The Reasonableness of Theism/Atheism
First Post – Take it easy on me
Regarding the multitude of arguments for theism and atheism, is it reasonable for both sides to hold the positions they hold? I wonder how much each side would be willing to answer “yes” to this question. In my experience, which side you find yourself on typically leads you to believe that the other side is “unreasonable” to believe what they believe. This is best displayed by militant forms of Christianity/Islam/Atheism that try to convince the other side they are completely irrational. I want to write it out in form and see what y’all think, because if this is worth asking, it raises some questions in my mind about how we understand belief and non-belief.
For this post, I understand “reasonable” to mean, “justifiable by logical inference” (if this is a bad definition of reasonable, correct me)
1 – If a belief has valid, though non-conclusive, arguments defending it, then it is reasonable to hold said belief
2 – Though they inherently contradict one another, both atheism and theism have valid arguments that defend their position on the (non)existence of God,
C – It is reasonable to believe in either atheism or theism
It seems to me like this all goes without saying, but I figure most atheists and theists might leap to say that P2 is wrong, and then list which arguments of the other side are invalid and why. While I don’t want to make some argument from ignorance, I just can’t see how one side is built upon invalid arguments if both sides have been so inconclusive in dismissing their opposition’s arguments. In my understanding, if it is reasonable to believe in either atheism or theism, then the matter of actually holding one of these beliefs, or living as though it is true, shifts to matters separate from “reasonableness”. I mean that the atheist and the theist both hold reasonable grounds for their beliefs, and thus have confidence in their side, and only further fuel this confidence by the way that they live their lives. It seems to me like both sides make pretty sturdy defenses, and then people choose to stay on their side more on the basis of experiences, intuitions, desires, or perceptions. I don’t think this is a bad thing either, but perhaps an even better way to approach the question without believing that one side should be presumed or the “privileged” position.
Does this make sense, or is there some relevant literature to this question that you all might recommend? I’m new to this stuff and would appreciate some feedback. Hope anyone who reads this has some answers for me!!
Regarding the multitude of arguments for theism and atheism, is it reasonable for both sides to hold the positions they hold? I wonder how much each side would be willing to answer “yes” to this question. In my experience, which side you find yourself on typically leads you to believe that the other side is “unreasonable” to believe what they believe. This is best displayed by militant forms of Christianity/Islam/Atheism that try to convince the other side they are completely irrational. I want to write it out in form and see what y’all think, because if this is worth asking, it raises some questions in my mind about how we understand belief and non-belief.
For this post, I understand “reasonable” to mean, “justifiable by logical inference” (if this is a bad definition of reasonable, correct me)
1 – If a belief has valid, though non-conclusive, arguments defending it, then it is reasonable to hold said belief
2 – Though they inherently contradict one another, both atheism and theism have valid arguments that defend their position on the (non)existence of God,
C – It is reasonable to believe in either atheism or theism
It seems to me like this all goes without saying, but I figure most atheists and theists might leap to say that P2 is wrong, and then list which arguments of the other side are invalid and why. While I don’t want to make some argument from ignorance, I just can’t see how one side is built upon invalid arguments if both sides have been so inconclusive in dismissing their opposition’s arguments. In my understanding, if it is reasonable to believe in either atheism or theism, then the matter of actually holding one of these beliefs, or living as though it is true, shifts to matters separate from “reasonableness”. I mean that the atheist and the theist both hold reasonable grounds for their beliefs, and thus have confidence in their side, and only further fuel this confidence by the way that they live their lives. It seems to me like both sides make pretty sturdy defenses, and then people choose to stay on their side more on the basis of experiences, intuitions, desires, or perceptions. I don’t think this is a bad thing either, but perhaps an even better way to approach the question without believing that one side should be presumed or the “privileged” position.
Does this make sense, or is there some relevant literature to this question that you all might recommend? I’m new to this stuff and would appreciate some feedback. Hope anyone who reads this has some answers for me!!
Comments (60)
What do you mean by “non-conclusive“?
