of the Ubermensch I think was the most brilliant. He took Atheism to its logical conclusion which is Step on as many people as you can before you die so you can get to the top which is itself totally meaningless.
I would rather suffer from the "opium" of nations as Marx called it, than live a meaningless existence. I know that most Atheist do not follow Nietzsche whether it is out of fear or "I don't know what." No offense to any non-believers that is just my view from out side your worldview.

In Christ,
Blake

flipper

February 9th 2003, 11:13 PM

So I just looked at the poll and found that the lion's share of the votes had gone to:

None. They are all equally unconvincing.

Is this a very useful poll? Maybe to demonstrate the essential narrow-minded dogmatism of a significant proportion of the people who bothered to vote in this poll, perhaps?

I certainly would never had classified all arguments in favor of the existence of god as "equally unconvincing" because I know that some arguments are better than others.

But they're your brothers and sisters, not mine.

Blake Reas

February 9th 2003, 11:16 PM

flipper:
So I just looked at the poll and found that the lion's share of the votes had gone to:

None. They are all equally unconvincing.

Is this a very useful poll? Maybe to demonstrate the essential narrow-minded dogmatism of a significant proportion of the people who bothered to vote in this poll, perhaps?

I certainly would never had classified all arguments in favor of the existence of god as "equally unconvincing" because I know that some arguments are better than others.

But they're your brothers and sisters, not mine.

I have a great Avatar that would go with your name! ;)

Here it is:

flipper

February 10th 2003, 12:14 AM

Blake:

Hee! A fair point... I posted in a moment of mild irritation. Still, I might just adopt it as it would be pretty funny.

"Quick Flipper go get hel-- aaaaaargh!!!"

flipper

February 10th 2003, 01:00 AM

Blake wrote:

As I look down through the Philosophers that I know of I think that Nietzsce was the most brilliant Atheist philosopher. He was the only one that had the balls to say that if God was dead then life is meaningless and so are Morals, Logic etc! His statement of the Ubermensch I think was the most brilliant. He took Atheism to its logical conclusion which is Step on as many people as you can before you die so you can get to the top which is itself totally meaningless.
I would rather suffer from the "opium" of nations as Marx called it, than live a meaningless existence. I know that most Atheist do not follow Nietzsche whether it is out of fear or "I don't know what." No offense to any non-believers that is just my view from out side your worldview.

No offense taken. I'm always interested in other people's views, even if i might not agree with them. The human world would be inutterably boring if we all agreed.

I think you may assume too much regarding Nietzsche's definition of God.

It is my understanding that Nietzsche was not referring to a metaphysical God, but rather God as a product of man's reason. The God Nietzsche killed was God as an idea - a subjective moral creation of man that appealed to and embodied certain psychological and moral values.

The non-existence of God as a spiritual character was assumed as a given.

I'm not Nietzschean (although I am impressed by some of his insights and intelligent commentaries) because I believe he overstated his case and, like many philosophers, neglected to support many of his arguments and opinions with real-world evidence.

...if God was dead then life is meaningless and so are Morals, Logic etc! His statement of the Ubermensch I think was the most brilliant. He took Atheism to its logical conclusion which is Step on as many people as you can before you die so you can get to the top which is itself totally meaningless.

If I understand Nietzsche correctly he was underwhelmed by the necessity that some have to postulate a higher being to act as an umbrella that all morality and law must shelter under. Nietzsche would argue that it displays a weakness in the person who makes this postulation or accepts it uncritically.

Christians do on occasion inadvertently corroborate this view when they say things like: "well if I believed there was no god i would be free to behave as I want." Nietzsche was not impressed by those who allowed themselves to be controlled by uncritical tradition or by an unfounded fear of a hypothetical higher power.

I would argue a similar position, based on what we observe in the world around us. Mammalian group organizations are very hierarchical. The higher the mammal, the more complex the hiearchy and the interactions within it. However, most hierarchies have an alpha male and/or female. This leader has ffinal say in settling disputes and breaking up fights.

Man is a mammal descended from hierarchical primates but man is also imaginative - he can conceive of things that don't have a physical existence. Would it not then make a lot of sense (as well as being advantageous from an evolutionary survival perspective) to postulate a new layer of hierarchy that is removed from the day-to-day struggles of the group and is permanent. These metaleaders have two functions - first, they provide reasons for why things are the way they are, and second they provide the constant and solid framework of reference for taboo, religion, and even law that is not dependent on any one individual while also providing further concrete authority to the physical group leader.

If a chief is divinely appointed, it makes it much harder to provide an effective challenge to him that might split and weaken the group.

Blake Reas

February 10th 2003, 11:08 AM

flipper:
Blake:

Hee! A fair point... I posted in a moment of mild irritation. Still, I might just adopt it as it would be pretty funny.

"Quick Flipper go get hel-- aaaaaargh!!!"

I thought you would like it! Anyway, thanks for the clear up on Nietzsche I guess I misunderstood some of his stuff. But I still do not believe Evolution can produce Morals that mean anything. Oh well thanks for the discussion.

In Christ,
Blake Reas

Blake Reas

February 10th 2003, 11:08 AM

Blake Reas

February 10th 2003, 11:15 AM

flipper:
Blake wrote:

No offense taken. I'm always interested in other people's views, even if i might not agree with them. The human world would be inutterably boring if we all agreed.

I think you may assume too much regarding Nietzsche's definition of God.

It is my understanding that Nietzsche was not referring to a metaphysical God, but rather God as a product of man's reason. The God Nietzsche killed was God as an idea - a subjective moral creation of man that appealed to and embodied certain psychological and moral values.

The non-existence of God as a spiritual character was assumed as a given.

I'm not Nietzschean (although I am impressed by some of his insights and intelligent commentaries) because I believe he overstated his case and, like many philosophers, neglected to support many of his arguments and opinions with real-world evidence.

If I understand Nietzsche correctly he was underwhelmed by the necessity that some have to postulate a higher being to act as an umbrella that all morality and law must shelter under. Nietzsche would argue that it displays a weakness in the person who makes this postulation or accepts it uncritically.

Christians do on occasion inadvertently corroborate this view when they say things like: "well if I believed there was no god i would be free to behave as I want." Nietzsche was not impressed by those who allowed themselves to be controlled by uncritical tradition or by an unfounded fear of a hypothetical higher power.

