We are pleased to announce that on March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor will be introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the upcoming changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Islam a real religion?
Replies
-
Personally, I get the feeling you just like saying "gotcha". If I'm wrong, sorry.
No, that's sounds about right.
Then I'm happy to keep evading you
0 -
The question is a bit of a trap because color, as a concept, is communicated on a perceptual level by the brain through the eyes instead of a linguistic level. They're two different pathways for accessing knowledge. There's an extra step in translation that needs to happen.
I'm talking about qualia, which is certainly knowledge but absolutely not shared. You have knowledge of the color red and I have knowledge of the color red, but it's impossible for me to experience what you think of as the color red and vice versa.
And yet we share the reality anyway through communication. We can still communicate color with each and a basic idea of what the other is talking about. This is why taffic lights work for those who can perceive it. Since most can, it works.
I disagree. We are not sharing the experience of the color red. We're just agreeing on a label for the wavelength. There's a difference between seeing the color red and experiencing the color red. I could substitute "heat" for "red" and make the same case.0 -
I don't have to worry about things I can't possibly know or conceive of.
And I think this is what separates atheists from agnostics. I think you give the former category too much credit if you are saying they do not make positive assertions about the existence of a deity.0 -
The question is a bit of a trap because color, as a concept, is communicated on a perceptual level by the brain through the eyes instead of a linguistic level. They're two different pathways for accessing knowledge. There's an extra step in translation that needs to happen.
I'm talking about qualia, which is certainly knowledge but absolutely not shared. You have knowledge of the color red and I have knowledge of the color red, but it's impossible for me to experience what you think of as the color red and vice versa.
And yet we share the reality anyway through communication. We can still communicate color with each and a basic idea of what the other is talking about. This is why taffic lights work for those who can perceive it. Since most can, it works.
I disagree. We are not sharing the experience of the color red. We're just agreeing on a label for the wavelength. There's a difference between seeing the color red and experiencing the color red. I could substitute "heat" for "red" and make the same case.
I would say that we're still sharing the experience. We're just not privy to everything that means for each other. We still share a part of it. If that weren't true, we probably wouldn't even have a word for it that functioned at all. The label of the wavelength, as you mention would be sufficient to answer you question about how to define red. With a definitions we can communicate knowledge. It may just not be complete.0 -
I don't have to worry about things I can't possibly know or conceive of.
And I think this is what separates atheists from agnostics. I think you give the former category too much credit if you are saying they do not make positive assertions about the existence of a deity.
Oh some absolutely make such assertions. I've read their comments. I don't really see how they're actually atheists, and I tend to try and correct their use of the word atheism, but I never seem to get a response.0 -
I plan to respond to this, but I'm away from my laptop right now. I will reply when I get home.Your reasons for believing in God are beautiful. They're also not rational. Your suggestion that all knowledge isn't rational because our senses are really just imperfect (that seems to be gist anyway) transmitters for the blobs of matter inside our skulls assumes a certain definition of knowledge, proof, and reality.
Knowledge requires a shared reality, faith does not. Faith is not a type of knowledge..not in a classical greek way, anyway0 -
Personally, I don't understand the fear of Islam. Then again, I'm not an American.
Has anyone here ever read the Qur'an? I haven't, but I'm willing to bet that it doesn't say anything about being a terrorist or killing people.0 -
I've read it. There are texts in the Qur'an that justfy those actions, even though many Muslims don't agree with the justifications.Has anyone here ever read the Qur'an? I haven't, but I'm willing to bet that it doesn't say anything about being a terrorist or killing people.0 -
There are plenty of rational reasons to believe in God. You may not agree with them (and most people have never seriously understood them) but rational discussions about the existence of God go on all the time. There are high-level philosophy books written on this subject constantly. Take a look at Spitzer's book, "New Arguments for the Existence of God," and I think you will see my point.Your reasons for believing in God are beautiful. They're also not rational. Your suggestion that all knowledge isn't rational because our senses are really just imperfect (that seems to be gist anyway) transmitters for the blobs of matter inside our skulls assumes a certain definition of knowledge, proof, and reality.
