If God provided proof that he exists, then it would be logical to believe in him.  The absence of proof leaves only faith for belief.  You do not need faith if you have proof and vice versa.  By God’s own choice, he can only be known by faith.

But why have faith in this particular God?  If God won’t give us proof, what’s to stop us from believing in Allah or Zeus?  To have faith is to deny logic.  What alternative is there to logic?  How do we think?  Mindlessness is the absence of logic.

Would God really create intelligent beings just to require they abandon intelligence?

Views: 551

Tags: God, choice, intelligence, logic, proof

Comment by Doug Reardon on August 24, 2011 at 8:53pm

God works in mysterious ways, his wonders to behold!

Comment by Jeremy Lester on August 24, 2011 at 9:25pm

There's no logic to it, but that's the thing. People that believe in this crap aren't logical, so lack of logic is no deterrent in believing in it. What i'm saying is, luckily for religion, most people are stupid.

Comment by Michael Gage on August 24, 2011 at 9:26pm

I'm sorry, but how does this show God to be logically impossible? I think you're really getting at probability, not possibility. I would interpret your view as saying that things without sufficient evidence are unlikely to be true - just like it is unlikely there is a teapot flying between here and Mars, but it's not impossible.

Comment by Ron V on August 24, 2011 at 9:30pm

Have you read "The Impossibility of God?"

Comment by Brian Pansky on August 25, 2011 at 12:13am

"unlikely there is a teapot flying between here and Mars, but it's not impossible."

 

I think the possiblility of a non-sequitur universe is irrelevant.  Is there any respect we can have for someone who expects us to accept anything without sufficient evidence.  Especially if anyone thinks that suspending judgement, or being confused, is unforgivable.  As if our cognitive faculties are in working order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases) and the only flaw that humans can possibly have is reduced to them Choosing to hate 'the good guy of the universe and all possible universes'.

 

In terms of relationships of trust, like the human relationships (and responsibilities in them) I have read about, I think the point is "Who cares what moron expects such things".  That is the logical impossibility, that it can be thought that it is our responsibility in 'the relationship' to believe based on faith.  Not whether it's possible something with that expectation exists.

Comment by Unseen on August 25, 2011 at 12:44am

Now, I'm an atheist, but Norman Malcolm, a very great British philosopher of the mid-to-late 20th Century, examined the so-called "ontological argument for the existence of God" and was persuaded enough to start attending church.

 

While his argument is based on the famous one by Saint Anselm, it is a clever (and complicated) refinement.

 

In a nutshell, he argues that the concept of God is a unique concept because it implies an unlimited and noncontingent being. A contingent being is one whose existence depends on something outside of it. By contrast, God must be the other kind of being, a necessary being. What kind of God could He be if he might not exist?

 

Here is one exposition of Malcolm's version:

 

1. “God” means an absolutely unlimited being
2. Any being whose existence depended on something else, or which could be prevented from existing by something else, would be limited by something else and so would not be an unlimited being.
3. For every proposed being, B, its existence is either possible (but not necessary), necessary, or impossible

4. To say of B that its existence is possible but not necessary is to say that it exists in some possible world (call it PW1), but not in another (PW2)
5. If B existed in PW1 but not in PW2, then either (a) there is something that exists in PW2 that prevents B from existing, or (b) there is something missing from PW2 that B requires in order to exist.
6. Hence, if B’s existence is possible but not necessary, then (a) or (b) is true.

7. If (a) or (b) is true, then B is not an unlimited being.
8. Hence, if B is possible but not necessary, then B is not an unlimited being
9. Hence, if God is possible but not necessary, then God is not an unlimited being
10. Hence, it is not the case that God is possible but not necessary
11. Hence, God is either impossible or exists necessarily

Comment by Artor on August 25, 2011 at 1:07am

If we take the existence of god as our hypothesis, we must assume that a being of omnipotence and omnipresence, as the Xtian definition of god is made clear to be, would leave his fingerprints writ large on everything he created. Pretty much all branches of science are dedicated to finding those fingerprints wherever one could look. Pretty much none of them are finding them, anywhere. Logically, whatever gap god resides in will eventually have a light shone into it to find a perfectly good scientific explanation.

Comment by Artor on August 25, 2011 at 1:15am

Interesting, Unseen. But the argument falls apart pretty early. What exactly is a "necessary" being? Is that something that has to exist to fill a niche, like a marsupial wolf? If not, it sounds like a subjective judgement. I certainly don't find god to be a "necessary" being. So ultimately, I agree with the conclusion, "11. Hence, God is either impossible or exists necessarily."

Comment by Unseen on August 25, 2011 at 1:19am

The argument depends on the idea that if you're not talking about a being possessed of necessary existence, whatever you're talking about, it's not God.

Comment by Brian Pansky on August 25, 2011 at 1:31am

besides, we are talking as if it (god) is an infinitesimal dot with a simple this=that description, and no attributions distinguish it as being the god anyone before the year 03 AD has heard of.  But it gets expanded into something that could have told us we were evil if we brushed our teeth, or were pan-sexual or something, by the people who wrote stuff BEFORE 03 AD.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Blog Posts

PI = 4

Posted by _Robert_ on September 16, 2014 at 8:53pm 5 Comments

Invictus

Posted by Marinda on September 11, 2014 at 4:08pm 0 Comments

Ads

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service