Well, if this is the case: that one can prove it in metaphysics, using those tools, then the proof has not effectively convinced, certainly the lay public, and even within metaphysics the proof (or proofs) are not consensus accepted as holding up. — Coben

You expressed in an earlier post your conviction that God's existence could not be demonstrated rationally. That's really neither here nor there, but nevertheless I did not want to let it pass and so I expressed my justified belief that it can be demonstrated rationally, for I have done precisely that here - that is, demonstrated it rationally (not this thread, but elsewhere). Or so I think.

As to my view not being accepted by the majority of experts in the field - well that's true in one sense and false in another. It is false in that the majority of expert metaphysicians do, actually, accept that God's existence can be demonstrated, or at least shown to be more reasonable than not. You are confusing the current crop of expert metaphysicians with 'all' expert metaphysicians. But there have been expert metaphysicians for millennia. And most have thought God's existence can rationally be demonstrated. So, that's the sense in which what you say is just false. Among those whose expertise is not in question - among those whose brilliance is undisputed - there is a broad consensus that God's existence can be demonstrated.

The specific proof that I was talking about, however, is not currently widely known. So we cannot really look to the expert community's judgement about it, for it has not yet been formed. Academic publications are not widely read, so the whole process from discovery to academic respectability is a very long and drawn-out one. As such lack of widespread current acceptance doesn't really tell you anything important about the credibility of the argument.

If it was a widely known argument, and if the majority of the expert community, being aware of it, has judged it to fail, then I grant that would provide non-experts with prima facie reason to think it probably doesn't work.

But this thread is about expertise. So we can put the specifics of the proof aside and just consider things in the abstract and think about what it would be reasonable to believe in light of an expert judgement.

Say an expert in a field thinks he/she has made a discovery in that field. You - a non-expert - think that X is the case. But this expert in the field is very confident that X is not the case. His evidence has yet to become widely known in the field and so it has not yet been widely scrutinized.

What should you, as a reasonable person, now think? You know that this person knows a lot, lot more about this matter than you. And you know as well that this person is very confident that X is not the case (which is unusual, because normally experts are more circumspect).

Well, I think you should take very seriously that X is not the case.

The specific proof that I was talking about, however, is not currently widely known. So we cannot really look to the expert community's judgement about it, for it has not yet been formed. — Bartricks

Secret knowledge. I look forward to the revelation, although I may be ill-equipped to critique it. :chin:

The manifestation of an illusion. — A Seagull

Interesting. Have you ever read Freud's "Future of an Illusion"?

It's not secret - I've made it on this forum before - it's just not on topic. But here it is boiled down to its basics:

1. Prescriptions of Reason exist
2. All prescriptions have a mind that issues them.
3. Therefore, the prescriptions of Reason have a mind that issues them.
4. None of the prescriptions of Reason are issued by my mind (and that applies to you too, of course)
5. Therefore, the prescriptions of Reason have a mind that issues them, and the mind in question is not my mind, or your mind.

That mind - Reason's mind - is a god, and with a few more steps it becomes more reasonable than not to suppose that the mind in question is 'God' (where 'God' is taken to be a mind who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent).

although I may be ill-equipped to critique it. — jgill

Yes. I predict, like I say, that you will either end up questioning the probative value of any argument for anything, or you will dismiss the argument on the grounds that it has premises that entail its conclusion (which, I suppose, amounts to the same thing).

You equated "your true self" as "how you really are"
— god must be atheist

False. I tend to regard it as emptiness. — praxis

You are saying you regard yourself as emptiness.

That's actually right on the dot.

It's not secret - I've made it on this forum before - it's just not on topic. But here it is boiled down to its basics:

1. Prescriptions of Reason exist — Bartricks

I see. Your doctor wrote you a prescription for you to become reasonable.

I have news for you. The prescription failed.

Can something non-agential write a prescription?

If a man in a third world nation somewhere stood up to an oppressive military regime because of his belief in God — Pantagruel

Chances are the man would stand up to his oppressive regime because he does not fancy living in an oppressive regime. God has nothing to do with hating oppressive regimes. In fact, god will teach him (the scriptures, that is), that all authority derives from god. The person in the oppressed status in the other country will first obey the teachings of his scriptures or his inner voice that demands a fairer treatment. If he obeys the scriptures, he obeys god. But the scriptures say "obey your authority, for all authority derives from god." But the guy does not obey authority; hence, therefore, he is not obeying god.

Your entire simile failed. People don't rebel because of god. They rebel because they figure their lives sould be better.

Chances are the man would stand up to his oppressive regime because he does not fancy living in an oppressive regime. God has nothing to do with hating oppressive regimes. In fact, god will teach him (the scriptures, that is), that all authority derives from god. The person in the oppressed status in the other country will first obey the teachings of his scriptures or his inner voice that demands a fairer treatment. If he obeys the scriptures, he obeys god. But the scriptures say "obey your authority, for all authority derives from god." But the guy does not obey authority; hence, therefore, he is not obeying god.

