Five Reasons to Believe in God

[lunamoth]

Well there is no personal way of knowing at present that the natural universe is all that there is in a conclusive sense, yet at the moment there is nothing else notable that indicates anything else other than that of a natural universe. In that respect, that's all there is on which my view is based upon, as this is whats all here, as its directly presented.

But what faculty did you use to draw these conclusions?

Given our presently developed capabilities, we know our natural cognitive skills demonstratively work by which we use reason and rationality to explore, use, and navigate, and explain the various mysteries that we encounter of which we expand our horizons. Irrationality seldom works in that respect therefore it is very difficult to effectively explore, use, and navigate using an irrational mind.

I agree reason and rationality work great! But where does rationality come from if the natural universe is not rational?

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

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.


.

He may have debated them, so what?

Also, you are making statement about all atheists. Please show me where I have misrepresented lunamoth's arguments or completely missed her point?

 

[lunamoth]

When I was a christian this is one of the questions that helped maintain my faith. It was also one that helped squash it when I started really looking at my faith. It would seem at first glance that there must be a reason for life to exist. The universe is a large, chaotic, and dangerous place. For life to exist in it seems to be too much of a coincidence, something must have put us here. That was how I thought. Not so sure now. If there were a creator god as described in the bible or other faith wouldn't it favor and protect its followers who are doing its will? That doesn't seem to be the case. Calamity (natural and man made) befall everyone in this world and no one seems to have divine protection of any kind. From observing how things work in this world, if there is a god, it chooses not to interfere. Therefore, religions claiming that god comes down to talk to us and interfere in our affairs are false. Thats how I see it anyway.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts about this. I don't think there has to be a reason for life to exist, and I don't think life as we know it requires a creator. We could all just be meat robots as some believe. Our rich inner life could just be some kind of fluke of evolution, an illusion and without purpose, even if it does not feel that way to us. But if we recognize this is possible, and accept it as the most plausible situation, or perhaps even the only plausible situation, then aren't we really just fooling ourselves when we say things like "I get meaning from my relationships with those I love?" After all, if these feeling and relationships are explained by an evolutionary process in which they give us some kind of selective advantage, then we are saying we know they are not rational and thus, without meaning. To say that life is a happy accident, we are acknowledging that what we ascribe meaning to is an illusion. Can you really get meaning from an illusion?

 

[lunamoth]

Why would you expect to know either way for sure? However, where there is no evidence, you do not know at all. The honest thing to do in the absence of evidence is to provisionally conclude that "this is it" and be ready to change your mind if good evidence does arrive.

What faculty are you using when you look at the evidence and provisionally conclude this is it, even as you remain open to new evidence?

 

[Tathagata]

He may have debated them, so what?

Yeah, and he has won nearly every debate in his career. You claimed that he debated people of lower IQ so I was showing you that no, he actually debates highly intelligent people who are PhD scientists and philosophers. You implied that no Theist debaters are smart by assuming that a Theist can only win if they go against a low IQ Atheist.

You stated earlier: "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."

You said you've yet to seem him win a debate against a real rationalist. So you don't think Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, or Sam Harris are real rationalists?

Also, you are making statement about all atheists. Please show me where I have misrepresented lunamoth's arguments or completely missed her point?

Show me where I said "all Atheists." I said "most."

So far, most of the Atheist/Agnostic responses to lunamoth have been WAY off base, completely missing the point, and lack philosophical understanding.

Also, I didn't say they misrepresented her arguments, I said they didn't understand them. Anyways, I don't recall seeing you address lunamoth's "5 reasons" directly, so how can I address your response to her? If you did indeed address all 5 of her points, please show me where.


.

 

[lunamoth]

Memory

I'm sorry, I'm still not following. How does memory explain how evolution accounts for reason?

I understand your point. Yet such a believe leaves Theists weaponless in their assult against Atheists.

I'm not trying to assault atheists.

Or at least equally par-on-par; The Problem of Atheists is introduced when we define God as a being having our own sense of reason.

Kind of God made in our image?

true...but then what is right and good becomes meaningless in that they are extensions of a, excuse me for saying this, seemingly meaningless being. If a good being did exist, it would prefer confesion of agnostic.

Yeah, well I don't see God as meaningless. I'm sure you see the agnostic position as that of the most intellectually honest, which is why I am guessing you think God would value this choice of worldview. I can see the merit in that. However, the position of the theist, or at least this theist, is not one of knowledge or certitude, but one of faith. So, in a way I am also agnostic. The only thing I do feel like I know, if I can know anything, is that love is the Way (to salvation).

 

[lunamoth]

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?

