|
Post by Maverick on Jan 4, 2004 20:02:24 GMT -5
tamara
I was under the impression that Euclid's postulate, as you described it, was defined. The only thing I remember you saying was that his postulate was unprovable. There is a difference between defining what you believe in and saying that what you believe in cannot be proven. I understand that you believe the God postulate is not unreasonable even though it is unproven. Right now, I am not concerned with evidence, proof, etc. My only concern is with what it is that you believe in (regardless of whether you can give evidence of it or not).
If we're going to discuss evidence of God, I'd like to know what you're giving me evidence for.
tamara
The information that will tell me what God is. What is the God you believe in? What specific qualities define your God?
|
|
tamara
Broken-in Plebe
Posts: 96
|
Post by tamara on Jan 7, 2004 12:25:11 GMT -5
Well, the thing about basic postulates... they can be elucidated, but they cannot be rigorously defined. Think of it this way: what is a point? You define it, and then, the challenger wants you to define the terms you used to define the point. And then, once again... infinite regress.
Basic postulates exist to stop infinite regress and to create a begining. This is not an absolute begining. It only works in relation to a particular system of thought.
When it comes to evidence, I like to keep things simple. So I think in terms of an active creative force.
All the other attributes do not impact the existence argument I am making, do they? Whether this force is good or evil, whether it is omniscient or limited, does not impact its existence. Mmm?
I think the attributes form the second layer of inquiry: if a person agrees that God may exist, then one begins to wonder what this God may be like. If that agreement is not there, there is no point going further, no?
|
|
tamara
Broken-in Plebe
Posts: 96
|
Post by tamara on Jan 10, 2004 12:23:41 GMT -5
In other words, Mav, you may well show me that my other beliefs about what God is like are incoherent or illogical or contradictory, but that would not impact God's existence per se. No?
|
|
zoul
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 35
|
Post by zoul on Jan 27, 2004 2:37:59 GMT -5
Theism, from the term theos (Greek for “god”), belief in one God who is personal and worthy of worship, who transcends the world but takes an active interest in it, and who reveals his purpose for human beings through certain individuals, miraculous events, or sacred writings. A theistic God is personal if he can be understood by analogies drawn from human experience and if human beings can enter into a personal relation with him and petition him in prayer. Such a God is considered worthy of worship because he is believed to be morally perfect and infinitely powerful. Broadly speaking, theism is the belief in any god or gods. However in its typical philosophical and theological usage, theism is a form of monotheism, the belief in only one God. In contrast to theism, pantheism is the view that God is identical with the world or is completely immanent, pervading everything that exists in the world. Deism is the belief that God created the world but then had no further connection with it. Theism should also be contrasted with atheism and agnosticism, both of which have several variations. In the broadest sense, positive atheism is a disbelief in all gods including the theistic God, whereas negative atheism is simply the absence of belief in any god. Negative atheism is compatible with agnosticism, the denial that a person can know either that God exists or does not exist. Some agnostics draw the conclusion that one should suspend one’s belief, a view known as agnostic atheism. Other agnostics choose to believe in a theistic God on the basis of faith, a view known as agnostic theism. Scope of Theism
Three of the major world religions—Christianity, Islam, and Judaism—are primarily theistic and today comprise about 3 billion followers. Theistic strands can also be found in Hinduism, although this religion usually interprets God in an impersonal and pantheistic way. Several other Eastern religions, including Theravada Buddhism and Jainism, reject the theistic idea of God as creator of the universe. Although it is uncertain if the ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius believed in some kind of God, it is clear that a theistic God plays little, if any, role in Confucianism, the moral, social, and political practices associated with his name. The theistic religions of Christianity and Judaism, and to a lesser extent Islam, have greatly influenced the laws, morality, science, culture, and political institutions of the West. However, the rise of modern science and scientific Biblical criticism beginning in the 17th century has put theistic religions on the defensive. Theistic religions have been challenged to integrate a belief in miracles, divine purpose, and revelation with an increasing acceptance of a scientific worldview and with the acknowledgment of inconsistencies and errors revealed by Biblical scholarship. Faith and Reason In Western theistic religions, especially Christianity, faith is often contrasted with reason. The precise nature of this contrast varies from denomination to denomination and from theologian to theologian. In the 13th century, Italian theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas maintained that the truths of faith are compatible with and supplement the truths of reason. He held that while one can prove the existence of God by reason, doctrines such as the Trinity (the doctrine that God exists as three persons united in one being) must be accepted on faith. Aquinas also argued that since the doctrine of the Trinity is derived from the Bible, and because there is good reason to believe the Bible was divinely inspired, such acceptance is reasonable. On the other hand, 19th-century Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard argued that it is inappropriate to base belief in God on reason. Instead Kierkegaard emphasized the necessity of irrational leaps of faith. He claimed that religious belief is a passionate and unconditional