God's Existance

[HisChildForever]

This thread has become a bit lame.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1638777' date='Aug 26 2008, 12:51 PM']This thread has become a bit lame. [/quote]
Haha. Okay, I'll try to bring it back.

What do you believe is the best argument for the existence of God?

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1638779' date='Aug 26 2008, 02:53 PM']Haha. Okay, I'll try to bring it back.

What do you believe is the best argument for the existence of God?[/quote]

I think, as someone mentioned before, the Five Proofs by Aquinas.

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1638700' date='Aug 26 2008, 11:10 AM']I would actually like a good discussion about those argument. I'm not against them, per se. I think they are at least sound arguments.[/quote]

Great,

I put forth these arguments in an [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=82445&view=findpost&p=1595128"]earlier thread[/url], but will reproduce the text here. These are very simple ways of quantifying the REAL arguments for the existence of God. I would be curious to know what you thought of them.

Best wishes,

Philip

...

In order to believe in a philosphy, Chesterton says, we can't believe in something which explains only a small part of reality. We have to believe in something which explains all of reality. I hope to show that a Universe with God makes sense, and a Universe without God does not. I will do this with several arguments. Happily, I realized that these arguments really ring true with common sense.

Argument 1. When we observe the universe, we see that everything that exists in it has a cause. I, for instance, do not "just exist". I exist because I was caused by my parents. Stars in the sky do not "just exist", they were caused by matter in the universe slowly concentrating itself by gravitational forces until there was enough matter to begin nuclear fusion. So if everything has a cause, that means the existence of everything is contingent upon something else. Now it would not make sense for this chain of causes to go back in time to infinity (and the Big Bang theory does not leave any room for such a proposal). We therefore see that everything we can observe in the Universe has a cause. Nothing just "comes into being" or flashes into existence without some sort of cause. This means that the Universe itself must have a cause. We say that this is God.

Now in order for there to be anything that exists, there must be something which of its own nature exists. If there is nothing which exists by itself (an uncaused existence), then there can be no existence. Do you see how this works? If there is nothing which exists on its own (the uncaused cause), then that would mean there was a time where nothing existed. But if nothing existed, then nothing could ever come to be. Nothingness produces nothingness. So there must exist some entity which is uncaused and explains its own existence. We say that this is God.

This second part of the argument answers the illogical qustion, "Well who made God?!" We see from this argument that there must exist something which has no beginning, which has no cause. If this did not exist, then nothing would ever exist. Since we observe that we exist and that the Universe exists, then this "uncaused cause" must exist.

Here is a quick analogy: we come up to a train track with a train moving along it. We look to the right all the way to the horizon and all we see is cars moving along the track. We look to the left and all the way to the horizon all we see is cars moving along the track. The atheist marvels at how the cars move themselves. The theist says that there must be an engine too far off to see which is pulling the cars along the track. The atheist laughs and asks, "Well what is pulling the engine?!" The theist shakes his head and explains that the engine, of its own nature, pulls itself and all the cars on the track.

Okay...next argument. We as human beings observe that there are things which are really and truly good and which are really and truly bad. The holocaust, for instance, was really and truly a bad thing (it is not an illusion that it was a bad thing). Feeding the poor is really and truly a good thing.

Now, if atheism is true, then we human beings are nothing more than a complex formation of chemicals. Hence, as merely chemicals, there is no inherent "worth" to what we are. Therefore, it logically follows that nature is completely indifferent between a world where everyone is prosperous and happy and a world in which everyone slowly and painfully roasts over hot coals. In both instances, chemicals are just moving about in complex formations.

Do you see how this argument is not saying that atheists are bad people? I personally know atheists who are wodnerful people. But we are not commenting on the personal morality of atheists; we are pointing out that an atheistic worldview has no room whatsoever for absolute morals.

Atheists say that morals are constructed by society. Well, the Nazis were a society and they constructed a moral system which involved killing Jews. The atheist can have nothing to say about that. The theist, on the other hand, can say that these things are absolutely (ontologically) wrong. That right and wrong are real things and that even a society can be wrong about what it believes to be good and bad.

