-blank-

just kidding

ohmy implied that he can make a "reasonable argument in favor of the existence of God"

since that is a pretty bold claim, i figured this would be a good place to discuss it. I am very interested to see someone explain this "reasonable" argument.

11/20/2013 12:03:47 PM

haha awesome. This is gonna have to be on the back burner for a while though. Ummm...read some Thomas Aquinas, G.K. Chesterton, Tim Keller, C.S. Lewis, Lee Strobel in the meantime I guess and get back to me with a debunking of their arguments? lol

Debunking the case for moral absolutes is a good place to start though.

[Edited on November 20, 2013 at 12:11 PM. Reason : It took me years to work through this stuff, and other people lifetimes]

11/20/2013 12:10:53 PM

Why do i need to debunk anything, how do you know we wouldn't all agree with your reasonable argument?

11/20/2013 12:11:45 PM

Absolute Truth -> metaphysical/supernatural existence -> "God" -> obligation to find out what it is which "God" is true -> Christianity

See? Takes years to get there, but let's start with...

Quote :

"The idea that, without appealing to any court higher than the instincts themselves, we can yet find grounds for preferring one instinct above its fellows dies very hard. We grasp at useless words: we call it "basic," or "fundamental", or "primal", or "deepest" instinct. It is of no avail. Either these words conceal a value judgement passed UPON the instinct and therefore not derivable FROM it, or else they merely record its felt intensity, the frequency of its operation and its wide distribution. If the former, the whole attempt to base value upon instinct has been abandoned: if the latter, those observations about the quantitative aspects of a psychological event lead to no practical conclusion. It is the old dilemma. Either the premisses already concealed an imperative or the conclusion remains merely in the indicative. ""

11/20/2013 12:17:38 PM

new thread idea.

ibt froshkiller post

11/20/2013 12:21:31 PM

that's not a reasonable argument

[Edited on November 20, 2013 at 12:22 PM. Reason : .]

11/20/2013 12:21:56 PM

man, just look at how complex and beautiful the universe is. there's no way it could be that complex and beautiful without an intelligent designer.

11/20/2013 12:22:45 PM

ohmy's argument:
either we have instinctive feelings because a supernatural/metaphysical put them there, or they don't mean anything. if they don't mean anything, that's bad because something.

[Edited on November 20, 2013 at 12:33 PM. Reason : .]

11/20/2013 12:24:12 PM

Why is it that an omnipotent god is so difficult to prove? I have to read fucking 10 books recommended by ohmy to get it? And he demands that I respond to each of those entire books in order to support his assumptions?

Can I just cite every atheist scholar of the 20 and 21st century and demand that you refute all their arguments? Is this what you call reasonable discussion?

If God cared that we knew he existed and can do anything, wouldn't we know he existed? Wouldn't he be scientifically demonstrable and obvious to every single person always?

[Edited on November 20, 2013 at 12:34 PM. Reason : .]

11/20/2013 12:33:06 PM

ohmy don't forget to include the "collection of overlapping and non-overlapping ideas -> absolute truth" jump in your argument

11/20/2013 12:39:03 PM

ohmy, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may TWW have mercy on your soul.

11/20/2013 12:59:08 PM

Quote :

"ohmy's argument: either we have instinctive feelings because a supernatural/metaphysical put them there, or they don't mean anything. if they don't mean anything, that's bad because something. "

Haha, not at all what I'm saying. You're failing miserably. Read the original argument again. I even quoted it again for you. You lose all grounds for shoulds and oughts and have no basis in your framework for recognizing rape as bad.

Haha, no one's still addressed the argument.

Dono how many times I have to do this...

Quote :

""The idea that, without appealing to any court higher than the instincts themselves, we can yet find grounds for preferring one instinct above its fellows dies very hard. We grasp at useless words: we call it "basic," or "fundamental", or "primal", or "deepest" instinct. It is of no avail. Either these words conceal a value judgement passed UPON the instinct and therefore not derivable FROM it, or else they merely record its felt intensity, the frequency of its operation and its wide distribution. If the former, the whole attempt to base value upon instinct has been abandoned: if the latter, those observations about the quantitative aspects of a psychological event lead to no practical conclusion. It is the old dilemma. Either the premisses already concealed an imperative or the conclusion remains merely in the indicative. ""

Try again.

11/20/2013 2:16:54 PM

still quoting CS Lewis?

11/20/2013 2:20:15 PM

Until you can offer any refutation at all? Sure why not.