Quoting DPKING
There are no valid arguments for theism being true. The best theism can do is argue that theism should be treated as true for practical benefit and even those arent really good arguments.
Quoting DPKING
I would say that whether something is reasonable isnt based on what it concludes but rather the reasoning itself.
One could be and atheist for poor reasons, and accurately be called unreasonable even though they reached the right conclusion (atheism). Likewise with theism if you think theism is true, one could have poor reasons and be right by accident.
Its not the conclusion that can be measured by reason, its the process that can be measured by reason.
Seconded.
Hey Dingo,
Quoting DingoJones
Thanks for catching this, I think I meant to say, “ If a belief has valid arguments defending it, though they are non-conclusive, then it is reasonable to hold said belief“
I used non-conclusive in a judicial sense, where the arguments are valid (if the premises are true, the conclusion can’t be false) but they do not necessarily sway the “jury” one way or the other. The resulting back and forth of counter-examples and counter-counter-examples make the premises a war zone of no-this and no-that. Which is not a bad thing, and a necessary part of the discourse. The main arguments for Theism that I see for this are FTA and some combination of the Cosmological arguments. For atheism, the problem of evil and hiddenness are top of the list for me.
Quoting DingoJones
Hmm this is a great point, probably need to rework my thoughts with this in mind. I think that both sides are reasonable in the way that they come to their conclusion, both use proper reasons. But if you affirm (like I said in my initial post) that P2 is wrong because there is no valid argument for Theism/atheism, then the conclusion wouldn’t follow anyways. Thank you for your insights!!
Yes. Both Theists and Atheists are reasonable in the sense that they each have reasons to support their pro or con conclusion. The problem is that Atheists don't accept the proposed "evidence" in favor of god-belief (miracles, moral stance, etc). So, it's not the reasoning that makes a difference in conclusions, but the initial motivation, which defines acceptable evidence. The conclusion is inherent in the initial assumption.
For example, Theists tend to feel that a supernatural deity is necessary to explain the very existence of our temporal conditional world. Atheists, though, seem to be un-bothered by the open question of bare existence. Yet in both perspectives, eternal existence of something (God or Multiverse) is, perhaps subconsciously, taken for granted --- as an unproven Axiom. That timeless unconditional fundamental power-to-be is what I call BEING. It's a logical necessity that any reasoning about ultimate questions must build upon. So, how about essential BEING as a starting point for reasoning about otherwise open-ended philosophical questions? :smile:
Hi Tim! Yeah i think I didn’t make it clear what I meant with valid and non-conclusive. In my response to Dingo I think I clarified what I meant a little more.
Quoting tim wood
Hmm, I hear this all the time but I don’t know if I agree that atheism is “not on any position regarding God” as you say. How atheism is actualized and defended, it seems to actually be a metaphysical claim/belief that “there is no God” not just a denial of other claims. I think this is what Flew talks about as positive and negative atheism. I know that Flew is a major figure on non-belief atheism, but who else would you recommend to read to get a better picture?
Hi Gnomon,
Quoting Gnomon
What if it’s not a matter of feeling that a God is necessary, but that alternative theories about existence don't seem to be satisfactory for theists. It’s the same thing for atheists, they see the universe as the result of natural causes and don’t see the claims of theists about a God being necessary as satisfactory.
Quoting Gnomon
This is really well stated, thank you for being so straightforward and helpful! I agree, and I hope the most others would too!
Quoting DPKING
It seems to me that this is where you're going to get the most disagreement. There are a set of very contentious issues such as global warming where the science is absolutely clear and yet by your definition of inconclusive - it's actually unclear whether there's global warming or not. Since many people still believe it's a hoax, the arguments in favour of global warming existing must be inconclusive? We can't judge the veracity of an argument based on how many people remain unconvinced by it.
The other concept here is validity and one can certainly make valid arguments for either side but what does that actually mean? We have a set of standards for epistemological rationality as an example, making a valid argument using the highest standards creates a powerful argument but what if these standards aren't used? One can make an argument like "better safe than sorry" and it can be a valid one but is that a reasonable attitude? What are the consequences of that kind of logic being applied outside of this context? It becomes silly.