Knowledge requires a shared reality, faith does not. Faith is not a type of knowledge..not in a classical greek way, anyway
My point about the senses was that the only "proof" you have of the reliability of sense knowledge (that is, knowledge of a "world" that exists outside of our sensory awareness of it) is that which comes through the senses. You have to have a basic trust in the senses as giving us reliable information about the world in order to have any knowledge about the world. You cannot independently verify this trust that we have, however, since the only way to access the sensory world is through the senses.
I'm not sure I understand your last paragraph. If you see the point I previously made, for instance, about sense knowledge and types of logic, you will also see that a basic disposition of "faith" is present in all human knowledge, even if we are not aware of it. All historical knowledge, too, depends on faith in the reliability of the sources of our historical knowledge. There are different kinds of "knowledge." If you are talking about deductively certain truths (like mathematical statements or analytical statements, e.g., "The whole is greater than the part."), then, of course, most of our beliefs, historical judgments, scientific claims, etc., will not qualify as "knowledge." If, however, you mean something we "know" based on reasonable evidence, I think God's existence and even what a Christian believes about Jesus qualifies as "knowledge."
I will leave it at that. I don't want to turn a thread meant to be about Islam into a debate for the existence of God. 0 -
I've read it. There are texts in the Qur'an that justfy those actions, even though many Muslims don't agree with the justifications.Has anyone here ever read the Qur'an? I haven't, but I'm willing to bet that it doesn't say anything about being a terrorist or killing people.
Do you happen to remember those texts? I'm curious to know.
I've met many Muslim people and have been close with a few. I've never known one who thought terrorism was good, or justified. I've never seen any quotes from the Qur'an justifying it, either.0 -
I will leave it at that. I don't want to turn a thread meant to be about Islam into a debate for the existence of God.
Oh c'mon--we've NEVER had that debate before!0 -
There are plenty of rational reasons to believe in God. You may not agree with them (and most people have never seriously understood them) but rational discussions about the existence of God go on all the time. There are high-level philosophy books written on this subject constantly. Take a look at Spitzer's book, "New Arguments for the Existence of God," and I think you will see my point.Your reasons for believing in God are beautiful. They're also not rational. Your suggestion that all knowledge isn't rational because our senses are really just imperfect (that seems to be gist anyway) transmitters for the blobs of matter inside our skulls assumes a certain definition of knowledge, proof, and reality.
Knowledge requires a shared reality, faith does not. Faith is not a type of knowledge..not in a classical greek way, anyway
My point about the senses was that the only "proof" you have of the reliability of sense knowledge (that is, knowledge of a "world" that exists outside of our sensory awareness of it) is that which comes through the senses. You have to have a basic trust in the senses as giving us reliable information about the world in order to have any knowledge about the world. You cannot independently verify this trust that we have, however, since the only way to access the sensory world is through the senses.
I'm not sure I understand your last paragraph. If you see the point I previously made, for instance, about sense knowledge and types of logic, you will also see that a basic disposition of "faith" is present in all human knowledge, even if we are not aware of it. All historical knowledge, too, depends on faith in the reliability of the sources of our historical knowledge. There are different kinds of "knowledge." If you are talking about deductively certain truths (like mathematical statements or analytical statements, e.g., "The whole is greater than the part."), then, of course, most of our beliefs, historical judgments, scientific claims, etc., will not qualify as "knowledge." If, however, you mean something we "know" based on reasonable evidence, I think God's existence and even what a Christian believes about Jesus qualifies as "knowledge."
I will leave it at that. I don't want to turn a thread meant to be about Islam into a debate for the existence of God.
Then without hijacking the thread too much more I'll say we must be coming from differing epistemological traditions Unfortunately where spitzer is concerned I've never read anything that wasn't just a rehashing of dated intelligent design theories. One cannot try prove god exists by assuming that it's already true. /digression 0 -
Wrong. In Christianity, it's pretty easy to "dictate" that killing is wrong. I would gladly argue that with any other Christian who is trying to justify his act of murder.But you don't get to dictate what other Christians believe is Christian All you can say is you don't believe that's what Christianity says. It's their beliefs. They can claim whatever they like and justify it through faith in whatever source just like you can.
