Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

[M.D. Rawlings]

I seriously doubt I am in any way qualified to judge the various theories regarding the beginning of the universe and it really doesn't impact me. I don't believe any of those theories even address the issue of a deity, let alone provide any answers. I will leave the question of the origins of the universe to those who have prepared themselves for that study.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with faith. There is nothing wrong with belief. Ultimately, the only person you need satisfy is yourself. If it feels right to you, then it is only right you accept it.

I don't know. I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory. There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody. And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'

For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it. For instance, an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement. I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science. But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.

Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief. Who is to say who got it right? Not me. And what is the alternative? To only do it if it feels wrong?

You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence. The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe. There is nothing else. Everyone is going to approach that differently. I take it you are a Christian. In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian. It makes no sense to me at all. But you are and I doubt you're crazy. It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe. You are not an extension of me.

Careful, Fox. There is scientific evidence for God's existence: the universe! including its contents, its formulations, its processes, its mechanics and its physical laws.

PratchettFan's woefully confused. In his mind, he's unwittingly superimposing what is in fact a scientifically unfalsifiable apriority, a purely metaphysical presupposition on the pertinent evidentiary concerns regarding the problem of origin. He's unwittingly playing at scientism, not science.

Instead, the substance of a transcendent First Cause resides beyond the limits of scientific verification. That's all. But the substance of the evidence for a transcendent First Cause is material, physical, empirical, accessible to the scrutiny of science and the imperatives of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness.

This assertion of his that there is no empirical evidence for God's existence is mindless sloganeering. He's simply never stopped long enough to think about the absurd and, by the way, contradictory implications of what he's alleging. More on why his assertion is manifestly false in a moment. . . .

I don't really think he is MDR. My initial response to his post you quoted here was a knee jerk response probably triggered by debating something close to this topic with some major league numbnuts elsewhere. But after reconsidering the point I think he is making here, I may or may not agree with it after some careful consideration, but I think he is coming from a reasoned place. And I think he meant no personal insults by his comments that initially ruffled my feathers a bit. Which prompted my apology to him in a subsequent post.

Well, no, he meant no insult, I'm sure. But if he is asserting, as it seems to me, that there is no evidence for God's existence . . . see my post below for why that's absurd.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Cosmological Argument is the argument regarding the First Cause of what?

The universe!


The ontological argument is the argument for the actual existence of what?

The idea of a Being of unparalleled perfection that exists in the human mind!


The argument from the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin is the argument for the universal reality of what?

The non-contingency of the idea of God that exists in the human mind!


The teleological argument is the argument for the fine-tuned composition of what?

The universe!


The transcendental argument is the argument for the necessity of a non-contingent ground for what?

The existence of the universally absolute laws of logic/the universally absolute rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness.

 

[House Mouse]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

The flaw in your approach is that you're tackling an issue, faith, and asking the faithful to enter your realm and provide logical proof. If they had logic, then they wouldn't need faith.

Secondly, you're overlooking the issue of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.

I'm not looking for evidence either, since I don't need to assert a counter-claim for your positive claim to fall short.

I didn't make a claim, I pointed out some issues. I'm an Atheist.

You take issue with asking that people support their own claims?

Personally I find it pointless to engage a person who is putting forth a faith-based proposition and demanding that he provide evidence in support of his faith. Such an encounter is operating at two different levels. I learned this after about 6 months of arguing with Religious Believers and then I tired of beating my head against the wall.

On the other hand though, we all get different needs met by engaging in debate. Go with what works.

And I find it pointless to engage a person that denies God, or to ask them to please show proof that He doesn't exist. I know as well as anyone else, that it cannot be done... so why waste my time with a mind as closed as a sprung bear trap??

If someone chooses to not believe, well let them not believe. My job here on earth is to present the Gospel and let each individual have the opportunity into either accepting the free gift of Salvation, or reject it. Just because a person rejects the gift of Salvation, doesn't necessarily mean they are bad people,,,,It's the people that demean others for their belief or disbelief that I feel are troublesome....

What is logical and real to me is that I can see God working all around me every day... I see the results of the work of His hands....and I see the most wonderful and remarkable positive changes in those that actually accept Christ as Lord of their life,,
I mean accept and believe with all of their heart, not just go through the motions, or mouth the words...

Have a nice evening

 

[ninja007]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

look up. Have you read the bible? If not (I doubt you have) as even many Believer's haven't you will see the heavens declare the glory of God. And whether you believe it or not does not matter one bit. Btw- that breath you are currently taking as you read my reply OP? Thank God for it because He is the only one sustaining your fragile life. If you do not accept Jesus as your Savior before you draw your last breath? You will be lost forever and suffering in eternity for rejecting your God.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Science has provided powerful evidence of God's existence. The more we learn about life from microbiology, the more we find staggering complexity that we can't even begin to match with modern technology. There are bio-machines whose technology we can only envy.

