INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Enai de a lukal]

I searched for 70% in that article. It only appears twice:

The article does not contain the actual results from the survey, although it mentions some of them. To see the results of the survey, you have to follow the link at the top of the article. Or, you can just go here- The PhilPapers Surveys

As you dig in, you do start to get really interesting nuggets of information. For instance, among philosophers of religion (this is a self-described category), 70 percent describe themselves as theists and only 20 percent as atheists, and when it comes to moral realism — meaning that you think that moral claims (“Don’t hit children”) refer to actual facts of some kind (often these are thought to be non-natural facts, like God’s will) — then over 80 percent of philosophers of religion think of themselves as moral realists and only 10 percent as moral nonrealists. When you turn however to philosophers of biology, a group to which I belong, nearly 85 percent think of themselves as atheists and a mere 1.5 percent think of themselves as theists. On moral realism, we find that just over 30 percent think of themselves as moral realists, and over 50 percent as nonrealists.
What Do Philosophers Really Think? – Brainstorm - Blogs - The Chronicle of Higher Education
That article is all over the place but I do not see what you do and I do see what I said. Please highlight where you get your claim as I did.

The 30 percent number is among philosophers of biology specifically. The overall number for respondents as a whole was 56%, as you can see on the survey results page.

I did not say Dawkin's was wrong. If there is no God I can't. He appears to reasonably conclude no objective standard exists so no one could ever claim Hitler was right or wrong, and I agree given atheism. You can't dress garbage up as a princess, but you tried hard.

Well, but on Dawkins view there are such a thing as objective standards- but they are simply questions of fact; asking whether X is right or moral is simply to ask whether X is a cooperative behavioral strategy which has been selected for. Moral facts are just facts about the behavior of humans; they have no normative force.

I see nothing contentious in that statement in need of clarity. It is the simplest of deductions.

Well sure, but absent any argument for the claim, it is necessarily an invalid deduction, regardless of how simple. In any case, this-

"Each of these positions fails to provide the justification necessary for a universal, objective morality—the kind of morality in which good and evil are clearly understood and delineated."

is clearly just a bald assertion, and is one of the claims that is at issue here (i.e. it is question-begging); maybe these positions do fail to provide any adequate justification for "universal, objective morality" and maybe they do not- we're not going to simply take this person's word for it, they need to say why it fails.

I did not provide that as condemnation of realism or atheists but of atheism. I said atheism does not contain a sufficient contention to his claims, a personally more persuasive reason not to do as he did may exist but no objective condemnation does. It may be said his actions do not agree with another's but it can't be said his justifications for his actions are wrong. The other professionals you mention first of all do not give objective reasons for their claims and second of all they only got another result from the same equations. For example Hitler and his cohorts sincerely thought their actions would actually improve human societies development in the future. They used the same equation (in general) and got another result. Others used it and determined killing a hundred million human lives in the womb was just fine but killing a condemned murderer was not. Your equations are so full of ambiguity and assumptions that anyone can get almost any answer and there exists no objective criteria to know which one is right, the exact same way no objective political criteria means two diametrically opposed positions are both claimed by millions to be right even as Rome burns.

Hmm, sort of like interpreting the will of God you mean? In any case, the fact that some people could attempt to justify their actions through the sorts of criteria offered is not really a refutation- they could just be mistaken, as in your example; clearly Hitler cannot reasonably claim that his actions contributed to human flourishing (people generally don't flourish by dying), he cannot reasonably claim that his actions maximized happiness and minimized suffering, nor can he reasonably claim that his actions were universally applicable without being self-defeating (since everyone would eventually be dead, and no longer able to carry on those actions- they would be self-defeating). It's ironic that you should mention ambiguity here; your attempted refutation of these secular ethical alternatives is extremely vague. It doesn't even apply to deontological ethics at all, and is extremely implausible in both of the other two cases; while we may not be able to, say, quantify happiness in a precise way, we nevertheless have some objective general metrics for happiness and flourishing. As above, one cannot claim that torturing or killing someone contributed to their happiness or flourishing; maybe one cannot numerically measure their happiness, but its pretty hard to be mistaken about whether one is happy or in suffering. One's physical and psychological well-being are most certainly an objective matter of fact, even if they are not as easy to measure as, say, one's height.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: You have wasted a lot of your time in this thread. If the universe had a beginning, so what? Even if a God exists, the odds are astronomical that he is not the God of the Bible.