I would argue a similar position, based on what we observe in the world around us. Mammalian group organizations are very hierarchical. The higher the mammal, the more complex the hiearchy and the interactions within it. However, most hierarchies have an alpha male and/or female. This leader has ffinal say in settling disputes and breaking up fights.

Man is a mammal descended from hierarchical primates but man is also imaginative - he can conceive of things that don't have a physical existence. Would it not then make a lot of sense (as well as being advantageous from an evolutionary survival perspective) to postulate a new layer of hierarchy that is removed from the day-to-day struggles of the group and is permanent. These metaleaders have two functions - first, they provide reasons for why things are the way they are, and second they provide the constant and solid framework of reference for taboo, religion, and even law that is not dependent on any one individual while also providing further concrete authority to the physical group leader.

If a chief is divinely appointed, it makes it much harder to provide an effective challenge to him that might split and weaken the group.

You must assume the evolutionary production of Religion to have this view. From studies I do not think this can be supported. Although it is an interesting study! Would this be a "just-so Story" ;)?

I could also go the other way and say that God in fact does exist and that is why these people have a concept of him. I think we would both be arguing from each others assumptions and would get us no where. Your idea is interesting in its own right though.

Have you read studies on Primal Monotheism? I actually think I have some stuff on History of Religion on my bookshelf I will try and post it next time. Until then gotta do some homework:argh: .

In Christ,
Blake

NullSet

February 11th 2003, 11:38 AM

Pate:
I'm surprised that no one has voted argument #8 or #9. :)

I actually know someone who seemed to claim that she doesn't believe in God because Santa Claus doesn't exist. She's not exactly the brightest candle in the shed (wait a sec...that doesn't work)! Obviously this needs no debate to prove that it's illogical...

J. J. Ramsey

February 12th 2003, 07:09 PM

I voted for "the argument from divine hiddeness." It seems that for the most part, God is hidden, and one does not see God overtly acting in the world today or in much of human history. Atheism almost makes sense -- almost.

The New Testament, though, documents multiple departures from the usual hiddeness, and shows a God who isn't always hidden. If it weren't for the New Testament, I probably wouldn't be a theist, let alone a Christian.

Science Boy

December 17th 2003, 12:09 PM

None of the above

Basically it amounts to the fact that there are so many religions claiming to be the one true faith.

Given 200 religions in the world (estimate for sake of example)

and

Given 100 splinter sects of each religion

and

Given 10,000 (average) versions of each of those splinters as practiced and believed by the members...

and

given that every one claims to be the only true religion (not all do, but most)

Then, using an anti-evolution trick, the odds of any one religion being correct are

1 in 200,000,000 .

If you used calculus, you could show that the chance approaches zero.

Add on top that every major religion has killed in the name of its god (jews, islam) or gods (christianity) and there has been no clear winner and you have all the proof needed.

mattbballman19

December 17th 2003, 12:23 PM

The arguments which have given me the most trouble have been the evidential problem of evil and certain variations of refutations of the historicity of either the New Testament in general or the resurrection in particular. I used to immerse myself into the latter at Infidels.org becoming less and less sure of both the reasons for the historicity of the Bible and the foundation upon which I based my beliefs: the resurrection. I was actually on the verge of adhering to the views I read at Infidels! If it wasn’t for Holding’s website, Glenn Miller’s website, and their pointing to sources for further reading by scholars in their field, I don’t think I'd be a Christian right now! The evidential argument from evil (EoE) only frustrated me, because I had a wealth of evidence which gave God characteristics completely opposed to the ones trying to be given to Him by EoE. I had only familiarized myself with the fallaciousness of the logical problem of evil (re. Plantinga). So, I was only temporarily inhibited. But after reading arguments on both sides, I’ve come to the conclusion that EoE is flawed if posed to the Christian God.

I also had trouble with some contradictions and ideas of harmonization in the Bible. Proper interpretive techniques needed to be cultivated, so that I could acquire the correct interpretation. Other than these problems and arguments, nothing else gave much trouble in being a Theistic Christian.

matt

Paul

December 17th 2003, 12:59 PM

Today @ 08:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=343466#post343466)
mattbballman19:

The arguments which have given me the most trouble have been the evidential problem of evil and certain variations of refutations of the historicity of either the New Testament in general or the resurrection in particular. I used to immerse myself into the latter at Infidels.org becoming less and less sure of both the reasons for the historicity of the Bible and the foundation upon which I based my beliefs: the resurrection. I was actually on the verge of adhering to the views I read at Infidels! If it wasn’t for Holding’s website, Glenn Miller’s website, and their pointing to sources for further reading by scholars in their field, I don’t think I'd be a Christian right now! The evidential argument from evil (EoE) only frustrated me, because I had a wealth of evidence which gave God characteristics completely opposed to the ones trying to be given to Him by EoE. I had only familiarized myself with the fallaciousness of the logical problem of evil (re. Plantinga). So, I was only temporarily inhibited. But after reading arguments on both sides, I’ve come to the conclusion that EoE is flawed if posed to the Christian God.

I also had trouble with some contradictions and ideas of harmonization in the Bible. Proper interpretive techniques needed to be cultivated, so that I could acquire the correct interpretation. Other than these problems and arguments, nothing else gave much trouble in being a Theistic Christian.

matt

Hi matt,

I've really enjoyed reading your posts so far and I appreciate what you've shared here.

In my own life I've never not for a moment doubted the existence of God and this was even before I had any particular religious experience. Later my certainty would come from seeing in an almost intuitive way that God must exist as well as from certain philosophical arguments. Also I came to have certain religious experiences such that now it is almost inconceivable that I would doubt the existence of God. Also these religious experiences were such that the evidential problem of evil has no personal sway with me. But I have doubted some other things.

I personally would say that if reading something causes you to doubt -- whether it be theism or Christianity -- that you should just avoid reading it ... in the same way one who struggles with sexual sin may want to avoid watching certain movies.

I noticed in another thread you linked to an article which argued for eternal security on the grounds that eternal security would obtain in the best possible world. I'm not sure I see the reasoning there (there is that saying: Better to have loved and lost then not to loved at all). But I was just curious if you hold to the notion that there is a best possible world and if so whether you think there is only one best possible world and also whether you think the actual world is a best possible world. As you may know Augustine thought there might be several best possible worlds and Aquinas held that there is no best possible world.

Chuck Lee

December 17th 2003, 01:01 PM

At the risk of being annoying, let me run through my thoughts of the list.

