Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Where is the intellectually rigorous argument that there is a god to actually study? I haven't ever been presented with an argument that theology is anything more than the study of old fairy tales, that wasn't obviously flawed.

Theology is studied in humanities departments of universities, like literature. It's intellectually rigorous only in the sense that you can make a good case for something from the source material (which in this case is hopelessly contradictory, so you can make all sorts of cases that contradict each other).

Where is the argument that the source material refers to something objectively real?

Actually the new atheism does not provide as yet any satisfactory answer to the question of why something and not nothing.
For some reason they are blind to this so we are left with the philosophers critique of Krauss who tried to answer this and effectively ended by saying that the question MIGHT be invalid........The same trick was pulled by Dennett on consciousness and Dawkins and Russell on the providence of the universe.....

Of course it all traces back to the default delusion and the felt dispensation from understanding what you it is you are criticising.

Old fairy tails can be studied and truths and meanings can be derived but not if, as you are fairy tails and myth is shorthand for an a priori diagnosis that it's just Bollocks.

Any declaration or positive assertion needs proof and that's often forgotten if you have,,,,,,,dun dun dunnnnnnnn The Default Delusion.
The arguments against Feser never acknowledge that Feser doesn't start his argument from the universe necessarily having a beginning....just like they never fully grasp what the bible is actually saying.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I watched a whole hour of one of his arguments on youtube - tedious and obviously wrong.

What bits were obviously wrong?

[Stranger]

Actually the new atheism does not provide as yet any satisfactory answer to the question of why something and not nothing.

Neither does any religion (why this god and not nothing?)

Any declaration or positive assertion needs proof and that's often forgotten....

Once again, for the hard of thinking - many atheists (myself included) are not making a declaration that there is no god - just that there is no valid reason to believe that there is one (or more). Hence the notion of god becomes a no better a fanciful story.

The arguments against Feser never acknowledge that Feser doesn't start his argument from the universe necessarily having a beginning...

What arguments against Feser don't acknowledge this?

My argument against the Feser video that I watched was that he spent a very long time basically saying that there must be a reason why stuff exists, then made a laughable effort to bash the square peg of god into the round hole of this 'reason' and in doing so, blatantly contradicted what he said about minds at the start.

...just like they never fully grasp what the bible is actually saying.

Well, I've read it, and is seems like a jumble of inconsistent, incoherent stories that often contradict each other. Now, I'm sure may theologians would disagree and raise all sorts of 'sophisticated arguments' as to why that isn't correct. However, if you need to be a theologian to understand god's important message to humankind, one has to wonder at said god's communication skills - and that's before we consider that even all these educated theologians don't actually agree with each other...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My argument against the Feser video that I watched was that he spent a very long time basically saying that there must be a reason why stuff exists, then made a laughable effort to bash the square peg of god into the round hole of this 'reason' and in doing so, blatantly contradicted what he said about minds at the start.

I'm left with the question how did he do these things since your claim ismore assertion than example.

Stuff just exists though is not a safe premise since it does not take change into account. What he is saying is that there are reasons for things which in turn have reasons.
Both you and Feser propose an end to this heirarchy, Feser calls this God you are calling it 'Just is'.

Of the two you are obviously on weaker ground.

[Stranger]

Stuff just exists though is not a safe premise since it does not take change into account. What he is saying is that there are reasons for things which in turn have reasons.

Change happens because the laws of physics are followed, stuff exists for the same reason. I fully accept that there must be some reason why these laws are followed - hence stuff changing existing.

Both you and Feser propose an end to this heirarchy, Feser calls this God you are calling it 'Just is'.

Of the two you are obviously on weaker ground.

Nonsense.

Feser tries heroically to make the end of the hierarchy fit with his favourite fairy tale and fails miserably (I actually, literally laughed out load at some of it).

The idea that the end of the hierarchy is an actual conscious, thinking being, who makes plans and communicates with its creation is in total contradiction to some of the arguments he used at the start about even minds alone needing change and a hierarchy behind them.

I don't call it 'just is', I call it unknown. Why are theists so afraid of admitting that we simply don't know some things? That is, unless they are about god...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Change happens because the laws of physics are followed, stuff exists for the same reason. I fully accept that there must be some reason why these laws are followed - hence stuff changing existing.