And this staggering complexity raises a fatal question for evolution: How could "natural selection" have selected so many components (1) that provided no advantage in and of themselves, (2) that would only be useful later on, and (3) and that would only be useful later on in bio-machines that would perform functions that did not even exist at the time the components were supposedly "selected" by "natural selection"?

Of course, the humanist response is that Lady Luck ("natural selection") was unbelievably lucky, over and over and over again, for not only did "natural selection" supposedly repeatedly choose worthless components that would later be used for bio-machines that performed previously non-existent functions, but "somehow" those components were magically assembled in just the right order so as to enable the bio-machines (such as the flagellum) to function. Amazing!

That is "blind faith."

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organisation and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Well, it would take a book to explain to you in detail why your attempt to overthrow the teleological argument is so . . . unnecessarily convoluted, that is, elaborately complex. While your second paragraph succinctly summarizes the complex, albeit, redundantly obtuse objections raised by critics in the past, theists have already swept all that noise away, and your allusion to the God in the gaps fallacy is not relevant to the ultimate thrust of the teleological argument in spite of what the Christian naturalist Henry Drummond mistakenly imagined as he foolishly lent credence to the atheist's erroneous criticisms, which have been subsequently quashed.

Hence, we need not bother with the dated misapprehensions of your second paragraph in any detail, as the debate has moved on to—or is it back to?—what the teleological argument is ultimately all about: the fact that our universe is finely tuned for sapient life. The argument's concern with the cosmos' finely arranged complexity is the subordinate concomitant, not the argument's culmination. Your critique of the argument on the basis of its allegation of a finely arranged complexity, without grasping/addressing the ultimate point, is the non sequitur here. You're nearly two-hundred years behind the same eight ball as was Drummond.

Indeed, it took the naysayers of the Twentieth Century several decades to realize what theists were ultimately getting at: the processes leading to the actualization of all these wondrous things are necessarily contingent to or bottomed on a singularly discrete and indispensable regiment of physical laws and conditions which permitted the cosmos to achieve the ability to contemplate itself in the first place. Sentience. While this is not an absolute logical proof of God's existence, it arguably serves as an evidentially sufficient basis on which to reasonably assert His existence in terms of the cosmos's ultimate purpose.

Hence, unlike the absolute logical proofs of justification—the Cosmological and transcendental arguments, and the argument from the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin, which unambiguously settle on a transcendent Sentience—the teleological argument is arguably, at first blush, a conditional/propositional proof regarding the ultimate origin for the existence of sapient life on Earth. But when its ultimate thrust is finally apprehended, after the cobwebs of misapprehension are cleared away, especially in the context of the absolute logical proofs serving as the foundation: it's implications are powerfully relevant.

Still not convinced as to why that is so?

What's wrong with your suggestion, sealybobo, regarding the undeniable potentiality of a non-transcendent extraterrestrial intelligence being responsible for the existence of sapient life on Earth? Why does it fail to undermine the ultimate thrust of the teleological argument?

Answer: Because the existence of such an extraterrestrial intelligence would be no less contingent to the origin of the very same singularly discrete and indispensable regiment of physical laws and conditions. The initial appearance of sapient life, whether it occurred here on Earth or somewhere else in the universe, doesn't undermine the teleological argument's transcendent implications after all.

Don't feel too bad about this though, as we methodological theists have simply been doing the logic of deep apologetics longer than theistic naturalists and atheists. . . .

I wish that you would rather opt to apprehend the reasons why God must be, but if you must go on conflating agency with the physical laws of the cosmos, I strongly suggest that you lose the passé counter-apologetics of the Nineteenth-Century and adopt the current objection developed by those who finally came to grips with the enduring, though, for a season, obscured, transcendent implications of the fact that the universe is fine-tuned, acknowledge today by most cosmologists and physicists, at the very least, for the prerequisite conditions allowing for the existence of the indispensable precursors of life: namely, the anthropic principle as predicated on the statistical dynamics of a multiverse providing for an arguably credible model of selection bias.

Mind you, this still doesn't in any way undermine the construct of a transcendent, eternally self-subsistent Sentience of ultimate origin, or for that matter, the transcendent implications of the teleological argument, as, no doubt, most of the aforementioned cosmologists and physicists imagine. Illusion. On the contrary, if true, if subject to scientific falsification, a questioned yet to be answered, it would underscore the construct of God as a Being of unlimited power and genius, though in the end, for our purposes here, it would merely mean that some universes would not be contemplated . . . at least not by any indigenous residents.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

God would probably consider me a maverick, but as a Christian I have never felt compelled to try to win over atheists or to convince them of God's existence. They are arrogant and childish little pricks and having to live in the same world with them in the afterlife would probably be more like Hell than Heaven. I'm perfectly content to leave them to their own ignorant and one-dimensional thinking so that they end up on a lower plane.
What's funny to me is how they think they're intellectually superior than everyone else because of their beliefs, when in fact THEY are the ones who lack the ability to even consider the possibility that they might not be the pinnacle of intelligence in the universe. Maybe they're too stupid to know that science has made great progress because it leaves the door open to ALL possibilities, not just the ones their tunnel vision allows them to see.