You're just rehashing the empty arguments of the latest postmodern relativistist "thinkers" or the empty arguments of the Dawkins types.

11/20/2013 2:26:37 PM

Quote :

"Why is it that an omnipotent god is so difficult to prove? I have to read fucking 10 books recommended by ohmy to get it? And he demands that I respond to each of those entire books in order to support his assumptions? Can I just cite every atheist scholar of the 20 and 21st century and demand that you refute all their arguments? Is this what you call reasonable discussion?"

You haven't proven a single thing yet, except that your moral framework is completely arbitrary. LOL!

dtownral, and the rest of you, if you don't understand that a single TWW post can't prove ATHEISM or THEISM or any number of belief systems we're talking about, then talking to you is just useless. I never said I was proving anything with my line of thought-> that leads to another line of thought. I was pointing out the direction we're headed. And then said "LET'S START WITH..." and posed an argument that you can't even refute. YOU GUYS CAN'T EVEN GET PAST STEP ONE.

[Edited on November 20, 2013 at 2:31 PM. Reason : ]

11/20/2013 2:28:53 PM

imagine that, you're arrogant.

and your argument is so absurd that I can't even take it seriously.

11/20/2013 2:31:55 PM

^constructive. good points. gives me a lot to think about. thanks for the sound refutation.

[Edited on November 20, 2013 at 2:33 PM. Reason : ]

11/20/2013 2:32:47 PM

What argument? Are the words "Absolute Truth" in and of itself an argument?

[Edited on November 20, 2013 at 2:33 PM. Reason : .]

11/20/2013 2:33:31 PM

^^more arrogance. nice.

11/20/2013 2:34:46 PM

^Sorry, I thought with all the name-calling and profanity being thrown my way, that's how we rolled here on TWW. I took too much license.

11/20/2013 2:39:47 PM

What argument have you presented? Seriously?

The conclusion of your quotation is this:

Quote :

"Either the premisses already concealed an imperative or the conclusion remains merely in the indicative. "

Awesome sauce. Which is it and why?

Quote :

" But in the God thread, maybe we can work towards the notion that one worldview offers a better alternative."

Great idea! What process should we use to determine which is better? I suggest using "that which most conforms to demonstrable reality" as our yardstick!

[Edited on November 20, 2013 at 2:44 PM. Reason : .]

11/20/2013 2:42:34 PM

^^well yeah, but us atheists don't have any morals because we don't have a god to give them to us. or whatever you're arguing. you should be better than that!

11/20/2013 2:53:14 PM

The problems of remaining in the indicative are abundant. Anyone can rape and commit genocide and you have no right to judge. Yet when that happens, you KNOW it's wrong.

Why? The existence of absolute and universal truths- which we've already established MUST exist outside of our material existence.

So then something metaphysical exists.

Woah! That was easier than I thought. Not too far from reasonable arguments in favor of God! Before we go any further, I'd love to see a refutation of what I've just said. (Check out the last pages in the abortion thread though, because that's where we've established what I said "we've already established." But if we didn't, by all means, let me know why.)

Bullet was it my use of all caps that originally caused you to think I was being arrogant? Probably a general aura that I emit of arrogance. Which I think comes from me saying I'm right, and you're wrong. Which TWW does all the time. So I'm curious as to why you decided to point me out as being arrogant. Can anyone then claim they are right and someone is wrong, without being what you deem arrogant?

[Edited on November 20, 2013 at 3:00 PM. Reason : ]

11/20/2013 2:54:16 PM

i just want to make sure i know what you're arguing.

Are you saying that since we know that rape and genocide are wrong, then that means that universal truths exist, and that means there is a god? Is that about it? Because all these words and quoting CS Lewis is confusing me.

11/20/2013 3:00:23 PM

That something metaphysical, non-material...supernatural?... exists.

[Edited on November 20, 2013 at 3:02 PM. Reason : I'm not good with the terminology admittedly, so let me know if something needs to be defined]

11/20/2013 3:01:02 PM

Quote :

"The existence of absolute and universal truths- which we've already established MUST exist outside of our material existence. So then something metaphysical exists."

Yes, information is might be metaphysical. How does that lend credibility to the existence of God?

EDIT: On second thought, there is no proof that information is metaphysical.

[Edited on November 20, 2013 at 3:04 PM. Reason : .]

