What are it's criteria? How do you know?
I stated in my second to last sentence that I agreed that it could make a difference in some theists. So I didn't say it's "proof to the contrary". What I did say is that these psychoanalytic theories get us nowhere. Because I haven't a clue how to notice them and I don't think they play as big as a role in the forming of beliefs as you claim they do.

I'm a noob with all this so I have a very hard time understanding the expensive words. But I don't see it.
Again, I'm arguing from personal experience so I don't know what that's worth but I don't see the psychological game. I don't think I can either, unless they are really upfront about it! They believe they are right. And that's why, I think, they remain theists. When asked about the negative things in life they react just like anyone else I've asked. They're not happy with it.

I'm with EnPassant when it comes to those psychoanalytic theories. I'm sure they hold merit but I am very wary into accepting it as an all in explanation for such beliefs. And why theists hold them.

This is something that I hear a lot. Yet out of personal experience I know a good amount of theists who are well aware of the limits in their knowledge and accept the possibility that they might be wrong. And never fear the outcome. Often I hear the mantra "If I am wrong then at the very least I have lived a happy and meaningful life."

I know you guys were talking about music, religion and consciousness. But since I suppose lots of people also count God within transcendental things I thought it might apply.

I would criticize this definition with the same problem of creatio ex nihilo, as well as there is nothing that entails god is constrained to logical possibility, but if he was illogical then you cannot prove him logically, which makes them fall into another problem, of proving god's existence without using logic, or science, which I believe is impossible, making the entire idea of his existence absurd. — Augustusea

Noob here.
Doesn't the logical impossibility speak for itself here? A logically impossible thing can by definition not be done. Right? So it's contradictory to think anyone. Even God could do it?

But then comes the question, where did that matter come from for creatio ex materia or creatio ex profundis?
god becoming the universe or taking a part of him and making it into matter, would imply god is made of some sort of matter, and anything made of matter, should have an origin if we assume the kalam cosmological argument is correct.
And that is correct, not every type of god, but I had the Abrahamic god in mind, which is a fault on my part, — Augustusea

But the problem is that once you have God who is there to create then it is no longer creatio ex nihilo. As sub said panentheism for example. The universe would be within God. And if you subscribe to idealism then this can work out without ever having an issue. However im not even sure if Craig goes that far. He seems to specifically argue against creatio ex nihilo with God as the fix. Something about sufficient causes as well.

When you ask where this specific substance came from then..Well I suppose they would just say it's part of God and thats the end of it. Maybe they would even go as far as say its obvious where it came from.

Edit: Sorry for the ambiguity. Been a loooong day and i'm exhausted ;p

And I suppose then that this is why Plantinga and swinburne argue for other kinds of necessity than logical? Causal and factual?

Are you saying that a thing cannot be factually necessary because you can conceive of it not existing? Sorry I had a hard time following the text.

Then I misunderstand. My bad.

Because they enter a breaking point?

Apart from God, Don't all theories of mind fall apart if even causality doesn't apply anymore? Or am I misunderstanding? Would there be a possible world in which a kettle on a stove will not heat up?

It's as if my mind is unable to compute such a thing!

Hi Banno!
I can barely understand all of this. Is this one of the biggest changes from those earlier mechanics to classical mechanics we spoke about?

That causality shouldn't even be a principle anymore? This is all very in depth and I can sort of understand it but not in any way put it into words..sadly.

Thanks Banno.

The Thomist formulations of these arguments are certainly bound up in outdated and problematic mechanics/(meta)-physics (and its not just Thomas' take on Aristotle, one of the Ways, iirc the Fourth, is bound up in some extremely bizarre neo-Platonism as well), which will obviously make the arguments difficult to accept, as formulated, for anyone not already inclined towards those frameworks. — Enai De A Lukal

What books do I buy to learn more about the refutations of these mechanics and the mechanics themselves?

Yes this is a big one. I've heard a few things.
Might conclude that the arguments are whack..Which is what most people do. Also seen people say that most "experts" of the arguments are theist. Then I have also seen people say this is due to selection bias.

How do you get the enhanced answers like this? I always only get the main Yes, No or other replies.

Yes you led me here from there! Albeit unintentionally. ;p

I always do keep an eye out there. I just want to expand my horizons and learn more. From a broader subset of people.

Aristotelian mechanics comes in for a lot of criticism, but it is actually quite brilliant. However, it is wrong. I was looking at a video earlier today that compared Aristotle, Copernicus, and Galileo on Motion. — Banno

I'm going to bookmark that for a watch later.

