Is There A God?

[crowTrobot 2]

the problem with these sorts of arguments--and descartes made a similar one--is that they have to conflate conception (and not in the doin' it sense, obv) with existence in some manner or another in order to work.

the problem with these sorts of arguments is that they don't incorporate data

[crowTrobot 2]

I dont like the argument. But we went over it in class and no one shared my objections

hopefully your class will study how kant and others trashed it

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

hopefully your class will study how kant and others trashed it

probably not, the professor seemed to like it. i need to find kants rebuttal on my own.

[vbnautilus 48]

Funny how it seems to always be younger people who are so sure about these things.

Why, are you old and unsure?

Using simple logic it would make sense the Creator of the world would in fact want to explain things, and do it a simple form that allows for easy understanding.

If he wants to stop by and make a simple post explaining this to us, I'm sure he won't be banned. But if all he can do is leave an old book written in ancient hebrew that contradicts the rest of the evidence he left for us about our origins, he might want to reconsider what simple is; since he has lost some of his smartest children.

Since you guys are baseing your decision to reject it on the collective knowledge of mankinds limited perspective, I find that:

But you are basing your decision to accept it based on mankind's limited perspective. Why is that any better?

[Swift_Psycho 1]

probably not, the professor seemed to like it.

Seriously? By any chance do you go to a christian school?

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

Seriously? By any chance do you go to a christian school?

Jesuit.

[checkymcfold 0]

i wouldn't be that quick to bash ontology, guys--it pretty much gave rise to anything we'd call phenomenology today, which is, like, totally, all the rage. :)levinas, for instance, couldn't think the way he did without descartes. and levinas is really, really great, imo.while most philosophical arguments have logical flaws, it's important to note that those flaws don't render them useless. with descartes, for instance, the problem of relating to oneself as a thinking thing is pretty much THE existential question of all of existence, and he pretty much brought it front and center from his time until ours. and tbh, i don't know that contemporary philosophers are any different in their manner of approaching it--we know that we think, but what can we gather from that? sure, i don't really agree with descartes' conclusions from that starting point, but i don't agree with sartre's or heidegger's either, and that fact doesn't mean that i think any of them stupid.

[crowTrobot 2]

i wouldn't be that quick to bash ontology, guys--it pretty much gave rise to anything we'd call phenomenology today, which is, like, totally, all the rage.

i'm assuming when a prof at a jesuit school says he likes anselm it's because he thinks it's a valid proof god exists, not because ontology gave rise to phenomenology

[Spademan 94]