Nonsense.

Feser tries heroically to make the end of the hierarchy fit with his favourite fairy tale and fails miserably (I actually, literally laughed out load at some of it).

The idea that the end of the hierarchy is an actual conscious, thinking being, who makes plans and communicates with its creation is in total contradiction to some of the arguments he used at the start about even minds alone needing change and a hierarchy behind them.

I don't call it 'just is', I call it unknown. Why are theists so afraid of admitting that we simply don't know some things? That is, unless they are about god...

Feser just proposes what properties the end reason must have andpoints out how these are reflected in christian doctrine uniqueness sovereignty etc.

Atheist thinking in comparison is disappointing poop in the training potty of philosophy.

You call it unknown because you don't like the fit,the properties it must logically have with descriptions of God.

We don't know only in the sense that we cannot logically scientifically detect the first reason...and lo and behold undetection by science is exactly a characteristic of God.

[Stranger]

Feser just proposes what properties the end reason must have andpoints out how these are reflected in christian doctrine uniqueness sovereignty etc.

...and the attempt is laughable in the extreme. His argument at that point moves from the tedious to the bizarre: obviously contrived and totally ignoring the blatant contradiction.

The Christian god (well, many versions of it) is supposed to plan, judge, communicate with its creation, issue commandments, perform miracles, be loving, arrange to be incarnated as a man, and so on and so on; all characteristics of a thinking mind. Feser himself argued that even a disembodied mind would need the hierarchy that this god was supposed to be the end of.

His argument is a joke.

You call it unknown because you don't like the fit,the properties it must logically have with descriptions of God.

There is no fit - the argument is laughably, contrived, and selective.

We don't know only in the sense that we cannot logically scientifically detect the first reason...

We don't know because we have no definitive logical argument or actual evidence. It's difficult to know how we would even go about gathering evidence or testing logical ideas about it.

...and lo and behold undetection by science is exactly a characteristic of God.

Why would your god want to hide like that - given it has an important message for us?

Do you really not see the endless string of contradictions that infest almost every aspect of your religion?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

...and the attempt is laughable in the extreme. His argument at that point moves from the tedious to the bizarre: obviously contrived and totally ignoring the blatant contradiction.

The Christian god (well, many versions of it) is supposed to plan, judge, communicate with its creation, issue commandments, perform miracles, be loving, arrange to be incarnated as a man, and so on and so on; all characteristics of a thinking mind. Feser himself argued that even a disembodied mind would need the hierarchy that this god was supposed to be the end of.

Supposing this is true, and it seems to just sprout from incredulity, Feser points out characteristics of the first reason that are traditional philosophical definitions of God. Therefore the claim that there is no reason to consider God is, er, unreasonable. You have therefore been indulging in misleading new atheist hyperbole. Incidently this is always found out when people finally admit they cannot absolutely demonstrate the absence of God.

You do know that God does not have a literal right hand and that religious talk is often analogical? So What god is greater than a mind as vaguely described by the antitheist. We can argue these points later. Careful though you don't end up pleading that the unknown is unacceptable in theism but laudable and virtuous in Antitheism.

However Feser makes the case for at least the classic philosophically described God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why would your god want to hide like that - given it has an important message for us?

What?, hide from science but not philosophy?

The important message is that he is there as the bottom of the reason hierarchy and has to be. How does one feel about it? What emotions does that inspire? 

[Enki]

We don't know only in the sense that we cannot logically scientifically detect the first reason...and lo and behold undetection by science is exactly a characteristic of God.

If we can logically or scientifically(or any combination of either) detect the first reason(if there is one), then we may eventually arrive at a result.

If we cannot logically or scientifically(or any combination of either) detect the first reason(if there is one)  then we will remain in a state of unknowing unless there is another method that we can use. The only ones which so far seem to be forthcoming are those of a personal nature which don't adequately fill this vacancy.

If the idea of God has a characteristic whereby it cannot be detected by science, the idea of no God may well have the same characteristic. Hence, lo and behold, we remain in a state of unknowing.

Which, of course, is where I stand. I do not know if there is a god(any god) but, because I see no evidence or reason that the positive(i.e. a god) exists, then I have no particular belief in this entity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Supposing this is true, and it seems to just sprout from incredulity,

What it “sprouts from” is reasoning that’s more robust than Feser (or Vladdo ) can muster. 

