Atheism (Do you believe in God? If yes, then why?)

[Dominick_7]

It seems to me that this argument will only be plausible to one who actually thinks that the notion of necessary existence makes sense at all.

While logically incorrect implies a logical correct, actually crooked (that which is actually not straight) implies an actual straight, if (some or all)existence as you seem to imply is not necessary, then how does an actually non necessary being not (necessarily) imply an actual necessary existence by which to differentiate between the two?

If we're working with the notion that the existence of anything can only be proven a posteriori,

ONLY be proven a posteriori huh..How is that not being necessarily applied to existence/reality? In light of the fac that you must imply necessary knowlede about existence in that very statement, to say nothing can be known with necessity concerning existence...why accept that assumption?

If everything actual can only be known with gradtions of probabillity, and nothing actual can be known with actual necessity, unless its necessarily true that probability/probable degrees of knowledge can be known about reality why should we believe anything probable can be known about reality? Unless necessity does apply to reality we can know nothing about relaity. To say that probable known truth applies to reality, it can either apply probably (which has no ground) or applies necessarily. If it only applies probably you get an infinite regress of questionably known/less than necessarily certain "truths" where nothing is clear in itself, and must be made evident by another thing....ie nothing is known in itself...or you must finally arrive at self evident truth that is clear in itself, which needs not be made evident by another thing. If there is nothing self evident about actuality, nothing that is clear in itself, not needing to be made evident by something else, you canot known anything about reality in itself. To say "I know absolutely no thing in itself" implies knowledge of things in themselves to say that. So while one can state they know nothing, hey must imply that they know that. All denials of self evident truth imply the reality of self evident truth concerning reality.

and if we also identify the a posteriori with the contingent, then it seems that this argument would not even get off the ground. I think premise 5 can be restated as, "There cannot be anything whose existence is uncaused". That is a contingent proposition. That is, the supposition that everything has a cause is a claim supported by past experience, not by a deductive proof. So if we're identifying the a posteriori with the contingent, then premise 5 expresses a contingent fact. It is conceivable that there exists something such that it was uncaused. So it would seem that it is possible that something exists such that it was uncaused. If so, then premises 5, 6, and 7 go by the board.

Again, this was a quick response (I have to go to bed), so I apologize if it comes across as rather glib (and anyway, these are really complex issues).

I think you stated it well. The way you stated it shows the inescapabillity of the fact that necessity applies to actual existence/reality. To apply probabillity/sole a posteriori to existence must imply necessity in relation to relity, because either all knowledge about reality is ONLY probable (which indirectly implies necessity) or you must allow the possibility and actuaity of necessity applying to existence/reality. Either way you must affirm its possibility and or actuality.

 

[Dominick_7]

I actually prefer to play 'for sake of argument' as much as possible, and so I accept the notion of necessary existence.

From that of course, it's obvious if God can be essence which isn't contingent so could existence itself, as a non-agent. God could be the essence which exists without receiving its existence from anything else, or the very first intentional agent in the whole of existence could have merely been something which received its existence from that whole existence which was contingent on nothing.

As self existent, self explanatory, how is that different from having necesary existence ie a theistic God? If is the first intentional agent who gives existence to all things, how is that different from an efficient causal agent?

The difference between what is necessary/contingent ( on nothing) and what is itself contingent, is the fact that a necessary beings essence (what it has) is identical to its existence (what it is) a contingent beings essence is not identical to its existence. Its not of the essence of a contingent being to exist. It can exist or not exist. Theres nothing necessary about the existence of a contingent being. On the other hand, a necessary being must necessarily exist and cannot not be. So I dont understand how you distinguish between what is neccesary and contingent and then apply contingency to necessity confuse categories.


What I find facinating in these dialogues is the fact of how no matter what one says, the possibility of a theistic God or even more so the actuality of a theistic God comes through in the very persons conversation. While all others have essence and have existence, where the two are different, God alone uniquely has essence which is identical to his existence in that it is of His very essence to exist as a neccessary being who must be and cannot not be. The I AM that I AM.