Your entire simile failed. People don't rebel because of god. They rebel because they figure their lives sould be better. — god must be atheist

My example (it wasn't a simile) didn't fail, you disputed the premise, which is a long way from invalidating it. Cheers.

You are saying you regard yourself as emptiness.

That's actually right on the dot. — god must be atheist

Well, no, I tend to regard everything as empty.

Yes. I predict, like I say, that you will either end up questioning the probative value of any argument for anything, or you will dismiss the argument on the grounds that it has premises that entail its conclusion (which, I suppose, amounts to the same thing). — Bartricks

Actually, no. Reason is a gift from a god since we are endowed but not capable of conceiving. Sounds a tad like archaic Greek logic. When, according to Jaynes, thoughts were god-given.

But I'm sure I have missed the more subtle features of the argument. Color me embarrassed. :yikes:

Or, alternatively, you won't address the argument at all, but just say something about what it reminds you of.

But I'm sure I have missed the more subtle features of the argument. — jgill

You missed it in its entirety. Bad dog!!

1. Prescriptions of Reason exist
2. All prescriptions have a mind that issues them.
3. Therefore, the prescriptions of Reason have a mind that issues them.
4. None of the prescriptions of Reason are issued by my mind (and that applies to you too, of course)
5. Therefore, the prescriptions of Reason have a mind that issues them, and the mind in question is not my mind, or your mind.

That mind - Reason's mind - is a god, and with a few more steps it becomes more reasonable than not to suppose that the mind in question is 'God' (where 'God' is taken to be a mind who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent). — Bartricks

This is the classic 'god of the gaps' argument.

Does ignorance = god?

This is the classic 'god of the gaps' argument. — A Seagull

No it isn't. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Do you have any formal qualifications in philosophy?

Do you have any formal qualifications in philosophy? — Bartricks

Please display yours. If they exist I'm not seeing much evidence. :gasp:

But then, I have almost none, so what do I know? (I can guess your reply) :sad:

Please display yours. If they exist I'm not seeing much evidence. — jgill

That's because you don't have them. The argument I just presented is a proof of a god's existence. But you don't recognise that, because you don't know what a proof of a god's existence would look like when it's at home. Someone with credentials would or would at least know what to do to test whether we've got the real-deal on our hands.

But then, I have almost none, so what do I know? (I can guess your reply) — jgill

You guessed correctly.

I'm glad to know two things: 1) you apparently know the literal meaning of metaphysics, or at least I suppose you do. But that's trivial. And 2) that you claim to know what metaphysics is. My idea of what metaphysics is, is got from a book. The author argues compellingly that properly understood, metaphysics is the discovery of the absolute presuppositions held by various people at various times. The book, mentioned a number of times on this forum, is An Essay on Metaphysics, R. G. Collingwood.

What exactly do you say metaphysics is?

Someone with credentials would or would at least know what to do to test whether we've got the real-deal on our hands — Bartricks

Makes me regret not having those mysterious credentials you may or may not have that would allow you and I to debate issues that may or may not resonate with those who consider themselves authorities, but may not be. I feel defective. :cry:

I had one semester of senior-level philosophy. You?

My prof laughed at metaphysics. Although I proposed Leibniz's monads to him as a legitimate metaphysical actuality. I think it is. :smirk:

Someone with credentials would or would at least know what to do to test whether we've got the real-deal on our hands. — Bartricks

And Jesus said to him, "Again, it is written, 'You shall not test the Lord, your God.'"

Matthew 4:7

If he does it long enough he may begin to believe his own crap. — praxis

That can and does happen.

↪A SeagullThis is the classic 'god of the gaps' argument. — A Seagull
No it isn't. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Do you have any formal qualifications in philosophy? — Bartricks

This from Wikipedia: "God of the gaps" is a theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence.

BTW I hope you realise that ad hominems are a disappointing tactic used by people who cannot put forward any rational argument.

None of the prescriptions of Reason are issued by my mind (and that applies to you too, of course) — Bartricks

Rubbish.

And Jesus said to him, "Again, it is written, 'You shall not test the Lord, your God.'"

Matthew 4:7 — praxis

What if you believe there is no god? Then would this directive not lose its punch?

My prof laughed at metaphysics. Although I proposed Leibniz's monads to him as a legitimate metaphysical actuality. I think it is. — jgill

My goodness gracious. I read this as follows:

My prof laughed at metaphysics. Although I proposed Leibniz's gonads to him as a legitimate metaphysical actuality. I think it is.

I had to look up what a monad was, and I got lost in the text.

I am coming slowly to the realization that all the great philosophers talked about one thing, and one thing only, and they gave that one thing different names, each their own creation of a name, and that's the only reason we think they are saying different things.