The third argument, for me, is the absolute nail in the coffin for the atheistic worldview. As I mentioned before, in an atheistic worldview we are nothing more than a complex formation of chemicals. This means that our minds are caused entirely by chemical reactions in our brain. Now, is there anything in a chemical reaction which is true about another thing? Of course not! The very suggestion is absurd. Does a chemical reaction here on earth have anything to do with what stars are really like? No way.

So this begs the question: what on earth makes us think that our minds have anything to do with the reality that exists outside them? Remember, it is absurd to think that a chemical reaction can be about any real thing outside itself. So our minds, the mere products of chemical reactions, cannot be supposed to have anything to do with external reality. This worldview demolishes all science, all philosophy, all knowldge...period.

I have had atheists respond to me about scientific research which is showing more and more about how the brain works. But don't you see...that is circular reasoning. They are using their own brains to try any figure out whether the brain works. They are assuming the answer to their inquiry before they conduct it. This is the most elementary of logical fallacies.

The theist says that the mind is not merely a set of chemical reactions (but that they indeed do have a part in the process). The mind has an element to it which is supernatural; it therefore makes sense to investigate the Universe and to claim to have knowledge. Therefore science, philosophy and knowledge are not mere illusions, but are in fact real. The irony in all this is that in order to truly believe in science, one must believe in the ability of the mind to comprehend reality, and in order to believe that the mind can comprehend reality, one must believe in the supernatural. So the real scientist is a supernaturalist!

[Lilllabettt]

St Thomas Aquinas:

1. there must have been an unmoved mover who first put things in motion,
2.there must have been an uncaused 1st cause who began the chain of existence for all things.

in other words:

"Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could."
~ Julie Andrews,[i]The Sound of Music[/i]

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Lord Philip' post='1638795' date='Aug 26 2008, 01:14 PM']Great,

I put forth these arguments in an [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=82445&view=findpost&p=1595128"]earlier thread[/url], but will reproduce the text here. These are very simple ways of quantifying the REAL arguments for the existence of God. I would be curious to know what you thought of them.

Best wishes,

Philip

...

In order to believe in a philosphy, Chesterton says, we can't believe in something which explains only a small part of reality. We have to believe in something which explains all of reality. I hope to show that a Universe with God makes sense, and a Universe without God does not. I will do this with several arguments. Happily, I realized that these arguments really ring true with common sense.

Argument 1. When we observe the universe, we see that everything that exists in it has a cause. I, for instance, do not "just exist". I exist because I was caused by my parents. Stars in the sky do not "just exist", they were caused by matter in the universe slowly concentrating itself by gravitational forces until there was enough matter to begin nuclear fusion. So if everything has a cause, that means the existence of everything is contingent upon something else. Now it would not make sense for this chain of causes to go back in time to infinity (and the Big Bang theory does not leave any room for such a proposal). We therefore see that everything we can observe in the Universe has a cause. Nothing just "comes into being" or flashes into existence without some sort of cause. This means that the Universe itself must have a cause. We say that this is God.

Now in order for there to be anything that exists, there must be something which of its own nature exists. If there is nothing which exists by itself (an uncaused existence), then there can be no existence. Do you see how this works? If there is nothing which exists on its own (the uncaused cause), then that would mean there was a time where nothing existed. But if nothing existed, then nothing could ever come to be. Nothingness produces nothingness. So there must exist some entity which is uncaused and explains its own existence. We say that this is God.

This second part of the argument answers the illogical qustion, "Well who made God?!" We see from this argument that there must exist something which has no beginning, which has no cause. If this did not exist, then nothing would ever exist. Since we observe that we exist and that the Universe exists, then this "uncaused cause" must exist.

Here is a quick analogy: we come up to a train track with a train moving along it. We look to the right all the way to the horizon and all we see is cars moving along the track. We look to the left and all the way to the horizon all we see is cars moving along the track. The atheist marvels at how the cars move themselves. The theist says that there must be an engine too far off to see which is pulling the cars along the track. The atheist laughs and asks, "Well what is pulling the engine?!" The theist shakes his head and explains that the engine, of its own nature, pulls itself and all the cars on the track.