Analogously, there is no reason to suppose the first cause of all needs to be an agent any more than the first cause of our universe need be, and thus as man arose in our universe, the first agent, as far as we know, existed, but was not itself supreme, it was merely created by the universe far superior as utterly unintentional towards it.

This is where I dont understand. How does a first cause and source of all not apply to everything (as you said) including the universe and thus including personhood? If you as an acting concious agent who must produce your own thought and or statement to say no one causes their own thoughts or statements, imply acting agents exist..if God caused everything that is contingent to exist, how would that not apply to your existence as a causal agent...and how could He give what He himself doesnt have to give? How can He give what he doesnt have..ie personhood, free will, agentness?

that "god" too then could be the man that came from matter which came from something larger and non-intentional in merely a much larger universal context.

Reason states that something cannot give what it itself doesnt have to give. One can only give what one has. Since personhood, free will, consciousness, emotions exist in the effect (the whole universe) this means it must have come from the cause, for unless the cause had personhood, free will, consciousness etc..those in the effect (the whole universe) could not recieve/have those attributes. I also dont see how you can say God is the first cause of everything AND not be a causing/acting agent. Could you clarify what you mean?

 

[Dominick_7]

Don't get me wrong, I think belief is a good thing but when there's a struggle to grasp, to understand, to explain, which may or may not follow, it's just despirate and sad. If this weren't enough, religious leaders put the obligation on their congregation to "practice their faith" ..do xyz and follow the dogma like a good little pet or hey, it's your eternal Soul, I can't tell you you'll be damned but in the same way, I can't assure you you won't ..and there in lies the implied threat, further questions and continued unrest for the honest person looking for something, a message, a sign in the dark silence of his room wondering why.

While I agree that manipulation is wrong, as is a christian faith that lacks sufficent satisfying answers is not good nor christian, let alone healthy, Id like to let you know this is not all that is out there. Im sorry if you didnt find satsifying answers or a satisfying or pleasing response when you were attending church, but could it be that some of these things you found offensive in a throw out the baby with te bath water kid of way?

Ive seen many who claim to be christian and arent, many who claim to be christian that are new, and may not know how to answer questions, and many who are christians but have issues..but I dont see how that means christianity isnt true. Mayby you could explain that for me?

I can see how this "obligation" would be burdensome to those who may merely claim to believe and realy dont, or to those that struggle to get there and want to but dont seem to understand, but if a theistic Gods existence is justifiable as objectively true, and thus one can have a real living trust in this God, who cannot change or lie, thus is someone on whom one can fully depend, why then reject the meaningfullness of proper instruction of parishioners to love their neighbors and enemies as baseless? If God exists and directs us to do something, as an unchangably good, rational, and loving God He would not tell us to do something without enabling us to do it. He problem I think may comes in when we pretend to follow God when we dont, and then condemn the whole institution of faith when "it" doesnt work for us. Why reject a good institution because of a misunderstanding of it, or misapplication of it?

Oh, and by the way, God knows what you're thinking ...have a good nights rest.

If you want to believe in God, by all means believe but my advice would be to leave it there. Don't read philosophy on this board or books for any other purpose than for intellectual entertainment, don't bother wondering what this God might be like or what the next life might hold ..as the puzzle you'll have at the end of the line will only be the one you've assembled.

