/lit/ - Literature

>>4869386

Theologians aren't particularly interested in proving the legitimacy of belief in God, though. You're better off looking at philosophers of religion. To that end, Alvin Plantinga's probably the most respected voice in the field who considers theistic belief to be rational.

>>4869405
Would you recommend I just look up the guy generally or look to a specific work of his?

>>4869405
>>4869423
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga
I know this is seriously fucking biased, but does it actually display serious flaws in his thought, or does it miss the point? Or a bit of both?

>>4869423
God, Freedom, and Evil

>>4869405
>look him up
>evolution disproving naturalism
nigga wut

>religion
>argument
religion is not philosophy

>>4869471
>Theology

Look up William Lane Craig

>>4869471
Philosophers don't have arguments either. That's why they use fallacies instead.

>>4869454
That's just about the Problem of Evil though. I'm looking for quality arguments for God's existence.

>>4869521
>implying it doesn't include Plantinga's ontological argument

>>4869511
nice assertion bro
care to back it up?

>>4869521
Your real question should be if there is, which recognized god is it?

>>4869529
>implying ontological arguments are worthwhile in the least

What could possibly be brought to the table to make this better?

>>4869386
I don't understand why people need to prove things that can't be proven at all

>>4869521
I can't provide any in favor of God's existence, but if you're looking for a compelling argument against it then go study cell biology for a few years.

>>4869561
Hardly anything can be proven. We should use rational arguments to base our beliefs on, however.

>>4869567
>intelligent design

>>4869556
modal logic

Not the best argument, but a very entertaining read.

>>4869581
This guy gets it

>>4869581
The point is not whether something can be proven or not, it's whether you need to waste time thinking about its existence or not. God's existence is something you can't realize simply by trying to come up with excuses about if you want to believe or not.

>>4869603
>it's whether you need to

That's bullshit from the start.

>God's existence is something you can't realize simply by trying to come up with excuses about if you want to believe or not.

When how do you come into a belief in a god?

>>4869436

You will not find any balanced and fair critiques of any person who dares defy atheism in RationalWiki.
It's not a place that values rational behavior, it is an echo chamber for values and worldviews that conform to the particular group that uses it. That's not to say that their arguments are not rational, but rather that nothing can get a fair chance because it simply does not conform to their notion of what the world is supposed to be like. It's quite the opposite of a free marketplace of ideas.

Always go to the source and construct your own opinion.

>>4869644
>Always go to the source and construct your own opinion

>>4869386
Serious arguments about the existence of God are all semantic and vapid. Serious discussions about why religion were all argued by the year 1900. By this point, there's only people who live in caves and do not want to leave.

>>4869644
Rationalwiki is literally an atheist site, what do you expect?

They still pose good arguments, whether or not you like their modus operandi

>ontological argument
>modal logic

Babby here. Can someone explain this guy's version of the ontological argument? Maybe I'm tired but it's reading like Greek to me.

>>4869698
hard to summarize

http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/plantinga.html

>>4869386
>can't find love from a companion
>need it from Jesus
Hahaha, oh wow

>>4869386
>serious arguments for believing in god
like Pascal's Wager? or the onthological proof, aka god exists because god exists?

Well, basically you make your definitions as vague as possible to the point when no serious discussion can take place.

>>4869698
existence is perfection, ergo God exists.

seriously, the ontological argument is shit.

>>4869802
A companion is just to produce offspring with.

>>4869844
>god exists because god exists
not exactly

>>4869856
not exactly

>>4869471
>religion is not philosophy
>religion
>not philosophy
>is
>religion is not philosophy
Religion is quite literally philosophy, or at least a philosophical system.

>>4869872
Yeah, i know, it's super vague so you can claim it means anything you want.

>>4869870

>>4869893
It's less vague if you subscribe to Maximally Great Being philosophy

still vague tho, but the argument can accomplish what it sets out to do with some ambiguity

So the lesson here is that there are no good arguments for a god?

>>4870149
If you take lessons from 4chan, I guess.
There's certainly no scientific ones, and as far as the readership goes, not many strong philosophical ones, either.

>>4870156
Not limiting ourselves to this readership, are there any good philosophical arguments generally?

>>4870164
that's what I mean, no one here seems to know of any

>>4869386
Since God can - by definition- do anything, why can't he exist without existing?

See: hard problem of consciousness

>>4870198
Oh, I got one, I got one!
What happens when the unstoppable force meets the immovable object?

