RE: A simple challenge for atheists
January 30, 2015 at 10:23 am
(This post was last modified: January 30, 2015 at 10:31 am by SteveII.)
(January 29, 2015 at 5:19 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(January 29, 2015 at 5:09 pm)SteveII Wrote: I listed only qualities needed to be the first cause and creator of the universe--which is all that the cosmological/ontological/design arguments deal with. You tell me which characteristics are superfluous or which I might need to add.
The actual issue is twofold: my first problem is that you're a christian arguing for the existence of the christian god, and it's more than a little irritating to see you- and you're hardly the first apologist to do this- flip between the god you actually believe in and a vague deistic one whenever it's convenient. I thought I was having a discussion with you, about the things you believe in, not a discussion with you about whatever needs to be on hand for you to win, whether you believe it or not. Perhaps that's just a pet peeve of mine, but it's still there.
The much more relevant issue is that none of the five characteristics that you listed, either taken together or as individual parts, are exclusively characteristics of a god, the god, whatever. I can't tell you how many fictional narratives contain beings of immense power that satisfy all of the criteria you list, but are not god. What you're actually doing here is co-opting whatever we happen to think of, by assertion alone, in order to make it fit with your argument. If you want to say that any being that has the criteria you listed would be so close to your conception of god that you might as well just call it that, then that's fine, but don't forget that in doing so you're winning a word game, and not the actual question under debate here, and also that you're doing so by taking whatever concept is introduced to you and saying "no, that's not X. I'm going to call it god." I can't imagine why you'd find that compelling.
Additionally, we're here discussing your beliefs, and specifically you've said that you'd like to demonstrate that it's rational to hold such beliefs. Given that, you arguing for a concept of god that you don't believe in both does not address the topic of the debate, and also kinda hurts the core of your argument, because you're having to reach for things you don't believe in, rather than defending the things that you do.
I am not flipping between two definitions for God to help my case. A cosmological argument gives no indication that the creator of the universe is loving, just, or moral. All the philosophical arguments get you to is that God is somewhere between probable and necessary. After that, you would have to define God better to develop a religion. The truth of that religion would then be judged on the additional information about God.
You say you want to have a discussion with me as to why I believe. I will give you a little background. I am the eldest son of a Wesleyan minister. I grew up believing everything you would assume was taught to me. I went to college, got married, got a job, started having kids. Life was busy. Al Gore had not yet invented the internet.
Like some, I did not have an epiphany that all of it was bunk. I knew God was real, but now had the desire to test all the beliefs to make sure Christianity was 1) internally consistent and 2) rational. I developed a pretty good grasp on Christian theology.
I have changed my stance on evolution. Augustine had it right. Don't take a hard stance on things that don't matter. I have a better understanding of history (including the NT). I have a better understanding of free will, morality, the problem of evil and other contentious subjects. I enjoy discussing philosophy. Coming here once in a while makes me think and I learn every time I do. I am trying to improve my articulation of complicated things.
On Islam...
It seems that some cannot make the leap from my argument that Christianity is true because of the evidence of the resurrection to Islam is not true because of the evidence of the resurrection. While you might hold the opinion the evidence is weak, why would you think I have/want/need different reasons for thinking Islam is not true.
(January 30, 2015 at 3:57 am)robvalue Wrote: Science would like to have a word about miracles.
There is your problem. Science has nothing to say about whether miracles are possible or not. Science could only conclude that there is no naturalistic explanation of an event. The evidence of a miracle would be some sort of physical evidence and/or the testimony of witnesses--just like any other event that ever happened.
It is your philosophy that has a problem with miracles, not your science.