This article is right up your alley: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can t explain the universe without God Daily Mail Online

On the other hand, I do care very much for those ensnarled in the fallacious objections to God's existence, and it's worthwhile to address their concerns as honestly and civilly as possible on their terms. The fact of the matter is that there are three or four atheists on this thread who are reasonable persons who simply may not have had the opportunity to reconsider their options given the rash of secular thought that pervades popular culture and academia. The tone on this thread is rare on this forum. Most of the atheists on this forum fill our pages with name-calling and sneer, never getting to anything substantive. Why? Because most of the atheists on this forum don't Jack about Jill when it comes to the science, let alone anything about the pertinent history of ideas and events that have shaped the arguments.

The new atheism's bald claim that these arguments have been overthrown is absurd. On the contrary, extant cosmology and physics dramatically support the inference of God's existence as they scream the metaphysics of Christianity, but most atheists are not going to know enough about Christian metaphysics, for example, to see that. Many are operating on scientifically dated or mangled understandings of the arguments for God's existence, not even realizing that these arguments are adaptable and have been adapted to address our current understanding of things. That's where today's atheist is. Do a search as I did about a year ago for atheistic counterarguments and you'll see what I mean. They're everywhere! Attacking dated expressions of/poorly formulated expressions of these arguments in many cases. 99% of them are based on misconceptions or undetected logical errors, even those presented by the likes of Hawking.

 

[Foxfyre]

I seriously doubt I am in any way qualified to judge the various theories regarding the beginning of the universe and it really doesn't impact me. I don't believe any of those theories even address the issue of a deity, let alone provide any answers. I will leave the question of the origins of the universe to those who have prepared themselves for that study.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with faith. There is nothing wrong with belief. Ultimately, the only person you need satisfy is yourself. If it feels right to you, then it is only right you accept it.

I don't know. I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory. There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody. And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'

For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it. For instance, an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement. I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science. But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.

Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief. Who is to say who got it right? Not me. And what is the alternative? To only do it if it feels wrong?

You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence. The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe. There is nothing else. Everyone is going to approach that differently. I take it you are a Christian. In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian. It makes no sense to me at all. But you are and I doubt you're crazy. It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe. You are not an extension of me.

Careful, Fox. There is scientific evidence for God's existence: the universe! including its contents, its formulations, its processes, its mechanics and its physical laws.

PratchettFan's woefully confused. In his mind, he's unwittingly superimposing what is in fact a scientifically unfalsifiable apriority, a purely metaphysical presupposition on the pertinent evidentiary concerns regarding the problem of origin. He's unwittingly playing at scientism, not science.

Instead, the substance of a transcendent First Cause resides beyond the limits of scientific verification. That's all. But the substance of the evidence for a transcendent First Cause is material, physical, empirical, accessible to the scrutiny of science and the imperatives of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness.

This assertion of his that there is no empirical evidence for God's existence is mindless sloganeering. He's simply never stopped long enough to think about the absurd and, by the way, contradictory implications of what he's alleging. More on why his assertion is manifestly false in a moment. . . .

I don't really think he is MDR. My initial response to his post you quoted here was a knee jerk response probably triggered by debating something close to this topic with some major league numbnuts elsewhere. But after reconsidering the point I think he is making here, I may or may not agree with it after some careful consideration, but I think he is coming from a reasoned place. And I think he meant no personal insults by his comments that initially ruffled my feathers a bit. Which prompted my apology to him in a subsequent post.

Well, no, he meant no insult, I'm sure. But if he is asserting, as it seems to me, that there is no evidence for God's existence . . . see my post below for why that's absurd.

Taking into account your lengthy and scholarly post preceding this one, it is not absurd at all when it comes to convincing somebody else. To you, to me, to Einstein, to billions, reason and logic tell us that all of this had to come from something as we rationally deduce that nothing comes from nothing. Reason tells us that there was some kind of intelligence involved in the origin. What that origin is however is undiscernible and unknowable UNLESS one has experienced the Creator that we choose to call God.

All your education, all your explanations, all your scholarly concepts and theological semantics--that is not criticism but only one admirer's observation --will not convince another soul that God is or has ever been. He/she who is determined not to believe will not see that you have presented any evidence at all. A closed mind is closed to all reason or logic or different possibilities and we Christians (and all other faiths) are not given power to open a mind determined to be closed. Only the possessor of that closed mind can do that.

