@ Ghostmaker

"Jesus: Claim: 'Jesus rose from the dead'
Science- Conclude, false.
History- Conclude, true."

Has science even touched that one though? I've yet to hear of anyone refuting the resurrection based upon empiricism. It usually goes back to "Well, there isn't any reason for me to believe it <enter historical evidence>, so I don't". There are people who've been dead and are with us. Science hasn't refuted these. It most cases it is used to verify them.

Faith, that is, belief without adequate evidence, is illogical. I have seen only insignificant evidence for a Christian God, apart from the possibility that the universe was created, which would only be evidence for a Creator, not a God with all the omni's.

Lots of really good, useful things in life are illogical.

That being said belief that God does not exist without adequate evidence is also illogical. Unless we go back to the positive claim point which is problematic.

I agree completely, but I think that at least a few of the attributes given to God by Christianity cannot exist mutually, like the idea that he is capable of communicating with us and wants us to believe in him, yet doesn't appear in the sky and tell us that he'd prefer if we believed in him. There could be a God that doesn't want us to believe or doesn't care, or a God that is incapable of appearing in the sky and talking to us, but, he can't want us to believe and be able to tell us that, or he'd tell us. The previous answer to this, I believe, was that he didn't want to interfere with free will, but that would mean that there shouldn't be any evidence for his existence. The existence of a God that has some Christian qualities is possible, but a God that is completely in line with Christianity is, impossible, or at least extraordinarily unlikely.

Or, since that example has already been brought up, how can we have free will if our creator was omniscient? My problem isn't that omniscience eliminates free will, but that when God created the world, he would have known how any slight change would change the future, and therefore he decided the future. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with one omniscient god and another creator, but I don't think that one being can have both of those traits while still leaving us with free will.

Also, while there may be good things that are illogical, illogical beliefs are bad. Otherwise there's no point in examining you beliefs or even thinking.

As far as illogical beliefs being bad, I'd have to disagree. I believe that my children are incredibly special people and would go to any length to protect them. This isn't logical...I realize that many (if not most) other parents have similar beliefs about their children. While there is a biological basis for this, there is no logical basis for it. Parental belief in their children's lovability cannot be stated to be inherently "bad" regardless of the innate unfairness of it. It serves the purpose of establishing and preserving family units and serves to ensure species survival every bit as much as sex drive does.

As far as an omnipotent/omniscient God being unlikely based on a perceived paradox making free will (please forgive me, it's late & I've had similar conversations with quite a few people in the past, so I might not get you're particular objection just right) and the existence of an omnipotent God mutually exclusive. I'd posit two things.

1) God is also said to be omnipotent, hence if he exists and is what he is reputed to be the paradox is moot. Free will and his omniscience exist merely because he wills it to be so, our inability to comprehend it has no bearing on the situation.

2) The paradox relies on a linear interpretation of the timeline. (ie. If God know's what I'm going to do next, then I really didn't choose the action because it was known before my choosing). If the timeline branches it become much less of a paradox. (ie. God, in his omniscience, knows every possible choice I can make in my lifetime and has allowed me to make them. God, who can state with certainly every option that every individual might have past, present, and future, can have a claim to omniscience and not violate free-will). Christians, themselves, differ widely about the actual meaning of omniscience. It cannot be said to be evidence of or against God's existence.

I like Russell's Teapot explanation of the God situation. It follows (and if I screw it up terribly excuse me, just a year seriouslky into philosophy so entirely possible I'm usijng this wrongly here):

Suppose I believe there is a teapot out in space between Earth and Mars, completely. It is a teapot so small no telescope could ever see it and so miniscule and likewise it is completely undetectable by any means we human beings know of or possess.

The teapot's exeistence, thus cannot be disproved- nor, however, can the fact it cannot disproved be sufficient cause for stating it to be proved.

So, yes, it's faith.


