• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Theism Doesn't Ultimately Explain Anything

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Why did there have to be a first cause?
Had to have something to justify belief in god

Do we know that?
Here you will run into the problem of dfining the word "know".
I am aquainted with many a person who claim to "know" certain falsehoods to be absolutely true.

And if there was a 'first cause' why is it a supernatural being?
Because... God

It just doesn't make sense.
I agree.
It is almost as though they (the ones who do so, not the entire population) are to lazy to think for themselves, so to get around it they stick with "GodDidIt".
Cause in their mind, they have answered the question and have no further need to dwell upon it.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Can I recommend that you read this ....
Why? This author's blind speculations mean no more than anyone else's; including those of the religious authors.

Without even reading it I can tell you what the big problem with his theory is going to be, and that is that he will have no possible way of explaining how or why the "rules" governing the way anything can and cannot behave are as they are. See, the problem is not just the sudden unexplained explosion of energy that becomes all that exists, it's those ways that the energy can and cannot behave, that defines existence, that is the real difficulty.

The real quandary is not that existence exists, it the WAY existence exists.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Hoo boy, did you get this all wrong.
Theism is the one thing (actually a collection of things)
that can explain anything & everything. That sets it
apart from science, which is an imperfect method for
describing just the material world.
Of course, there is a fundamental problem with these
nicht einmal falsch beliefs...the explanations are hokum.
But hey, answers are still answers.
To elaborate with a caution....
Explanations don't necessarily have explanatory power.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
This post has a wide scope, and because of that, it's going to be difficult to put it into some sort of cohesive structure, but I will try.

There are a lot of "ultimate questions" that humans have: why does something exist rather than nothing, why is the universe the way that it is, things of that nature. Now, I don't want to draw a caricature of theists and theism here, so let me couch my words carefully: some theists have a tendency to smugly tell us non-theists, "I have the answers, and you don't."

I'm just not convinced that this is the case: theism doesn't ultimately explain anything. Let me pick some example.

"Why does anything exist rather than nothing?"

Theistic responses range from something as naïve as "because God created the world" to something a little more exhaustive like "because God is ontologically necessary, and then God created the world."

But does this really explain anything at all? What's the difference between presupposing God is ontologically necessary and simply presupposing the cosmos is ontologically necessary (if one were inclined to do that)?

How about "does life have a purpose?"

Some theists may say that life's purpose is to serve God, or glorify God, or any number of these things. But we can always ask a microcosm of the question: "Well, why that?" No matter what's said, there will always be a microcosm.

And that applies to all of these other ultimate questions as well. Any answer that's given that purports to be an "ultimate explanation" will always have some microcosm that can be asked about it.

This happens over and over in each topic: God can't be the foundation of morality (Euthyphro's Dilemma), can't be the foundation of logic (aseity-sovereignty paradox), doesn't explain why existence exists any better than non-theistic concepts, doesn't ultimately explain anything. It seems that theism is just adding another step to the long strings of microcosms of questions.
I think the limitation of this approach is that it tends to miss what seems to me the point about the essential function of religion. Not that many people with a religious affiliation think of themselves as "theists". A "theist" is just a philosopher's classification.

The chief function of religion, surely is to provide people with a guide to help them live their lives. To take the example of Christianity, the main point about it is the attitude to life suggested by the teaching and example of Christ, as described in the gospels. These ideas (whether real or imagined) give people principles to help them cope with the love, loss, loneliness and good and bad fortune that is intrinsic to human existence. The expression of these ideas has given rise to art, ritual, community, tradition and systems of authority and guidance, all of which add to people's lives and provide a framework for them.

So I don't find it too surprising that a philosophically rigorous answer to your "ultimate questions" is absent.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Objective value to humans, can only be with God. It's impossible with polytheistic or atheistic model. I am going to make a thread about the vision argument and objective value in detail.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
Why? This author's blind speculations mean no more than anyone else's; including those of the religious authors.

Without even reading it I can tell you what the big problem with his theory is going to be, and that is that he will have no possible way of explaining how or why the "rules" governing the way anything can and cannot behave are as they are. See, the problem is not just the sudden unexplained explosion of energy that becomes all that exists, it's those ways that the energy can and cannot behave, that defines existence, that is the real difficulty.