So in my opinion, we do the Lord no favors by criticizing or condemning those who will not see. All we can do is put the idea, the vision, the truth out there in hopes that a light bulb will come on or curiosity will be peaked. And those who choose to be blind will be able to see.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

And I find it pointless to engage a person that denies God, or to ask them to please show proof that He doesn't exist. I know as well as anyone else, that it cannot be done... so why waste my time with a mind as closed as a sprung bear trap??

If someone chooses to not believe, well let them not believe. My job here on earth is to present the Gospel and let each individual have the opportunity into either accepting the free gift of Salvation, or reject it. Just because a person rejects the gift of Salvation, doesn't necessarily mean they are bad people,,,,It's the people that demean others for their belief or disbelief that I feel are troublesome....

What is logical and real to me is that I can see God working all around me every day... I see the results of the work of His hands....and I see the most wonderful and remarkable positive changes in those that actually accept Christ as Lord of their life,,
I mean accept and believe with all of their heart, not just go through the motions, or mouth the words...

Have a nice evening

I agree with this, but would point out one thing. The classical arguments for God's existence, though formally asserted during the Classical and Scholastic eras by natural philosophers and Christian theologians, are in the Bible, variously expressed in prophetic pronouncements, proverbs, parables, poetry, rather than in any formal syllogistic fashion. The Book of Job, however, comes very close to making formal expressions of them. In fact, it asserts all of them in the process of dealing with the problem of evil and God's absolute prerogative regarding the affairs of His creation. I have no problem engaging atheists or agnostics where they're at insofar as they wish to discuss the matter in good faith. These arguments are pertinent to the imperatives of human reason endowed by God, and God equips some to annunciate the apologetics touching on His existence.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

The flaw in your approach is that you're tackling an issue, faith, and asking the faithful to enter your realm and provide logical proof. If they had logic, then they wouldn't need faith.

Secondly, you're overlooking the issue of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.

I'm not looking for evidence either, since I don't need to assert a counter-claim for your positive claim to fall short.

I didn't make a claim, I pointed out some issues. I'm an Atheist.

Nope, Pastor Rikurzhen is just a liar. He lies about atheists and claims that they believe in the "Religion of Liberalism". He has zero credibility.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Another intellectually challenged atheist demanding physical proof of a spiritual existence. You're either smart enough to be able to think outside the box or you're not, and NP obviously isn't.

So why do you believe in this spiritual existence without proof? Science says it's all in your head and that we made it all up because we have wild imaginations, we have a healthy fear of the unknown, we are curious and we want to believe.

Science says that a transcendent realm of being doesn't exist? Hmm. I know of a number of works written by prominent atheist scientists which contain philosophical arguments to that effect, but I don't know of any formal scientific theory that proposes such a thing. Can you provide a link for that?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organisation and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Two more items of interest. . . .

First, your suggestion that "obvious defects" in biological systems detracts from the notion of a divine origin for terrestrial life is a teleological assertion. It presumes to known something about the manifestations that would be allowed to occur within a complex system created by a transcendentally supreme entity whose actuality you deny.

It's refreshing to see that we now have at least two atheists on this thread, one consciously, newpolitics, the other unwittingly, you, conceding that you do in fact recognize the independently existent idea of God as a Being of perfection universally apparent to all. That is to say, you concede your awareness of the fact that the idea of God objectively exists/imposes itself on our minds independent of our will when we contemplate the problem of origin.

While I appreciate your help in driving that point home, neither "obvious defects" in biological systems nor even the supposed mechanisms of evolution would have any bearing on the existence or nonexistence of a perfect transcendent Being. In fact, any being that would be subject to obey your utterly arbitrary and irrelevant teleological meanderings in its formulations of things or in its governance of things wouldn't be God.

Second, if you would provide a link showing that the hypothesis of abiogenesis has been verified via observation in accordance with “simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years”, I'd be thrilled to update my knowledge on that score.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We are all adults, we all know Santa or Allah is a mythological figure. But, nobody is crashing planes into buildings or chopping off heads in the name of the Easter Bunny or Fairies. That is what religion does., at least ONE religion. We can't name THAT one, because it defies the whole issue of diversity. The Muslims, opps, can I say that?, they defy liberalism and would stone, shoot, burn or decapitate liberals in their tracks. But, liberals, they champion freedom and weird self destructive causes. That is why I will never ever vote democratic liberal ever again.EVER.

There is not such animal as a we with you and me
Speak for you on fucking self.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What happen to thew OP? i I guess his argument has een met and defeated.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

The flaw in your approach is that you're tackling an issue, faith, and asking the faithful to enter your realm and provide logical proof. If they had logic, then they wouldn't need faith.

Secondly, you're overlooking the issue of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.

I'm not looking for evidence either, since I don't need to assert a counter-claim for your positive claim to fall short.

I didn't make a claim, I pointed out some issues. I'm an Atheist.

Nope, Pastor Rikurzhen is just a liar. He lies about atheists and claims that they believe in the "Religion of Liberalism". He has zero credibility.

