Bonjour798's Challenge Thread! Theists, Beware!

[ChristineES]

Thank you.


I certainly don't think I can damage your faith with reasoning if your faith is not based on reason. (I hope it's clear that I don't say that to be snarky or rude.) My claim is simply that reason does lead to atheism with respect to the Judeo-Christian God.


Nice to meet you, too!

You don't come across as rude or anything.

About reason leading to atheism- it could but not necessarily. I don't see myself as unreasonable and I, outside of my faith, I am very much a skeptic- I think I was born questioning everything. I also don't believe that critical thinking (I know you didn't mention it, but others have in other, similar threads) necessarily leads to atheism, and as I said about reason- it could. But I did very well in science classes- where you almost have to have some kind of critical thinking. I have to admit that, at times, I am not incredibly logical, however- I have trouble with logic questions (which is kind of strange considering I almost hero worship Mr. Spock on Star Trek, )

I can't speak for other theists in this case.

 

[Storm]

Well, I gave some brief reasons in the OP that we could discuss.

None of which constitute proof. Often as not, reason leads to apologetics.

 

[Draka]

Well, I gave some brief reasons in the OP that we could discuss.

Not to speak for her, but I take her asking for proof as asking for why does reason necessarily lead to atheism and not, perhaps, to another form of theism? Especially for those who have had certain religious experiences? Just because the Abrahamic religions may not make sense, it doesn't mean that meaning may not be found in another form of theism.

 

[Willamena]

I agree that it would be unreasonable to be too strict about a theist's exactly conforming to my definition. I don't adopt that sort of strictness is necessary or desirable to present some arguments against the general concept of God, however. And if someone believes in a "God" that doesn't have free will, consciousness, or perfect moral virtue, do we really want to call them a theist anyway?

Well, I could counter all those "reasons" with philosophy, I don't even need to be a theist.

I'll look at them later, when I have time.

 

[Willamena]

Yeah, that would be a lot easier. I'll say "the Judeo-Christian God" in future.

"Abrahamic" is the popular term, and more appropriate. The god of Judaism is not a disembodied consciousness of perfect virtue. (Of course, then neither is the god of Abraham the "Abrahamic god," but the term has caught on.)

 

[Sir Doom]

You're the first to try to address all of my arguments, then. Thanks!

Don't mention it! The nature of god is one of my favorite subjects!

This is an interesting answer, although it's fairly unorthodox. Most theologians don't say that God can do things that are logically impossible or incoherent. I think Descartes held the position you're suggesting here, but very few follow him. Of course, the unorthodoxy of your argument does not damage it whatsoever, so a more substantive reply is needed on my part.

I guess my question would be how you could be justified in believing in a God that can perform incoherent actions. I don't see how you could justify such a belief. Maybe you could just believe in it by faith, but that doesn't seem like a good way to find out the truth about reality.


See above.


See above.

If an omnipotent being is responsible for the creation of all things, I must assume this includes the rules for possible and impossible, rational and irrational, logical and illogical and everything else that fits this category. If the omnipotence did not create these rules, what did it create? If it is bound by these rules, than what is it not bound by that sets it apart from you and I and every other living thing? I can't imagine for the life of me how omnipotence could ever be limited in any way whatsoever. General theology may disagree with this definition, but I'm perfectly happy disagreeing with general theology unless it has a good answer for these questions.

Just to clarify again, I actually don't believe that god is anywhere near omnipotence as I have defined it and I started a thread to this regard in Theological Concepts if you want to check it out:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/theological-concepts/134114-omnipotence-long-con.html

I don't think simplicity is completely subjective. It's used by scientists to evaluate scientific theories.

Evaluation is the final step of the scientific method often called "analysis". The most correct way to say (in my opinion anyway) is "interpretation of results". This is the point at which scientists reattach their subjective opinions to the principle they are testing, and exactly why experiments need to be repeatable. To interpret results as "simple" or "complex" means nothing unless compared to a previous example of something "simple" or "complex".

For example, we can say that 2 is more complex than 1 and it may seem objective that this is true. However, its only true because we've decided that higher numbers are more complex than lower numbers. Problems can easily arise from assuming this is the case. Is 3 more or less complex than 2 in relation to 1? Is zero more or less complex than 1? How about negatives? Obviously the rule we've established about higher numbers being more complex was arbitrary and therefore subjective.

