The Rational Proof of God's Existence

[ZWord]

So we're back to the Kantian distinction between the 'for us' and the 'in itself.' But that distinction, of course, was developed to *prove* the existence of noumena, and hence of God. I would go so far as to say that this distinction is incompatible with atheism--it may be compatible with agnosticism, but no-one who believe in noumena can say there is no God.

A distinction which those who say they only believe in "observable facts" never seem to have quite got their head round.

Though I think to say that the existence of noumena proves the existence of God is going way too far. But it is worth mentioning that for those who think that if God existed scientists would have observed God. Probably no-one really thinks that. But then why do they say it?

 

[Fruitloop]

Among many other reasons, because once you identify the logos as God, the philosophical heritage and ethical significance of Derridean anti-logocentrism become manifest. Many postmodernist thinkers, untrained in theology, miss these vital points.

The logos->God correspondence is hardly new, though, is it - it's in the Bible after all. In any case it seems to me to be the case that what Christians (i.e. the Bible) are claiming is that the God who is the logos also has all of these other attributes, ranging from the improbable to the impossible.

 

[laptop]

So the argument hinges on what Kant said he intended to show?

The possibility that he achieved something other than what he set out to do is ruled out... as is the possibility that his great contemporary equivalent, phildwyer, has achived something other than what he set out to do. Odd, that.

 

[phildwyer]

So the argument hinges on what Kant said he intended to show?

The possibility that he achieved something other than what he set out to do is ruled out

I'm not ruling out any possibilities. What do you think Kant achieved other than what he intended to?

 

[phildwyer]

Though I think to say that the existence of noumena proves the existence of God is going way too far. But it is worth mentioning that for those who think that if God existed scientists would have observed God. Probably no-one really thinks that. But then why do they say it?

But a lot of people *do* really think that. Nino does, he said it again this morning. It is impossible to over-state the stupidity of popular atheism.

 

[nino_savatte]

But a lot of people *do* really think that. Nino does, he said it again this morning. It is impossible to over-state the stupidity of popular atheism.

Up to your usual tricks, phil? You know, the wee trick where you 'speak' to an imaginary gallery?

You're a bully and a pest.

 

[Fruitloop]

But a lot of people *do* really think that. Nino does, he said it again this morning. It is impossible to over-state the stupidity of popular atheism.

The thing about popular atheism is that it's opposed to popular religion, which is about the stupidest thing around. A more sophisticated version of theism like the one you appear to espouse would require its own specific atheism, but I reckon we're up to the challenge.

 

[phildwyer]

Up to your usual tricks, phil? You know, the wee trick where you 'speak' to an imaginary gallery?

I'm sorry Nino, but I must inform you that until you apologize for your wriggling and lying, I will not be engaging with you *at all*--on this thread or any other.

 

[phildwyer]

The thing about popular atheism is that it's opposed to popular religion, which is about the stupidest thing around. A more sophisticated version of theism like the one you appear to espouse would require its own specific atheism, but I reckon we're up to the challenge.

I couldn't agree more about popular religion, and I've said many times that I regard *all* organized religion as Antichrist. I think popular atheism is just as simple-minded, however. You're correct that a more sophisticated atheism is needed to counter my argument, and I'll admit that such an atheism exists--Adorno is a famous exponent--but in order to arrive at that position one must first grasp the theist case. The only way to atheism is through theology.

 

[slaar]

But a lot of people *do* really think that. Nino does, he said it again this morning. It is impossible to over-state the stupidity of popular atheism.

My own personal position is that nothing in science proves or disproves the existence of god. But that includes logic.

I learn, understand and work in my everyday life on the basis of scientific knowledge as I believe that to be the way that most progress is made, and on the grounds that dogmatic belief in institutionalised religion has done little but stoke conflict.

That's why I like Dawkins when he writes about the mechanics of evolution, but not when he wanders off into rants about the non-existence of god where such proofs cannot be infered from the evidence. But in the absence of any proof of the existence of god I am happy to go along with the evidence for evolution, whatever the force ultimately driving material reality.

I think you infer beliefs from the general population towards atheism where no such overwhelming attitudes exist. And I think this colours your perception of the false dichotomy between faith and science.

 

[phildwyer]

I think you infer beliefs from the general population towards atheism where no such overwhelming attitudes exist. And I think this colours your perception of the false dichotomy between faith and science.

You have a good point in your final sentence, but there is no doubt that the kind of ignorant popular atheism to which I refer exists. Exhibit A:

GOD DOES NOT FUCKING EXIST! GOD IS AN INVENTION BY IRRATIONAL MEN WHO NEED ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS THAT THEY ARE UNABLE TO ASK FOR THEMSELVES!

Such attitudes are the mirror-images of--and are in fact no different than--the most dogmatic of religious fundamentalisms. I regard religious fundamentalists and atheist fundamentalists as unconsciously complicit with each other. Both of them declare war on rational thought.

 

[slaar]

I tend to agree, although the sway Dawkins' views, for example, hold in the general population again can be overstated, such is the size of his voice for just one man.

I do dislike organised religion more than atheism; perhaps that's for reasons of upbringing. I'm yet to be convinced by the way your alternative is shaping up, but I welcome the debate.

I'm in the middle of a book by an Oxford theologian called something like "Dawkins' God", which an evangelical housemate of mine has. It's a lot better than I expected it to be, genuinely thoughtful and intelligently argued; although I disagree with him entirely on Christianity it provides good food for thought.

