IAP Political Forum

I feel like we haven't actually discussed the question of God's existence here since IAP1.0. Anyone want to put forward an argument (any argument) for the existence of god(s)?

Old thread here:

Does God Exist (http://www.itsallpolitics.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,26/topic,373.0/)

 ;D

Yeah but that's a formal debate. Barney's gone for good.

I don't believe God exists, but if it does...than that's not a topic of debate anywhere.
It will be between me and him, not anyone's else business.
BTW, why people feel the need to talk about God's existence?
If you are a believer, than you are a sinner by even trying to question his existence.
If you are a non-believer it makes no sense to even start the conversation.

Because it's a fun exercise in futility :)


and, it passes the time between classes quite nicely

The question 'is there a God?' is the most important question in philosophy or anywhere.  Implied in your answer to that question is whether or not you believe there to be an objective purpose of life.  Were human beings created for a particular purpose or are we the inevitable permutation of an indefinate material world?

In fact, it astounds me that Philosophers dont devote more time to this particular question since it is, IMHO, the first question that needs to be answered before anything meaningful in philosophy can be established.  All subsequent philosophies should be based on the answer to the question 'is there a God?'  Descartes was right...

The Bible supplies a rather well known argument for the existence of God - probably the only credible one.  It isn't logically convincing, but it apparently packs a strong emotional impact and tends to appeal to those who believe it.  (yes, that is circular)

Excellent points.

Really?  I think the question is absurd.  Suffice it to say that if any philosopher puts forward that question, you'd do well to question their credentials.  They are not a philosopher but a partisan (most likely a believer).

If God exists, then all debate about God is absurd (and blasphemous).  If God doesn't exist, then all debate about God is absurd (and a waste of time).  I don't see any way out of this dichotomy.

That question is moot.  It is just a restatement of the same "does God exist?" question.  If God exists, then some 'purpose' may exist.  If no God, then no purpose is possible.

Actually, you have this one backwards.

If you start with God, all philosophy is moot and superfluous.  You have your bible, what more do you need?

Subsequent philosophies?

Descartes was right about what? 

(Btw, Descartes was quite properly named by Pope John Paul II as the 'father of atheism', though that certainly wasn't Descartes' intent).

I'll make a couple of clear-cut emphatic statements on this topic:

1. The existence of God cannot be proven by philosophic reasoning.

2. The non-existence of God cannot be proven by philosophic reasoning.

3. Anyone who asserts otherwise is not a philosopher or engaged in philosophy.  They are partisans.

I don't believe Philosophy should try to answer the needs of Religion. If Religion cannot prove by itself the existence of God, is like begging for help from the philosophers against the scientists community.

In fact, I think Philosophy is the only science which has an independent approach, by being free to think out of the box, where Religion and Science have a very defined and focused way of thinking and seeing things.

Same goes with the Science. Couldn't find out yet how the Big Bang happened, scientists can only prove that it did happen, but are still searching to answer that question. So, I can see how, some more frustrated scientists gave up and turned back to Philosophy for an easier answer. And again, I don't believe Philosophy  should try to cater to scientific reasoning.   

For what it's worth......The author of this thread is not a "believer."

From my perspective, religion and science are both merely sub-sets of philosophy.

Science in particular is very closely bound with philosophy both through origin and more importantly through epistemology (the theory of knowledge).

I think a persons answer to the question of God's existence is the foundation of any moral philosophy.  It has framed the philosophy of most, if not all philosophers.  Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Descartes, or any other philosopher discussing morality must first answer 'the big one'...


I don't see how you have established a dichotomy.  If there is no God, why does it matter that you have wasted your time? Shadows and dust right? Why does anything matter? On the other hand, if there is a God, why shouldn't we discuss his existence if that is in doubt?


It does not make philosophy moot or superfluous.  However, it provides an alternative frame for the picture that is philosophy.  Philosophy is the search for truth.  Is it true that a God exists or isn't it?

You assume I am a Christian, and a naive one at that.  What if I'm a Muslim or a Mormon? Please refrain from such bitter and presumptuous comments.  They make you less credible and make this conversation much less interesting to me.  I would very much like to understand the athiest position.  Perhaps its nothing more than anger towards theists in your case, friend, which makes me less inclined to learn from you...
 

Its true that Descartes' philosophy opened a huge can of relative worms.  It would seem that Darwin, a Christian, also chipped in.  So what? Aren't we better off with honest inquiry?

My atheist position ?
...without taking nothing personally from what I say !

I'm not angry that you have faith in Jesus, Allah or Krishna.
I might be a bit angry on the Pope, Mullah or the Chief-Rabbi, because in my opinion they are just a bunch of crooks, trying to steal your soul away from you. Because that stealing, gives them a lot of power and I don't like too powerful people like Bush, Rockefellers, The Queen, The Pope.


