Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
go-B
climber
In God We Trust
|
|
A friend to God is a friend of mine!
GoBee
Hey Lynne!
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Trad climber
Will know soon
|
|
Hey, go-B
and thanks for the Hey. It calmed me abit. Peace, Joy and Love to ya....lynnie
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
don't know you from eve, lynne--all i know is what you post here. i assume it has something to do with your thoughts. i see your "son" is giving you warm fuzzies. if it's about love, it's also about joining the gang.
ed, i stopped having fascination with catholic constructs long ago. they're based on the writings of thomas aquinas, the "angelic doctor" who took the strained intellectualizations of aristotle and applied them to christian doctrine. thus we have the "ineffable" soul which makes us oh so different from war-waging, segue-driving chimpanzees. we have the communion wafer "transsubstantiated" into jesus at the moment of consecration. aristotle spoke of substance and accidents, his ancient understanding of physics, yes, sophisticated for the time, but ignorant of modern science. for me, aristotle was an evolutionary dead-end, a homo robustus of philosophy, and aquinas followed him into extinction. but hey, if it works for you ...
modern evolution--the thread everyone seems to have deserted to come over here--cooks up a different, realistic, threatening to some, but not hopeless view of what we are. you don't have the aristotelian metaphysics hovering over it all. i think it's a helluva lot more interesting.
btw, lynne, i am not hostile to reports of miracles. i know of a few myself, but they don't have the aura of magical power you get in biblical-style "omnipotence". rather, they have to do with powers intrinsic in us as the thinking animals we are, with a possible collective aspect, as carl jung suggested. i cast them in the realm of the natural but paranormal. open that door and there's lots to see, and, in my opinion, all within the legitimate realm of science. yes, i tend to be blunt. put your bible down for awhile and read other books.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
in that same vein, we can look at the "background" john long mentioned and consider reports of what you might call jacob's ladder, the commerce between heaven and earth which the bible said would take place. i'm sure lots of people have claims about this. reverend sung myung moon spoke with jesus on a mountain top. effing good for him.
what i know from my little experiences through a psychic--and perhaps some psychic experiences of my own--is that it's more like what john long described. i think jacob's ladder is wishful thinking. but i think we've also gotten a little unexpected hope in a different direction, and that's with science. people who are really passionate about this stuff should study science. i wish i had had the opportunity to study it more.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
It seems absurd beyond imagination that madbolter1 or anyone else could make a serious philosophical argument regarding the existence of God. The OP title is not about a philosophical argument because that is not "why so many people believe in God."
In fact, this entire thread has been fundamentally philosophical, which is the nature of such questions. If the OP wasn't raising a philosophical question, then what was it?
And, "absurd" means something like irrational or contradictory or at least wildly paradoxical, so I don't see how anybody's efforts to make a serious philosophical argument about the existence of God could be any of the above.
For example, Anselm about 1000 years ago generated the ontological argument. That argument has been called many things; "absurd" is not among them. Kant thought he had undermined the argument by showing that "existence" is not a "greater making" property because "exists" is not a predicate. However, what we have learned about predicate logic since Kant shows that we can rigorously formulate Anselm's argument in modern predicate logic terms, saying what Anselm was trying to say, without employing "exists" in the predicate role (it instead acts as a quantifier, which is entirely legitimate, even on Kant's model). So, Kant seems to not have had the last word on this one. So this is one "philosophical argument" that is certainly not "absurd" by any stretch.
Furthermore, arguments from the objectivity of morality, among others, are taken very seriously among intellectuals. Even the radical empiricist/skeptic/atheist, J.L. Mackie, acknowledged that a properly formulated divine command theory of ethics could answer his skeptical challenge, although he doubted that such an argument would ever be formulated.
In the ensuing decades, and shortly before Mackie's death, a number of top-flight philosophers, including past APA president, Philip Quinn, have formulated book-length, extremely rigorous divine command theories of objective ethics that have largely laid that debate to rest. As Quinn summarized shortly before his death: "Theists have been getting the better of the arguments." Remember that Quinn was president of the APA, which indicates the respect accorded him; so this was no "crackpot" thinker awash in a sea of theist thinkers. Philosophers are, by and large, not theists. Yet Quinn's work was widely acknowledged as seminal and compelling.
Just because you are not familiar with decades (even millenia) of work on the subject of God's existence does not mean that argumentative attempts are "absurd."
And nobody is going for a "proof" here anyway. The best we can hope for on either side of the debate is a cogent, cumulative-case argument.