Well, it's mostly a position of humility. But I am assuming that it can somehow impact us, even if it is not physically sensible to us. Sort of like we can pick up a rock and throw it, even though the rock has no awareness of our existence.

Why is this an argument for God? It might help if you define "God."

It's not an argument for God. It's supports the idea that it is not irrational to think that God could exist.

I don't think I know what you mean here, or what it has to do with God.

I think, in a nutshell, I'm looking for the basis of reason.

This gets you nowhere. First, it is not the case. Second, God does not provide such an objective basis. Third, if there is an objective basis, there is no reason to suppose it has to be God. Fourth, if there isn't, there isn't. Things don't exist because we need or want them to.

I beg to differ, but this is pretty much the same as 4.

4 and 5 are pretty much the same. Ethics is based on the idea that there is good and bad, right and wrong (not universally agreed upon right and wrong actions, but simply 'right' and 'wrong'). We always (reasonably) ask right 'for what' and wrong 'for what,' but we all seem to agree that these words have meaning. However, without an objective standard (ontological morality), there is not really right and wrong, there is only what I think is beneficial, or my group thinks is beneficial, or what I can force others to comply with. Now, in practical terms, that is how the world works any way for the most part. Right is not really right, it's what we want. For your fourth point - I agree. There does not have to be right and wrong. There can be simply our aesthetic preference. Your second and third points seem to conflict with each other. God could be the basis of ontological morality (if such a thing is possible), but God does not have to be.

 

[lunamoth]

Just realized that lunamoth and lunakilo are two different people. :tuna: *Hits self on head with tuna.*

She's much more hip than I am. :yes:

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Yeah, and he has won nearly every debate in his career. You claimed that he debated people of lower IQ so I was showing you that no, he actually debates highly intelligent people who are PhD scientists and philosophers. You implied that no Theist debaters are smart by assuming that a Theist can only win if they go against a low IQ Atheist.

You stated earlier: "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."

You said you've yet to seem him win a debate against a real rationalist. So you don't think Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, or Sam Harris are real rationalists?

Show me where I said "all Atheists." I said "most."



Also, I didn't say they misrepresented her arguments, I said they didn't understand them. Anyways, I don't recall seeing you address lunamoth's "5 reasons" directly, so how can I address your response to her? If you did indeed address all 5 of her points, please show me where.

.

He may have won the debate in your view. That doesn't make his arguments true.
He basically has three arguments to make:
1. Cosmological argument
2. Argument from Morality
3. Argument from probability.

All three show his limited understanding of science at best.
Google these arguments and you will see refutations of his arguments.
And in his debate with Hitchens, which I happened to have seen recently, Hitchens makes the excellent point that people who want to believe will see Craig's arguments as being true regardless of rationality.
Also, the debates I have seen of Craig with Hitchens, Harris and Krauss are highly structured, which do not allow for direct challenge.

I have not addressed lunamoth's OP, so you are right.

Also, what I meant by he debates with schmucks is that in the debates that he won hands down beyond a shadow of a doubt would be with people with lower IQs. The others are not so clear. You cannot show me that he won his arguments with Hitchens, Harris and Krauss hands down. If you can, please do so and I would be happy to withdraw my statements.

 

[lunamoth]

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.

That's quite a lot of back-pedaling, FTP.

Anyway, I have only seen his debates with physicist Lawrence Krauss and with Sam Harris. Krauss, while I respect him and probably agree with him more than I do with Craig, was cringe-worthy. Harris won for showmanship and charisma, but lost on formal debate points and rhetoric. It seemed like he basically ignored the main point of the debate and simply claimed the moral high ground by saying that obviously human well-being is good, religion is bad. He undermined his own position by belittling philosophy and the rhetorical discourse. It did not really even make sense, but he got a lot of good slamming of Christianity and Islam in. So there's that.

Craig's five main debate points are readily available on the internet, as are videos of his debates. Google William L Craig and you can't miss.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Five Reasons to Believe in God

1. It is highly unlikely that the material world we have access to through our senses is all that there is.

2. There is something, rather than nothing.

3. Higher reasoning, abstract thinking (including logic), and philosphy are not rational without an objective basis outside of our sensory world.

4. Ethics (responsibility to others) are an illusion without an objective basis of right and wrong.

5. Values/virtues (personal integrity) are an illusion without an objective basis for good.

Discuss. :seesaw:

1. Not really. Explain what you mean by non-material world which we cannot sense either directly or indirectly.

2. yes, there is something.

3. Why not?

4. Ethics is by no means objective. We can all agree on something being ethical, but we can change that later depending on increased knowledge.