If a God exists, and is eternal, there are not any good reasons to exclude the possibility that the universe was caused by eternal naturalistic energy that has the same "creative" attributes that God has. Oh, I know, there is the fine tuning argument, but that is utterly absurd since if anything, life is tuned to suffer, and die, not to live. To counter that argument, you would need to partly use theology, which invites the question "Since all roads eventually lead to theology, why didn't you start there in the first place?" That is what the apostle Paul did. The Bible says that "faith comes by hearing, and by hearing the word of God." That obviously has nothing to do with physics, or biology.

Some time ago, I told you that most atheists would not object to the right kind of loving God. You disagreed, but you can't be right since surely, almost all atheists would love to be provided with a comfortable eternal life by any being, whether or not the being claimed to be a God. Logically, if a comfortable eternal life is available, who provides it is irrelevant. Obviously, it is the comfort that is the most important thing by far. If you were provided with a free luxury vacation, it would not matter who provided it for you.

If a God exists, and claimed to be good, and moral, would his claim necessarily be true? I will start a new thread on that topic.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Message to 1robin: You have wasted a lot of your time in this thread. If the universe had a beginning, so what? Even if a God exists, the odds are astronomical that he is not the God of the Bible.

Well, and that's not to mention that the universe having a "beginning" doesn't imply the existence of ANY god at all, much less the Abrahamic one.

 

[metis]

1. You have changed your claim from a "fair number" which is ambiguous but only has relevance if meaning significant number of Biblical inerrant here. Which I disagree with, to claiming that numerous examples exist which is so ambiguous I can't consider. I claim the large majority of Christians believe the revelation was pure and the translation almost but not perfectly accurate. I do not care and have no idea the relevance of the 5% or 10% you are talking about.

2. That is reality and the reality I live in, though what the purpose of that remark is I do not know. The reality is this is what the term means: Biblical inerrancy is the doctrine that the Bible, in its original manuscripts, is accurate and totally free from error of any kind; that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact". https://www.google.com/#q=biblical+inerrancy+definition

3. I never said that Christians were all scholars and have no idea where you got this. If you mean that Christians in large numbers are so stupid to believe a book that differs by translation as much as 5% are all correct then that deserves no response.

It's both amazing and pathetic how you can twist and turn things around, thus making discussion darn near impossible. So, why do I try? Definitely must be a character flaw on my part.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I am one of the very few orthodox protestants in these threads and so am the target for most of the opposition, a few of which a very very prolific. I have typed my fingers off until I have developed a few techniques that save me some time. I constantly test reactions to simple claims before investing much time into developing what went into them. If I find a person with a dismissive attitude (maybe 40% of the time) I can save a lot of time by dismissing them and not developing something that will be ignored anyway. Another is to determine if semantics will be the focal point or a subjects intuitive value. Another factor is how respectful a person is. I have also learned that if I give my understanding scholars will be demanded, If I give scholars my understanding will be demanded. If an opinion a link will be demanded, if a link an opinion will be insisted upon. I wind up in 80% of the cases concluding I am not up against reason or evidence but preference and prefer not to waste to much time in those debates. If you review my posts you will find:

1. Links are given but not utilized.
2. Expert opinion being dismissed as a popularity contest.
3. My opinion being said to not be of authority.
4. Complaints of too lengthy posts.
5. Of too short posts.
6. I once even was told I could not use the defense given by the man who was quoted.

At this point I make arguments to my satisfaction and will continue to do so.

I have no idea about atheist's opinions in general but I do have a very good idea what is true of the atheist position. I go way way out of my way to specifically point out I am not making epistemological points about apprehension or beliefs. I make specifically ontological or foundational points. Yet as here I get epistemological complaints. There is no solution to this, I have even pointed out that I have pointed out that I make no epistemological claims and that it is a universally known fact atheists still complain about claims not made and even refuted, so I post to my own satisfaction. My authority is quite a bit above those who complain.

