Psycho-Babble Faith Thread 402858

Shown: posts 1 to 22 of 22. This is the beginning of the thread.

 

an argument for the existance of god

Posted by alexandra_k on October 14, 2004, at 0:10:17

I have the conception of god as all powerful, all good, all knowing. And also as a supremely perfect being.

If god did not exist (or if he only existed as a concept and not in reality) then I could imagine something even more perfect: namedly, an all powerful, all good, all knowing being who also existed in reality.

Because I have the concept of god as a supremely perfect being
and it is more perfect to exist than to not exist
god exists in reality.

My version of the ontological (or de-ontological argument for the existence of god.

 

Re: an argument for the existance of god

Posted by rayww on October 14, 2004, at 9:15:04

In reply to an argument for the existance of god, posted by alexandra_k on October 14, 2004, at 0:10:17

I have the conception of god as all powerful, all good, all knowing, all loving. And also as a supremely perfect being, who became that way in much the same way as we become perfect; that is step by step, grace by grace.

If god did not exist (or if he only existed as a concept and not in reality) then I could imagine something even more perfect: namedly, an all powerful, all good, all knowing being who also existed in reality. But even if I let my imagination run rampant and conceive the most glorious being that is possible for my mind to conceive, it would still not come near to his actual reality, because man's mind cannot comprehend anything as wonderful as God is. Nor can he comprehend the greatness and glory and majesty of things he has prepared for those who love him.

Because I have the concept of god as a supremely perfect being
and it is more perfect to exist than to not exist god exists in reality. If He didn't exist in reality there would be no world, no heaven, no love, no people, nothing but a black hole.

Some of us know the black hole. The tiny speck of light at the end of the tunnel is God beconning us to try a little harder to lift ourselves toward Him. As we do so, we grow step by step, grace by grace toward his perfect love, until we are completely embelished in it.

(that was fun)

 

Re: an argument for the existance of god

Posted by alexandra_k on October 17, 2004, at 1:50:34

In reply to Re: an argument for the existance of god, posted by rayww on October 14, 2004, at 9:15:04

Beautiful! Your rendering was much more eloquent than mine.

Are we happy with it as an argument for the existance of satan as well???

I have the concept of satan as the most evil being. But if he only existed as a concept then I could conceive of something even more evil: namedly something that was the most evil being who also existed in reality. Therefore the most evil being must exist in reality.


 

Re: an argument for the existance of god

Posted by alexandra_k on October 17, 2004, at 1:54:58

In reply to Re: an argument for the existance of god, posted by rayww on October 14, 2004, at 9:15:04

Aside from Aquinas' five ways this form of argument is after thousands of years, still one of the best.

It doesn't work as an argument.

But I should take some time to appreciate its beauty and subtelty.

Descartes tried a version where

A cause is always greater than its effect
I have the concept of god as an all powerful all perfect omnipotent being
Thus there must be AT LEAST as much perfection etc in the cause.

 

Re: an argument for the existance of god

Posted by rayww on October 20, 2004, at 0:57:49

In reply to Re: an argument for the existance of god, posted by alexandra_k on October 17, 2004, at 1:50:34

Is a false Christ Satan?

http://scriptures.lds.org/tgj/jcdvnsns

If there are false Christs and false prophets then there must also be "a" true Christ and true prophets, and therefore all false ones must be of Satan.

http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=%22false+christs+and+false+prophets%22&search.x=22&search.y=11

I have the concept of satan as the most evil being because he tries to make me think I am worthless. But if he and his despise for me only existed as a concept then I could conceive of something even more evil: namedly something that was the most evil being who also existed in reality. Because I know i am of worth and I have caught him in his evil lies about me, the most evil being exists in reality.

I want to believe in my own worth. Therefore I will think of the true Christ.
http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=eyes+flaming+fire&search.x=31&search.y=10
http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=ezekiel+1%3A26-28&search.x=31&search.y=10

 

Re: an argument for the existance of superbanana

Posted by alexandra_k on October 22, 2004, at 18:11:37

In reply to an argument for the existance of god, posted by alexandra_k on October 14, 2004, at 0:10:17

I hereby define a superbanana as an eternally existing yellow fruit. Therefore superbanana exists (eternally).