The real quandary is not that existence exists, it the WAY existence exists.
But it is just as good an explanation for how the world might have started as the religious texts, at least Krauss bases his book on experiments and science.

"Without even reading it I can tell you what the big problem with his theory is going to be ..." wow ... amazing you are a seer!
Unfortunately for your fortune telling, he actually says nothing of the sort.
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
Why use many books when few books do trick?
YellowishWellinformedIndri-max-1mb.gif
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Your question about where God comes from could apply to the universe or anything before that, if we assume time.
There had to have been a first cause or we could not be at this point in time yet and we could not be adding to an already infinite number of cause effect events.
What is wrong with that? A first cause is not required at all. It is, for instance, very easy to imagine an infinite regress that unfolds in finite time.

So, let us analyze together the alleged necessity of a first cause, by submitting the claim to logical and rational inquiry

you can assume the deprecated Newtonian view of time and causality (the latter requiring the former) just for fun (Using the modern view would make it too easy to demolish any first cause argument)

so, i give you the advantage by assuming the old intuitive ontology. What have you got?

ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Objective value to humans, can only be with God. It's impossible with polytheistic or atheistic model. I am going to make a thread about the vision argument and objective value in detail.
To find the objective value of magic Turtle, the true invisible creator of the universe, is also impossible to people who do not believe in invisible universe creating turtles.

Ciao

- viole
 

1213

Well-Known Member
...
"Why does anything exist rather than nothing?"
...
How about "does life have a purpose?"
...

My answer to those would be love. Love is the reason and the ultimate purpose. But, perhaps everyone can choose own purpose. Can you imagine some better purpose? And if the reason is love, what would be your next question?
 

WalterTrull

Godfella
Ya know... there seems to be no consensus on the definition of God. It doesn't seem likely we can agree on the meaning of 'theism' either. I believe in a mental universe. That mentality I label 'God'. Is that 'theism'?
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
To find the objective value of magic Turtle, the true invisible creator of the universe, is also impossible to people who do not believe in invisible universe creating turtles.

Ciao

- viole

Objective value in general (including magic turtles) needs God, yes you got it.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
I think your title is a bit hyperbolic, perhaps Theism doesn't explain everything. More artfully, Theism doesn't explain God. Which is true. Theism does offer an explanation of us, as I'll explain further on. Whether you are atheist or theist, there will always be impenetrable mysteries.

It is hard to argue that anyone can give a full accounting of everything. I can't explain why, or even how, God exists. What theism offers is a "why do we exist". We exist because a loving creator God wanted multitudes to share in His love. Theism can't explain the ultimate motivation, or the source of the motivation beyond that, for why God desires as He does, why our purpose exists as our purpose, but it does offer us the information that is our purpose. To be perfect humans coexisting in love with each other and God.

Theism can't say why God set the metaphysical rules for existence the way He did, but it is the only potential source of a true objective morality I've ever seen offered. You need to have a sentient power influencing the metaphysics behind our reality for morality to be real. Again, theism doesn't explain God, it explains us via our relationship to God.

can't be the foundation of logic (aseity-sovereignty paradox)
What's the aseity-sovereignty paradox, I tried looking it up but didn't get anywhere.

It seems that theism is just adding another step to the long strings of microcosms of questions.
That sounds awfully close to "adding another level of knowledge from which we can look to find further knowledge".
 

JoshuaTree

Flowers are red?
This post has a wide scope, and because of that, it's going to be difficult to put it into some sort of cohesive structure, but I will try.

There are a lot of "ultimate questions" that humans have: why does something exist rather than nothing, why is the universe the way that it is, things of that nature. Now, I don't want to draw a caricature of theists and theism here, so let me couch my words carefully: some theists have a tendency to smugly tell us non-theists, "I have the answers, and you don't."

I'm just not convinced that this is the case: theism doesn't ultimately explain anything. Let me pick some example.

"Why does anything exist rather than nothing?"

Theistic responses range from something as naïve as "because God created the world" to something a little more exhaustive like "because God is ontologically necessary, and then God created the world."