When it comes to reasonableness, we might also ask what does it mean if a belief is correct? There are many concepts that I dislike from Islam but from the perspective of a Muslim, it's God's divine law, not to be challenged by mortals. Even if you hold the position that it's "inconclusive", what does that mean in the real world? You want to both respect Islamic Divine Law as well as think people who disagree are reasonable in doing so? That is a weak position of neutrality and it will certainly be attacked by either or both sides.
Ah - back to the Definition Wars.
According to wikipedia:
Atheism is in the broadest sense an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
So according to wikipedia you use the term atheist in the broadest sense. Atheist.org also takes this stance.
However, if we look in dictionary.com, we see that atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no God. A quick google search will find similar definitions in many places.
The broad definition also invalidates the commonly accepted definition of agnosticism - agnosticism was coined as a term coined by Huxley specifically to differentiate his thinking from atheism - but with this "broad" definition of atheism, agnosticism is simply a subset of atheism.
My take on this is that the "broad" definition of atheism is too broad - and it goes against the commonly accepted definition of the terms. If you ask the average person on the street what these terms mean they'll say atheists deny that god exists (the less broad or narrow sense) and agnostics aren't sure (i.e. agnostics are not atheists).
And all this this leaves me - a lonely ignostic - out of the conversation altogether. :smile:
Quoting Judaka
Hey Judaka,
That’s a good point, I definitely don’t think a climate change denier should be off the hook because of “inconclusiveness”. the reasonableness of an argument does not rest solely on the resulting amount of people convinced, so you are totally right to point that out.
I am trying to think of a way in which it could be a combination of this and some of the other factors of reasonableness mentioned by other commenters. It is overwhelmingly important that the validity of the argument be first in this process, but when both sides make good cases and defend themselves well, is there room for anything else?
Maybe the difference between the issue of climate change and this one is the metaphysical nature of these claims/beliefs. I agree that the science shows global warming, and the evidence makes the best case for it. With theism/atheism, it’s a little more up in the air (to me at least, I think many would disagree with me on this). This may lead us to a discussion of evidentialism, but in all honesty, I am still fairly confused about the arguments for and against it and what they mean for all sorts of other issues.
Maybe a better parallel to my argument in terms of contentious topics is the state of political parties in the US right now. Surely both the left and the right have valid, reasonable beliefs about what will help the country the most, but they in large part still disagree. They site some of the same evidence as reasoning for their beliefs, and reject the other sides claims as a “unreasonable” conclusion of the evidence in front of them.
Thanks for taking the time to work through this with me!
*also Not trying to defend Trump or any specific political stance by bringing this up, just think it might fit*
Both atheists and agnostics can agree that we can't prove God doesn't exist and both agree we can't prove God does exist. The difference is what that means, for the atheist, the burden of proof is on the "proving" and if you can't back up the claim that God exists then there's no reason to believe he does. The agnostic says "well, can't prove either way, therefore I haven't made up my mind".
Whether the atheist doesn't believe in God because there's a lack of proof for God or because they believe they can prove there's no God isn't distinguished between in the definition.
So, you would not forgive climate change deniers, their existence does not prove the inadequacy of the argument for climate change. You say "the evidence makes the best case for it". Yet this is often the position of the theist and atheist. You have not answered what the "evidence makes the best case for" and instead simply relied on this notion of "inconclusiveness".
Similarily for political or moral issues, you just won't take a stance because a debate has two sides? That is silly, surely you can agree?
Personally, I think agnosticism is epistemologically flawed, if you really have no idea whether God exists or not after hearing all the evidence then the logical conclusion is atheism. All atheism means here is the equivalent of saying that I maintain a stance of non-belief until being given sufficient evidence to believe.