Feser points out characteristics of the first reason that are traditional philosophical definitions of God. Therefore the claim that there is no reason to consider God is, er, unreasonable.

Except that those “traditional philosophical definitions” have long since been supplanted by more cogent thinking.

You have therefore been indulging in misleading new atheist hyperbole.

In which Vladdo attempts a non sequitur. There is no “therefore”. 

Incidently this is always found out when people finally admit they cannot absolutely demonstrate the absence of God.

Or of leprechauns. Been a while since Vladdo tried a negative proof fallacy though – welcome back old friend!

You do know that God does not have a literal right hand and that religious talk is often analogical? So What god is greater than a mind as vaguely described by the antitheist. We can argue these points later. Careful though you don't end up pleading that the unknown is unacceptable in theism but laudable and virtuous in Antitheism.

In which Vladdo collapses (again) into gibberish.

However Feser makes the case for at least the classic philosophically described God.

Coming soon – bluehillside’s “classic philosophically defined” leprechauns...   

Odd innit that those who think “why something and not something?” to be a legitimate question so as so fill the gap with whichever god takes their fancy are (as Stranger notes) entirely untroubled by the same question about their god(s):

 “Why god and not god?”

“Dunno – oh, hang on though.”

When Feser (and thus Vladdo) are revealed as no more than first cause merchants we’re squarely in Emperor’s new clothes territory.         

[Stranger]

Supposing this is true, and it seems to just sprout from incredulity, Feser points out characteristics of the first reason that are traditional philosophical definitions of God.

You keep ignoring the basic contradiction (just like you did with the last argument). You are also ignoring the utterly contrived nature of Feser's argument. It really is totally pathetic in its desperation to make this "uncaused cause" fit with an idea of god. For example, he argues it is 'good' because it realizes all of its potential - it has no defects. However, this says nothing about moral good that is ascribed to god.

Just as an example, I could bring the whole thing back to the point I made before, that this "uncaused cause" (in the sense Feser defines it in his argument) is quite clearly the cause of all defects and all moral evil in the world; it is therefore evil or, at the very least, amoral.

Therefore the claim that there is no reason to consider God is, er, unreasonable. You have therefore been indulging in misleading new atheist hyperbole.

Feser's argument is a joke - it provides no reason at all to consider anything like a god (in the usual sense of the word) for the reasons I have pointed out.

Incidently this is always found out when people finally admit they cannot absolutely demonstrate the absence of God.

Just how many times do you need to be told that many atheists (myself included) have never claimed to be able to demonstrate the absence of god(s)?

However Feser makes the case for at least the classic philosophically described God.

If that is the philosophical case for god, it's pathetic - for the reasons I've given.

What?, hide from science but not philosophy?

Hide form both, it would seem. More importantly perhaps, hide from ordinary, thinking people who have studied neither. Why isn't the important message (morally reprehensible as it is) blindingly obvious to everybody?

[ippy]

If we can logically or scientifically(or any combination of either) detect the first reason(if there is one), then we may eventually arrive at a result.

If we cannot logically or scientifically(or any combination of either) detect the first reason(if there is one)  then we will remain in a state of unknowing unless there is another method that we can use. The only ones which so far seem to be forthcoming are those of a personal nature which don't adequately fill this vacancy.

If the idea of God has a characteristic whereby it cannot be detected by science, the idea of no God may well have the same characteristic. Hence, lo and behold, we remain in a state of unknowing.

Which, of course, is where I stand. I do not know if there is a god(any god) but, because I see no evidence or reason that the positive(i.e. a god) exists, then I have no particular belief in this entity.

Good one enki, I think this post of yours spells out the only reasonable stance that can be taken about the idea of a god.

I take it that over the millenniums most religionists have come to expect some form or another of a hushed voice whispered respect for their belief and when people like R D take them on as just another set of beliefs that have as good as zero evidence to support them, for that's all they have, I assume that's why they, Vlad in this instance, don't like the plain facts put out to them in a straight plain talking way.

Why can't religionists have these social gatherings of theirs without having to go into some sort of mournful fantasy world, I can understand the social side of their meetings, it is the social side of their meetings that does make sense.