The OP suggested that it's not rational to believe in something that can't be "proved," and it is to that notion that I have responded. The typical atheist responses on this thread indicate what is widely known: atheists today take up a primary approach of trying to make Christianity seem stupid, blind, mindless, and so forth. I have agreed that often Christians are all of the above. But that's the human condition, not the Christian condition, as has been evidenced by many on this thread.
My goal has been, and continues to be, to argue that Christianity need not be ignorant, blind, foolish, stupid, etc., that instead Christianity can offer an intellectually respectable world view, taking all of the evidence into account.
I am opposed to all forms of dogmatism, and it saddens me that Christians exhibit so much of it! Conversely, there has been plenty of that to go around on this thread from the atheist side of the debate as well.
So, at this point I would only note that people should be very careful that they are not painting themselves with the "stupid" brush in their claims about the stupidity of Christianity.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Paul, all of your attempts with the problem of evil indicate that you didn't read or didn't understand what I wrote about time/tense. I clearly showed that backward-looking knowledge does not impinge on free will, and you have not answered that point at all. Furthermore, all of your attempts are fundamentally tensed, which begs the question. If God is timeless, then His "foreknowledge" is something like tenseless knowledge, and there is no reason to think that such knowledge impinges on free will. As long as you continue to employ tense in your attempts, you are just spinning your wheels.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Finally, for the night, when I say virtually severed in half, I mean exactly what I say. My sister was leaning forward as we walked her into the house, and the sides of her tongue were thin strips of meat, with the middle cleaved through. The yucca leaf had penetrated all the way through her tongue and pierced the back of her throat.
And the idea that even small mouth wounds bleed a lot doesn't even touch what "a lot" means. We took my sister to the doctor after the healing because she had lost a LOT of blood. This was no minor scratch that I magnified in my mind to be something more. I saw her tongue, and even the doctor saw the small scar in the back of her throat.
Whatever other account you want to try to float about the incident, what's not going to fly is that this was some minor wound.
And, finally, even if it was much more minor than I am claiming, the fact remains that her mouth was pouring blood from some sort of wound. Yet, after prayer there was no wound whatsoever.
Honestly, I don't expect to convince anybody with the story. That is not my point or purpose. Somebody Else's story should not convince YOU. But what it SHOULD do is have you thinking that IF the thing came down as I say, it would offer some pretty compelling evidence to ME of a supernatural interaction.
If you can't even grant that much, then, as I pointed out much earlier, that fact just indicates that there is NO encounter with the supernatural that could, in principle, threaten your cozy atheism. So, your world view is unfalsifiable in principle. And if that's the case, then you have nothing to say to indict Christians for being "blindly dogmatic" and other such things.
|
|
rrrADAM
climber
|
|
I have a question for any and all.....why is it so important how old the earth is. I've read the Bible a ton and it's not really an issue at all. Jesus never talks about it. Who cares, really ? Simple...
1. Because 10's of millions of Xians in the US believe it is less than 10,000 years old, and believe the Bible indirectly says as much. (re: Usher) This is EASILY a falsifiable belief, yet they are so deluded and in denial that they will not see it.
2. Same goes for evolution, as the same group denies evolution, because of their warped world view... And note that while they are in the fringe minority* of Xians to believe this, it's still 10's of millions in the US, which is more than significant.
(*The vast majority of Xians worldwide are Cathies, or other denominations, who accept Evolution, Big Bang, and an old Earth and Universe as undeniable.)
3. This leads to things like wanting to undermine science in schools, with faith based psuedoscience, and even a recent 11 to 2 vote by the Texas School Board to remove any and all reference to the age of the universe and the Earth from Middle and High School text books, to leave enough room for it to be 6,000 years old.
Or, just 2 weeks ago, Texas (once again) voted to revamp their social studies cariculum, including history, to lesson the significance of and/or replace people like Thomas Jefferson with John Calvin. They want to rewrite history, to "focus on the fact that America was founded on Christian principals"... It wasn't!
End result... We are ranked 18 out of 20 industialized nations as far as education goes. 18 !!! And it's only getting worse, so how is our next generation going to compete acedemically, or even in a skilled (math, science) job market?
So, you ask: "What's the big deal?"
Do you think academically handicapping MILLIONS of kids is a big deal? Look at "mad", for example... His thinking process is so screwed up he cannot even be reasoned with, and he believes in magic. There is a vocal group who is successfully lobbying to teach this crap to our kids in school. Or, isn't there a school teacher on this site who believes that there is an ark on the far side of the moon, that broguht aliens here who had a hand in the populating of this planet, and that he even confidently ties it to Biblical text?
Not to hard to imagine...