11/20/2013 3:01:43 PM

Sorry metaphysical is the wrong word. One minute....You're not going to like this because OMG CS LEWIS but he defines it better than I could lol

He writes a lot about this in The Abolition of Man (deals with education, so I've been reading it for school, thus the CS Lewis fondness) but he says:

Quote :

"The Tao, which others may call Natural Law or Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgments. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained. The effort to refute it and raise a new system of value in its place is self-contradictory. "

He talks about the similarities between all the great religions, Taoism of course, and Plato and Aristotle, and Christians, and how it's been reasoned that this Tao MUST exist not in the metaphysical as information being processed according to our atoms colliding and synapses firing, but metaphysical as in SUPERnatural, a cosmic order that exists beyond the material, that informs the material. Something informing the instincts. The existence of things that inform our notion of right, wrong, beauty, etc. It recognizes the existence of things like souls or spirits, and denies altogether the idea that everything is strictly and only material or physical or that all human thinking and feeling is strictly and only the result of instincts and atoms.

[Edited on November 20, 2013 at 3:13 PM. Reason : ]

11/20/2013 3:03:16 PM

Quote :

"The existence of absolute and universal truths- which we've already established MUST exist outside of our material existence. "

I'm late to the party, but when was this established?

11/20/2013 3:09:12 PM

Quote :

"a single TWW post can't prove ATHEISM or THEISM or any number of belief systems"

That's pretty much correct. There are no number of posts (or any forms of argument) that can prove either of the following claims, provided that the definition of "god" isn't some kind of logical paradox:

1) No god exists
2) God exist

A broad definition of atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. A narrower form of atheism, sometimes referred to as strong atheism, is the assertion that there are no gods.

From a philosophical standpoint, "weak" and "strong" brands of atheism open themselves up to separate sets of criticism. A lack of belief is not a claim; the "weak" atheist does not have the burden of proof. If I were born on an island, without language and without culture, I would not know and would never know about the Christian god. There is no way to derive the Christian belief purely from logical principles. In other words, the "weak" atheist isn't making an argument, they just hold the default position.

On the other hand, "strong" atheism could be a claim regarding the unknown. First, you'd need to provide a coherent definition of God. What is it that we're saying does or does not exist? Don't make me read something, just tell me what "it" is.

[Edited on November 20, 2013 at 3:20 PM. Reason : ]

11/20/2013 3:18:48 PM

All right, seriously I need to give up on this argument for a while in favor of work, so I'll leave you to refute the existence of something SUPERnatural (see previous post).

And something bigger to chew on... This review of Tim Keller's The Reason for God. I read the book a while ago but gave it away, so now I don't have it, but it had me thinking a lot. Great summary of some of the greatest reasonable arguments in favor of God. Since I don't have the book, here's some commentary and excerpts from this review I found online. This only hits on one of dozens of arguments or approaches. A ton of typos and not nearly as good as the book, but there's some truth to it.

Quote :

"“Though there cannot be irrefutable proof for the existence of God, many people have found strong clues for his reality – divine fingerprints – in many places.” The rest of the book is given over to laying out those prints and shining the necessary light needed to view them. Keller’s point about there not being irrefutable proofs for God may rub Christians from the Evidentialist camp the wrong way, but I think his point is spot on from both a Reformed Epistemological standpoint and a Presuppositionalist standpoint. Strong rationalism miss Christianity not because they epistemology is leads them into the light of reason but rather because their epistemology is itself lacking the light of creaturely humility. Its in that light that clues become more persuasive, the first clue is the mysterious Bang at the beginning, while it doesn’t prove the personal God of the bible it does begin to take us down the road toward him. Van Til or Bill Edgar would call this step by Keller ‘inviting unbelievers in supernaturalism to view the world from the vantage point of belief’. The next clue is the cosmic welcome mate where Keller basically makes the point that the presence of organic life in the form and complexity it is today makes more sense from the vantage point of a personal creator than chaotic chance. Not only does this point toward a supernatural, personal creator but the BIG FAITH commitment of science itself – continued regularity of nature – makes more sense with God in the picture than having him absent. Take God out and you lose beauty in nature as well, after all beauty would just be a subjective perception open to every person’s delight, losing its locutionary force. There is a Clue-Killer but Keller says its actually a clue in itself. The clue-killer is the “school of evolutionary biology that claims everything about us can be explained as a function of natural selection.” The argument goes that religion was something we received along the way to help us adapt to our surroundings, but now we don’t need it. The problem with this, Keller says, is that if you follow this school’s logic of thought “Evolution can only be trusted to give us cognitive faculties that help us live on, not to provide ones that give us an accurate and true picture of the world around us.” And here’s the real hitch of it all; What is not fair is to do what so many evolutionary scientists are doing now. They are applying the scalpel of their skepticism to what our minds tell us about God but not to what our minds are telling us about evolutionary science itself… It comes down to this: If, as the evolutionary scientists say, what our brains tells us about morality, love, and beauty is not real – if it is merely a set of chemical reactions designed to pass on our genetic code – then so is what their brains tell them about the world. Then why should they trust them? The Clue-Killer becomes a clue itself at this very point, its reasoning is self-defeating but if you presuppose that God is real then there is a basis for “believing that cognitive faculties work, since God could make us able to form true beliefs and knowledge.” The evolutionary biologist school of thought is using ‘borrowed capital’ from the Christian set of presumptions. At this point perhaps you’re aggravated at the slight of hand trick, but its not a trick, and Keller is not so bold as to say that his arguments thus far have closed the deal. Listen in; “Of course none of the clues we have been looking for actually proves God. Every one of them is rationally avoidable. However, their cumulative effect is, I think, provocative and potent.”"

