I will prove to you that God exists

[Belacqua]

All very fair criticisms.

Thank you for being civil about it.

Does this mean you don't have an answer to this question? If that's the case, doesn't that bother you at all?

You mean the question of evil and suffering? No, I don't have an answer for it. 

It doesn't really bother me that I don't have an answer.

[emjay]

Does this mean you don't have an answer to this question? If that's the case, doesn't that bother you at all?

You mean the question of evil and suffering? No, I don't have an answer for it. 

It doesn't really bother me that I don't have an answer.

I don't know what to say to that... at least you're honest.

You still believe it's true (the classical god), or lean towards it being true, despite this or any other obvious contradictions to its claimed all-good, all-loving etc nature?

[Belacqua]

You mean the question of evil and suffering? No, I don't have an answer for it. 

It doesn't really bother me that I don't have an answer.

I don't know what to say to that... at least you're honest.

You still believe it's true (the classical god), or lean towards it being true, despite this or any other obvious contradictions to its claimed all-good, all-loving etc nature?

I very much appreciate that you put a question mark on the end of that sentence! It's more common for people to tell me what I believe and then scold me for it. 

First I guess I should make clear that just because a person can explain something doesn't mean he believes it. This is a consistent problem on forums like this one. Years ago when one of Dawkins's books came out, it was clear from his argument that he didn't understand Thomas Aquinas's theology at all, and he made a hash of criticizing it. I explained as well as I could what Dawkins had got wrong, and what Thomas actually said. This was maybe the first time that the Real Atheists started accusing me of being dishonest, of being a secret Christian who had some kind of nefarious plan. 

So the fact that I know a little bit more about classical theology than your average Internet poster doesn't mean that I am advocating for it. When people criticize Christianity in a way that excludes classical theology, it seems to me that their criticism is incomplete. They are ignoring what is probably the most intellectual and important school of theology. As Terry Eagleton puts it, a person "buys their atheism on the cheap" if they argue only against the least intellectual, rank-and-file type of belief. 

I've been told several times on this forum that I should stop talking about the important theologians, since your average American church-goer doesn't know about them. But I'm not interested in the average American church-goer. I have never attended a church service, I have never heard a live sermon. I have never entered a church unless I was looking at the art or architecture. 

Some people falsely claim that among modern people, nobody cares about classical theology. This is false. Among people who read theology, Edward Feser and David Hart Bentley are household names. They are clear and readable. They are also fully in the classical tradition, arguing that God is immaterial, impassive, unchanging, etc. Again, I am not saying they are correct, only that they are well known. There are hundreds more writers who are less famous who argue for the same tradition. People who read about this stuff are very much aware of the type of theology I describe. 

A while ago I gave a lecture at Beijing University about a particular artist's theology, and how his beliefs determined in large part how his pictures looked. I thought I should keep the theology fairly basic, since it was a class of undergraduates. I also encouraged questions and discussion during the speech, rather than making them wait for question time. It was clear from what they said and asked that these Chinese young people knew a great deal about classical theism, were very interested in Neoplatonic concepts like the Great Chain of Being, and had no trouble discussing it (in their second or third language). I was able to answer some of their questions but not all. So educated Chinese people also know about this tradition. 

For me, personally, the tradition is important because it is necessary to understand important European artists and writers. Dante, of course, is the primary example. But the Romantic poets are also soaked in theology, even where it isn't obvious. Shelley was famously accused of atheism, but it's clear that he has a Platonic view of things in a very classical way. (If he were posting on this forum he would be savaged.) It's everywhere once you know how to notice it. 

Classical theology is an elegant explanation of things, and many of its expressions in art and literature are wonderfully beautiful. I like beautiful things a lot. 

I don't know how true it is. There are people who are far far smarter than I am who believe it. There are lots who don't. I don't see it as a pressing problem for me to work out what is true. I can read in many different traditions and get what they have to offer. (And it's a very Protestant idea to think that a person has to commit to a belief system and then if that system is false he is not only mistaken but morally bad. Internet atheism comes across as very Protestant to me, with different content in the same form.) I don't want metaphysical questions to turn into a team sport, since declaring allegiance to one team can form resistance to what another team is saying. (See, for example, Simone Weil's argument against political parties.)

(My screen name is me poking fun at myself, since the original Belacqua is a character in the Divine Comedy who took a long time to make up his mind.)

[emjay]

...
So the fact that I know a little bit more about classical theology than your average Internet poster doesn't mean that I am advocating for it. When people criticize Christianity in a way that excludes classical theology, it seems to me that their criticism is incomplete. They are ignoring what is probably the most intellectual and important school of theology. As Terry Eagleton puts it, a person "buys their atheism on the cheap" if they argue only against the least intellectual, rank-and-file type of belief. 

I've been told several times on this forum that I should stop talking about the important theologians, since your average American church-goer doesn't know about them. But I'm not interested in the average American church-goer. I have never attended a church service, I have never heard a live sermon. I have never entered a church unless I was looking at the art or architecture. 

Some people falsely claim that among modern people, nobody cares about classical theology. This is false. Among people who read theology, Edward Feser and David Hart Bentley are household names. They are clear and readable. They are also fully in the classical tradition, arguing that God is immaterial, impassive, unchanging, etc. Again, I am not saying they are correct, only that they are well known. There are hundreds more writers who are less famous who argue for the same tradition. People who read about this stuff are very much aware of the type of theology I describe. 
...

I'm sorry but I'm going to keep my response short because I'm not in the right place mentally for conversations like this these days, especially long ones; they just feed into the depression I feel much more these days, sadly.

---

From my perspective, I see reference to classical theology (which BTW I think most people around here understand fine) and other god-of-the-gaps arguments, primarily... not always... but primarily as a sign of retreat, not a sign of intellect. Especially these days, and especially when they appear to be used in a Pick 'n' Mix fashion, which seems to be happening more and more lately. Retreat into a perceived 'safer' argument... safer because of its 'unfalsifiability' usually, and usually leads to a false sense of security in arguments, and often accompanying trollish/asshole behaviour in online theists. Behaviour that I have literally no interest in engaging with online anymore, and which simply feels depressing and never ending.

Whether you believe in it or not, if you want to keep defending those sorts of people, or seeing them or their arguments as 'intellectual' or the 'most intellectual', be my guest, but don't expect it to convince anyone or many around here, certainly not me. Ie however 'intellectual' or 'elegant' classical theology is to you, that does not change the fact that it ties with the actual reality of our world - with for instance, as I said before, and what is to me the most important issue, the reality of biology/evolution on earth and the pain and suffering that go with it - no better than creationist arguments on the other side. From that POV neither are more intellectual and both are at best wishful/fantasy thinking.

As I said, I appreciate Sean Carroll's approach that holds to account what usually escapes being held to account because of its unfalsifiability. It doesn't hold it to account in any sense of falsifying it... it remains unfalsifiable (IMO anyway, possibly not in others)... but is nonetheless held to account in the sense of being compared with competing theories to explain a given phenomenon, not in terms of certainty (ie not in terms of falsification or proof), but in terms of likelihood and probability, and for me that is a very compelling and rational approach, which to me blows out of the water most of these stupid god-of-the-gaps arguments, if only in terms of likelihood not certainty, but that's more than enough.