1. The problem of evil (let's throw in suffering here too).
:shifty: I see both evil and suffering as inevitable consequences of free will. They exists as contrasts to the more pleasant things. They would exist with or without involvement by a supreme being, IMO.

2. The argument from unbelief.
:no: This makes ungrounded suppositions on the nature of a supreme being. It can only be used against specific conjectured versions of a supreme being.

3. The "Science makes God unnecessary" argument.
:no: Ludicrous. Science uncovers how things work, whether they were put into place by a supreme being or not.

4. The argument from divine hiddenness.
:huh: This to me is the most powerful argument. However, lack of evidence is not evidence against.

5. The projection theories of religious belief (Freud etc.).
:no: This only factors against specific conjectured versions of a supreme being.

6. Alleged incoherence of the concept of God.
:no: This only factors against specific conjectured versions of a supreme being.

7. "Can God create a stone so heavy that he can't lift it"-argument.
:no: Makes ungrounded assumptions on the nature of a supreme being.

8. "Santa Claus doesn't exist, therefore God doesn't either"-argument.
:noid: Irrelevant.

9. "Christians are hypocrites, therefore God does not exist"-argument.
:no: Irrelevant for multiple reasons. First, God could exist without Christianity being true. Second, Christians generally promote the idea that people are naturally sinful, including Christians; consequently some hypocricy here and there would be expected under Christianity.

Conclusion: although I still fall short of something that would convince me of the existence of God, I also lack sufficient evidence to sway me to the idea that a supreme being of some sort does not exist.

Chuck Lee

December 17th 2003, 01:19 PM

Today @ 09:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=343417#post343417)
Science Boy:

Basically it amounts to the fact that there are so many religions claiming to be the one true faith.

Sounds like the "Alleged incoherence of the concept of God" argument to me.

C. D. Ward

December 17th 2003, 06:01 PM

Hmmm....so many choices...so little time....

I wish I could have voted for more than one, but I settled on the AE. Although it only speaks to particular conceptions of God, I think the evidential AE is one that certainly gives many Christians pause. Not that many don't find an answer, but it is one that remains a technically competent argument in PhiRel, with a great many philosophers spending a great deal of time on it (on both sides).

Unlike others, I also find the argument from incoherence to be interesting. Especially in light of the work of philosophers like Wittgenstein, Rorty, Derrida, et al. I don't think it's as strong as AE, but I certainly think it has more force than the "Santa Claus" argument (which is one of the more bizarre assertions I've personally heard). :teeth:

A final note to Blake: Nietzsche did not say that one should "step on as many people as possible before you die..." Neither is that a necessary reading of his moral philosophy, although it seems to be a common misconception. Although I think it's often difficult to say exactly what he did mean (kind of like another book I know :wink:), I think it can be said that he identified "ought" with an aesthetic ideal. That is to say, he would have said that a life well-lived would be as the creation of a great work of art. Read The Geneaology of Morals and Beyond Good and Evil for a better idea than my pitifully short summary can deliver.

Passant

December 17th 2003, 06:19 PM

I personally would say that if reading something causes you to doubt -- whether it be theism or Christianity -- that you should just avoid reading it

Spoken like a true Catholic, don't even consider any other point of view, you might find the truth, and it might not be Christianity.

TuckEverlasting

December 17th 2003, 07:41 PM

I actually voted for "Christians are hypocrites, therefore God does not exist"-argument.

I don't actually think this is the best logical argument, of course; as Chuck Lee said, it is irrelevant. But it sure is hard to ignore sometimes...

mattbballman19

December 18th 2003, 03:18 AM

Paul,

Thanks for the encouragement!

Now that you mention it, I also have had sort of an intuitive awareness that there existed a higher being of some sort. It basically was some cosmic, impersonal blob, which I lazily felt I must believe in so I could be honest with myself. My doubts usually stem from spontaneous considerations of logically possible what-ifs. There are days in which I feel absolutely certain that Christianity is true. I also have to introspectively pinch myself by the constant reminder that feelings aren’t the most reliable guide to accurate belief formation. In the midst of a sort of zen of certainty, my mind inadvertently and involuntarily considers the logical possibility of Christianity not being true. I so detest any kind of veridical plausibility for these logical possibilities that I vigorously argue them out of my system. Every once in a while, a destructive 3-way, tag-team rears its ugly head: the logical possibilities, a loss of a feeling of certainty, and the reading of an article promulgating some atheistic apologetic either against or in response to some Christian argument. It is within this realm that the biggest forms of doubts occur.

I have also come to believe that religious experiences are person relative. Some people are just not of the experiential disposition. My whole constitution seems to shun any kind of idea of dependence on a religious experience as a cure for doubts. But, as the same time, I can whole-heartedly accept its effectiveness in your life: and praise God for it!

I agree with you in that if reading material designed to eliminate doubt is causing doubt, then it should be dispensed with. But if one has doubt as sort of an isolated compartment of distress independent of subjecting yourself to any kind of philosophical literature and if one reads the philosophical literature on eliminating the doubt originating in that isolated compartment, then either the literature is going to assist or not assist. If the former, then great! If the latter, then good ole’ fashioned prayer would seem to be the correct avenue to take.

Also, I think the notion of a best possible world is logically and metaphysically incoherent. I have also personally dialogued with the author of that eternal security article and he explicitly repudiates the rationality of a best possible world. You can either extrapolate portions of his essay here and I can show that he is not dealing with a best possible world or you are able to email him directly and you could ask him that way. His email address is able to be located in his home-page: www.sguthrie.net

matt

Ben Franklin

January 1st 2004, 05:22 PM

Specific concepts of God is my vote. It supposes the hiddeness angle because it tries to define God as something conveivable, but in fact, borrows valid concepts while cutting them from their foundations. Pretty neat philosophical trick. Like, "God is omni-potent" or lives in heaven, blah, blah, blah... I'm a realist, and none of these statements actually address things that people know exists and have relevancy to the universe. If someone could come out with biographical data on a guy who created us in "our" image, then I'd be one happy camper. Sad to say, it ain't gonna happen, because it's all based on Judaic mythology...

TenDimensions

January 1st 2004, 10:25 PM

12-17-2003 @ 12:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=343589#post343589)
Chuck Lee:
6. Alleged incoherence of the concept of God.
:no: This only factors against specific conjectured versions of a supreme being.

Not necessarily. I voted for this one because of certain problems I have with the supposed nature of God in Western religions.

Mainly, if God can see the future and see all possible timelines laid out before him - then how exactly does he maintain a train of thought? How would he "think" in any kind of sense that we understand?

