Christian and Atheistic premises?


#1

In arguing both for and against the existence of God, what premises do Christians and Atheists hold?


#2

All arguments presuppose logic.


#3

[quote=The Augustinian]In arguing both for and against the existence of God, what premises do Christians and Atheists hold?
[/quote]

cogito ergo sum


#4

[quote=DavidFilmer]cogito ergo sum
[/quote]

So far, you have established that you exist. And I, likewise, know that I exist. But do you know that I exist, and I you?


#5

[quote=atheos_sum]So far, you have established that you exist. And I, likewise, know that I exist. But do you know that I exist, and I you?
[/quote]

Of course not. But it doesn’t matter insofar as proving God exists.

It’s MUCH easier (for me) to prove that God exists than to prove that YOU exist.


#6

From what I’ve read I can tell you that this is called the problem of other minds. But I’m not familiar with how it has been historically dealt with.


#7

[quote=DavidFilmer]Of course not. But it doesn’t matter insofar as proving God exists.

[/quote]

Granted.

Strong claim.


#8

[quote=atheos_sum]Strong claim.
[/quote]

Not really. I said “easier,” which is a relative term. I have no idea how I might prove that you exist. But I have a number of ideas of how to approach the existence of God.


#9

[quote=DavidFilmer]Not really. I said “easier,” which is a relative term. I have no idea how I might prove that you exist.

[/quote]

You could google “other minds problem” and you might come up with something good. One philosopher has actually used the problem of other minds to suggest that God exists, Alvin Plantinga. I read an essay by him called “God and Other Minds” but I couldn’t adequately evaluate it because, like i said, i wasn’t versed in the traditional form of the argument in the first place. But basically he says that if it is logical to believe in other minds it is just as logical to believe in God. It sounds blatantly absurd, but i’d have to read it again.

What do you think is the best approach?


#10

Many Christians who believe that they can prove God’s existence presuppose that God’s existence is fundamentally transparent to logic – that vis-a-vis logic, the fact of God’s existence is NON-transcendent.

I believe that that is error. Though logic is “in-and-of” God, it is only a “piece” of God, and isn’t in any sense “taller than” God, so that we can somehow climb the steps of logic and look down and see God and say, “Look! Look! There He is!”

In other words, God’s transcendance is absolute. That transcendence is one of the fundamental reasons why we need “faith” to “believe in” God, but why we DON’T need “faith” to “believe in” the existence of Aquinas, or in the existence of our neighbor.

If we could “prove” the existence of a god, it wouldn’t be God. God is transcendent.


#11

[quote=BibleReader]Many Christians who believe that they can prove God’s existence presuppose that God’s existence is fundamentally transparent to logic – that vis-a-vis logic, the fact of God’s existence is NON-transcendent. I believe that that is error.

[/quote]

by “transparent to logic”

do you mean that it is easy to discern God from a logical method of some sort?

[quote=BibleReader] Though logic is “in-and-of” God, it is only a “piece” of God, and isn’t in any sense “taller than” God, so that we can somehow climb the steps of logic and look down and see God and say, “Look! Look! There He is!”

[/quote]

I don’t get it. Why are people assuming that logic is something “in and of” and a “piece” of God? What does this even mean?

Unless this is no more than saying that, according a believer, “God created a logical universe,” then no one should accept this. Otherwise it is basically saying that logic presupposes God, which is not the case.

vague. but doesn’t matter i suppse.

So by this notion it would seem that you are implying that: God is unknowable through experience and reason.

Is this correct?
rubs hands together in sinister fashion


#12

[size=2]You could google “other minds problem” and you might come up with something good.But it wouldn’t help the challenge you posed - proving that YOU exist. I mean you in particular. It is difficlut enough to prove that ANYONE exists except myself (and I know that I exist because I cannot deny my own existence - something that does not exist cannot exercise an act of denial). I may be able to construct an “other minds” approach, but it wouldn’t address YOU specifically. And, actually, since it is very late (2:10 am), I think I’m really sleeping in my bed and am dreaming this whole forum thing, including you :wink:

What do you think is the best approach?It depends on how far you want to go with the development of the divine nature. I think causality is good enough to establish that God exists.
[/size]


#13

[quote=DavidFilmer]But it wouldn’t help the challenge you posed - proving that YOU exist. I mean you in particular. It is difficlut enough to prove that ANYONE exists except myself (and I know that I exist because I cannot deny my own existence - something that does not exist cannot exercise an act of denial). I may be able to construct an “other minds” approach, but it wouldn’t address YOU specifically. And, actually, since it is very late (2:10 am), I think I’m really sleeping in my bed and am dreaming this whole forum thing, including you :wink:

[font=Century Gothic]see “solipsism”. it’s very dangerous.

[/font]It depends on how far you want to go with the development of the divine nature. I think causality is good enough to establish that God exists.

[/quote]

People often assume that causality can help them arrive at theism. I think you are proffering the “cosmological” argument in this sense. It is much like aristotle’s “unmoved mover” argument.

But that’s only as far as the argumet will get you. In fact, you know nothing about the nature of this “unmoved mover” from this argument. Most people, atheists withstanding, assume that the unmoved mover must be benevolent and kind and charming and holy and that he gave his only begotten son so that our sins may be forgiven.

Some buddhists or taoists will use a sort of cosmological argument and say that the universe required “energy” or some sort of “principle” to get it going.

And thomas jefferson and other deists would tell you that the universe simply needed “God” to cause the sequence of events, but since the sequence is begun, we have no need for “God” now.

and stephen hawkings will be the first to say that the universe could have begun on mechanical principles and chance alone. no “mystery” involved here.


#14

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.