One thing I DO want to add, however (and I don't know if anyone's thrown this out there yet) is an idea Nietzsche, my favorite philosopher, said in "Human, All Too Human" which I just finished last week (great book, if you don't have it and want to hear some interesting if not always sufficiently supported ideas on the humanities, I highly recommend it- mind-blowing ideas and Nietzsche's style is astounding):

He put forth that it is ABSURD and a FOOLISH and even DAMAGING idea to conceive God in the Judeo-Christian tradtion, as a destroyer, holder of life and death, and yet also something man can pray directly towards- and, ultimately, KNOW HOW TO REACH AND WHAT GOD WANTS.

I'm Jewish, and I believe in a God, and a monotheistic one- but THAT is quite a thought. Think about it- all these Churches (Nietzsche hates those as well, as does Kierkegaard, and myself; no offense to anyone in a church, it's not just churches, it's really churches/temples/synagouges/any building that regulates prayer/religion in any way... I just don't like the idea of it) and we as beings, most of us here probably raised if not still believing in the Judeo-Christian tradition, so often assume we know how to pray to God and what he is and wills.

It's absurd to believe that, I think. I really wish I could provide a stronger argument for my case there (maybe I'll get an idea, or one of you with more phil. experience can help me out here?) but I just really do now subscribe to that.

I still believe in God- but WHO my God is and WHAT he's like and wills I can no longer be so sure as before...


As far as the logical/illogical beliefs being bad... a few philosophers (and again I cite Nietzsche, as I know him best, this time my evidence of sorts coming from the opening pagers of "Beyond Good and Evil," which I'm underway with reading now) would cite that though logic is in many cases preferable and should be pursued, Nietzsche (At least) states that man, imperfect and fragile as he is in his current state, cannot surive mentally without some forms of delusion/illogical thought- an example being how we measure time so artificially (minutes, hours, and such, when time is often viewed as constant, or if it most be broken is often not broken up so arbitrarily as artificial minutes, hours, and such.)

Well, let's see what you make of that-

And if anyone can either validate or ddestroy my argument- DO SO!!! I'm taking Philosophy 101 at my college (Course titled "Fundamentals of Reason and Logic") and reading Nietzsche, and with a few other bits here and there that's the bulk of my "philosophic knowledge," so it'd be great to learn here! :D

I don't see how any rational argument is possible if you don't agree that logical beliefs are superior to illogical ones. You seem to disagree that truth is inherently good.

As for your counter-arguements,

1) If God is omnipotent and therefore capable of doing the impossible, then why can't he eliminate all evil in the world while still retaining our free will? Can't he just will it to be so, even if it doesn't make sense to us how that is possible?

2) That seems to imply that God is not omniscient, due to the fact that he doesn't actually know what will happen.

Just out of interst, put on a scale if you will:

irrational belief/faith in God vs. rational belief/leaving the metaphysical alone

I see + and - for both... and @zuzak, I don't necessarily disagree with the notion truth is RIGHT inherently, but what makes it GOOD inherently?

@obiwanobiwan, you seem to be missing the point of Russel's Teapot. He's basically saying that he can come up with some arbitrary belief that can't be refuted, but which there's no reason to believe, and therefore, the belief should be discarded. I don't really like the argument, because it falls apart at the slightest evidence for God, because at that point there is more reason to believe in him than in the teapot.

With logical and illogical beliefs, whether humans are capable of holding completely logical beliefs is irrelevant as to what we should ideally believe.

If truth is good, then it is good to believe that truth is good.
If truth is bad, then it is good to believe that truth is good, because that believe isn't true.
Therefore, it is good to believe that truth is good.

Furthermore, I'd just say that it's an inherent and foundational belief of mine. There are certain things that can't be proven which I believe, but I try to limit those when possible. For example, you can't prove that logic is accurate, because that proof would require logic.

God is not a teapot. Whew! That was hard to refute.