 

[Bob Dixon]

Christ Crucified Is God’s Power and Wisdom

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. 1 Cor.1

Whence came the idea that posting quotes constitutes debating?

 

[bobhikes]

You should present your reasons for disagreeing with my arguments, or at least provide a link, instead of gesturing at the forum archives and telling me that refutations of my arguments are in there somewhere.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/133141-free-will-new-look.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-religion/127734-internet-conscious-itself-yet.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/128657-promblem-evil-revisited.html

Less than a minute and there's plenty more.

 

[bonjour798]

If an omnipotent being is responsible for the creation of all things, I must assume this includes the rules for possible and impossible, rational and irrational, logical and illogical and everything else that fits this category. If the omnipotence did not create these rules, what did it create? If it is bound by these rules, than what is it not bound by that sets it apart from you and I and every other living thing? I can't imagine for the life of me how omnipotence could ever be limited in any way whatsoever. General theology may disagree with this definition, but I'm perfectly happy disagreeing with general theology unless it has a good answer for these questions.

The usual answer is that God is only limited by the laws of logic, I think.

Evaluation is the final step of the scientific method often called "analysis". The most correct way to say (in my opinion anyway) is "interpretation of results". This is the point at which scientists reattach their subjective opinions to the principle they are testing, and exactly why experiments need to be repeatable. To interpret results as "simple" or "complex" means nothing unless compared to a previous example of something "simple" or "complex".

For example, we can say that 2 is more complex than 1 and it may seem objective that this is true. However, its only true because we've decided that higher numbers are more complex than lower numbers. Problems can easily arise from assuming this is the case. Is 3 more or less complex than 2 in relation to 1? Is zero more or less complex than 1? How about negatives? Obviously the rule we've established about higher numbers being more complex was arbitrary and therefore subjective.

I don't know about this argument. You're disagreeing with the widely accepted scientific criterion of simplicity, and asserting that it's nothing more than "the point at which scientists reattach their subjective opinions to the principle they are testing." This sounds kind of like pseudo-science to me.

 

[Gharib]

I look forward to your responses.

You should read about Islam.

I know that's not a very helpful answer to your questions. But you won't accept my responses.

And why base everything around the statement of one man? Are you an Atheist simply because of the sentence of one man?

 

[bonjour798]

You should read about Islam.

If you tell me the best book on Islam that you know of, there's a very good chance that I'll read it.

I know that's not a very helpful answer to your questions. But you won't accept my responses.

No, probably not, but you might make me think. I believe that the most we can reasonably hope to accomplish on an internet forum like this is to make someone else think.

And why base everything around the statement of one man? Are you an Atheist simply because of the sentence of one man?

I've been reading about this subject for a while, and I continue to read and learn. If you have a rigorous definition of God that differs from Swinburne's, feel free to present it, but Swinburne's definition is fairly representative to my knowledge.

 

[Gharib]

If you tell me the best book on Islam that you know of, there's a very good chance that I'll read it.

If you want, however, you are not obligated to because I said so:

http://www.2muslims.com/books/alraheeq.pdf

No, probably not, but you might make me think. I believe that the most we can reasonably hope to accomplish on an internet forum like this is to make someone else think.

True.

I've been reading about this subject for a while, and I continue to read and learn. If you have a rigorous definition of God that differs from Swinburne's, feel free to present it, but Swinburne's definition is fairly representative to my knowledge.

Islam and Christianity do teach relatively the same things.

You have convinced me, I will answer your first reason/question for now.

 

[Gharib]

Reason 1: Free will does not exist.

If God exists, then God has free will, per Swinburne's definition. But it is extremely difficult to say what free will is supposed to be. Indeed, the notion of free will appears to be positively incoherent: An action must be either caused or uncaused, but it is not free if it is caused or if it is not caused. Therefore, neither free will nor God exists.

First, forget about that statement which your 4 reasons are based on. I will answer from an Islamic perspective based on what I know.

In Islam, free will means doing what you want when you want, facing no consequences for such actions, answering to no one for those actions, your actions not being dependent upon anything else.

