The only two reasonable positions on the existence of God?

Argue for and against religions and philosophies which are not Christian

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
ThePainefulTruth
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
Location: Arizona

The only two reasonable positions on the existence of God?

Post #1

Post by ThePainefulTruth »

Atheism and Deism? From our standpoint, those two philosophies are indistinguishable. All others can be dismissed on the basis of reason/science since other theologies inevitably have to resort to faith (blind faith) to justify ignoring reason and logic.
Truth=God

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: The only two reasonable positions on the existence of Go

Post #101

Post by Divine Insight »

ThePainefulTruth wrote: Atheism and Deism? From our standpoint, those two philosophies are indistinguishable. All others can be dismissed on the basis of reason/science since other theologies inevitably have to resort to faith (blind faith) to justify ignoring reason and logic.
Pantheism is also a possible philosophy that cannot be ruled out by reason, logic, or science. And pantheism is quite different from either atheism or deism.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
ThePainefulTruth
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
Location: Arizona

Re: The only two reasonable positions on the existence of Go

Post #102

Post by ThePainefulTruth »

enaidealukal wrote:
ThePainefulTruth wrote: And we're back to square one, God could have well set it up that way, and for good reason.
I guess. But this could hardly be counted as a "reasonable" position, given that the very claim which distinguishes this position is something which, by definition, would have any (and no) truth-conditions, and thus be indistinguishable from a fiction- a perfect example of a difference which makes no difference.

There are Truth conditions, just no evidence with which to deduce it. And the difference is, if God exists, a purpose exists.
And what evidentiary implications? And something caused it.
Evidentiary implications of what? Something caused what? I don't know what you're referring to.
You're the one who keeps bringing up evidentiary implications without being specific. And something caused the universe.
Non-laissez-faire theism, yes.
Well, no. For one thing, as above, I'm not sure how a position which is distinguished by a factual claim with no truth-conditions whatsoever (and so cannot meet really ANY epistemic standard for justification) can be considered rational or reasonable.
We're talking about two different things. 1) The lack of evidence for or against God creating the universe. This leaves us with neither possibility being favored.
2) If God did create the universe, then what could we reasonably deduce about It's likely motivations?

The answer to 2) is a omnipotent God could do anything instantly. Why then would God create a universe that took 13 billion years to develop? There's only one answer I can think of: to spawn fully self-aware beings who are isolated from It's influence on their free will. Free will for sentients is the only purpose for the universe...if God created it.

BTW, the existence of angels is an irrational embellishment for an omnipotent, omnipresent God. Not only would God be everywhere including where they are, and able to do everything they could there; but they never could have free will because it could never have been tested. Before beings with free will, God was completely alone--with "was" implying "before" and time that likely didn't/don't exist "outside/before" the universe.

The concept of free will is so beautiful, so elegant, and so simple. But I guess that makes it very vulnerable to obfuscation.
Truth=God

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: The only two reasonable positions on the existence of Go

Post #103

Post by Divine Insight »

ThePainefulTruth wrote: The concept of free will is so beautiful, so elegant, and so simple. But I guess that makes it very vulnerable to obfuscation.
But there's an inherent problem with free will and a God. If God is the one who has a purpose for humans, then ultimately humans cannot have free will.

Think of the Biblical picture. In heaven God's will is done. Therefore humans would need to forfeit their free will in order to go go heaven anyway. So free will as being the purpose of creation fails.

You say that the concept of free will is so beautiful. But that's a subjective perspective on your behalf. Apparently you seem to think that the idea of being free to do as you please is a beautiful idea, but then if you believe in a religion like Christianity you are forbidden to do most things anyway otherwise you'll be severely punished by a dictator God for having done them. What's so beautiful about that? You'd have free will but be forbidden to ever actually use it.

The very concept of free will in Christianity is a joke. You'll go to hell if you exercise your free will.

Now you might say, 'But not if you choose to use your free will to surrender to the will of God".

But duh? Then you have a God who is basically demanding that you surrender your free will to him. A free will that you just got done proclaiming to be so beautiful. :roll:

The very thing that you think is so beautiful is precisely what this God is demanding that you surrender to him.