Spinoza to Albert Burgh: That, which I could scarcely believe when told me by others, I learnat last from your own letter; not only have you been made a member of theRoman Church, but you are become a very keen champion of the same, andhave already learned wantonly to insult and rail against your opponents. At first I resolved to leave your letter unanswered, thinking that timeand experience will assuredly be of more avail than reasoning, to restoreyou to yourself and your friends; not to mention other arguments, whichwon your approval formerly, when we were discussing the case of Steno, inwhose steps you are now following. But some of my friends, who likemyself had formed great hopes from your superior talents, strenuously urgeme not to fail in the offices of a friend, but to consider what you latelywere, rather than what you are, with other arguments of the like nature. Ihave thus been induced to write you this short reply, which I earnestly begyou will think worthy of calm perusal. I will not imitate those adversaries of Romanism, who would set forth thevices of priests and popes with a view to kindling your aversion. Suchconsiderations are often put forward from evil and unworthy motives, andtend rather to irritate than to instruct. I will even admit, that moremen of learning and of blameless life are found in the Romish Church thanin any other Christian body; for, as it contains more members, so willevery type of character be more largely represented in it. You cannotpossibly deny, unless you have lost your memory as well as your reason,that in every CHurch there are thoroughly honorable men, who worship Godwith justice and charity. We have known many such among the Lutherans, theReformed Church, the Mennonites, and the Enthusiasts. Not to go further,you knew your own relations, who in the time of the Duke of Alva sufferedevery kind of torture bravely and willingly for the sake of theirreligion. In fact, you must admit, that personal holiness is not peculiarto the Romish Church, but common to all Churches. As it is by this, that we know "that we dwell in God and He in us" (1 Ep.John, iv. 13), it follows that what distinguishes the Romish Church fromothers must be something entirely superfluous, and therefore foundedsolely on superstition. For, as John says, justice and charity are the onesure sign of the true Catholic faith, and the true fruits of the HolySpirit. Wherever they are found, there in truth is Christ; wherever theyare absent, Christ is absent also. For only by the Spirit of Christ canwe be led to the love of justice and charity. Had you been willing toreflect on these points, you would not have ruined yourself, nor havebrought deep affliction on your relations, who are now sorrowfullybewailing your evil case. But I return to your letter, which you begin, by lamenting that Iallow myself to be ensnared by the prince of evil spirits. Pray takeheart, and recollect yourself. When you had the use of your faculties,you were wont, if I mistake not, to worship an Infinite God, by Whoseefficacy all things absolutely come to pass and are preserved; nowyou dream of a prince, God's enemy, who against God's will ensnaresand deceives very many men (rarely good ones, to be sure), whom Godthereupon hands over to this master of wickedness to be torturedeternally. The Divine justice therefore allows the devil to deceivemen and remain unpunished; but it by no means allows to remain unpunishedthe men, who have been by that self-same devil miserably deceivedand ensnared. These absurdities might so far be tolerated, if you worshipped a Godinfinite and eternal; not one whom Chastillon, in the town which theDutch call Tienen, gave with impunity to horses to be eaten. And, poorwretch, you bewail me? My philosophy, which you never beheld, you stylea chimera> O youth deprived of understanding, who has betwitched youinto believing, that the Supreme and Eternal is eaten by you, and heldin your intestines? Yet you seem to wish to employ reason, and ask me, "How I know that myphilosophy is the best among all that have ever been taught in the world,or are being taught, or ever will be taught?" a question which I mightwith much greater right ask you; for I do not presume that I havefound the best philosophy, I know that I understand the true philosophy.If you ask in what way I know it, I answer: In the same way as you knowthat the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles: thatthis is sufficient, will be denied by no one whose brain is sound, and whodoes not go dreaming of evil spirits inspiring us with false ideas likethe true. For the truth is the index of itself and of what is false. But you, who presume that you have at last found the best religion,or rather the best men, on whom you have pinned your credulity, you, "whoknow that they are the best among all who have taught, do now teach, orshall in future teach other religions. Have you examined all religions,ancient as well as modern, taught here and in India and everywherethrought the world? And, if you have duly examined them, how do you knowthat you have chosen the best", since you can give no reason for the faiththat is in you? But you will say, that you acquiesce in the inwardtestimony of the Spirit of God, while the rest of mankind are ensnaredand deceived by the prince of evil spirits. But all those outside the paleof the Romish Church can with equal right proclaim of their own creedwhat you proclaim of yours. As to what you add of the common consent of myriads of men and theuninterrupted ecclesiastical succession, this is the very catch-wordof the Pharisees. They with no less confidence than the devotees ofRome bring forward their myriad witnesses, who as pertinaciously asthe Roman witnesses repeat what they have heard, as though it weretheir personal experience. Further, they carry back their line toAdam. They boast with equal arrogance, that their Church has continuedto this day unmoved and unimpaired in spite of the hatred of Christiansand heathen. They more than any other sect are supported by antiquity.They exclaim with one voice, that they have received their traditionsfrom God Himself, and that they alone preserve the Word of God bothwritten and unwritten. That all heresies have issued from them, andthat they have remained constant through thousands of years under noconstraint of temporal dominion, but by the sole efficacy of theirsuperstition, no one can deny. The miracles they tell of would tire athousand tongues. But their chief boast is, that they count a far greaternumber of martyrs than any other nation, a number which is dailyincreased by those who suffer with singular constancy for the faiththey profess; nor is their boasting false. I myself knew among othersa certain Judah called the faithful, who in the midst of the flames,when he was already thought to be dead, lifted his voice to sing thehymn beginning "To Thee, O God, I offer up my soul," and so singingperished. The organization of the Roman CHurch, which you so greatly praise, Iconfess to be politic, and to many lucrative. I should believe thatthere was no other more convenient for deceiving the people andkeeping men's minds in check, if it were not for the organization ofthe Mahometan Church, which far surpasses it. For from the time whenthis superstition arose, there has been no schism in its church. If, therefore, you had rightly judged, you would have seen that onlyyour third point tells in favor of the Christians, namely, thatunlearned and common men should have been able to convert nearly the wholeworld to a belief in Christ. But this reason militates not only for theRomish Church, but for all those who profess the name of Christ. But assume that all the reasons you bring forward tell in favor solelyof the Romish Church. Do you think that you can thereby provemathematically the authority of that Church? As the case is farotherwise, why do you wish me to believe that my demonstrations areinspired by the prince of evil spirits, while your own are inspiredby God, especially as I see, and as your letter clearly shows, thatyou have been led to become a devotee of this Church not by your loveof God, but by your fear of hell, the single cause of superstition?Is this your humility, that you trust nothing to yourself, but everything toothers, who are condemned by many of their fellow men? Do you setit down to pride and arrogance, that I employ reason and acquiesce inthis true Word of God, which is in the mind and can never be depravedor corrupted? Cast away this deadly superstition, acknowledge the reasonwhich God has given you, and follow that, unless you would be numberedwith the brutes. Cease, I say, to call ridiculous errors mysteries,and do not basely confound those things which are unknown to us, orhave not yet been discovered, with what is proved to be absurd, likethe horrible secrets of this Church of yours, which, in proportion asthey are repugnant to right reason, you believe to transcend theunderstanding. But the fundamental principle of the "Tractatus Theologico-Politicus,"that Scripture should only be expounded through Scripture, which you sowantonly without any reason proclaim to be false, it is not merelyassumed, but categorically proved to be true or sound; especially inchapter vii., where also the opinions of adversaries are confuted; seealso what is proved at the end of chapter xv. If you will reflect onthese things, and also examine the history of the Church (of which I seeyou are completely ignorant), in order to see how false, in many respects,is Papal tradition, and by what course of events and with what cunningthe Pope of Rome six hundred years after Christ obtained supremacy overthe Church, I do not doubt that you will eventually return to your senses.That this result may come to pass I, for your sake, heartily wish.Farewell, &c.

