If God exists, atheism is false. Thus atheism is dependent upon the truth of whether or not God exists.
Imagine a world in which it is true that God exists and it is also the case that atheism is true.
This is the world of Patrickatheism.
If God exists, atheism is false. Thus atheism is dependent upon the truth of whether or not God exists.
Imagine a world in which it is true that God exists and it is also the case that atheism is true.
This is the world of Patrickatheism.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I accept that correction.
In fact, I agree with one important part of WJM’s thesis: to act morally is to act as if there are constraints on one’s actions that are not freely posited according to one’s personal whims and desires. That seems to be to be quite clearly true.
Where we disagree is about the correct explanation of that constraint. For him, it seems, only divinely instantiated purposes can fit the bill. For my part, the requirements of successful cooperation are sufficient.
Of course there is tension. There is a reason the gospel is a scandal.
Many folks that hold to the “God of the philosophers” are grossed out that he would soil himself to commune with us.
At the same time many folks who have no problem with a personal eminent God can’t stomach one who is wholly other in his total transcendence and simplicity and aseity.
That tension is resolved completely and only in the incarnation. That is simply a fact
Recognizing that is not dismissing the tension. It is understanding the thesis antithesis, synthesis of all theology.
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
If you say so.
The problem with that is I know that everyone knows that God exists. It’s not a personal conviction it is revelation.
If I don’t know this thing then I know nothing at all. It’s not the same thing as knowing that there is cheese in the fridge. It’s on par with Cogito ergo sum.
When folks here demand evidence that God exists it is the equivalent of demanding evidence that FMM exists at the same time they are engaged in a conversation with me.
Not only is it silly, it’s insulting.
If someone demanded evidence that I existed while I was talking to them I would not call them a liar or say that they were self-deceived.
I would simply point out that they know I exist and move on.
God is Logic and Truth
I honestly don’t want to offend anyone but there is simply no denying Logic and truth’s existence.
If you don’t want me to remind you that you know God exists quit bringing the subject up all the time.
Instead of feigning the neutral passivity of asking for evidence of God’s existence why not simply say you actively reject the concept of God and give the reason.
If you can do so with out using logic or appealing to truth I promise not to disagree with you.
peace
revelation
No revelation does not require anything at all on the part of the recipient. If it did it would not be revelation. It’s all God all the way down
You know God exists because he has revealed himself to you. I know I have posted this multiple times but here it is again
quote:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
(Rom 1:18-22)
end quote:
peace
I never once have made such a claim. I don’t think a personal, private encounter with divine grace has any thing to do with establishing the justificatory or evidentiary status of anything.
I claim that God can reveal something in such a way so that a person can know it . Do you deny this? If so why?
peace
I’m sorry I thought Patrick was a moderator if he is not I apologize for this assumption.
peace
Could you elaborate.
I don’t see how saying that
“Christians believe God is an “anthropomorphic sky daddy” regardless of what they say.”
Is categorically different than saying that
“Atheists know God exists regardless of what they say.”
what am I missing?
Thanks in advance
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
The difficulty with your position, to put it squarely, is that you have no argument for why one ought to identify God with reason and logic.
Every time you are pressed for an argument you respond with a quote from Scripture. But doing so simply presupposes the legitimacy of Scripture as authoritative for settling the question.
For someone who does not already accept the legitimacy of Scripture to begin with, quoting from Scripture to justify the identification of God with reason and truth is simply question-begging.
This has, of course, been pointed out to you countless times — which is to say that it is you who is “without excuse”.
For anyone who does not already accept (i.e. presuppose) the legitimacy of Scripture, there is simply no reason at all why one ought to identify the second-order authority of epistemic and semantic norms over first-order claims with the authority of any conception of God.
I hope that you can eventually realize that there is something profoundly intellectually dishonest about both demanding that other people agree to your conception of what anyone must mean by the authority of reason and logic, while at the same time being unable to give a reason for why they ought to agree to that conception that does not already presuppose that very conception.