http://setsnservice.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/blog-review-of-tim-kellers-the-reason-for-god-chapter-by-chapter/

^destroyer makes many good points. i knew i was reducing "atheism" to a very narrow version of it, but a more extensive approach requires much more time than I have (and there are a lot more variations of atheism than what you just said). But I like what you did, started with baby steps, one point at a time, and posed a single question, because that's what everyone does in real life inquiry, just not on TWW.

I question this though..."In other words, the "weak" atheist isn't making an argument, they just hold the default position." There's no default position. That implies perfect objectivity and unbias, which isn't possible. (as a pro-choicer pointed in the other thread and I agree with) You live your life accordingly and stake your thoughts and behaviors on that claim. For example, disco saying I don't know about moral frameworks, we just do what we think is best at any given time, is not free of bias or a default position. And it has great effects on his own life and the world. For example, it's indicative of a mindset that has allowed for the termination of 55 million fetuses.

Peace! (if I have the discipline to stay away)

[Edited on November 20, 2013 at 3:31 PM. Reason : ]

11/20/2013 3:20:48 PM

Quote :

"Anyone can rape and commit genocide and you have no right to judge. Yet when that happens, you KNOW it's wrong. Why? The existence of absolute and universal truths- which we've already established MUST exist outside of our material existence."

How is it universal if the person committing rape and genocide doesn't know it's wrong?

11/20/2013 3:34:45 PM

Quote :

"And it has great effects on his own life and the world. For example, it's indicative of a mindset that has allowed for the termination of 55 million fetuses."

It's funny that you used the word "great" there, because that's exactly what abortion has meant to those 55 million unwanted, malformed, or terminal children and the rest of us.

While I'll tentatively agree that atheism isn't the "default position" the burden of proof is definitely on you to prove that Yahweh isn't just a myth and you thinking you have a hardline to absolute morality isn't just wishful thinking.

Quote :

"The existence of things that inform our notion of right, wrong, beauty, etc."

Obviously not everyone has the same notions of right, wrong, beauty, etc. What use is conjecturing some supernatural realm informing these notions if there's no predictable mechanism by which it is informing? The Universe behaves as though that supernatural realm isn't there.

Quote :

"It recognizes the existence of things like souls or spirits"

Of which there is zero supporting evidence, and every single real attempt to demonstrate them has been proven false.

Quote :

"and denies altogether the idea that everything is strictly and only material or physical or that all human thinking and feeling is strictly and only the result of instincts and atoms. "

The idea that is supported by the available evidence, namely those instincts and atoms.

You still haven't reasoned for the supernatural. I don't care that Plato and Aristotle and Taoists and Christians and fucking C.S. Lewis believe in it. They could very easily all be wrong, and the more we learn about the Universe the more likely that seems.

[Edited on November 20, 2013 at 4:03 PM. Reason : .]

11/20/2013 4:02:10 PM

Quote :

"I question this though..."In other words, the "weak" atheist isn't making an argument, they just hold the default position." There's no default position. That implies perfect objectivity and unbias, which isn't possible. (as a pro-choicer pointed in the other thread and I agree with) You live your life accordingly and stake your thoughts and behaviors on that claim. For example, disco saying I don't know about moral frameworks, we just do what we think is best at any given time, is not free of bias or a default position. And it has great effects on his own life and the world. For example, it's indicative of a mindset that has allowed for the termination of 55 million fetuses."

There is a default position. The default position is no knowledge; we're born with almost no knowledge. Lacking knowledge (and, therefore, belief) doesn't imply anything, it's a statement of fact.

