God, Logic, And Reason.

[Fidei Defensor]

I've heard it argued both that God can be discovered through reasoning of the natural world, and that God is so far above our reason and logic that it's doesn't matter if it seems illogical for God to exist, he still does.

 

This troubles me.  I believe that God can be reasoned to exist. However, God is indeed above our ways and as scripture says, unfathomable.  How do we reconcile these apparently contradicting ideas? Should we have faith and not waste our time reasoning his existence? Why did God give us reasoning and logic if we cannot use it to discover him?  Or is he reachable (to a certain extent) through reason?

 

 

Edited February 15, 2013 by tardis ad astra

[dairygirl4u2c]

it took me a long time to accept as proven, and theres a lot of argument for how God is the first cause. this much can be known and might as well be known. to fully know how an uncaused cause can be... is somewhat unfathomable, but the idea can be establised. and God in anyway beyond that becomes even more unfathomable.

but that dont mean we cant justify his existence as proven in some sense

[stevil]

Depends how you define "god". Thus far there has never been any evidence for any gods.

I really cringe when a person tries to prove a god, especially when they use science. Ultimately they just point to areas of science where there is uncertainty or lack of knowledge then say "see, god did it".

Most people that taut science as proof of god, these people are not scientists. It is a fact that most scientists are atheists. These guys know the intricacies of science, they really know it, much more than you or I, and most of them don't believe.
The creationists that spout the proof of the complexity of the eye, the flagellum, the secrets of DNA, they merely point to a god of the gaps argument, some scientists have then been motivated to solve the mysteries and I think the eye and flagellum have been successfully explained in terms of evolutionary theory.
But of course there are some really smart scientists that believe in god or gods. It just shows, based on your definition of god, that science cannot necessarily prove or disprove it.

The teleological arguments, like Aquinas ways are flawed from the non believer's perspective, but for the believer they are solid. They certainly play on certain apriori such that they are only arguments that preach to the converted but are not compelling enough to convert.

I feel the only argument worth anything and is untouchable with regards to an atheist like myself being able to debate against is when a person spouts that they believe because of personal (or religious) experience.
Of course I can argue that people's minds can play tricks, but I can't prove that was the case in "your" particular experience.

[Nihil Obstat]

Of course I can argue that people's minds can play tricks, but I can't prove that was the case in "your" particular experience.

I would recommend that you really do not want to go down that road. :) You also cannot prove that anything you know was not some radical, intricate, and highly elaborate failure of your own faculties. :hehe: Epistemology destroys knowledge.

[TheLordsSouljah]

Of course I can argue that people's minds can play tricks, but I can't prove that was the case in "your" particular experience.

Oh dear, please don't get into Descartes!!!!! You'll kill us all! lol

 

While God is infinite and we can't know everything about Him as we are finite, there are arguments for His existence. Go check out the Cosmological argument. Philosophy. Good fun.

[stevil]

Oh dear, please don't get into Descartes!!!!! You'll kill us all! lol
 
While God is infinite and we can't know everything about Him as we are finite, there are arguments for His existence. Go check out the Cosmological argument. Philosophy. Good fun.

Oh, I've already seen the cosmological argument. It is a terrible failure of an argument containing logical fallicies. It tries to use science but just shows a poor mans understanding of science, it tries to deduce a "desired" answer from a lack of scientific knowledge, it is just a god of the gaps argument.
Most scientists would disagree with the cosmological argument.

[Nihil Obstat]

Oh, I've already seen the cosmological argument. It is a terrible failure of an argument containing logical fallicies. It tries to use science but just shows a poor mans understanding of science, it tries to deduce a "desired" answer from a lack of scientific knowledge, it is just a god of the gaps argument.
Most scientists would disagree with the cosmological argument.

You seem to be referring more to the fine-tuned universe theory rather than a properly cosmological argument. If the cosmological argument does not obtain, it will be based more on the lack of necessity of a prime mover. It does not really have any use for God of the gaps argumentation, that the rather less graceful fine-tuned universe arguments require.

