• August
    1
    Do not you think that we all are lost in words? The same words mean so many different things to different people. Should not we need to avoid "contaminated" (with all the respect) words? Using the word G'd could be a hint that the subject is religion, or creation of universe, or beginning of life, or the morals, etc. All these topics are not the same. So I would use the word G'd only in reference to religion and every time to only very specific religion. This way we may have a meaningful conversation.
  • NKBJ
    316
    using your senses to find the creator of the sensible, is like searching inside a painting for the painter.Mr Phil O'Sophy

    I see why you're using this analogy, but if you think about it, it just all the more proves my point. By examining a painting, I can very well say that it must have been created by someone, and even hazard guesses as to the nature of that person. Looking at the colors of his paintings, they have just found out that Van Gogh was likely color-blind! Looking at any painting, I realize that it is an artifact and that it didn't grow itself in to that particular shape and colors. The universe, as far as we have been able to conclude through scientific inquiry, has no hints of having been created by a third party. There are no "brushstrokes" (to stick with your analogy) that might indicate a creator.

    No it wouldn't. But again, you're overlooking the definition of faith. Its not a knowledge claim, its a belief claim. To say I have faith in God, is not to say that know for a fact that God exists. Its a statement that says I believe. Now that in itself isn't necessarily an argument to convince someone to believe, and I completely understand that. There are many reasons, beyond simply having faith, why people choose to believe. Basically, its not a scientific truth claim, and should never be viewed as such.Mr Phil O'Sophy

    So, you're admitting we have more reason to rely on science than to believe in a supernatural creator?

    And why do you think people like to believe in deities? I can think of some psychological reasons, a few evolutionary/biological ones, but none that would convince me objectively that there is anything to be gained (especially not in the 21st Century) from the practice.
  • Rank Amateur
    213
    Believe to be true is a dependent question. One can believe something to be true because of Fact, Reason or Faith.

    It is not a fact that God exists
    It is a reasonable belief that an un-created creator existed
    The God of the Bible ( or Torah, or Koran, or ) is a belief of faith

    I don't place any value judgement on any of those beliefs.

    However, only belief based on reason is worth argument. Reasonable theism has been well argued. Both positions are reasonable. Personally, I find the compensating good argument convincing over the argument from evil, which I find the only real argument against a omniscient, all powerful, all good God.
  • Michael
    7.1k
    I'll bite: what's your solution to the stone conundrum?NKBJ

    If God can, but doesn't, create the stone then there's nothing he can't do.
  • Uber
    147
    No I don't believe in any kind of supernatural deity or creator. For two primary reasons:

    1) There is no reliable empirical evidence that anything supernatural exists. To the contrary, all reliable empirical evidence that exists conclusively shows that the world only contains material and natural things, such as fields and particles, that have interactions which can be measured or detected in various ways.

    2) There are no sound logical arguments to believe in a supernatural creator. There may be arguments that are logically valid, but none that are sound. The two primary ones, the cosmological argument and the ontological argument, have both been defeated and largely discarded, in what serves as a great example of how philosophy makes progress over time (ie. by ditching bad arguments).
  • Marcus de Brun
    337
    The question as to whether I believe in God presupposes an 'I' distinct from this 'God' thing, and is secondary to the question as to whether or not this God thing actually believes in me.

    If he does, he is more a fool than 'I' am.

    M
  • Andrew4Handel
    486
    I just want to make a distinction between belief and non belief that I have. I think belief is problematic without argument or evidence. So I tend to believe things based on evidence, or I can be made agnostic by argument (My own usually).

    But I think non belief does not entail I am certain that something is not the case. So If I say I don't believe something it might just mean I have no direct evidence for it at the moment.

    So I am agnostic about a lot of things andI think it is problematic to take too strong a stance on something where current evidence does not resolve an issue.
  • Sapientia
    5.8k
    I didn't vote because I didn't like the choices. Here's from the Tao Te Ching:

    The Tao is like a well:
    used but never used up.
    It is like the eternal void:
    filled with infinite possibilities. It is hidden but always present.
    I don't know who gave birth to it.
    It is older than God.

    I believe that the concept of god or gods is a reasonable approach to understanding the world. The concept is created by humans. More accurately, it is a reflection of an interaction between the world inside us and the world outside us. The question of whether this kind of god exists is not a question answerable with a yes or no answer. This is one of the themes you will hear over and over in my posts.

    As for whether or not a living or sentient God who takes or has taken an active role in the physical world, which is a question answerable with a yes or no, I don't have an opinion.
    T Clark

    There's always one. It's either yes, no, or not sure. But you're right, it was wrong of him not to have included an option for those who believe in an old well.
  • TheMadFool
    2.3k
    Do you believe in a creator?Mr Phil O'Sophy

    I don't know. Perhaps we'll need to die and find out. I tried believing in God but which one?
  • Marcus de Brun
    337
    Today it would seem that many people find it more difficult to believe in a God when they have money which tells them they don't need God, and a smart phone which tells them they are God.

    Nietzsche's analysis stands firm: He is dead, and we have killed him.

    M
  • Rank Amateur
    213


    "2) There are no sound logical arguments to believe in a supernatural creator. There may be arguments that are logically valid, but none that are sound. The two primary ones, the cosmological argument and the ontological argument, have both been defeated and largely discarded, in what serves as a great example of how philosophy makes progress over time (ie. by ditching bad arguments)."

    I challenge your claim that the cosmological argument has been largely discarded. In my limited and
    amateur reading on the topic, all challenges basically come down to the “ well then who created the creator then, position” witch seems an invalid claim against a proposition that there is an un-created creator.