Whats your basis for saying that you can only keep God in your mind but not have Him effect your whole life? Who are you to dogmatically command dictate that to be? If one has Biblical faith which implies knowledge, agreement, and trust, having a relationship with God would change one, and God would be a very important person in their lives..isnt what you demand very unfair and as irrational as saying to someone whos married.."thats fine is youre married, but keep it to yourself..I dont want to hear that youre married, hear about the existence of marriage, of your spouse or anything related to it..I dont want to have any reminders of the fact that either of you exist and or are married". How is that not unfair, irrational, and obnoxious..let alone unhealthy if not opressive? If youve had "christians" tick you off or make you feel unjustly bad, Im sorry that that has happened to you..there are many people I would rather hang out with who didnt claim to be christian, as some I see that claim to be and are rather repugnant in their life...but why mimmic their behavior in your demands, and or apply what theyre like to everyone as if everyone is like that? Besides if you find when they or anyone treat you insensatively to be wrong, why do it to others?

Dominick_7 .. lose the proof.

I can accept that you disagree with it, preent objections, and have honest dialogue about your views on it..but why should I lose the heart of what i believe, namely it truth and reality, and the fact that if heaven is real, if God is real, why wouldnt I want to share its factual reality ith others? Why say belief in God is fine yet not permit people to really believe but have the kind of faith even the demons have..mere intellectual assent? The issue is if it can be proven that the christian theistic God of the Bible exists, then theres not only good reason to believe He does, but to know Him personally would change someones life for the better..why reject that?

 

[Dominick_7]

Don't get me wrong, I think belief is a good thing but when there's a struggle to grasp, to understand, to explain, which may or may not follow, it's just despirate and sad. If this weren't enough, religious leaders put the obligation on their congregation to "practice their faith" ..do xyz and follow the dogma like a good little pet or hey, it's your eternal Soul, I can't tell you you'll be damned but in the same way, I can't assure you you won't ..and there in lies the implied threat, further questions and continued unrest for the honest person looking for something, a message, a sign in the dark silence of his room wondering why.

While I agree that manipulation is wrong, as is a christian faith that lacks sufficent satisfying answers is not good nor christian, let alone healthy, Id like to let you know this is not all that is out there. Im sorry if you didnt find satsifying answers or a satisfying or pleasing response when you were attending church, but could it be that some of these things you found offensive in a throw out the baby with te bath water kid of way?

Ive seen many who claim to be christian and arent, many who claim to be christian that are new, and may not know how to answer questions, and many who are christians but have issues..but I dont see how that means christianity isnt true. Mayby you could explain that for me?

I can see how this "obligation" would be burdensome to those who may merely claim to believe and realy dont, or to those that struggle to get there and want to but dont seem to understand, but if a theistic Gods existence is justifiable as objectively true, and thus one can have a real living trust in this God, who cannot change or lie, thus is someone on whom one can fully depend, why then reject the meaningfullness of proper instruction of parishioners to love their neighbors and enemies as baseless? If God exists and directs us to do something, as an unchangably good, rational, and loving God He would not tell us to do something without enabling us to do it. He problem I think may comes in when we pretend to follow God when we dont, and then condemn the whole institution of faith when "it" doesnt work for us. Why reject a good institution because of a misunderstanding of it, or misapplication of it?

Oh, and by the way, God knows what you're thinking ...have a good nights rest.

If you want to believe in God, by all means believe but my advice would be to leave it there. Don't read philosophy on this board or books for any other purpose than for intellectual entertainment, don't bother wondering what this God might be like or what the next life might hold ..as the puzzle you'll have at the end of the line will only be the one you've assembled.

Whats your basis for saying that you can only keep God in your mind but not have Him effect your whole life? Who are you to dogmatically command dictate that to be? If one has Biblical faith which implies knowledge, agreement, and trust, having a relationship with God would change one, and God would be a very important person in their lives..isnt what you demand very unfair and as irrational as saying to someone whos married.."thats fine is youre married, but keep it to yourself..I dont want to hear that youre married, hear about the existence of marriage, of your spouse or anything related to it..I dont want to have any reminders of the fact that either of you exist and or are married". How is that not unfair, irrational, and obnoxious..let alone unhealthy if not opressive? If youve had "christians" tick you off or make you feel unjustly bad, Im sorry that that has happened to you..there are many people I would rather hang out with who didnt claim to be christian, as some I see that claim to be and are rather repugnant in their life...but why mimmic their behavior in your demands, and or apply what theyre like to everyone as if everyone is like that? Besides if you find when they or anyone treat you insensatively to be wrong, why do it to others?

