If a Begin requires a Beginner...

[Banky]

2. Many of the atheists we have come through here do adopt a purely materialistic point of view, which in effect declares that only that which is physical, observable, measurable etc. can be used as a basis to establish truth or reality.

I agree with this statement, with emphasis on the word "know." Anything else is, at best, a guess. A belief in a sentient creator or a belief in an absense of a sentient creator are both guesses. Gravity, on the other hand, is something that we "know" (though you can never know something to 100% certainty.....but i'd place gravity in the 99% neighborhood).

As such, I hear you saying that you would believe that to assume the existance of God in that framework is an option but that you do not see it qualitatively as necessary.

You didn't raise it but I think what I'm hearing in the background is perhaps an appeal to the principal of Occam's Razor, (the simplest explanation with the fewest contingencies available is to be preferred over more complex ones).

For the first part, more or less. To rephrase, in order to have what we have today, there must either exist something beyond the material world OR there must be something about the material world that we don't understand. God is but one of many possible answers, but not necessarily THE answer.

Re - Occam's Razor: It is only a tool to guide guesses, not to serve as any sort of proof. However, the position that most athiests that I know hold is not that "God" is impossible, but that a very very specifc version of God who did very specific things at certain times and has very specifc qualities is very unlikely. It's like someone saying there was an animal in your house and you say, "It was a Rinocerous named Suzie who had beans for dinner." No, it isn't impossible, but it doesn't make much sense to hold onto such a seemingly random belief as though it were "truth."

You can extend that analogy to include "what if a book was left behind saying that Suzie was in your house?" Fair enough. But there are pleanty of books that say pleanty of things. One has to then ask himself what reason does he have to simply believe one book, especially since the answers in the come from visions, dreams, and burning bushes.

Again, not impossible.........but at least understand why religion is called a "faith" despite attempts to conflagerate it with the word "truth."

[Canuckster1127]

2. Many of the atheists we have come through here do adopt a purely materialistic point of view, which in effect declares that only that which is physical, observable, measurable etc. can be used as a basis to establish truth or reality.

I agree with this statement, with emphasis on the word "know." Anything else is, at best, a guess. A belief in a sentient creator or a belief in an absense of a sentient creator are both guesses. Gravity, on the other hand, is something that we "know" (though you can never know something to 100% certainty.....but i'd place gravity in the 99% neighborhood).

As such, I hear you saying that you would believe that to assume the existance of God in that framework is an option but that you do not see it qualitatively as necessary.

You didn't raise it but I think what I'm hearing in the background is perhaps an appeal to the principal of Occam's Razor, (the simplest explanation with the fewest contingencies available is to be preferred over more complex ones).

For the first part, more or less. To rephrase, in order to have what we have today, there must either exist something beyond the material world OR there must be something about the material world that we don't understand. God is but one of many possible answers, but not necessarily THE answer.

Re - Occam's Razor: It is only a tool to guide guesses, not to serve as any sort of proof. However, the position that most athiests that I know hold is not that "God" is impossible, but that a very very specifc version of God who did very specific things at certain times and has very specifc qualities is very unlikely. It's like someone saying there was an animal in your house and you say, "It was a Rinocerous named Suzie who had beans for dinner." No, it isn't impossible, but it doesn't make much sense to hold onto such a seemingly random belief as though it were "truth."

You can extend that analogy to include "what if a book was left behind saying that Suzie was in your house?" Fair enough. But there are pleanty of books that say pleanty of things. One has to then ask himself what reason does he have to simply believe one book, especially since the answers in the come from visions, dreams, and burning bushes.

Again, not impossible.........but at least understand why religion is called a "faith" despite attempts to conflagerate it with the word "truth."

I can agree with that with the clarification that what you refer to as "guesses" on the Christian side we refer to as "faith."

What is not always understood or admitted to, to my observation anyway, is for some atheists to admit that there are elements of faith or as you put it "guesses" that of necessity tie into that interpretive framework. It is that element that is not owned and that in my opinion is somewhat disingenuous.

Faith is certainly involved. I simply point out that the arguments in favor of an atheistic point of view routinely ignore or gloss over the elements within their own framework that are either speculative or left unanswered. I understand that either point of view, once espoused will then tie into the qualitative evaluations of the arguments and positions in a manner that tends to become somewhat circular, for both.