People put their faith in a book they think is accurate... I'll ask you:
1. What were the last words of Jesus?
2. Did Jesus ride into town on 1 or 2 animals?
Or, perhaps you'd prefer hearing it from one of the founders of the Xian Right here in America, who has since come to his senses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IaAsBjoaj8
Look... My wife is a Cathie, and I was even there when my kids were Christined (Baptized). I'm not "anti" Jesus / God, I am "anti STUPID", and if someone wants to be stupid fine, treat it like masturbation... Something they love to do, in the privacy of their home, and are often too embarrassed to talk about it in public. Don't wank all over kids in school.
As a Moderate, YOU should speak out against these religious nut jobs, just as we expect moderate Muslims to speak out against the fringe minority of extremist ones. They need to be marginalized and recognized as the nuts they are.
Lastly... There is nothing 'philosophical' about what I have stated regarding science, observation, or reality... Or what I've asked about the same. No "woo" here.
As Feynman said:
"Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds."
People want to invoke philosophy, when it suits them, when they have their backs against the wall, and can't (won't) answer something that is inconvenient.
As Bertrand Russell said:
"Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know."
The FACT that people like 'mad' cannot answer such simple questions I have asked shows just how absurd his beliefs are. He has to ignore and deny... He can't even go there... All he, and his ilk, can do is speak "woo".
Example... He writes above:
And nobody is going for a "proof" here anyway. The best we can hope for on either side of the debate is a cogent, cumulative-case argument. Yet he doesn't allow anything to accumulate in the scale opposite his... He controls what he puts in the scales, adds weight to things that confirm his belief, yet lessons the weight of, or in this thread, refuses to even put things that compete with his view in the scales... He won't even look at it or consider it, much less weigh it. So, how can he even come to any type of objective decision? Seriously?
Morton's Demon is strong in him.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
this thread is great fun. i never thought i'd get around to playing the devil's advocate FOR the existence of god, but here goes.
the ontological argument has always held an appeal to me because of feelings and nothing else. ever have the feeling overtake you--existence, wow! i mean, things exist. it could have been that nothing would have existed, but that is not the case.
sound dumb? maybe so, but it's basically a raw feeling. i'm not sure st. anselm nails it down either, but i think perhaps it's what inspired him.
i've had such feelings from a pretty young age. i got a kick out of the posting of a bunch of babies labeled "atheists". technically not true. a-beliefsystemists would be a better description. but the feelings about the remarkableness of existence impressed me shortly after those baby days, and to tell the truth, they were more powerful and more frequent then.
another good argument for the existence of god might be the universal desire for god, which seems to be a product of evolution. e-v-o-l-u-t-i-o-n. read that, all you bible thumpers out there. evolution as an argument FOR the existence of god, but AGAINST a literal interpretation of that hodgepodge book, your bible.
so how does that work? remarkable, amazing human life, the strain of evolution that gave us mozart's g-minor symphony and einstein's E=mc2, has roots and resonance in nature, and not just among primates. if you think otherwise, you just haven't looked at contemporary evolutionary science very closely. we are products of a very narrow set of astrochemical circumstances, perhaps "one to a galaxy," but it is what it is, and that's the best information we have to date. if you like the idea of soul, see it in nature, because it's there. there is nothing being "infused" into us, "the image and likeness of god" as the catholic mantra goes. god "picked an australopithecine" to start infusing?
to me, god has become an open question. but the desire for god tends to indicate that perhaps it would make sense to consider that there is a god. the desire is pretty widespread and it goes pretty far back.
an atheist is someone who has slammed the door on the open question. i hate to say so, but such people seem to lose something in the process. they have white knuckles on closed fists, exactly the same hue as that of fistfighting believers.
madbolt: the case of your sister's tongue has the ring of truth to it. so does the mexican miracle of guadalupe, which the catholic church refuses to recognize, although it's happy to take contributions from all the believing mexicans it brought into its fold.
your conclusion is that "god" healed that tongue. a paranormal scientist would suspect that the power came from those who loved her and responded to the emergency with powers they mustered ad hoc, powers most of us don't know we have. prayer doesn't work in all times, all places, all emergencies. if god is your explanation, it becomes a fickle, favorites-playing god, just the sort of thing to make atheists out of fair-minded people.
|
|
rrrADAM
climber
|
|
the ontological argument has always held an appeal to me because of feelings and nothing else. Like I said, for many, they believe with "all their heart" at the expense of "all their head".
A mother can be sitting in court, seeing her son wearing an orange jumpsuit on trial for murder... She can see all the same evidence that the jury sees: his gun, motive, lets say even video of him killing the guy, yet she believes "with all her heart" that her son is incapable of murder, and thus inoccent. And she can confidently believe this until the day she dies.
