There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[samtonga43]

I did. Everything was in the paper.

Who wrote that paper, joelr?

 

[samtonga43]

Like I already said. The opinion of someone who has to piggyback into an argument just to try to insult me is not something I care about. Weakness. Any negative thoughts you have are a compliment.

I am trying to help you, rather than insult you. But as I said, it's up to you. Carry on.

 

[joelr]

Who wrote that paper, joelr?

RV Gherman. It's not a controversial subject, scholars in related fields talk about Aquinas using Plato all the time. You can follow the sources and read Plato on the One yourself and contrast it with Aquinas.


https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28242/chapter-abstract/213321122?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Augustine, Aquinas, Plato, and Aristotle | The Spitzer Center

 

[joelr]

I am trying to help you, rather than insult you. But as I said, it's up to you. Carry on.

No, you are trying to help you. Of course you will feel that way because it is always information against your position that you cannot answer to. Your "opinion of how I look" is not important and radically bias.
Worse is you are arguing an opinion, and it's on "how I look" rather than information or evidence to forward your position on something of substance.

 

[samtonga43]

RV Gherman. It's not a controversial subject, scholars in related fields talk about Aquinas using Plato all the time.

Yes, I am aware of this, joelr. The person I'm really interested is the author of the paper. You say the author is RV Gherman. I would like to know more about her/him. Can you help? A link perhaps?

You can follow the sources and read Plato on the One yourself and contrast it with Aquinas.

Been there, done that... many years ago.

 

[joelr]

Yes, I am aware of this, joelr. The person I'm really interested is the author of the paper. You say the author is RV Gherman. I would like to know more about her/him. Can you help? A link perhaps?


Been there, done that... many years ago.

Why do you need more about the author if you have an understanding of Plato and the One/Form of the Good and Aquinas work? I was using this paper to demonstrate it's a thing. If you want to dive deeper into the subject Cambride University Press has a bunch of works on comparisons to Plato and christian theology.

Christian Platonism

 

[samtonga43]

I was using this paper to demonstrate it's a thing. If you want to dive deeper into the subject Cambride University Press has a bunch of works on comparisons to Plato and christian theology.

I don't need to 'dive deeper', joelr.

Why do you need more about the author if you have an understanding of Plato and the One/Form of the Good and Aquinas work?

You say the author is RV Gherman.
You say you used her//his work.
I would like to contact RV Gherman.
Please provide a link.
Thanks...

 

[joelr]

I don't need to 'dive deeper', joelr.


You say the author is RV Gherman.
You say you used her//his work.
I would like to contact RV Gherman.
Please provide a link.
Thanks...

If you don't need to dive deeper then why are you asking?

I didn't say I "used" his work? I read the paper and it uses sources and fairly accurate information on both Plato and Aquinas, which I am familiar with. I'm not going to photocopy my books???? He sourced the Summa Theologica, , Plato - Parmenides and Aristotle Metaphysics, perfect. The information sounds accurate so it was an example that this is an actual knowledge and discussion people have.
What you then do is research it yourself (you probably haven't)

You clearly seem to think you have some amazing burn here and you don't. Your priorities are needing some help.

But the paper is under an archive from Western University:

Search results for `RV Gherman` - PhilArchive

 

[samtonga43]

If you don't need to dive deeper then why are you asking?

I told you why I was asking.

I didn't say I "used" his work?

(No need for a ? joelr. Why? Because you have not asked a question).
You certainly did say that you used his work.

I'm not going to photocopy my books????

This is not even one question, so ???? are four too many.

He sourced the Summa Theologica, , Plato - Parmenides and Aristotle Metaphysics, perfect. The information sounds accurate so it was an example that this is an actual knowledge and discussion people have.

You are now making no sense whatsoever.

What you then do is research it yourself (you probably haven't)

LOL! You may be surprised.
But back to you; what you ought to have done is to cite your sources, joelr. After all, you wouldn’t want readers to assume that you wrote that paper, would you? Would you?

But the paper is under an archive from Western University:
Search results for `RV Gherman` - PhilArchive

Well, that was like pulling teeth. But we got there in the end.
(RV plays guitar beautifully!)