The Ontological argument for the existence of God doesn't work (though I think it is amazingly beautiful and has an initial plausibility once one is able to get ones head around it). It doesn't work because you cannot just define something into existance. The 'superbanana' criticism is of the same logical form as the other two arguments, and so if we do not think that the conclusion follows in this case, then it would seem that the conclusion doesn't follow in the other two cases either, and so the argument is unsuccessful.

The original criticism came from Guanilo (excuse my spelling). He said that he could imagine a perfect island and as it would be more perfect to exist in reality than not, then the perfect island must exist. It was supposed to be a 'reductio ad absurdum' where the conclusion is supposed to be intuitively 'absurd' and thus we are led to conclude that the argument doesn't work.

There are a couple of morals that philosophers typically take from this.

(1) Just because the argument doesn't work, that doesn't mean that there might not be a better one out there. In other words, the failure of the argument does not at all lend support to the notion that god (or satan) does not exist.

(2) Is existing really more 'perfect' than not existing? It is at least unclear that perfection can apply to existence.

(3) Existance is not a predicate. Which is to say that it is not a property that something has in addition to all its other properties (don't worry too much about this).

(4) Perhaps most importantly, one cannot get from the fact that a concept exists to the reality of the thing (in terms of a mind-independent reality). Descartes tried to get from the existance of certain concepts to the existence of the material world, and he failed. Just because we have the concept of something there is no assurance that our concept picks out something in mind-independent reality. For example, Pegasus, or the Tooth Fairy.

The only response that I have heard to Guanilo's objection is that one can do this in the case of god (and perhaps satan) because there is something special and different about those concepts. But it is left to be spelt out just what it is about them that is different.

Hope you don't mind my philosophy ravings... feel free to ignore :-)
Regardless, it is a beautiful argument.

 

Re: an argument for existance » alexandra_k

Posted by rayww on October 23, 2004, at 0:50:12

In reply to Re: an argument for the existance of superbanana, posted by alexandra_k on October 22, 2004, at 18:11:37

I don't mind your philosophy ravings one bit, as long as you don't mind me coming back with one more argument for existance.

If you haven't seen something does it mean it does not exist? If you haven't seen, but I have, will you believe me when I tell you about it, or will you still argue that it does not exist?

This is the root of the problem. Many have seen God, and have described Him, but some of those who have not seen Him don't believe it. It takes faith to believe in something you have not seen for yourself.

A person may have faith to believe that Eskimos live at the north pole, along with Santa Claus, and that once they cross the 49th parallell heading North they hitch up a dog sled, but are there actual witnesses? Does the weather suddenly turn nasty as soon as you enter Canada? Has anyone seen Santa's workshop?

In spite of the fact that there are plenty of actual and real witnesses of the divine sonship of Jesus Christ, and of the reality of God the Father, people still believe what they want. One's reality is whatever one conjures up inside their own head. But that does not make it necessarily true.

I for one don't believe that Santa lives at the North Pole, and since I live in Canada, know for an absolute fact that our weather is somewhat mild. (gosh, I hope I don't get banned for saying that)

If we exist, God exists, simple as that, for it would be absolutely impossible for us to exist on our own merit without God, who creates and sustains us each moment of our lives.

Joseph Smith saw God the Father and also Jesus Christ, in person, face to face. Anti Mormons say Joseph Smith actually saw Satan, so we all admit he saw someone. No one has ever tried to dispute that fact. However, if it was Satan, that would mean there is also God, because why would there be only evil?

I have faith to believe that Joseph Smith saw God the Father, and also His Son Jesus Christ, that they were two separate beings, each with a glorified body of flesh and bone, in the likeness of man. The Bible states that man was created in the likeness of God, so why is it we can't all believe that?