Okay...next argument. We as human beings observe that there are things which are really and truly good and which are really and truly bad. The holocaust, for instance, was really and truly a bad thing (it is not an illusion that it was a bad thing). Feeding the poor is really and truly a good thing.

Now, if atheism is true, then we human beings are nothing more than a complex formation of chemicals. Hence, as merely chemicals, there is no inherent "worth" to what we are. Therefore, it logically follows that nature is completely indifferent between a world where everyone is prosperous and happy and a world in which everyone slowly and painfully roasts over hot coals. In both instances, chemicals are just moving about in complex formations.

Do you see how this argument is not saying that atheists are bad people? I personally know atheists who are wodnerful people. But we are not commenting on the personal morality of atheists; we are pointing out that an atheistic worldview has no room whatsoever for absolute morals.

Atheists say that morals are constructed by society. Well, the Nazis were a society and they constructed a moral system which involved killing Jews. The atheist can have nothing to say about that. The theist, on the other hand, can say that these things are absolutely (ontologically) wrong. That right and wrong are real things and that even a society can be wrong about what it believes to be good and bad.

The third argument, for me, is the absolute nail in the coffin for the atheistic worldview. As I mentioned before, in an atheistic worldview we are nothing more than a complex formation of chemicals. This means that our minds are caused entirely by chemical reactions in our brain. Now, is there anything in a chemical reaction which is true about another thing? Of course not! The very suggestion is absurd. Does a chemical reaction here on earth have anything to do with what stars are really like? No way.

So this begs the question: what on earth makes us think that our minds have anything to do with the reality that exists outside them? Remember, it is absurd to think that a chemical reaction can be about any real thing outside itself. So our minds, the mere products of chemical reactions, cannot be supposed to have anything to do with external reality. This worldview demolishes all science, all philosophy, all knowldge...period.

I have had atheists respond to me about scientific research which is showing more and more about how the brain works. But don't you see...that is circular reasoning. They are using their own brains to try any figure out whether the brain works. They are assuming the answer to their inquiry before they conduct it. This is the most elementary of logical fallacies.

The theist says that the mind is not merely a set of chemical reactions (but that they indeed do have a part in the process). The mind has an element to it which is supernatural; it therefore makes sense to investigate the Universe and to claim to have knowledge. Therefore science, philosophy and knowledge are not mere illusions, but are in fact real. The irony in all this is that in order to truly believe in science, one must believe in the ability of the mind to comprehend reality, and in order to believe that the mind can comprehend reality, one must believe in the supernatural. So the real scientist is a supernaturalist![/quote]
I don't dispute the logic here, it's sound. However, there are some parts which I disagree with, mainly minor things. Like when it mentions that nothing has inherent worth unless there is a God. Why? Something having "worth" is not objective, but rather, subjective.

[MakeYouThink]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1638813' date='Aug 26 2008, 03:30 PM']I don't dispute the logic here, it's sound. However, there are some parts which I disagree with, mainly minor things. Like when it mentions that nothing has inherent worth unless there is a God. Why? Something having "worth" is not objective, but rather, subjective.[/quote]

Okay, on your line of reasoning, serial rapists and serial killers don't value even they're own lives, or the lives of the people around them. If worth was only subjective, then he has every right to say, I don't value any life so i go out and kill and rape people. But that is a falsehood. Every person is equal in worth, and it is objective, and not subjective, because if we allow people to only be subjectively worth something, that means serial killers should be considered right, and people with more money, power, and fame are more worthwhile than the people around them.

So, if you don't mind, I will say nobody is more worthwhile than I am, and I am not more worthwhile than anybody else.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='MakeYouThink' post='1638819' date='Aug 26 2008, 01:36 PM']Okay, on your line of reasoning, serial rapists and serial killers don't value even they're own lives, or the lives of the people around them. If worth was only subjective, then he has every right to say, I don't value any life so i go out and kill and rape people. But that is a falsehood. Every person is equal in worth, and it is objective, and not subjective, because if we allow people to only be subjectively worth something, that means serial killers should be considered right, and people with more money, power, and fame are more worthwhile than the people around them.