5. Values/virtues are the same as ethics. They are not objective. We can all agree on them at this point, but there is no way to say that our values won't change with time. To give an example, it was once thought to be virtuous to own slaves. This particular value has changed over time and now we find it detestable.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

That's quite a lot of back-pedaling, FTP.

Anyway, I have only seen his debates with physicist Lawrence Krauss and with Sam Harris. Krauss, while I respect him and probably agree with him more than I do with Craig, was cringe-worthy. Harris won for showmanship and charisma, but lost on formal debate points and rhetoric. It seemed like he basically ignored the main point of the debate and simply claimed the moral high ground by saying that obviously human well-being is good, religion is bad. He undermined his own position by belittling philosophy and the rhetorical discourse. It did not really even make sense, but he got a lot of good slamming of Christianity and Islam in. So there's that.

Craig's five main debate points are readily available on the internet, as are videos of his debates. Google William L Craig and you can't miss.

Yes, I will readily accept that my wording was perhaps not the best. And that I invited this backlash upon myself. Unfortunately the problem with debates is that each speaker brings their own material and speaks their piece and there's the end of that.
I don't enjoy watching debates for this reason. I think debates should be one on one.
But I will not concede that William Craig makes more sense, because he doesn't. His opening statements, on their own merit do not hold up irrespective of what the other person in the debate says.

 

[lunamoth]

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.

Conceded. That was not a very good question.

 

[lunamoth]

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

You certainly have the evil laugh nailed. En garde! :knight:

 

[Yerda]

Do you still think these are reasons to believe in God, Luna?

I think the things you allude to can be coherent with the existence of God, depending on what God is. They would also be consistent with a Godless universe as far as I see it.

Good thread.

 

[Yerda]

6. The many things science cannot explain period, even with a theoretical basis. Such as how life even came about.

We have no answer therefore God did it. Painful.

 

[Tathagata]

He may have won the debate in your view. That doesn't make his arguments true.

First of all, arguments are not true or false. They are valid/sound or invalid/unsound. Also, when did I ever claim that W.L. Craig is right? Perhaps you should be more observant of the fact that my profile info says "Buddhist Atheist" with a big statue of Buddha's head as my avatar. THINK. Does it look like I agree with a Christian apologist????

All I'm saying is that he is very skillful in debates and is well-versed in philosophy. Does that make him right? No. Did I say it did? No.

He basically has three arguments to make:
1. Cosmological argument
2. Argument from Morality
3. Argument from probability.

That's wrong.

His arguments for God is 5 tiered. He uses:

The Argument from Contingency
Kalam's Cosmological Argument (Not all Cosmological arguments are the same)
The Teleological Argument for God
Moral Argument for God
The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus.

Additionally, he adds that the Ontological Argument for God and the Argument from Personal Experience are good arguments, however he doesn't personally use these in his debates.

All three show his limited understanding of science at best.

What does science have to do with his arguments? Science doesn't have much to do with things like contingency, morality, history, teleology, or even the philosophical concepts contained in the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

These can only really be challenged by philosophical means, not scientific ones. There have been arguments made by Sam Harris to suggest that science can cover morality, however, he had to appeal to a philosophical argument to do so! And even still, the science that Sam Harris refers to, is not the physical sciences as we all know them (but rather the psychological sciences, neurobiology sciences, etc.)

Google these arguments and you will see refutations of his arguments.

Google anything and you'll find an argument for and against everything. Since you claimed that you can personally refute all his primary arguments, let's see it.

And in his debate with Hitchens, which I happened to have seen recently, Hitchens makes the excellent point that people who want to believe will see Craig's arguments as being true regardless of rationality.

That is irrelevant to the strength and validity of Craig's arguments. Who cares what an irrational audience thinks? This has nothing to do with the potency of Craig's arguments.

Also, the debates I have seen of Craig with Hitchens, Harris and Krauss are highly structured, which do not allow for direct challenge.

Actually, yes they do allow for direct challenge. After the opening rounds, they have several rounds for direct rebuttals.

Also, what I meant by he debates with schmucks is that in the debates that he won hands down beyond a shadow of a doubt would be with people with lower IQs. The others are not so clear. You cannot show me that he won his arguments with Hitchens, Harris and Krauss hands down. If you can, please do so and I would be happy to withdraw my statements.

Raising the goalpost. First you implied that Craig was just ultimately a terrible debater who can only defeat low IQ people, so I respond that most of his opponents are well qualified and well educated which he has defeated. Now you are asking that I show that he defeated his tough opponents "beyond a shadow of a doubt." So it seems that you have now acknowledged that indeed Craig is not a terrible debater, but now want me to demonstrate that he is the BEST debater given that you regard Hitchens and the like to be the best.