The Thomist Five Ways are certainly based on Aristotelian mechanics; Aquinas had no alternative. More recent accounts attempted to reissue the Five Ways in a way consistent with more recent developments in physics. — Banno

And they aren't all that successful I suppose? :razz:

Thanks! I feel like I need a big book on logic and arguments before I can truly grasp the weight of this.
At the moment it feels like the theist can perhaps justify these questionable assumptions?

Hi Banno
Is Aristotelian mechanics Aristotelian and Thomistic metaphysics? I heard that a whole lot of the argumentation about the 5 ways for example are basically just theists defending AT metaphysics.

Thanks!

And I'm not exactly going out on much of a limb here, I doubt there are many arguments that have been more thoroughly or frequently refuted than these arguments for the existence of God. Heck, in many instances, they still fail for the same reasons documented literally centuries ago by the likes of e.g. Hume. And certainly there are more modern (and rigorous) treatments, not least of which being Sobel's excellent Logic and Theism which gives full formal/symbolic step-by-step breakdowns of these arguments so that one can see precisely where they go wrong — Enai De A Lukal

I'll have to read many of these relevant books before I get an opinion on the matter. Perhaps I won't see it the same way you do.

(in the cases where they are simply deductively invalid, as in the case of the ontological argument). Moreover, its a pretty predictable result, given just a basic appreciation for how deductive arguments work: you can only get out what you put in, they can't establish any new facts, but merely bring out what was logically contained in the premises. That's ultimately all a deductive inference is. So its almost trivial to say that any/all valid arguments for the existence of God must be question-begging at some level... else the conclusion could not logically follow from that particular set of premises. — Enai De A Lukal

But then whats the point in saying that they're question begging? If all the premises are correct then the conclusion must follow? We can't just swoop away deductive arguments altogether for begging the question as such, right? Is only the ontological argument invalid?
Surely these arguments are rejected for other reasons than these two.

I can see this. Thanks.

Thanks Kenosha. I'm reading up on all of it because I personally want to be able to distinguish stuff more so I might..One day..Get back to this.

William Lane Craig, Edward Feser, Alvin Plantinga and so on- who somehow believe that these invalid or question-begging arguments are sound or persuasive, despite purportedly being professionals (or at least trained) philosophers! — Enai De A Lukal

As I always do I'll just put it out there that I know next to nothing. But this strikes me as absurd.
What do you mean "purportedly"? I would personally call my own rationale into question rather than call trained philosophers out for failing to make their arguments valid. That's the first thing one ought to do? Where does this happen?

I can see unsound and persuasive. And I can certainly agree that premises of arguments for God are contentious. But the former 2 seem grand. I'm not entirely convinced that your condescending tone is justified.

The reasons employed by holy men to prove things that are of faith, are not demonstrations; they are either persuasive arguments showing that what is proposed to our faith is not impossible, or else they are proofs drawn from the principles of faith, i.e. from the authority of Holy Writ... Whatever is based on these principles is as well proved in the eyes of the faithful, as a conclusion drawn from self-evident principles is in the eyes of all.
(Summa, Secunda Secundæ Partis, Q1 A5) — Enai De A Lukal

Sure but, Again, from someone who knows close to nothing. Aquinas mentions principles. Self-evident in the eyes of all. Does he not believe that his 5 arguments are based on these very principles that he believed all can see? He didn't take them as proofs but still as ways to argue for God?

I dont much understand the razor. But I think his problem with infinite regress is that he finds infinity absurd.

While I think you are right that we cant deny a regress just because its a regress. Stanford says this on the issue:

But while the regress and resulting infinity of natural numbers is arguably unobjectionable, the regress of events seems problematic, because we have good empirical reasons to deny that there are infinitely many events, each preceded by another. For either that infinite sequence of events takes place in a finite amount of time or an infinite one.

What would an alternative be to causality? Surely quantum particles causually rely on their quantum fields?

We know WLC already believes in God before the arguments but I dont see special pleading. The basic argument itself just says that the universe had a cause. But then after that he sometimes argues that such a cause would have to supervene space and time itself and therefore God. I dont know how a mind can work without time. And I know jack shit about philosophy of time (apparently he has written a good amount on time though) So theres that.

Again I dont know much. I'm simply playing devils advocate to learn more. I dont have a positive or negative opinion of WLC. But I do wonder why people dislike him so much. Where is he dishonest?

I see quite a lot of people not having issue with infinite regress as objection to the argument. I know very little but WLC seems to argue that ockhams razor would shave off unnecessary causes?