>>4870205
Fuck you that's what.

Consciousness proves that immaterial entities exist

>>4870169
There's a handful of good ones, but they don't get talked about much.

Briefly,
>argument from simultaneous causes
>the contingency of the universe and everything in it (best combined with simultaneous cause, which explains it further)
>argument from veridical reason
>argument from morality
>argument from beauty
From strongest to weakest. Each one gets pretty long, but I don't have a great grasp on the argument from morality. I've never seen the first two refuted in a satisfying or accurate manner, and when I bring them up they've never been refuted either. There's more than this, but I find these the strongest. There's miracles too, but they're more difficult to discuss with other people because of their preconceptions, so I usually don't bring it up. To clarify, I am an atheist. And the claim in the OP is correct, Dawkins and Hitchens etc. only rebut watered down or distorted versions of theological arguments, and frequently miss things that are even explicitly stated by people like Aquinas, giving me the impression that they haven't bothered to actually read or research any of what they're writing about.

I'm on skype with my gf though so it'll be a little tough to elaborate on these properly.

>>4870198
That's the textbook application of Kant's "Existence is not a predicate" argument. I can't say "My car is blue!" to prove that I have a car (I don't). You can't use the properties of something to prove that thing exists, which is why pretty much all ontological arguments are almost by definition shit.

>>4870221
Phineas Gage would like to have a word with you. As well as anyone whose ever been knocked unconscious.

>>4870156
>>4870164
>>4870169
>>4870229
What? Of course there are no arguments to prove God, any definition for him eludes him by his very nature

If you genuinely think logic can "prove" his existence, then you are Evangelical-tier

>>4870221
look 170+ iq

>>4870229
>Dawkins and Hitchens etc. only rebut watered down or distorted versions of theological arguments
The entire reason they started this ideological crusade is that their countries politically rely on those same watered down arguments. Anti-theists don't give a fuck about theology, they just want that shit to go because it seeps into politics and awful lot and they think it's retarded.

>>4870221
Are you sure about that?

>>4870261
This is the problem that people aren't getting, Hitchens and Harris don't give a flying fuck about what theologists say as long as they aren't convincing stupid people that condoms are bad

>>4870261
That wouldn't be a problem if Dawkins et al explicitly dealt only Fundamentalism, which the Catholic Church also rejects and argues against, but they're explicitly stated they're against all religion and write as such. Please, at least give these guys the respect they deserve and acknowledge what they're actually saying instead of pretending they aren't arguing against religion in general, or all religion, but just a specific part of it, when they've clearly said otherwise numerous times.

They're not saying "I am against Fundamentalist religion", they're saying "I am against all religion", and then argue against deliberately watered-down or distorted versions of theological arguments to prove they're write.

>>4870279
geeze, what I meant was "to prove they're right", what a terrible mistake.

>>4869386
>Nature does not know extinction; all it knows is transformation. Everything science has taught me, and continues to teach me, strengthens my belief in the continuity of our spiritual existence after death.

>>4870279
>which the Catholic Church also rejects and argues against,
The Catholic church is majorly fundamentalist in practice you stupid cunt

>>4870279
I suggest you read my post again, you seem to have assumed I typed something I didn't.

>>4870295
I don't think so, no. Regardless of their purpose, they're arguing against religion. Which is fine, they just need to argue against actual religious beliefs and arguments that have been the standard for thousands of years and are considered the strongest. They're not even saying "I just wish my country didn't rely on religion for politics", they're saying "Religion is wrong." My problem with them is that these arguments are weak.

>>4870305
>I don't think so, no.
Then something very funny is happening here:
>They're not saying "I am against Fundamentalist religion", they're saying "I am against all religion"
Duh? Why do you think I called them "anti-theists"?
What i'm saying is they are not interested in any form of philosophical or theological discourse. Their contempt about religion spawns from the aforementioned facts. If they were raised in a country that doesn't refer to any of their region as "the bible belt" they would have never picked the argument because they wouldn't need to.

>>4870312
>What i'm saying is they are not interested in any form of philosophical or theological discourse.
Yes, and I'm saying they are not presenting any strong arguments against religion by avoiding them to solely discuss, at best, Fundamentalism. There's no point in saying you've refuted or disproved religion when you're ignoring all of its most powerful claims and arguments. Again, at best, they've refuted Fundamentalism, which has only been around for around 100 years, not religion or Christianity entirely, which is their claim.