I'm an Atheist moron and I don't believe in the Religion of Liberalism, you though do. You've replaced one religious belief with another. You therefore have no more of a legitimate claim to call yourself an Atheist than does a Christian who abandoned Christianity for Islam.

 

[PratchettFan]

I seriously doubt I am in any way qualified to judge the various theories regarding the beginning of the universe and it really doesn't impact me. I don't believe any of those theories even address the issue of a deity, let alone provide any answers. I will leave the question of the origins of the universe to those who have prepared themselves for that study.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with faith. There is nothing wrong with belief. Ultimately, the only person you need satisfy is yourself. If it feels right to you, then it is only right you accept it.

I don't know. I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory. There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody. And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'

For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it. For instance, an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement. I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science. But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.

Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief. Who is to say who got it right? Not me. And what is the alternative? To only do it if it feels wrong?

You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence. The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe. There is nothing else. Everyone is going to approach that differently. I take it you are a Christian. In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian. It makes no sense to me at all. But you are and I doubt you're crazy. It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe. You are not an extension of me.

I think I may owe you a serious apology for my Post #65. I very possibly misread your response as a personal attack kind of thing instead of an intended reasoned argument. I just read again what you posted and saw it in a very different light. I'm arguing a similar theme as this one elsewhere and am holding off about six very contentious posters who simply were not able to grasp the concept being argued. Getting a bit punchy at this point, I most likely relegated you to that group and now think I was probably very wrong about that by reading intended generic pronouns as personally directed..

So, if you will forgive me, let's try again.

Our problem may be in how we are each defining a term. For me 'feels right' is based on emotionalism rather than logic. The quasi-socialist person hears 'tax the rich more because they use more' mantra and nods approvingly because it just 'feels right' to him/her. It fits the ideology of the person and therefore is emotionally satisfying. He/she does not consider nor care about any unintended consequences of actually doing it. He/she will block that out of his/her mind. The more complex 'science' of economics is unimportant. Those who object are all greedy people who don't care about others.

Likewise the AGW proponent hears that a colder-than-usual winter is the result of global warming and because it fits his/her particular belief system about that, he/she doesn't even question it. It 'feels right'. He/she is not interested in hearing, much less looking for, a different explanation. In her mind, those who consider a different explanation are all deniers who don't care about the planet.

Note to others: I do NOT want to debate economics or climate change on this thread, but use these as illustration only.

What you, PratchettFan, seem to be arguing however is that going with what makes sense, what is reasonable, what appears to be obvious is what 'feels right' to you to do. In that I would agree as I think I did in my reference to Einstein and Spinoza.

But there are those who discount such human ability to observe and draw one's one reasoned conclusions. For them the textbook science or that which fits their ideological perspective is all that is worthy considering. Such people I see as making a religion of science or whatever. And that is what requires them, I suppose, to reject the experience/observation/reasoned conclusions of those who at least accept the possibility that there is a God or some kind of higher power or cosmic intelligence in the universe.

I was taken aback by your response. I never intended to offend, only to express my opinion that none of us has a monopoly on answers I appreciate the apology and certainly accept it.

Words can often be insufficient to express meaning. So I will try this another way.

Evidence must be both objective and valid. Objective is pretty simple. Valid is a bit tricky. I can point to a pencil on my desk and it is certainly objective. But in terms of it being evidence that a particular apple tree exists in a field three states from my desk it is worthless because it is not valid. There is no demonstrable connection between the two things. So while there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe, I have yet for anyone to point any that is valid in terms of the existence of God, higher power or cosmic intelligence. That does not mean there isn't. I personally believe there is. But the connection has yet to be demonstrated.

So what we are left with is belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption. Or, if you will, ignorance. I am ignorant and it is absurd for me to claim otherwise. I accept that. However, since there is simply nothing upon which to base a valid conclusion, one might as well take the conclusion which feels right to them. For while there may be no valid evidence to support that conclusion, there is equally no valid evidence to indicate it is a false conclusion. Given that my conclusion is no more valid than yours, I am in no position to criticize yours.

Einstein and Spinoza were certainly entitled to their own conclusions. Ultimately, however, they were no less ignorant than the rest of us.

 

[Justin Davis]

My first paragraph is factually wrong? Biblically wrong? Okay how, since I haven't disputed or challenged your argument in any way? I have only pointed out that your argument is seen as foolishness to the non believer if he even understands it.

Please, don't be sore at me, but I and Thunderbird are trying to establish the realities of the issue, the proper foundation for discussing the central topic of the OP, particularly for the purpose of refuting the routine objections to the classical arguments for God's existence should newpolitics return to give us something more than just bald assertions to chew on.

I love you, FoxFyre. You know that, right? But now I must be blunt.

You're confounding an important distinction due to what appears to me to be a serious case of closed-mindedness.