(Edited to put quotations in proper place)

Does that mean if any given philosopher doesn't express belief in God they are engaged in 'immoral and/or ammoral' philosophy?

That does have a certain logical consistency about it. 

I'm okay with ammoral philosophy.  From the perspective of a believer, most philosophy certainly is either immoral or ammoral (and occasionally both).

Yes, it certainly follows that any given philosopher's view of the 'God question' is going to color or influence their 'philosophizing' about everything else.  Philosophy is a human art after all.

That being said, the serious study of philosophy requires that one drop all pre-conceived notions and follow only that which is dictated by logic, reason and physical evidence.  This is the essential definition of the 'art' of philosophy itself.  And given that all religions are fundamentally based on 'faith', the study of philosophy is generally, but inherently, biased in favor of those who do not have a strong or pre-determined religious faith. 

This does not preclude faith in 'deist-type' (or agnostic) views of God as some ambient unknown entity.  This can be compatible with the relativist (non-absolute) position in epistemology.  It is only the 'strong theist' type who will have 'issues' with the question of epistemology.  For many potential students of philosophy, this is a 'red-line issue' that often precludes further advanced study (though some 'Jesuit-trained theist' types can surmount this obstacle - I have great respect for this type of argument and those who can make it).

Epistemology consists of asking the questions - what is truth? or what is knowledge? (all the variations of these closely related questions).  This would be the 'ground-zero' of philosophy.  The question of God's existence is actually secondary or subsidiary to this one.

As for the particular philosophers that you mention, it is my opinion that Nietzsche was probably one of the most spiritually-inclined of all philosophers - I believe that he genuinely mourned the death of God and it is this that defines his subsequent yearning for a replacement (and celebration when he thinks he finds it).

As for Descartes, he certainly was an ardent Christian theist.  However, with his religious zeal to create the perfect rationalization of God ended up creating a couple of the most powerful intellectual tools of atheism ('cogito ergo sum' as well as the principle of 'radical doubt').

As for Schopenhauer, I've not studied his work as extensively as I have many others.  I don't know off hand if he was a genuine Christian or not, but from what I have read of Schopenhauer, he  certainly comes across as a typical 'deist' type with his noted passion for the primacy of aesthetics and the idea of 'will'.

As for the other 'big names' of philosophy - strong deists and mild deists seem to be the majority of philosophers, with more than a few atheists as time goes on.  Christain philosophers are certainly evident in earlier times (Augustine & Aquinas being two of the most impressive ones), but since the 17th century, I see little evidence of anything but deism (and increasing atheism) amongst 'big name' philosophers.

It is a dichotomy since there is only two choices available.  Either God exists or God does not exist. 

If there is no God, then arguing/discussing it is mere entertainment or sophistry.  You are welcome to do it, but it isn't very interesting to me from a philosophic perspective.  It looks more like 'mental masturbation'.  :)

Btw, atheism does not equal nihilism.  I will defend that position most vehmently if challenged.

Now if God really does exist, then discussions about whether or not God exists are essentially blasphemous - or entirely a matter of personal conscience.  Again, there's nothing about such a discussion that warrants philosophic interest.

If you want to rephrase the question in terms of epistemology, then you will have the interest of every genuine philosopher.

Search for truth?  You are presuming that such a thing exists?  That's not philosophy - that's religion.

Philosophy is a love of wisdom (philo-sophia, from the greek)

Please cite.  I've made no such assumptions.  Your religion (or lack thereof) is technically irrelevant to me. 

My expression of "you have your Bible, what more do you need" was phrased in a sloppy way.  My statement is meant to be generic.  Any believer has a holy book and if they are a true believer, then that's all the philosophy they need.  Everything else in philosophy is just going to lead to blasphemy or a test of faith.   

That is to say, all religions constitute specific philosophies in themselves.  Christian or Muslim doctrine are both comprehensive philosophic systems that do not admit of any alternative philosophic interpretations.


You are perhaps demonstrating here why those who hold to any given religion find discussion of most western or modern philosophy to be rather challenging.  Again, I make no assumption or inference here about your religious status.  I am addressing these issues in a philosophically objective manner.

And since you are making inferences about my views on religion (unwarranted I might add), I will state that I am most certainly am not anti-religious.  I go to great lengths to defend the essential religious position and I've long argued in defense of religion's right to fully participate in civil society and politics.  But

I will not give an inch in any serious philosophic discussion to any religious notions.  They have no standing at all in the general study of philosophy.  Thus, if one holds strongly to any particular religious position, then all philosophic discussions are necessarily  interpreted in the terms of that religon. 