While the arguments are flying against what I believe, basing their dispute on one or two beliefs: 1. God does not reveal himself to man 2. There can be no modern prophets, I continue to read more and more of their words, receiving revelation and indisputable confirmation that what I read is true. There is no end to revealed truth. It is all around us. The Holy Ghost bears witness to our soul of its truthfulness, and so it goes. One side growing in truth, while the other side argues it is not possible to believe such crock. If I didn't know it, and hadn't experienced what I have I may find it hard to believe too, but that is not the case. Of course there will be a lot of hard questions. Here is a sample of them.
http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/questions/0,8789,895-1-16,00.html

It is interesting that at Lions International convention it is politically correct to state that we are all of the same family of God, but it is not so correct to stand up for that in America. Pretty sad.

Who's on the Lord's side? (260)
http://www.lds.org/cm/catalogalphamp3/1,18331,4768-1,00.html?reportStart=71&reportEnd=76&searchPhrase=W#nullLink

I argue that the very essence of existance is on the Lord's side.

 

Re: please revise that » rayww

Posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2004, at 5:12:15

In reply to Re: an argument for the existance of god, posted by rayww on October 20, 2004, at 0:57:49

> http://scriptures.lds.org/tgj/jcdvnsns

Sorry, but keeping in mind that the idea here is not to put down the beliefs of others, could you please revise the above so that it doesn't include, for example, the quote from 1 Jn. 3: 23? Thanks,

Bob

 

Re: please revise that » Dr. Bob

Posted by rayww on October 24, 2004, at 20:04:17

In reply to Re: please revise that » rayww, posted by Dr. Bob on October 23, 2004, at 5:12:15

Is a false Christ Satan?
If there are false Christs and false prophets then there must also be "a" true Christ and true prophets, and therefore all false ones must be of Satan

(Along with alexandra's words) I have the concept of Satan as the most evil being because he tries to make me think I am worthless. But if he and his despise for me only existed as a concept then I could conceive of something even more evil: namedly something that was the most evil being who also existed in reality. Because I know I am of worth and I have caught Satan in his evil lies about me, the most evil being (Satan) is real.

I want to believe in my own worth. Therefore I will focus my thoughts and feelings on Jesus Christ. If by centering my thoughts and feelings on Christ I still feel worthless, I will cease to believe. However, if by chance, by centering my thoughts, feelings, and prayers on Jesus Christ, I feel more inclined to love myself and others, I will look to Christ and live.

1 John 3: 23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

>Sorry, but keeping in mind that the idea here is not to put down the beliefs of others, could you please revise the above so that it doesn't include, for example, the quote from 1 Jn. 3: 23? Thanks,

 

Re: please revise that

Posted by Impermanence on October 24, 2004, at 22:32:10

In reply to Re: please revise that » Dr. Bob, posted by rayww on October 24, 2004, at 20:04:17

You need to get laid Rayww.....

 

Re: please rephrase that » rayww

Posted by Dr. Bob on October 24, 2004, at 23:30:21

In reply to Re: please revise that » Dr. Bob, posted by rayww on October 24, 2004, at 20:04:17

> this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ

Sorry to do this again, but could you please rephrase the above? I don't think I explained myself very well last time, I'm afraid others may feel their beliefs aren't respected if they're commanded to do that. Thanks,

Bob

 

Re: please revise that » rayww

Posted by rayww on October 25, 2004, at 13:15:07

In reply to Re: please revise that » Dr. Bob, posted by rayww on October 24, 2004, at 20:04:17

Oh, I get it. I honestly did not know what part of 1 John 3:23 you found offensive. When I read it I couldn't see anything that might conflict with my message or offend anyone, but if you think the word, "command" is offensive, I will be happy to comply. Actually, I wonder if we interpret the word, "command" in the same way. Let's discuss.

To rephrase, I would simply leave it out.

> Is a false Christ Satan?
> If there are false Christs and false prophets then there must also be "a" true Christ and true prophets, and therefore all false ones must be of Satan
>
> (Along with alexandra's words) I have the concept of Satan as the most evil being because he tries to make me think I am worthless. But if he and his despise for me only existed as a concept then I could conceive of something even more evil: namedly something that was the most evil being who also existed in reality. Because I know I am of worth and I have caught Satan in his evil lies about me, the most evil being (Satan) is real.
>
> I want to believe in my own worth. Therefore I will focus my thoughts and feelings on Jesus Christ. If by centering my thoughts and feelings on Christ I still feel worthless, I will cease to believe. However, if by chance, by centering my thoughts, feelings on Jesus Christ, I feel more inclined to love myself and others, I will look to Christ and live.