In the end, for me as a Christian, without apology, my position is based upon faith, but it is not blind nor ignorant faith.

[Kurieuo]

2. Many of the atheists we have come through here do adopt a purely materialistic point of view, which in effect declares that only that which is physical, observable, measurable etc. can be used as a basis to establish truth or reality.

I agree with this statement, with emphasis on the word "know." Anything else is, at best, a guess. A belief in a sentient creator or a belief in an absense of a sentient creator are both guesses. Gravity, on the other hand, is something that we "know" (though you can never know something to 100% certainty.....but i'd place gravity in the 99% neighborhood).

Hmm. I do not understand why you were complaining earlier when I stated your beliefs appeared as such. Perhaps you were just trying to avoid responding to questions I was raising of such a positivist position. I do observe your emphasis on the ability to "know" with 100% certainty, but still...

One question in particular I previously mentioned was what standards of justification would the Materialist (as described above) have for accepting that our senses are giving us a correct view of reality? Such a question especially becomes complicated when we think about secondary qualities which consist of properties like colours, tastes, sounds, smells and textures. For example, Science (particularly Physics) describes the material world as being constituted of clouds of minute, colourless, highly-mobile particles. If we are forced to acknowledge that physical or material things are not coloured, then we are forced to conclude that colour is not a property found in the physical world around us but rather from us. To restate in the reverse, the perception of colour is a mental property subjective to the person perceiving, and not a physical one found in the material world.

So back to the initial question - what justification is there for believing our senses are giving us a correct view of reality? It seems the Materialist (as described above) is forced to make the unproven assumption that our perceptions are giving us a correct view of truth or reality. Yet, such a position is clearly self-refuting (contradictory) if it declares that only that which is physical, observable, measurable ought be used as a basis to establish truth or reality. For such a position must first bring the unproven assumption that our perceptions are giving us a correct view of truth or reality. So while some might refuse to think so, it seems no position is void of an element of "faith" for everyone needs to accept logically unprovable assumptions.

[rpwiegand]

I add my comments here with apologies for being late to the discussion. It is an interesting one in the sense that there is more mutual respect going on here than in many similar exchanges.

Context: I am an empirical agnostic with a great deal of respect for people of many faiths. My goal is not to convince anyone of anything, but rather it is to understand Kurieuo (and others) views a bit better. Unless you have more to offer than what I've seen here, I doubt I will be convinced either. Perhaps we can just learn more about each other's beliefs.


Kurieuo jumps to an extreme here. I can't speak for Banky, but I hold a similar philosophy and require no assumption that my perceptions of reality are perfect and without error. There is a supposition that some signal from reality can be discerned with the noise of my sensory apparatus, and that I have some faculty to incorporate and filter such information, as well as to reason over it. But I would not express that as a "belief" but rather a utilitarian necessity.

If our perceptions cannot be trusted at all, then we're at a solipsism. Perhaps that's true, but it is also useless. Moreover, if it is true, no harm is done by assuming it isn't so ... since every possibility is as equally likely or absurd. So it is a useful supposition that I am capable of perceiving some aspect of reality and reasoning over it. From there naturalism is quite straightforward, as long as we are willing to concede an imperfect epistemology (which I am). Indeed, overall I will freely concede that there may be aspects of the Universe that I do not (and perhaps cannot) understand. But I've also not seen any reason to believe that I have anything more available to me to ascertain such things than my perceptions and my mind.

Since I do not assert that God doesn't exist, I don't believe more is logically required of me. As Banky conceded, so I concede: a creating God is possible.

But it's also possible that there was no such creator. I frankly have yet to make sense of your "timeless Universe" argument. Cause is a function of time, time is a structural component of the Universe, and it makes no logical sense to talk about a "cause" of the Universe. It is like saying, "What is the meaning of the negative region of the radial component in a polar coordinate system?" It has no meaning, the question makes no sense.

If it makes sense to you, more power to you. But I am unconvinced by the cosmological argument ... I've heard it in many forms, by many theologians, and it all sounds like semantic equivocation or non-sequiturs to me. Even if the question made sense to me, I agree with Banky: any quality you bestow upon God to resolve the dilemma could just have easily been bestowed upon the Universe itself. I can see the argument demonstrating that a creator might be, but not that a creator must be.