If I said I conversed with a fairy, would you be uncertain because you could neither prove or disprove the claim or would you ask for proof? In this circumstance, you would likely not even adopt a stance of non-belief but actually you would actively reject the plausibility of my claim. I think here, basically, there are billions of people who do believe I conversed with a fairy and so you hesitate and that's fair but does that logic really hold up upon closer examination?
You are right about the first part here. I haven't offered my own beliefs on the topic, not because I seek to defend agnosticism and the "inconclusiveness" of it all, but because I am not trying to elaborate on the specific arguments in favor of theism/atheism and then deduce how much evidence is in favor of each side. That is done aplenty on other posts and by far more capable people than I. The original purpose of my post was to explore a common ground in which both parties might see the "reasonableness" of the other side, and the responses are sharpening up what I might mean by "reasonable." I think this reasonableness is good thing, and might land us in the realm of "friendly atheism" and "friendly theism"
Quoting Judaka
Do you think that this fairy convo is just a repackaging of the "teapot" argument? I don't know if the fairy is necessarily analogous with the God that theists argue for, because of all the major effects/implications that the existence of a God would have when compared to the fairy you mention. I also don't know if the two decisions you offer (be uncertain and ask for proof) are mutually exclusive. But if you disagree let me know.
Quoting Judaka
That is a pretty silly thing to do, because all debates have sides and we typically pick one whether or not we think we do. But i don't think that I am suggesting that. Continuing with this political/moral framework, I see that the debate has two sides, and each side cites different pieces of evidence (sometimes overlapping evidence) to make a case for their platform. Both sides came to their conclusions in a reasonable way, and the reason why we pick a side is because certain arguments hold greater weight/value in our decision making process.
The fairy example is not a criticism of theism, it is a criticism of agnosticism. A theist's beliefs will not operate as I described. The difference between atheism (or part of it) and agnosticism is "uncertainty" and what do you do with it or how do you characterise it. The agnostic can know there is no proof and that there will be no proof but decided to remain neutral (either side could be correct) while the atheist says (no proof, no reason to believe and thus it is wrong to believe). As far as the agnostic is concerned, what is the difference between God and the fairy? Each is equally impossible to prove or disprove. From that perspective, it is a fair comparison but change fairy with an angel if you want, or God himself doesn't matter. What matters is we can't prove/disprove the claim.
I think the reasonableness which leads to "friendly atheism" and "friendly theism" basically lies in "to each his own". The problem is when that isn't possible, issues such as abortion or gay marriage and that cause friction. Often in philosophy, entire positions are justified or dismantled based on religious belief and that makes things hard too. There comes a time for people where we can't just say "to each his own", you have your moment with global warming and others have theirs with atheism/theism.
Personally, I don't care about whether you believe in God or not but what the belief or non-belief produces. If your beliefs bring you comfort, happiness and encourage you to be kind and generous then great but if it leads you to oppress others or cause you to be anti-science or to have crazy ideas then that's not good. I think that's the attitude of the non-militant and where we can draw the line between civil disagreement and something more serious.
What "alternative theories about existence" did you have in mind? Most atheists seem to just take the existence of "Reality" for granted. Hence, the Multiverse theory is merely an extension of the pre-Big-Bang assumption of an eternal material universe. Variations on that immortal-matter theme were cyclical temporary universes, and ongoing natural creation of matter to replace the stuff lost to Entropy. A recent Hypothesis to fill the gaps in Inflation Theory is Eternal Inflation. Are such turtles-all-the-way-down theories not satisfactory for you?
My primary problem with those alternative theories of a self-existent Reality is that the only example of a real-world we have experience with has been "proven" by scientific evidence to be temporary, with a definite beginning and a fade-out end. For all we know, Time began at the Big Bang. And there is no known mechanism for relighting the fuse after the Big Fizzle. Speculations on Black Holes and Worm Holes and Branes are no more scientific than speculations on creative deities, except that they remain loyal to faith in Materialism/Physicalism. Each new discovery of the overall nature of Nature, requires faith-inspired creative thinking to maintain the modern facade on the ancient dogma of Materialism.