I agree that morality and ethics, in order to be valid, must be universal. That's not to say that everyone will have the same set of values, but in order for a system of morality to be logically sound and valid, the moral rules must apply to all people equally. Christianity, as a belief system, does not meet this standard. Why is it that I must turn the other cheek, but God can smite someone down for any reason he chooses? Why should I be required to forgive others, but God will not forgive me if I fail to acknowledge him prior to my death here on earth? The Christian version of God plays by completely different rules.

God, according to Christian narratives, is the equivalent of a parent that angrily beats their child when the child gets angry. The parent says that restraint is a virtue, yet they are not able to show restraint themselves.

11/20/2013 4:37:35 PM

Quote :

"How is it universal if the person committing rape and genocide doesn't know it's wrong?"

this

also, using rape should be his red flag that he is making an appeal to emotion argument. try replacing it with something less evocative, where is the universal absolute truth? since we can clearly agree that not all truths are universal, how many universal truths do you need to be an absolute truth.

like I said earlier:
ohmy, don't forget to include the "collection of overlapping and non-overlapping ideas -> absolute truth" jump in your argument

in fact its where you have to start your argument

11/20/2013 4:40:35 PM

To be fair, I think I brought up rape just as an example.

11/20/2013 4:52:22 PM

A universal truth isn't necessarily obvious to all parties.

Look at scientific progress and that's plainly visible.

11/20/2013 4:55:03 PM

he is using the term differently, it has to be instinctive for all people for the way he is using it

if someone justifies rape through their intrinsic moral code, then there is no absolute moral code/ universal truth/absolute truth that rape is wrong. for example, someone could justify rape as God's rewards for attacking Jerusalem (like Zechariah). his argument requires it to be universal.

[Edited on November 20, 2013 at 5:04 PM. Reason : .]

11/20/2013 5:00:34 PM

Quote :

"Anyone can rape and commit genocide and you have no right to judge. Yet when that happens, you KNOW it's wrong."

Quote :

"17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

-The guy that wrote the first five books of the Bible.

11/20/2013 7:16:38 PM

What exactly is the point here.

11/20/2013 10:24:32 PM

its a bunch of wishy washy cunts beating up on an idiot in yet another ridiculous religion thread

11/20/2013 10:26:03 PM

it is a discussion between adults

11/20/2013 11:36:03 PM

11/20/2013 11:44:16 PM

it can never be proven or else it would be called science, not faith.

it can't be disproven either though.

11/21/2013 1:43:52 AM

Because different cultures have developed similar moral frameworks, there must be a supernatural? This is the great insight ohmy spent his life coming to? Lol. Here i thought he was going to say something interesting.

11/21/2013 7:52:49 AM

nobody actually knows anything about this. it's all speculation and we're wasting our time trying to prove how we got here or what happens when we die.

11/21/2013 9:33:02 AM

neither of those things is what this thread is about

11/21/2013 10:46:42 AM

I thought this was a thread about God

11/21/2013 11:04:55 AM

http://www.quora.com/Theology/What-are-the-best-arguments-for-Gods-existence

Quote :

"But a correct rational argument for God's existence can be made along completely different lines, and this also explains how people come to acquire intuition for such a thing. Nobody would ever get intuition for some abstract being that created the universe, such a thing has no connection to individual experience. The thing that one acquires intuition for is that there is a limit to evolving computational collectives, as people come together to merge to make more powerful collectives. Collective behavior by itself is not God. God is the realization that such collectives, in a particular system of ethics, can merge into an entity which can be consistently personified as the will of an abstracted infinite intelligence. This infinite intelligence can then communicate in a sense with individuals, through the collective impressions that form the larger entity. This abstract will is genarally constructed from self-consistency and desire for optimal social organization, using an organization of people, and religious texts. But the abstract entity itself can make judgements about societies, and it can judge that a society is behaving unethically, even when most people do not understand this, and there is no social pressure to reverse the injustice. This is what God does for the individual, provide a direction and a path for action which allows a more harmonious outcome. It works for this purpose, and so people can become certain of the existence of this thing, even though there is no evidence from material events for such an organization."

11/21/2013 11:21:12 AM

to me, these "arguments in favor of god" seem to be huge stretches. to me, these "arguments" seem pretty irrational and unreasonable.

11/21/2013 11:29:19 AM

Homer, that's not God. That's just a waffle that Bart tossed up there.

11/21/2013 11:29:43 AM