So, if you don't mind, I will say nobody is more worthwhile than I am, and I am not more worthwhile than anybody else.[/quote]
We're going to fall back to that again? Using extreme examples of murderers, terrorists and burgulars in order to "prove the point?" To me, that only says that you can't answer the question without using sensationalism and emotionally charged examples to guilt me into feeling like I'm supporting horrid things by my logic.

We are all equal in worth because we are all humans. We are not of equal worth as lower animals because we are not lower animals. People who murder, rape, etc, are mentally ill or not in the right state of mind, and you can't use them to prove that by believing worth is subjective, i'm advocating those things. It's not fair.

So many of our values as a society are set by what the majority believes. Does that necessarily make it right? No. But for example, in the past, women were viewed as less than men. That was a societal belief. Now, that is no longer "true." That value was changed based on what attitudes prevailed. It was subjective.

[MakeYouThink]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1638823' date='Aug 26 2008, 02:47 PM']We're going to fall back to that again? Using extreme examples of murderers, terrorists and burgulars in order to "prove the point?" To me, that only says that you can't answer the question without using sensationalism and emotionally charged examples to guilt me into feeling like I'm supporting horrid things by my logic.

We are all equal in worth because we are all humans. We are not of equal worth as lower animals because we are not lower animals. People who murder, rape, etc, are mentally ill or not in the right state of mind, and you can't use them to prove that by believing worth is subjective, i'm advocating those things. It's not fair.

So many of our values as a society are set by what the majority believes. Does that necessarily make it right? No. But for example, in the past, women were viewed as less than men. That was a societal belief. Now, that is no longer "true." That value was changed based on what attitudes prevailed. It was subjective.[/quote]

But the woman's worth was always there, we just failed too give them what was rightfully theirs in the first place.

BTW, only 11 per cent of people in America wanted to go through with the War of Independence. . . And yet that minority changed the face of the world!

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='MakeYouThink' post='1638828' date='Aug 26 2008, 02:02 PM']But the woman's worth was always there, we just failed too give them what was rightfully theirs in the first place.

BTW, only 11 per cent of people in America wanted to go through with the War of Independence. . . And yet that minority changed the face of the world![/quote]
My point is that yes, you believe your standards come from God. But I think that things like values and worth CAN exist without an absolute standard.

I love my cat, but you you, it may just be another animal. There is no standard yet I value my cat and you don't.

And that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of it. How about the diversity of opinion about the war in Iraq? Even among Catholics, who all believe the same teachings about war, there are some believe it is justified and others who don't.

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1638813' date='Aug 26 2008, 01:30 PM']I don't dispute the logic here, it's sound. However, there are some parts which I disagree with, mainly minor things. Like when it mentions that nothing has inherent worth unless there is a God. Why? Something having "worth" is not objective, but rather, subjective.[/quote]

This is precisely the point. Atheists say that something's worth is purely subjective (or psychological), whereas human experience shows that something, for instance a human being, has objective (or ontological) worth.

Let's get deeper into the human being situation here. According to you, worth is subjective, and is therefore arbitrary. Therefore the Nazi genocide of the Jews is neither good nor bad. Their subjective worth for the Jewish human beings was less than nothing, so they exterminated them. There is nothing really "wrong" with this because nothing of any real worth was harmed. This in turn is because nothing can possibly have any real worth because all worth is merely subjective.

This is madness. We, atheist and Christian alike, observe that there is something absolutly wrong here and that something of real, ontological worth has been destroyed. The atheist, however, ignores this data and pretends that everything can be okay without objective moral standards. But he fails to ask himself, "what is 'okay' in the first place?" Why is the whole of humanity suffering any less 'okay' than the whole of humanity living in Utopia? There is no standard by which one can say either of these is "better" than the other, since human happiness has no real worth. Again, I say, this is madness an no one operates in this fashion. We all know deep down that there is such a thing as ontological worth, and that therefore there is such a thing as ontological morality.

