Existence of God

[hatsoff]

Originally Posted by warpspeedpetey

ok, so now gravity doesnt exist, just a model exists? and what of magnetism? its another mathematically quantifiable set of behaviors of matter, yet we can quite simply describe the lines of magnetic force with some iron filings.

Well, you can observe patterns of material behavior with iron filings and magnets, sure. The force is described in terms of mass, directed distance and time, however.

[warpspeedpetey]

Originally Posted by hatsoff

Nothing is holding you to the earth, whether fairies, God, or some Thomistic form. You stay there naturally.

and what exactly constitutes "naturally"

[hatsoff]

Originally Posted by warpspeedpetey

and what exactly constitutes "naturally"

That's the million dollar question.

[warpspeedpetey]

Originally Posted by hatsoff

Well, you can observe patterns of material behavior with iron filings and magnets, sure. The force is described in terms of mass, directed distance and time, however.

the force may be described mathematically by equations, yet it is described as a "real" thing by those iron filings, how is that any different than gravity?

i can describe the model of gravity by equations, yet it is made real in the actual orbits and relations of the masses of the universe. same as the iron filings. on a much greater scale.

if gravity does not exist, except as a model, then how do you explain the veracity of that model in relation to reality?

before you said "naturally" but that seems to be dodging the question.

[warpspeedpetey]

Originally Posted by hatsoff

That's the million dollar question.

so, gravity may well exist, in fact we have no other reason than its invisibility to doubt it? if not than on what other basis can you reasonably doubt the existence of gravity?

[hatsoff]

Originally Posted by warpspeedpetey

so, gravity may well exist, in fact we have no other reason than its invisibility to doubt it? if not than on what other basis can you reasonably doubt the existence of gravity?

What you are calling "gravity" has nothing to do with classical mechanics. If you are asking why I doubt that there is some kind of transcendent substance in the universe guiding matter to behave the way it does, that's because there's absolutely no evidence for the existence of such a thing.

[wanstronian]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

Let's leave Homerun to decide that for himself...

What makes Homerun qualified to decide whether there is evidence of infinite regression, or whether the arbitrary backstop is God?

I'm simply pointing out the flaws with your argument. If Homerun chooses to adopt your position, then he runs the risk of having those flaws pointed out by his peers. That's all.

[wanstronian]

Originally Posted by reggieM

Perhaps I can help you here.
We'll start with your previous claim:



This is an absolute -- that one must accept that atheists' position (of whatever variety) are "spotlessly logical". Here we have a breakdown in logic already since there are contradictory atheistic positions -- some materialist, some which posit "non-natural" essences, others which could posit alien or "advanced" beings acting in god-like ways (but are not gods).

Secondly, I can notice that when challenged, you did not return to your original view but you changed the topic. Now you ask:



So, you're saying you're "not sure" about this new approach to the topic, while completely dropping the prior absolute statement. Now you claim it's only about "requiring evidence", and this is the "spotless logic" of atheism.

But without definitions of what evidence you will consider as valid, then this is meaningless also.



This refutes the primary statement that "the only way to deal with atheists is to accept their 'spotless logic'". Now you admit that atheists do not have spotless logic -- therefore, your point is refuted. This is proven because I am using a different method to "deal with an atheist" and that is to show the lack of logical consistency in the argument.

So, this proves to me that a very good way to "deal with atheists" could be to try to show them that they are illogical and they base their reasoning on assumptions. They make exaggerated claims also -- just as you did ("the only way" ... etc).



This is arguing by seeking to control the definition of terms. You claim that there is one, basic atheist position which is merely "that of not believing in God due to absence of evidence". That is an assertion that is offered without proof.

In the most strict, materialist-atheistic position -- reason itself is a product of blind, unintelligent, physical laws. The claim that rationality and logic are positive qualities of the atheistic mindset is contradictory. There can be no need or value in the illusion of rational or logical thought in the atheistic-materialist system. Thoughts are entirely determined by physical processes and no human being can freely decide on what thoughts to have.

In the materialist view, human intelligence itself is the product of blind, unintelligent, unconscious forces acting on physical matter.

A shining example of a theist picking apart a post whose meaning is clear, simply to try and win some points. Well done.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by wanstronian

What makes Homerun qualified to decide whether there is evidence of infinite regression, or whether the arbitrary backstop is God?

Homerun is just as qualified as you are to decide which is a more adequate explanation:

1. An infinite regress of irrational, purposeless processes.
2. An arbitrary backstop of irrational, purposeless processes.
3. A rational, purposeful Creator.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by hatsoff

Quote:
Originally Posted by warpspeedpetey
and what exactly constitutes "naturally"

That's the million dollar question.

Homerun, you will observe that atheists never specify the limits of "nature". It is a case of having movable goalposts to accommodate new discoveries in any field whatsoever!

[wanstronian]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

Homerun is just as qualified as you are to decide which is a more adequate explanation:

Indeed - I wasn't pretending to be any more qualified than anybody else - I was just taking issue with your implication that the OP had the authority to decide. He can of course decide what to believe, but not what is the truth.

1. An infinite regress of irrational, purposeless processes.
2. An arbitrary backstop of irrational, purposeless processes.
3. A rational, purposeful Creator.

There is no evidence of a rational, purposeful Creator (and I note that you remove the words "arbitrary backstop" from your third option, despite it being clearly thus). However, there is abundant evidence for what you call process.

[wanstronian]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

Homerun, you will observe that atheists never specify the limits of "nature". It is a case of having movable goalposts to accommodate new discoveries in any field whatsoever!

Dur, that's because we don't know what the limits are. It's what having an open mind is all about. What's wrong with accommodating new discoveries? The alternative is dogmatic refutation of anything other than the status quo. Which sounds more like theism to me.

[James S Saint]

Originally Posted by wanstronian

Dur, that's because we don't know what the limits are. It's what having an open mind is all about. What's wrong with accommodating new discoveries? The alternative is dogmatic refutation of anything other than the status quo. Which sounds more like theism to me.

"New discoveries" as in a new posture to take and dodge in defense against your chosen foe? A dodge no more valid than the last and one to which you will return when it becomes clear again?

Politics and posturing has exactly what to do with philosophy and the seeking of real truth?

You display no more than politics, not the behavior of a philosopher or even an honest observer.

[hatsoff]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

Homerun, you will observe that atheists never specify the limits of "nature". It is a case of having movable goalposts to accommodate new discoveries in any field whatsoever!

I don't recall specifying any "goalposts."

[CWBetts]

Originally Posted by Homerun

I am a Roman Catholic convert from New Age Protestantism and have immense faith in God. In school, however, we are constantly bombarded with evolutionary theory and empirical methodology. The modern world, particularly in my generation, is left with no room for faith. Because of my conversion and my visible religious beliefs, I have become a figure on whom to rely for theological questions (and objections). Seeing as I am being challenged at school by my peers, I have several questions which I need help with.


1. What philosophical logic do we have to prove God, and why is this more reliable than science?

2. Assuming there is one god, why is the Christian faith in general preferable to other religions? Why is Christianity correct and other religions false mythological stories?

3. Any other advice for dealing with agnostics or atheists? I was speaking with an atheist teacher. I argued Aquinas' uncaused cause theory: that since all matter must be created from other matter, there physically must be a god to create the original particles of matter. He replied that this logic is infinitely regressive, because if all things must have a creator, then God must be created. Second, he said that he would rather assume that the universe always existed rather than a higher being that simply always "was."

I will get in touch with you at the end of the semester. I am studying metaphysics right now (a subject I have never tackled before). I should be able to provide you with St. Thoma Aquinas's proofs on the existence of God