You're the one making a simple matter more complex than it actually is, not I. You're the one unnecessarily appealing to biblical authority regarding a matter that has absolutely nothing to do with the intimate things of God that are foolishness to the nonbeliever. You're the one dragging an utterly irrelevant and complex aspect of Christian epistemology into the fray, contributing to the very confusion that is nothing more than the failure on the part of some to dispense with the conventional slogans of post-modern popular culture and to bear down, perhaps for the first time in their lives, on the obvious.

The universally self-evident imperatives of the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, which entail the fundamental laws of logic and the delineations of the problem of origin are not foolishness to the nonbeliever!

1. Everybody, the believer and the nonbeliever alike, knows that it's humanly impossible to explain how two mutually exclusive/diametrically opposed propositions could both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame reference.

2. Everybody knows that the prospect of something arising from out of nothing is an apparently inexplicable absurdity and, consequently, recognizes the concomitant exigency that something or another must have always existed.*

3. Everybody knows that there are but two ontological categories of things pertinent the problem of ultimate origin: inanimateness and sentience.

4. Everybody knows that the construct of God imposes itself on the human mind without the human mind willing that it do so. In other words, everybody knows that the idea of an eternally self-subsistent Sentience objectively exists in and of itself, and the atheist necessarily concedes this to be true every time he denies there be any substance behind the idea. Even newpolitics concedes this, which is refreshing given the baby talk of so many other atheists on this forum who stupidly argue that the idea of God is merely a fabrication of human culture in the face of this undeniable fact of human cognition. But, then, such atheists are cognitive sociopaths or pathological liars.

5. Everybody knows, in spite of what some have thoughtlessly asserted on this thread, that the problem of origin necessarily presupposes that the existence of the universe constitutes the evidence for the existence of a Sentient First Cause, whether or not, objectively speaking, such a Being actually exists. For crying out loud! The existence of the universe is the very essence of the problem of origin, and it's not merely an empirical problem, but, ultimately, a rational problem.

Even atheists necessarily concede that the existence of the universe constitutes the evidentiary substance of the arguments for God’s existence. (Aside: PratchettFan, get real!) What is the intrinsic substance of the arguments that atheists are compelled to refute? Answer: the existence of the universe and its rational constituents!**

Hawking might be smarter than all of us put together, but none us are so dumb that we cannot recognize what he recognizes: the evidentiary substance of the problem of origin and the arguable existence of God is the apparent fact of the universe's existence: material, physical, empirical evidence.

6. And now everybody who has read this knows that those who allege that there is no empirical evidence from which God's existence may be reasonably inferred needs to stop being stupid.

These are the pertinent, universally recognized facts of human consciousness regarding the problem of origin. These are the foundational imperatives of the classical arguments for God's existence, which are nothing more than the cosmological, ontological, teleological and transcendental ramifications of the very same imperatives.

There's no appeal to authority here. There's nothing theologically heavy duty about any of these facts of human consciousness touching on the problem of origin. Neither the teachings of the Bible nor the teachings of any other putatively sacred text you care to name has any relevance whatsoever! Belief in Christianity or belief in any other religion of divinity has no relevance whatsoever! Indeed, as atheists and agnostics routinely demonstrate, a lack of belief in God or any given system of religious thought has absolutely no relevance to the universal recognition of these imperatives whatsoever!

Everybody recognizes these things! That's what I’m telling you!

Whether one is ultimately convinced of God's existence by these imperatives or their subsequent formal arguments is up for grabs.
_______________________________________________

* The likes of Hawking et al. have not discovered anything new that would overthrow these imperatives of human consciousness or raised any new objections that the classical arguments for God‘s existence cannot account for insofar as they are properly understood. The guff of Hawking et al. is the stuff of logical fallacy and cognitive illusions. While the likes of Hawking may fool the naïve minds of unexamined lives, everyone of the their supposed refutations of the cosmological argument, for example, come down to a variation of the following conceptual sophistries which beg the question:

1. The quantum vacuum is a metaphysical nothingness.

2. Nothing residing beyond the space-time continuum can be the cause of the universe's existence in any conventional sense as causation can only occur in the medium of space-time; that is, there is only potential existence, not actual existence or causation "before" the existence of the cosmic singularity.

3. The cosmic singularity, like the spontaneous emergence of virtual particles in quantum fields, has no cause, as such are produced by random vacuum fluctuations; hence, the quantum vacuum eliminates the necessity of a transcendent First Cause.

4. The delineations of the problem of origin and the concomitant, empirical arguments for God's existence are ordinary commonsense assertions, not universally absolute imperatives of human consciousness contingently grounded in the mind of God.​

The atheist apologist in the video attached to my post in the above does not waste our time with the first objection, which is why I chose it. The fact of the matter is that the implications of the theories of special and general relativity, quantum physics and the Big Bang scream the metaphysics of Judeo-Christianity, but I digress.