In short, you have merely restated the atheistic position rather than interacted with the argument. Argumentum ad nauseum.

Do you have any rebuttals to any of the other arguments, for instance an atheistic case for the mind having a real relation to the external world (which does not argue in a circle)?

Blessings,

Philip

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Lord Philip' post='1638856' date='Aug 26 2008, 02:59 PM']This is precisely the point. Atheists say that something's worth is purely subjective (or psychological), whereas human experience shows that something, for instance a human being, has objective (or ontological) worth.

Let's get deeper into the human being situation here. According to you, worth is subjective, and is therefore arbitrary. Therefore the Nazi genocide of the Jews is neither good nor bad. Their subjective worth for the Jewish human beings was less than nothing, so they exterminated them. There is nothing really "wrong" with this because nothing of any real worth was harmed. This in turn is because nothing can possibly have any real worth because all worth is merely subjective.

This is madness. We, atheist and Christian alike, observe that there is something absolutly wrong here and that something of real, ontological worth has been destroyed. The atheist, however, ignores this data and pretends that everything can be okay without objective moral standards. But he fails to ask himself, "what is 'okay' in the first place?" Why is the whole of humanity suffering any less 'okay' than the whole of humanity living in Utopia? There is no standard by which one can say either of these is "better" than the other, since human happiness has no real worth. Again, I say, this is madness an no one operates in this fashion. We all know deep down that there is such a thing as ontological worth, and that therefore there is such a thing as ontological morality.

In short, you have merely restated the atheistic position rather than interacted with the argument. Argumentum ad nauseum.

Do you have any rebuttals to any of the other arguments, for instance an atheistic case for the mind having a real relation to the external world (which does not argue in a circle)?

Blessings,

Philip[/quote]
I will admit that I am not used to arguing the atheistic world view. I understand your points inside and out because I too used to argue them. I don't subscribe to the atheistic world view as strongly as others do, mainly because I am not driven by the hatred they have towards Christians.

That being said, your argument makes sense within your belief structure, I will give you that. I do not, however, believe in the Christian concept of God. I don't have a very strong belief in any god, for that matter, but I do believe there is, for the most part, a moral standard that's driven by the common good - i.e. self preservation, the desire for authentic happiness and good emotion. However, before you argue that rapists are "happy" when they rape and that kind of thing, that's why I specified authentic happiness - the happiness that brings about positive emotion and optimism.

Are my beliefs strong in comparison to your logic? Maybe not. But your logic is also based in your belief system. So is mine. It's hard to dialogue without understanding both.

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1638860' date='Aug 26 2008, 03:06 PM']I will admit that I am not used to arguing the atheistic world view. I understand your points inside and out because I too used to argue them. I don't subscribe to the atheistic world view as strongly as others do, mainly because I am not driven by the hatred they have towards Christians.

That being said, your argument makes sense within your belief structure, I will give you that. I do not, however, believe in the Christian concept of God. I don't have a very strong belief in any god, for that matter, but I do believe there is, for the most part, a moral standard that's driven by the common good - i.e. self preservation, the desire for authentic happiness and good emotion. However, before you argue that rapists are "happy" when they rape and that kind of thing, that's why I specified authentic happiness - the happiness that brings about positive emotion and optimism.

Are my beliefs strong in comparison to your logic? Maybe not. But your logic is also based in your belief system. So is mine. It's hard to dialogue without understanding both.[/quote]

My argument, like any argument, is not to be dependant on any antecedant belief structure. It is supposed to explain the data. The data is what we observe in ourselves and in the world around us.

Morality is observed. It is a fact, not a question. My arguments account for its existence, yours do not. Yours end up making them into a psychological phenomenon, which goes against the data.

In short, theistic arguments account for all the data, and atheistic ones do not. This has been proven up to this point, I think. Anyone who wants to be intellectually honest should abandon a position that does not explain the data in favor of one that does.