However, my personal dissatisfaction with hypothetical alternatives to intentional creation is that they typically ignore the immaterial and holistic phenomena that have emerged as matter-manipulating powers in our Real world : e.g Life & Mind & Intentions. Without a theory to explain how those world-changing Metaphysical realities emerged from Physical processes, the non-physical aspects of Reality, that are most important to non-scientists, are left out of the recurring reality equation. That's why I have developed my own personal hypothesis, that is not beholden to Biblical or Physical doctrine. It is instead based on the ubiquity of Information, which is both physical & metaphysical, both material & mental. :nerd:
Materialism : the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
Metaphysicalism : Physicalism differs with naturalistic metaphysicalism in at least one specific concept. Physicalism holds that nothing is greater than the sum of its parts.
http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/2009/01/physicalism-and-metaphysicalism.html
Note -- this site is new to me, but the notion of Metaphysical Naturalism sounds like it might be amenable to my own concept of Enformationism.
BEING is a personal neologism, coined to encapsulate the notion of fundamental essential existence that is logically necessary, and not beholden to any traditional belief system --- including Theism and Physicalism. What theory of Reality do you believe in? :joke:
BEING : In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
NOTE : "So, how about essential BEING as a starting point for reasoning about otherwise open-ended philosophical questions?"
On what basis? : I talk about Ontology on the same basis that all philosophers do, my knowledge of the world, and my personal theory of reality, guided by the traditional rules of Logic.
Why Coin Tech Terms? : http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page6.html
What is real? : Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent within a system, as opposed to that which is only imaginary
NOTE : Tim, what is your belief system, Materialism, Physicalism? How much of that system is hypothetical, axiomatic, and unproven?
Reality is a Theory : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page15.html
The Case Against Reality : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html
If, God is all-loving, omnipotent, all-powerful being.
Then the reason i have back-pain, must be, God isn't all-loving, omnipotent, or all-powerful being. He doesn't love me, what makes him not all-loving, secondly God doesn't have power/will to fix my back, what eliminates his rational mind, and omnipotence. If God truly exist, and had power to fix my back, I wouldn't have back-pain.
Atheism is true, because I do have back-pain, and if there was "God" with such features, he would have already fixed my back-problems.
I would believe God, if he actually did solve every problem that mankind ever had.
God loves to see people suffer.
Reasonableness generally means treating like cases likely, and different cases differently. As such, the atheist seems to be more ignorant to common sense. Meaning, there seems to be a denial or animosity toward both naturally occurring metaphysical phenomena and the existential human experience.
I would say to the atheist, if you feel strongly about your belief system, perhaps In God we Trust is not the place for you. Feel free to leave!
Gosh, you know Tim, just regular stuff that relates to conscious existence. Stuff you're really not interested in... .
Be well!
....have you a renewed interest? Don't take this the wrong way, but it's been my experience that Atheists on this site don't usually seem to be that intuitive, but if you care to parse any of the following concepts, I may provide for some insight:
List of pragmatic, existential, metaphysical and cognitive phenomena, including cosmology and logic
Logic/epistemology:
1. logical possibility
2. logical necessity
3. a priori v. a posteriori
4. synthetic a priori knowledge
5. binary v. dialectic reasoning
6. reason and belief
Phenomenology/Metaphysics:
1. consciousness
2. subjective truth v. objective truth
3. the religious experience
4. revelation
5. NDE
6. music
7. math
8. love
9. instinct
10.sentience
Metaphysics:
1. consciousness
2. self-awareness
3. the will
4. the sense of wonder
5. causation
6. sentience
Cosmology:
1. the illusion of time
2. holographic principle
3. participatory anthropic principle
4. energy
5. gravity
6. causation
7. Panentheism
Well, in a word, consciousness. For example, most atheist's rely on logic to support their belief system. And as such, can deductive logic explain consciousness? Is that logically possible?
Alternatively, don't take this the wrong way, but I consider you one of those fanatical atheists (that Einstein talked about), and so I'm compelled to ask, how does deduction explains things like : the Will, Love, wonderment, synthetic a priori knowledge, et al.