Okay, so a creating deity might or might not exist. What objective reason do I have to believe in one? And, even if I (for reasons I cannot see) choose to believe in God, what God, and why that one? To be fair, I don't disbelieve either. In fact, I find the question of the existence of God to be a fascinating intellectual, metaphysical exercise, but of no practical value ... so I am entirely uninvested in the question. And I think that some kind of investment is necessary for any belief.

A better question in my mind is this: Why is it so important to intellectual Christians to defend the notion that a belief in the Christian God is entirely rational? How do you reconcile faith with the notion that the existence of God is reasonably inferred? I don't believe Christians are stupid or foolish, but neither do I see how reason gets one to that position. Is it really one or the other: I must admit your view is rational, or I must conclude you are a fool?

In fact, I will (so far) do neither.

[Banky]

Hmm. I do not understand why you were complaining earlier when I stated your beliefs appeared as such. Perhaps you were just trying to avoid responding to questions I was raising of such a positivist position.

I'm curious if you actually read what I write. I have told you on several occasions that I don't know what a positivist is, and yet you continually argue against my positivist position. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

For example, Science (particularly Physics) describes the material world as being constituted of clouds of minute, colourless, highly-mobile particles.

Not colorless. Just really small. There's a difference, but I don't think its relevent to your point, so we can continue.......

.......what justification is there for believing our senses are giving us a correct view of reality?

This seems to continue to be the lynch pin in your entire argument, and you have yet to see that it has been pulled. If you keep stating something as the basis of my position it will not simply make it so.

I have offered no proof of a God nor have I offered proof of an absence of a God. Neither have I offered proof of a single God that exists today or hundreds of Gods that died billions of years ago. I have not offered proof of a sentient creater that exists outside of the bounds of actul time or merely just beyond the bounds of our perceptions of time. I have not even offered proof of a non-sentient non-temporal state of matter or energy that existed as a precoursor to the material that makes up the universe today.

It is you, Kureiuo, who contend the validity of a philisophical proof of a single sentient creator and overlord who exists beyond the bounds of time based entirely on "accepting that your senses give you the correct view of reality."

I fully expect that the circular argument will contiunue, that perhaps you will ignore what I have stated and continue to argue against a position that I don't hold, or that you will resort to another adhominum attack to discredit my viewpoint, or that I even might be suspended once again or banned all together. None of that will change the fact that a valid *proof* of a Christian God simply does not exist, just as one cannot offer *proof* of any other religions' Gods. Hence the word FAITH.

[Canuckster1127]

“Faith . . . tells what the senses do not tell, but not the contrary of what they see. It is above them and not contrary to them.”- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

[David Blacklock]

This has been one great discussion! - better even than the Craig/Sinnott-Armstrong debate. Come back and talk some more...

[Kurieuo]

I add my comments here with apologies for being late to the discussion. It is an interesting one in the sense that there is more mutual respect going on here than in many similar exchanges.

Context: I am an empirical agnostic with a great deal of respect for people of many faiths. My goal is not to convince anyone of anything, but rather it is to understand Kurieuo (and others) views a bit better. Unless you have more to offer than what I've seen here, I doubt I will be convinced either. Perhaps we can just learn more about each other's beliefs.

Kurieuo jumps to an extreme here. I can't speak for Banky, but I hold a similar philosophy and require no assumption that my perceptions of reality are perfect and without error. There is a supposition that some signal from reality can be discerned with the noise of my sensory apparatus, and that I have some faculty to incorporate and filter such information, as well as to reason over it. But I would not express that as a "belief" but rather a utilitarian necessity.

Actually you have me wrong. My intentions for arguing against our perception of reality being truth conducive were other than it being my position. As I previously wrote a few posts back:

In any case, what is wrong with basing beliefs on physical observations? I have only made mere mention that you appear to have been a positivist, and yet you appear to take a sharp exception to it. So I am left wondering why you do, since I do base a lot of my own beliefs on what I observe, and even scientific observation. Clever, or not clever, political style tactics, or not, I do not really see what the exact issue is with which you are taking exception. I just thought I was entering into a discussion, and now I have completed what I set out to do - to show the First Cause argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite is not contradictory for the reason you gave - I really do not see any point in further pursuing this topic of discussion.

