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

[OldScratch]

A quick formula I came up with recently is the following that kind of goes back to what I was describing.


1) Something contingent exists.

2) Every contingent being has a possibility to not exist

3) Whatever has a possibility to not exist must be currently caused to exist by another

4) If everything has a possibility to not exist, then a total state of nothiness is possible, but..

5) Nothing cannot produce (the) something (that now exists), so

6) Not everything can have a possibility to not exist, therefore

7) There must exist something that has no possibility to not exist ( IE: A being with no possibility to not be/no possibility to cease being=non-contingent= necessary being).

8) Since whatever has a possibility to not exist cannot cause its own existence, but must be caused to exist from beyond itself, it follows that..

9) That which exists beyond what is contingent, namely necessary being, must cause the continued existence of every contingent being that exists, but has a possibility to not exist.

10) This necessary being is what Theists call God, therefore

11) A theistic God exists.

I will simply respond this way. If I weren't an Atheist before, after reading this I am just that much more so!! If this makes sense to you, then that is wonderful.

 

[Seditious]

I'm a "retired theist", as I like to say. I was a believer for years. But for no other reason than that that was how I was raised. period.

yeh, that's one of the things Dawkins likes to point out.

"Out of all of the sects in the world, we notice an uncanny coincidence: the overwhelming majority just happen to choose the one that their parents belong to. Not the sect that has the best evidence in its favour, the best miracles, the best moral code, the best cathedral, the best stained glass, the best music: when it comes to choosing from the smorgasbord of available religions, their potential virtues seem to count for nothing, compared to the matter of heredity. This is an unmistakable fact; nobody could seriously deny it. Yet people with full knowledge of the arbitrary nature of this heredity, somehow manage to go on believing in their religion, often with such fanaticism that they are prepared to murder people who follow a different one."

 

[Seditious]

7) There must exist something that has no possibility to not exist ( IE: A being with no possibility to not be/no possibility to cease being=non-contingent= necessary being).

and right there is where we interject that existence itself need not be an agent.

 

[Seditious]

Secondly the reason I would positively contend that there is a Theistic God is because his existence is both self evident and undeniable. Not to say you cant say he doesnt exist, or state "nah ahh" all day long..the difference is while you can formally state God doesnt exist, it is nevertheless not meaningfully affirmable to deny..Reason being is you must affirm (a theistic) Gods existence in the process of denying His existence. Therefore, while one can logically concieve of Him not existing (as you can with any contrary states of affairs..God exists God doesnt exist, I exist, I dont exist, zeus, pegasus, gremlins..etc..you can concieve of any contrary states of affair in you mind), His existence is neverthless actually inescapable. So its based not on purely logical inescapabillity but on actual undeniabillity that one can say this is true.

lol this reminds me of something I heard about the sophists in a lecture on Socrates.

if I find it soon I'll post it up, cos it's hilarious how he talks about this childish logic which before Socrates dealt with them they could otherwise be like greasy lawyers and get away with.


edit: found it. 2mb download. 10 minutes long. very amusing

http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=6FF6594A4C55A4C4

 

[Cythraul]

A quick formula I came up with recently is the following that kind of goes back to what I was describing.


1) Something contingent exists.

2) Every contingent being has a possibility to not exist

3) Whatever has a possibility to not exist must be currently caused to exist by another

4) If everything has a possibility to not exist, then a total state of nothiness is possible, but..

5) Nothing cannot produce (the) something (that now exists), so

6) Not everything can have a possibility to not exist, therefore

7) There must exist something that has no possibility to not exist ( IE: A being with no possibility to not be/no possibility to cease being=non-contingent= necessary being).

8) Since whatever has a possibility to not exist cannot cause its own existence, but must be caused to exist from beyond itself, it follows that..

9) That which exists beyond what is contingent, namely necessary being, must cause the continued existence of every contingent being that exists, but has a possibility to not exist.

10) This necessary being is what Theists call God, therefore

11) A theistic God exists.

I don't dabble in phil of religion much, and this is sort of an on-the-fly response so bear with me if I make any glaring errors in reasoning.

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

edit: I just realized that I might be playing fast and loose with my use of the terms "contingent" and "a posteriori", but I'm way too tired to correct myself. Oh well, I think my point got across.

 

[Seditious]

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.

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. 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.

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.

 

[OldScratch]

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. 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.

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.

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.
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.

 

[judas69]

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.

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.

Dominick_7 .. lose the proof.

 

[Cythraul]

Dominick_7 .. lose the proof.

Maybe you should try actually arguing against it.

 

[judas69]

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".

 

[Cythraul]

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".

No, because "God possibly exists" would not follow from the argument.

 

[judas69]

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.

 

[Cythraul]

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.

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.

 

[Soilworker]

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

I am a fundamentalist agnostic.

 

[ARC150]

...If God can be essence which isn't contingent so could existence itself...

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

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.

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

I have always had mixed feelings on this idea.

Anyone agree or disagree with The Razor?

 

[ARC150]

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.

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.

This bears repeating.

 

[speed]

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

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.

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

I have always had mixed feelings on this idea.

Anyone agree or disagree with The Razor?

Ive also had very mixed feelings about this subject. It seems almost too naive. Like Einstein's belief in a Theory of Everything--as if something simple could explain such a multitude of--well, a multitude of everything! I personally prefer the simplest possible explanation, but am always unnerved with this multitude. I will continue this thought below.


As for the content of the original post:

When I was three or four, my parents explained death and birth in very simplistic terms to me (I had already learned a little bit about god etc--the simplistic things older people tell children). I remember being quite distraught at learning about birth and death. My little heart pounded, and the little brain under my curly golden-red top raced with ideas I can still remember to this day. It is perhaps the first truly vivid experience I remember, and one I suppose created the cynical but curious person I am today.

I concluded then (at this tender impish young age) that I was either always conscious for eternity--as it was just implausible and impossible for my young mind to think I had not thought and existed before; or that I would die many years away, and that would be the end of me. God never seemed logical, or even entered into the equation. Even after all of these years, I hold the same beliefs. We either possess a soul or consciousness that transcends temporal matters, or we die and cease to be. The questions of God and creation, good and evil, seemed extraneous to my consciousness, time, and our own finite existence. This is terribly pagan I know, but I swear to god, the basics are what I thought as a young boy. I remember not sleeping that night either! It was the first night I had insomnia. I remember my parents trying to talk to me about it.

 

[judas69]

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.

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.

 

[derek]

Cicero would say to know that your truly believe in God's non-existence, you must first be able to convince yourself, through argument, he could exist.

It's always useful to be utterly familiar with both sides. That probably seems pretty damn basic, but this thread has lost its way a little.

 

[Seditious]

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.

while I think your initial response was suffice and probably a good choice, I would imagine perhaps he isn't aware of the shortcomings in his argument (even the best of us can become intoxicated by a good idea and allow it through without scrutiny), and maybe needs someone like yourself to give him the antithesis. That said, I should say again I'm not questioning your decision not to take from your own time to do so for him.