Prove it!

[thepreacher]

All right,

As I am sure you all know, apologists all continue the tradition of the original Doctors of the Church. So, continue this tradition, and convince and prove (I know this is by the very nature of the divine impossible, but give me at least a little bit ala Suma Theologica) to me that god can exist. Show me that there is more of a reason for god to exist than say... a teapot orbiting Mars. I am interested to see if there are decent arguments out there that appeal to reason. So, fire away!

Ma1zzraa,

1.Actually I don

[secondeve]

Copper Scroll:

"Someone must perceive and be conscious of everything that can be reasonably said to be real or existent. It doesn't make sense to say that there is a teapot orbiting Mars if no one has perceived this or been conscious of it.

We believe, however, that there is a unified reality independent of our individual perceptions and consciousnesses. This is why the only thing that we know for sure is that we don't know everything. We believe that the world existed before we were born and will exist after we die. We believe that when we leave a room, it doesn't stop existing.

But if there is such a unified reality independent of our subjective experiences, then someone must perceive it and be conscious of it. This person would have to be unlike us in that he/she is conscious and knowledgable of everything that exists and possesses this consciousness and omniscience eternally. But this person would be like us in that he/she is conscious. Who, if not God, is conscious, omniscient, and eternal?"

1. Why must someone percieve and be conscious of everything that can reasonably said to be real or existant? Although it is not self-evident, you present no evidence for this.

2. Unicorns have never existed, but we write about them. I have never seen a teapot orbiting Mars, but I know what Mars is, what a teapot is, and what it means for one thing to orbit another. You are saying it is impossible to imagine something that doesn't exist; and, further, that we cannot concieve of familiar concepts in different contexts. The human brain is an interesting thing. There is more than enough evidence to suggest that we are capable of imagining or creating false images and scenarios with our minds, rather than having to draw the images from an external source.

3. If, as you say, there is a unified reality which we percieve through individual subjectivity, how can the entirety of this be observed by anyone else? The very existence of another 'mind' or consciousness denotes another subjective perception. Even if they can look at everyone in the world, they cannot look at themselves objectively, and as they are part of the universe, they are therefore not looking objectively on the whole of everything, which is impossible under this model for precicely this reason.

Basically, your whole argument is dependant on the necessity of an external observer. You have given no proof for the why of this statement, only assumed that it is both self-evident and true, even though, if it were true, it could never be self-evident to us, as we are not the external observer, and, by the same token, could not be proven.

Edited May 22, 2006 by secondeve

[Copper Scroll]

Thanks for your response, secondeve.

1. Why must someone percieve and be conscious of everything that can reasonably said to be real or existant? Although it is not self-evident, you present no evidence for this.

You could say something exists that no one has perceived, and you can imagine such a thing--but it would not make sense to say that it actually exists if no one has perceived it. Below, you say that unicorns have never existed. Why? Because, you have never seen one, you don't know anybody who's ever seen one, and if someone said that they did see one--you would think they were either delusional or lying. Give me an example of something that can reasonably said to exist actually that no one has perceived.

2. Unicorns have never existed, but we write about them. I have never seen a teapot orbiting Mars, but I know what Mars is, what a teapot is, and what it means for one thing to orbit another. You are saying it is impossible to imagine something that doesn't exist; and, further, that we cannot concieve of familiar concepts in different contexts. The human brain is an interesting thing. There is more than enough evidence to suggest that we are capable of imagining or creating false images and scenarios with our minds, rather than having to draw the images from an external source.

I didn't say anything about imagination and abstraction. I wrote only about actual existence of an object--not the existence of a representation or a concept of that object.

3. If, as you say, there is a unified reality which we percieve through individual subjectivity, how can the entirety of this be observed by anyone else? The very existence of another 'mind' or consciousness denotes another subjective perception. Even if they can look at everyone in the world, they cannot look at themselves objectively, and as they are part of the universe, they are therefore not looking objectively on the whole of everything, which is impossible under this model for precicely this reason.

This all-knowing subject would not it/him/herself be an object, so this subject would not "look at" it/him/herself. This subject's perspective would not be just another subjective perspective like our own because it would capture and consume all things. This subject's knowledge would be perfect and eternal.

Basically, your whole argument is dependant on the necessity of an external observer. You have given no proof for the why of this statement, only assumed that it is both self-evident and true, even though, if it were true, it could never be self-evident to us, as we are not the external observer, and, by the same token, could not be proven.