Yes, honest inquiry is always good - this is a fundamental premise of classical liberalism and that's the only 'philosophy' that I do generally follow.

But my point is that Descartes and Darwin as well would probably have a heart attack (if they were alive today) if they knew that their studies formed strong arguments favored by atheists.  Both men were genuine and honest Christians to the best of my knowledge.  That is to say, honest philosophical inquiry by honest Christians tends to produce things that are un-Christian.

William of Ockham is another famous Christian intellectual who has, with his honest faith in God, has contributed another powerful argument favored by atheists and agnostics alike - Occam's Razor.

As for why Ockham's Razor is generally called Occam's Razor is a mystery worthy of a Ph.D. dissertation!

Dormouse I have trouble reading your post, there are many very interesting sentences but what does it mean? You cast doubt of the existence of truth, you deny middle ground between god's existence and non-existence. You count philosophy as primarily concerned with truth, you say it only a love of wisdom. You say one cannot seriously consider philosophy while holding a religion (Jesuits excepted), you say god was on the mind of many bright names. Any help understanding would be appreciated.

I think of a discussion on the existence of god in much the same light as natural disasters. If a flood is coming it is nice to convince people to evacuate, but if none is coming it is nice to talk them out of evacuating.

I was trying (unsuccessfully) to explain why the question of God's existence isn't really an important issue in philosophy.

As I previously noted, one cannot prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of God.  This is categorical.  Ergo, the question of God's existence is essentially moot from the perspective of philosophy.

Yes, philosophy is love of wisdom, not a search for truth.

The search for truth is essentially a search for religion.

And the definition of 'truth' is entirely religious since there is no basis for 'truth' existing beyond God's will.  This is a key issue of epistemology. 

I didn't say that one cannot hold a religion and be a serious student of philosophy, only that this is particularlly challenging and difficult given the fact that having a 'strong religious view' means one already has chosen and is devoted to a particular and specific philosophy and that all other philosophical interpretations are wrong by definition. 

Thus, most students (and professors) of philosophy in our modern world are 'non-religious' as either atheists or deists.  Many religious types who do enter philosophy tend to see this as a conspiracy against their religion.  I've seen this point made many, many times (usually made as an accusation of anti-religious conspiracy).

You are perhaps assuming that the question of God's existence is a valid one that can be answered.

Certainly if the question could be answered, then the question would be an important one, but since no answer is philosophically valid, the question becomes unimportant - it is just a matter of personal and subjective opinon, one way or the other.  Some people find that interesting - but its not really philosophy.

I hope this clears up your questions.  I was attempting to make several different arguments in my earlier post.

As a final point on this issue, I'd say that the real philosophical question that is most closely related to the question of God's existence is the question of epistemology - what is truth?  That question certainly is a valid philosophical concern and any answer to that question tends to define the God-question.  I of course have already stated that I fall on the relativist side of all questions of epistemology (as do almost all modern philosophers).

Wow! Of all the things that could have appeared as an answer to my OP, I never expected a discussion as to whether or not the question of God's existence is worth discussing.

Dormouse: your position seems to be that because a definite answer to the question of God's existence is impossible (a statement that itself needs support) then it is of no interest to a philosopher. This is quite an odd position (I may be over-simplifying your position). Things aren't that black and white. We may not be able to come to a definitive conclusion but we can certainly come to conclusions about the probability of God's existence. Philosopher's discuss those kinds of questions all the time.


Well, only if you hold the most ridiculous of fundamentalist beliefs.Any reasonable theist/deist is will to admit that they might be wrong and engage in discussion.


This one really makes no sense to me. Most people have some sort of belief in God(s) and this affects almost every aspect of human existence. Strong belief in Allah has caused rampant human rights abuses in the Muslim world; religious beliefs muddy the waters in many crucial debates like abortion, IVF, stem-cells - all of which are issues that affect non-believers; belief in God caused 9/11.

If anything the question of God's existince is the MOST important. Nearly all questions of metaphysics and morality stem from this. If God exists in some form then he dictates "truth", if not then truth must be approached in other ways. God is THE fundamental question

During discussions on the existence of god coverts and atheists have presumably been made. I'd suggest this is enough reason to discuss Him. That I have never heard of a strict logical proof for the (non) existence of god is a poor proof of the impossibility of such a proof. If you have a better one I'd be interested in reading it.

Precisely why I said the topic is of interest primarily to partisans.

well in case you missed it, partisans run the world

I don't doubt that at all.

My only objection is against pretending that such partisanship consititutes 'philosophy'.

I'm not sure how preaching agnosticism is any different than selling (the lack of) god.

I'm certainly not preaching God, agnosticism or atheism.  That's a religous game, I'm into philosophy.  That's a different game.

It is of interest to anyone with an open mind and an interest in metaphysics.