But does this really explain anything at all? What's the difference between presupposing God is ontologically necessary and simply presupposing the cosmos is ontologically necessary (if one were inclined to do that)?

How about "does life have a purpose?"

Some theists may say that life's purpose is to serve God, or glorify God, or any number of these things. But we can always ask a microcosm of the question: "Well, why that?" No matter what's said, there will always be a microcosm.

And that applies to all of these other ultimate questions as well. Any answer that's given that purports to be an "ultimate explanation" will always have some microcosm that can be asked about it.

This happens over and over in each topic: God can't be the foundation of morality (Euthyphro's Dilemma), can't be the foundation of logic (aseity-sovereignty paradox), doesn't explain why existence exists any better than non-theistic concepts, doesn't ultimately explain anything. It seems that theism is just adding another step to the long strings of microcosms of questions.

If you were a figment of God's imagination you would be serving God whether you realize it or not, and you'd have no choice in the matter.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
I think your title is a bit hyperbolic, perhaps Theism doesn't explain everything.

It's meant to be provocative since I don't post a lot of debate threads. Too much? ^.^

More artfully, Theism doesn't explain God. Which is true. Theism does offer an explanation of us, as I'll explain further on. Whether you are atheist or theist, there will always be impenetrable mysteries.

This I agree with (about the mysteries). I was also poking fun at just a particular kind of theist (so, not all theists) that does try to lord over nontheists with smug claims about having ultimate answers we don't have access to.

It is hard to argue that anyone can give a full accounting of everything. I can't explain why, or even how, God exists. What theism offers is a "why do we exist". We exist because a loving creator God wanted multitudes to share in His love. Theism can't explain the ultimate motivation, or the source of the motivation beyond that, for why God desires as He does, why our purpose exists as our purpose, but it does offer us the information that is our purpose. To be perfect humans coexisting in love with each other and God.

Theism can't say why God set the metaphysical rules for existence the way He did, but it is the only potential source of a true objective morality I've ever seen offered. You need to have a sentient power influencing the metaphysics behind our reality for morality to be real. Again, theism doesn't explain God, it explains us via our relationship to God.

And you are certainly not the species of theist I was poking fun at in the OP, because these are all reasonable things to say. I don't have a problem with theists answering some of their questions with their theism.

What's the aseity-sovereignty paradox, I tried looking it up but didn't get anywhere.

The ASP is a response to arguments that God is somehow the foundation of logic by showing that this puts the cart before the horse.

It deserves a post's worth of explanation to get into all of its nuances, but a very short explanation could work for these purposes here.

People tend to have two intuitions about God: that God exists a se (is not relevantly dependent on anything else for existence) and has absolute sovereignty (power/control over all things). It's easy to show that neither of these intuitions is true. It's not damaging to theism really, but it does pre-empt theistic transcendental arguments about God somehow being the foundation for logic.

To do so we just ask, "Could God have chosen His own nature?" By nature, we mean some set of properties.

The answer has to be "no." In order to choose His own nature, God would already have to have a nature, namely the power to do so and the knowledge to do so (having power and having knowledge are properties, and part of a nature). So God could not have chosen His own nature, defeating the absolute sovereignty intuition.

But furthermore, this means God is relevantly dependent on something transcendental to God: that which makes God, God. That thing would be logical self-identity at least, limitation: in order for God to be God, God has to be God (A = A, as it's usually framed in Aristotlian terms). So claims that God is the foundation of logic puts the cart before the horse: in order to do that, logic already has to have been prior (and I don't mean temporally by "prior") to the ability to do that: in order to "be the foundation" for anything, God already has to be God.

So logic is transcendental to God rather than God creating/founding it.

Edit: not sure if you read a lot of theologians, but there's an excellent book entirely about the ASP called "Does God Have A Nature?" by Alvin Plantinga.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
It's meant to be provocative since I don't post a lot of debate threads. Too much? ^.^
It was certainly successful at its goal. No, it's not too much, I'm just a pedantic curmudgeon.

was also poking fun at just a particular kind of theist (so, not all theists) that does try to lord over nontheists with smug claims about having ultimate answers we don't have access to.
My apologies, I'll bow out, as my only smug claim to answers is how few I have.