I know I'm bring up "old ****" but I'm fairly sure it was "Christians" who lead the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch hunts in Europe and America, and who killed thousands of Native Americans, African, and Indians all in the name of "the Lord." These "Christians" were using the same 10 Commandants and (mostly) the same Bible as you do today. They justified their killings. I'm not trying to slam on Christians, but my point is many religions are guilty of many transgressions against other religions. Also, in a different post you claim Christianity has lofty morals towards human life. I really disagree with that considering some of the Eastern philosophies that emphasis importance of all life, not just human life. Christianity is not a perfect religion by any means.0 -
I'm dumbfounded. How can people be so ignorant and cruel?0
-
I have in mind texts like Surah 4.89: “They long that ye should disbelieve even they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them.” As I said previously, it is probably not good for me to speak for Muslims in how they read the Koran. From a Christian perspective, they have some oddities of interpretation that are rather difficult to understand. For instance, Muslims seem to generally agree (at least many do) that there are contradictory statements in the Koran. The rule in such cases is to recognize that (a) God can say what he wants when he wants and (b) if there is a contradiction then the later statement in the Koran “trumps” the earlier statement. Regarding terrorism, Muslims themselves disagree about how to apply the notion of “Jihad” in specific cases. My own conclusion is that Islam has and will have for the foreseeable future a significant problem with reconciling the Koranic/Islamic understanding of society and religion with the notion of distinct “secular” and “religious” spheres in society. From this problem arises the tensions and, sometimes, violent reactions, that we have seen.Do you happen to remember those texts? I'm curious to know.
I've met many Muslim people and have been close with a few. I've never known one who thought terrorism was good, or justified. I've never seen any quotes from the Qur'an justifying it, either.0 -
I know I'm bring up "old ****" but I'm fairly sure it was "Christians" who lead the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch hunts in Europe and America, and who killed thousands of Native Americans, African, and Indians all in the name of "the Lord." These "Christians" were using the same 10 Commandants and (mostly) the same Bible as you do today. They justified their killings. I'm not trying to slam on Christians, but my point is many religions are guilty of many transgressions against other religions. Also, in a different post you claim Christianity has lofty morals towards human life. I really disagree with that considering some of the Eastern philosophies that emphasis importance of all life, not just human life. Christianity is not a perfect religion by any means.
If your point is that Christians are capable of and have done terrible things, you will get no argument from me. If your point is that Christianity inherently supports or encourages a low view of human beings and our treatment of each other I reject that claim. Concerning other religions, I simply think it is false to say that Christianity does not have the highest view of human life. Christianity holds that human beings are made to share eternal happiness in union with God; we are made for an eternal, good purpose. The far-eastern religions, for all the good that they have, do not share these views. Human life is only one stage in a gradual loss of human personality/individuality. Cows are treated as having equal or even superior dignity. The traditional caste system viewed some human beings as “lower” than others and that suffering and one’s societal “place” is the effect of one’s prior bad acts (in prior lives). I don’t know of any understanding of human nature that gives as much value to the individual person as Christianity. One can focus on witch hunts and Crusades, I think, to the neglect of the untold millions of Christians who labor every day to bring help to suffering human beings. I was recently at a soup kitchen in downtown Houston (most of which, by the way, are Christian organizations) that fed more than 200 homeless people for lunch. Numerous people donated their time and resources to care for these people; the Christian symbols were everywhere in the place. The Christian understanding of human beings leads to these kinds of acts, countless hospitals, relief organizations, open pantries for those without food, missionaries, etc., etc.0 -
Given your comments on Spitzer, I don’t think you’ve read his book. He presents a series of arguments from a wide range of contemporary scientific theories to show the reasonableness of the existence of God. Consider, for instance, his analysis of “time.” Further, it is simply false to say such arguments assume their conclusion. Take Aristotle’s/Aquinas’ argument for God from motion. The argument never introduces the notion of God until you reach the conclusion. It was Aristotle’s analysis of the causes of motion/change that led him, at the conclusion of his books on Physics, to conclude that there must be a self-existent, unmoved (unchanging) ground of all change that transcends the category of matter. You may not like or agree with his argument but it is not an argument that assumes a conclusion from the start.Then without hijacking the thread too much more I'll say we must be coming from differing epistemological traditions Unfortunately where spitzer is concerned I've never read anything that wasn't just a rehashing of dated intelligent design theories. One cannot try prove god exists by assuming that it's already true. /digression0 -
Given your comments on Spitzer, I don’t think you’ve read his book. He presents a series of arguments from a wide range of contemporary scientific theories to show the reasonableness of the existence of God.