[Balloon guy 158]

i hope i do. my understanding of what "good" is has changed in lots of ways since i've been alive, and my transcendent or whatever idea of the good is quite malleable.of course, it would also suck to find out that i'm condemning myself to hell by believing in the wrong god ;)i don't believe in universal statements--moral, metaphysical, or otherwise. that's why i'm a liberal. duh.you do realize that this sort of statement is profoundly ironic, right? it's dogmatism that assumes knowledge of the unknown, not the sort of humanistic relativism that i hold to.

Your original post I was referring too has you trying to explain how you have enough info to tell God He failed and therefore you are morally correct for rejecting Him.The logical fallacy is that by using God in your argument, you are admitting He exist, which means you don't hold a place of judgment over Him, and in fact if He chooses to not ever explain why He did what He did, you are still not relevant enough to speak to what you consider to be His shortcomings.Now if you want to say you disagree with the Bible, then you can all day. (same results, but logically not putting yourself into the position to be stuck having to deal with the pesky problem of being wrong once you stand before the Judgement of God)In other words, once you are facing God, everyone of your 'reasons' for denying Him becomes moot, and to pretend you are smart enough to challenge God just shows a lack of understanding of how wrong you would be.

[Balloon guy 158]

BG, can you explain how you picture a conversation with god going for an atheist that led a good life? I'm finding it pretty amusing* to imagine how you might think it would go.*aside from the amusement at the idea of there being a god that could and would talk to us

I actually am very much glad that I am not responsible to decide who goes to heaven and hell. But God is perfect, therefore His decisions will be perfect.God's main dude: Well, you're here now, I guess you realize how stupid you were for doubting Him.Atheist: OopsDude: Well, here's the list of the 234,642 times that you had a chance to read the Bible and find out for yourself that God was trying to give you every opportunity to recieve the gift of eternal salvation for free with no restrictions but to accept it.Atheist: But I have all these really good books by smart people that said He was contridicting Himself in the Bible.Dude: Yea, it went really bad for them already.Atheist: But I can explain a logical reason why I don't believe in God.Dude: You really want to explain that to Him ... now?Atheist: But they are really good.Dude: How about you just get in the line over there. There are lots of people that also want to tell God why they are smarter than Him.Atheist: What about the people that never heard about the Bible?Dude: He got that figured out, but you wouldn't understand because you have a pee sized brain and only have had 80 years to contemplate what He has known for eternity. Plus when He was laying down the foundation of the world, He had a plan for everyone. Just because you don't understand this means nothing. He never demanded you know everything, just trust that He did and accept His plan as the best one. You didn't, you get to deal with the consequenses.Atheist: That's Pascal's wager, that was disproved with logic that I accepted.Dude: Your logic was flawed, the fact you are here proves it. But I get a kick everytime sometimes tries to use the" Pascal's Wager is false" line. I'll tell Pascal you mentioned it, he gets a kick out of that.Atheist: Don't I even get to challenge God.Dude: Sorry, you already exhausted your chance to use your intellect, you failed when you decided that knowing about 1/1000th of what there is to know gave you enough data to place your intellect on an equal plane with God. Besides, you pretty much don't really get what being in God's Presense means, that just shows you how lame you're thinking was. You get kind of overwhelmed being in front of Him. But you won't have to worry about that will you? Next!