I would advise you to cite your sources in future, joelr.

 

[joelr]

I told you why I was asking.

To contact the author? Sounds like diving deeper.

(No need for a ? joelr. Why? Because you have not asked a question).
You certainly did say that you used his work.

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

It's an interrobang. Needed at this point because I already told you I did not say I used his work. Yet here you are saying it AGAIIN?
I posted this paper, that's it. As I already said it was just an example of a common discussion.
Provide the post # where I say I've "used his work".

This is not even one question, so ???? are four too many.

Nope it's 4 interrobang. But really, punctuation is your best argument this time?

You are now making no sense whatsoever.

It's not a hard concept but we'll get you there. The Platonic concepts Aquinas used are in Summa Theologica (by Aquinas) and in
the Phaedo dialogue and the Parmenides from Plato. Aristotle is another source - Metaphysics. The paper was sourcing these and sounded like he was making a good case. But like I said, if you are interested go right to the source.

After you contact RV of course. Maybe catch a movie or something.

LOL! You may be surprised.

Uh, yeah I would be surprised.

But back to you; what you ought to have done is to cite your sources, joelr. After all, you wouldn’t want readers to assume that you wrote that paper, would you? Would you?

Oh this is what all the fuss is about. I knew you were working some angle. Yeah it was pretty clear it was a paper I got online. First I have never posted a paper, have made it clear I follow scholarship rather than write papers for scholarship and if it were my paper it would be made known that HERE IS MY PAPER I WROTE ON THE SUBJECT.

Wow look at that, you jump in on another debate just to sling attacks now your entire angle is to look for more ways to say "gotcha". It's almost like it's a pattern. Once again, it must be said...

Weak.

Well, that was like pulling teeth. But we got there in the end.
(RV plays guitar beautifully!)

Was it though? Maybe this cryptic statement didn't help? "I would like to contact RV Gherman."

to which I provided a link? Well good luck with your contact.

I would advise you to cite your sources in future, joelr.

right, with contact information as well?

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

I’ve been reading through a couple of threads, and I see that it is said that there is no evidence for a god.

, it’s an unfalsifiable idea. We all agree on this?

No, we do not all agree on this. I disagree 100%.

If you don’t, care to explain the evidence there is for god?

Sure.

1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument.

2. The Modal Ontological Argument.

3. The Teleological Argument.

4. The Argument from Consciousness

Would you like the list to go on and on and on with the arguments for the existence of God??

I mean, after all, Alvin Plantiga lists about Two Dozen or So Theistic Arguments...

https://appearedtoblogly.files.word...n-22two-dozen-or-so-theistic-arguments221.pdf

I’m in agreement. I used to believe my personal experiences to be subjective evidence for god, but I know now that’s not the case. I am not a theist anymore because I recognize I was a Christian thanks almost completely to my environment. That’s why I believed. I was brought up in it. Wasn’t because of any proof or anything,
So, theists, why do you believe? Is it mainly because of your environment and geographical location?

This is the Genetic Fallacy, which is when a concept is invalidated based on its origins.

There have been many people of whom were raised as Christian but later denounced their faith.

And on the flip side, there have been many people who weren't raised Christian, who converted to the Christian faith.

Now, sure there are always factors as to why someone believes in ANYTHING, not just religion...but that doesn't necessarily have any bearing on future beliefs, one way or the other.

There is no proof for god (right?)

Wrong.

, so what logically keeps you believing?

Because I don't have enough faith to believe that the universe came from nothing, and that dead matter came to life and began to talk, think, and have sex.

I don't have enough faith to believe in those things.

Or is logic not supposed to be a factor when it comes to faith? Is it too jarring, the idea of leaving the comfort that religion and belief in a god brings?
I am curious about personal evaluations on why you believe. It can’t be because of logic, as there is no proof of god, right?

Wrong.

 

[ppp]

No, we do not all agree on this. I disagree 100%.

100%? Gee whillikers.
Falsifiability means that the universe exists exactly as it is right now, but that there is no god involved.
How would you go about falsifying your god?

