Arguments for the existence of god.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-10-2016, 07:35 PM
RE: Arguments for the existence of god.
(18-10-2016 04:23 PM)Sirhu Wrote:  1. Because without a necessary being you do not have an explanation for the existence of the contingent universe, or the great fact conjuntivi contingent. You then abandon the principle of sufficient reason (which is absurd and leads to disastrous consequences, besides being pure atheistic retreat), or admit theism, or take a Spinozist pantheism (which brings its own very serious consequences, does not explain everything and, anyway, it would no longer be atheism).

This has a lot of big words that don't really mean anything. Well, they mean something, but there's no evidence backing this claim. It's just a stated claim with nothing behind it.

I'm assuming it's a fancy way to make the cosmological argument, but of course, that gets right back to "what necessary being is necessary for the necessary being?". All they're doing is taking an unanswered question (what started all this?) and literally making an answer up out of nothing.


(18-10-2016 04:23 PM)Sirhu Wrote:  2. The second point is not the argument of fine tuning. Fine tuning is an additional argument and also provides more strength to my point, but I refer to the more general teleology that can be found in nature, something like the fifth way of Saint Thomas or the argument of nomic regularity of Swinburne; any causal order already requires an order of explanation that can not be purely fortuitous, and can not explain all this only through natural laws - after all, the natural laws themselves are merely descriptive, describe the order of final causes and regularities we observe in nature. Fine tuning, which is another argument, also provides an additional support to what I said - not just the universe brings order in its foundation (which could be observed even if the whole reality only involved two poles attracting or repelling regularly for example), but it brings an absurdly rare order that allowed the appearence of some kind of life as we, against absolutely overwhelming majority of hostile scenarios to any existence of life in any space.

Fine tuning is like looking at a lottery winner, then saying that since the odds of winning the lottery are so low, the game must have been rigged.

The reason individual people win the lottery is because so many people play. So, the vast majority of people lose, but a few win, and those are the people we think about. Similarly, there are craptons of planets that are not "fine tuned". No one brings those up when talking about the odds against a fine-tuned planet. We're the lottery winners. It's as simple as that.


(18-10-2016 04:23 PM)Sirhu Wrote:  3. The third refers to the fact of the soul / human mind (you name it) resist any reductionism or explanations of supervening material, it can not be explained merely as a natural emergency material processes which would be sufficient. That is, human intelligence itself - the proper semantic capacity, mean, abstract immaterial universal concepts, etc. - must have its explanation in a being with special power to create such immaterial rationality. Only an evolutionary process, for example, may not be enough for the emergence of intelligence as human, that is effectively separated from the other higher animals by a true abyss.

Did you mean "emergent property" instead of "emergency material process"? So far as I can tell, that's exactly what consciousness is. Whether or not consciousness physically exists doesn't even matter. It's just someone who doesn't like materialism trying to score cheap points by proving that something not-material exists, so therefore God.



TL;DR version: all of these involve a lot of unstated assumptions, that you may have noticed, have no evidence or basis in fact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RobbyPants's post
18-10-2016, 08:18 PM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2016 08:22 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Arguments for the existence of god.
(18-10-2016 07:35 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(18-10-2016 04:23 PM)Sirhu Wrote:  3. The third refers to the fact of the soul / human mind (you name it) resist any reductionism or explanations of supervening material, it can not be explained merely as a natural emergency material processes which would be sufficient. That is, human intelligence itself - the proper semantic capacity, mean, abstract immaterial universal concepts, etc. - must have its explanation in a being with special power to create such immaterial rationality. Only an evolutionary process, for example, may not be enough for the emergence of intelligence as human, that is effectively separated from the other higher animals by a true abyss.

Did you mean "emergent property" instead of "emergency material process"? So far as I can tell, that's exactly what consciousness is. Whether or not consciousness physically exists doesn't even matter. It's just someone who doesn't like materialism trying to score cheap points by proving that something not-material exists, so therefore God.

I want to know what he means by "separated from the other higher animals by a true abyss".

What's so different about our brains, compared to the rest of the naturally-evolved world? Lots of higher (social) animals show moral reasoning, altruism, and the ability to recognize that the image in the mirror is actually them and not another creature (which implies sentience). Most especially these things are true for our closest cousins, the gorillas, chimps, and bonobos. They even laugh... and weep in sorrow!

Yes, we have larger, more complex brains, and we evolved a small cluster of genes that allow for vocal communication (they found the first of these, FOXP2, around the same time the human genome was first sequenced... reference), though our cousins also show the ability to clearly recognize human speech and to communicate through sign language or pictographs.

Simply put, the more you learn about animals, the more you realize how NOT special we are. We simply have characteristics that have been evolutionarily emphasized, and our especially big brain is to us what the long neck is to the giraffe: definitive.

If a religionist is telling you that there's a "true abyss" between the animals and us, it's just egotism, trying to find a way to claim we're not animals (just like every other nipple-having mammal out there). Since it is clear that we are physically related to the rest of the animal world, they must erect barriers in their minds-- making up concepts, with no bearing in reality, by which they can distinguish "us" from "them". The soul is one such concept, as is the so-called "abyss" between us.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
18-10-2016, 08:28 PM
RE: Arguments for the existence of god.
I think this point needs more emphasis (see 1:30 in the video, if you don't want the full 2 minute video)...




