Five Reasons to Believe in God

[Falvlun]

Why? How would you know? If we don't have access to it through our senses, in what sense can it be said to exist, at least for us, and what difference would it make?

The way I see it, keeping the possibility in the back of one's mind prevents the sort of fallacy that made people think they were the center of the universe.

 

[lunamoth]

Wow - what have I gotten myself into? So many great posts to address, two from lawyers and at least one from an engineer. Feeling very outmatched here! But, enjoying all the responses. :rainbow1:

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

WL Craig wins most of the technical points in his debates hands down. Does that mean he is right about God?

Lawrence Krauss and Sam Harris are dumb, or of lower IQ than Craig?

No no. You said he wins most of the points in his debates. I said thats because he debates with IQ lesser than himself. What I should have said is that he probably wins his debates against schmucks like himself. I have yet to see him win a debate against real rationalists. That is because his position is indefensible. Also, please show me , either through video or pasting text here, all the instances you think he won a debate, I bet I could refute his winning points.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

But which ethics are true?

What do you mean? Just because you can string a set of words together to make a syntactically correct statement doesn't mean that it is meaningful.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Wow - what have I gotten myself into? So many great posts to address, two from lawyers and at least one from an engineer. Feeling very outmatched here! But, enjoying all the responses. :rainbow1:

Too late to back out now! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! :sw:

 

[lunamoth]

What do you mean by 2? Something like "God knows everything, and I know I can trust God"? Or do you mean something else? I guess I'm just a bit puzzled as to how the existence of God is relevant to the question of the basis of human reason.

No, it's not about God knows everything. I don't think that is even related. I am trying to explore how reason can come from non-reason. Can it?

Observation. Once you have a model of how the universe works, you compare it's predictions with what is actually observed. The better the agreement, the better the model, and the higher the level of certainty you can have that the fundamental assumptions used to create the model are correct.

This method doesn't lead to 100% perfect certainty, but it can lead to practical, workable certainty.

Now... I don't think you've done it so far, but an idea I've often seen raised in these sorts of discussions (and usually implicitly without being addressed directly) is that anything less than perfect certainty might as well be no certainty at all, but I don't think this is true.

9/10ths, you have already explained to me (in other conversations) that for you option 1, truth=what works, is adequate. Do you also think, along with Stephen Hawking, that philosophy is dead?

 

[lunamoth]

Sure, but what does that have to do with "God"?

Only that there is more than we can know and thus need to be wary of certainty.

That simply demonstrates there is thought that organizes reality into things and nothing.

But what is the basis of thought?

That's an oxymoron. To be rational, logic must be grounded in something arational?

I did not mean it to be an oxymoron. I agree with your point, reason needs to be grounded in reason. How does that work? Isn't the material universe, bound by cause and effect, non-rational?

Perhaps "Ethics" and "values/virtues" ARE an illusion. And maybe pretending to ground them in an "objective basis" is the means by which evil and atrocity are justified and carried out.

Perhaps they are an illusion. And I would agree that pretending to (thinking that you) know which particular ethics are objectively true is a means by which evil and atrocity can be justified (of course, there is no evil if there is no good and evil *scratching head*). This is what makes me nervous about Sam Harris' well-being as an objective basis of morality. LOL! I'd rather I'd have a theoretical objective basis I am uncertain about than an objective basis I think is scientifically true!

Do you believe love requires an objective basis to be other than illusory?

No, I don't.

I'm just addicted to the idea that love is really good.


Added: What is Membership Committee?

 

[lunamoth]

2

there was never nothing

What is the basis of this belief?

'Fair enough' regarding all of your other points.

what it comes down to is people can be good and kind, its in our nature as well as hatred and evil. religion may point the difference out but does little beyond that

How about philosophy? Is it of value?

 

[lunamoth]

Of your 5, I find this the most compelling. I do find it probable that there are things out there we cannot perceive, that we cannot even dream of.

However, this does not mean I should believe they exist: It means that I should keep myself open to the possibility that they do.

Sounds reasonable. :yes:

For fun, do you think that things outside our sensory perception could have any influence on us?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Awww, is that right? Then the poor shmuck is debating with people of IQ lesser than himself.