[stevil]

You seem to be referring more to the fine-tuned universe theory rather than a properly cosmological argument. If the cosmological argument does not obtain, it will be based more on the lack of necessity of a prime mover. It does not really have any use for God of the gaps argumentation, that the rather less graceful fine-tuned universe arguments require.

Hmm, I'm not sure what you refer to as the "properly" cosmological argument.

If we take it at its most basic
"The basic premise of all of these is that something caused the Universe to exist, and this First Cause is what we call God"

Thus far science doesn't know what caused our universe, what caused the first matter/energy to appear. I don't think scientists even know how matter/energy is created, they know energy and matter is interchangeable, but they don't know how it is created.
Nothing can be derived from logical thinking on this as it is simply unknown how to create matter/energy. It seems illogical merely to assert "God did it" and that "god" has an intellect and "choose" to do it.

[Nihil Obstat]

Hmm, I'm not sure what you refer to as the "properly" cosmological argument.

If we take it at its most basic
"The basic premise of all of these is that something caused the Universe to exist, and this First Cause is what we call God"

Thus far science doesn't know what caused our universe, what caused the first matter/energy to appear. I don't think scientists even know how matter/energy is created, they know energy and matter is interchangeable, but they don't know how it is created.
Nothing can be derived from logical thinking on this as it is simply unknown how to create matter/energy. It seems illogical merely to assert "God did it" and that "god" has an intellect and "choose" to do it.

It is not really God of the gaps. Not under any detailed definition of the argument. It basically argues that the Prime Mover, which can be argued as God, is a logical necessity. Not "we do not know, so God." That is not a very fair understanding of the argument.

[Fidei Defensor]

It is not really God of the gaps. Not under any detailed definition of the argument. It basically argues that the Prime Mover, which can be argued as God, is a logical necessity. Not "we do not know, so God." That is not a very fair understanding of the argument.

 

What remains to be demonstrated logically, however, is that this prime mover must necessarily be our God.

[Nihil Obstat]

What remains to be demonstrated logically, however, is that this prime mover must necessarily be our God.

Yes, but that is a very separate argument.

[stevil]

It is not really God of the gaps. Not under any detailed definition of the argument. It basically argues that the Prime Mover, which can be argued as God, is a logical necessity. Not "we do not know, so God." That is not a very fair understanding of the argument.

If you are coming at it from a logical Prime Mover argument then you are making an assumption with regards to the creation of energy/matter. We have no idea what conditions are required to create energy/matter or even if energy/matter is created at all. Maybe it has always been there. What is energy anyways?
The whole cause/effect may not apply, we just don't know.
To simply go into an infinite regression and label the prime as "god" is making an assumption and putting a label on it that comes with much baggage.
If we merely labeled it as "X" then it comes with no baggage, it might merely be a quantum vacuum. Scientifically we don't know and logically we can't derive as we don't know how energy/matter came about and we don't know if it requires a cause.

[Nihil Obstat]

You are making some assumptions of the cosmological argument that are not necessarily true. I think perhaps you would better understand what you are debating here if you spent more time studying the best examples of the argument itself.

[stevil]

You are making some assumptions of the cosmological argument that are not necessarily true. I think perhaps you would better understand what you are debating here if you spent more time studying the best examples of the argument itself.

You could present one, cut and paste it, link to it, and we could discuss that one in particular.
Otherwise it seems I will never address the particular one you are thinking about, the one without the god of the gaps conclusion.

[TheLordsSouljah]

By the way, there actually are three types of cosmological arguments. Which one are you thinking of?

 

Aquinas: impossibility of an essentially ordered infinite regress;

Termed by Craig: infinite temporal regress impossible because an actual infinite impossible;

Clarke: Principle of Sufficient Reason

 

Edited February 15, 2013 by TheLordsSouljah