The deep incoherence of presuppositionalism, from what you have displayed at TSZ, is that it both arbitrarily concedes the truth of relativism, without any argument, and then simultaneously denies the truth of relativism, again without any argument. The result is a not an epistemological doctrine but mere table-thumping — “I say that God exists because I say that He says He exists!”
It’s more than a little ironic that presuppositionalism thereby transgresses against the norms of rational argument in order to safeguard their authority against epistemic anarchy.
None of this, it will be conceded, is sufficient to show that any version of naturalism can safeguard the authority of those norms. It would fall on the naturalist to provide her own positive account of the authority of epistemic norms from within the resources available within the version of metaphysical naturalism on offer. And of course the assessment of that explanation would itself have to be conducted using those norms the authority of which is to be explained.
The house of cards would collapse only if metaphysical naturalism were to undermine, rather than vindicate, the authority of the norms being used to assess the adequacy of the explanation of those norms.
(I suspect that something like that actually does happen in Nietzsche, which is why the transition from naturalism to postmodernism happens so effortlessly in Nietzsche’s texts.)
Because I do not think that any finite, fallible cognitive agent can ever be in a suitably favorable epistemic situation to be able to distinguish a purported revelation from a genuine one.
Much as Descartes claims that there are no sure signs by which one can distinguish a veridical perception (waking) from a non-veridical one (dreaming), so too there are no sure signs by which one can distinguish a genuine revelation from a fake one (e.g. schizophrenia).
And whereas there are various criteria we can and do employ in our ordinary cognitive practices for distinguishing veridical from non-veridical perceptions — bodily interaction, persistence over time, linguistic communication, etc. — none of these criteria can be used to distinguish between genuine and false revelations.
In short, although Cartesian skepticism does not work for perception, it does work for revelation (as perhaps it was intended to).
Yes, God, in the Bible, is described anthropomorphically. How else would humans speak of Him?
So you agree then there can be only one God?
If it helps, FMM, think about this way — from within the logic of your own position: since God has created me as a fallible being, God cannot bring it about that I am ever infallible, since in doing so, He would be contradicting himself.
It would appears that the default is ignorance, but surely that is self-defeating.
If you would just see things my way that would not be a problem.
So you know reason and logic exist you just don’t think it is God. That is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Whether my God is worthy of the title in your opinion is an interesting question but it’s not the same one as whether he exists.
The entire history of man’s rebellion against God is a story of folks who refuse to “honor him as God or give thanks to him”. That is what you are doing when you argue that we should not identify him as God.
I identify God with reason and logic because the bible does among other reasons.
Can you list the criteria that you feel that God should have. Then we can discuss whether reason and logic (incarnate) meet the criteria.
peace
For some reason, truth appears to matter.
🙂
I don’t presuppose the legitimacy of scripture.
I presuppose the existence of the Christian God. I do this because I know of no other entity that can serve as a foundation for knowledge.
The legitimacy of scripture is an necessary consequence of that presupposition.
I would be happy to set aside my presupposition for the sake of argument if you could merely demonstrate that your worldview can lead to knowledge.
IOW simply demonstrate that you have an answer for the question of ‘how do you know?”
peace
it’s not about your ability to distinguish it’s about God’s ability to reveal.
peace
Do you think you need to be infallible in order to know something?
I have seen you repeatedly argue that this in not the case when talking with keiths.
Speaking of contradiction what is it called when you rely on an argument you have repeatedly dismissed as fallacious?
I don’t have a problem with that equivalence. My preference would be that both of those kinds of schoolyard taunting be kept out of discussions here.
revelation (usually) comes to us as normal perception so those criteria work with one the same as the other.
for example
If I choose to reveal to you that I like bluegrass music you would use bodily interaction, persistence over time, linguistic communication, etc. to determine if the revelation is a true one.
The same (almost always) goes if the revealer is God
peace
I promise it’s not a taunt in my case.