"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
18-10-2016, 08:36 PM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2016 08:41 PM by GenesisNemesis.)
RE: Arguments for the existence of god.
If the Universe is finely tuned, why is 99% of it inhospitable and as far as we know, not accessible to us? Also, it's constantly expanding, which means even more unnecessary, entirely inaccessible space. Why such a massive excess of space? How could the Universe have been made "for us"?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GenesisNemesis's post
18-10-2016, 08:57 PM
RE: Arguments for the existence of god.
(18-10-2016 08:36 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:  If the Universe is finely tuned, why is 99% of it inhospitable and as far as we know, not accessible to us? Also, it's constantly expanding, which means even more unnecessary, entirely inaccessible space. Why such a massive excess of space? How could the Universe have been made "for us"?

If the universe was made for me then I'd like to have a serious discussion with quality control. Possibly a refund or exchange as well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Dark Wanderer's post
18-10-2016, 09:21 PM
RE: Arguments for the existence of god.
In a fine-tuned universe I wouldn't have to spend nearly as much time tinkering with clarinet reeds. Wink

(18-10-2016 08:57 PM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  If the universe was made for me then I'd like to have a serious discussion with quality control. Possibly a refund or exchange as well.

I hope you kept the receipt.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Astreja's post
18-10-2016, 10:21 PM
RE: Arguments for the existence of god.
(18-10-2016 09:21 PM)Astreja Wrote:  I hope you kept the receipt.

[Image: iWKad22.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dark Wanderer's post
19-10-2016, 06:47 AM
RE: Arguments for the existence of god.
[Image: ecae0c5759649ea028361b8e05b3038e.jpg]

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
19-10-2016, 08:35 AM (This post was last modified: 19-10-2016 08:43 AM by jennybee.)
RE: Arguments for the existence of god.
Also, tetanus. All it takes is walking around on bare feet (or exposure on another part of bare skin) and getting cut to get it. Untreated, the outcome causes painful muscle spasms and death.

Given that, an intelligent designer would not include something like that on earth. And if he did, he would have constructed his favorite creatures (us) in a way that our feet/skin could withstand punctures, cuts, wounds, etc. Or at least mention the importance of shoes in his book. But instead, he only makes "shirts" for Adam and Eve. Wouldn't this be a great place to stress the importance of shoes?

Genesis 3:21 "And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife shirts of skin, and He dressed them."

Additionally, in Genesis 3:17-18-- God is also putting sharp objects on earth: "And to man He said, "Because you listened to your wife, and you ate from the tree from which I commanded you saying, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed be the ground for your sake; with toil shall you eat of it all the days of your life. And it will cause thorns and thistles to grow for you, and you shall eat the herbs of the field."

The Dept. of Health says you can get tetanus from something as easily as pricking yourself from a thorn on a rose. So God is creating tetanus, not mentioning tetanus, filling a field with thorns, not telling us to wear shoes/protective clothing, and then telling us to go work in the thorn-filled field for our food.

"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jennybee's post
19-10-2016, 12:58 PM
RE: Arguments for the existence of god.
Ok, so he responded Grasshoper's comment on his argument.

1 - Interesting you admit that in atheism the universe exists with literally no explanation. I do not see any sense to even think of such an idea. But either way, it's like I said, if you admit the universe as a "brute fact", then you violate the principle of sufficient reason. The problem is that the PRS (or PSR) is true (or in more modest versions) and its negation implies a series of absurd problems - you would have, for example, problems with complete skepticism (and inconsistency ultimately) ; problems with the possibility of making even science, measuring explanatory power, have evolution itself; problems with the unconformity with the empirical evidence in favor of the PSR, etc. I can not address all here now, but the explanation is there.

A necessary being has an explanation in itself, by its necessity. Literally could not not-exist. So the other alternative would be Spinozist pantheism, but this has other serious problems (including the PSR understanding).

2 - My argument is not the fine tuning, then your objection is not the answer. Still, however, your objection is wrong. Its criticism displays one of the largest and most common confusions of the fine-tuning argument; read any reputed defender - Robin Collins (leading expert on the subject, by the way), Swinburne, John Leslie and William Lane Craig, for example - and you'll find answers. There is no fallacy of "retroactive" probability; the question of the argument is not why THAT specific universe exists among others, considering that any individual universe would be extremely unlikely, but because we have a universe that is compatible with the existence and development life ( "life-PERMITTING universe") since the whole universe of this type is ridiculously less than the full universe hostile to the existence of life. The probability that our universe is hostile to life is absurdly greater than that of being a LPU like ours, and so there, there - in terms of Bayesian probability - very strong evidence against atheism or any lack of intelligence / premeditation in this case.

The correct example is not the lottery that any ticket has a small chance, but equal, to be awarded. A more proper analogy would be a lottery where you have a single black ball out of billions and billions of white balls, and you have to take the same three times black ball to survive - any white ball means you lose. And in the end you get the same black ball three times.

Any individual ball has a very small chance to be the result, but the likelihood that any ball you get is white (not black) is absurdly higher than taking the black ball.

3 - You just made assertions there. The problem with the soul is not that "yet" we do not have an explanation for X or Y, but that certain facts themselves could not be explained by neuroscience or any reduction/supervenience to matter. The semantic and rational capacity is immaterial, it involves much more than mere manipulation of symbols; It involves the abstraction of intangible universal concepts; mental causality because of propositional content of thought; etc. So we can conclude the immateriality and unique character of the rational soul (on sensitive and vegetative souls), and therefore you can ask about the origin of the soul, which in feature could not be the result of physical and chemical processes, but would require creation ex nihilo by a being analogous (rational). See the arguments of John Haldane in the book of debate "Atheism and Theism"; The arumento James Ross in "Immaterial Aspects of Thought"; the work of Victor Reppert in CS Lewis's Dangerous Idea; also what authors like Edward Feser and Swinburne wrote on the subject, etc.

I really don't know how to respond to this, so I am glad if someone could help me answer him. Huh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: