The argument is foolish and futile, I think, but arises from the belief that God's existence is something which can, or should be, established in a particular way; through reasoning or something approximating the scientific method. Atheists evidently believe this is the case, but believers do as well, and invite argument by maintaining that God's existence can be so established.I wish so many well-versed intellectuals wouldn't waste their talent arguing a fundamentally void position here. — colin
I now know God exists. — colin
These experiences have rendered the arguments of atheists quite laughable, and almost desperate to me. — colin
no amount of well-conceived and consistent argument would detract from that. I now know God exists. It's a certainty in my eyes. And there can be no alternate understanding for me any more. — colin
Such testimony counts as empirical evidence, but of the weakest, most unreliable kind, and is exactly the same evidence used by others in support of propositions (Ganesh, Horus, Athena ...) that are logically inconsistent with your proposition. — Brainglitch
Atheist arguments simply are challenges to the logic and evidence offered in theistic arguments. — BrainGlitche
As a long-time Dawkins detractor, one thing I could point out is that the idea of 'God' that Richard Dawkins claims doesn't exist, doesn't exist, but that this fact doesn't actually amount to anything.
You will find if you read The Blind Watchmaker that it contains a brief precursor to his main argument against God in The God Delusion, to whit: 'a deity capable of engineering all the organized complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution ... must already have been vastly complex in the first place.'
But the point is, that doesn't match any conception of deity found in any of the world's religious traditions. Ergo it is a straw man argument, although in this case, probably better named a 'straw god argument'. — Wayfarer
Why do you say the existence of God is "logically inconsistent" with the existence of "Ganesh, Horus and Athena"? — John
Reasonable points and well expressed. But another thing to consider is that in today's culture, there is an implicit attitude as to what might be considered as 'evidence' at all. Empricism, for instance, insists that evidence consist of data that can be replicated by others and in that sense, is not something that is dependent on the first-person perspective. I suppose you could say that empiricism attempts as far as possible to bracket out the first-person perspective so as to discover facts that are able to be quantified and replicated in the third person. (This is the basis of the title of Thomas Nagel's book The View from Nowhere).
However, an element which this excludes is the testimony of sages. I suppose that very phrase is redolent of an earlier ages and times. Nevertheless, in the sapiential (i.e. wisdom) traditions, there is an understanding that the wise are able to understand truths which the untrained do not; that is practically a definition of wisdom. Think for example of the lectures of Plotinus, although there are many other examples, such as the dialogues of Plato, and the early Buddhist texts; but this manner of discourse is something found in many schools of traditional philosophy as well as religion ( as discussed by Pierre Hadot.)
Now the point is, much of that kind of testimony is also excluded by modern atheism, regardless of its potential veracity, because it requires and involves a first-person perspective and commitment. So it is excluded as a matter of principle. That is because religious knowledge (if indeed there is such) doesn't concern mathematically-quantifiable objects, forces and relations - which, according to the prevailing scientific worldview, are the only real sources of knowledge. What it does consist of may indeed involve encounters with legendary or archetypal figures.
(Now some of this kind of argument might have been put by Colin, but so far it seems like he might be a 'drive by contributor'.) — Wayfarer
This is not true. There is a long history of "natural theology" which purports to explain the complexity of nature (especially its biological complexity) by appeals to a designing entity. William Paley's Natural Theology (written in the early 19th century) is just such an example of this, now presented in a more technically savvy form by intelligent design creationists (e.g. Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell). You may not agree with these authors' conceptions of God, but they're out there nonetheless. So it's disingenous to claim that Dawkins and company are just strawmanning their opponents.You will find if you read The Blind Watchmaker that it contains a brief precursor to his main argument against God in The God Delusion, to whit: 'a deity capable of engineering all the organized complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution ... must already have been vastly complex in the first place.'
But the point is, that doesn't match any conception of deity found in any of the world's religious traditions. Ergo it is a straw man argument, although in this case, probably better named a 'straw god argument'. — Wayfarer
A "coincidence" of what?Some bow down in humility to this fact and some boast that they know our existence is all just meaningless coincidence. — Hanover
I agree, Arkady.This is not true. There is a long history of "natural theology" which purports to explain the complexity of nature (especially its biological complexity) by appeals to a designing entity. William Paley's Natural Theology (written in the early 19th century) is just such an example of this, now presented in a more technically savvy form by intelligent design creationists (e.g. Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell). You may not agree with these authors' conceptions of God, but they're out there nonetheless. So it's disingenous to claim that Dawkins and company are just strawmanning their opponents. — Arkady
Everything coming together by happenstance, resulting in everything from rocks to consciousness.A "coincidence" of what? — Arkady
Ok, religious people are stupid in your experience. How does this impact my conclusion that neither the atheists nor the theists have any inkling of the answer?
(In my experience, the people most ardently claiming for humility in the face of the universe are those with the least amount of epistemic humility: it is religious believers, not scientists, who claim to have all of the answers.)
Again, what is "coincidental" about that?Everything coming together by happenstance, resulting in everything to rocks to consciousness. — Hanover
Non-sequitur.Ok, religious people are stupid in your experience.
I didn't say it did. My response was geared towards your comment about some people "bowing down in humility."How does this impact my conclusion that neither the atheists nor the theists have any inkling of the answer?
So offer me your definition of "coincidental" since you're putting it in quotes like it's a special sort of term.Again, what is "coincidental" about that? — Arkady
No, it's really not. My point was to point out that it was entirely irrelevant to our conversation how deficient theists were.Ok, religious people are stupid in your experience.
Non-sequitur. — Arkady
I know. You were annoyed that a theist might be characterized in a positive light (to the extent humility is positive), so you wanted to be sure to point out that atheists were no less virtuous. That is, you personalized a discussion that was never intended that way because you seem to want to defend the goodness of atheists. My point remains that neither is better or worse per se, but both are equally lacking in support for their definitive statements.I didn't say it did. My response was geared towards your comment about some people "bowing down in humility." — Arkady
How does this impact my conclusion that neither the atheists nor the theists have any inkling of the answer? — Hanover
Dawkins unanswerable objection against the intelligent designer is precisely the unanswerable argument made by theists against atheists, just phrased teleologically instead of causatively.
That is, asking where matter came from to begin this long chain of causative events is no more answerable than asking who designed this infinitely complex designer. If every event has a cause, it's impossible to have had a first cause just by definition. If every complex entity had a more complex designer, then it's impossible for there to have been a first designer by definition. — Hanover
If every event has a cause, it's impossible to have had a first cause just by definition. If every complex entity had a more complex designer, then it's impossible for there to have been a first designer by definition — Hanover
Thus, a complex design such as that of the universe entails an even more complex designer. So either this leads to an infinite regress, or complexity does NOT entail a designer. — Brainglitch
I don't understand the term in a special light. I just don't see what's "coinciding" here.So offer me your definition of "coincidental" since you're putting it in quotes like it's a special sort of term. — Hanover
If it's not a non-sequitur, please show how my statements implies that I believe all theists to be stupid (my posting history certainly doesn't reflect that; I've even said on more than one occasion that under different historical circumstances I myself would likely be at least a deist).No, it's really not. My point was to point out that it was entirely irrelevant to our conversation how deficient theists were. — Hanover
Again, a non-sequitur. I myself have painted some theists in a positive light, and nothing in my post says otherwise (sounds like you're the one getting personal here...) And defending the "goodness" of atheists per se is also something I certainly never did (there are plenty of virtuous theists and plenty of nonvirtuous atheists).I know. You were annoyed that a theist might be characterized in a positive light (to the extent humility is positive), so you wanted to be sure to point out that atheists were no less virtuous. That is, you personalized a discussion that was never intended that way because you seem to want to defend the goodness of atheists. My point remains that neither is better or worse per se, but both are equally lacking in support for their definitive statements. — Hanover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.