>>4870321
>Again, at best, they've refuted Fundamentalism, which has only been around for around 100 years, not religion or Christianity entirely, which is their claim.
Hahahaha

>>4870335
You don't have like it, bro, but it is the truth. Christian Fundamentalism, the religious movement present in the UK and US that could be argued to rely on these "watered-down arguments", only began in the late 19th to early 20th century.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism
You can find more results on Google if you want.

>>4870348
I don't doubt you anon, I just think that point is fucking retarded

>>4870380
You don't think Dawkins was attempting to disprove the existence of God at all or religion entirely when he wrote The God Delusion? Because that's exactly what he was aiming to do in that book. Yes, it did turn out to be very silly of him.

>>4870386
I don't give a shit about Dawkins, the argument about God's existence is vapid and pointless because he's defined outside the realm of provability. Even if he were to be "disproved", you could just change the definition and still make him exist. I could simply say, God is that which is unprovable, and you can never prove him or her true tautologically, but that doesn't give God any significance

So, what specifically is "fundamentalism" as opposed to your perfect, infallible and absolutely pristine version of the faith?

>>4870398
>I don't give a shit about Dawkins
Then why are you in a thread discussing him and responding to a series of posts pointing out his errors at all?

>>4870406
Because I like seeing what idiotic shit believers come up with to defend their belief

>>4870409
I already mentioned I was an atheist though. I'm just an atheist who finds Dawkins'/etc. arguments and rebuttals profoundly weak and disappointing.

Sorry, buddy.

>>4870421
That's fine, I'm an agnostic, and I think Dawkins is pretty autistic too. So whatever

>>4870434

Autistic people often take an awfully long time to develop an understanding of other minds, is it possible that this is related to high rates of atheistic belief in that group?

God is the greatest other mind we can conceive of, in a way.

>>4870506
>God is the greatest other mind we can conceive of, in a way.
Assuming God exists, how exactly could we develop an understanding of the mind of God?

>>4869436
>rationalwiki.org

>>4869386
Talk to any respectable theologian and chances are they won't be religious. Also, why do you think these critics avoid presenting any of those serious arguments from the theologians? It wouldn't be that difficult to do a little research. The truth is that they're making an assumption. They're thinking surely there must be some better arguments than those of the strawmen in Harris' and Hitchens' books. Not so. What you'll find are the same arguments presented in more impressive writing, which, for the less discerning, is enough to convince them. This is a great power the best writers have. They're master sophists.

>>4869521

You might want to check pic related. It's what converted me to Catholicism. So much excellent scholarship as the basis of a faith...

>>4869856

Friendly reminder that Leviticus was written by a Rabbi as a Rabbinic handbook for other Rabbis, not as the word of God to be applied to all; you were supposed, as a Rabbi, to choose from these guideliness what you'd apply to your flock.

There's a reason why Jews haven't applied this stuff for centuries.

>>4870290

Wernher von Braun, not Pynchon, you twat.

And yes, I know Pynchmyballs quotes him to start his shitfest of a pedo novel.

>>4870293

No, they're heavy on education and science. You don't get anywhere in the church's hierarchy without a few doctorates under your belt. Current Pope has a Ph.D in chemistry, for instance.

>>4871113
What's funny?

>>4872675
>excellent scholarship
>defense on Satan's fall is a council meeting with no details about it instead of biblical sources

Yeah, no.

OP, try this. It has horrid design but the writing is good and the case is excellent.

I enjoyed reading it and found convincing arguments in there.

It's really funny. A lot of journalists seem to have been hoping some obscurantists were in the wings somewhere, ready with all sorts of awesome arguments. The cavalry has yet to arrive.

>>4872694

What? If you stick to the Bible only, you won't get anywhere, but you will find a lot of Protestants.

What the fuck is "defense on Satan's fall" anyway?

>>4869471

philosophia ancilla theologiae

>>4870293
Dude, the Catholic Church is made up of Asians, South Europeans, Latin Americans and Africans. Barring the Irish, it's pretty much only made up of people who has a seriously lax view of religious life for the layperson.

This is really the great duality of our church, an well-educated and monastic elite and a large mass of people who see no problem calling themselves catholic and then go pray to nature spirits. And after the second council the later mentality is actually working itself upwards in the hierarchy.

>>4872837
>And after the second council the later mentality is actually working itself upwards in the hierarchy.
Good. Time for the folk to take back the church.

>>4872837
>Barring the Irish

The Church is dead among natives under 40 here. Stone cold dead.