Ok, the derailment continues and it's only partially my fault. I whole heartedly agree the existence of God is reasonable and even plausible. Being reasonable or plausible is not the equivalent of proof, or even necessarily evidence. It takes a leap of faith to conclude that [the reasonable existence of God] means something other than "yeah it's one of the myriad of options.". You know, faith, that thing that's not rational because it defies the need for a shared reality and inductive lines of thought.0 -
That tends to happen in this group and everyone is pretty cool about it happening to their threads!Ok, the derailment continues and it's only partially my fault.0 -
I’m not sure what will constitute “proof” for you. My guess is that whatever you define as “proof” will be a rather arbitrary limiting of what will qualify. It was once the “shared reality” of almost every human being that the world was stationary at the center of the universe so I’m not sure how far we are going to get with “shared reality” as part of the definition of what is rational. The issue of the existence of God might be the conclusion of a “proof” similar to the way a theorist might conclude to the existence of quantum particles or “strings” (in string theory) without ever directly observing the entities about which they theorize and experiment. The difference is that those theories rarely are seen to have heavy moral and personal ramifications. I suggest that (a) most people are inclined to believe in God (at least historically this is true) and that supports the position that there is significant “evidence” (“shared reality”?) and (b) those who question belief in God are often motivated by personal considerations rather than solely by evidence-based considerations. In any case, I’ve never seen an atheist or agnostic successfully undermine the major traditional arguments for God’s existence (at least in their best forms) and therefore I don’t see any reason to reject the position that there is real evidence/proof for the existence of God.I whole heartedly agree the existence of God is reasonable and even plausible. Being reasonable or plausible is not the equivalent of proof, or even necessarily evidence. It takes a leap of faith to conclude that [the reasonable existence of God] means something other than "yeah it's one of the myriad of options.". You know, faith, that thing that's not rational because it defies the need for a shared reality and inductive lines of thought.0 -
I’ve never seen an atheist or agnostic successfully undermine the major traditional arguments for God’s existence (at least in their best forms) and therefore I don’t see any reason to reject the position that there is real evidence/proof for the existence of God.
By the same token, I've never actually seen an argument that does anything other than support the possible existence of God, which I've already agreed to. With regard to proof, it's not that hard. If we're talking a proof by induction, I need some reason to accept that the data should be generalized so that it can hold true for all instances. If instead we're talking about a syllogism, I would need to agree with all premises.
As an agnostic I hold that 1) By definition the existence of God is beyond our ability to understand. We are limited, God would not be. We would not be able to understand such a being if it existed. 2) As a result we can neither prove nor disprove something that we cannot understand. Any evidence that supposedly supports the existence of God is suspect by its nature. It could be evidence God. It could be evidence of a more advanced being of some sort altogether that most people wouldn't consider God. It could mean that we consider intelligent is the product of a complex series of natural process, or it could indicate nothing at all. We can't even begin to think about probability because we have no idea how many variables there are. It's like trying to put a jigsaw puzzle together when we not only have no idea what the picture looks like, but have no idea what the pieces look like either. At least puzzles come in a box. Spizter, sadly, throws around "evidence" with the whimsy of a dilettante. It's interesting in the same way that fantasy or science fiction is interesting, I suppose.