Please share your thoughts if you can, using your sense of reasoning.
Apparently, you think that the "reasonableness of Theism" topic is an intra-natural scientific question. But, I am approaching it as a supra-natural philosophical question. If the existence and nature of G*D was a scientific issue --- like the nature of mysterious Dark Matter --- we would be discussing it on a science-related forum. So, why are you insisting on the Baconian scientific method for a question that has no physical evidence --- except the conditional existence of Nature itself? Why are you disparaging philosophical methods on a philosophical forum?
Are you a practicing scientist? If not, do you have "good" knowledge? Or are you just believing the current majority opinion of scientists-in-general? For the record, I am not a Theist, and I'm still Agnostic about my hypothetical Creative Force. But my personally entertaining thesis is based on the latest science, including the ubiquitous role of Information in all phases of Nature and Culture. Does your fallible scientific method produce "good" knowledge about cultural questions? Or, do psychological & political & religious issues remain primarily in the domain of Metaphysical Philosophy? :joke:
Philosophical Methodology : Plato said that "philosophy begins in wonder", a view which is echoed by Aristotle: "It was their wonder, astonishment, that first led men to philosophize and still leads them." Philosophizing may begin with some simple doubts about accepted beliefs. The initial impulse to philosophize may arise from suspicion, for example, that we do not fully understand, and have not fully justified, even our most basic beliefs about the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_methodology
PS__ I began from "simple doubts" about the beliefs of my religious upbringing. And have boiled-down the "reasonable" evidence for a creator to the otherwise mysterious existence of a world that is not self-existent --- it comes down to BEING. "To be, or not to be", that is the philosophical question relevant to Theism vs Atheism. :cool:
Enformationism :
[i]As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
As a religious philosophy, the creative power of Enformationism is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable Substance of the enformed world.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Any and all distinguishable features from self-awareness beyond exclusive, physically objective phenomena. Of course, one of many examples from one's own stream of consciousness would be the metaphysical Will.
Quoting tim wood
Everyone. Because it's obviously based upon your belief system that posits negation of its truth value. That's why it's called atheism. It's based on theism. Unfortunately, there are many fanatical atheists (such as yourself who frequently drop f-bombs when frustrated with EOG topics) who tend to deny the obvious. It's probably some sort of cognitive dissonance or pathology...not exactly sure.
Quoting tim wood
Not sure I'm following that. I asked how does deductive reasoning explain consciousness?
Quoting tim wood
Reason comes from self-awareness, you know, another metaphysical phenomenon from our stream of consciousness; kind of like the ability to perform cosmologic mathematical calculations relative to causation.
I realize metaphysics is kind of new to you. Traditional metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature and purpose of the universe; how the world of appearances presented to our senses relates to its underlying reality and order, the relationship between mind and matter and the existence of the will. And of course any and all meaning of life questions. Are those things not possible using your sense of reason/deduction?
Quoting tim wood
Not sure what that means...does that mean theoretical physics and cognitive science are unimportant?
Quoting tim wood
Calculating the laws of gravity when they're not required for survival.Quoting tim wood
Any and all distinguishable features from self-awareness beyond exclusive, physically objective phenomena. Of course, one of many examples from one's own stream of consciousness would be the metaphysical Will.
Oh, sorry, I saw that you dodged this question. This is an important question that relates to the OP:
Can deductive logic explain consciousness? Is that logically possible?
According to Popper, metaphysics is essentially our intuition of where science is headed. This can explain things like the epistemological problem of how we can ever come up with new theories without running into an infinite evidential regress....