My actual belief is that my perceptions of physical reality are in fact truth conducive and to be trusted, just like my moral intuition which can't be seen, or my spiritual sense of awareness to the divine. There is no reason I can see why I should deny such things as being false. Evidentialists, particularly Positivists, on the other hand are forced to accept only that which can be observed or proven and I simply desired to highlight the folly most post modernists highlight of such a position.

If our perceptions cannot be trusted at all, then we're at a solipsism. Perhaps that's true, but it is also useless.

Yes, It is very impractical. And since I can not prove by logic either way whether my perceptions are truthful or not, I choose to believe they are true for it is more practical for me to do so, and as it is more practical it is therefore the most logical decision for me.

Moreover, if it is true, no harm is done by assuming it isn't so ... since every possibility is as equally likely or absurd. So it is a useful supposition that I am capable of perceiving some aspect of reality and reasoning over it. From there naturalism is quite straightforward, as long as we are willing to concede an imperfect epistemology (which I am). Indeed, overall I will freely concede that there may be aspects of the Universe that I do not (and perhaps cannot) understand. But I've also not seen any reason to believe that I have anything more available to me to ascertain such things than my perceptions and my mind.

Since I do not assert that God doesn't exist, I don't believe more is logically required of me. As Banky conceded, so I concede: a creating God is possible.

I simply add here that on the same basis one such as yourself is prepared to accept their perception of the physical world as truth conducive, I would argue that I am by the same token entitled to the same benefit of believing God has indeed spiritually revealed Himself as backed by a great deal many others in my Christian traditions have vouched for over the centuries and until today.

But it's also possible that there was no such creator. I frankly have yet to make sense of your "timeless Universe" argument. Cause is a function of time, time is a structural component of the Universe, and it makes no logical sense to talk about a "cause" of the Universe. It is like saying, "What is the meaning of the negative region of the radial component in a polar coordinate system?" It has no meaning, the question makes no sense.

Yet, if the universe had a beginning as cosmology largely tends to support, then causality is introduced since there is a prior "time" when the universe was not, and then a time when the universe was. Certainly the physical time of our universe is a structural component of our universe like space, however it only makes sense to ascribe the temporalness of our universe not existing and then coming into existing as a passage of time.

If it makes sense to you, more power to you. But I am unconvinced by the cosmological argument ... I've heard it in many forms, by many theologians, and it all sounds like semantic equivocation or non-sequiturs to me. Even if the question made sense to me, I agree with Banky: any quality you bestow upon God to resolve the dilemma could just have easily been bestowed upon the Universe itself. I can see the argument demonstrating that a creator might be, but not that a creator must be.

It can. Yet, as I previously quite carefully reasoned, if we ascribe timelessness to a non-sentient universe then we would expect such a universe to be entirely static and unchanging. This is because change implies a time before such a change and hence temporality - time. Thus, if a non-sentient universe is timeless, there can not be cause and effect (changes) happening within it.

A better question in my mind is this: Why is it so important to intellectual Christians to defend the notion that a belief in the Christian God is entirely rational?

Perhaps such Christians are persuaded of God's real personal existence, and out of our love for others and that which Christ showed, we want others to come to the same important truths we have come to and be set free. The same question ought to be asked of Atheists since I find there are a great deal more on the Internet propagating their own arguments against God. If God does not exist, and this life is all they will have, why waste the time with which they could be enjoying life debating such a matter? I see such people as entirely inconsistent with their beliefs, and think such obviously hints as an emotional issue in their lives they are trying to sort out with which they for some reason or another blame on religion or Christianity.

How do you reconcile faith with the notion that the existence of God is reasonably inferred? I don't believe Christians are stupid or foolish, but neither do I see how reason gets one to that position. Is it really one or the other: I must admit your view is rational, or I must conclude you are a fool?