 

Re: thanks (nm) » rayww

Posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2004, at 18:11:41

In reply to Re: please revise that » rayww, posted by rayww on October 25, 2004, at 13:15:07

 

Re: an argument for existance

Posted by alexandra_k on October 25, 2004, at 21:39:23

In reply to Re: an argument for existance » alexandra_k, posted by rayww on October 23, 2004, at 0:50:12

> I don't mind your philosophy ravings one bit, as long as you don't mind me coming back with one more argument for existance.

Of course not :-) I may have a go at a couple more myself.

I agree that just because you haven't seen something that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist (it might be hiding). If you have seen god, however, then this would seem to be a-posteriori (empirical) evidence that he does in fact exist.

Hume said that when confronted with a miracle one should ask oneself whether it is more miraculous that the miracle occurred - or that the person be mistaken about the occurrance of a miracle. He thinks that we should believe in what is most likely, and that it is always more likely that someone be mistaken than a miracle occurring.

I suppose that when I hear people say that they have experienced god I wonder whether it is more likely that they are mistaken about the nature of their experience, or more likely that they have experienced god - and I conclude that it is more likely that they are mistaken about the nature of their experience.

> It takes faith to believe in something you have not seen for yourself.

I think that not only does it take faith to believe in something you have not seen for yourself, it also takes faith to interpret ones experiences as being an experience of god as opposed to an experience of something else.

> One's reality is whatever one conjures up inside their own head. But that does not make it necessarily true.

In a sense ones reality is what one interprets it as being, but there is also another sense of reality in which the 'real' is mind independent (and typically material in the sense of being made of matter). If by reality one means 'mind independent' then whatever one conjures up in ones own head may or may not correspond to mind independent reality. If it corresponds then it is true, if it does not correspond then it is false (If we accept a correspondance theory of truth).

PASCAL'S WAGER

This isn't really an argument for the existance of god, but it is an argument that it is more rational to believe in gods existance than to not believe in god's existance. It is known as 'Pascal's Wager'.

There are two things we can do - we can believe or we can not believe. There are two possible states of affairs: either god exists or he does not.

So: if we believe and god exists then let us sum the benefits (which are infinite) as +1
If we believe and god does not exist then we have gained nothing, and lost very little (let us say 0)

If we do not believe and he exists - very bad -1
If we do not believe and he doesn't exist +1

So after an analysis of the costs and benefits of believing as opposed to not believing we have a total of +1 for believing and 0 for not believing and thus it is more rational (and we stand to be much better off) if we believe.

Who would have thought economics and cost benefit analysis would have application for belief in god? Do ya like this one?


 

Re: an argument for existance

Posted by alexandra_k on October 25, 2004, at 21:48:50

In reply to Re: an argument for existance, posted by alexandra_k on October 25, 2004, at 21:39:23

Though my trouble with all this is that we are back to seeing 'god exists' as making a claim about mind independent reality.

I still think that if it is a claim about mind independent reality then it is false (because the concept is contradictory and thus cannot be instantiated) but that it should not be read this way

because because because because because

(because of the wonderful things he does)

because it is a matter of faith.

 

Re: an argument for existance » alexandra_k

Posted by rayww on October 27, 2004, at 16:16:11

In reply to Re: an argument for existance, posted by alexandra_k on October 25, 2004, at 21:39:23

Pascal's wager, I like that. May I apply the same wager to my own particular belief and rationalize that even if it were possible that it could be proved to be wrong, I'm still at a +1?

Now I'm being facetious.

but on a more serious note, I agree and disagree with the following that you wrote:

"Hume said that when confronted with a miracle one should ask oneself whether it is more miraculous that the miracle occurred - or that the person be mistaken about the occurrance of a miracle. He thinks that we should believe in what is most likely, and that it is always more likely that someone be mistaken than a miracle occurring."