Humans, have limited will. Meaning that some things are totally up to us but not everything. If I want to buy a car, I must have money. And ultimately, the car I will buy is going to be dependent on how much money I have.

God has free will. God creates something out of nothing, he is not bound by any law, he has eternal attributes and is himself eternal.

I don't see how from your statement, God's eternal existence rules out God's existence?

 

[CapinPorcupine]

Alright, I don't think these answers are what you really want but I wanted to right some down. Some of these could be considered more of disagreements to the Swinburne posts or how you phrased your claims. I don't mean to be disrespectful in any of these answers so please don't take it that way, I just wanted to see how my personal answers turned out.

Richard Swinburne, a Christian philosopher, defines God as follows.

"I take the proposition 'God exists' (and the equivalent propositon 'There is a God') to be logically equivalent to 'there exists necessarily a person without a body who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things.'" (The Existence of God, p. 7)

An atheist is a person who believes that God, so defined, does not exist. I will present four quick reasons for being an atheist.

Reason 1: Free will does not exist.

If God exists, then God has free will, per Swinburne's definition. But it is extremely difficult to say what free will is supposed to be. Indeed, the notion of free will appears to be positively incoherent: An action must be either caused or uncaused, but it is not free if it is caused or if it is not caused. Therefore, neither free will nor God exists.

I don't think that you're questioning religion so much as mans definition of free will. This is tying up God by throwing Him in a box that man created because we can't understand how free will works.

Reason 2: Consciousness requires a brain.

If God exists, God is conscious without a body, per Swinburne's definition. But everything conscious that we know of has a brain. It is more reasonable to conclude that consciousness is a process that occurs in brains than to believe that it is a substance in itself which can have an existence independently of the brain. Therefore, God does not exist.

This is an Anthropomorphic view, trying to give something that is outside of or grasp human traits, and by doing so ruling that it is false by the traits we give it.

Reason 3: The problem of evil disproves God's existence.

If God exists, he is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly moral, per Swinburne's definition. If such a being existed, then evil would not exist. But evil does exist, in overwhelming quantity. Some apologists attempt to get out of this argument by deploying a free will defense, but as we have seen, free will does not exist. Therefore, God does not exist.

This seems to be using a hypothesis to make another hypothesis a fact. Although evil exists (in my opinion) because we go against our true nature (of being what society views as "good") and that can stem from us being created in God's image. We brought evil into the world, but that doesn't mean God does not exist, because if that was the case, why do we have morals? How is what we deem as evil defined without some beginning marker?

Reason 4: Occam's Razor "shaves off" the claim that God exists.

Given the lack of objective positive evidence for the existence of God, it is simpler to attribute belief in God to the intellectual vices and emotional needs of the believer than to an actually extant deity. In cases like this, we can safely appeal to Occam's Razor to "shave off" the claim that God exists, just like we do the claim that leprechauns exist. Therefore, in the same sense in which we say leprechauns do not exist, we can reasonably say God does not exist.

This is where faith gets thrown in the game. We believe by faith and reason/scientific method only goes so far. Now I'm no expert when it comes to Occam's Razor (read: just went on wikipedia) but could you also state that somewhere in the universe there is a planet made of cheese because there could never be a planet made of unicorns and rainbows? I just dont truly understand it I guess. It seems like the "intellectual vices and emotional needs" of believers is just an excuse to not believe something that isn't explainable (I know I can't explain it.

 

[Nakosis]

I'm not a Christian, but just for heck of it.

Reason 1: Free will does not exist.
If God exists, then God has free will, per Swinburne's definition. But it is extremely difficult to say what free will is supposed to be. Indeed, the notion of free will appears to be positively incoherent: An action must be either caused or uncaused, but it is not free if it is caused or if it is not caused. Therefore, neither free will nor God exists.

Free will is doing want you want to do. Whether it is caused or not has nothing to do with free will. It just has to do with your will and whether you are free to act on it or not.

I think we can assume God is free to do whatever he wants.

Reason 2: Consciousness requires a brain.

If God exists, God is conscious without a body, per Swinburne's definition. But everything conscious that we know of has a brain. It is more reasonable to conclude that consciousness is a process that occurs in brains than to believe that it is a substance in itself which can have an existence independently of the brain. Therefore, God does not exist.