Doesn't make it so.
"In situations that matter, mythologies are immensely powerful things, and sometimes we humans go to enormous lengths to see the world as we think it should be, even when the evidence says we are mistaken."
~Robert Laughlin
When people are CONVINCED in their hearts that their everlasting soul is at stake, their mind doesn't stand a chance.
we are products of a very narrow set of astrochemical circumstances, perhaps "one to a galaxy," but it is what it is, and that's the best information we have to date. And if evolution was rewound a couple billion years and set in motion again, we would be here. US being the result, right now (as we're still evolving), was just as random as which atom might decay in a sample of radioisotope at any given moment.
To believe otherwise appeases our "feelings", but it disagrees with what we know about evolution.
|
|
rrrADAM
climber
|
|
Nor do your arguments. As always, D, you are correct when you say this. But I just can't stop fighting windmills.
"Those that have convictions that are not arrived at by reason can not be unconvinced by reason."
~Unknown
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Just because you are not familiar with decades (even millenia) of work on the subject of God's existence does not mean that argumentative attempts are "absurd."
And nobody is going for a "proof" here anyway. The best we can hope for on either side of the debate is a cogent, cumulative-case argument.
The absurdity that I refer to is the fact that after more than 2000 years some of the best minds of humanity have really nothing more to provide than a set of rather arcane logical arguments based on tortured definitions which are, by and large, irrelevant to the faithful. I doubt that most believers in the Christian construction of God require the "foundational" underpinnings provided by ancient and modern philosophical discourse and study. For them there is a "ring of truth" to the parables and the lessons as reported in their Bible. And they have learned to seek acceptance not though reason and logic, but through belief and spiritual inspiration.
There is not a debate going on, rather a set of polemical arguments regarding the possibility to make, as you put it, a "cumulative-case argument." State the "resolution" of the debate you think you are engaged in, this is not usually phrased as a question. And if the "audience" for the debate are the STForum lurkers, then at some point we would have a vote as to "who won," not likely to happen...
...rather this is a statement of position from the participants, a detailed exposition of their points-of-view. It is unlikely that any of the participants will change their mind. Would you?
My position in this is clear, in the matter of God, formal philosophy is as useless to coming to grips with the construction as is Physics, both disciplines require the application of rational argument. The modern concept of God avoids, by construction, the possibility of rational argument, precisely because of the failure of philosophy and science to make statements regarding God that are considered relevant by those who believe.
Physics has long ago moved beyond the need to invoke God. Philosophy would be better off it did the same.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
"... that after more than 2000 years some of the best minds of humanity ..."
The best minds of humanity?
You have not yet even seen nor understood who the real best minds in humanity are.
The best minds of humanity have a disciplic succession that goes back billions of years.
The Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Sampradaya
The original knowledge to split the atom came from them .....
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
The rant master Dr. F speaks again about something he knows absolutely nothing about.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Two thirds of the entire cosmic creation know the truth. The other third is the material creation.
And you Dr. F. who is one grain of sand in that entire cosmic creation which includes infinite living entity's speaks always with Superiority here.
You're and insect with no knowledge.
Become a human being first ....
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Trad climber
Will know soon
|
|
I have to correct myself. Last time I asked why is it so important to know the age of the earth etc. Ed Hartouni gave me a very good answer. So I know scientifically it is important.
I guess what I don't understand is why this needs to become a divisive topic between "Christians" and "Non Christians". Even scientists disagree with one another on certain topics, but respect (usually) one anothers opinions.
|
|
rrrADAM
climber
|
|
I guess what I don't understand is why this needs to become a divisive topic between "Christians" and "Non Christians". Read my post regarding it's VERY REAL negative effects on education.
Not to mention funding for science here in the US.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Confidence presents, too often, the illusion of knowledge.
Everyone should look in the mirror and say, I may very well be wrong.
In the face of sublime mystery, religious apology or explanation inevitably decays into solipsism;
science does its best to avoid that inevitability by theorizing with the expectation of its own error.
Solipsism as in:
"This body is the Bodhi-tree,
The mind a mirror bright.
Take care to wipe them always clean.
Lest dust on them alight."
Which is answered by:
"There never was a Bodhi-tree
Nor any mirror bright.
Since nothing at the root exists,
On what should what dust alight?"
Of course, I could very well be wrong.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
paul roehl
Every word we hear has a meaning behind it.
As soon as we hear the word “water,” there is a substance water behind the word.
But saying the material word "water" will never quench ones thirst for the man dying in the desert ......
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!