Dominick_7 .. lose the proof.

I can accept that you disagree with it, present objections, and have honest dialogue about your views on it..but why should I lose the heart of what i believe, namely it truth and reality, and the fact that if heaven is real, if God is real, why wouldnt I want to share its factual reality ith others? Why say belief in God is fine yet not permit people to really believe but have the kind of faith even the demons have..mere intellectual assent? The issue is if it can be proven that the christian theistic God of the Bible exists, then theres not only good reason to believe He does, but to know Him personally would change someones life for the better..why reject that?

 

[Dominick_7]

I suspect we could honestly continue to speculate thus, as to what "God" is or isn't until our collective heads explode. What you say here is as true or legitimate as any rationalization of what "God" might be, even if only done as a theoretical exercise. But for the overwhelming majority of believers, God is far more three-dimensional and tangible than any of this. The Dawkins quote provided above is an excellent illustration of how ultimately superficial most 'belief' really is and why that is.

You are ignoring the fact that the argument is not grounded in logical possibility, as the ontological argument is..rather the argument is grounded in actuality..IE some thing (contingent) actually exist.

The short answer is that while reason is necessary, it is not sufficient. What is sufficient is a life that incorporates or applies what one learns as true to ones whole life and practice.

While youre right that the majority of believers beliefs and lives are more 3 dimentional than just the rational defense or arguments themselves, because their faith incorporates not just knowledge but also agreement and trust in the person to which the rational defense points to. Im not saying that God is a rational argument, nor that the christian faith only has to do with rational defense..Im saying that while thats not all it incorporates, it necessitates that be a part of it. Unless christian theism is true, paul states in 1 corinthians 15, our faith is in vein, we are without hope, and are to be most pitied among men..We are still dead in our sins. IF on the other hand Jesus lived the perffect life in our place, offering to us His perfection in exchange our sins, offering that after rising from the dead, conquoring sin suffering and death, we then can have a real hope, something to reall look forward toafter all is said and done. Without the fact of the ressurection which is what Easter is about, we will die in the state of our sins/corruption, and have nothing good to look forward to while living our lives in this world.

In general , if there is no real reason why one believes something (no matter what it is) then theres no real reason why one should hold to it vs something else...if ones beliefs have no real justification it them, ones beliefs are worthless and/or meaningless. Then again if ones beliefs only incorporates rational justification, then that means one is still in the same life condition of corruption without a real resolution.

It seems at this point we are down to the point of saying that "God"(He, She, It, etc.) COULD exist, and in any conceivable form. There could be a God and "he" could be anything?! I suppose this is true on many, if not all levels in the realm of infinite possibility. But what real meaning does this have then? Nothing seems more sad and futile to me than those who profess to believe in a "God" or so-called higher-power, but haven't a clue of what this "God" is, where it is, why it is there, what it does, etc. At that rate, the Bible-thumping Evangelical or Muslim Fundamentalist makes more sense to me.

No. I think you're confusing possibility with actuality..theyre different, thus not the same. I also think if you read what I wrote, youll see that I'm not arguing via logical possibility but by actual undeniabillity. There is a difference. What youre saying would follow IF I argued by logical possibility..but Im not doing that. Im saying that something actually exists, changes, that can change from being into non being..thus needs to be caused to exist by something that cannot change from being into non being.

More specifically Im saying that something contingent exists, actually. IE I exist, and I actually do change. I must exist in order to be in the process of denying I actually exist, therefore my existence is actually undeniable. While I can state I dont exist, that cannot be meaningfully affirmed as true, for I prove I exist everytime I open my mouth and say "I dont exist". A produced denial, implies an existing producer of the denial. My actual existence (not possible existence) is actually inescapable.