Regards ippy

[ippy]

You keep ignoring the basic contradiction (just like you did with the last argument). You are also ignoring the utterly contrived nature of Feser's argument. It really is totally pathetic in its desperation to make this "uncaused cause" fit with an idea of god. For example, he argues it is 'good' because it realizes all of its potential - it has no defects. However, this says nothing about moral good that is ascribed to god.

Just as an example, I could bring the whole thing back to the point I made before, that this "uncaused cause" (in the sense Feser defines it in his argument) is quite clearly the cause of all defects and all moral evil in the world; it is therefore evil or, at the very least, amoral.

Feser's argument is a joke - it provides no reason at all to consider anything like a god (in the usual sense of the word) for the reasons I have pointed out.

Just how many times do you need to be told that many atheists (myself included) have never claimed to be able to demonstrate the absence of god(s)?

If that is the philosophical case for god, it's pathetic - for the reasons I've given.

Hide form both, it would seem. More importantly perhaps, hide from ordinary, thinking people who have studied neither. Why isn't the important message (morally reprehensible as it is) blindingly obvious to everybody?

Stranger I've had a read through your posts I'm generally with you and Vlad well, it's the usual Vlad, there's no need to be an intellectual of any sort if you're an atheist, I'm a non-religious person, all you need is eyes and ears, keep a look out at the world media, the moment these religionists have anything that would carry their case we'll never hear the end of it, they wont let go, morning noon and night, the fact that this has never happened tells you all you need to know, no need to read Feser or any other religion based nonsense, we already have the answer.

Tough titty Vlad.

Regards ippy

[wigginhall]

I did enjoy Vlad's 'undetection by science is exactly a characteristic of God'.   It's the 'exactly' that is so thrilling - just think, that God anticipated modern science, and thought, 'I'll confuse the poor blighters, I'll make myself invisible'.    The sheer cunning of it, eh?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

I did enjoy Vlad's 'undetection by science is exactly a characteristic of God'.   It's the 'exactly' that is so thrilling - just think, that God anticipated modern science, and thought, 'I'll confuse the poor blighters, I'll make myself invisible'.    The sheer cunning of it, eh?

I missed that one - genius! "Science can't detect God, therefore God!".

Be nice if he proposed something instead that could detect this God - faith presumably, but then he's left with his eternal problem of explaining why his faith about his god is any more reliable than anyone else's faith about anything else...

...which is when he always heads for the door.

Ah well.   

[floo]

and lo and behold undetection by science is exactly a characteristic of God.

Wow Vlad, you got it!

[SusanDoris]

Oh for the day when SuperNova can be accessed through Google Chrome! It is past 2:0 p.m. and I've only just been able to get on to R&E. Otherwise it was the usual 'This page can't be displayed'. It is very annoying.

[Stranger]

I missed that one - genius! "Science can't detect God, therefore God!".

Be nice if he proposed something instead that could detect this God...

His answer was actually philosophy. However, as philosophers are divided on the subject, that doesn't seem to be working out very well either. His favoured example, Edward Feser, is a bit of a joke.

For those who have an hour and five minutes to kill, here is Feser's video outlining the so called argument being discussed: An Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God - Edward C. Feser, PhD.

I can't say I recommend it because it's very tedious and contrived but it shows the sort of BS that takes in Vlad and (one assumes) other theists who imagine philosophy can justify their beliefs.

What is truly telling of the contrived nature of Feser's 'arguments' is that his 'reasoning' for the characteristics of god (intelligence, perfection, omnipotence, omniscience) would apply just as well (badly) to the mathematical laws of physics (theory of everything, whatever that may be) if we were to take them as fundamental.

It's interesting to compare to Max Tegmark's mathematical universe conjecture. Despite some claims, this appears to be totally untestable and unfalsifiable, so hardly counts as science. However, at least its logic is self-consistent and uncontrived. Mathematics (or perhaps just self-consistency) also seems (to me, at least) a far more reasonable candidate for Feser's "end to the hierarchy" or "uncaused cause"...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What it “sprouts from” is reasoning that’s more robust than Feser (or Vladdo ) can muster. 

Except that those “traditional philosophical definitions” have long since been supplanted by more cogent thinking.
     