From there I tend to end up with a more Eastern type of God who just "is" and doesn't have any specific needs, wants, or desires. :nsm: And after that I just thought, what the heck - I doubt there is one at all.

Chuck Lee

January 1st 2004, 11:28 PM

TenDimensions:

Mainly, if God can see the future and see all possible timelines laid out before him - then how exactly does he maintain a train of thought? How would he "think" in any kind of sense that we understand?

Like I said, this is a specific conjectured version of a supreme being. It assumes an absolute kind of omniscience that is not necessarily justifiable. Plus, a God that would have such an omniscience would not necessarily have to "think" in any kind of sense we understand, but rather may "think" in a way we don't understand.

From there I tend to end up with a more Eastern type of God who just "is" and doesn't have any specific needs, wants, or desires. And after that I just thought, what the heck - I doubt there is one at all.

I allow for things inbetween. Namely, something that has specific intentions but isn't quite as omniscient (or omnipotent) as many expect of a supreme being.

I assume that if God exists, the incoherence in the God concept is simply an indication that He isn't particularly concerned about how we conceive of His nature; if, that is, we would be able to come up with any kind of decent picture of it at all with our limited perceptions.

Ben Franklin

January 2nd 2004, 02:59 AM

Today @ 03:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=360257#post360257)
Chuck Lee:

I assume that if God exists, the incoherence in the God concept is simply an indication that He isn't particularly concerned about how we conceive of His nature; if, that is, we would be able to come up with any kind of decent picture of it at all with our limited perceptions.

Chuck, I applaud your open-mindedness on this issue: it's something I'll never have. For me, I think most God concepts are huge stretches of imagination, with no reference to reality. If something or someone exists in this universe, that every people has tried to apprehend for at least 2 millenium, it has got to be easier to perceive than people make out ! I think Occam's razor is the best test here: let's simplify, baby ! Convolution is useless.

Patroclus

January 2nd 2004, 06:08 AM

Please forgive my tardiness in this thread. I think it is interesting.

flipper:

So I just looked at the poll and found that the lion's share of the votes had gone to:

None. They are all equally unconvincing.

Is this a very useful poll? Maybe to demonstrate the essential narrow-minded dogmatism of a significant proportion of the people who bothered to vote in this poll, perhaps?

I certainly would never had classified all arguments in favor of the existence of god as "equally unconvincing" because I know that some arguments are better than others.

But they're your brothers and sisters, not mine.

After I voted, I realized that my vote almost seemed cliché. I have some reasons, however.

If one is an emiricist, or materialist, one cannot believe in God because one cannot prove God through sense experience and experimentaiton. We'll stop there for a moment.

If one is an idealist, one must believe that some higher being exists (e.g. God). The reason is that humanity would have to end with two people because you would need both to perceive each other. The death of one would be the end of the other, unless there is a God to perceive all at the same time (Berkley's very important cop-out). So, I acknowledge that you must accept the Deus ex machina for this philosophy to work, but there you have it.

The question, then, is why choose one philisophical rubric over another?

Without going into too much detail, I would like to say that DeSaussure and Lacan give us pretty good reasons.

DeSaussure argue that every object is an object that must be signified by language. So, we see an object; we need a word for that object; we call that object "tree," because for whatever reason, that is the word we make up. The word - the audio image - is the signifier. From this, DeSaussure says, we derive meaning in what he calls the Sign.

Lacan turns that on its head. He says that we acquire the signifier before we acquire the signified. For instance, if we put too identical doors next to each other, we micht say that we see two doors. However, if above one door, we put a sign that says "Women," and above the other door we put a sign that says "Men," by adding language, we have completely altered the reality of those doors.

It is 2am, so I do ntohave time to expound much further. However, if at least part of our reality is based upon perception, and not mere sense experience, how can we trust that materialism holds true in and of itself?

This, by no means, leads us to Christianity. However, I really do not understand any basis for actually believing that there is no God (or gods).

:pat:

TenDimensions

January 2nd 2004, 11:42 AM

Yesterday @ 10:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=360257#post360257)
Chuck Lee:
Like I said, this is a specific conjectured version of a supreme being. It assumes an absolute kind of omniscience that is not necessarily justifiable. Plus, a God that would have such an omniscience would not necessarily have to "think" in any kind of sense we understand, but rather may "think" in a way we don't understand.

Okay - I can live with this. The only point I was making is that it seems like very often when people talk about "God's wishes" it's tough to understand how something that is so alien to us could possibly have wishes for us in any kind of way that we'd be able to understand.

I allow for things inbetween. Namely, something that has specific intentions but isn't quite as omniscient (or omnipotent) as many expect of a supreme being.

Let me ask you this - do you think it's possible that as science continues to double our knowledge of the universe and our computers become ever more powerful with each passing year there might be a point where we could obtain god-like knowledge of the universe? Have you ever heard of Vernor Vinge's Singularity concept? Google it - I think you might be interested.

I assume that if God exists, the incoherence in the God concept is simply an indication that He isn't particularly concerned about how we conceive of His nature; if, that is, we would be able to come up with any kind of decent picture of it at all with our limited perceptions.

I like that.

TenDimensions

January 2nd 2004, 12:00 PM

Today @ 05:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=360495#post360495)
Patroclus:
This, by no means, leads us to Christianity. However, I really do not understand any basis for actually believing that there is no God (or gods).

:pat:

Let me try and pick that up.

Actually, being a materialist it's not so much saying there is definitely no God anywhere - that's just as much as a leap of faith as any other religion is.

The position I take, being the materialist that I am, is that while it may actually be possible (just given that since we know consciousness exists in a continuum ranging from us down to a worm there is no reason to think consciousness can't extend upwards in the other direction!). However, given my materialist worldview I simply think it's highly unlikely that there is some higher level consciousness that is acting as some kind of global parent to the entire human race.

HRG_new

January 2nd 2004, 04:27 PM

01-31-2003 @ 02:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=4209#post4209)
automatthew:

This is going to sound very anti-rational, but there is no way to soften it:

No argument can account for the existence of the universe without a creator.

If so, then no argument can account for the existence of the creator without a creator-creator, of the creator-creator without a creator-creator-creator etc.

Please note that postulating that the alleged creator is eternal doesn't account for his existence.

Please note as well that saying "The creator did it" does not account for his powers, nor for his motivations to create exactly this universe and no others.