Anyways, he certainly made a fool of Krauss, however, I agree that his rounds were vs. Hitchens and Harris were quite even. But whether he won or tied against Harris/Hitchens is not really the point. The point is that he can hang with the best and is indeed one of the elite debaters in the world.

.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

First of all, arguments are not true or false. They are valid/sound or invalid/unsound. Also, when did I ever claim that W.L. Craig is right? Perhaps you should be more observant of the fact that my profile info says "Buddhist Atheist" with a big statue of Buddha's head as my avatar. THINK. Does it look like I agree with a Christian apologist????

All I'm saying is that he is very skillful in debates and is well-versed in philosophy. Does that make him right? No. Did I say it did? No.



That's wrong.

His arguments for God is 5 tiered. He uses:

The Argument from Contingency
Kalam's Cosmological Argument (Not all Cosmological arguments are the same)
The Teleological Argument for God
Moral Argument for God
The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus.

Additionally, he adds that the Ontological Argument for God and the Argument from Personal Experience are good arguments, however he doesn't personally use these in his debates.



What does science have to do with his arguments? Science doesn't have much to do with things like contingency, morality, history, teleology, or even the philosophical concepts contained in the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

These can only really be challenged by philosophical means, not scientific ones. There have been arguments made by Sam Harris to suggest that science can cover morality, however, he had to appeal to a philosophical argument to do so! And even still, the science that Sam Harris refers to, is not the physical sciences as we all know them (but rather the psychological sciences, neurobiology sciences, etc.)



Google anything and you'll find an argument for and against everything. Since you claimed that you can personally refute all his primary arguments, let's see it.



That is irrelevant to the strength and validity of Craig's arguments. Who cares what an irrational audience thinks? This has nothing to do with the potency of Craig's arguments.



Actually, yes they do allow for direct challenge. After the opening rounds, they have several rounds for direct rebuttals.



Raising the goalpost. First you implied that Craig was just ultimately a terrible debater who can only defeat low IQ people, so I respond that most of his opponents are well qualified and well educated which he has defeated. Now you are asking that I show that he defeated his tough opponents "beyond a shadow of a doubt." So it seems that you have now acknowledged that indeed Craig is not a terrible debater, but now want me to demonstrate that he is the BEST debater given that you regard Hitchens and the like to be the best.

Anyways, he certainly made a fool of Krauss, however, I agree that his rounds were vs. Hitchens and Harris were quite even. But whether he won or tied against Harris/Hitchens is not really the point. The point is that he can hang with the best and is indeed one of the elite debaters in the world.

.

I am conceding your point. You are absolutely right. I am in fact raising the goalposts. Haven't you read what I posted earlier? What I should have said all along is that I personally find his arguments rather childish. There is no denying that he is a good debater. Anyway, if he were debating me, I would be able to refute most, if not all of his arguments.

Also, when he uses probability to make his point, he reveals a deep misunderstanding of that science. I am sorry, I have not expressed myself clearly in this thread at all.

 

[lunamoth]

1. Not really. Explain what you mean by non-material world which we cannot sense either directly or indirectly.

Well, I did not call it non-material, but that's OK. I'm just saying that considering how surprising the material world is as we know it, it is unlikely that we can possibly know all that exists. It seems likely that there is much more to reality than we have access to through our senses and reason. We arose from nature via evolution, right? Along the way, presumably, we had ancestors that were much more like sponges than we are today. A sponge, while it can sense, respond to, and interact with its environment has no awareness of that such a thing as 'humans' exist. This statement is mostly acknowledgment of our limitations.

2. yes, there is something.

I agree. Why?

3. Why not?

How do you know that your reason is giving you true information?

4. Ethics is by no means objective. We can all agree on something being ethical, but we can change that later depending on increased knowledge.

5. Values/virtues are the same as ethics. They are not objective. We can all agree on them at this point, but there is no way to say that our values won't change with time. To give an example, it was once thought to be virtuous to own slaves. This particular value has changed over time and now we find it detestable.

Ethics and values come from reason. We need to find a basis for reason for these to be valid, have meaning.

I'm getting tired.

 

[lunamoth]

Do you still think these are reasons to believe in God, Luna?

Perhaps not reasons to believe in God, but reasons why belief in God makes sense. More sense than materialism, any way.

I think the things you allude to can be coherent with the existence of God, depending on what God is. They would also be consistent with a Godless universe as far as I see it.

They can be consistent with a Godless universe. As long as you claim your faith in reason.

Good thread.

Thanks, good to hear from you!