Do Theistic Arguments Hold to a Lower Standard?

Storm said:

I didn't think that was the topic of this debate. Perhaps I was wrong, and Sunstone can clarify for me.

Click to expand...

the relevance of the book "The God Delusion" being the standard of measurement in various fields which was a point made by Adams in the video clip. But yeah that would have the probability to lead this discussion off into the weeds. Book would be good supplementary reading on one's own as a tangent to the ideas expressed by Adams.

fantôme profane;1182541 said:

I was going to say something about personal experience/revelation being the only argument that cannot be logically refuted. But if you will forgive me for getting our threads twisted I would have to say that I find personal accounts of “God” no more convincing then personal accounts of “Ghosts”.

Click to expand...

Oh, I don't think they should be considered proof of anything. But I do think that the fact that it's so widespread in this age of science counts for something. Not much, but something.

Basically, anecdotal evidence ain't worth a hill of beans, but if enough of it piles up, you should look into it.

And as for Pantheism, I am a Pantheist. But that becomes a matter of semantics.

Click to expand...

Howso?

robtex said:

the relevance of the book "The God Delusion" being the standard of measurement in various fields which was a point made by Adams in the video clip. But yeah that would have the probability to lead this discussion off into the weeds. Book would be good supplementary reading on one's own as a tangent to the ideas expressed by Adams.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I've tried to read Dawkins. I've tried to give him the benefit of the doubt. But I jsut can't respect him. Every argument I've heard him make was a strawman, and he boasts about his ignorance of the very field he's arguing.

Storm said:

That doesn't address more modern concepts of God, like pantheism. And we still have people having personal experiences which they attribute to God.

Click to expand...

Is a pantheistic God immune to detection by empirical means? I will have to go to yall's personal experience debate thread but in a nutshell personal experiences = personal emotional desires manifested into a created belief.

Storm said:

I'll put the same question to you that I did fantome profane: Can naot the same be said of any philosophical argument when its premises are challenged? Physical evidence means very little in philosophy.

Click to expand...

I would submit that philosophy isn't needed to prove physical existence instead of the other way around. It is the wrong tool for the job. Philosophy is a great tool for assessing the mental and structured substances of ideas. For instance say God was physically found, assessing if he/she/it was truly good or benevolent and to what degree would be a good use of philosophy.

Proving the physical existence of something is better handled by science with empirical evidence as a standard.

Does God exist is a poor philosophical question. It is currently being manufactured into one by theologians with an agenda of positively assessing the validity of God and knowing they cannot accomplish it in the more academically accepted norm for assessing existence; science. The buzz words being ontological arguement, cosmological arguement, teleological arguement, ID, Tap ect. The underlying idea that connects all of them is that they don't produce evidence for God. The create models and ideas on why God exists in the absence of empirical evidence.

Philosophy is for concepts and ideas not physical entities. However, if we were having this debate say 100 years ago or more that would have been different because the tools of science were not sharp enough yet to know what was in the galaxy or how dna is used to create life ect.

robtex said:

Is a pantheistic God immune to detection by empirical means?

Click to expand...

Not at all. Take a breath, you're breathing GOd. You're standing on God. You are God.

I will have to go to yall's personal experience debate thread but in a nutshell personal experiences = personal emotional desires manifested into a created belief.

Click to expand...

I look forward to discussing it with you in a more appropriate place. FOr here and now, suffice to say I disagree.

I would submit that philosophy isn't needed to prove physical existence instead of the other way around. It is the wrong tool for the job. Philosophy is a great tool for assessing the mental and structured substances of ideas. For instance say God was physically found, assessing if he/she/it was truly good or benevolent and to what degree would be a good use of philosophy.

Click to expand...

What if God doesn't have a physical form? What if GOd's physical form is the cosmos itself?

Proving the physical existence of something is better handled by science with empirical evidence as a standard.

Click to expand...

Uncontested.

Does God exist is a poor philosophical question. It is currently being manufactured into one by theologians with an agenda of positively assessing the validity of God and knowing they cannot accomplish it in the more academically accepted norm for assessing existence; science. The buzz words being ontological arguement, cosmological arguement, teleological arguement, ID, Tap ect. The underlying idea that connects all of them is that they don't produce evidence for God. The create models and ideas on why God exists in the absence of empirical evidence.

Click to expand...

The problem is that science cannot address the question of God.

Using the classical Abrahamic God, it exists outside of our reality, whatever that means. Even if He does have a physical form, which is not popular belief, it's beyond our ability to detect.

Look, I'm not saying that the arguments for God are unassailable. They're not. And when theology intrudes upon the territory of science (such as YEC), it gets rightly spanked. But the reverse is true as well. The arguments against God aren't unassailable, either. Most I've hear are, in fact, strawmen based upon superficial understandings of theology. And when science intrudes on the territory of theology, it finds itself helpless.

Philosophy is for concepts and ideas not physical entities. However, if we were having this debate say 100 years ago or more that would have been different because the tools of science were not sharp enough yet to know what was in the galaxy or how dna is used to create life ect.