I actually do change. I must change to be able to be in the PROCESS of denying I change. Since I change, and what is necessary in being, cannot change, I cannot be necessary. What is necessary by definition must be and cannot not be. It cannot change, for if it could then it could change from being into non being. It can have no change nor any potyential to do so.

Since I have potential for the change I undergo, this means Im contingent, IE non necessary.

That which is necessary is that which must be and cannot not be. What is contingent (non necessary) on the other hand can or cant be. What can or cant be can not determine themselves to exist or not exist. A self caused being is impossible. Therefore if contingent being exists, it must be determined to one or the other by something beyond itself, IE beyond what is contingent.

So the actuality of contingent changing being necessarily implies the existence of a necessary being to determine them to exist when they need not.

BOTTOM LINE: The reason why there is something rather than nothing, is because it was caused to be when it need not be..IE The reason why there is something rather than nothing is because that something that could be nothing must be caused by what cannot be nothing.

As far as the idea that who knows what or who this God is..this also doesnt follow if a necessarybeings existence can be verified or justified. If we start from the last point of there being a necessary being, we can then unpack what a necessary being is by definition and see it is a theistic God, not pantheistic or anything non or anti theistic. A necessary being not only grounds contingent existence, but also grounds and explains objective reason, truth, design, and morality, as a basis for making all other interpretations considering all the particulars that could be know via the fields of study. Without a theistic worldview, nothing could be known in itself, as self evident and undeniable, without which there would be no real measure for varying degress of probabillities that could be known inductively or inductively. Oh and imagine that I never thumped the Bible to do say any of this. This I would contend is basic "common" sense reason avaliable to all rational creatures.

 

[Dominick_7]

Maybe you should try actually arguing against it.

The undeniabillity portion of my "proofs" argue that way. It shows that if one tries to deny something that is self evident s true, one must actually imply the truth of what theyre trying to deny in the very denial itself. A main point would be in terms of ones own existence. IF I really didn't exist, could I deny my existence? No. So me being in the very act of producing my denial, implies that I must actually exist to do so. Hence, my "proofs" which are self evident and undeniable, or reducible to the two, not only show the truthfulness of what is being stated directly, but also shows how its truth is actually inescapable, in that its truth remains to be seen and affirmed even when one denies its truthfulness. The truth is actually inescapable. All one can do is either affirm it, affirm it through denying it, or stay silent..without thought or reply. Why do you say "should" try arguing against it, in light of actually understanding what I have already contended?

 

[Dominick_7]

Heh, well, his arguement is littered with "possibly" so .. he might aswell just conclude, "God possibly exists".

My response would be, "God possibly does not".

You either didnt read my post or don't understand it. While its logicaly concievable nothing exists, in terms of pure logical conception, its actually undeniable that something does exist. Actuality is not possibility.

 

[Dominick_7]

Survival is Nature's protocol. Consider that bad, natural things happen to people living "good" lives. The Universal context is that survival dictates an obligation only to skirt death. Survival lays no precedence on feeding poorer countries.

If survival is natures protocol, what exactly entails the survival of your/anyones existence in stating that above? How does stating that make sure you survive??

 

[Dominick_7]

To me atheism at its heart is like a child rebelling against Santa; indirectly or unconsciously having something to do with not getting that big red bike he'd always wanted. Strong atheists to me are sour people from what I've found, like some nihilists and consequently, I really don't want to identify myself with this type.

Interesting perspective.

I consider myself a student of eastern "thought" (or perhaps experience). Indian Mahayana Buddhism, Taoism or the combination (Zen Buddhism) may have a nihilist feel or sense at first glance but I assure you, there is a world of difference. Zen truely offers a definite, liberating perspective on life however, understanding Zen is really more art than science as it requires you to set all preconceived views and notions aside. Unfortunately, many people have a lot of trouble doing so enough to understand this new way of relating to our world and as a result, incorrectly throw it all into the same bag.