Perhaps it is best to see it as a matter of proper alignment of our heart or perception or the like. How can it be that two extremely rational and well experienced intellectuals in arguments for and against God's existence can come to such a polar opposite conclusions? Philosophy has not provided an outright answer about who is right, and neither has science. Indeed such a question can not be settled by such epistemological pursuits. If it could, it probably would have by now. I therefore believe God needs to "align" our heart and illuminate our minds and spirit to perceive Him. When this happens one will perceive God literally everywhere. And until this happens it seems one is blind to God in almost everything. Hence the Atheist, and even Agnostic, asks "where is the evidence?" Whereas for me, I just look around and wonder in amazement how anyone could miss it.

At the same token, those who do not believe in God must obviously put down the disagreement over God's existence between two equally intellectually experienced and well reasoned people to something similar. Perhaps all who believe in God really do have a deficient mind or really do have mental problems as I heard one Atheist put it. Perhaps there is a "God gene" some are born with, or perhaps this gene is what God switches on sometime in life to reveal Himself to people through? Who knows.

[frankbaginski]

I have never run across an argument that used logic to prove the existance of God. Logic can be used to motivate someone to seek God as in Pascals wager. So to seek God is the real issue. If one seeks God with the heart then the chances are pretty good that they will find Him. That door is wide open and is available to everyone. To seek God through the flesh or logic is a dead end. Yes, there are fingerprints of God on His creation but the creation is not God, it is something He made. One can examine a Buick but you will not know the designer of the Buick unless you look beyond the created item.

I cannot speak for anyone else but when I came to faith I saw the world with different eyes. Where once I saw random causation I now see a plan unfolding. So when I look at archaeology I see it through a lens of faith. When I read dozens of different interpretations about the artifacts found in the ancient cities I focus on the Biblical timeline and give praise to God for allowing these traces for us to find. I once read a story about an archaeologist who found a grave and had expectations as to how old it was. Once it was openned he found pottery shards that did not line up with his assumptions. He decided that someone broke into the grave and left the shards and then sealed up the grave. This person lives in this world. As for me I am just passing through.

The world views that people have all start with some underlying faith ( call them assumptions ). One could have faith that only naturalistic events are possible. Another person could have faith that the answer lies outside of naturalism. The person who believes in nothing but naturalism will bear fruit. This fruit is limited to mechanistic science. The other person who looks outside of nature will also bear fruit. This fruit cannot be seen except through their behavior.

We are told to have a personal relationship with God. I do not think that relationship is built with logic or a discussion of astrophysics. That being said I do believe that a lively discussion of science and world views can lead someone to seek God. As long as the discussion centers on God with just disagreements on some of the details of the creation then the talk can be fruitfull. But I don't have any expectation that a discussion of science will lead to faith. That seeking of the Lord may take place but it may have little to do with the words being written. It will have everything to do with the reason the discussion was started.

[Kurieuo]

Hmm. I do not understand why you were complaining earlier when I stated your beliefs appeared as such. Perhaps you were just trying to avoid responding to questions I was raising of such a positivist position.

I'm curious if you actually read what I write. I have told you on several occasions that I don't know what a positivist is, and yet you continually argue against my positivist position. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

You may not be a positivist, however, the questions I posed about whether we can trust our perception of reality as true are ones I believe all thinkers should develop some sort of response to or at least consider. You have just whined about how I am being unfair and what-have-you, but rpwiegand was able to produce a quick and thoughtful response about accepting what he perceives for utilitarian or practical reasons. He did not think I was being unfair with such questions even though my own epistemological position regarding them was misunderstood.

.......what justification is there for believing our senses are giving us a correct view of reality?

This seems to continue to be the lynch pin in your entire argument, and you have yet to see that it has been pulled. If you keep stating something as the basis of my position it will not simply make it so.

Again you whine that I am somehow aligning you with a position when I was just asking questions to understand your beliefs better. Perhaps you do not like to respond because you have not thought through such epistemological questions, or perhaps you do not like me leading with them. There is no trickery behind them. They are questions put forward by post modernity which all thinking people should in my opinion reflect upon. Again, rpwiegand did not think I was being unfair by asking them and was able to provide a thoughtful response.

I have offered no proof of a God nor have I offered proof of an absence of a God. Neither have I offered proof of a single God that exists today or hundreds of Gods that died billions of years ago. I have not offered proof of a sentient creater that exists outside of the bounds of actul time or merely just beyond the bounds of our perceptions of time. I have not even offered proof of a non-sentient non-temporal state of matter or energy that existed as a precoursor to the material that makes up the universe today.