My Enformationism thesis is qualified by the admission that it is an informal layman's speculation, intended only to serve as the basis for a personal non-theistic worldview. Which is the perspective from which I comment on this forum. However, I think if you were to actually read the thesis (rather than pre-judging it), you would find few contradictions with proven Science. For example, It accepts the heuristic process of Evolution, specifically denies miraculous intervention, and limits its conjectures to the same pre-Big-Bang realm in which some cosmologists imagine a turtles-all-the-way-down Multiverse. Moreover, the eternal world-creating random Multiverse and the eternal world-creating intentional G*D are both reasonable-yet-unprovable explanations for the existence of our contingent world *1. The difference is that the G*D inference can account for the otherwise mysterious metaphysical aspects (Life & Mind) of our world organism, by attributing the Potential for Meaning & Intention to its First Cause. That's why I call it G*D, rather than simply blindly blundering Nature. :cool:
Quoting tim wood
Thanks for asking. Before the Big Bang theory became the only reasonable explanation for the evidence that space is expanding and nature is evolving, most scientists and philosophers assumed it had existed forever. Since that's no longer a viable belief, we must deal with the contingent (not of necessity) existence of physical reality, and look elsewhere for a "necessary Being". The commonly accepted condition for our world is the "creation" event --- accurately, but grudgingly, described as a sudden eruption of something from nothing. Yet, since that sounds too much like a miracle, alternative but equally conditional, scenarios have been conjectured. None are actually plausible unless laws of Being and Becoming were already in place. And that is the role of my hypothetical "natural" force of BEING. :nerd:
Necessary Being : It is commonly accepted that there are two sorts of existent entities: those that exist but could have failed to exist, and those that could not have failed to exist. Entities of the first sort are contingent beings; entities of the second sort are necessary beings.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/
Metaphysical Necessity : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_necessity
*1 Purely random processes would take 12 forevers to create a single strand of DNA. But randomness plus intentional Selection could do the job in only one forever. :joke:
The evidence and reasons of believing or disbelieving in a mysterious deity, responsible for the existence of our world, have been bated & debated for eons. And not much common ground has been uncovered. So one author decided to eliminate the ambiguity of human language in order to determine the mathematical probability of what he defines as "God". Using Bayesian statistical methods, he methodically computes a number to represent how certain he can be that his God exists. The book is clearly & humorously written, not too cluttered with equations, and appropriately skeptical of such touchy topics as miracles. Unfortunately, I doubt that many convinced Atheists will be impressed by his mathematical evidence for wizard behind the curtain. :smile:
The Probability of God : A Simple Calculation That Proves The Ultimate Truth
____Stephen Unwin, Phd
OIC. Frankly I'm confused. How do you support your belief system then? What kind of logic do you use?
But none of that is as persuasive as deductive reasoning, no?
Timmy!
Just want to make sure I am understanding you and interpreting your statements thus far::
1. You must be saying that you don't rely on deductive reasoning for your belief system (Atheism). And if that's correct, how do you arrive at your conclusions of no-God?
2. You must be saying that, the complete explanation of consciousness (conscious existence) can't be understood (whether it's logically possible) through deductive reasoning, is that correct?
You said:
"...logic does not explain anything."
Tim, how could this be?
I'm not following that. I thought logic was used to support your belief system (Atheism)?
Othwerwise, per the OP, I believe you still need to provide justification for numerous things, like:
1. You must be saying that you don't rely on deductive reasoning for your belief system (Atheism). And if that's correct, how do you arrive at your conclusions of no-God?
2. You must be saying that, the complete explanation of consciousness (conscious existence) can't be understood (whether it's logically possible) through deductive reasoning, is that correct?
Based on your answer of "no", does it follow that It is now starting to sound as if all of life is a big mystery? I mean, if you can't use logic to explain conscious existence, nor your belief in A-theism (which is based on Theism) how does the Athiest square the circle?
Or maybe you don't really represent the Athiest mindset all that well, not sure there, only you would know that. Must be some kind of Subjective truth.
It's okay Tim. You don't seem to be that resolute in your belief system anyway, and I certainly can understand that.
My questions are basic existential questions, which seem to pose some challenges for you. I would say continue searching and asking questions. I know it's a struggle sometimes and that it brings about frustration. Maybe just try not to be so afraid of yourself.
Be well.