I'm not sure we understand consciousness well enough to make an absolute claim. While it is a reasonable conclusion to assume, assumptions don't rule out the possibility of a God.

Reason 3: The problem of evil disproves God's existence.

If God exists, he is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly moral, per Swinburne's definition. If such a being existed, then evil would not exist. But evil does exist, in overwhelming quantity. Some apologists attempt to get out of this argument by deploying a free will defense, but as we have seen, free will does not exist. Therefore, God does not exist.

Assuming God is omnipotent then it is likely God is amoral. If something is truly all powerful then how would concepts of right and wrong have any meaning. Whatever you did is right because you did it. Wrong is not possible because nothing else is possible except what you did.

We humans thinks in terms of right and wrong because we are not all powerful and have to accept consequences for are actions. I we were all powerful what consequences would there be? There'd be nothing wrong for us as there'd be no consequences.

Reason 4: Occam's Razor "shaves off" the claim that God exists.

Given the lack of objective positive evidence for the existence of God, it is simpler to attribute belief in God to the intellectual vices and emotional needs of the believer than to an actually extant deity. In cases like this, we can safely appeal to Occam's Razor to "shave off" the claim that God exists, just like we do the claim that leprechauns exist. Therefore, in the same sense in which we say leprechauns do not exist, we can reasonably say God does not exist.

I look forward to your responses.

Actually prophecy like from the Bible comes from dreams and visions. Things people actually experienced. The source of religions is actual experience. While you may debate the source of these dreams and vision, this was reality to the people that experienced them.

People may have read too much into what they experienced. They might have reached false conclusions but the source of belief in God comes from something that people actually experienced. An experience that is as true for them as any other experience of reality. If you actually saw a leprechaun for yourself and it seemed as real to you as anything else. Are you going to deny the reality of something you experienced for yourself?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree that it would be unreasonable to be too strict about a theist's exactly conforming to my definition. I don't adopt that sort of strictness is necessary or desirable to present some arguments against the general concept of God, however. And if someone believes in a "God" that doesn't have free will, consciousness, or perfect moral virtue, do we really want to call them a theist anyway?

Well, yes. We want to call them theists because they believe in some sort of god.

 

[Storm]

Bored, so I'll play Devil's (Christian's? LOL) Advocate.

Reason 1: Free will does not exist.

If God exists, then God has free will, per Swinburne's definition. But it is extremely difficult to say what free will is supposed to be. Indeed, the notion of free will appears to be positively incoherent: An action must be either caused or uncaused, but it is not free if it is caused or if it is not caused. Therefore, neither free will nor God exists.

The non/ existence of free will is not so easily determined. Reality is rarely binary, and the Christian presumption of a supernatural seat of the personality (aka soul) invalidates the assumption of choice being physically caused or not.

Reason 2: Consciousness requires a brain.

Prove it.

Neuroscience is in its infancy, and this statement is mere assumption. Life as we know it may require a brain to support consciousness, or may not. Again, supernaturalism trumps.

If God exists, God is conscious without a body, per Swinburne's definition. But everything conscious that we know of has a brain. It is more reasonable to conclude that consciousness is a process that occurs in brains than to believe that it is a substance in itself which can have an existence independently of the brain. Therefore, God does not exist.

Since when is God life as we know it?

Reason 3: The problem of evil disproves God's existence.

If God exists, he is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly moral, per Swinburne's definition. If such a being existed, then evil would not exist. But evil does exist, in overwhelming quantity. Some apologists attempt to get out of this argument by deploying a free will defense, but as we have seen, free will does not exist. Therefore, God does not exist.

It's not that simple. It's never that simple. Theodicy especially is HARD.

The PoE, which theodicy attempts to answer is
1) almost unique to omnimax Gods

2) arguably flawed at its core, seeing as it

a) presumes equal understanding of "evil" between humans and the Divine, and
b) often fails to distinguish wishful thinking from ultimate benefit
​

Furthermore, you have not in fact shown that free will does not exist.

Reason 4: Occam's Razor "shaves off" the claim that God exists.