Why take infinite regress when the ground state could be necessary and thus uncaused?

Instantly made me listen to it lol.

I think the distinction between brain and mind should be made. The mind will be able to override those instincts as has been said above.

Perhaps the better question to ask is: Why do people do these things?

Dang, I had made a thread before reading this.

I know that Cryonics cost like 200K--And their work ethic is dubious.
Do you really think this'll be out in time?

What kind of treatment is that? Is it even possible?

Hiya! Thank you for expanding and explaining!

To my pre kantian mind, I find it hard to see the issue that you see. Isn't the 3 omni God argued to be the maximally great being in existence? When I said actual i meant it in a way of saying..well - that hes actually out there. Does actual mean something more nuanced? But if one succeeds in arguing that God must be the maximally great being..how is he subject to weaker/lesser?

Now that my exams are over I can get to business and read. So Kant is my primary aim right now!

I'm genuinely trying to understand what you mean but having a hard time doing so.

I don't think Im anywhere near equipped to have such discourse yet myself!

So most people here arent theistic or deistic, ... in the sense that they believe there to be a God that thinks etc.

But rather that he is a concept without any influences outside of the brain? Just like an idea of some sort?

Sorry Im having trouble understanding these views because theyre quite alien to me. What do you mean being actual means being limited? What do you understand under actual?

Sorry for my bad writing, typing on mobile while on a bus with friends isnt that handy!

Existence as in that its an 3 omni God. Or really whatever deity one argues. As in its an actual entity and not a mental fabrication.

This is now on my booklist! Thank you!

Am I right when I have the feeling that you guys mean all the bad arguments are the ones trying to make a case for the existence of God or a deity?

If so then, well how does one even know if they think there is such a God or not in reality?

I ceased replying for a while because my interest in philosophy is distracting me of what I should be doing-- study my physics and chemistry exams!

But I have to ask. What should someone get from these statistics? That theism is a bad/irrational wordview to have?

The saddest thing, to me, is that I cannot see whether it's bad or good.
It would save me a lot of trouble when I can.

In what way do you mean they invoke God? Surely those fields work on a naturalistic framework as well?

Edit: Offside question: Does being an atheist also mean you're a naturalist?

Would you mind expanding on why it's a bad place to stay?
Other than that I'm very thankful for the input.

That very fair. And thank you for reminding me that I shouldn't pull conclusions from that!

You're an angel! Honestly this is so helpful.

Could you tell me what the deal with WLC is? I've heard him get a lot of criticism too.

You guys are helpful. Thank you.

The reason why I asked as well was because the recent post to remove PoR from the forum reminded me of a statement made in a rather old article : https://crucialconsiderations.org/rationality/theism-and-expert-knowledge/

In which the author has remarks about PoR at the end. I'm going to paste a part of it here.

"The findings of this post fit with other findings on reasoning and religion: It has been argued that many philosophers of religion suffer from cognitive biases and group influence, and that the field as a whole is too partisan, too polemical, too narrow in its focus, and too often evaluated using criteria that are theological or religious instead of philosophical. Recent work in cognitive science of religion suggests that analytic thinking is a pathway to atheism (Norenzayan and Gervais 2013), and it has been observed that analytic thinkers show weaker religious belief and tend to lose their religious fervour, even if they were originally raised in a religious environment (Shenhav et al. 2012). Experimental work supports these correlations and provides additional evidence for causal connections between analytic thinking and erosion of religious beliefs (Gervais and Norenzayan 2012)."

And I'm going to be honest here. I have barely a clue what this all means. Perhaps due to the expensive words used and me being a non-native speaker. What is the difference between a theological approach and a philosophical one? (I know this is basic stuff and I'm sorry.)

And quite honestly, How should I view the fact that most of the philosophers are indeed not theists? The theist would tell me that expert opinion matters a bit more and that one shouldn't make arguments ad populum anyhow but..Surely that might say something about the integrity of their arguments?

A quote from the article again: “I would not be the first to say that philosophy of religion, especially “analytic theology”, is simply not philosophy. It’s Christian apologetics, and it often is poorer philosophically because of that. A Christian bias pervades everything, and, once one becomes a non-Christian, the irrational faith-based assumptions and intuitions start to stand out.”

What is this christian bias they speak of? Is it the bias towards the Abrahamic God concept? Or is it that the work within the field is too one sided?

I'm sorry for asking so much and veering away from the OP ever so slightly. But it's something I really wish to understand and get my head around. Also, you should probably get used to me saying sorry about a hundred times! :razz: