JCC Arena The Theist/Atheist Thunderdome™

On here?

 

Ok except

We were talking about the neurological aspect of faith. Not creation.

 

I guess I need to read this thread from the beginning... I had no idead we had asome real, live AIG-style creationists here!

 

Really? Because I'm fairly certain that Kant's assertion that existence is not a predicate so fundamentally destabilized the ontological argument that to this day you still have to figure out how to address his assertions to try to salvage it. That's a nearly 250 year old objection that still carries massive weight, and you think there's "no way" to debate the ontological argument?

Edit: Hm, checking your older posts in this thread I think I misinterpreted your position. But I don't think the ontological argument is necessarily unassailable if you want to play along with theologians. Of course, it's more fun to not play: "Let me tell you about a little thing called the regime of truth..."

 

Yes, you are correct about Kant. I just mentioned this because I've experienced how certain religious people apply rationality to defend their faith. I didn't really mean to say that we have to accept that we can't challenge this argument. However, you can't really convince theologians of that. They are very confident with this strategy and if you don't want to engage them they'll interpret this as a victory for their faith.

I think the best argument against their position is the fact that our rationality is very limited. We're simple creatures who's evolved very recently. The notion that because we can prove something logically, then it has to be true in the Universe, is arrogant. Quantum mechanics doesn't make sense according to our logic, but that doesn't make it untrue.

Theologians seem to think that we're perfectly rational creatures with the capacity to unearth - and affirm metaphysical truths simply by applying our logic. I obviously don't agree with them, but as I've said they're very confident with this strategy.

 

I think it goes beyond defense vs. criticism of Creationism. It seems that many of the ardent Christians that have raged here simply and genuinely believe that what's written in the Bible - or whichever creed/canon is spouted by their respective congregations - is The Absolute Truth, as told to them by their forebears and ministers/pastors, and to them by their ancestors, and so on and so forth. Even if said Truth ignores the facts that there's hundreds of other cultures that embrace different faiths with less - or in some cases, fanatically worse - zeal. Or that, ultimately, the books they hold so sacred are still written, edited, redacted and (mis)translated by human beings. Imperfectly fallible schmucks with their own agendas, prejudices, bias and simple adherence to the superstitious mindset that would make them write the silly stories in the first place because they had no way to explain the simple questions of Why Am I here? and Where Did I Come From?.

Whether it's East or West, I suppose that for some folks it might be really hard to fight centuries of programming to adhere to eons old superstition that has no credible value and that keeps losing footing to common reason, technological progress and the simple passage of time. We've seen it with several folks here and the pattern has repeated itself ad nauseum. Even though most of us won't be alive to see it, hopefully in the next century most of mankind will be more enlightened...or otherwise has ditched the old gods in favor of the newer ones.

 

Like Allah?

 

I love talking about stuff

 

that said, the only swaying that's gonna happen is ME WALKING FROM THE DINING ROOM TABLE TO MY COMPUTER AFTER I'VE HAD SOME BEERS TO MAKE THIS MORE INTERESTING INNIT

 

ALSO. sorry for the triple post but i felt like this was important.

i'd like to say that the conversations i had on this forum when i first joined (almost 10 years ago omg) fundamentally shaped my current faith and world view. those boring ass threads in the senate floor, and posters like FIDO and ender and others (in addition to my own insistence on having a faith that is thought-out and intentionally held) are a large reason i believe what i do about god and the way the universe works. SO I'M PROOF THAT INTERNET DEBATES CAN BE HELPFUL

 

This.

For the theists who think this place is full of bullies who are intolerant to theists are dead wrong. People like Prenn, Rogue1.5, solojones, etc, who are devout theists are good longtime friends of mine. What causes this sort of harmony between us is their method of discussing theism... they do not go into it with the intention to sway or convert. They are respectful. While I do agree that some seem to have been intolerant and/or disrespectful to theists, that only stems from blind devotion and being completely unwilling to hear or consider opposing viewpoints. From what I've seen in the last few pages of this thread, a lot of people simply do not understand the theory of evolution and seem to believe that even attempting to learn about or understand it is a defiance against their god. I don't think that's the case. It is possible to believe in a god and understand and study science, It doesn't have to be one or the other.

 

I think it says a lot about the effectiveness of this strategy as applied to actual logicians that there's really only one big name pro-ontological argument logician and he has to start from a position of modal realism which is... I mean, seriously, modal realism? That's supposed to be an easier pill to swallow? "Oh, well, I wasn't super confident about the whole 'god' thing, but if it's so easily derived from the assertion that all possible worlds are indicative of extant realities, that's another story!"

 

most of my faith comes from what i know about science, actually.



i don't always study science, but when i do it's because of my faith, not in spite of it.

 

The day I stopped being a devout Catholic was September 2003 when my Faith Formation teacher told me that my pet collie, Squire, who had died that summer, would not be going to Heaven since he apparently doesn't have a soul. I cried that whole night.

 

some of my favorite christian academics are/were catholic. but they have a **** ton of crazies in their ranks. there's some seriously ****ed up stuff in those old ass doctrines and dogmas.

 

No. I meant the newer gods of Technology, Media (Social or otherwise) and other similar gods with altars made of plastic, photons and sound.

 

I think if you start going down this rabbit hole you'll never come back out. I think if you're committed to your beliefs and decide to dedicate your life to "prove" these beliefs in any way possible, then you'll probably end up insane.

A good scientist will always look for ways to disprove his hypothesis. A good theologian will always look for ways to prove his beliefs.

 

How does a theologian actually prove their beliefs? The philosophical gymnastics I've seen, such as the ontological argument, which allege to "prove" the existence of a god are just preposterous.

 

The ontological argument is probably the weakest of the theological arguments. I am partial to Aquinas's Five Ways.

 

Prenn, you handsome rogue! Continue to be the **** please sir, with that magnificent beard.

 

Interesting. I find Aquinas to be a fascinating fellow, but I admit I find those 5 ways entirely unconvincing. Each one is a deep argument in and of itself, but here's a some quick rebuttals.

1) Argument from motion. Acquinas, of course, had no idea what gravity is, or magnetics, or any other force field. He had no idea that these things can, and do, cause motion with no external intervention. This argument is debunked.
2) Argument from efficient cause. This is the argument that every event must have a cause. Except for God, who is, conveniently, named as the uncaused cause (or in Aquinas' words, the first efficient cause). First off, that assumes a Newtonian physical uniformity, which we know does not exist at extreme states (proven by experimentation). Aquinas's assumption of uniformity, plus his convenient exception of God requiring a cause makes this argument untenable.
3) Argument from possibility and necessity. This is interesting argument asserts, essentially, that every being we know of is contingent, that is, that they exist for finite periods, and that they cannot exist without their being a previously existing being. Aquinas reasons that there must exist a NON-contingent being so that other contingent beings can have the possibility of existing. Of course, Aquinas had not the foggiest notion of evolution, much less modern concepts of how abiogenesis could work, so this argument seemed absolutely sound to him. But we know better today.
4) Argument from gradation of being. Here Aquinas argues that since there is a gradation of "quality" in all tings, that logically there must exist the "uttermost" case.... that perfect thing by which all others are graded. He argues that this is God... perfect in all ways. However, the assumption he makes that there must be an "uttermost" case is completely fallacious. Pretty much every bit of science says that such an uttermost case, even if notionally possible, is never necessary. For example, there is no need for a genetically perfect human in order for humans to exist. That's not how genetics work. Again, Aquinas could not possibly know this.
5) Argument from design. Ah yes. THE classic argument. Aquinas argues that order and seeming "direction" in nature is evidence of an intelligent agent. Sound familiar? Aquinas, of course, can be forgiven his wrongness. He was among the first to attempt a scientific approach, and he was attempting to ascertain "rules" from observation. Good for him. But he was wrong, and so are all those who try to use this argument today. The order seen in nature need not be directed at all, and in the case of non-living things, is merely the consequence of physics and chemistry, no "knowing" (as Aquinas put it) required. For living things, we now know how evolution shapes the development and behavior of living things. Again, no need for an intelligent agent to intervene.

We could (and maybe will?) argue about each of these points for PAGES. But that's my $0.25 rebuttal.

 

The cosmological argument is secretly the ontological argument anyway.