In my personal debates with you in this thread I have asked only for your arguments and I get arguments that I point out were illogical and you then backed it up by showing that there are scholars that agree with you somewhere.

If you would like to right now give your best crack (reasoning only) I won't ask for links or scholars (unless you have like factually related things that need to be backed up).

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

You have said a number of times that all of macro evolution has problems, but according to one study, in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept it. You made many posts about macro evolution even though your own personal knowledge of biology is rudimentary, and you have refused to debate experts. Whatever problems macro evolution has, according to most experts, creationism has far more problems than macro evolution does, but you never admitted that.

I am not going to say life from non life is not a problem until it isn't. I do not care if 1,000% of people believe it.

Now really, you surely must know that I have never made an argument at any of these forums that life came from non life, and that macro evolution does not have anything whatsoever to do with the origin of life. Months ago, when you said that all of macro evolution has problems, you knew that it does not have anything to do with the origin of life, and in this thread, you once posted a link that argues against one species changing into another species. Quite obviously, when a person argues against one species changing into another species, they are not discussing the origin of life.

You would have no chance in debates against experts in many fields that you debate, so why should anyone at these forums pay any attention to you? I frequently only get involved in long debates regarding topics that I am willing to debate with experts, such as homosexuality, and certain aspects of the existence, and morality of God.

.......but homosexuality has no defense at all and I am no longer entertaining the possibility it might. You had more than enough time to present that case and couldn't.

My post #2094 in a thread on homosexuality at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-have-relationship-other-210.html#post3677562 proves otherwise.

 

[1robin]

The article does not contain the actual results from the survey, although it mentions some of them. To see the results of the survey, you have to follow the link at the top of the article. Or, you can just go here- The PhilPapers Surveys

Well that was certainly misleading. I went to that link and only saw more links. I am too busy today to follow layers of links. Are you saying your numbers exist in spite of the numbers I gave? I do not see how that is possible.

The 30 percent number is among philosophers of biology specifically. The overall number for respondents as a whole was 56%, as you can see on the survey results page.

I know that but in what way would it not be generally representative. On what grounds are biologists that much more inclined to deny moral realism.

Well, but on Dawkins view there are such a thing as objective standards- but they are simply questions of fact; asking whether X is right or moral is simply to ask whether X is a cooperative behavioral strategy which has been selected for. Moral facts are just facts about the behavior of humans; they have no normative force.

That is bizarre. I think assumption would be a far better word for what you describe than fact. Facts must have explanations, assumptions do not. No explanation no fact, especially not in this case. Facts about results are not shoulds and so are not morals. They are is(s) and so a mere details. Extrapolating law from that is one terrible idea and probably why we are in such dire moral shape these days.

Well sure, but absent any argument for the claim, it is necessarily an invalid deduction, regardless of how simple. In any case, this-

"Each of these positions fails to provide the justification necessary for a universal, objective morality—the kind of morality in which good and evil are clearly understood and delineated."

is clearly just a bald assertion, and is one of the claims that is at issue here (i.e. it is question-begging); maybe these positions do fail to provide any adequate justification for "universal, objective morality" and maybe they do not- we're not going to simply take this person's word for it, they need to say why it fails.

Finally, Ruse and Wilson disagree with Dawkins and maintain that belief in morality is just an adaptation put in place by evolution to further our reproductive ends. On their view, morality is simply an illusion foisted on us by our genes to get us to cooperate and to advance the species. But have they considered the ramifications of such a view? Each of these positions fails to provide the justification necessary for a universal, objective morality—the kind of morality in which good and evil are clearly understood and delineated.

That paragraph is an argument. It is a remarkably simple and obvious deduction. In what way is it deniable or even challengeable. It appears your saying no justification exist for the proposition 2 + 2 = 4 and I must take it on faith or opinion.

Hmm, sort of like interpreting the will of God you mean?

I see absolutely no parallel with this. God is a proposition where X's existence establishes Y to a certainty and necessity. Evolution alone is a proposition that given X removes any possibility of Y.