In brief. postulating a creator for the universe just replaces a smaller problem with a larger one. We might as well note that the universe exists, and that we have not received a guarantee that we can "account" for every true proposition.

Regards,
HRG.

Regards

Chuck Lee

January 2nd 2004, 08:17 PM

Ben Franklin:

For me, I think most God concepts are huge stretches of imagination, with no reference to reality.

May the light of Amaterasu shine upon you, Ben-kun.

(And if it does, wear sunglasses.)

:teeth:

Chuck Lee

January 2nd 2004, 08:23 PM

TenDimensions:

Let me ask you this - do you think it's possible that as science continues to double our knowledge of the universe and our computers become ever more powerful with each passing year there might be a point where we could obtain god-like knowledge of the universe?

Well, I've already answered that in my signature line, haven't I? :wink:

Being a mathematician, though, my simpler response would be: we could define godlike intelligence to be what we have learned at a certain point. After all, we've already discussed the problems concerning perfect omniscience being a godlike quality...

Patroclus

January 2nd 2004, 08:52 PM

TenDimensions:

Let me try and pick that up.

Actually, being a materialist it's not so much saying there is definitely no God anywhere - that's just as much as a leap of faith as any other religion is.

The position I take, being the materialist that I am, is that while it may actually be possible (just given that since we know consciousness exists in a continuum ranging from us down to a worm there is no reason to think consciousness can't extend upwards in the other direction!). However, given my materialist worldview I simply think it's highly unlikely that there is some higher level consciousness that is acting as some kind of global parent to the entire human race.

I see what you are saying. However, being a materialist, you must assume that all reality exists. That is, all reality is made up of that which occupies time and space. If something does not occupy time and space, it does not exist, therefore, it must not be real. What you have, then, is an epistemological void whenever you encounter the dilema of the bathroom doors, or an abstract concept, like God.

TenDimensions

January 3rd 2004, 10:40 AM

Yesterday @ 07:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=361320#post361320)
Chuck Lee:
Being a mathematician, though, my simpler response would be: we could define godlike intelligence to be what we have learned at a certain point. After all, we've already discussed the problems concerning perfect omniscience being a godlike quality...

Oh! You're a mathematician? So then if you haven't already heard of Vernor Vinge's Singularity concept then you'll definitely be interested! I strongly recommend you check it out - I think you'll enjoy it immensely.

TenDimensions

January 3rd 2004, 11:25 AM

Yesterday @ 07:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=361347#post361347)
Patroclus:
I see what you are saying. However, being a materialist, you must assume that all reality exists. That is, all reality is made up of that which occupies time and space. If something does not occupy time and space, it does not exist, therefore, it must not be real. What you have, then, is an epistemological void whenever you encounter the dilema of the bathroom doors, or an abstract concept, like God.

Wow... this is some good stuff! I admit, I didn't pay much attention to your first post regarding bathroom doors, but since you brought it up again I went back and re-read it. I think I understand what you're saying - something along the lines that the reality of the doors (or what is behind them) changes when signs are placed on them? Granted it was only a couple of sentences so I could be way off base with what you're trying to say so I would like to hear a little more. But these are my thoughts on that topic so far:

1) I've always taken the view point that there are actually two realities - the objective, material, testable one that we all assume to share and co-exist within and the imaginary construct that our brains piece together based on our senses. The truth of reality is that while we do interact through an objective, testable medium (e.g. the "real" world) we are in fact all existing within our own constructed imaginary realities. Keeping these two things separate has helped me immensely when it comes to understanding fellow humans and their motivations. I could go on for this at some length, but I bring it up mainly for your two door analogy.

2) When faced with two unmarked doors the objective reality is that there are two doors. Different observers may infer many, many different possibilities and none of those possibilities would be any less real to the observer given that those inferences exist for very good reasons within the subjective constructed reality of their brains. For example, one person may observe those two doors and conclude they are bathrooms, while another person may observe two bedroom doors, and still another may view them as apartment doors. The complex firing of neurons within each of their brains to arrive at such different conclusions is nearly inconceivable, but mechanical and based on previous experience nonetheless. Perhaps one observer has seen doors similar in a restaurant and reaches the bathroom conclusion, still another may recognize an old hallway of an apartment building and so on. My point is that our brains will construct the reality of the situation beyond just what the immediate evidence presents. It's worth noting at this point that a pure skeptic will note the two doors, but will be careful not to allow himself to make any further inferences recognizing the lack of data.

3) Once signs are now placed on the doors there now exists an additional element within the objective "real" reality - more data. But this still is not enough. Our hypothetical observers could still reach different conclusions! Granted many of them may decide the signs infer there are bathrooms behind the doors, but an 18th century observer may infer there are after-dinner lounges behind those doors - gender segregation being at the forefront of his mind. Still another (perhaps a skeptic taking things too far?) could reach the conclusion that the signs mean little until someone actually makes an observation behind the door.

Okay - so going back to the statement you made above: Being a materialist only means that I accept as true objective reality those things that can be measurable and testable within a given set of parameters. I add "a given set of parameters" because I'd like to avoid a discussion as to why thinking going to the moon without directly observing it is acceptable to believe in while UFOs are not. I suppose, though, in some ways it's an unavoidable conversation given that is exactly what we're talking about - Just what is reasonable to accept given a materialistic viewpoint?

A concept I hold and that led me to materialism in the first place, which many people seem to disagree with and why they do I can't understand, is this: If something does not occupy time or space, it does not exist, and it can not be measurable or testable. Therefore (and this is the part people always disagree with) it can not affect me so the question of its actual existence is a moot point. If I can not measure or through otherwise materialistic means prove its existence then it remains perfectly logical that it in turn can not affect me and therefore its existence does not matter.

Typically after making that statement people like to bring up emotions so in the interest of saving time I'll make a reply to that anticipated rebuttal.

Emotions exist purely within the realm of my second above mentioned reality - the subjective, personal construct of reality within our brains. That reality most certainly exists ("I think therefore I am" proved that long ago), but that is only provable to ourselves - not each other. So while actions that we take exist within the objective shared reality, our emotional motivations exist purely in the subjective realm of our brains. Put another way - emotions and imagination exist within the same realm. If I were to write a story describing an imaginary place with fairies and unicorns you could take your brain to that imaginary place, but two things would be true: 1) the place you imagine will undoubtably be different from mine. Through shared and detailed communication we'll inevitably find differences between our two imaginary constructs and with additional communication bring them closer and closer to the same, but still they will remain forever different. 2) it will never occur to you that such a place actually exists. It clearly is an imaginary construct of my brain that I am attempting to communicate to you. Only through our shared ability to communicate (which is so often woefully inadequate to say the least!) are you able to even begin to get a glimmer of what my brain is constructing.