[Spademan 94]

BG: I got 'em for you god!God: ...BG: YEEEHAAA!God: ...Loismustdie: YAAAAHOOOOOO!!!!God: ...Allah: ...Zeus: ... Spademan: Fucking dorks.

[timwakefield 68]

Atheist: ...Christian: ...

[Spademan 94]

Atheist: ...Christian: ...

Monkey: Ohh ohh, AHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!Goat: bbbb bb bbb aaaaaaa!Loismustdie: GAWD YOU MADE DEM ANIMALS!!!!!!!Zeus: ...Donkey: EEHHAAAWW!!BG: AIN'T NO MUNKY TURNED INTO NO MAN!Monkey: ...God: ...Spademan: Assholes.

[Swift_Psycho 1]

I actually am very much glad that I am not responsible to decide who goes to heaven and hell. But God is perfect, therefore His decisions will be perfect.God's main dude: Well, you're here now, I guess you realize how stupid you were for doubting Him.Atheist: OopsDude: Well, here's the list of the 234,642 times that you had a chance to read the Bible and find out for yourself that God was trying to give you every opportunity to recieve the gift of eternal salvation for free with no restrictions but to accept it.Atheist: But I have all these really good books by smart people that said He was contridicting Himself in the Bible.Dude: Yea, it went really bad for them already.Atheist: But I can explain a logical reason why I don't believe in God.Dude: You really want to explain that to Him ... now?Atheist: But they are really good.Dude: How about you just get in the line over there. There are lots of people that also want to tell God why they are smarter than Him.Atheist: What about the people that never heard about the Bible?Dude: He got that figured out, but you wouldn't understand because you have a pee sized brain and only have had 80 years to contemplate what He has known for eternity. Plus when He was laying down the foundation of the world, He had a plan for everyone. Just because you don't understand this means nothing. He never demanded you know everything, just trust that He did and accept His plan as the best one. You didn't, you get to deal with the consequenses.Atheist: That's Pascal's wager, that was disproved with logic that I accepted.Dude: Your logic was flawed, the fact you are here proves it. But I get a kick everytime sometimes tries to use the" Pascal's Wager is false" line. I'll tell Pascal you mentioned it, he gets a kick out of that.Atheist: Don't I even get to challenge God.Dude: Sorry, you already exhausted your chance to use your intellect, you failed when you decided that knowing about 1/1000th of what there is to know gave you enough data to place your intellect on an equal plane with God. Besides, you pretty much don't really get what being in God's Presense means, that just shows you how lame you're thinking was. You get kind of overwhelmed being in front of Him. But you won't have to worry about that will you? Next!

Well this doesn't help. Now I don't know if you were just telling a joke or if you were genuinely trying to answer speedz's question.

[speedz99 145]

The logical fallacy is that by using God in your argument, you are admitting He exist,

You've been around here long enough to know that this doesn't count, since we're using god as a hypothetical.

Dude: Your logic was flawed, the fact you are here proves it.

I knew my non-call of an all-in with 9 high was the wrong choice...I mean, it turns out my opponent had an 8 high. DAMMIT!

Dude: Sorry, you already exhausted your chance to use your intellect

lol

Atheist: ...Christian: ...

:applause:I mean, I hope you're wrong, but your execution of this joke/theory was flawless. FLAWLESS!

[crowTrobot 2]

Dirt That Used To Be Buddha: .....

[Spademan 94]

Dirt That Used To Be Buddha: .....

What does USED TO HAVE TO DO WITH IT?Dirt that is Buddha: ...Spademan: Shitstick.