↪god must be atheist Can something non-agential write a prescription? — Bartricks

Here's looking at you, Bartricks:

Can someone congenial prescribe a god to a non-believer? Can a proof be so shallow that ducks even won't wade in it? Can someone ask questions if he is only able to do that in lieu of coherent speech and thought?

My prof laughed at metaphysics. — jgill

If this means he or she thought it was all ridiculous, well that's a metaphysical stance and not an easy one to defend either. Further, metaphysics is present within scientific disciplines, certainly physics, but in others as well.

But perhaps your professor just really loved metaphysics and that's where the laughter came from.

BTW I hope you realise that ad hominems are a disappointing tactic used by people who cannot put forward any rational argument. — A Seagull

Well, to be fussy, no, I don't think that's the case. I have seen people mount excellent arguments and use ad homs. It might be a tactic used by someone who cannot put forward a rational argument or it might not.

What exactly do you say metaphysics is? — tim wood

The study of the fundamental nature of things.

You expressed in an earlier post your conviction that God's existence could not be demonstrated rationally. — Bartricks

It's a transitive process. You have to demonstrate it to someone and in this case, at least most experts. They nod their heads when you're done. I don't think this is going to happen. I could be wrong, it's an intuitive position. I haven't seen it happen (seen in the broad sense, but that is hardly proof). I wouldn't rule out the possibility, but I doubt it.

But there have been expert metaphysicians for millennia. And most have thought God's existence can rationally be demonstrated. — Bartricks

Most of those metaphysicians were living in times where your profession, life, family were all in jeopardy if one openly believed there was no God. They were likely trained and evaluated by believers whose lives, families and professional lives were similarly dependent on that.

I realize that today there are now counterpressures, which lead to biases in the other direction, though not generally against one's life and family. And an academic metaphysician can probably hold their job if they openly believe in God and even if they assert they have or have read a proof.

For me outside the expertise, I see a lack of consensus withing experts. In college, decades ago, I wrestled with some of the proofs, perhaps not the one you find convincing, and found they did not work. I would have been allowed, in that context, to find them correct. At least one of my professors was a theist. I also had a general reaction that deduction at that level can seem perfectly convincing but turn out not to be the case. I would say I was a strong and clever student but no genius and never became an expert.

From my position, I find a lack of consensus.

And experts often say those experts are not really experts - I do this also, both when I am an expert and as a layperson even. But here I am in a position where I need to use processes that are experiential - some coming of themselves, others the products of long practice. I think most people are in that position.

As such lack of widespread current acceptance doesn't really tell you anything important about the credibility of the argument. — Bartricks

It certainly doesn't rule it out. At all. But here we are, without expert consensus or majority in favor of it. I am focused what the in situ situation for most people is. I am not saying the proof you consider a proof is wrong (I read it quickly and the only conclusion I can draw so far is that one person has no idea what a God of the gaps argument is and is not). I am focused on position most people are in. But as I expressed earlier, I don't really see this as a problem. I think experience is a great way to learn.

Say an expert in a field thinks he/she has made a discovery in that field. You - a non-expert - think that X is the case. But this expert in the field is very confident that X is not the case. His evidence has yet to become widely known in the field and so it has not yet been widely scrutinized. — Bartricks

I have had this experience in a wide variety of fields. Medicine might provide a good example, let's see.

What should you, as a reasonable person, now think? You know that this person knows a lot, lot more about this matter than you. And you know as well that this person is very confident that X is not the case (which is unusual, because normally experts are more circumspect).

Well, I think you should take very seriously that X is not the case. — Bartricks

I think it works better if it is a consensus of experts, and I tend to take it seriously. But they've been wrong. I have the unpleasant but highly educational experience of a child where the supposed experts on the mind/body treated a member of my family for their emotional (and practical) troubles. The police and the courts were involved so there were experts from other fields confirming that the experts making decisions about my family members were the relevant and best experts. My gut feeling was it was wrong. My family member's gut feeling was that it was wrong. I investigated, during differnet periods and filled out my critique of consensus with more knowledge and also found fringe experts who supported my position. I became very confident that there was a systematic/paradigmatic problem. Now I took the experts opinions seriously. In fact, I and we had to. But beyond that I don't find it easy, in some new situation, to dismiss experts, unless I have already dismissed them over a longer period of time.

But we are always in position of having to trust our intuitions, in different ways and to different degrees. I do not leave over power to experts easily, especially if the risk is high and I have time and my gut says not to. If we study the history of many disciplines including ones that are supposed to be free of bias like science, we can see that minority opinions have turned out to be correct or better. And especially if I see clues that there are paradigmantic biases in the consensus they seem unaware of or, for example, motives to hold onto a way of looking at something other than evidence of solid deduction, I can often start with a very strong rejection stance, even if they are the experts and I haven't even found one fringe expert to help me flesh out my particular position.

Exactly. A lot of people seem to think it means a specific set of positions on ontology that they think are fluffy and dismiss. Not saying those positions are fluffy, but their reaction is based on a pejorative definition of metaphysics.