Specific Question For Not Ready and Others

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Notready is making a perfectly correct logical argument given his axioms. The issue here should really be, then, "is his axiom correct?"


[/ QUOTE ]

Very well said. There are two fundamental presuppositions for man. The God of the Bible exists or He doesn't. No one has yet shown how the universe or anthing in it can make sense if He doesn't exist. If God is presupposed, the universe then makes sense. Obviously this is way over simplified, but that's the gist of it.

The argument was derived by a 20th century theologian well versed in Kantian idealism. He adopted the form of the transcendental argument Kant used, which can be simply stated as "What are the prerequisites for human thought to be possible", and asked "What are the conditions for the universe to have meaning?".

He thought he had found a silver bullet for apologetics, a demonstrably perfect and certain argument. I don't go that far, but I think it's the best of the theistic proofs.

The major flaw is I can't prove the universe has meaning. But I can point out the consequences for human thought and life if it doesn't. So given the universe has meaning, this can only be true if the God of the Bible exists.

[philopker]

I think what Pascal was getting at, or at least a popular interpretation of what his argument amounts to, is that belief in God has as a reward (payoff) infinite bliss if God indeed exists. However, if God does not exist what you give up by believing falsely is only finite in nature, namely this earthly existence (and even then, what are you giving up really? Some would even say a life of faith is better than one without even is no god or afterlife exists). But if you believe falsely that God does not exist, then you give up your infinite reward, as I guess faith in God is required for that reward: God's apparently not such a great sport when it comes to these things. So the conclusion is you should believe in God because what you are wagering is only finite, well what you stand to gain is infinite.
So even if the probability of God actually existing to pay you off is vanishingly small (say 1 in a trillion), since you stand to gain infinitely, you should make the bet. The pot odds, so to speak, dictate that you do so.
If this sounds fishy to some people, it is. Some of the objections raised earlier in this thread will do well enough to dispense with the argument.
By the way, how many people do you think believe in God based on reasoning similar to Pascal's? I be interested to meet someone like that.

[philopker]

What is this post getting at? You can logically deduce certain activities of particles based on the laws of physics, and unless you believe God can change the laws of logic, there will never be a problem with that. However, whether or not the laws of physics will always hold can never be demonstrated logically as there is no logical reason why the laws of physics are what there are and not otherwise; even a complete unified theory would be totally contingent logically.
However, if you believe in a God that intervenes in the universe in such a way as to make his presence and action unmistakable, then such a God presumably could and in fact does suspend the laws of physics according to his whim. Such Godly actions we of course call miracles, and the occurence of miracles might be considered good evidence that God, or a god, exists: so the probability of the existence of God increases, so to speak.
Unfortunately for those who are attracted to such reasoning, I think Hume put this issue to rest (rationally, not actually) over three hundred years ago. It is not rational to believe in any miracle unless an overwhelming amount on evidence can be ushered to show otherwise. But no such evidence has ever been forthcomeing, and there is little reason to believe it ever will.
Interestingly enough, our justification for discounting miracles rests on the observed constancy of the laws of physics. Who'd a' thunk it?

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

why do I care?


[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently you don't. So why are we having this dialogue?

[/ QUOTE ]

You asked a question. I asked you why I might care to find an answer to the question. You replied with circular reasoning. I point out that this is invalid and not useful for telling me why I might care about finding an answer. You agree and then ask me why I'm asking.

I'm asking because I want to know if there's a reason I might care about answering the question you asked.

If the answer is "there isn't one", then the obviously my next question is "then why did you ask it".

If there is one, you have yet to provide it.

eastbay

[David Sklansky]

"I'm not saying that everyone sits down and makes a conscious decision that they are against God. What the Bible says is that all people are separated from God and their fundamental motive is contrary to Him. An individual may not have thought this through and articulated a defined position. His life and thought may not demonstrate what his true heart attitude is. Non-Christians are capable of doing outward works of immense (human) goodness and charity, they may be personally likeable (often far more so than Christians), and they may live spotless, impeccable lives by human standards. Nevertheless, I accept what the Bible says about human nature, and it's clear that all non-Christians, by implication at least presuppose the non-existence of the God of the Bible. And if you claim that you don't do so, I will not attempt to prove you wrong, nor am I trying to make you a liar. I can only say that the Bible says otherwise, and I'm simply going to accept the Bible over what any human says unless you can prove it's wrong.

I believe that neutrality is an illusion. The Bible says that all non-believers are enemies of God, haters of God. That doesn't mean they all persecute Christians or burn churches. It means that their most fundamental attitude is contrary to God, that they refuse to acknowledge His sovereignty, and seek to establish their own autonomy, their own right to judge God by their standards.

This is a hard topic. It is one of those things I must accept by faith. Appearance can be deceiving, as there are many examples of people who do magnificent things, sacrifice themselves for others, go to great lengths to help others, and live lives that are praiseworthy by any human standard. Yet the Bible insists that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, all are children of wrath, all are haters of God, no one is good except God.