Therefore, since emotions and imagination exist within the same realm I'm curious to know why people are so quick to be sure that emotions actually exist. That is to say, they aren't any more or less real than our own imaginations albeit without the level of control we tend to exhibit over our imaginations.

Chuck Lee

January 3rd 2004, 12:06 PM

TenDimensions:

Oh! You're a mathematician? So then if you haven't already heard of Vernor Vinge's Singularity concept then you'll definitely be interested! I strongly recommend you check it out - I think you'll enjoy it immensely.

As far as creating a superhuman intelligence goes, it's hard to predict something like that. We're talking about something that presumably processes information faster with a greater memory capacity, and which is capable of self-awareness.

But a higher IQ is only as useful as you make it. You can have a relatively low IQ scientist who succeeds through perseverence, and a relatively high IQ couch potato who lives for reruns of "Gilligan's Island".

Additionally, new "superhuman" intelligence might not conflict with humanity at all, simply due to different interests and fields of activity. I don't think the creation of a higher level of intelligence (however one might define that) would be an indication that humanity would be on its way out, in and of itself.

James

January 3rd 2004, 12:13 PM

TenDimensions

January 3rd 2004, 02:26 PM

Today @ 11:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=361900#post361900)
Chuck Lee:
As far as creating a superhuman intelligence goes, it's hard to predict something like that. We're talking about something that presumably processes information faster with a greater memory capacity, and which is capable of self-awareness.

I think the most important fact of the Singularity concept is that we are on a curve that is leading to a point in which no further predictions will be possible because of the singularity point we will reach. If you mean it's hard to predict if we'll actually ever get to a superhuman intelligence - that's a different story. I happen to think it's inevitable given there is no evidence that it's impossible.

But a higher IQ is only as useful as you make it. You can have a relatively low IQ scientist who succeeds through perseverence, and a relatively high IQ couch potato who lives for reruns of "Gilligan's Island".

Agreed of course. But we're not exactly letting our computers be useless.

Additionally, new "superhuman" intelligence might not conflict with humanity at all, simply due to different interests and fields of activity. I don't think the creation of a higher level of intelligence (however one might define that) would be an indication that humanity would be on its way out, in and of itself.

That's absolutely true. But that speaks to the unpredictability of what happens after the singularity. If we are to agree that a singularity point can be reached we must also agree that there is no way to predict what that superhuman intelligence may want to do. Funny, but now that I'm thinking about it - if we can be so sure that a god-like intelligence we could create would be unpredictable why can we be so sure what the wishes of (if he exists?) God wants?

Ben Franklin

January 4th 2004, 04:58 PM

Yesterday @ 04:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=361911#post361911)
James:

With no intention of denigrating your response, I have to say that the greatest misconception about materialism is the notion that materialism cannot account for abstract concepts. Abstract concepts are generated by a physical entity: the human brain. Abstract concepts can be physically thought of as the relations between different neurons and their respective states within the human brain. Things are often more than the sum of their parts (in fact, this is a very peculiar consequence of quantum mechanics and the noncommutative nature of particle attributes: knowing one piece of information about a particle changes the nature of all the other pieces of information, so it is impossible to coherently describe a particle by "adding together" its various properties). This does not mean that everything does not have a physical explanation.

I tackled this exact same question in my "Ben Franklin's Theory of Knowledge" thread... I built a case on the relationship amongst sensations, perceptions, and concepts. Unfortunately, at the time, it was an esoteric debate between John Powell and myself.

Check it out...!

Ben Franklin's Theory of Knowledge (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=282727#post282727)

Ben Franklin

January 5th 2004, 04:27 AM

01-03-2004 @ 12:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=361347#post361347)
Patroclus:

I see what you are saying. However, being a materialist, you must assume that all reality exists. That is, all reality is made up of that which occupies time and space. If something does not occupy time and space, it does not exist, therefore, it must not be real. What you have, then, is an epistemological void whenever you encounter the dilema of the bathroom doors, or an abstract concept, like God.

I think that if stuff exists, then it should have some definable properties, but not necessarily directly perceivable ones. Otherwise, you're not talking about reality, right ? Yeah, I think stuff that exists has gotta have some kinda properties. God has gotta have some properties that define Him: dimension, etc...

EvoUK

January 5th 2004, 07:40 PM

to answer the OP, and to risk repeating myself (i posted in another thread previous to this one where the discussion was similar), i have to say i've used none of the above as an argument by themselves- rather as part of refutations to certain christian claims.

the only thing that i find personally convincing is that there is absolutely no valid reason i can think of to assume any god exists, or if one does, that it's relevent to my daily life. the concept of a god simply doesnt strike a cord with me (being apathetic towards religion and gods is an english thing i think...).

so, because i find the idea uncompelling, largely irrelevent, and sometimes even absurd i don't believe in a god.

btw- i chose none of the above, even though the last three seemed to be mostly facetious.

TenDimensions

January 5th 2004, 10:54 PM

Today @ 06:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=364394#post364394)
EvoUK:

to answer the OP, and to risk repeating myself (i posted in another thread previous to this one where the discussion was similar), i have to say i've used none of the above as an argument by themselves- rather as part of refutations to certain christian claims.

the only thing that i find personally convincing is that there is absolutely no valid reason i can think of to assume any god exists, or if one does, that it's relevent to my daily life. the concept of a god simply doesnt strike a cord with me (being apathetic towards religion and gods is an english thing i think...).

so, because i find the idea uncompelling, largely irrelevent, and sometimes even absurd i don't believe in a god.

btw- i chose none of the above, even though the last three seemed to be mostly facetious.

Out of curiosity then, how come you post here (which I think is probably a bit more of an interesting question for all of us to be asking of each other). :lol:

dhpierson

January 6th 2004, 05:16 AM

I definitely think that the alleged incoherence of the very concept of God is the strongest argument for atheism. What makes it so strong for me is that it can potentially be determined a priori, and, furthermore, that it can eliminate the idea of God in the traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic sense in all possible worlds. The sheer impossibility and, I would say, finality of God not existing should be, IMO, enough to make any theist take a serious look at "incoherency of God" arguments. This line of argumentation is, I think, becoming more prevalent in the philosophy of religion as well. The atheistic philosopher Michael Martin has recently co-edited an anthology of articles containing arguments for the impossibility of God.

