Are there ANY valid pro-theistic arguments?

[drkitten]

Do you have a better word for it, the word itself means nothing. It is simply the agreed upon word for this concept in our culture.

That's part of the problem, though. The "concept in our culture" is well-named, but not well-defined, almost to the point where two people can be using the same term to talk about two entirely different concepts.

For example, the Deist's Great Watchmaker is almost an entirely different order of being from the Person whom the local born-against have a "personal relationship" to. Michael Behe's God is so dumb that he doesn 't know how to delegate and Fred Phelps' is so busy hating fags he doesn't have time for anything else, while Ken Miller's is so smart that he need not do anything but delegate -- and probably spends all his time watching TV in his office.

 

[Dumbledore]

But what use is a concept you can neither prove nor disprove? If after millenia of the best minds of the world working on the subject the very best you can come up with for the concept is "it can't be disproven", then isn't it perhaps time to give up on the concept?

Then that would be a God of a very different sort.

Then how can longing for God be part of the reason for believing in him.

I think that this was the very question posed in the OP. So far we have come up blank. There are a couple of arguments from Mere Christianity, but I don't even think them worthy of mention.

Perhaps some possible reasons there is no good evidence for God is that God is ineffable, God is hiding or God does not exist

But even a materialist might believe that there is order in the universe (we observe order after all) and that we are part of something greater than man and that we will eventually return to it (or that we were always a part of it). They just wont think that whatever it is has purpose or meaning.

No I will not give up on the belief in God, I do not think God can be proven nor disproven. I find much use in a being that is beyond human comprehension, mostly in that we have limits, and that the universe and creation has far more to offer than we will ever know.

Yes that would be a very different God, why isn't that view of God ever discussed. We sharply defined our view of God, this is a mistake, especially in thinking we can so sharply define that which we don't know.

Longing for God and the choice to do so, can be a reason for believing in God, because the choice exists. It is not dogmatic,it is really a choice, and it really has to do with what you believe about God.

But this is not evidence for or against God, they are arguments for or against God.

But how do you show that a source of all things, that you are always a part of does not have a purpose or meaning. My point is that I cannot nor can prove that this purpose or meaning exists. I can only point to the flaws in our own understand of the universe and my own beliefs and feelings about the purpose of God. Though I could not tell you definitively what that purpose is.

 

[Matt the Poet]

Do you have a better word for it, the word itself means nothing. It is simply the agreed upon word for this concept in our culture.

It's not though, is it? Among certain philosophers and theologians it might be, but mention 'god' to most people 'in our culture' and they will be thinking of a concrete, conscious being who has some culturally variable but very specific way of relating to them. Hence the problem with using that word.

If you're going to talk about these concepts properly, I think the way forward is to refuse to use a concrete word at all, and instead force yourself to continuously define what you're on about.

 

[sphenisc]

Because there are unanswerable questions, which are strangely neither pro-theistic or atheist.

If god created everything who made god?

The clue is in the question.

 

[Dumbledore]

It's not though, is it? Among certain philosophers and theologians it might be, but mention 'god' to most people 'in our culture' and they will be thinking of a concrete, conscious being who has some culturally variable but very specific way of relating to them. Hence the problem with using that word.

If you're going to talk about these concepts properly, I think the way forward is to refuse to use a concrete word at all, and instead force yourself to continuously define what you're on about.

But I am discussing this concept properly. Just because you are unfamiliar with my concept of God does not make my belief some how wrong, or my use of the word God wrong. You are familiar with a personal Christan God. This is not what I believe in. I believe in an impersonal God. Furthermore I am unclear on my belief in God because God is hard to define, being unknowable and beyond human comprehension and such.

Maybe it is you that should reexamine your notions of God, just because Christan fundies have batted around and perverted the notion of God, does not mean the rest of us believe in such a personal Christan God!

 

[Matt the Poet]

I find much use in a being that is beyond human comprehension, mostly in that we have limits, and that the universe and creation has far more to offer than we will ever know.

As I said above, you don't have to go to such lofty places to realise this, electric eels will do. I know that electric eels exist, and I know that they are experiencing a reality that will forever be beyond my ability to directly apprehend. The consciousness of an electric eels is, in this sense, 'ineffable', no?

Yes that would be a very different God, why isn't that view of God ever discussed. We sharply defined our view of God, this is a mistake, especially in thinking we can so sharply define that which we don't know.

I think you might be defining that view more sharply than you claim you are. For a start, you capitalise the word 'God' - indicating, at the very least, that you consider it to be a proper noun - something that uniquely labels an individual, actually existing entity. Secondly, you speak of desiring a 'connection' - for such a thing to be possible or even meaningful puts implicit constraints on what sort of thing this 'God' might be. But the kicker is this...


QUOTE=Dumbledore;2853457]But how do you show that a source of all things, that you are always a part of does not have a purpose or meaning.

This is a major upgrade on what you're explicitly claiming about 'God'. You've admitted that you can't prove the existence of purpose or meaning in this entity, but slipped through the assertion that this God thingy is 'a source of all things, that you are always a part of'. Which is a bit different from merely being some sort of entity that is outside our comprehension.

 

[sphenisc]

For a start, you capitalise the word 'God' - indicating, at the very least, that you consider it to be a proper noun - something that uniquely labels an individual, actually existing entity.

I capitalise The Borg.

 

[Matt the Poet]

But I am discussing this concept properly.

Deep and abiding apologies, Dumbledore - I meant an impersonal 'you' at that point. You are very much discussing it properly, what I meant to suggest was that using the word 'God' hinders that discussion.

If I could discover how to use strike-through here, I'd use 'god' with a line through it, much as Derrida did (after Heidegger) for words like 'being' to indicate concepts that needed urgently to be discussed but couldn't be properly served by language at all.