In any case, the fact that some people could attempt to justify their actions through the sorts of criteria offered is not really a refutation- they could just be mistaken, as in your example; clearly Hitler cannot reasonably claim that his actions contributed to human flourishing (people generally don't flourish by dying), he cannot reasonably claim that his actions maximized happiness and minimized suffering, nor can he reasonably claim that his actions were universally applicable without being self-defeating (since everyone would eventually be dead, and no longer able to carry on those actions- they would be self-defeating). It's ironic that you should mention ambiguity here; your attempted refutation of these secular ethical alternatives is extremely vague. It doesn't even apply to deontological ethics at all, and is extremely implausible in both of the other two cases; while we may not be able to, say, quantify happiness in a precise way, we nevertheless have some objective general metrics for happiness and flourishing. As above, one cannot claim that torturing or killing someone contributed to their happiness or flourishing; maybe one cannot numerically measure their happiness, but its pretty hard to be mistaken about whether one is happy or in suffering. One's physical and psychological well-being are most certainly an objective matter of fact, even if they are not as easy to measure as, say, one's height.

Hitler's claim was not that simple. His claim was that his actions would lead I the long run to human flourishing. Not that his claims if short term were all that refutable in themselves. Right or wrong is not even the issue nor a possibility. Your interpreting your agreement with it as being the arbiter and that is the whole point. It isn't. Without God Hitler was not objectively right or wrong. there simply exists agreement or disagreement and no criteria available to resolve the issue and therefor no actual justification for stopping him.

What is true of human flourishing or happiness is not the right question either. What has generally been considered right or wrong has often conflicted with both? Redefining morality does not found morality in truth. While there may be reliable methods to determine your current level of contentment there is certainly no end to logical theories about what would produce higher levels of future happiness, and flourishing has many brands. This is why it is a horrible foundation beyond the fact it is pulled out of thin air. As I have continuously said and is patently obvious no matter what language is employed to make it appear logical or scholarly it is still complete opinion in areas which would have a remarkably wide range and which no criteria exists to determine who was right until far too late. These terrible standards also produce horribly inconsistent and incoherent results. For example is China's one child policy which destroys life conducive to life, only conducive to certain lives, actually true at all to begin with? How can abortion ever be conducive to human flourishing except you pick which humans get to flourish? Who dictated human flourishing is the criteria anyway? Again this is just as wrong as racism, it is speciesm? Once God is eliminated morality becomes hopelessly arbitrary with respect to truth and an ambiguous mess that can be hijacked any number of ways and which only God could supply proper condemnation for. It is a goat of a theory even if you dress it in an Armani suit. Even the effort of doing so is immoral its self.

 

[1robin]

Now really, you surely must know that I have never made an argument at any of these forums that life came from non life, and that macro evolution does not have anything whatsoever to do with the origin of life. Months ago, when you said that all of macro evolution has problems, you knew that it does not have anything to do with the origin of life, and in this thread, you once posted a link that argues against one species changing into another species. Quite obviously, when a person argues against one species changing into another species, they are not discussing the origin of life.

I can not remember what the heck is contained in your sea of posts in detail, regardless the entire theory of evolution alone is not only completely dependent on life arising on it's own but a universe from nothing and a thousand other problems that impair its validity. You cannot propose any theory, even one that does not contain inherent problems that necessitates impossibilities. That is an intellectual copout and an effort to save what should not be. This is another example where semantics is substituted for reason. I care about what is true of reality not what is true of a human theory. I am not bound to consider macroevolution in an arbitrary vacuum but by what in in fact necessitates in totality.

My post #2094 in a thread on homosexuality at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-have-relationship-other-210.html#post3677562 proves otherwise.

You are not going to get me to waste even more time on that subject but you can waste your time trying if you wish.

 

[1robin]

In my personal debates with you in this thread I have asked only for your arguments and I get arguments that I point out were illogical and you then backed it up by showing that there are scholars that agree with you somewhere.

If you would like to right now give your best crack (reasoning only) I won't ask for links or scholars (unless you have like factually related things that need to be backed up).

I have lost track of what it is you want my best crack at. Can you remind me?

1. I post arguments as requested.
2. When they are dismissed IMO without justification it would be futile to make more arguments to be dismissed.
3. The next logical point of reference is to insist that people trained to know what is dismissible do not agree with your dismissal.
4. They are dismissed.
5. You have dismissed every possible avenue of resolution.
6. I dismiss your dismissal.

