You've got a definitive, rational proof for god?

Put it up.

Are you not familiar with Aquinas' five proofs?

Here's the first for example:

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.

2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.

3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.

4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).

5. Therefore nothing can move itself.

6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.

7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.

8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. — Aquinas

The question isn't whether that proves that God exists--obviously I don't think it does, otherwise I wouldn't be an atheist. The question is whether you wouldn't say that that is a rational basis for Aquinas' belief in God.

And if you wouldn't say that that's a rational basis for Aquinas' belief in God, then I have to wonder what the heck "rational" denotes to you. To me, "rational" denotes exactly the sort of thinking that Aquinas demonstrates in that proof.

Sure I like his arguments, and the rational discussion that follows since in many ways I think the concept of god outlines the boundaries of human knowledge. However, if you tell me something, and I doubt you then you ought to be able to prove it, if you can't then does not seem to me that you can maintain it as a rational position, it's a non-rational/magical belief, which is what I think the concept of god entails.

What I'm asking you is whether you wouldn't say that his argument is rational.

For example, aren't these two sentences in conjunction an example of rational thinking:

4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).

5. Therefore nothing can move itself. — Aquinas

His concepts are rational, their result don't prove god.

How can god be demonstrated in any reasoned argument?

My contention is the term 'rational theist' seems to me to be a contradiction in terms, since belief in god, can't be circumscribed by reason.

Ummm . . . skip — Terrapin Station

But if you're an atheist it doesn't follow you'd necessarily skip that. There are reasons other than religion for practicing celibacy.

Ummm . . . skip — Terrapin Station

What does this mean? I don't get it. You could have skipped responding to my post if you didn't like it for whatever reason.

It was just a lighthearted comment. I'll be skipping celibacy, thank you. :-)

I know lighthearted comments are taboo in most threads. We're supposed to be "debating" like it's serious business, but I don't always follow rules. :-)

What does this mean? I don't get it. You could have skipped responding to my post if you didn't like it for whatever reason. — Thorongil

Yes but to things which trouble you, you just have to respond you know ;)

His concepts are rational, their result don't prove god. — Cavacava

Right, but whether it succeeds in proving God is irrelevant for whether it's rational, no? Whether it's rational hinges on whether it involves implicational/inferential reasoning, and this does.

No, I think it is very relevant. If the concept can't be rationally circumscribed, you can use all the rational arguments at your disposal...to my way of thinking that does not change that the conclusion that this process's attempt to encompass a concept that is beyond reason by reason is not a contradiction.

If the concept can't be rationally circumscribed, you can use all the rational arguments at your disposal. — Cavacava

But then you've got rational arguments, so it's rational.

As I asked a number of times, if you don't agree that "rational" refers to simply implicational/inferential reasoning, what do you take it to refer to? Surely not "conclusions that I agree with/that I believe are correct."

We seem to be talking a bit past each other here. I am suggesting that "Rational Theist" is a contradiction in terms because I don't think that the Theistic belief can be reasoned. You seem to be arguing that Theism is rational because it employs rational arguments. I don't think being a "Rational Theist" is a rational position, it seems to deny itself, in spite of utilizing rational arguments.

We'd probably talk past each other less if you'd just tell me how you'd define "rational." What makes something rational in your view?

It was just a lighthearted comment. — Terrapin Station

Alright, but it wasn't immediately apparent to me.

What makes something rational in your view?

A thing that can be discussed, described, that judgements can be made about the thing based on what's known.

I am suggesting that "Rational Theist" is a contradiction in terms because I don't think that the Theistic belief can be reasoned. You seem to be arguing that Theism is rational because it employs rational arguments. — Cavacava

I'm more of an atheist myself, but I don't think theism is necessarily irrational. I will agree that many particular variety of theism are hard to defend.

But then the notion of "reason" is blurry. We can soften it to something like commitment to use persuasion rather than force (maybe too soft) or sharpen/harden it to a sort of absolute faculty that ends up functioning as a sort of replacement for God. Just about everyone thinks that reason is on their side, so we end up with a never-finished "theology" of Reason, which is to say an endless debate about what is truly reasonable and therefore (for philosophers attached to seeing themselves as particularly reasonable agents) authoritative.

↪Terrapin Station
What makes something rational in your view?

A thing that can be discussed, described, that judgements can be made about the thing based on what's known. — Cavacava

Wait, so objects are what's rational in your view? Not the way we think about something?

Realism requires it. Without it, objects wouldn't be anything without us thinking about them.

Though, this doesn't mean there isn't a way we think about objects. Our thoughts about objects are always that, which is how we can be wrong about them-- the way we think about an object is mistaken because we don't grasp its logical expression.

Hi, I am an agnostic, and I don't think the god has being. What does it mean to talk about that which is not. It may be said, but what is said means logically, rationally, nothing.



:

Someone could argue that there is another kind of conscious being with a body not like our own who indeed created the universe we know within a larger universe. Maybe this being has preferences for how humans ought to behave. Maybe it delighted this being to create reduced copies of its own consciousness in a different kind of body than its own using some kind of technology that exceeds our own. Maybe the truth is stranger than fiction. One could argue that it's not rational to act upon bare possibility. I agree. But I still think we aren't completely rational beings. We inherit certain beliefs and have to be motivated to change them. Communities can be understood in terms of shared norms for valid inferences. While I appreciate universal reason as an ideal to strive toward, I can't help but notice how it functions as a sort of God in terms of its authority and association with virtue. In short, rationality is perhaps not itself some crystal-clear thing one can have on one's side. (Or perhaps it's just wise to see that developing the content of "rationality" is non-trivial and ongoing.)

I don't disagree with what you have said, there is a lot more to life than logic/reason (this is easy to say, hard to convince), I suspect if his trace, it may be in the narratives of others who say they have experienced god. Some of these even outline plans, a description of stages the soul must pass through to become one with god. (Marguerite Porete' "The Mirror")

Of course these people were in love X-)

Realism requires it — TheWillowOfDarkness

??

Realism requires what?