Unfortunately this more robust reasoning or cogent thinking cannot be found or referenced.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Stranger,

His answer was actually philosophy. However, as philosophers are divided on the subject, that doesn't seem to be working out very well either. His favoured example, Edward Feser, is a bit of a joke.

Actually his answer seems to be bad philosophy, or perhaps philosophy that seemed robust to some until around the Middle Ages but has long since been supplanted by more cogent reasoning.

For those who have an hour and five minutes to kill, here is Feser's video outlining the so called argument being discussed: An Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God - Edward C. Feser, PhD.

I can't say I recommend it because it's very tedious and contrived but it shows the sort of BS that takes in Vlad and (one assumes) other theists who imagine philosophy can justify their beliefs.

Agree re Feser, and just to add that he seems to spend as much time on ad homs as he does essaying weak arguments. It’s all a bit un-philosopher like.   

What is truly telling of the contrived nature of Feser's 'arguments' is that his 'reasoning' for the characteristics of god (intelligence, perfection, omnipotence, omniscience) would apply just as well (badly) to the mathematical laws of physics (theory of everything, whatever that may be) if we were to take them as fundamental.

It's interesting to compare to Max Tegmark's mathematical universe conjecture. Despite some claims, this appears to be totally untestable and unfalsifiable, so hardly counts as science. However, at least its logic is self-consistent and uncontrived. Mathematics (or perhaps just self-consistency) also seems (to me, at least) a far more reasonable candidate for Feser's "end to the hierarchy" or "uncaused cause"...

Well yes: Tegmark offers hypotheses that are (currently at least) untestable but are at least coherent. To that extent they are I suppose a kind of philosophy. Feser on the other hand tries arguments in logic that are hopeless, so the untestable bit doesn’t even arise as a problem – there’s nothing to test, even in principle.

Just musing on this, Douglas Adams I think touched on the problem of attempting to argue for God. The opening theistic gambit is that this God wants you to have “faith” in his existence. Fair enough. The moment though you then try reason or philosophy or evidence or anything else to do the job you’re negating the fundamental rationale for belief. If any of these things could do the job, what need would there be for faith in the mix?

But then of course if you rely on faith (which would be the only safe ground for theism) you give yourself the problem of explaining why anyone else should privilege your faith of any other. It’s a bit of a cleft stick really – argue for God and you crash and burn, assert your faith and it’s a “meh”.       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wiggs,

I missed that one - genius! "Science can't detect God, therefore God!".
   

You missed it because I never said it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

His answer was actually philosophy. However, as philosophers are divided on the subject, that doesn't seem to be working out very well either. His favoured example, Edward Feser, is a bit of a joke.

For those who have an hour and five minutes to kill, here is Feser's video outlining the so called argument being discussed: An Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God - Edward C. Feser, PhD.

I can't say I recommend it because it's very tedious and contrived but it shows the sort of BS that takes in Vlad and (one assumes) other theists who imagine philosophy can justify their beliefs.

What is truly telling of the contrived nature of Feser's 'arguments' is that his 'reasoning' for the characteristics of god (intelligence, perfection, omnipotence, omniscience) would apply just as well (badly) to the mathematical laws of physics (theory of everything, whatever that may be) if we were to take them as fundamental.

It's interesting to compare to Max Tegmark's mathematical universe conjecture. Despite some claims, this appears to be totally untestable and unfalsifiable, so hardly counts as science. However, at least its logic is self-consistent and uncontrived. Mathematics (or perhaps just self-consistency) also seems (to me, at least) a far more reasonable candidate for Feser's "end to the hierarchy" or "uncaused cause"...

Having read this I am happy that you are hardly in agreement with Hillside however much he thinks or he with you however much you think.

I have to say, as an opponent I far prefer the cut of your intellectual gib*.............So in the immortal words of Sir Alan Sugar........

Hillside.....You're fired.

*No brainer.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Unfortunately this more robust reasoning or cogent thinking cannot be found or referenced.

Lucretius, Bentham, Spinoza, Hume, Mill, Marx, Sartre, Nietzsche, Russell, Einstein…

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The opening theistic gambit is that this God wants you to have “faith” in his existence.     

No Hillside that may be one Gambit However Aristotle manages to come up with a God who doesn't give a monkeys.......For slick read slip.