Not really. The Razor is a philosophical aesthetic stating that all else being equal, the simplest answer is preferable. Lacking data (a coherent theory of divine nature and function, for instance), comparison of a/theistic models is impossible. IOW, we don't know enough to say that all else is equal.

Given the lack of objective positive evidence for the existence of God, it is simpler to attribute belief in God to the intellectual vices and emotional needs of the believer than to an actually extant deity. In cases like this, we can safely appeal to Occam's Razor to "shave off" the claim that God exists, just like we do the claim that leprechauns exist. Therefore, in the same sense in which we say leprechauns do not exist, we can reasonably say God does not exist.

Whoa whoa whoa! It is NOT simpler to "attribute belief in God to the intellectual vices and emotional needs of the believer," it's pure prejudice, and ignores the the actual testimony of many faithful, myself included.

 

[bonjour798]

Reason 1: Free will does not exist.

If God exists, then God has free will, per Swinburne's definition. But it is extremely difficult to say what free will is supposed to be. Indeed, the notion of free will appears to be positively incoherent: An action must be either caused or uncaused, but it is not free if it is caused or if it is not caused. Therefore, neither free will nor God exists.

First, forget about that statement which your 4 reasons are based on. I will answer from an Islamic perspective based on what I know.

In Islam, free will means doing what you want when you want, facing no consequences for such actions, answering to no one for those actions, your actions not being dependent upon anything else.

Humans, have limited will. Meaning that some things are totally up to us but not everything. If I want to buy a car, I must have money. And ultimately, the car I will buy is going to be dependent on how much money I have.

God has free will. God creates something out of nothing, he is not bound by any law, he has eternal attributes and is himself eternal.

I don't see how from your statement, God's eternal existence rules out God's existence?

You're saying that God has compatibilist free will rather than libertarian free will, I think. That seems unorthodox. Most of the theists I've read have thought that God has libertarian free will. Even Calvinists, who think humans are determined, ascribe libertarian free will to God.

Nevertheless, unorthodoxy is not an objection, so I concede that your understanding of God is not vulnerable to Reason 1.

 

[bonjour798]

Alright, I don't think these answers are what you really want but I wanted to right some down. Some of these could be considered more of disagreements to the Swinburne posts or how you phrased your claims. I don't mean to be disrespectful in any of these answers so please don't take it that way, I just wanted to see how my personal answers turned out.

Okay. Thanks for responding.

I don't think that you're questioning religion so much as mans definition of free will. This is tying up God by throwing Him in a box that man created because we can't understand how free will works.

Well, I am assuming that reason can be used to determine whether or not God exists. If you believe in God based on faith, such that the incoherence of a concept that is part of his definition does not throw doubt on his existence, then I don't think I can persuade you. However, faith does not seem like a very good way to find out the truth about reality.

This is an Anthropomorphic view, trying to give something that is outside of or grasp human traits, and by doing so ruling that it is false by the traits we give it.

Okay, but then you're in danger of removing the concept of God so much from experience that it becomes meaningless to say you believe in God. If God is conscious, but not conscious in any of the ways we're familiar with, in what sense can we actually say he's conscious?

This seems to be using a hypothesis to make another hypothesis a fact. Although evil exists (in my opinion) because we go against our true nature (of being what society views as "good") and that can stem from us being created in God's image. We brought evil into the world, but that doesn't mean God does not exist, because if that was the case, why do we have morals? How is what we deem as evil defined without some beginning marker?

We should apply the Principle of Credulity to our observations that some things are evil.

This is where faith gets thrown in the game. We believe by faith and reason/scientific method only goes so far. Now I'm no expert when it comes to Occam's Razor (read: just went on wikipedia) but could you also state that somewhere in the universe there is a planet made of cheese because there could never be a planet made of unicorns and rainbows? I just dont truly understand it I guess. It seems like the "intellectual vices and emotional needs" of believers is just an excuse to not believe something that isn't explainable (I know I can't explain it.

Well, why do you believe that there are no leprechauns? Presumably, because there's no evidence for the existence of leprechauns. Occam's Razor "shaves off" the hypothesis that leprechauns exist. We can apply the same principle to God.

 

[CapinPorcupine]

We should apply the Principle of Credulity to our observations that some things are evil.

Well, what makes some things evil?