 

[Fruitloop]

I couldn't agree more about popular religion, and I've said many times that I regard *all* organized religion as Antichrist. I think popular atheism is just as simple-minded, however. You're correct that a more sophisticated atheism is needed to counter my argument, and I'll admit that such an atheism exists--Adorno is a famous exponent--but in order to arrive at that position one must first grasp the theist case. The only way to atheism is through theology.

True, but my point was that the reason why popular atheism is so stupid is because it's nothing more than the negation of organised religious belief. If someone asserts that they are in touch with a personal God who has opinions and wishes about what should take place and who intervenes in the world to secure these ends, then it's both facile and banal to demonstrate that there's no such thing. However, as long as they keep proselytising this garbage it will be necessary to refute it.

 

[nino_savatte]

I'm sorry Nino, but I must inform you that until you apologize for your wriggling and lying, I will not be engaging with you *at all*--on this thread or any other.

I must ask you to leave this thread. Please go quietly or be dwagged scweaming.

 

[nino_savatte]

You don't like getting back what you dish out - eh, phil?

 

[slaar]

True, but my point was that the reason why popular atheism is so stupid is because it's nothing more than the negation of organised religious belief. If someone asserts that they are in touch with a personal God who has opinions and wishes about what should take place and who intervenes in the world to secure these ends, then it's both facile and banal to demonstrate that there's no such thing. However, as long as they keep proselytising this garbage it will be necessary to refute it.

I think this says what I feel more succintly, and is why I prefer knee-jerk atheism to organised religion.

I guess I see the difference as people believing in something for which they have no rational proof versus people believing there must be nothing presently conceivable for which there is no rational proof. I prefer the latter, but both are inadequate.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

But a lot of people *do* really think that. Nino does, he said it again this morning. It is impossible to over-state the stupidity of popular atheism.

Oh my god, what the fuck!!??
So the sensible thing to do is put some blind faith into some 'magic' you read about in a book?

 

[phildwyer]

I think this says what I feel more succintly, and is why I prefer knee-jerk atheism to organised religion.

I guess I see the difference as people believing in something for which they have no rational proof versus people believing there must be nothing presently conceivable for which there is no rational proof. I prefer the latter, but both are inadequate.

I think we probably went through this during this thread's first incarnation, but people believe in things for which there is no rational proof all the time, the best example being *money,* which of course does not exist, and yet nevertheless rules the world. But in any case, there *is* a rational proof of God's existence, as I am in the process of explaining.

 

[phildwyer]

So the sensible thing to do is put some blind faith into some 'magic' you read about in a book?

What do you think magic has to do with religion? Serious question, I'd like to know the answer...

 

[118118]

*money,* which of course does not exist, and yet nevertheless rules the world.

I think, that money does exist, its only its sprit which does not!

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

What do you think magic has to do with religion? Serious question, I'd like to know the answer...

Loaves and fishes
Water - wine
back from the dead.
walk on water
Etc

Let's pray to david blane.

 

[Crispy]

Loaves and fishes
Water - wine
back from the dead.
walk on water
Etc

Let's pray to david blane.

You have NO idea what you're getting into here

 

[Fruitloop]

It's like an intellectual sarlac pit.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

You have NO idea what you're getting into here

I can take it.

These god botherers are an interesting sort, Intelligent design is the best. I saw a film demonstrating how it must be true scientifically the other day. It went on about science and the big bang for about half an hour then said 'but there is no way this could just of happened so god did it' - just slipped that in - 'therefore that god must be Allah? - WTF even if it must be a god why should it have to be Allah? the way this guys think is insane. They must have known what they were doing, I bet they thought 'nobody will notice if we just slip our little bit of bollocks in here with all that fact in front of it some of it might rub off on it, heh heh heh' .

 

[Crispy]

Yes, but Phildwyer is not your average God botherer. I'm not even sure if it's God he's bothering, or some sort of nebulous topic of a phd somewhere. You'd better have read every single philosopher from Plato to Descartes or you'll be asked to *leave* the thread in a patronising tone of voice.

 

[nino_savatte]

Yes, but Phildwyer is not your average God botherer. I'm not even sure if it's God he's bothering, or some sort of nebulous topic of a phd somewhere. You'd better have read every single philosopher from Plato to Descartes or you'll be asked to *leave* the thread in a patronising tone of voice.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

Yes, but Phildwyer is not your average God botherer. I'm not even sure if it's God he's bothering, or some sort of nebulous topic of a phd somewhere. You'd better have read every single philosopher from Plato to Descartes or you'll be asked to *leave* the thread in a patronising tone of voice.

I've got a feeling I had a few interesting threads with him when I first joined.

 

[phildwyer]

Yes, but Phildwyer is not your average God botherer. I'm not even sure if it's God he's bothering, or some sort of nebulous topic of a phd somewhere. You'd better have read every single philosopher from Plato to Descartes or you'll be asked to *leave* the thread in a patronising tone of voice.

Crispy, I wonder if you're quite sure that this is the thread for you?

 

[Crispy]

Crispy, I wonder if you're quite sure that this is the thread for you?

*headbutts the screen so hard, the frame becomes a rather snazzy necklace*

 

[nino_savatte]

He bullies
He patronises
He spouts shite
That's phildwyer!