Fine. I don't know why you are telling me this

It is you, Kureiuo, who contend the validity of a philisophical proof of a single sentient creator and overlord who exists beyond the bounds of time based entirely on "accepting that your senses give you the correct view of reality."

This is a strawman representation of my position and evidentially shows me no respect.

I do not know why you became so hostile. Perhaps you can not accept the beliefs of others differing to your own. I pray you will begin to mellow out and chill a bit as you grow older to consider is a thoughtful manner the positions of others. That said, I initially set out to defend against your wrongful claim that the Kalam cosmological argument is illogical since it is based on an actual infinite being impossible when Christians believe God is infinite. Your equivocation of the actual infinite is what was actually at fault, whereas an actual infinite understood in the form of a series is quite different to how Christians understand God to be infinite. You could have just responsed you did not understand there was a difference in the ways "infinite" is used in each case, however instead it seems to me you chose to dramatise all my responses.

I fully expect that the circular argument will contiunue, that perhaps you will ignore what I have stated and continue to argue against a position that I don't hold, or that you will resort to another adhominum attack to discredit my viewpoint, or that I even might be suspended once again or banned all together. None of that will change the fact that a valid *proof* of a Christian God simply does not exist, just as one cannot offer *proof* of any other religions' Gods. Hence the word FAITH.

It is interesting that you prefer to offer blanket statements that no valid proofs exist of God. This reveals you are quite naive to the many philosophers on both sides of the fence (Theist and non-Theist) who debate and discuss such proofs and their validity in intellectual circles. While I think you are actually quite intelligent, your statement about there being no valid proofs for God does this no justice as it just sounds like you are talking from ignorance; ignorance to the philosophical discussions which actually go on regarding such proofs between well educated philosophers.

Furthermore, considering my "FAITH" in people I know, faith in my perception of the world, faith in God and in Christ, is based on reason and my experiences with such, I do not understand why you would state the word "FAITH" as though it is a bad thing. I do not see what the exact problem is with having "FAITH" in something, especially if there a good reasons for having such faith.

I would certainly like to understand how you manage to avoid having "FAITH" in anything since it is even required to trust your own senses (as we have been discussing). Perhaps you see yourself as having an objective view on reality, whereas the rest of us, especially us "religious" or Christian folk are just stuck in blindness. I do not have time to entertain such people, so if this is the case...

[RationalTheism]

Atheism is ludacrous!

If God suddenly appeared in front of a non-beliver, he would surely believe.

Therefore, all 'atheists' are actually agnostics.

[Seraph]

Well I don't know about that.

God hasn't appeared to athiests yet and it possible for someone to geniunely not believe in God, so I don't think that means that they are actually agnostics. I do agree that atheism is ludacrous though.

[mrpinz]

How ridiculously and highly improbable is that, though? Inserting god seems pointless and irrelevant, as it only begs the question of where did god come from, and using god as a first cause is a complete non-argument. Just because we don't have a complete understanding of how it all started, doesn't mean you can fill the gap with god.

[JC333]

Well I don't know about that.

God hasn't appeared to athiests yet and it possible for someone to geniunely not believe in God, so I don't think that means that they are actually agnostics. I do agree that atheism is ludacrous though.

I would agree. Although I would like to add that most atheists aren't intellectually honest.

"Do you know everything? Let's be modest and say you know 1/2 of everything. Isn't it possible that God exists on the half that you don't know?"

Therefore, if an atheist is being intellectually honest, he/she would be an agnostic.

[JC333]

Inserting god seems pointless and irrelevant, as it only begs the question of where did god come from

God didn't come from anywhere, he is eternally existent. If he was created then he wouldn't be God.

nd using god as a first cause is a complete non-argument.

How-so?

Just because we don't have a complete understanding of how it all started, doesn't mean you can fill the gap with god.

What we do understand is that the universe started a finite time ago. And if time is finite then so is matter, energy and space. In order for matter, energy and space to spring into existence something must have created it.


Also, apologies if I'm restating anything anyone else said earlier. I only read the first few posts in this thread.