:rolleyes:

@Acomist:

It's a METAPHOR, my friend, not to be taken literally... And even taking it literally, I'd argue that if God is capable of ANYTHING he could, in fact, take the form of a teapot if so he wished, and as you are lower than God you cannot tell what God's form is, whatever it may be, and thus could not and can never conclusively tell me, so long as you are lower than God, that God in fact does not, permanently or on occasion, take the form of a teapot.

@zuzak:

Thanks, YOU were helpful in your comment. I'd counter by first asking what you define as good (the same as "right," or is it seperate, different people have different answers to that) and then if truth is bad, thus thus believing it to be true even though it's false is good- then are you not right there constructing a truth of sorts, which by your definition would be bad, and if bad follows to be illogical, then would it not follow your view by your own rules of good and bad are, in fact bad and illogical?

(I hope that made sense, again, still pretty new at this... did that make sense, folks?)

@bartdogg - the inheristed arguement just doesn't stand up - The prophesy states clearly that the Messaih shall be from the seed of David, via soloman. If you believe in a virgin birth then this prophesy was not fulfilled.

@Zukak: regarding God and the teapot; If i want to beleive in the teapot, and can ascribe whatever powers i wish to it, (like my not being able to understand how or when it uses i's powers) then i can use anything, absolutely anything at all, as evidence of the teapot's existance.

The same works for god, if people want to believe, they can see what they want to in any given situation.

Rearding freewill: can anyone prove they have freewill? have you tried it, are you limited by your enviroment and genetics? I might suggest that freewill is an illusion, but one of the properties of illusions is that you can break them (pull back the curtain so to speak) and freewill if it is an illusion is such a good illusion that it is nigh-on unbreakable, thus taking away one of the fundamental aspects of illusion... hmm.

and @ crazy_anglican: The many-worlds theory of quantum mechanics implies just that, the world divides into seperate ones every time a quantum event occurs which could possibly have two (or more) different results, this might include all choices people make... though that is just an interpretation of quantum mechanics which I think is untestable (at least at present).

"Has science even touched that one though? I've yet to hear of anyone refuting the resurrection based upon empiricism. It usually goes back to "Well, there isn't any reason for me to believe it <enter historical evidence>, so I don't". There are people who've been dead and are with us. Science hasn't refuted these. It most cases it is used to verify them."

As I say, the principle that dead people stay dead is a fairly well established one.

"As far as illogical beliefs being bad, I'd have to disagree. I believe that my children are incredibly special people and would go to any length to protect them. This isn't logical...I realize that many (if not most) other parents have similar beliefs about their children. While there is a biological basis for this, there is no logical basis for it. Parental belief in their children's lovability cannot be stated to be inherently "bad" regardless of the innate unfairness of it. It serves the purpose of establishing and preserving family units and serves to ensure species survival every bit as much as sex drive does."

Then again, that isn't so much a belief as an emotion towards or a preference for your own children. Your belief in the existence of something can't be based on that same ground.

Crazy Anglican has also questioned the validity of assuming the non-existence of god when there is no evidence, on the grounds that the truth is the default belief.

Surely that makes all logic totally relative. In a different society, from the same premises, you reach a different conclusion. To me, this seems very wrong.

The only observation i would offer is that if there is a God then i think two of God's qualities would be 1 an infinite amount of patience & 2 an unlimited sense of humour. I have come to those conclusions from the realisation that a God "responsible" for my creation would require an abundance of both qualities

Assuming there is a god,

and assuming he created the universe...

Who or what created god?

I also love the old chestnut:

"If god is omnipotent, can he create a rock too heavy for him to lift?"

If (a) he cannot, then he is not omnipotent because there is a limit to what he can create.
If (b) he can, then he is not omnipotent because he lacks the power to lift the rock.

I love that one...