I'm also slightly amused that people of faith try so very hard to "prove" god when doing so must also necessarily weaken their faith. Any argument against that would just circle around to our apparently counter perspectives on knowledge. The neat part about knowledge requiring a shard reality is that it can change. Reality shifts because it must; the evidence may propose a departure from previous thought that we can't avoid. Faith isn't like that; it can change, but it doesn't have to based on new information.
As stated previously, your definitions for knowledge are just different than mine.0 -
I’ll number my points to correspond to your paragraphs since the number of points to keep track of is multiplying.
1. Concerning the qualifications you place on inductive and deductive reasoning (which are reasonable ones as stated), these can be used to question virtually any argument that one can formulate. Basically your explanation seems to boil down to: I’ll accept the conclusion of an argument if I’m inclined to grant your premises or if I’m inclined to agree to the premises of a deductive argument. One can play the role of a skeptic on any given premise or generalization and therefore your rejection of arguments for God, I would argue, is not all that surprising. If you don’t want to accept a conclusion, you simply become a skeptic on the pieces of the argument. This is not a special problem for the existence of God, though. One can use the same logic to undermine any logically-based conclusion.
2. God’s existence may be beyond our ability to comprehend but I don’t think it is beyond our ability to understand. By God I mean, at a minimum, a reality that is uncaused, self-existent, immaterial, necessary, independent, eternal, cause of every dependent thing, etc. Although I cannot comprehend entirely what any of these mean I can formulate meaningful propositions about them. I don’t think you will respond to these terms by saying, “I have no idea what you are talking about.” You know what I mean by these terms (at least some of them). That level of meaningful understanding is sufficient to use in evaluating a rational argument for God’s existence. (By that I mean that we are able to determine whether or not a given argument is able to show that a being with those attributes is rationally demonstrable.)
You write about Spitzer in vague generalities. I haven’t seen any evidence you’ve actually looked at his arguments. I was only using him as an example. I could have referred to any number of other philosophers who support the existence of God and think rational arguments can be offered in support of that conclusion.
Your comments seem to narrowly assume that I have only “intelligent design” types of considerations in mind in our discussion. I never brought up intelligent design matters. I did mention Aristotle and Aquinas’ argument from motion but you have not reacted to that. That argument in no way is subject to the criticisms you present here. I do disagree with your comments but since they are not relevant to either Spitzer or the arguments I have used, I’ll refrain.
3. Your “amusement” over people of faith using rational arguments to support God’s existence is amusing to me. Why can’t it be the case that God’s existence can be known through reason and that other things about God are matters of faith (e.g., “God loves me and proved it in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.”)? Why can’t it also be the case that one person can know something through reason while another believes it by faith? I suspect you, like most people, think Einstein’s famous “E = MC squared” is a true statement. If you are like most people, however, you will not feel qualified to explain and defend it. There are people who can explain and defend it but that just doesn’t happen to be most of those who believe it (they believe it, obviously, because they have confidence in the consensus of the scientific community). Many people are unable to defend the existence of God through rational arguments but they find deep fulfillment and happiness in entrusting themselves to God in an act of faith. Some people may be able to do both. I don’t see how one must undermine the other.0 -
I’ll number my points to correspond to your paragraphs since the number of points to keep track of is multiplying.
1. Concerning the qualifications you place on inductive and deductive reasoning (which are reasonable ones as stated), these can be used to question virtually any argument that one can formulate. Basically your explanation seems to boil down to: I’ll accept the conclusion of an argument if I’m inclined to grant your premises or if I’m inclined to agree to the premises of a deductive argument. One can play the role of a skeptic on any given premise or generalization and therefore your rejection of arguments for God, I would argue, is not all that surprising. If you don’t want to accept a conclusion, you simply become a skeptic on the pieces of the argument. This is not a special problem for the existence of God, though. One can use the same logic to undermine any logically-based conclusion.