Look, Christian theology, particularly Catholic, is very rich and complex, but this stuff simply doesn't get preached to the common peasant because he probably doesn't care about it anyway.

Dudes like Aquinas not only wrote whole systems to explain God and Christianity, but also argued with Jewish, Orthodox and Muslim people. It's really quite fascinating, today we either want to let everyone believe what they wish or mock them, but their is room for solid, intelligent dialogue concerning religion.

>where Stirner knows he'll find it

>>4871113
>http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Brights_Movement
>This is seriously a thing
Respected scientist or not, I'm not even believing in christ and I find this absurdly arrogant

>>4873017

Yeah, the whole 'brights' thing pretty much died on the vine in a chorus of wholesale derision, as, I'm pretty sure, did the similar, subsequent 'Atheism Plus' "movement". At least, I've not heard anything of either of them for some years.

They're a pretty good litmus test for atheists, though - if you feel obliged to defend them, you're probably a sap.

>>4873031
Atheism Plus was basically Marxism stripped of concern for economic oppression and any sort of plan or method of scientific analysis.

>>4872995
feminism is a spook

>>4873054
It can be used that way.

>>4869386
>this again, and again, and again
Well, it IS what they're doing. The entire New Atheist movement does just that.

If you don't feel like reading, you can watch their debates with some theologians. You'll have each side presenting their strongest points.

There are no arguments for a god existing that people have any knowledge about. At most, there's an argument to be made that SOMETHING created the universe, but as for anybody arguing that they know what that something is, ridiculous.

>>4870221
>implying conciousness isn't material

>>4872701
Citation to prove that Satan is a fallen angel. The Catechism cites that council meeting.

Jesus was a dirty balloon.

>>4873087
Why are you such a stupid knob? Is it not clear for you that I can give the sum total of everything God? And then you can say that doesn't exist?

Atheist are slightly above calculators in states of being.

>>4873402
All you've given me is fairy stories for children afraid of the dark. What am I supposed to do with that?

>>4873414
What... The... Fuck... are you talking about you broken record? Tone down you're euphoria plz, you're a regular run of the mill moron, don't confuse yourself further. Confusion within confusion is where you live.

Now re-read my post and tell me where did you get the story for children bit, and how is that not a recycled reply that your type uses to argue with the retarded branch of Christianity?

>>4873402
>Is it not clear for you that I can give the sum total of everything God?

Different guy here. Not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean you can be a panentheist or something?

To the Christians that believe the birth, miracles, and the resurrection are myths: What makes him any different than any other messenger of god? +1 Islam

>>4873657

Not a Christian, but John 14:6:

>I am the Way and the Truth and the Light. No-one comes to the Father except through me.

Basically, Jesus is different cuz 'e sez so.

>>4869567
I don't see how that offers any kind of argument against God.

>>4870229
All debunked.

>>4873402

I didn't say "God", I said "a god", as in a supernatural being which someone might claim to have some knowledge of. I didn't mean to include the possibility of somebody claiming that the "sum total of everything" was in itself a god, because that's some bullshit pseudo-intellectual self-wankery that is probably worse than anybody claiming any knowledge of a god. I can attach the title of "God" to my pet cat but it's not like I'm adding anything to the discussion.

>>4869386
Who the fuck is Harris? I keep hearing the name but have no idea who you guys are referring to.

>>4874282

How to use problem solving skills and Google:
1. Enter what you want to know more about
2. Enter something you know is related, but may not necessarily be sure how
3. Search!

Example:
What do you want to know about?
>Harris
What is it related to?
>Hitchens
Search!
>http://lmgtfy.com/?q=harris+hitchens

>>4874304
Fucking asshole. Either give a straight answer, or don't bother helping me.

>>4874322

Whoever could this mystery Harris person be? Let's find out together! Look real hard, I'm sure you'll see it eventually.

>>4874330
Oh, that asshole. I have no idea why anyone would even bother mentioning him and Hitchens in the same sentence. Hitchens was such a cool guy, a shame some goof like Harris would outlive him.

>>4869386
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txJ-PgdTCX0
>Fr Barron comments on Who God Is and Who God Is Not

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuSFwfjDhyg
>Scientism and God's Existence, A Commentary by Fr Barron

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAHGd4747o4
>Fr Barron comments on God and Morality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvissOHjmxM
>Fr. Robert Barron on Barack Obama's "The Audacity of Hope"

I find this guy's presentation concise and well spoken. It's better than I would be able to clumsily summarize.