Yeah right. He mathematically and systematically kills the debates. It almost hurt to see the contrary arguments.

 

[lunamoth]

Thank you for all of the interesting and detailed comments, AfterGlow.

I think they're five reasons that someone who believes could use to justify their position, but I wouldn't say they actually support a belief in God any more than they support a belief Tao or the Cosmic Buddha. You could use them to justify belief in any transpersonal governing agent, is what I'm driving at. But their value can only ever be subjective.

I agree this does not justify belief in God, but I think of it as 'opening a door.' It is mostly to address the counter idea that 'this is it.'

You fish-slapped the bacteria comment, so I'm guessing that you're not referring to physical forces we can't sense, rather some form of spiritual reality? If that's the case I have to disagree, I'd say there is a possibility that such a dimension exists, but since we are incapable of ever perceiving it we cannot judge whether it's existence is highly likely or unlikely, we cannot assign a likelihood.

We can use the term spiritual, although I also have this concept that there is simply just more to reality than we have access to via our material senses. But let's go with spiritual just so we have a word to use. Help me think this through. If we each had a spiritual component, let's call it a soul, couldn't that soul interact with the spiritual reality? Think of it as an extrasensory organ for an extrasensory perception. Because the stimulus is 'extra,' outside our senses, it is not going to conform to any predictable laws. Even if it is part of cause and effect downstream, the original source of the stimulus would be outside our senses, and so outside of empirical inquiry. Hey! I don't really have a stake in this particular idea - it's just a thought experiment that came to me as I read your comment.

This is an appeal to cause and effect, phenomena exist therefore there is a first cause. I can't argue against it, but it's an argument that can be used to support an infinite number of potential first causes, which need not have intelligence or purpose in their causation.

Funny, this was one point I did not think was about cause and effect. First cause has never been a big part of my thoughts about God.

Firstly, reasoning, abstract thinking and philosophy need not be rational.

!!!!! Reasoning doesn't need to be rational? Can you explain more about this?

Secondly, whether or not there exists an objective reality upon which our subjective realities are based doesn't impact the rationality of our faculties, as we can only base our reasoning and thought on the sense-impressions that we do receive.

What is the sense-impression for 2+2=4?

Thirdly, the existence of an objective reality doesn't necessitate a creative agent of said objective reality.

OK!

Right and wrong in themselves are illusory. The universe is impersonal and amoral, that much is demonstrated in every physical action and reaction we observe in the abiological world around us. It is only biological systems that form concepts of right and wrong, and such concepts are subjective, based on the nature and circumstances of the life form. What is right for some is not right for others.
Ethics are neither real nor illusory as such terms don't apply. They are a system of ideas and rules for how best to live a human life in the context in which one finds themselves. They are an abstract, a framework upon which real-world results can develop, it is the results that may be deemed right or wrong, real or illusory (as in the case of beliefs resulting from ethics) but only on a subjective basis.

So there is no right and wrong in an objective sense. Is good/right best determined by the individual, or the society? Is love good? Why or why not?

Integrity is a subjective quality, valuable only to the possessor of such virtues. There is no objective basis for good, only subjective. If there were an objective basis for good, virtue would be self-apparent, there would be no need to teach it or strive to develop it.

So much for virtue ethics. Rats. I had high hopes there!

So, we can't say that honesty is a virtue? That statement has no objective meaning?

 

[lunamoth]

Well a simpler way of looking at it is without a purpose there wouldn't be a cause.

A cause for "Higher reasoning, abstract thinking (including logic), and philosophy" through higher understanding of that which isn't reliant on the sensory world.

If it isn't reliant how is it possible for people to understand it. If is objective, but isn't capable of being observed.

Thank you for the added explanation.

It would be possible if it didn't elude the sensory world. So my question is why would it have to?

You are right, I think. There would have to be some kind of connection. Maybe it is a matter of it being so connected we can't really separate it from everything else.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Yeah right. He mathematically and systematically kills the debates. It almost hurt to see the contrary arguments.

Please, I beg you, show me one argument you think he won. I will myself destroy all his arguments.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

I'm just going to pea-shoot here, as the entirety of the debate somewhat eludes me.