 

[ppp]

1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Unsound. But even if it were sound, it does not conclude in "God exists"

2. The Modal Ontological Argument.

The first premise, It is at least possible for God to exist, is not true.

3. The Teleological Argument.

Requires that there be something natural, and a way to distinguish naturally made from made by intent. The argument then goes on to assert that everything is made by intent. Circular defeater.

4. The Argument from Consciousness

An argument from ignorance fallacy.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Unsound. But even if it were sound, it does not conclude in "God exists"

If it were sound, then a non-physical, atemporal, conscious, necessary entity is needed to explain the effect.

This implication is inescapable and while it doesn't sit well with you, it sits well with sound/valid logical reasoning.

The first premise, It is at least possible for God to exist, is not true.

Ok, there we go. So, can you please enlighten me as to how God's existence is impossible?

Requires that there be something natural, and a way to distinguish naturally made from made by intent. The argument then goes on to assert that everything is made by intent. Circular defeater.

An argument from ignorance fallacy.

I am impressed that you recognize the argument from intentionality in there. Good job, seriously.

That being said, you are WRONG. Mental states aren't physical, and consciousness isn't physical...and if they aren't physical, then you cannot logically use science to explain the origins of non-physical states.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

100%? Gee whillikers.
Falsifiability means that the universe exists exactly as it is right now

I would like to think that everything that exists, exists exactly as it is right now.

, but that there is no god involved.

Non sequitur.

How would you go about falsifying your god?

I don't.

 

[ppp]

If it were sound, then a non-physical, atemporal, conscious, necessary entity is needed to explain the effect.

Wild assertions. That is not in any way an argument.

This implication is inescapable and while it doesn't sit well with you, it sits well with sound/valid logical reasoning.

The intellectually honest response was to ask me what makes the argument unsound. But you are simply cheerleading.

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause for it's existence. "
"The universe began to exist"
This argument uses began to exist to mean rearrangement of existing stuff in the first premise and to poof into existence in the second premise. But Craig pretends to use the poof into existence definition in both cases. It is an equivocation fallacy. In other words, Craig is resorting to punning to fake a conclusion.

There are other problems with those promises, but equivocation is a sufficient defeater.

Ok, there we go. So, can you please enlighten me as to how God's existence is impossible?

I did not say that it is impossible. I said the claim that it is possible is not true. Meaning that there has been no demonstration of it's possibility, and your claim is unjustified.

Had I said that the claim was false, then I would have been saying that it is impossible. If you are going to sling around logical arguments you might wish to understand what has been said about them over the centuries. Don't just copy paste and think that is all the thinking that you need to do.

I am impressed that you recognize the argument from intentionality in there. Good job, seriously.

Thanks. Seriously. But theists have been throwing these around for centuries. And I have heard them for decades.

That being said, you are WRONG. Mental states aren't physical, and consciousness isn't physical...

That is an interesting assertion. Totally unjustified. How do you intend to demonstrate that to be true?

I prophecy an argument from ignorance.

 

[ppp]

Non sequitur.

Cute term. Can you back it up?

I don't.

You're the one who claimed it was falsifiable. You claim that it's 100% falsifiable. More hollow words, eh.

 

[questfortruth]

care to explain the evidence there is for god?

Dark Energy is God. Dark Matter is Paradise.
Proof of God

 

[Sheldon]

Sure.

1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument.

2. The Modal Ontological Argument.

3. The Teleological Argument.

4. The Argument from Consciousness

Would you like the list to go on and on and on with the arguments for the existence of God??

A better idea would be to re-read the question, as it asked for evidence, not long since debunked arguments.

 

[Sheldon]

Because I don't have enough faith to believe that the universe came from nothing, and that dead matter came to life and began to talk, think, and have sex.

False dichotomy fallacy, we are not necessarily limited to a choice between that straw man, and an imaginary deity using inexplicable magic. We just have to have the intellectual integrity to accept we don't know things, and not feel the need to leap to the crutch of superstition, and pretend it's evidenced by gaps in our knowledge. This is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.