Click to expand...

God is a concept.

How is that relevant to this topic

Click to expand...

Read the OP.

or to anything at all?

Click to expand...

Funny how in the end , he was in the " house of God". LOL
Why have his service in "Gods house" , if there is no God?

Richard Dawkins himself gave the eulogy

Click to expand...

So

robtex said:

I will have to go to yall's personal experience debate thread but in a nutshell personal experiences = personal emotional desires manifested into a created belief.

Click to expand...

Storm said:

I look forward to discussing it with you in a more appropriate place. FOr here and now, suffice to say I disagree.

Click to expand...

I went ahead and moved this part of the conversation to my Personal Experience thread. I hope you'll join me there.

Storm said:

Dawkins may be a brilliant biologist, but he's a **** poor theologian.

Click to expand...

Except he's not a theologian. He's a superb atheist and freethinker.

"Not at all. Take a breath, you're breathing GOd. You're standing on God. You are God."

The old "god is nature" routine, sorry, not biting.

Willamena said:

:areyoucra Are you suggesting that if you thought God --a real God, "the" real God --was making flashes in the sky, you would rather watch idols?

Click to expand...

hehe. To clarify are we talking about a results show, down to the final two or just the start of the season?

crystalonyx said:

Except he's not a theologian. He's a superb atheist and freethinker.

Click to expand...

When he starts attacking theology, he acts as a theologian, and a crappy one. He's not even a superb "atheist and freethinker", just a popular one.

crystalonyx said:

"Not at all. Take a breath, you're breathing GOd. You're standing on God. You are God."

The old "god is nature" routine, sorry, not biting.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's what pantheism IS. I'm not trying to convert anyone, but my comment was a perfectly valid answer in context. Perhaps you should reread.

rocka21 said:

Funny how in the end , he was in the " house of God". LOL
Why have his service in "Gods house" , if there is no God?

Click to expand...

Actually, in the end he was in Santa Barbara, which will make you wonder, I suppose, whether he was deep down a pious virgin shut up in a tower by her pagan father. The actual funeral was held in Santa Barbara, and neither the funeral nor the memorial service in London was a Christian service.

These discussions disintegrate so quickly into what's wrong wrong with atheists, what's wrong with theists, and -- somehow -- what's wrong with Richard Dawkins, none of which relates to the OP:

Sunstone said:

Do you agree or disagree with Adams that arguments for God are less rigorous than arguments for propositions in other fields of study?

Click to expand...

Yes. Of course they are. Belief in a personal god is about as rational as believing in leprechauns, and the arguments put forth to convince people of the existence of a personal god are ludicrous without exception.

There are, to be sure, theists whose beliefs are more subtle and -- though still not supported by any objective evidence -- much less subject to ridicule. However, that is not the sort of theist who usually goes around making ridiculous arguments for the existence of god.

MidnightBlue said:

These discussions disintegrate so quickly into what's wrong wrong with atheists, what's wrong with theists, and -- somehow -- what's wrong with Richard Dawkins, none of which relates to the OP:

Click to expand...

I'll take the blame for that. Sorry, Dawkins just rubs me wrong.

Yes. Of course they are. Belief in a personal god is about as rational as believing in leprechauns, and the arguments put forth to convince people of the existence of a personal god are ludicrous without exception.

There are, to be sure, theists whose beliefs are more subtle and -- though still not supported by any objective evidence -- much less subject to ridicule. However, that is not the sort of theist who usually goes around making ridiculous arguments for the existence of god.

Click to expand...

Once again, I invite Phil to correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the topic was theological arguments entire, not limited to arguments trying to prove God's existence. That would include arguments for which God must be accepted as a premise. For instance predestination vs. free will.

I don't think these are held to a lower standard than any other philosophical arguments.

Storm said:

Once again, I invite Phil to correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the topic was theological arguments entire, not limited to arguments trying to prove God's existence. That would include arguments for which God must be accepted as a premise. For instance predestination vs. free will.

I don't think these are held to a lower standard than any other philosophical arguments.

Click to expand...

I suppose not, and I guess "given God, therefore _____" is a form of theological argument.

Some theological arguments do adhere to a lower standard, though. For example, consider these two concepts:

- the Eucharistic Host has the appearance and substance of bread, but it is the body of Christ.
- the Esquilax is a legendary horse with the head of a rabbit and the body of a rabbit.

One is accepted by many as unassailable truth, and one is considered a joke. I can't think of any logical argument beyond "God says so" that makes the first concept more valid than the second.

Also consider the following two statements:

- when you die, if you fulfil certain conditions, your soul will be transported to an unseen realm called "Heaven".
- when you die, if you fulfil certain conditions, your soul will be transported to a spaceship hiding behind a comet.

Why is it that the first statement is considered to be generally reasonable, but the second is considered to be ridiculous and not worth even considering? The only difference I can see between them is the number of adherents for each, not anything in the evidence or merits of the argument for either one.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

I suppose not, and I guess "given God, therefore _____" is a form of theological argument.