So free will wouldn't be the purpose anyway. On the contrary demanding that you give up free will would be the purpose. And so if you think having free will is beautiful, then surely you must feel that having to give up free will is ugly.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

enaidealukal
Apprentice
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 2:25 pm
Location: US

Re: The only two reasonable positions on the existence of Go

Post #104

Post by enaidealukal »

ThePainefulTruth wrote: There are Truth conditions, just no evidence with which to deduce it.
If God's existence is consistent with any and all evidence (as you're apparently claiming it is), then it has no truth-conditions.
You're the one who keeps bringing up evidentiary implications without being specific.
Well, no. I've mentioned the evidentiary implications of both atheism and theism, but not without indicating which one. So which were you talking about?
And something caused the universe.
There's no reason to believe that is the case. And some good reasons for believing it isn't.
Before beings with free will, God was completely alone--with "was" implying "before" and time that likely didn't/don't exist "outside/before" the universe.
Which is why, even under the scenario you describe, the belief that God created the universe is not tenable, if it requires an atemporal causal agent, a time before time, and an antecedent state of non-existence. This is incoherent.

User avatar
ThePainefulTruth
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
Location: Arizona

Re: The only two reasonable positions on the existence of Go

Post #105

Post by ThePainefulTruth »

Divine Insight wrote:
ThePainefulTruth wrote: The concept of free will is so beautiful, so elegant, and so simple. But I guess that makes it very vulnerable to obfuscation.
But there's an inherent problem with free will and a God. If God is the one who has a purpose for humans, then ultimately humans cannot have free will.
The problem with free will is that God mustn't intervene, as that would undermine it. Free will is a gift that benefits both us, the recipient, and God the benefactor. We get an identity that we know is our own, and God gets companions which are tested for loyalty, integrity and morality--if God exists.
Think of the Biblical picture. In heaven God's will is done. Therefore humans would need to forfeit their free will in order to go go heaven anyway. So free will as being the purpose of creation fails.
Where'd you get that part? As you say, from the Bible. Therefore the rest doesn't follow. You need to start over from scratch and question everything.
You say that the concept of free will is so beautiful. But that's a subjective perspective on your behalf.


Yes, but beauty is an aspect of Truth. And simplicity is an aspect of objective Truth. There are both pure objective, pure subjective and blended truths.
Apparently you seem to think that the idea of being free to do as you please is a beautiful idea, but then if you believe in a religion like Christianity you are forbidden to do most things anyway otherwise you'll be severely punished by a dictator God for having done them.


Do you think I'm a Christian, or believe in any revelation? And free will is the freedom to choose between good and evil--with each individual responsible for the consequences.
What's so beautiful about that? You'd have free will but be forbidden to ever actually use it.


Please quit setting up straw men.
The very concept of free will in Christianity is a joke. You'll go to hell if you exercise your free will.


No, it is irrational in Christianity because God intervenes.
Now you might say, 'But not if you choose to use your free will to surrender to the will of God".
Oh please. I assume you're an atheist, and as so many do, you go after the easy target, revealed religion, assuming that's the only alternative because that's what you're recoiling from. Even avowed atheists, among them scientists, have had to admit the possibility that the universe was initiated by a creator (words to that effect)--none more begrudgingly and disingenuously than Stephen Hawking.
Truth=God

User avatar
ThePainefulTruth
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
Location: Arizona

Re: The only two reasonable positions on the existence of Go

Post #106

Post by ThePainefulTruth »

enaidealukal wrote:
ThePainefulTruth wrote: There are Truth conditions, just no evidence with which to deduce it.
If God's existence is consistent with any and all evidence (as you're apparently claiming it is), then it has no truth-conditions.
God's non-existence is also consistent with the evidence. The only evidence that is not consistent with the Truth is revealed religion, and which has effectively been eliminated.
Truth=God

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: The only two reasonable positions on the existence of Go

Post #107

Post by Divine Insight »

ThePainefulTruth wrote: The problem with free will is that God mustn't intervene, as that would undermine it. Free will is a gift that benefits both us, the recipient, and God the benefactor. We get an identity that we know is our own, and God gets companions which are tested for loyalty, integrity and morality--if God exists.
This implies two things:

1. God is hard up for companions.
2. God needs to test people for loyalty, integrity and morality.

#1 places God in a needy predicament.