As to questions about the Christian God, that is an entirely different matter. I am not sure that the Christian God can be proven by reason alone (insofar as we are trying to prove the aspects of the Christian God which make him unique among other conceptions of God). I might reccommend C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity", then his "Miracles", then G.K. Chesterton's "Orthodoxy", then Tim Keller's "The Reason for God". Check them out: they are worthwhile and offer some good arguments concerning the Christian God.

Blessings,

Philip

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Lord Philip' post='1638872' date='Aug 26 2008, 03:25 PM']My argument, like any argument, is not to be dependant on any antecedant belief structure. It is supposed to explain the data. The data is what we observe in ourselves and in the world around us.

Morality is observed. It is a fact, not a question. My arguments account for its existence, yours do not. Yours end up making them into a psychological phenomenon, which goes against the data.

In short, theistic arguments account for all the data, and atheistic ones do not. This has been proven up to this point, I think. Anyone who wants to be intellectually honest should abandon a position that does not explain the data in favor of one that does.

As to questions about the Christian God, that is an entirely different matter. I am not sure that the Christian God can be proven by reason alone (insofar as we are trying to prove the aspects of the Christian God which make him unique among other conceptions of God). I might reccommend C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity", then his "Miracles", then G.K. Chesterton's "Orthodoxy", then Tim Keller's "The Reason for God". Check them out: they are worthwhile and offer some good arguments concerning the Christian God.

Blessings,

Philip[/quote]
I can agree that your arguments point to some moral absolute or a universal 'first cause.' However, it is a far jump from that to a God that is anything resembling the personal God you believe in, and as you just admitted, it's questionable at best whether or not you can prove such a God exists. Thus, I cannot bring myself to believe that a God like that does exist, and I remain in the same state of belief as I have been.

That being said, is it possible for something to be both psychological and still fit with the absolute you are talking about? I think it's impossible to say that things in the world are not somewhat psychological in nature - like the example i mentioned about the iraq war. Morals in that aspect are subjective. And too, even interpretation of morals is subjective. That explains why there are so many belief systems, even among Christians.

Edited August 26, 2008 by fidei defensor

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1638878' date='Aug 26 2008, 03:37 PM']I can agree that your arguments point to some moral absolute or a universal 'first cause.' However, it is a far jump from that to a God that is anything resembling the personal God you believe in, and as you just admitted, it's questionable at best whether or not you can prove such a God exists. Thus, I cannot bring myself to believe that a God like that does exist, and I remain in the same state of belief as I have been.

That being said, is it possible for something to be both psychological and still fit with the absolute you are talking about? I think it's impossible to say that things in the world are not somewhat psychological in nature - like the example i mentioned about the iraq war. Morals in that aspect are subjective. And too, even interpretation of morals is subjective. That explains why there are so many belief systems, even among Christians.[/quote]

But you cannot remain in the same state of belief. You were in the atheistic camp, and now admit that arguments for the existence of a god (of some sort...be it a "force" or some other sort of impersonal god...) are consistent and make sense. Now you must move into the theistic camp where you know God exists, but you do not know who (or what) he/she/it is.

It is not that it is questionable whether or not the Christian God exists, but rather whether the god whose existence we have just proven is the Christian God or not.

You really should read those books I reccommended: they explore this issue without saying ridiculous things like, "the Bible says it so you should believe it." They, using reason, try to provide basis for Christian beliefs and they do a fantastic job. You owe it to yourself to read those books. If you like, PM me and I will buy them for you.

You said: "I think it's impossible to say that things in the world are not somewhat psychological in nature."

You are confusing epistemology with ontology. The way we come to know things (epistemology) of course has an element that is psychological. But there must be an object which is known (ontology), and this is not subject to the changing tides of subjective opinion. Thus your statement that the interpretation of morals is diverse has no bearing on whether or not morals exist absolutely or not.

Morals, like the multiplication table, exist ontologically. Just beacuse someone does not know them or makes a mistake does not mean that the multiplication table does not exist, and it certainly does not make the multiplication table a figment of one's imagination.

Blessings,

Philip