@obiwanobiwan, honestly, I thought of that argument more as a justification for my belief rather than a reason for it, and I just thought of it off the top of my head last night, so it doesn't really work that well. As I said though, my belief that truth is good, along with my belief that logic can be used to determine whether something is true or not, are foundational to my other beliefs. I am willing to accept them without proof, because any sort of thought, argument, or discussion would be impossible without them. We're talking about whether truth is good, but we are all trying to figure out what is in fact true, though the use of logic. If logic doesn't work, or if truth isn't good, then this whole discussion is pointless, because there's either no way to find the truth, or there's no reason to try and find it.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by distinguishing "right" and "good". By "right" you mean correct, as opposed to morally justified? If you mean correct, then I'd say that they're different things, but something that is right is better than something that is wrong.

It is somewhat impossible to explain how something is morally good or bad without some agreed upon assumptions about morality. What makes God good? That he'll provide happiness? Then what makes happiness good? Etc. for any answer. It is impossible to prove or argue that something is good without first establishing what "good" means or is.

@zuzak: Morality is highly subjective. Different cultures and different people have different views on what is morally good or bad. It is very hard to argue rationally in favour of there being some perfectly accurate definition of 'good' which applies in all cases and exists in the same way as, say, the laws of mathematics or physics.

For example, some cultures practise polygamy (having more than one husband or wife). For them, there is nothing morally 'bad' about having more than one partner. On the other hand, many raised in the Christian tradition (and others) might see this behaviour as 'bad'.

In this case neither set of moral values is objectively "right" or "wrong" - they are just different.

That's exactly what I'm saying here. I can't prove that truth is good anymore than you can prove that polygamy is good or bad. Morality can't be proven, and must be based on certain assumptions, like that murder is bad or truth is good.

Yes. Assumptions - or societal norms, if you prefer.

I wouldn't say societal norms, as those can change, while I don't think morality does, and I don't like the idea of popular things being necessarily good. But this whole topic is irrelevant to the thread, as long as we can agree that truth is good, which is a vital assumption for anything that seeks to arrive at a true conclusion, like this discussion.

As I was saying, God cannot have all the properties that Christianity gives him, because he has not appeared in the sky and told everyone to believe in him, and because we couldn't have free will if we were created by an omniscient being.

I still havent heard a cogent reponse to my 12 year old nephews questions: If god is omnipotent, and is also a compassionate god, why does he simply not show up in the sky and say "Hey, this is God. Osama, your interpretation of Islam is wrong - stop killing people". It is so simple, yet so profound. Why does God, if he or she exists, refuse to give us proof of his existence? I have heard the "well he wants us to have free will" argument, but that, para-phrasing Ghost, is a bullocks argument.

He does not want us to have free will. If he did, non-belief would not be punishable by ever-lasting damnation. So if he wants us to belive his message/orders, (be it the orders contained in the Bible (which ever version thereof you believe in)/Quran/Torah or whatever) why not just show up and say, hey, I am here. I am real. I am all-powerful. Jesus or Mohammed or whoever had it right.

If god exists, and he chooses not to show up and do that, given the violence and killing that takes place BECAUSE people believe, and are hell bent on convincing others that their belief system is correct - then he is an evil god- a mailicious god - and god not worth worshipping.

Perhaps there must be evil in thw world, and god does not want to eradictae evil, even though he can. But cant he at least provide evidence he exists, and then give us the free will to decide whether to persue evil or good?

Or is he just fucking with us? If so, perhaps god is actually satan.

And Ghost, I agree with every post you have submitted thus far. In the end, science is winning and religion is losing. Evidence of this is apparent in this thread itself. No one (as far as I'm aware) has turned around and said, "Evolution is not true, and god placed one man and one woman on the earth, and we are their decendents". No one has said "God created the universe in 6 days, there was no Big Bang".

Instead, the arguments are "Yes there was evolution, but god had a hand in it" (i.e. the intelligent design argument) or "Yes there was a big bang but god caused it". This is evidence of an inexorable retreat that religion has been making in the face of science's advance for the last 5 centuries. Ever since Galilaeo proved that the the earth reolves around the sun (and got ex-communicated for speaking the truth) religion and its unsubstantiated and out-dated beliefs has been fighting an unsuccessful rear-guard against sceince's advance.

It will continue.