I see some philosophy going on things such as the difference between good and evil, who dictates what, opinion vs virtues, etc. etc. ect.

Well, there is an answer to these things.

Let's look at the natural human condition. What does nature command to a species?
To survive and grow.
In this case, good and evil already has a basis.
Morals are a fickle thing. Look at what eventually happens to tyrants, and look what happens to the righteous.
Good and evil share a duality. One cannot exist without the other. Sure, one can be absent, but there is always room for either.
Therefore, good and evil are simply the products of life. It is one of the many things that proves that we do in fact have free will, and that it runs parallel with life itself. (which I see a lot of debate about on this site)

The story of Eden is a good implication of this. But better yet, the world as we see it is also one as well.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Please, I beg you, show me one argument you think he won. I will myself destroy all his arguments.

The argument with that physicist, in which he mathematically shows the greater likelihood that the universe did not come from 'nothing'. The only thing the physicist could say was that the universe doesn't make sense.

Spare yourself the trouble. You wouldn't be able to say much.
He's not debating with mere nay-sayers.

 

[Tathagata]

Awww, is that right? Then the poor shmuck is debating with people of IQ lesser than himself.

W. L. Craig has debated mainstream physicists, neuroscientists, philosophy professors, and many others. You may find this surprising, but the Theists are actually more philosophically inclined than the Atheists in public debates.

And as made evident in this thread, the Atheists here are also not as philosophically inclined as the Theists. So far, most of the Atheist/Agnostic responses to lunamoth have been WAY off base, completely missing the point, and lack philosophical understanding.


.

 

[lunamoth]

Heh... I probably would've been interested.

I know. But I also liked they symmetry with Copernicus' thread about Five Reasons to Not Believe in God. He even added the caveat: "Note: None of the above reasons is intended as an absolute proof that gods do not exist. These are reasons that make me consider belief in the existence of gods to be highly implausible."

So my caveat is that none of the reasons are intended as absolute proof of God, just that these reasons make me consider that God's existence is plausible.

But even if philosophy is bankrupt, what conclusion are you drawing from this? Philosophy is bankrupt... therefore God? If that's what you're getting at, I think there are a few steps missing.

See above caveat.

But you can't say that God is objectively rational, benevolent or good without an objective standard external to God against which to measure God. Otherwise, all you've got is "God is God" and a subjective (and IMO arbitrary) decision on your part to make God your reference point for rationality, benevolence and goodness.

But I am not using God as a reference point, but as the grounds for these things. I am saying I have faith that my reason gives me true information about reality and that there really is such a thing as value. Not just what works, and not just my aesthetic preferences.

However, if you do have that external standard with which to measure God, then this negates your claim that God is needed as that standard. IOW, you end up with a paradox.

I see how that would not work.

 

[lunamoth]

I know. But I also liked they symmetry with Copernicus' thread about Five Reasons to Not Believe in God. He even added the caveat: "Note: None of the above reasons is intended as an absolute proof that gods do not exist. These are reasons that make me consider belief in the existence of gods to be highly implausible."

So my caveat is that none of the reasons are intended as absolute proof of God, just that these reasons make me consider that God's existence is plausible.

See above caveat.


But I am not using God as a reference point, but as the grounds for these things. I am saying I have faith that my reason gives me true information about reality and that there really is such a thing as value. Not just what works, and not just my aesthetic preferences.

I see how that would not work.

Added: It is the materialists who are in a paradox. If they are 'right,' then no one can be right, so the materialists are not right. We only have 'what works.' If there really is an objective basis for right and wrong, then those who believe in that basis can really be right.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

The argument with that physicist, in which he mathematically shows the greater likelihood that the universe did not come from 'nothing'. The only thing the physicist could say was that the universe doesn't make sense.

Spare yourself the trouble. You wouldn't be able to say much.
He's not debating with mere nay-sayers.

Please be more specific. If you have a video, post it. I would love to logically shoot his arguments down. Please? Pretty please?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

God is necessary because it all came from Him. I do not see all this being a 'natural cause'.
Certainly, if we cannot gather how life was created naturally now, we will likely never be able to. You have to take in the full context of this before looking at the future as if it is going to reveal something.