2. God’s existence may be beyond our ability to comprehend but I don’t think it is beyond our ability to understand. By God I mean, at a minimum, a reality that is uncaused, self-existent, immaterial, necessary, independent, eternal, cause of every dependent thing, etc. Although I cannot comprehend entirely what any of these mean I can formulate meaningful propositions about them. I don’t think you will respond to these terms by saying, “I have no idea what you are talking about.” You know what I mean by these terms (at least some of them). That level of meaningful understanding is sufficient to use in evaluating a rational argument for God’s existence. (By that I mean that we are able to determine whether or not a given argument is able to show that a being with those attributes is rationally demonstrable.)
You write about Spitzer in vague generalities. I haven’t seen any evidence you’ve actually looked at his arguments. I was only using him as an example. I could have referred to any number of other philosophers who support the existence of God and think rational arguments can be offered in support of that conclusion.
Your comments seem to narrowly assume that I have only “intelligent design” types of considerations in mind in our discussion. I never brought up intelligent design matters. I did mention Aristotle and Aquinas’ argument from motion but you have not reacted to that. That argument in no way is subject to the criticisms you present here. I do disagree with your comments but since they are not relevant to either Spitzer or the arguments I have used, I’ll refrain.
3. Your “amusement” over people of faith using rational arguments to support God’s existence is amusing to me. Why can’t it be the case that God’s existence can be known through reason and that other things about God are matters of faith (e.g., “God loves me and proved it in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.”)? Why can’t it also be the case that one person can know something through reason while another believes it by faith? I suspect you, like most people, think Einstein’s famous “E = MC squared” is a true statement. If you are like most people, however, you will not feel qualified to explain and defend it. There are people who can explain and defend it but that just doesn’t happen to be most of those who believe it (they believe it, obviously, because they have confidence in the consensus of the scientific community). Many people are unable to defend the existence of God through rational arguments but they find deep fulfillment and happiness in entrusting themselves to God in an act of faith. Some people may be able to do both. I don’t see how one must undermine the other.
1. My objection to seeing evidence of the existence of God is that it's merely one possibility of many and proof of nothing. I need some sort of reason to accept that God exists other than it's reasonable. Based on the evidence I could draw many conclusions, none more likely than the others.
2.Do you claim to understand God before or after you see the evidence for the supreme being? Remember what I said about assuming something exists before actually proving it?
Ok, let's talk about Aquinas's Five, as I call them. They are, and have been countered, through newton's first law, David hume, Kant, and basic understanding logical fallacies. I could go into more detail, but that should provide enough search terms in case you're curious. In short, there is no basic need for God an originator of motion. As it happens, our knowledge of physics has progressed since Aristotle; why on earth would we assume the natural state of an object is rest? When you speak of Aquinas and Spitzer, you do reference intelligent design because they both rely on it, at least in part--which ends up being one of several flaws for them.
3. Please try to understand the difference between a reasonable conclusion and rational conclusion.
Seriously, I have no idea how many times this conversation has happened here, but it's really just a textbook example of the same arguments by people trying to use rational lines of inquiry for what is an issue of faith. You don't need a rational reason to believe in God. Your faith is justified as faith; it just doesn't happen to be universal Truth. QED.0 -
Textbook debate on the existence of God. I've debated this several times in this group!0
-
EvanKeel~
I guess it's okay to continue our discussion since it seems we're the only ones in this thread now. Ha!
1. Dependent beings obviously exist therefore there must be an independent source or ground of all such beings. That independent source of all beings is God. No other conclusion is reasonable.
2. Belief in God must be seen as reasonable before one embraces it (at least for reasonable people). That belief may be implicit or unclear but there must be some clarity to the notion and it must make some sense in order to be believed.