It’s simply the only appropriate response for denying the existence of logic and reason while employing logic and reason.
what would you suggest I do?
peace
I suggest that you stop assuming that people are denying logic and reason.
They tell me that they don’t believe logic and reason (ie God) exist.
What am I supposed to do?
DNA_Jock,
I think there is a commandment for that 😉
quote:
“Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of,
any figure,the likeness of male or female,
the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth. And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.
(Deu 4:15-19)
end quote:
peace
“…the structure of physical laws has all the classic metaphysical attributes of the Deity (Davies, 1992).”
– Mary B. Hesse
You’re supposed to recognize that they reject the identification of reason, knowledge, and logic with God, not that they reject reason, knowledge, and logic altogether.
After all, you yourself just admitted that the identity of God with reason and logic is a consequence of accepting the authority of Scripture (“I identify God with reason and logic because the bible does among other reasons”).
Ergo, no one who does not already accept the authority of Scripture would have a reason for insisting on the identity of reason and logic with God.
If you want to get anywhere at all with us, your best course of action is to begin by acknowledging that we all accept the authority of rationality and logic. That’s key. The next question is to examine both your reasons for identifying reason and logic with God and our reasons for rejecting that identity.
But if your only reason for insisting on that identity is that it follows from accepting the authority of Scripture, quoting Scripture at people who do not already accept Scripture as authoritative will do nothing to persuade them of the identity you insist upon.
They will simply say — quite rightly — that nothing in their acceptance of the authority of epistemic norms commits them to accepting that God exists.
That’s not to say that non-theists do not also have the intellectual obligation to provide their own positive account of the authority of epistemic norms, constructed from within the explanatory resources of metaphysical naturalism (however loosely or broadly construed), and that the account must vindicate (rather than undermine) the authority of the epistemic norms being used to assess that account!
They are rejecting what they mean by “God”, not what you mean by “God”.
You are supposed to use a little common sense, and attempt to actually communicate.
They don’t mean anything by “God,” Neil. We’ve been assured repeatedly that is a meaningless nonsense term.
Then their rejection of God doesn’t mean anything. So best to just move along and not make it into an extended argument about nothing.
I agree,
The problem is they continually goad folks into producing evidence for a strawman God that they claim for them is a meaningless term and then they act as if the Christian has somehow failed in his duty if he has not joined in the lunacy.
In fact every conversation eventually evolves into this sort of meaningless taunting but ridiculous challenge.
I choose to not engage with them in a fools endeavor but instead restate the obvious and try to move on.
I’m sorry if that upsets folks but I just don’t know what else to do.
peace
Did you catch the among other reasons part?
God has revealed himself to everyone so that they are with out excuse.
I’m grateful that he has given me additional revelation but that does not mean that he has not made himself known sufficiently to those with out this benefit.
That is simply incorrect.
I asked you to give me a list of the characteristics that you demand in a deity and then we can explore whether reason incarnate fulfills that list. I think if you are honest you will be surprised at what you conclude.
In the end you might still find yourself declaring that God is unworthy of the title but that is a far cry from denying his existence.
Besides, you as a finite individual presuming to determine the worthiness of God is the very definition of usurpation of authority. That exactly is what Romans chapter one is describing
That is exactly what I do when I say you know God exists despite your protests to the contrary.
I’m sorry, but I will not put God in the dock.
God is God that means he gets to judge not me
If you choose to pretend you have the authority to judge him that is up to you.
and I will simply ask “how do you know this?”
peace
So Mung’s God is antropomorphic, is capable of interacting with the physical world and we can perceive it, so asking for evidence is not nonsensical when it comes to Mung’s God.
Erik’s God is nothing like that. It can create the entire universe but can’t interact with it, although I suppose everything in the universe requires Erik’s God to remain in existence. This God is, presumably, omnipotent, although all it can do is to talk to himself.
And then there’s FFM’s God, who can draw square circles
This I completely agree with. Nicely put.
So you keep on saying. But mere repetition is not reasoning.