"I suppose that when I hear people say that they have experienced god I wonder whether it is more likely that they are mistaken about the nature of their experience, or more likely that they have experienced god - and I conclude that it is more likely that they are mistaken about the nature of their experience."

<<Depending upon how one defines miracle, miracles are somewhat the daily norm. There are big miracles and little ones, and sometimes the tiniest of all are the most significant. Faith preceeds the miracle. After the trial of your faith come the blessings.
http://scriptures.lds.org/ether/12/6#6

In my scriptures I have noted that Joseph Smith read this particular chapter and turned the leaf of the page down on the morning of his death. It was therefore his last message to the world.

A little background on the preceeding verse. The book of Mormon is an abridgement of records written over a period of 1000 years, from 600BC to 421AD. Mormon abridged the records and in about 421AD his son, Moroni sealed it up to preserve for the future. As he went through it, he also interjected some of his own thoughts and observations. This scripture in Ether12 is one such example. Moroni is writing in about 421 AD, but the record in Ether that he was reading from was recorded several centuries earlier (1200 to about 200 BC).

After Mormon and Moroni finished the work that they were 'commanded' to do by God, before Moroni died, he placed it in a stone box, and buried it in the ground, where it lay undisturbed for 1400 years, until again by the will of God, Moroni came in person (as a glorified resurrected being) and delivered it to Joseph Smith. Each step here was a miracle, likely the most significant miracles of all time, yet it is only believed by a few. Why when there are so many witnesses recorded:
http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/thrwtnss
http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/eghtwtns
http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/jsphsmth

Miracles are proven by divine witnesses and evidence, and unles one has faith, they will not see it. This principle is explained in Ether 12. But, it takes faith to believe, because after the trial of one's faith will come the divine witness. Faith Preceeds the Miracle.

If people choose to discount all possibility of miracles they may pretty much eliminate all possiblity of ever having one.

I used the example of miracles that is the most familiar and well known to prove the point that you made. Namely, people generally don't believe in miracles unless they already have faith in God.

 

Re: an argument for existance

Posted by alexandra_k on October 27, 2004, at 19:40:29

In reply to Re: an argument for existance » alexandra_k, posted by rayww on October 27, 2004, at 16:16:11

PASCAL'S WAGER

I am currently having an argument with my office mates about Pascal's wager. I couldn't think of a sensible response to it, but one of my office mates suggested the following analogy:

You could use the same argument to show that it is more rational to believe in the existence of bogeymen than to not believe in bogeymen.

I want to say that this analogy leads to a reductio ad absurdum of Pascal's wager. Clearly it is most rational to NOT believe in the existence of bogeymen (given what we know about the world) and thus there must be something wrong or illegitimate about the form of Pascal's wager.

But my office mates don't agree with the above paragraph. One of them is now convinced that it is more rational to believe in bogeymen, so... I don't know. As they say, one mans modus ponens (belief in bogeymen) is another mans modus tollens (reductio ad absurdum). Sigh. Who said philosophy was easy?

[And now he tells me that it is not an argument about beliefs, it is an argument about how it is best to act. (He made me write that). But we have already agreed that the measure of belief is action, and social practice so maybe that is more a technical point...]

MIRACLES AS CONTRARY TO LAWS OF NATURE

Regarding miracles, it is probably useful to get clearer on what we mean by miracles. Hume thought that a miracle was something that went contrary to laws of nature.

"A miracle is a violation of a law of nature, and a law of nature is a process whereby certain kinds of events are (absent intervention) always followed by a definite kind of other event. For example, the law of gravitation entails that within the Earth's gravitational zone objects will fall downward toward Earth at an acceleration of 32.17 feet per second, and we have no record of a counterinstance to this.

[But then]

This notion of a miracle as a violation of a law of nature has been disputed on the basis of the contention that in the Bible, which is the witness to the most significant alleged miracles in the Judeo-Christian tradition, there is no concept of nature as a closed system of law. For the biblical writers, miracles signify, in the words of R. H. Fuller, simply an "extrordinary coincidence of beneficial nature"'

Pojman, L. P.,"Philosophy of Religion" p82.

