A proof of God's self-evidence

[Didymos Thomas]

Okay, why isn't it scientifically rigorous?

Those interviewed for the book were mostly philosophy and theology scholars, and none of those interviewed oppose ID.

But still, do you believe it is plausible for a system so complex to have come about by random chance...the odds against it are overwhelming. And science can't explain why the Big Bang happened: Life against the odds..

It's not like we're stuck between random chance or ID. More importantly, throwing God out as some metaphysical goop that fills all crevices as yet untouched by science doesn't hold much water.

When scientists can't answer, philosophers attempt to.

And outside of the Discovery Institute, ID is not taken seriously.

There had to be, by logical neccesity, an eternally existent Object, since an infinite regress makes no logical sense whatsoever, in my mind, or else there would be, and always would've been, nothing.

Logical necessities are not necessities of reality.

I think the problem is rooted in the mistaken attempt to prove God. It's impossible and misses the point.

[Protoman2050]

I see. But aren't there philosophers who argue for existence of a Supreme Being? Just like there's philosophers who argue that self doesn't really exist.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Protoman2050

Going one step further, since according to Hume all ideas are images of sense impressions our idea of God is a dim copy of the real God, something that our finite minds can grasp.

Unless we're mistaken and it's a dim projection of ourselves instead. Just because you have an impression of something doesn't mean that your interpretation of that impression has anything to do with reality. We could all name examples, like when we think for a moment that we see a face we recognize, or we think for a moment we hear our name. So this "link" in your chain of logic cannot prove your premise unless you also hold that our idea of x is ALWAYS correct, and can never correspond to something other than x in reality.

[Protoman2050]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Those interviewed for the book were mostly philosophy and theology scholars, and none of those interviewed oppose ID.



It's not like we're stuck between random chance or ID. More importantly, throwing God out as some metaphysical goop that fills all crevices as yet untouched by science doesn't hold much water.



And outside of the Discovery Institute, ID is not taken seriously.




Logical necessities are not necessities of reality.

I think the problem is rooted in the mistaken attempt to prove God. It's impossible and misses the point.

And so w/ attempts to disprove God. Shall we discuss something more interesting, like the nature of time, or whether machines can think, or shall we keep spinning our wheels?

Btw, I don't understand your last quote; are you saying that reality doesn't obey logic?

Thank you for introducing me to the other side of the endless debate over God's existence; you have let me exercise my philosophical muscles and have increased my faith in God, for I now know that His existence is important enough to be debated and all worthwhile theories have a degree of opposition.

[Protoman2050]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Unless we're mistaken and it's a dim projection of ourselves instead. Just because you have an impression of something doesn't mean that your interpretation of that impression has anything to do with reality. We could all name examples, like when we think for a moment that we see a face we recognize, or we think for a moment we hear our name. So this "link" in your chain of logic cannot prove your premise unless you also hold that our idea of x is ALWAYS correct, and can never correspond to something other than x in reality.

Okay, I'm probably going to get flamed for cowardice now: Let's assume that our impressions are always correct. Because all those times are examples of our mind's built-in pattern detector trying too hard. I think I just took a can opener to my argument now

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Protoman2050

Let's assume that our impressions are always correct.

Ok, let's assume that. Do you assume that EVERYONE'S impressions are always correct? If so, then you have to account for crazy people, polytheists, satanists, atheists, etc. If you're truly being neutral about this premise, then your argument can "prove" the existence of ANYTHING just because someone has an impression of it and a word for that impression. So you can simultaneously account for completely antagonistic (and mutually exclusive) views. On the other hand, if you don't assume that everyone's impressions are always correct, how will you decide who to believe without going circular on us? (i.e. finding some way to inevitably have the theists be the believable ones)

[Protoman2050]

I see my philosophy and/or theology is inconsistent, since it can prove God just as well as disprove God.

*Sigh*. Should I give up, or keep banging my head against the wall?

Where is my mistake?

[Theaetetus]

I think your mistake is accepting authority. Look for your own voice, but don't alter other voices to find your own. Your philosophy and your theology are inconstant because that is what typically happens. If you want them to be consistent then be willing to accept the "atheist" tag because that is the price to pay to incorporating philosophy with theology. Or just allow for contradiction. You wouldn't be the first. You are still young. Don't pigeonhole you beliefs at such a young age. Let your mind wander and don't be afraid to contradict your former selves. It happens to the best of us.

[Protoman2050]

Thank you. You've taught me that the purpose of faith is to bridge the doctrines revealed in Scripture w/ the faculties of reasoning our Lord gave us, which were marred b/c of Adam's sin.

Was it a good first try though? My original theory, and all the refinements and revisions of our dialectic --that word feels so..."academic". Why?--

Thanks!

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Protoman2050

*Sigh*. Should I give up, or keep banging my head against the wall?

Where is my mistake?

Well, I think your mistake is not so much one of logic, per se. It's that you're taking on a project that people worked VERY hard on in the time of Aquinas, only to find that it was just unsatisfactory. Remember that in the Middle Ages, following the Crusades, Christian Europe became exposed to the philosophy of ancient Greece (which had been mainly known to the Muslim world at the time). Rationality and logic suddenly became important, and seemingly a way to legitimize theology.

But the problem is that God is impossible to affirmatively prove even if he does exist, and logic cannot prove the existence or truth of something in reality.

This is why modern philosophy has basically given up that project. Descartes, despite offering a God proof of his own, did a lot to damage God proofs by putting the rational man at the center of all knowledge. And since then, in various ways, everyone from Spinoza to Kierkegaard has undermined the God proof. Kierkegaard is the one from whom the "leap of faith" idea famously comes, i.e. belief in God is NOT rational.