Sure, let’s play. Presumably God is a being — a “necessary being”, or a being whose essence is His existence, or a ‘ground of being’. Any or all the above.
But reason is not a being. Reasoning is something that we do. It’s an activity, not a thing.
You do realize that your Bible means nothing to me, right?
I’m not judging God, since there isn’t one. I’m judging you for the errors in your reasoning.
Because the authority of epistemic norms is a social practice, with the norms of reasoning immanent to the use of language aimed at mutual understanding and successful cooperation.
Given that naturalistic conception of what the norms of reasoning are, it simply doesn’t make sense to say God is reason. That would mean that the necessary and absolutely transcendent ground of all contingent existence is a socio-linguistic practice aimed at mutual understanding and successful cooperation.
In short, the issue here is not that naturalists deny the cogency and authority of the norms of reasoning, but that naturalists have a different conception of what those norms are and a different explanation of their origins and authority.
As I see it, you have a choice. You can either accept that non-theists are fully entitled to accept the authority of epistemic norms for evaluating justification and evidence, so that we can have a rational conversation about whether the best explanation for those norms involves anything at all like God — or you can stubbornly cling to your presuppositionalism, in which case there is nothing for you here.
We cannot determine that revelation is true, we can only judge the likelihood. the jump from likelihood to truth requires the leap of faith.
I’m really beginning to think that FMM is a Poe. He seems to be working ridiculously hard to make Christianity – and by association the god of Christianity – look utterly irrational and absurd.
Presuppositionalism does convey that impression. But it’s a Real Thing.
His version of Christianity, to be precise. Christians are not monolithic. Fifth ,I believe ,is sincere.
Oh for frickin’ sake. How obtuse can one get? No one has suggested that the term is meaningless; it’s the concept (particularly the reification there of) that most of us insist is meaningless.
And oddly, those of you who insist the concept is not only valid, but go on to reify it can’t (for some…”unknown”…reason) actually define the concept in any descriptive way. It’s almost like – gosh…I don’t know – that you “believers” don’t actually have any real idea of what it is you are reifying. Like maybe, this “god” concept is simply made-up.
It’s funny how hard it is to describe something you can’t actually sense in any way…
About which you could be wrong, as you yourself admit.
You’ve made this claim a number of times but have never supported it with a logical argument.
The difference being that there is objective, empirical evidence that you exist. There is none for your ill-defined god.
That is not all you mean by “god”. You claim that the Christian god specifically exists.
I’ve asked before and not gotten an answer from you: What, exactly, do you mean by “truth exists”? There are statements that can be said to be true because they accord with reality to some level of accuracy, but the idea of “truth” in the abstract existing in some meaningful way appears nonsensical.
You’re the one making the claim. You could simply abide by the rules of the site and show some common courtesy. It’s just your belief. There’s nothing wrong with stating it as such.
Because that wouldn’t be true. I don’t actively reject the concept, I find it ill-defined and unevidenced.
Logic is not the property of theists. Quite the opposite, often.
I know. I should have put (/sarcasm) at the end of my comment. But really…wtf?? Some of his statements just completely denigrate the concept of any god and the value of Christianity in general. It is mind boggling to me.
keiths has taken you through this at least a couple of times. You admit that, as a fallible human, you could believe that you know something by means of revelation but be wrong. That means that, logically, you could be wrong about every experience of revelation you’ve ever had.
It doesn’t matter if you posit an omnipotent god, your human fallibility means that you can never know if any of your revelations are actually real.
So even if a god exists and reveals something to you, you can’t be sure that it’s a real revelation.
That does not follow from anything I’ve written.
The default is “We don’t know (yet).” That’s a challenge, not a defeat.
Yet you’ve never provided a logical argument as to why the Christian god specifically serves as a foundation for knowledge.
That’s an unreasonable request when you have yet to demonstrate the same for yours.
You don’t win by default.
Recognize that logic and reason have no need of gods. Alternatively, demonstrate that they do rather than simply making baseless assertions.
Yes, I know. I duly note and accept the correction.