** In fact, the reason that all of the historically prominent counterarguments against the classical arguments for God’s existent invariably fail for paradoxically irresolvable reasons goes to the very fact of existence itself, except in the case of the purely ontological argument or perhaps in the case of the teleological argument, which, properly understood, are merely conditional/incidental justifications, not absolute logical proofs of justification. Also, the argument from the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin, an absolute logical proof, is a cosmological-ontological hybrid.

Wow! Now that's the juice. You just cleared up a few things for me. I'm a novice. But I'm working on getting a handle on apologetics. The most difficult argument for me to understand is the Transcendental Argument, and recently I was challenged with the idea that if the laws of morality and logic are contingent on God then he can just change them if he wants. What's the answer to that one?

 

[Justin Davis]

I seriously doubt I am in any way qualified to judge the various theories regarding the beginning of the universe and it really doesn't impact me. I don't believe any of those theories even address the issue of a deity, let alone provide any answers. I will leave the question of the origins of the universe to those who have prepared themselves for that study.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with faith. There is nothing wrong with belief. Ultimately, the only person you need satisfy is yourself. If it feels right to you, then it is only right you accept it.

I don't know. I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory. There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody. And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'

For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it. For instance, an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement. I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science. But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.

Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief. Who is to say who got it right? Not me. And what is the alternative? To only do it if it feels wrong?

You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence. The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe. There is nothing else. Everyone is going to approach that differently. I take it you are a Christian. In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian. It makes no sense to me at all. But you are and I doubt you're crazy. It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe. You are not an extension of me.

I think I may owe you a serious apology for my Post #65. I very possibly misread your response as a personal attack kind of thing instead of an intended reasoned argument. I just read again what you posted and saw it in a very different light. I'm arguing a similar theme as this one elsewhere and am holding off about six very contentious posters who simply were not able to grasp the concept being argued. Getting a bit punchy at this point, I most likely relegated you to that group and now think I was probably very wrong about that by reading intended generic pronouns as personally directed..

So, if you will forgive me, let's try again.

Our problem may be in how we are each defining a term. For me 'feels right' is based on emotionalism rather than logic. The quasi-socialist person hears 'tax the rich more because they use more' mantra and nods approvingly because it just 'feels right' to him/her. It fits the ideology of the person and therefore is emotionally satisfying. He/she does not consider nor care about any unintended consequences of actually doing it. He/she will block that out of his/her mind. The more complex 'science' of economics is unimportant. Those who object are all greedy people who don't care about others.

Likewise the AGW proponent hears that a colder-than-usual winter is the result of global warming and because it fits his/her particular belief system about that, he/she doesn't even question it. It 'feels right'. He/she is not interested in hearing, much less looking for, a different explanation. In her mind, those who consider a different explanation are all deniers who don't care about the planet.

Note to others: I do NOT want to debate economics or climate change on this thread, but use these as illustration only.

What you, PratchettFan, seem to be arguing however is that going with what makes sense, what is reasonable, what appears to be obvious is what 'feels right' to you to do. In that I would agree as I think I did in my reference to Einstein and Spinoza.

But there are those who discount such human ability to observe and draw one's one reasoned conclusions. For them the textbook science or that which fits their ideological perspective is all that is worthy considering. Such people I see as making a religion of science or whatever. And that is what requires them, I suppose, to reject the experience/observation/reasoned conclusions of those who at least accept the possibility that there is a God or some kind of higher power or cosmic intelligence in the universe.

I was taken aback by your response. I never intended to offend, only to express my opinion that none of us has a monopoly on answers I appreciate the apology and certainly accept it.

Words can often be insufficient to express meaning. So I will try this another way.

Evidence must be both objective and valid. Objective is pretty simple. Valid is a bit tricky. I can point to a pencil on my desk and it is certainly objective. But in terms of it being evidence that a particular apple tree exists in a field three states from my desk it is worthless because it is not valid. There is no demonstrable connection between the two things. So while there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe, I have yet for anyone to point any that is valid in terms of the existence of God, higher power or cosmic intelligence. That does not mean there isn't. I personally believe there is. But the connection has yet to be demonstrated.

So what we are left with is belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption. Or, if you will, ignorance. I am ignorant and it is absurd for me to claim otherwise. I accept that. However, since there is simply nothing upon which to base a valid conclusion, one might as well take the conclusion which feels right to them. For while there may be no valid evidence to support that conclusion, there is equally no valid evidence to indicate it is a false conclusion. Given that my conclusion is no more valid than yours, I am in no position to criticize yours.

Einstein and Spinoza were certainly entitled to their own conclusions. Ultimately, however, they were no less ignorant than the rest of us.