 

[1robin]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

There exists no rational explanation for the level of duplications you alone generate. What the heck are you doing? You need one of those enter the code tests to determine your a human IMO.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I can not remember what the heck is contained in your sea of posts in detail, regardless the entire theory of evolution alone is not only completely dependent on life arising on it's own but a universe from nothing and a thousand other problems that impair its validity. You cannot propose any theory, even one that does not contain inherent problems that necessitates impossibilities. That is an intellectual copout and an effort to save what should not be. This is another example where semantics is substituted for reason. I care about what is true of reality not what is true of a human theory. I am not bound to consider macroevolution in an arbitrary vacuum but by what in in fact necessitates in totality.

Not so. Why do you think it is?

 

[metis]

...regardless the entire theory of evolution alone is not only completely dependent on life arising on it's own but a universe from nothing...

Absolutely false. Even Darwin, who was a lay Christian minister, never hypothesized as such. There are a great many scientists who are "theistic evolutionists", and they don't have to abandon neither their religious beliefs nor their science in order to be as such.

For just one example, Fr. Pierre Teilhard deChardin was the world's greatest expert on Homo erectus when he was alive.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Absolutely false. Even Darwin, who was a lay Christian minister, never hypothesized as such. There are a great many scientists who are "theistic evolutionists", and they don't have to abandon neither their religious beliefs nor their science in order to be as such.

For just one example, Fr. Pierre Teilhard deChardin was the world's greatest expert on Homo erectus when he was alive.

Or Francis Collins.

 

[1robin]

Not so. Why do you think it is?

The only uncertainty I can think you having involves my mistakenly leaving the word theory in my statement. Actually I do not know how to get to get it out of there. The theory as a concept might no semantically or technically involve abiogenesis but the actually possibility of evolution alone as an explanation for life IN REALITY would necessitate that it have occurred.
It is like saying the design of flashlight might not require batteries on hand but it's actual operation would. And abiogenesis is just one of a million or more other necessities required for evolution to even been a theoretical possibility. Did that at least make my point clear?

 

[1robin]

Absolutely false. Even Darwin, who was a lay Christian minister, never hypothesized as such. There are a great many scientists who are "theistic evolutionists", and they don't have to abandon neither their religious beliefs nor their science in order to be as such.

For just one example, Fr. Pierre Teilhard deChardin was the world's greatest expert on Homo erectus when he was alive.

Again the problem seems to be your are considering the theory as it exists in textbooks and I am considering reality as it exists in truth. Natural realities are always dependent. They never exist in reality an necessary beings or concepts. I am talking about natural reality not a theory. You also seem to have missed that I said evolution as explanation for life alone. In if it is part of a theistic framework then my claims do not apply and were not intended. Did this clear it up?

 

[metis]

Again the problem seems to be your are considering the theory as it exists in textbooks and I am considering reality as it exists in truth. Natural realities are always dependent. They never exist in reality an necessary beings or concepts. I am talking about natural reality not a theory. You also seem to have missed that I said evolution as explanation for life alone. In if it is part of a theistic framework then my claims do not apply and were not intended. Did this clear it up?

That is simply not what you wrote. Check the last several posts. If you withdraw what you wrote because of error, that's fine; but if you stick with what you wrote, you're simply not telling the truth. And what you wrote that I quoted was this: "...regardless the entire theory of evolution alone is not only completely dependent on life arising on it's own but a universe from nothing...".

Simply put, that's entirely false.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The only uncertainty I can think you having involves my mistakenly leaving the word theory in my statement. Actually I do not know how to get to get it out of there. The theory as a concept might no semantically or technically involve abiogenesis but the actually possibility of evolution alone as an explanation for life IN REALITY would necessitate that it have occurred.

It is like saying the design of flashlight might not require batteries on hand but it's actual operation would. And abiogenesis is just one of a million or more other necessities required for evolution to even been a theoretical possibility. Did that at least make my point clear?

I was responding, in particular, to this part of your post, " ... the entire theory of evolution alone is not only completely dependent on life arising on it's own but a universe from nothing ... "
I was wondering why you think so. All the theory of evolution requires is life, regardless of how it got here or where it came from.

Plenty of people believe god could have built evolution into the framework of the universe.