Some theological arguments do adhere to a lower standard, though. For example, consider these two concepts:

- the Eucharistic Host has the appearance and substance of bread, but it is the body of Christ.
- the Esquilax is a legendary horse with the head of a rabbit and the body of a rabbit.

One is accepted by many as unassailable truth, and one is considered a joke. I can't think of any logical argument beyond "God says so" that makes the first concept more valid than the second.

Also consider the following two statements:

- when you die, if you fulfil certain conditions, your soul will be transported to an unseen realm called "Heaven".
- when you die, if you fulfil certain conditions, your soul will be transported to a spaceship hiding behind a comet.

Why is it that the first statement is considered to be generally reasonable, but the second is considered to be ridiculous and not worth even considering? The only difference I can see between them is the number of adherents for each, not anything in the evidence or merits of the argument for either one.

Click to expand...

First off, let me say I see your point and largely agree with it.

However, the popular arguments you presented are, apart from their popularity, inextricably bound up with centuries worth of more sophisticated theology and mythology. In the case of the Eucharist, I think it pushes the limits of fairness to take it out of context.

OTOH, I freely admit (as I already have upthread) that some theological arguments are just crap. Which ones qualify is a purely subjective opinion, of course.

Storm said:

Once again, I invite Phil to correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the topic was theological arguments entire, not limited to arguments trying to prove God's existence.

Click to expand...

I don't see how you got that from the OP.

Well, I don't see how you got God's existence, either, so I gess we're even.

Phil! PHIL! Where are you - we need clarification! :sad4:

Storm said:

First off, let me say I see your point and largely agree with it.

However, the popular arguments you presented are, apart from their popularity, inextricably bound up with centuries worth of more sophisticated theology and mythology. In the case of the Eucharist, I think it pushes the limits of fairness to take it out of context.

Click to expand...

If the context is the Gospels, then other logical problems appear, such as the fact that they describe Christ putting much greater emphasis on ritual foot-washing than the Eucharist.

There are lots of concepts that are bound up in history, but we still defend or condemn them on their own merits. For example, take slavery: it was very much part and parcel of centuries of beliefs about the meaning of race and its effect on the status of people, and these centuries of beliefs may have made abolition difficult, but they did not form part of a rational argument against abolition.

Storm said:

OTOH, I freely admit (as I already have upthread) that some theological arguments are just crap. Which ones qualify is a purely subjective opinion, of course.

Click to expand...

Yes, I suppose, but many of the crappy arguments have a direct bearing on society. Imagine what the consequences would be if these arguments were evaluated on their merits:

- the necessity of infant baptism: a good, just, and merciful God may torture your baby for eternity unless you splash water on him in a particular way.

- Sola scriptura: it is our doctrine that no doctrine is valid unless it comes from this book... even though it does not state that all doctrines must come from it.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

If the context is the Gospels, then other logical problems appear, such as the fact that they describe Christ putting much greater emphasis on ritual foot-washing than the Eucharist.

Click to expand...

No, the context I was referring to is the whole, centuries-long body of theology and mythology (because, imo the Eucharist having the substance of Christ is more mythology than theology, though they're linked) of Christian tradition. I just think it was a bad example, sorry. Note that I didn't have the same objection to your use of Heaven.

There are lots of concepts that are bound up in history, but we still defend or condemn them on their own merits. For example, take slavery: it was very much part and parcel of centuries of beliefs about the meaning of race and its effect on the status of people, and these centuries of beliefs may have made abolition difficult, but they did not form part of a rational argument against abolition.

Click to expand...

Touche.

Yes, I suppose, but many of the crappy arguments have a direct bearing on society.

Click to expand...

Sad but true. I still don't think that means they're held to a lesser standard, though. If we look at other fields, we have pseudosciences, pop psychology, revisionist history, and reality television, and the list goes on and on and on....

If you only look at the lowest common denominator, everybody's stupid.

Imagine what the consequences would be if these arguments were evaluated on their merits:

- the necessity of infant baptism: a good, just, and merciful God may torture your baby for eternity unless you splash water on him in a particular way.

- Sola scriptura: it is our doctrine that no doctrine is valid unless it comes from this book... even though it does not state that all doctrines must come from it.

Click to expand...

I could pull rebuttal examples form the fields I listed above, but it's just too depressing.

Storm said:

Sad but true. I still don't think that means they're held to a lesser standard, though. If we look at other fields, we have pseudosciences, pop psychology, revisionist history, and reality television, and the list goes on and on and on....

If you only look at the lowest common denominator, everybody's stupid.

Click to expand...

If you're looking at the rationality of claims of individual religious adherents, perhaps, but when a claim permeates a religion from top to bottom, it's hard to chalk it up to the lowest common denominator. Some claims that are made by the highest theological authorities in the land don't stand up to scrutiny, IMO... or at least the standard of scrutiny that we would give to similar non-religious claims.