On Aquinas' Five Ways, Newton's first law has nothing to do with it. Newton's law does not claim that things that come to be do not need a cause. Hume was a skeptic about causality and the ability of the human mind to know anything about the world (except our sensory impressions). Not sure you want to side with him on that one. Concerning Kant, he, too, argued that the human person is incapable of knowing "things in themselves" and that we can only know the "phenomenological" features of things. I simply deny that this is the case. I think our mind is a power for knowing reality and that Kant and Hume's skepticism is unwarranted. If one chooses to follow Hume or Kant, however, there's not a lot left that we can know. It seems to me that their epistemological theories are subject to what appears to be your criticism of belief in God. You think I must believe that God exists before I consider reasons for it. Kant and Hume seem to think they know what humans are capable of knowing before they consider the nature of human knowledge. In other words, they are convinced that we can't know the world as it really exists because we cannot overcome our subjectivity. My approach is to say that our subjectivity is formed only in relationship to the world that exists beyond ourselves and therefore it makes no sense to speak of human knowledge without taking the world beyond ourselves into consideration.
Newton certainly did not conclude that there is no need for a cause of contingent beings. I'd like to see anywhere in his work where he argued that is the case. He simply showed that an object in motion will continue in motion unless acted upon by another force. In other words, once begun, motion becomes something of a property of objects accelerated through space. This has little to nothing to do with what Aquinas is arguing.
Yes, our knowledge of physics has changed since Aquinas and that has led to a rather large crisis over the fact that Newton's Physics (once thought to be the final word on the matter) has been shown to be inapplicable to reality on a quantum level. Newton is no longer seen as the final word. Again, none of this affects Aquinas. Aquinas is really arguing from a metaphysical principle: effects need causes. If something "comes to be" there must be a reason for it coming to be. It's as simple as that, really.
Concerning intelligent design, this is a way of referring to a particular theory developed in the last twenty or so years based on information theory and biological complexity. Aquinas and Spitzer do not use those arguments, as far as I can tell. Spitzer does make use of the Anthropic Principle but, properly speaking, he does not make use of "intelligent design." I think you may be confusing Aquinas' notion of final causality with intelligent design. They cannot be reduced to the same thing.
3. I take reasonable and rational to mean the same thing. A reasonable conclusion is one for which you have reasons (Latin: "ratio", rational or notional bases). I'm not familiar with your use of terminology in any standard literature on philosophical matters. I'm assuming you take "rational" to be the same as logically necessary and reasonable refers simply to something that may be probable or coherent and respectable but not demonstrable. If so, I still think the existence of God is both reasonable and rational.
4. I already said one doesn't need an absolutely certain "proof" to believe in God. That doesn't mean that someone else can't have an argument that is "certain." (Your terminology is so awkward that I can't bring myself to use it.) Since you use "QED," I'm assuming you are not a skeptic about everything (since no self-respecting skeptic would ever claim to have demonstrated anything, at least not in the Euclidean sense). There may be hope for you yet!
0 -
*sigh*
The First Way: The Prime Mover
"If that by which it is moved be itself moved, then this also needs to be move by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently no mover, seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch that they are moved by the first mover; as the staff move only because it is moved by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God."
According to Newton's First Law, a particle would tend to stay at rest or move in a constant velocity if no external force is applied to it. We see that it is as natural for a body to move in a constant velocity as it is for a body to be at rest. There is no need for a Prime Mover. Einstein's shows us that there is no such thing as absolute motion. All velocities can only be relative to something else. There is absolute reference.
The more fun counter is that we have no logical reason not to apply the principle to the Unmoved Mover itself. If God created everything who created God?
The Second Way:
"Therefore if there is no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate, cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name God. "
Essentially Hume states that the observable succession of events requires no beginning since we can conceive of it going back to infinity. The entire chain of causes and effects also need no explanation because we're the ones trying to make sense of data. Even if there were a first cause, there's no logical, or evidenced, reason to think that the First Cause would be God, instead of the the Universe itself--not without assuming facts not in evidence, anyway. Kant points out that we don't actually have a way of knowing when we reach the first cause, nor do we have a reason to think that the principle of causation holds true when we apply it to the entire universe.
Summing up Hume and Kant in a quick and dirty fashion, the Second Way suffers from a quantifier reversal fallacy. Let's say one marine has a dog. The fallacy would arise if we stated that the entire marine corps itself has a dog. The first cause states that every causal series must have a first cause and that there must be a first cause for all such series.