I think that you are more into the second rather than the first???

Humes argument (against miracles) is that
1. One ought to proportion one's belief to the evidence.
2. Sense perception is generally better evidence than testimony (if for no other reason than that valid testimony is based on another's sense experience).
3. Therefore, when there is a conflict between sense experience and testimony, one ought to believe according to sense perception.
4. Sense perception does not reveal any miracles to us (but rather the presumption of natural law prevails).
5. Therefore, we are never justified in believing in miracles, but we are justified in believing in the naturalness of all events.

"Although Hume concedes that miracles are theorietically possible, he argues that the case against them is so cogent and comprehensive that we are never warranted in believing that they occur. His main argument is from the regularity of nature. Becasue we have had innumerable instances confirming the law of nature, the probability for events to conform to it must be enormous. And because we have enormous evidence in favour of the uniformity of nature, every testimony of a miracle must be weighed againsst that preponderance and be found wanting. On the probability scale the likelihood of a miracle happening will virtually always be outweighed by a law of nature. But what if we believe that we personally have beheld a miracle? Aren't we justified in believing one in that case? No, for given the principle of induction (that every time we pursue an event far enough, we discover it to have a natural cause), we are still not justified in believing the event to be a miracle. Rather, we ought to look further (far enough) until we discover the natural cause. The only exception to this rule (or "proof" against miracles) is if it would be even more miraculous for a miracle not to have occurred: "That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more marvelous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish"

Hume, in Poijman, p.84.

But that only works against miracles if they are construed as something contrary to laws of nature

 

please disregard amazon link (nm) » alexandra_k

Posted by alexandra_k on October 27, 2004, at 19:41:26

In reply to Re: an argument for existance, posted by alexandra_k on October 27, 2004, at 19:40:29

 

pause, time for a good belly laugh (nm) » alexandra_k

Posted by rayww on October 28, 2004, at 0:40:26

In reply to Re: an argument for existance, posted by alexandra_k on October 27, 2004, at 19:40:29

 

Good morning Rayww :-) (nm)

Posted by alexandra_k on October 28, 2004, at 15:52:12

In reply to pause, time for a good belly laugh (nm) » alexandra_k, posted by rayww on October 28, 2004, at 0:40:26

 

Re: Good morning Rayww :-)

Posted by alexandra_k on October 28, 2004, at 18:01:43

In reply to Good morning Rayww :-) (nm), posted by alexandra_k on October 28, 2004, at 15:52:12

Hi there. I hope I am not too annoying with my posts. I am learning a lot from you. I have a tendancy to be quite authorative about my beliefs and fairly intolerant about others religious beliefs but I am not proud of that and that is something about myself that I am attempting to change.

You have been immensely helpful to me in that respect.

I have never really been into philosophy of religion. I studied it because there is a decided lack of third year options at my university and timetable restrictions dictated... That being said I found that I enjoyed it well enough because by studying arguments it turned out to be nice and analytic after all.

But perhaps there is an absurdity in overfocusing on arguments the way I have done in most of my previous posts.

Perhaps it is me that is missing the point rather badly. Perhaps I am turning this into a verbal game of sophistry. Complicating rather than clarifying. Breeding confusion.

You are a rock of faith Rayww.

I thankyou for being my teacher.
I have the unmost respect for you.
I am glad I make you laugh - and even if you are laughing at me rather than with me (?????) - I see the humour.

Philosophy is the form of my life...
But philosophy and sophistry are difficult to disentangle.

 

Re: Good morning Rayww :-)

Posted by rayww on October 29, 2004, at 0:09:23

In reply to Re: Good morning Rayww :-), posted by alexandra_k on October 28, 2004, at 18:01:43

alexandra, my sweet, I wasn't laughing at you. the discussion seemed so intent from both sides I just felt like laughing. what nice things you said. now I'm crying.


This is the end of the thread.


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Faith | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, bob@dr-bob.org

Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.