The connection is obvious. Try creator, creation or universe, cause. But it doesn't look like you really want to acknowledge the connection. You mentioned evidence and objectivity, then you reduce everything to the subjective. You start with an open mind and then close it. But maybe I don't get what you're saying because you say that "there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe". Evidence of what? Evidence that the universe exists? You don't really say. You just say its not valid. Why wouldn't evidence of the universe's existence not be valid evidence for an intelligent cause? You don't really tell us anything about that either.

 

[PratchettFan]

I seriously doubt I am in any way qualified to judge the various theories regarding the beginning of the universe and it really doesn't impact me. I don't believe any of those theories even address the issue of a deity, let alone provide any answers. I will leave the question of the origins of the universe to those who have prepared themselves for that study.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with faith. There is nothing wrong with belief. Ultimately, the only person you need satisfy is yourself. If it feels right to you, then it is only right you accept it.

I don't know. I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory. There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody. And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'

For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it. For instance, an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement. I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science. But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.

Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief. Who is to say who got it right? Not me. And what is the alternative? To only do it if it feels wrong?

You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence. The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe. There is nothing else. Everyone is going to approach that differently. I take it you are a Christian. In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian. It makes no sense to me at all. But you are and I doubt you're crazy. It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe. You are not an extension of me.

I think I may owe you a serious apology for my Post #65. I very possibly misread your response as a personal attack kind of thing instead of an intended reasoned argument. I just read again what you posted and saw it in a very different light. I'm arguing a similar theme as this one elsewhere and am holding off about six very contentious posters who simply were not able to grasp the concept being argued. Getting a bit punchy at this point, I most likely relegated you to that group and now think I was probably very wrong about that by reading intended generic pronouns as personally directed..

So, if you will forgive me, let's try again.

Our problem may be in how we are each defining a term. For me 'feels right' is based on emotionalism rather than logic. The quasi-socialist person hears 'tax the rich more because they use more' mantra and nods approvingly because it just 'feels right' to him/her. It fits the ideology of the person and therefore is emotionally satisfying. He/she does not consider nor care about any unintended consequences of actually doing it. He/she will block that out of his/her mind. The more complex 'science' of economics is unimportant. Those who object are all greedy people who don't care about others.

Likewise the AGW proponent hears that a colder-than-usual winter is the result of global warming and because it fits his/her particular belief system about that, he/she doesn't even question it. It 'feels right'. He/she is not interested in hearing, much less looking for, a different explanation. In her mind, those who consider a different explanation are all deniers who don't care about the planet.

Note to others: I do NOT want to debate economics or climate change on this thread, but use these as illustration only.

What you, PratchettFan, seem to be arguing however is that going with what makes sense, what is reasonable, what appears to be obvious is what 'feels right' to you to do. In that I would agree as I think I did in my reference to Einstein and Spinoza.

But there are those who discount such human ability to observe and draw one's one reasoned conclusions. For them the textbook science or that which fits their ideological perspective is all that is worthy considering. Such people I see as making a religion of science or whatever. And that is what requires them, I suppose, to reject the experience/observation/reasoned conclusions of those who at least accept the possibility that there is a God or some kind of higher power or cosmic intelligence in the universe.

I was taken aback by your response. I never intended to offend, only to express my opinion that none of us has a monopoly on answers I appreciate the apology and certainly accept it.

Words can often be insufficient to express meaning. So I will try this another way.

Evidence must be both objective and valid. Objective is pretty simple. Valid is a bit tricky. I can point to a pencil on my desk and it is certainly objective. But in terms of it being evidence that a particular apple tree exists in a field three states from my desk it is worthless because it is not valid. There is no demonstrable connection between the two things. So while there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe, I have yet for anyone to point any that is valid in terms of the existence of God, higher power or cosmic intelligence. That does not mean there isn't. I personally believe there is. But the connection has yet to be demonstrated.

So what we are left with is belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption. Or, if you will, ignorance. I am ignorant and it is absurd for me to claim otherwise. I accept that. However, since there is simply nothing upon which to base a valid conclusion, one might as well take the conclusion which feels right to them. For while there may be no valid evidence to support that conclusion, there is equally no valid evidence to indicate it is a false conclusion. Given that my conclusion is no more valid than yours, I am in no position to criticize yours.

Einstein and Spinoza were certainly entitled to their own conclusions. Ultimately, however, they were no less ignorant than the rest of us.

The connection is obvious. Try creator, creation or universe, cause. But it doesn't look like you really want to acknowledge the connection. You mentioned evidence and objectivity, then you reduce everything to the subjective. You start with an open mind and then close it. But maybe I don't get what you're saying because you say that "there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe". Evidence of what? Evidence that the universe exists? You don't really say. You just say its not valid. Why wouldn't evidence of the universe's existence not be valid evidence for an intelligent cause? You don't really tell us anything about that either.

I don't see how it is obvious.

What evidence can you present that the universe required a creator?

 

[S.J.]

There is order in the universe, which is a strong indication of intelligent design.