So if all are at enmity with God, there can be no neutrality."

All very nice but you STILL did not answer my question. Do you agree that there are at least some people who share all your thoughts about the negative implications of a godless world and also share your thoughts that if there is God he will punish non belief, yet in spite of that simply do not think God exists because that is the way they read the physical and historical "evidence"?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I have no good reason to believe you are wrong when you say There is no meaning without God.

[/ QUOTE ]

My goodness gracious sakes alive, man. Doesn't this suggest something to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

What it suggests is that "God gives meaning to the world".

And not that "Necessarily, therefore, God exists".

See, we have no 'promise', from anyone or anything, of receiving a meaning. We have a yearning for meaning, yes. But being hungry does not necessarily mean that food is forthcoming or already served.

[PairTheBoard]

Notready -
"all people are separated from God and their fundamental motive is contrary to Him"

"all non-Christians ... presuppose the non-existence of the God of the Bible."

It's a little puzzling how anybody ever does become a Christian.

PairTheBoard

[DavidL]

[ QUOTE ]

I honestly don't know. Why God created in the first place is a knotty problem theology has been unable to answer. The Bible doesn't say why He did. There is much speculation, but in the end we simply accept that He did for His own good reasons.


[/ QUOTE ]

May I use the word "existential" in a philosophy forum?

Dear friends, I believe that the ultimate answers are existential, and are consequently inviolate to reason.

NotReady: Does the Bible not say that "God is Love" (not "God has love" or "God is loving" but "God IS Love") and also that "knowledge will pass away"? If so, then the very essence of God is Love itself, not a philosophical treatise.

Did Christ not say "I AM the Truth" rather than "the written word is THE truth"? If so, Truth IS the existential person of Christ, not a theological or moral doctrine.

Every philosophical approach to defining God – and hence the creation, the moral law, and everything that proceeds from God – will come up short, not necessarily because God is infinitely sovereign and therefore beyond human comprehension, but more simply because it fails to capture the existential nature of His being.

The universe is created as an expression of God's love. Here are the three gifts of God: the gift of Life, the gift of free choice, and the gift of Himself through His Son.

God can not be contained within the pages of the Bible. If the Bible signposts the love of God through the risen Christ, then it has fulfilled its ultimate purpose.

I have never studied philosophy, but I believe (in a rough sense) that reasoning begins with assumptions, and that assumptions proceed from one's innate convictions. If we want to "reverse engineer" further, then I would very loosely suggest that conviction is the result of some kind of amalgam of intuition (faith, revelation and imagination fit somewhere in here), volition, and humility (or lack of). The intellect is a slave to these convictions, but it creates its own reasons – and justification – that proceed from them.

The way I see it, philosophy that does not lead us to a "first cause" will inevitably result in an unsatisfying, circular belief system.

I would suggest that "reality" incorporates elements that are highly subjective, and that God seeks a uniquely individual relationship with every person. Thus it is for each individual to "work out their own salvation".

The very nature of our entire being – physical, emotional, spiritual, whatever – created in the image of God, is existential, yet somehow we always manage to "convince" ourselves that the ultimate answers to the puzzle of life lie behind reason and scholarship. Knowledge may provide a temporary panacea for insecurity, but it is ill-equipped to deal with the anxiety and restlessness that relentlessly harass the core of the human psyche.

May all the readers of this forum experience the depth of God's unfailing and transforming love.

David

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
The logical conclusion is might makes right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t follow.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I have no good reason to believe you are wrong when you say There is no meaning without God.

[/ QUOTE ]

My goodness gracious sakes alive, man. Doesn't this suggest something to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

What it suggests is that "God gives meaning to the world".

And not that "Necessarily, therefore, God exists".

See, we have no 'promise', from anyone or anything, of receiving a meaning. We have a yearning for meaning, yes. But being hungry does not necessarily mean that food is forthcoming or already served.

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot be the only one here who thinks meaning in ones life comes directly from within each individual. The idea that meaning can somehow be bestowed upon me from some god or that if a god does not grant meaning to my life then existence has no point does not correspond to how I understand meaning. If you imagine the things that bring meaning to your life -- for me, my relationships with friends and family -- what does god have to do with it? Just as it was mentioned earlier how morality can exist without god, meaning can exist without god. The concept of god is quite superfluous.

In another discussion, NotReady argued that without god there is no truth. Does 2+2=4? If suddenly all belief of god was found to be ridiculous, would that equation be any less true? Perhaps the concept of truth is much more an agreed upon mode of thought and communication than many of us care to admit or realize. Again, god is quite irrelevant to the topic.

If you truly consider a topic in a philosophical manner, bringing god into the equation does nothing more than stop what could have otherwise been a fruitful inquiry. The only commandment I see coming from organized religion is "thou shalt not think."