 

[drkitten]

I capitalise The Borg.

Or for that matter : Superman, Frodo Baggins, Lilliput, and Cair Paravel (the capital of Narnia).

 

[Dumbledore]

As I said above, you don't have to go to such lofty places to realise this, electric eels will do. I know that electric eels exist, and I know that they are experiencing a reality that will forever be beyond my ability to directly apprehend. The consciousness of an electric eels is, in this sense, 'ineffable', no?



I think you might be defining that view more sharply than you claim you are. For a start, you capitalise the word 'God' - indicating, at the very least, that you consider it to be a proper noun - something that uniquely labels an individual, actually existing entity. Secondly, you speak of desiring a 'connection' - for such a thing to be possible or even meaningful puts implicit constraints on what sort of thing this 'God' might be. But the kicker is this...

This is a major upgrade on what you're explicitly claiming about 'God'. You've admitted that you can't prove the existence of purpose or meaning in this entity, but slipped through the assertion that this God thingy is 'a source of all things, that you are always a part of'. Which is a bit different from merely being some sort of entity that is outside our comprehension.

No not really, I just believe God is a source to all things, this does not make my belief true or absolute, it is really more of a guess. Hence I don't define how God is the source of all things or how we are all connect to God, this is my mere belief of the unknowable.

Furthermore I capitalize God because it is a concept worthy of capitalization, not because I view God as a personal entity or individual, I also capitalize America, but is not an individual. In the future I would not construe whether a person believes in a personal or individual God from the basis if they capitalize the word God or not! I will admit though that our word for God is sorely limited in really defining what we are talking about.

Finally I am not slipping through any assertions, I do not want to prove God to you! I am stating my belief, nothing else, and my belief counts for less than nothing when it comes to what is actually going on, and if God actually exists or not!

 

[Matt the Poet]

Fair enough - I retract the 'actually existing' part. Superman and The Borg are still things, though. Fictional things, to be sure, but definitely entities to which you can meaningfully refer.

 

[Matt the Poet]

No not really, I just believe God is a source to all things, this does not make my belief true or absolute, it is really more of a guess. Hence I don't define how God is the source of all things or how we are all connect to God, this is my mere belief of the unknowable.

...

Finally I am not slipping through any assertions, I do not want to prove God to you! I am stating my belief, nothing else, and my belief counts for less than nothing when it comes to what is actually going on, and if God actually exists or not!

First off, I know you're not trying to convert me in any way, and I wouldn't be here if you were. By 'slipping through' I meant that your 'source of all things' definition wasn't explicitly acknowledged, unlike 'purpose', as one of the arbitrary properties you have assigned to 'God'.

But I do find your response fascinating. If I've got this right, we both agree that there is very probably stuff that exists outside of actual or potential human experience.

However, you have then chosen to take that stuff and ascribe certain properties to it - properties that you freely admit may be completely wrong but fit with your internal experience of things.

To me, that seems odd - but objectively I'll concede that it's a reasonable way for a thoughtful person to deal with the ineffable (a term which I'm hereby going to use, if there's no objections, in place of your own 'God', which is a bit loaded for my tastes).

Next question, therefore - where does it get you? I can't see any way in which such a thin assertion tells me anything, physical or metaphysical, about how, or why, I live in the world.

 

[Herzblut]

But what use is a concept you can neither prove nor disprove?

You have more children.

Herzblut

 

[Robin]

No I will not give up on the belief in God, I do not think God can be proven nor disproven. I find much use in a being that is beyond human comprehension, mostly in that we have limits, and that the universe and creation has far more to offer than we will ever know.

But we know we have limits without the concept of a God. We know that there is more to existence than we will ever know without the concept of a God. What does the concept of God add that we would not have anyway?

Longing for God and the choice to do so, can be a reason for believing in God, because the choice exists.

But the choice doesn't exist, you cannot just choose to long for something. You either long for it or you don't. Longing comes from a desire within you. If you don't have that desire then you can't just insert it into your mind.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Michael Behe's God is so dumb that he doesn 't know how to delegate and Fred Phelps' is so busy hating fags he doesn't have time for anything else, while Ken Miller's is so smart that he need not do anything but delegate -- and probably spends all his time watching TV in his office.

I'll bet the over on "surfing the internet for pron." He made Eve for a reason, and who the heck is going to fire him for pron surfing at work?

DR

 

[Civilized Worm]

If so, theists sure like arguing with fallacy and invalid points... moreso than any valid arguments.

I've had more than enough "You can't prove God doesn't exist!", and such.

Not knowing does not also disprove God.

It seems not.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I suggest moving this thread over to Religion and Philosophy.

I suggest using the report button instead of bumping a 4 year old thread.

And to you newbies who responded to Lord Kenneth, learn some forum lore dammit!

 

[c4ts]

I suggest moving this thread over to Religion and Philosophy.

Ack! Necromancy! Burn the witch!

 

[Dumbledore]

I capitalise The Borg.

As you should!!!

 

[Dumbledore]

Next question, therefore - where does it get you? I can't see any way in which such a thin assertion tells me anything, physical or metaphysical, about how, or why, I live in the world.

Well that is a matter of interpretation, my belief in God does not give me a moral or ethical code, but instead it fills me with a feeling of wonder about the universe around me and my role in that universe. I believe that the belief in God does not give you anything, instead it is what you bring to that belief in God. In short what you make of this belief. God is not going to come down and tell you how to live your life and what is right and wrong, you are going to have to figure that out on your own. But instead God is something you choose to believe in that is beyond definition and description but that is still there. What you make of that relationship is up to you, but for me it certainly makes me wonder about the universe and what is really going on! In short this relationship gives me nothing, it really has to do with what I make of this relationship.