Hi Batsushi,
I think we can both agree that chronic pain sucks and that this argument from back pain is somewhat a personal repackaging of the problem of evil as “the problem of suffering”
I do not know whether the back pain you face is self-inflicted or the result of a disease, disorder, but for the argument’s sake I’ll say that you suffer from this pain as an innocent victim, and you very well might.
As you put it,
P1) If God is omni-loving, omniscient (you said “omnipotent” but that is the same as omni-powerful, so I changed it a bit), omni-powerful being, then he would:
a) Not want you to have back pain,
b) Have the knowledge of how to stop your back pain
c) Have the ability to stop your back pain
And your back pain would not exist.
P2) Your back pain exists
C) God is not omni-loving, omniscient, or omnipotent
I certainly trust you in your making of P2, so it seems like P1 is what I have to deal with. The typical response to the evidential argument for the problem of evil is theodicies. These defenses would challenge the first premise, not by denying any of the omni-abilities of God, but by asserting that God wants something more than not wanting you to have back pain. Some theists appeal to a greater good scenario where we suffer so that greater goods (physical and spiritual) may come about. Imagine that your back pain is studied by scientists and they discover a cure for all back pain everywhere, but only because you had to suffer first. Or a scenario where your back, working the way it does, prevents you from being paralyzed from the waist down. However, this kind of body requires the nociceptors present to function (a good thing) and they can go on the fritz (a bad thing) and cause severe back pain when affected by disease/disorder. These would be much greater goods than their alternatives, right?
But the kind of suffering we see in the world, and you see in your back pain, doesn’t seem to match up with this kind of greater good, especially when we don’t see them in our lifetime, so we are back to square one.
So, some theists try to just propose an answer to the logical problem of evil, by asserting that the free will God desire’s his creatures to have permits evil/suffering in the world. This breaks down the contradiction present in the problem of evil, but it doesn’t seem super satisfying does it?
As a Christian theist, I find that the only answer I have to this dissatisfaction we feel that maintains these attributes of God is what I call a cruciform response to the problem of Evil. Essentially, God would be unknowable (and potentially not omni-benevolent) if he possesses all of these attributes and evil still exists, unless, he too suffers. However, this is not the place for discussions of theological matters, but philosophical ones. So I’ll stop there.
These beliefs are understandable, but not technically reasonable.
1) The vast majority of arguments both for and against theism assume, typically without any questioning at all, that a God exists or doesn't exist, either/or, one or the other.
2) The vast majority of reality at every scale, space, can not be clearly said to either exist or not exist, as this phenomena has properties which fit our definitions of both existence AND non-existence.
3) Thus it's not reasonable to assume without questioning that a God could only exist or not exist.
And...
It's not reasonable for me to type this a hundred more times on the forum as the evidence strongly suggests that doing so will have no effect on anything. But I probably will anyway, as I too am not reasonable.
And as has also been pointed out to many times, that entire argument was independent of what God is. So really the most it says is that something either does or doesn't exist.
The inconvenient fact you seem to be avoiding is that the vast majority of reality can not be said to either exist or not exist, one or the other. So, should you be an atheist who bases your philosophy on observation of reality, you might consider observing that.
Once again, that is independent of what God is.
Why should we assume that anything can only exist or not exist when most of reality (space) does not follow that rule?
However, the logical reasoning of the “first cause” serves as an excellent auxiliary force for evangelization. First you argue that God exists, then you prove which God is the true one. However, this only works for people who are very sensitive to the logical demonstration cogency.
To the mere metaphysical proof, the scientific-experimental argument must be added. But practically everything in this field has yet to be done.
Your argument, presumably by design, says absolutely nothing about anything. From your argument alone, we can deduce nothing. So the answer to your question is to consider different arguments.
Ha, I wish my arguments said absolutely nothing about anything. Then, being nothing, my arguments would be aligned with the vast majority of reality.
Antitheism: theism (Type) is not true (i.e. empty).
Atheism: therefore, theistic deities (Tokens of theism-Type) are fictions.
Much more 'reasonable' than religious theism (i.e. belief in / worship of a theistic deity or deities).