But let's go to physics. Radioactivity seems to have no cause. We can't know when an atom is going to decay finally--it is an event sans cause, at least from a linear standpoint.
We have no reason whatsoever for assuming that sequences must be finite.
The Third Way: God the Necessary Being
"We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to be corrupted, and consequently, it is possible for them to be or not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which can not-be, at some time is not. Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now if these were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exists begins to exists only through something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it is impossible for anything to have begun to exist; thus even now nothing would be in existence - which is absurd. Therefore not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."
You don't actually to state that no being can create itself and then state that God can. Well you can, but it's not logical. Even if we assume that only finite creatures can't create themselves and that God is infinite and therefore can, we're still stuck. We can't assume the conclusion of principle in its premise. It would be circular.
The Fourth Way: God, the Absolute Being
Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But more or less are predicated of different things according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest, and consequently, something which is most being, for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being ... Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus, as fire, which is the maximum of heat, is the cause of all hot things, as is said in the same book. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
Umm..lame. It's all completely subjective. How are we measuring any of those value statements in a useful way? We can't.
The Fifth Way: God, the Grand Designer
"We see that things lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it is directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. "
What best result would that be, precisely? Or even vaguely? What does "best" mean? What reason do we have to not to think that events simply happen randomly? The fact that we happen to be here instead of not here isn't good enough.
Reasonable vs Rational:
When I use "reasonable" I mean that there's a reason. Rational (in an epistemic sense) to me means logic and evidence are involved in looking at those reasons. It's reasonable to assume God exists; the reason is that someone takes a leap of faith to assume that God exists, or perhaps they've been told God exists from what they think is a trustworthy source.
From a rational standpoint, one where evidence is evaluated, the evidence for the existence of God has been found wanting to date. It does not hold under logical scrutiny. It is however reasonable to conclude that there may be some evidence for the existence of God, if for no other reason than God's existence hasn't been disproven.
" Not sure you want to side with him on that one. Concerning Kant, he, too, argued that the human person is incapable of knowing "things in themselves" and that we can only know the "phenomenological" features of things. I simply deny that this is the case. I think our mind is a power for knowing reality and that Kant and Hume's skepticism is unwarranted. If one chooses to follow Hume or Kant, however, there's not a lot left that we can know. It seems to me that their epistemological theories are subject to what appears to be your criticism of belief in God. You think I must believe that God exists before I consider reasons for it. Kant and Hume seem to think they know what humans are capable of knowing before they consider the nature of human knowledge. In other words, they are convinced that we can't know the world as it really exists because we cannot overcome our subjectivity. My approach is to say that our subjectivity is formed only in relationship to the world that exists beyond ourselves and therefore it makes no sense to speak of human knowledge without taking the world beyond ourselves into consideration."
We are at an impasse, then. We clearly hold conflicting philosophical stances. There is no need for further discussion, unless you want to spin your wheels.0 -
I originally meant this more as "what has happened to the American system," then a debate on the esistence of God.
But, by all means, carry on if you wish.0 -
You don't think that I think any of this would change your mind; do you? I don't typically debate for the sake of the one on the other side, but for those who may be reading. I have a response to all your points, and we could go on and on here. Neither you nor I is going to change our positions. I appreciate the respectful debate, though!We are at an impasse, then. We clearly hold conflicting philosophical stances. There is no need for further discussion, unless you want to spin your wheels.0 -
Oh, we know. Derailment happens when the discussion is about religion.I originally meant this more as "what has happened to the American system," then a debate on the esistence of God.
I believe we are done!But, by all means, carry on if you wish.0 -
You don't think that I think any of this would change your mind; do you? I don't typically debate for the sake of the one on the other side, but for those who may be reading. I have a response to all your points, and we could go on and on here. Neither you nor I is going to change our positions. I appreciate the respectful debate, though!We are at an impasse, then. We clearly hold conflicting philosophical stances. There is no need for further discussion, unless you want to spin your wheels.
I fail to see the point. We disagree on the subjective nature of reality. There is no debate. It's like trying to dance in a room that doesn't have a floor.0
This discussion has been closed.