commitment to God that not only transcends reason and evidence but also stands in direct conflict with it. Arguments for Theism Despite Kierkegaard’s skepticism about the value of reason in supporting belief in God, many philosophers have attempted to demonstrate the existence of God by rational argument. The Ontological Argument One of the most important attempts to demonstrate the existence of God is the ontological argument of Saint Anselm, an 11th-century theologian. Anselm’s argument maintains that God, defined as the greatest being that can be conceived, must exist, since a being that does not exist would by virtue of that fact lack an attribute that contributes to its greatness. Critics have questioned, however, whether existence actually contributes to a being’s greatness. The Cosmological Argument Another important attempt to provide a rational justification for the existence of God is the cosmological argument, also called the argument from first cause. This justification was expounded by Aquinas and 18th-century English philosopher Samuel Clarke, among others. One important version of this argument contends that to explain the existence of the contingent universe it is essential to postulate a necessary being, a being whose existence is not contingent on anything else. This necessary being is God. Critics have argued that the existence of the universe might be a brute fact—a fact without any explanation. They assert that proving the existence of a necessary being is not the same as proving the existence of God. A necessary being might lack some of the properties considered essential to God, such as being all good. In a version of the cosmological argument found in contemporary scientific cosmology, God is postulated as the explanation for the big bang, the theory that a gigantic explosion created the material universe. Although contemporary theists, such as American philosopher William Lane Craig, maintain that a first cause is necessary to explain the big bang, critics contend that recent scientific theories indicate that the universe could have arisen spontaneously. The Teleological Argument According to the teleological argument for the existence of God—also known as the argument from design—the universe is analogous to a machine. The best known exponent of this view is 18th-century theologian William Paley. According to this theory, because machines are created by intelligent beings, and because the universe may be thought of as a single, highly complex machine, it is likely that the universe was created by a great intelligence, understood to be God. The classic critique of this argument, presented by 18th-century Scottish philosopher David Hume, maintains that the analogy to a machine is weak and that other analogies are just as strong. For instance, the universe may be thought of as a living organism, in which case the universe would have been created by reproduction rather than by design. The Moral Argument The moral argument for the existence of God was developed by 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant maintained that the highest good includes moral virtue, with happiness as the appropriate reward for this virtue. He held it is humanity’s duty to seek this highest good and that it must therefore be possible to realize it. Furthermore, Kant claimed that this highest good cannot be realized unless there is “a supreme cause of nature,” one that has the power to bring about harmony between happiness and virtue. Such a cause could only be God. Critics of the moral argument counter that it is by no means clear that the highest good is what Kant supposed. Pascal’s Wager
Another well known argument for the existence of God purports to show that even if God’s existence cannot be known through reason, it is still practically advantageous to believe in God. Thus, 17th-century French philosopher Blaise Pascal held that belief in God is a better wager than nonbelief because there are infinite rewards to gain and little to lose by believing versus infinite rewards to lose and little to gain by not believing. Critics have argued that God might reserve a special place in Hell for people who believe in him on the basis of Pascal’s wager. Problems for Theism Two significant problems that arise in connection with theism are the existence of evil and the apparent inconsistencies in the concept of God. The existence of seemingly gratuitous evil makes the existence of a theistic God unlikely, critics reason, because if God were all powerful he could eliminate evil, and if he were all good, he would want to do so. Critics of theism have also charged there are inconsistencies in God’s attributes. For example, if God were all good he could not sin, but if he were all powerful he could. Other paradoxes connected with God’s alleged omnipotence may be generated by posing questions such as whether God is powerful enough to create a stone so heavy he could not lift it. Of the many contemporary philosophical defenders of theism, two of the best known are British philosopher Richard Swinburne and American philosopher Alvin Plantinga. Using induction, Swinburne defends versions of the cosmological and teleological arguments by attempting to demonstrate that God’s existence, if not necessary, is probable. He also points to the seemingly genuine nature of religious experience. Plantinga defends some versions of the ontological argument and what is known as reformed epistemology (theory of knowledge). Reformed epistemology earned its name because its proponents were sympathetic with certain ideas of the Protestant (reformed) tradition associated with 16th-century French theologian John Calvin. According to reformed epistemology, religious beliefs are basic and therefore do not need to be supported by arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Jan 27, 2004 19:28:09 GMT -5
zoul? Is that last post your work? If not, can we have a reference please? Thank you.
|
|
zoul
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 35
|
Post by zoul on Jan 29, 2004 20:28:43 GMT -5
indeed it is yaw with a little help from a freind (not a god) and a lot of editing+ the old reasearch. Sorry it's so long.
|
|