What are the FACTS that support your religion? (reject, Creator)

[CincyJim]

Not opinion, just verifiable facts.

[Storm]

Cogito ergo sum.

[Bathsheba]

Originally Posted by Storm

Cogito ergo sum.

The OP does ask for verifiable facts ya know.

[Fluffy]

P1 Everything requires a cause
P2 God is something
C God requires a cause
P3 The universe is everything that is existent
P4 Something must have existed prior to God in order to cause it
C God cannot be the creator of the universe

Originally Posted by Storm

Cogito ergo sum.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

In the Objections, Mersenne takes the view that the Cogito is not properly basic by arguing that one must “know what thought or thinking is, and what your existence is” before being able to make sense of the Cogito.
Firstly, Descartes argues that he is justified in assuming these concepts since they can be known without being demonstrated. However, it is not clear why this kind of belief is immune from deception merely because it has no need of demonstration. Imagine a person who has been denied all experience. It seems like this person could not have any knowledge of concepts since there would be nothing to cause the person to have such knowledge. Thus it can be inferred that Descartes has attained his knowledge of concepts from his experience of the world and, in fact, he does accept that “Whatever I have up till now accepted as most true I have acquired either from the senses or through the senses”.

Descartes has accepted that his perception of the world might be distorted by the evil daemon. If it is also true that Descartes knowledge of concepts are derived from the world then it must follow that it is possible for the evil daemon to dictate which concepts Descartes has access to. Therefore it is possible that the concepts that are necessary for the Cogito to hold have been derived from a world that only feeds us incoherent concepts. If these concepts are incoherent then the Cogito itself must also be incoherent. It is therefore not making a meaningful assertion and so cannot be known with certainty.

The obvious objection to this is that our concepts of ‘existence’ and ‘thought’ don’t appear to be incoherent. However, we are only able to make this judgement by measuring them according to how reality is apparent to us. But, we have already agreed that how reality is apparent to us is not necessarily how it really is and thus an incoherent concept may appear coherent and we would be unable to tell the difference.

Secondly, Descartes argues any person would have sufficient understanding of these concepts in order to justify the Cogito. However, this appears to contradict Descartes own prerequisite that it is necessary to throw out all of his previous beliefs before reaching it is possible to attain certain ones. If a person does have sufficient understanding then they should not infer anything from this understanding in case the evil daemon has deceived them so that what they thought they understood is actually a false understanding. Merely because any person would understand “existence” is not sufficient to justify that person holding on to his understanding with certainty.

Lastly, no matter which way Descartes puts it, it seems he has to admit that the Cogito is not actually a basic belief since it is in some way dependent on his beliefs about concepts. That would not necessarily be a problem if those beliefs were themselves properly basic but I have already shown why Descartes own sceptical arguments can be used to doubt them.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

I will introduce an argument in the style of Descartes’ other sceptical arguments but which shows that incorrigible beliefs are simply incoherent. Many times in the past, I have been introduced to a brilliant piece of reasoning and become convinced of its truth. This is not mere conviction for I have not only become convinced that the reasoning is valid but also that I am warranted in holding it to be so. However, later on I am presented with further reasoning which causes me to question whether I really am warranted in this way. If it is at least possible that an argument can appear to me to be incorrigible and that future reasoning can be introduced to make the opposite apparent then how can I be warranted in believing any belief to be incorrigible?
I’ll call this argument the argument from previous error:
P1 In the past I have held that an argument is sound and then later been shown that I was in error
P2 I hold that argument X is sound
C It is possible that in the future I will be shown that I am wrong to hold that argument X is sound

The Cogito can itself be used to illustrate the argument from previous error. Descartes argued that he could not find reason to doubt “I am, I exist”. However, it appears that the pronoun “I” has been added into the premise in order for it to carry through into the conclusion. Unless we take “I” to be logically equivalent to “thoughts” then Descartes reasoning neglects to justify the inclusion of it in the premise. Lichtenberg, argues that “cogito” should be translated as “it thinks” instead. However, it is not sufficient to argue, as Russell has, that this is all that Descartes intended for Descartes claims “I” is “a thing that thinks”.

Therefore, although it might be possible to attain a modern reformulation of the Cogito that is more coherent, it is clear that Descartes’ own version is not certain. Yet it is also the case that Descartes believed the Cogito to be certain. Descartes was therefore wrong in assigning certainty to the Cogito.

An objection to this might be that Descartes was still warranted in believing the Cogito to be certain even though he turned out to be wrong. However, this leads to the conclusion that foundationalism simply doesn’t defeat the sceptic since it then appears possible to hold a belief to be certain yet still retain a possibility of being incorrect in doing so. Descartes specifically rejects “knowing that we know” as impossible but this argument demonstrates that if foundationalism lacks this aspect then the sceptic is not defeated.

Another objection might be that Descartes is right about the Cogito and the later objections to the use of “I” are wrong. However, it is irrelevant whether or not Descartes is actually wrong in this argument just as it is irrelevant whether Descartes is actually dreaming. It is sufficient to accept the possibility that Descartes has mistakenly assigned incorrigibility to the doubtable and that this possibility is apparent from his inability to know that he knows.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Bathsheba

The OP does ask for verifiable facts ya know.

Oh,

[Bathsheba]

Originally Posted by Storm

Oh,

If I could prove my existence I would vouch for ya ... I think.

[Quagmire]

My religion is based on the sacred writings of St. Anchovie of Pesto, a medieval Pastafarian monk who received a vision from Ja during the Great Oregano Famine of the year 420.

No reputable scholar has even attempted to refute any of this.

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

P1 Everything requires a cause
P2 God is something
C God requires a cause
P3 The universe is everything that is existent
P4 Something must have existed prior to God in order to cause it
C God cannot be the creator of the universe

I see two faults in this:

P1 is not evident.
Your final conclusion doesn't follow from your postulates. God could have been created by something else prior to creating the Universe.

I don't comprehend how something defined as infinite can be caused. How does that work?

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by Nick

Your final conclusion doesn't follow from your postulates. God could have been created by something else prior to creating the Universe.

That violates the definition of the universe given in P3. I am very happy to say that God merely created some things in the universe and was in turn created by other things in this universe. I only wish to argue that God is not the first cause.

Originally Posted by Nick

P1 is not evident.

I can see two alternatives:
Nothing requires a cause
Some things require a cause and some things do not

Assumedly you are arguing for the second alternative with the idea of placing God into the category of things that are uncaused. Which you then do:

Originally Posted by Nick

I don't comprehend how something defined as infinite can be caused. How does that work?

In which case, what does it mean to define a being as infinite?