If atheists hold that all is really just one, because all that is is the material universe, how is that different from saying all is one/braham? How does trying to putting aside reason as Zen buddhists try to do, allieviate the problems inherent in it? Perhaps Atheists are as you stated is because they dont want to throw their brains away while attempting to state all is really one? Though i would disagree with Atheism, I would say that by and large they at least have some respect for reason where as in Zen its seen as the obsticle to enlightement..is it not?

Anyway, it all boils down to how you want to live and where you see yourself. Buddhists in general are extremely amazing people who you'd want to spend your time around, whereas atheists, as many on this forum, are typically subborn and very ridgid people at the core.

While some resolve to conclude this, perhaps after traveling through the land of atheism on to zen, why do you assume this is the way one should look at it? Why look at it this way particularily when there are realities that there there, which merely redefining as a non reality cant really make go away...one thing I was thinking was the reality of change. How can you meaningfully deny you change without implying you really do change while even being in the process of denying it is real? Zen holds that change, distinctions are not real but maya or illusion no? If change is real, how could zen be true? If there are no really differences how can you really disagree with atheism or me? Does that mean you now agree with me in my view of Theism?

 

[Dominick_7]

It's a play on the cosmological arguement and there are many objections online that will fit.

Anyway, my previous post was all about not bothering with arguements for or against God so, I find it interesting you even bothered to ask me.

So if I understand you correctly..is your argument that argument is worthless also worthless thus false and self negating?

 

[Dominick_7]

Because you told that guy to lose the proof or whatever. Just because you don't feel like bothering with arguments doesn't mean that other people shouldn't put forward arguments in favor of or against God's existence. You did not provide sufficient justification for why he or anybody else ought not to put forward such arguments. A better way to go would be to argue against him. This is, after all, a philosophy forum.

Thank you. That saved me from needing to make one reply

 

[Dominick_7]

I don't believe in God. Jesus wasn't really great, he was just some stinking Arab (like Cythraul).

I am a fundamentalist agnostic.

Would you say you know for sure there is no God? That he cannot be known or that you dont know if He exists? How can jesus have been an arab when he was jewish? What part of His life do you think wasnt too great when his enemies couldnt bring any justified accusation against Him?

 

[Thoth-Amon]

The issue is if it can be proven that the christian theistic God of the Bible exists, then theres not only good reason to believe He does, but to know Him personally would change someones life for the better..why reject that?

But that's just the issue.... there is no proof that the Christian god exists anymore than Zeus exists. If there was undeniable proof I'd accept it.... heck I used and stopped when I found so much evidence against it.

 

[Dominick_7]

This statement by Seditious sums up, IMHO, the counterargument to Dominick_7's logic (which is, basically, the Cosmological Argument {as judas69 points out}).

Youre right that its a form of a Cosmological Argument,the existentially undeniable version.

If it can, at least for the moment, be concluded that the "First Cause" can be either God or Existence Itself (to wit: Both "God" and "Existence Itself" are "potentially" logical results of the aforementioned argument), then the question becomes whether one or the other is more firmly grounded within the logic-construct that suggests the possibility of each.

i dont know if i understand what youre saying. are you saying that with God existence and God are different? Im arguing that God is necessary in terms of existence, which would mean he doesnt really have existence, so much as He IS existence. Something contingent has existence, because its essence and existence are different. What it has is different from what it is. It is not of the essence of a contingent being to exist. Rather its of the essence of a contingent being to not exist, because its existence is not necessary. It can not be, where as a necessary MUST be. So in the argument I gave because a necessary being is pure actuality with no potential, whose essence is to exist, this shows that its essence is identical to its existence, therefore what God has is identical to what He is..so its not so much as God has existence as it is He IS existence.

This is one reason i dont seem to understand what youre saying above. Could you clarify for me what you mean?