We can reason as to why this external observer must exist in order for our faith/theory/belief that there is a reality independent of us to make sense. An observer is required. We don't consider anything else existent that has not been perceived. We think and act as if there is a reality independent of us, because this is necessary for our lives/experiences to be meaningful. So the reality independent of our limited subjectivities must also be perceived by someone--whose perspective is not limited, whose knowledge is complete.

[ma1zraa]

Well, after a bit of a hiatus and some solitary thinking, I believe I have come up with a satisfactory answer. To explain it, I will use an analogy. Faith is like love. Love is an irrational, unwarranted emotion that we have from time to time. We can, to an extent, control that love. We cannot chose who to love, or when, but we can choose to act on it and acknowledge it. If we choose to ignore it, we make ourselves less vulnerable and prevent loss. But if we open up to love, we allow ourselves great joy. The same holds true to faith. It may be irrational, foolish, illogical, and downright unwarranted, but if it makes us happier, what does that matter? This appears to be the only solid proof for a god I can find. It still, however, does not lend much more credence to one belief in god versus another. Rather, it seems to support an individual god, more like Luther's god than the Catholic god.

[Crisor]

The same holds true to faith. It may be irrational, foolish, illogical, and downright unwarranted, but if it makes us happier, what does that matter?

It matters because it is not truth. What it seems to me that you are saying is that, even if it is a lie, if it makes me happy, then why not believe in the lie.

It comes down to the idea that either you want to know the truth, even if it makes you unhappy, or do you want to believe the lie.

Personally, I would rather know the truth.

Crisor

[ma1zraa]

The same holds true to faith. It may be irrational, foolish, illogical, and downright unwarranted, but if it makes us happier, what does that matter?

It matters because it is not truth. What it seems to me that you are saying is that, even if it is a lie, if it makes me happy, then why not believe in the lie.

It comes down to the idea that either you want to know the truth, even if it makes you unhappy, or do you want to believe the lie.

Personally, I would rather know the truth.

Crisor

As would I. But that is the justification I can give myself to understand the position of theists.

[Crisor]

Understood.

[CSLewis]

As an ex-atheist I too struggled with the ability to "prove" God's existence rationally and to eleviate any doubt that so beset me as an atheist. There is no way to "prove" Him. Yet in my life I came to a place where I needed someone other than myself. I live in the bible- belt so I thought I knew what christianity had to offer, so I kneeled and prayed for the first time that was real. I can't explain it only that it was real. I do not doubt the presence of a higher power. Things started happening when I prayed that defied all of my own rationality, I still struggled and indeed my struggle became harder (my wife didn't accept Christ for a long while later). I don't know but apologetics seems to dumb down God to an argument when He is so much greater. I can't comprehend infinity, but I can love. And that is really what changed me. Christians loved me despite my attacks towards them. Jesus is so much different than what I had thought and I don't think it possible to emulate Him without the Holy Spirit living inside of me. No other religion worships a God who loves us so much that He gave His only Son so that He would lay down His life for people who killed Him.

[apothanein kerdos]

Well, after a bit of a hiatus and some solitary thinking, I believe I have come up with a satisfactory answer. To explain it, I will use an analogy. Faith is like love. Love is an irrational, unwarranted emotion that we have from time to time. We can, to an extent, control that love. We cannot chose who to love, or when, but we can choose to act on it and acknowledge it. If we choose to ignore it, we make ourselves less vulnerable and prevent loss. But if we open up to love, we allow ourselves great joy. The same holds true to faith. It may be irrational, foolish, illogical, and downright unwarranted, but if it makes us happier, what does that matter? This appears to be the only solid proof for a god I can find. It still, however, does not lend much more credence to one belief in god versus another. Rather, it seems to support an individual god, more like Luther's god than the Catholic god.

Besides this possibly being extrapolated from Kierkegaard's Knight of Faith ("Fear and Trembling", page 78-79 in the Penguin Publishers edition is where I am looking and all subsequent quotes will come from this edition) without due credit, it is also based upon certain flawed premises. I will respond to Kierkegaard's view on this because he goes much more in depth. In fact, I am almost 100% certain that you got this analogy from Kierkegaard because everything you say is almost dead on to what he says in the book (minus the madness and redundancy of his writing style).

He mentions the Knight of Faith as a man who upholds morals until it comes to faith; faith requires us to abandon all ethical stances and adopt the irrational. He uses Abraham as the perfect Knight of Faith. He leads all of this to the point that just as love is irrational, so is faith. In fact, if we are able to rationalize our faith then it is not faith at all. In fact, Kierkegaard states,