#2 fails on many counts. First off, why would God need anyone to be loyal to it?

Secondly, people change. Someone who might be loyal to you today could potentially become your enemy tomorrow. So testing people couldn't guaranteed their future behavior in any case.
ThePainefulTruth wrote: Oh please. I assume you're an atheist, and as so many do, you go after the easy target, revealed religion, assuming that's the only alternative because that's what you're recoiling from.
Oh please. Don't make such absurd assumptions about someone you don't even know. :roll:
ThePainefulTruth wrote: Even avowed atheists, among them scientists, have had to admit the possibility that the universe was initiated by a creator (words to that effect)--none more begrudgingly and disingenuously than Stephen Hawking.
And now you are judging Stephen Hawking to be "disingenuous". Instead of casting hateful accusations toward him, why not just confess that you probably just don't understand him very well. After all, you're the one who claims to have a free will choice in how you judge others. ;)

I am both a scientist and a spiritual agnostic. I realized that there there are spiritual philosophies in which life can be mystical and spiritual. But I also recognized that there are philosophies that allow for this without any need to create a needy God who is hard up for companionship.

So I'm way ahead of what you are proposing. O:)
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

enaidealukal
Apprentice
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 2:25 pm
Location: US

Re: The only two reasonable positions on the existence of Go

Post #108

Post by enaidealukal »

ThePainefulTruth wrote: God's non-existence is also consistent with the evidence.
It isn't just consistent with the evidence we do have, you're claiming it is consistent with any and all possible evidence- in other words, it has no truth-conditions, and cannot be distinguished from a fiction on any grounds whatsoever.

bishblaize

Re: The only two reasonable positions on the existence of Go

Post #109

Post by bishblaize »

[Replying to post 1 by ThePainefulTruth]

Sorry for piping up 10 pages in, which means I haven't read every single thought on every page.

I've always thought it to be a mistake to assume that the only reasonable beliefs are those founded in an evidence base. And while that sounds loopy at first glance, the truth is there are countless examples in life.

There's no reasonable reason why I like bacon more than sausages. Or why I love Fountain by Duchamp so much. Or why this music touches me while that music doesn't.

Now obviously there's a key difference between those and a belief in God, since we know sausages exist. But the point is that we all, to some degree, rely on instinct that we can't (yet) measure or quantify to make decisions in our lives.

Indeed its a distinctly modern and somewhat Western phenomenon to put external measurements ahead of internal instinct in the scale of importance.

I personally am an atheist. But not because of any external evidence base. I am because I meditate diligently. There's a place I find that

jerrygg38
Apprentice
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 8:38 am
Location: Cary NC

Re: The only two reasonable positions on the existence of Go

Post #110

Post by jerrygg38 »

ThePainefulTruth wrote: Atheism and Deism? From our standpoint, those two philosophies are indistinguishable. All others can be dismissed on the basis of reason/science since other theologies inevitably have to resort to faith (blind faith) to justify ignoring reason and logic.
The believer believes in a spiritual dimension. this cannot be proven but it accounts for all the interactions of millions of spiritual people and religious people throughout the centuries. Perhaps someday the science will show the spiritual dimension exists. they already have shown in string theory the possibility of at least 13 dimensions. This enables a spiritual dimension to exist.
Your reasoning is like saying only visible light exists. we now know that ultraviolet and inferred light exists. However in biblical times we did not know such things.
We can add logic and reasoning to faith to present a theory of God and the Universe which can match present scientific knowledge. Thus Darwinian evolution is part of any new knowledge of God. The mythological presentation of the Bible and Gospels indicate a god at the level of man at the time. Therefore it can be logically concluded that both man and God evolve together.
this means that the Jewish God is the spiritual collective of the Jewish people.
In any event when we add logic and reasoning to viewpoints of God and the spiritual world we get an understanding of the spiritual search of man for God or Gods.

Post Reply