In my argument I also distinguish between possibility and actuality. Theyre not the same. Something is either purely possible, actual with possibillity, or pure actuality. Something purley possible doesnt actually exist, but only has abstract existence perhaps in ones mind or thoughts. Im not arguing on this basis, in terms of pure logical conception or possibility. Im saying that something that is actual, contingent being, that has a possible/potential type of existence, in that it doesnt have to exist, but can equally be or not be, cannot account for its own existence, cannot cause or ground its own existence, but must be caused or grounded by something beyond what is contingent..namely a necessary being. There must exist something beyond what could equally exist or not exist, or else there would be nothing to determine it to one or the other. Since something contigent does exist, this means there must be a non contingent/necessary being that exist to determine it to exist when it need not exist.

If I argued like the Ontological arguement, which moves from an idea of God to an actual God I could see where youd get that..but im not using an Ontological argument. m using a cosmological argument that starts with and is grounded in the realm of actuality, contingent actuality, and moves to a non contingent cause for its existence. Because it starts out ijn actuality it doesnt fall under what youre reffering to. Its an argument from reason, which deals with material truth about realiy, and isnt argued from pure logic, possibility, or the realm of logical conception.

Enter: Occam's Razor.
(Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem)
((Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.))

I agree we shouldnt add unnecessary causes to the mix..but how does this relate to my argument?

I have always had mixed feelings on this idea.

Anyone agree or disagree with The Razor?

If one isnt complicating the argument by adding in extraneous causes to the case, adding in tangental ideas not relevant to the point, then I can see how it applies..but the argument I gave I dont see how its adding extraneous ideas or causes to the case in point. Mayby you can help me see where they are?

 

[Dominick_7]

I'm fine with it as an intellectual exercise as I said, but to create arguements with the sole intention of persuading oneself of the existence of God, is to encourage an artificial state of self-confidence only. It will look solid and perfect to you and you'll accept it, but it will always be short of the truth.

In otherwords, if this were an honest, unbiased and unemotionally driven attempt from the start, you would have dealt with all the logical contradictions and implications of a Theistic God in the first place ..and perhaps you should.

Why do you say imply that the only option is to "create" arguments vs discover reality by using arguments? Why is learning crassy put by you as artificially persuading oneself towards something either one doesnt want to believe or shouldnt believe because its not true? Since it can be demonstrated to anyone with an open objective mind that a theistic God does exist, meaning that all non theistic views of God would have to be false, it can also be demonstrate that it doesnt suffer the same problem of other non theistic views..namely the problem of contradiction and or meaninglessness. This is the norm for non theistic owrldviews because they are essentially contradictory and meaningless. What I find interesting is that you as someone who holds to zen, who I would think would believe contradictions are true, would have a problem with contradictions.

The thing is that I think its VERY easy to prove that God exist..the thing that is more difficult is to prove that we arent God and to sift through the many misrepresentations of Theism to be able to see it for what it really is, as it has been attacked from the beginning of mankind.

One simple argument from observation of experience and expectation from practical matters..

Why can't one use their natural intuition in light of experience, through commonsense reason to see what they innately know is obvious..a theistic God exists. All atheists and skeptics throughout time have expressed a deep real need for the existence of a theistic God. Experience and expectation tells us that if there is a real need there must be a real way to fullfill that real need..if thrist then drink, if hunger, then food, if lonliness then society..etc..This means that experience and expectation show us that if the need for God is real, there also must be a real way to fullfill that need..ie must be a theistic God.

Why cant one use their intuition and experience to see more specifically if God objectively exists, what kind of God is there, that one can discover, which one already has a naturally strong feeling or intuition that He does exist? I'm working on another paper, not to persuade myself, but in order to somehow more clearly communicate what I am firmly convinced of to others, what many people have been convinced of, what I think everyone intuatively knows, namely that a Theistic God exists.