    Since the general scientific acceptance of the Big Bang, acknowledging a scientific belief that at one time there was nothing, and then there was everything – has done nothing but strengthen the Cosmological argument. A “who created the creator argument “ is in effect saying the universe is not finite – it did not have a beginning. Or conversely, we don’t know the beginning. Which then turns the argument against to “we agree with the premise but disagree with your conclusion – because we disagree with your conclusion. “

    Even the search to singularity – changes the particle, or the nomenclature - but it always has a “something” at the beginning – without an explanation of how that “something” got there.

    At its core - this most common objection to the cosmological argument, is nothing more than elevating
    Science to religion. It is saying – we don’t have the scientific answer to how the world was created, we know it is not a supernatural being, because we don’t believe in them, but we have faith that science will answer the question one day, because we have faith in science.
  • Uber
    147
    The biggest gripes against the cosmological argument have been about equivocation in its use and understanding of causality. But that aside, the proposition that there's an "uncreated creator" is nonsense, and just invites an avalanche of questions that lead you back into circular arguments (God's being is an inherent property because it's God, ships float on water because they're ships).

    Physicists have largely abandoned the idea that the Big Bang represents the creation of everything, because the status of 'everything' in theoretical physics is very much up in the air. Also the vast majority of physicists are atheists or agnostics, including almost all the people that William Lane Craig glibly cites in his work, so clearly they did not see the discovery of the Big Bang as evidence for the cosmological argument.
  • Rank Amateur
    213


    The biggest gripes against the cosmological argument have been about equivocation in its use and understanding of causality. But that aside, the proposition that there's an "uncreated creator" is nonsense, and just invites an avalanche of questions that lead you back into circular arguments (God's being is an inherent property because it's God, ships float on water because they're ships).Uber

    you are giving opinion, not argument with "he proposition that there's an "uncreated creator" is nonsense" and you are making a circular argument - there is no creator, because there is no creator" as argument against a circular argument.

    Physicists have largely abandoned the idea that the Big Bang represents the creation of everything, because the status of 'everything' in theoretical physics is very much up in the air. Also the vast majority of physicists are atheists or agnostics, including almost all the people that William Lane Craig glibly cites in his work, so clearly they did not see the discovery of the Big Bang as evidence for the cosmological argument.Uber

    This - "status of 'everything' in theoretical physics is very much up in the air" is making my point - of just elevating science to religion. Science knows, has a very very good idea it does know, or it does not know. - attributing any conclusion based on what it does not know - is not a basis for anything.

    this "Also the vast majority of physicists are atheists or agnostics" is completely irrelevant to the argument
  • Uber
    147
    Then show us why the claim that there's an "uncreated creator" is not nonsense. Or justify it, if you so prefer. My point is that any attempt at justification you can conceive of will land you back into some kind of circular argument. Unless you try to justify God's properties by invoking sources external to God, in which case you are acknowledging God is just another piece of the puzzle, another link in the chain. Not an ultimate explanation of anything. And if you don't, you're forced into a circular argument: God is uncreated because it's God, cats have four legs because they're cats.
  • Uber
    147
    What's uncertain in theoretical physics is the full extent or size of nature (multiverse, extra dimensions, etc). Because we don't know the full extent of nature, we don't know if the Big Bang represents the beginning of everything in nature (as opposed to some small part of it). There is no presumption beyond materialism in science because there's no reliable evidence to think along those lines. If there was, then we could talk about ghosts and fairies all day long.
  • NKBJ
    316


    That's actually pretty cute. :lol:
    But I don't think it works to say you can do something as long as you don't do it--that's the same as saying you can't do it.

    OT: Incidentally, I think that's the sort of thinking that stops people from trying to do things. If you never try to learn to play the piano, you can always tell yourself "I could become a concert pianist if I just wanted to.
  • Michael
    7.1k
    But I don't think it works to say you can do something as long as you don't do itNKBJ

    I'm not saying that he can do something as long as he doesn't do it. I'm saying that he can do it. But if he doesn’t then it is wrong to say that there’s a stone he can’t lift, which is what the paradox claims.
  • Michael
    7.1k
    OT: Incidentally, I think that's the sort of thinking that stops people from trying to do things. If you never try to learn to play the piano, you can always tell yourself "I could become a concert pianist if I just wanted to.NKBJ

    That’s not what I meant. An example would be that I can cut off my legs, but if I don’t then I can still walk. So God can create an unliftable stone, but if he doesn’t then he can still lift every stone.
  • NKBJ
    316


    Oh, sorry, I just realized OT is an abbreviation from other discussion forums I've used. It means off-topic. I was just going off on a tangent :smile:

    Anywho,

    I'm not saying that he can do something as long as he doesn't do it. I'm saying that he can do it. But if he doesn’t then it is wrong to say that there’s a stone he can’t lift, which is what the paradox claims.Michael

    I don't read the paradox that way. It doesn't claim there exists a stone which an omnipotent being couldn't lift, it's about whether the omnipotent being could bring one into existence.

    It's a problem of logic, really:
    A->B (if omnipotent, then can create stone)
    B->~A (if create stone, then not omnipotent)

    Your claim sounds to me like:
    ~B->A
    Which together with the above would still lead to ~A
  • Michael
    7.1k
    It's a problem of logic, really:
    A->B (if omnipotent, then can create stone)
    B->~A (if create stone, then not omnipotent)
    NKBJ

    The B in the first sentence is "can create stone". The B in the second sentence is "does create stone". These are two different things. The paradox conflates God being able to create the stone with God actually creating the stone.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.