EvoUK

January 6th 2004, 01:20 PM

Out of curiosity then, how come you post here (which I think is probably a bit more of an interesting question for all of us to be asking of each other

i find theology an interesting subject, even though the idea of a god itself doesn't strike a cord.

plus, i also find it interesting how so many people live by religious faith... i've yet to work out a reason for it though- but here's hoping. :smile:

Seasanctuary

January 14th 2004, 02:14 AM

01-06-2004 @ 05:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=365212#post365212)
EvoUK:
plus, i also find it interesting how so many people live by religious faith... i've yet to work out a reason for it though- but here's hoping. :smile:

I used to do it because I thought Christianity was metaphysically true. Now I don't, so I'm not.

Also, the party every Sunday morning can be fun. Maybe you should try it for that. ;)

Queen

January 14th 2004, 05:13 AM

To me it always was the evil in this world. "If there is a God why would there be so much misery and evil...."

But I always had a spiritual side and looked for the answers in different religions. I still don't have a good answer to thet question but the question has changed in "Why does God not protect all living creatures from so much pain and evil?"

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen:Q:

Satori

January 20th 2004, 06:25 PM

I think this thread is a bit silly.

In the absense of any sort of conclusive evidence, or compelling logic, to suppose that one of the world's vast numbers of religions/superstitions are actually valid, there is no need to examine atheistic arguments.

Unless someone can actually PROVE that any one or more of the gods of this world are actually real and not just wishful thinking or an outdated/ignorant fantasy, there is no need to justify the absense of these gods via atheistic arguments.

You may as well present arguments as to why the moon isn't made of green cheese.

Come on people, wake up, this isn't healthy. Let go of your selfish hopes, fears, and superstitions, and live in THIS reality, the reality in front of your face. Trust me, once you have made the transition, you'll be glad you did.

There is truly no substitute for real intellectual freedom. I don't care how many gods are making demands of you, threatening you, making appeals to your inherently selfish and egocentric nature, promising you various rewards an immortality (which is simply ridiculous) or blaming you for what is their own shortcomings. Intellectual liberation and spirtual freedom is grander than all of it.

No system of mythology or self-delusions are necessary to make your life worth living or to give your live meaning/direction. Life is bursting at the seams with meaning if you choose to see it that way.

best wishes

Pate

January 26th 2004, 12:11 PM

I think this thread is a bit silly.

In the absense of any sort of conclusive evidence, or compelling logic, to suppose that one of the world's vast numbers of religions/superstitions are actually valid, there is no need to examine atheistic arguments.

Atheist philosophers like Michael Martin and Quentin Smith would be very surprised (and probably somewhat disappointed) to learn that much of their work is actually nothing more than an excercise in silliness.

Unless someone can actually PROVE that any one or more of the gods of this world are actually real and not just wishful thinking or an outdated/ignorant fantasy, there is no need to justify the absense of these gods via atheistic arguments.

Even if such arguments are not needed to justify atheism, it doesn't follow that they are useless. No matter how low prior probability the existence of God may seem to have from the perspective of a convinced atheist, the probability will be even lower if there are good arguments against God's existence.

You may as well present arguments as to why the moon isn't made of green cheese.

And if this were an issue of serious debate (as the existence of God is), I certainly would present such arguments.

C. D. Ward

January 26th 2004, 12:44 PM

Even if such arguments are not needed to justify atheism, it doesn't follow that they are useless. No matter how low prior probability the existence of God may seem to have from the perspective of a convinced atheist, the probability will be even lower if there are good arguments against God's existence.

Very true. :thumb: Indeed, regardless of whether or not a god or gods exist, Philosophy of Religion, which is the academic discipline in which these ideas are discussed, has a great deal to contribute to the mutual understanding of what it means to be human. And that is most important indeed, regardless of the overall contribution of such arguments in settling the questions around the existence and nature of god(s).

Kyle

January 27th 2004, 12:09 AM

Seasanctuary

January 27th 2004, 04:01 AM

I would have to agree that the "incoherency" arguments are the most dangerous atheistic arguments. The fact that their truth implies a 0% chance of God existing makes them potentially fatal to the theistic hypothesis. Also, it does often seem difficult to counter incoherency claims.
Incoherency Arguments are focused attacks on certain definitions of God. All theists have to do to counter is do an ad hoc adjustment of their definition of God. The concept of "God" is extremely fuzzy, so any incoherency argument is not going to endanger "the theistic hypothesis" in general. Just a particular God.

Alternatively, theists can stand there all day claiming not to see a problem in the incoherency attack.

Even more obtuse is to claim the Atheist is assuming Theism to be actually true by making an incoherency claim ...and pretend you win by default. It goes like this:

Skeptic: God has property x and property y...and you can't have both of those.

Theist: Ha! Ha! You just used "God" as the subject of a sentence. You just admitted God exists.

Skeptic: :argh:

Pate

January 27th 2004, 04:10 AM

Even more obtuse is to claim the Atheist is assuming Theism to be actually true by making an incoherency claim ...and pretend you win by default. It goes like this:

Skeptic: God has property x and property y...and you can't have both of those.

Theist: Ha! Ha! You just used "God" as the subject of a sentence. You just admitted God exists.

Skeptic: :argh:

Hmm, have you really heard such claims made by theists somewhere?

Seasanctuary

January 27th 2004, 04:52 AM

Hmm, have you really heard such claims made by theists somewhere? It's my concise characterization of Harry Callahan's line of argumentation here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=400383&postcount=19) and here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=400431&postcount=20).

The following are his quotes from these two postings. Keep in mind that someone attacked with the Problem of Evil, which is one of the Incoherency Arguments:

"Then there is no problem of evil. The argument from evil assumes that evil is a fact."

"[...]because in an atheistic universe, evil does not exist as an objective fact. You cannot use your worldview to judge mine[...]"

"In your worldview, objective evil does not exist, so I am rejecting your claim that evil exists (hence, no problem of evil). You are however, welcome to assume my worldview (hence, no problem of evil)."

" If nothing is inherently moral or immoral then what is your problem with evil and a morally perfect God?"

"I am discussing whether you even have the right to the claim that "evil exists". So far, you have given no good reasons for me to believe that you can claim that evil exists, apart from what you term evil based on a very subjective system of morality. You cannot judge my worldview based on your worldview[...]"