 

[Dominick_7]

In my view, because Being precedes cognition, we are unable to account for the root of our existence through thought. We awaken into being. The resulting bewilderment - 'why am I here?' - is in itself the existential definition of 'man'. That is, the term 'human' is defined as the attempt, through thought, to understand the nature of our Being and our continuance.

All religions are responses to this condition. Their objective validity is irrelevant (it does not exist). They are ideological suggestions for life. If they are to be ‘judged’, they should be judged on this ground.

Youre confusing epistemology with ontology. While being preceeds cognition ontologically, being doesnt preceed cognition epistemologically. Thought comes first in regards to the order of knowing, but in regards to the order of being, being obviously comes first. Its facinating to see how men think that if only im allowed to have this one twisted concept, one twisting of the mind, one can deal with all other issues in life. That is futile and meaningless. Besides that your views are self negating.

You say we cant account for the root of existence through thought YET use thought in refference to the root of existence in order to say that. If you can make a knowledgable statement about the root of existence, then its possible to know what you mean by "root of existence". If one could know nothing abot it you would not be able to make any sensical knowledgable statement about it directly or indirectly. So youre statement is itself a knowledgable statement through ones thoughts about the root of existence saying one cannot get at the root of existence through thought. This is just as contradictory as the hard agnostic positiong that says "I know enough about realiy to know I cant know anything about reality". Utterly meaningless and contradictory for to say that implies knowledge about reality.



Btw I have looked at all possible sides of this and see that Theism is found on every side no matter if one likes it and no matter where one runs to.

 

[Dominick_7]

I'm fine with it as an intellectual exercise as I said, but to create arguements with the sole intention of persuading oneself of the existence of God, is to encourage an artificial state of self-confidence only. It will look solid and perfect to you and you'll accept it, but it will always be short of the truth.

So youre saying you know for certain there is no God?

In otherwords, if this were an honest, unbiased and unemotionally driven attempt from the start, you would have dealt with all the logical contradictions and implications of a Theistic God in the first place ..and perhaps you should.

Whatever my motives are for putting this post up is irrelevant. Firstly how do you know what my motives are..and secondly the issue is whether what Im saying is true or not. If its true, what does it matter what my motives are? I could be one of the most jerfified, dishonest people in the world, and say 1+1=2 and it be true regardless of my motives or general character no?

Besides, it can be a sufficient argument in itself without having to comprehensive and extrapolate every single detail for you. Though that is also a great thing to have, if you wanted that you could check out a book called Christian Apologetics or even Philosophy of Religion by Geisler. Two fantastic books that cover it from all sides from the ground up. I believe Winfried Corduan also wrote a book called No Doubt About It, also entitled A Reasonable Faith that also deals with the Existentially Undeniable Cosmological Argument.

The form I posted here was kinda off the cuff. Not what I would use in a formal setting though it would be something I could incorporate into the full argument similar to Geislers (contemporary Thomistic argument from contingency).

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Jesus dude... could you write any more?

 

[derbeder]

That which is necessary is that which must be and cannot not be. What is contingent (non necessary) on the other hand can or cant be. What can or cant be can not determine themselves to exist or not exist. A self caused being is impossible. Therefore if contingent being exists, it must be determined to one or the other by something beyond itself, IE beyond what is contingent.

So the actuality of contingent changing being necessarily implies the existence of a necessary being to determine them to exist when they need not.

It is possible to object to this argument by calling into doubt the assumption that all contingent beings need to be determined (or caused) by some thing(s) to exist.
It is very plausible to think that contingent beings which come to exist after some other contingent beings are caused by some thing(s) to exist (could be contingent or a necessary beings). However, this does not entail that all contingent beings are caused to exist. If there are some contingent beings that exist before any others (call these "original existents"), then nothing so far said in your discussion rules out the possibility that they are not caused to exist.

The background assumption is not without some plausibility, but it needs more backing to lift the weight of the argument.

 

[veil the sky]

that's only a plausible response if you can overcome the inherent problems with maintaining an infinite regression of contingent beings