And you are certainly not the species of theist I was poking fun at in the OP, because these are all reasonable things to say. I don't have a problem with theists answering some of their questions with their theism.
Well, I appreciate that.

deserves a post's worth of explanation to get into all of its nuances, but a very short explanation could work for these purposes here.
Thank you for that, I knew what aseity is, and I assumed sovereignty, but I couldn't find anything about what the paradox entailed on a google search. I have some initial questions and concerns, but I'll wait until I can give your recommended book a read and get a fuller picture.

Edit: not sure if you read a lot of theologians, but there's an excellent book entirely about the ASP called "Does God Have A Nature?" by Alvin Plantinga.
Thanks, I just put an order in.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Thanks, I just put an order in.

It's an excellent book. Plantinga (being a theologian) makes some conclusions at the very end that I don't agree with. But the entire rest of the book is fantastic and very thorough. In fact, it's probably due for a re-read on my part.

I used to have email correspondences with Plantinga (usually about his other book, God, Freedom & Evil, and otherwise about the PoE). He's a sharp guy.
 

Yazata

Active Member
There are a lot of "ultimate questions" that humans have: why does something exist rather than nothing, why is the universe the way that it is, things of that nature.

Whenever we ask "Why?" about any subject whatsoever, we will reach the boundaries of human knowledge in just a few iterations. That's always fascinated me and has motivated my lifelong interest in philosophy.

Now, I don't want to draw a caricature of theists and theism here, so let me couch my words carefully: some theists have a tendency to smugly tell us non-theists, "I have the answers, and you don't."

True. Of course atheists can often be guilty of the same sin, when they fall prey to scientism and to the belief that science will not only provide the deepest kind of answers, but also that those answers will be favorable to their atheism.

That is where I (an agnostic) most often part company with the atheists.

I'm just not convinced that this is the case: theism doesn't ultimately explain anything.

Let me pick some example.

"Why does anything exist rather than nothing?"

One might follow natural theology's traditional course and simply define 'God' as whatever the answer is to that question. If we do that, and if we accept the principle of sufficient reason, then it becomes trivial to concoct a logical proof for the existence of God.

Of course that doesn't provide us with a mechanism, an account of how God accomplished it, of how this hypothetical ultimate explanation that we have decided to call 'God' actually works. But not all 'scientific' answers are mechanistic. Physics often 'explains' things by citing various purported 'laws of nature', without trying to explain the nature and origin of those 'laws' or exactly how they exert their control over natural events. 'It's just how things are'.

Ultimately it's just as mysterious, and not a whole lot more enlightening, than theism's more traditional accounts. It's just the hypothesis that natural events fall into predictable patterns, it isn't an account of the nature and origin of those patterns.

But does this really explain anything at all?

It doesn't in any way that's deeply satisfying to me. But that being said, I don't want to use it to bash theists. Like I said, I don't think that atheists can do a whole lot better. The theistic accounts at least have the virtue of embedding events in narratives that give the events of life meaning (or the illusion of meaning). It embeds the events of life in a context that's far more emotionally evocative than the arid abstractions of applied mathematics.

In my opinion, the most intellectually defensible position to take is probably to admit that we don't have the answers to the deepest questions. What's more, I doubt if human beings ever will. (I can't know that of course, but it's my intuition.)

It's important to note that the various theistic traditions, Jewish, Christian, Islamic and very notably Hindu, all provide resources pointing to how an agnostic theism might be possible. Typically these are motivated by the felt need to preserve God's transcencence. But they do arguably provide good resources just the same for the more philosophically inclined theist.

Apophatic theology - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
There are a lot of "ultimate questions" that humans have: why does something exist rather than nothing, why is the universe the way that it is, things of that nature. Now, I don't want to draw a caricature of theists and theism here, so let me couch my words carefully: some theists have a tendency to smugly tell us non-theists, "I have the answers, and you don't."

as a theist, I am unable to help you

i have no answers about the universe or things of nature, except those that I learned in my science classes
 

alypius

Active Member
But does this really explain anything at all? What's the difference between presupposing God is ontologically necessary and simply presupposing the cosmos is ontologically necessary (if one were inclined to do that)?

What is the meaning of 'God is ontologically necessary' in this context?
 
Top