"The point is not to get you to justify evil from within your worldview - I know that you can't (evil is another inconsistency in an atheistic universe). The whole point is to get you to assume my worldview to rationally explain evil (which you do) and the existence of God."

"Yes it does compromise your worldview since you cannot (and will not) rationally explain evil from within your worldview."

"I *never* assume your worldview - you cannot however, say the same thing - you *must* assume mine - more evidence, as Greg Bahnsen would say, that no true atheists exist. You have demonstrated this quite well (as have the other atheists), that you cannot rationally explain your worldview, so you assume mine." ...and back to me.

Now Harry's argumentation isn't crystal clear, but he does appear to making a move to claiming victory merely because someone used an Incoherency Argument on his position. As I explain in the same thread:

You appear to have a tendency to accuse an atheist who assumes theism for the sake of an argument to ACTUALLY take up theism (more so than for the sake of an argument)...but when a theist takes up atheism for the sake of an argument, she doesn't really take it up.

Somehow when I use a reductio against Christianity, I'm "borrowing" from the Christian worldview (which you sloppily assert means that I'm validating it)...but when you use a reductio against Atheism, you're magically "not borrowing" from the Atheistic worldview (which makes you feel like you're not validating it.)

I think you have a difficult time with the concept of taking up a position for the sake of an argument. You can't get clear that it doesn't require actually subscribing to the position. ...or wait, somehow it means one thing for you and another for me. :ahem:
So, Pate, it does appear I've been dealing something along the lines of the slightly exagerrated example you asked about.

Pate

January 27th 2004, 05:47 AM

It's my concise characterization of Harry Callahan's line of argumentation here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=400383&postcount=19) and here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=400431&postcount=20).

The following are his quotes from these two postings. Keep in mind that someone attacked with the Problem of Evil, which is one of the Incoherency Arguments

OK, I it may be a legitimate interpretation of those quotes that he's doing what you suggest he's doing (though I'm not sure). I would of course agree that in that case, his reasoning is fallacious. However, there are versions of the POE that do not presuppose the theistic worldview for the sake of an argument and then proceed to show its incoherence. Some versions just state thatevil actually exists and this is evidence that God doesn't.

Harry Callahan also mentioned Greg Bahnsen and while I'm not a big fan of him (and neither I'm an expert on his philosophy), I'm pretty sure that Bahnsen would have never use the argument in the way that you characterized. Bahnsen did hold that rationality and our different forms of knowledge, including moral knowledge, are impossible to justify within the atheistic worldview. But that's quite different from claiming that if the atheist grants theistic premises for the sake of an argument, then (s)he's really admitting that God exists.

Seasanctuary

January 27th 2004, 07:49 PM

OK, I it may be a legitimate interpretation of those quotes that he's doing what you suggest he's doing (though I'm not sure).
I'm not sure either. I just suspect that's part of it. Hopefully now that Harry's back from his week's haitus he can clarify it for me.

However, there are versions of the POE that do not presuppose the theistic worldview for the sake of an argument and then proceed to show its incoherence. Some versions just state thatevil actually exists and this is evidence that God doesn't.
Really? I didn't know that. Maybe he was responding to something like this and I got the wrong idea. *shrug*

This Bahnsen fellow seems to be cropping up a lot lately. I went looking for his presentation of TAG and found that I could pay money for it. It seems odd that I'm having trouble finding the finest presentations of TAG available on the net. It would seem a good service to make such things easy to get at. All I can find is the Infidels debates.

Ignatius J. Reilly

January 29th 2004, 02:10 AM

None.

kofh2u

January 30th 2004, 06:37 PM

The one incontroversial accomplishment of Jesus,... and a fulfillment of his prophecy,... was that no other name would even be in heaven,...
... meaning that place where the ancients agreed there diverse and their own oarticular god existed.

In this, the word atheist has no other meaning than anti-christianity or anti-christ.

Seriously, is the avowed anti-deist disavowing Zeus? I mean, I know of no one promoting his worship, today.

It is hard for us to realize that ancient people 2000 years ago, 30 x 70 years ago.. went to churches called Temples, sang songs, prayed for favors, and tithed... but to a whole list of mythological and astrological deities.

What the atheist today actually means is that he doesn't buy into the christian evangelia. He does still worship the ways of Mammon, though, or perhaos follows after others taking their chances with Gad, god of luck. Or, perhaps confident that their face is their fortune, they follow after the ways of Istar, giddess of the night,... marrying and divorcing as fits their satisfaction on economic and cultural demands made upon their spouse.

Whatever. It is my opinion that the presumed "atheists" are essentially just anti-christians, but neverthekess still worship, themselves, in the most ancient of ritual patterns.

Those 3ho argue against this, I find, are usually ego-centric, educated people, confident in a conceit of sophisticated "wisdom" such that they fail to even recognize therie membership in the church of Nebo.

Seasanctuary

January 30th 2004, 07:40 PM

The one incontroversial accomplishment of Jesus,... and a fulfillment of his prophecy,... was that no other name would even be in heaven,...
Are you saying that Jesus accomplished the removal of all other Gods? If so, let me introduce you to Allah and Brahman.

In this, the word atheist has no other meaning than anti-christianity or anti-christ.
There are more religious people who aren't Christian than who are Christian in the world today. Especially if you ask the Christians.

Seriously, is the avowed anti-deist disavowing Zeus? I mean, I know of no one promoting his worship, today.
You answered your own question. Atheists don't spend much time critiquing worshippers of Zeus because there aren't many worshippers of Zeus.

It is hard for us to realize that ancient people 2000 years ago, 30 x 70 years ago.. went to churches called Temples, sang songs, prayed for favors, and tithed... but to a whole list of mythological and astrological deities.
And this is so very different from today?

What the atheist today actually means is that he doesn't buy into the christian evangelia.
Sorry, being an Atheist is different from being a religious Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, or a Buddhist.
Whatever. It is my opinion that the presumed "atheists" are essentially just

Those 3ho argue against this, I find, are usually ego-centric, educated people, confident in a conceit of sophisticated "wisdom" such that they fail to even recognize therie membership in the church of Nebo.
I fail to see how my complaints about God torturing most people forever is ego-centric. I care for people and don't want to see them hurt. I had the same feeling when I was a Christian, so it's not true that I'm against the idea just because I'm not on Billy Graham's Heaven list.

And to prove your point...what's the church of Nebo? :smile: