http://www.amazon.com/Doors-Sea-Where-God-Tsunami/dp/0802829767

The Doors of the Sea: Where Was God in the Tsunami?

NGB-

I appreciate the effort you put into your response. Thanks for taking the time. I appreciate your attempt at the end of your post to make a positive argument for the non-existence of God. If what you’ve written thus far in your posts is a summary of the best sorts of arguments in a positive case for the non-existence of any divine being, then I think theists have nothing to fear regarding the rationality of the belief in such a being.

I appreciate the advances of science through the centuries, though I think methodologically you’ve prejudiced the debate by adopting an epistemology which unjustifiably limits the sort of evidence one may submit in such an argument. I don’t think the only evidence for the logically possibility of the existence of a divine being is emotional. I think there are some good philosophical/logical arguments as well. But when it comes to using experience as evidence, there are some challenging things to gleam from William Alston, for example. Theists don’t argue simplistically from “the thought of God makes me feel good” to “therefore the God of my thoughts must exist.”

But we’re not talking about the case for the possibility of a divine being. We’re discussing your positive case for the impossibility of such a being.

-------------------------

NGB: Coming to your premises I have the following to say:

The first problem with this formulation is that mischaracterizes the atheist position. The big obvious red flag waves over the perennially misused term "proof" in the first and third premise. The first two premises also presume conclusions within themselves that are not logically valid. The second big obvious red flag is use of the grossly undefined term "God". So, let's rephrase this argument in what I think is more accurate (and honest) form.

Tom: NGB, I didn’t get specific with what arguments you had to put forward or whether you have to even use the term ‘proof’ in your proof, and all along I’ve said as an atheist you need to demonstrate the non-existence of any divine/supernatural being/agent.

In fact, my challenge didn’t specific ANY arguments. I just said give me a positive argument for the non-existence of God, something along the lines of:

 
Premise 1: X is true.
Premise 2: Y is true.
Premise 3: Z is true.
Premise 4: If X, Y, and Z are true, then "No God exists."
Conclusion: No God exists (from P1 through P4).

Now, fine, you don’t like the ambiguity of “God.” No problem. I’ve not limited you to that. Just substitute “any divine being.”

I did suggest what I thought might be the sorts of premises you’d submit, and it looks like you’re objecting to those. Fine. I wasn’t limiting you to my wording (though it looks like the same issues appear in your arguments.) And you’ve submitted your own. So let’s deal with that. You offer two (2) premises:

Premise 1: The existence of an agent is established by the appearance of some effect by that agent on an observable system. There is, to date, no recorded evidence of an effect of any supernatural influence on a natural system.
Conclusion 1. There is no reason to suspect that a supernatural agent exists.

NGB, you actually have two premises here:

P1: The existence of an agent is established by the appearance of some effect by that agent on an observable system, and

P2: There is to date no recorded evidence of an effect of any supernatural influence on a natural system.

I don’t see any problems with P1 as I understand what counts as an effect and just what systems count as observable. But you presupposed a naturalist methodology, so to get to your conclusion you limit evidence to evidence of a naturalist sort. But there’s no philosophical or logical reason to limit evidence per se in this way. Secondly, you again assume that the only sort of evidence that exists is conclusive evidence. You’ll only count as evidence “at all” evidence which indisputably demonstrates the existence of some god. But your conclusion only deals with reason to “suspect” that there is such a being, and evidence/reasons for suspecting are exactly the sort of evidence would want to present and which you have rule out of bounds. Interesting. To suspect something exists is to have ‘no reason to deny’ and ‘some reason for believing’ that it exists. But it stops short of indisputable proof.   

We’d disagree on P2. You’d only admit as evidence for any such god a particular kind of evidence (that is [a] indisputable evidence, and [b] naturalistically/scientifically selected evidence). I’ll take other evidences into consideration (philosophical, cosmological, existential).

Lastly, you’re supposed to be arguing a positive case for atheism. You’re supposed to conclude “Therefore, no supernatural or divine agent exists.” But you conclude “There is no reason to suspect that a supernatural agent exists.” Even if true, at best it gets you agnosticism, not atheism.

----------------

NGB: Premise 2: Evil and suffering, as defined with respect to an all-encompassing, all-powerful and all-good supernatural agent would be impossible. Evil and suffering are known to exist in the world.
Conclusion 2. While some unknown supernatural agent might exist, the one designated as God with specific identifiable attributes cannot.

Tom: Again, you have two premises here:

P1: Evil and suffering, as defined with respect to an all-encompassing, all-powerful and all-good supernatural agent would be impossible.

P2: Evil and suffering are known to exist in the world.

I’d deny P1. I agree with you in denying the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving divine or supernatural agent where ‘all-powerful’ means “able to do all things.” I think there are some things such a divine being cannot do. But this doesn’t mean there is ‘no possible divine agent’. It just means there is no such divine agent who is “able to do all things.” What would such a being, the greatest possible being, be unable to do? Lots of things: be ignorant, be sinful, commit suicide or will himself out of existence, rape children for the fun of it, and on and on. But being unable to do these things isn't a proper 'weakness'. To say of some general that he "cannot lose in battle" is ascribe a real strenght to him, not an lack of ability. And regarding the presence of evil in the world which you note, it's very arguable the case that there's something God cannot do: create us with the freedom necessary for responsibly loving and personal relationships and guarantee that we always exercise that freedom in loving ways. Giving certain 'ends' or 'purposes', NGB, God cannot man-handle or coerce things to produce the desired outcomes. Such a divine being can relate to the world in deterministic ways under SOME circumstances but he can't relate tothe world that way in ALL circumstances.

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 9/23/2006 7:45:17 AM (GMT-5)

.

BUT... If I desire to be humble on the subject, I'd better go "back to school" on the subject. I'l start with  http://www.drury.edu/ess/history/modern/nominalism.html

Maybe I'll learn something. LIke:

Nominalism can be understood as compatible with a thorough-going materialism (only matter -- that "stuff" which can be detected by the five senses -- is real) and correlative empiricism (only knowledge of material entities is legitimate knowledge).

And maybe, maybe I can get something from these two:

http://www.orlapubs.com/AR/R107.html

http://www.romanity.org/mir/me01en.htm

. . . Nominalism accepts that the universalia are simple names and not beings as in realism. It is a struggle between Platonism and Aristotelian thought in European thought. . . .

.

It has been said that in the East the antithesis between faith and science is a pseudo-problem, Why? Because gnosiology in the East is defined by the object to be known which is twofold: the Uncreated and the created. Only the Holy Trinity is Uncreated. The universe (or universes) in which our existence is realized, is created. Faith is knowledge of the Uncreated, and science is knowledge of the created. Therefore, they are two different types of knowledge, each having its own method and tools of inquiry.

The believer, moving within the territory of supernatural, or knowledge of the Uncreated, is not called to learn something metaphysically or to accept something logically, but to experience God by being in communion with Him. This is accomplished by introducing him to a way of life or method which leads to divine knowledge.

It has been correctly stated that if Christianity were to appear for the first time in our era, it would have taken the form of a therapeutic institution, a hospital to reinstate and restore the function of man as a psychosomatic being. That is why Saint John Chrysostom calls the Church a spiritual hospital. Supernatural-theological knowledge is understood in Orthodoxy as pathos (experience of life), as participation and communion with the transcendent and not an unreachable personal truth of the Uncreated and certainly not a mere exercise in learning. Thus, the Christian faith is not the abstract contemplative adoption of metaphysical truths, it is rather, the experience of beholding True Being: the experience of the Supersubstantial (Superessential) Trinity.

This clearly expresses that in Orthodoxy, authority is found in experience. The experience of participating in the Uncreated, of seeing the Uncreated (as expressed by the terms and "theosis" and "glorification"), and is not based on texts or in the Scriptures. The tradition of the Church is not preserved within texts but in people. Texts help, but they are not the bearers of the Holy Tradition. Tradition is preserved by the Saints. Human beings are the bearers of the Gospel. The placing of texts above the actual experience of the Uncreated (an indication of the religionizing of faith) leads to their ideologization and in fact to their idolization. This in turn leads to the absolute authority of the text (fundamentalism) and all the well understood consequences.

The presupposition of the function of knowing the Uncreated, for Orthodoxy, is the rejection of every analogy (either Entis or Fide) in this relationship of the created and the Uncreated. St. John of Damascus summarizes this previously extant patristic tradition in the following manner: It is impossible to find, in creation, an icon that would reveal the way of existence of the Holy Trinity. Because, how could it be possible for the created, which is complex and changeable and describable, which has shape and is perishable, to clearly reveal Superessential Divine Essence, which is free of all these categories? (P.G. 94,821/21).

Therefore, it now becomes apparent why school education and philosophy more specifically, according to the patristic tradition, are not presuppositions for knowledge of God (theognosia). Alongside the great academic St. Basil the Great (+379) we also give honor to St. Anthony (+350), who by wordly standards was not wise. Yet they are both teachers of the faith. Both witness to knowledge of God, St. Anthony as someone uneducated and St. Basil as someone who was more highly educated than Aristotle. St. Augustine (+430) differs (something that the West would find very painful, if they knew about it) from patristic tradition at this point when he ignores scriptural and patristic gnosiology and is in essence a Neo-platonist! With his axiom credo ut intelligam (I believe in order to understand) he introduced the principle that man is lead to a logical conception of Revelation through faith. This gives priority to the intellect (the mind), which is considered by this form of knowledge to be the instrument or tool of knowing both the natural as well as the supernatural. God is considered as a knowable object that can be conceived of by the human intellect (mind) just as any natural object can be conceived of. After St. Augustine the next step in this evolution (with the intervention of the scholasticism of Thomas Aquinas+1274) will be made by Decartes (+1650) with his axiom cogito, ergo sum (I think therefore I am) in which the intellect (mind) is declared as the main basis of existence.

 

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 9/23/2006 9:05:22 AM (GMT-5)

Mephi: I'm a realist too. But it's due to my theistic belief. If I were an atheist, I'd probably be a CONCEPTUALIST. Roughly, this view says that universals have validity...but only as conceptions in the human mind.

Tom: Me too. But couldn't you be a theist AND a conceptualist? Couldn't the universals (that constitute the possibilities grounded in God and out of which God creates) be the 'menu' of possibilities God chooses from in creating? They'd real but conceptual. This is the problem with nominalism. If you can't conceive of a "bird" apart from any "actual" bird, how do you create a "bird" by conceiving of it? Creation would be impossible (if I follow nominalism). I know nominalists (like Albert [Humphrey Bogart]) have answers to this and that they're believers. And that's fine! I just make better sense of things as a realist or conceptualist.

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 9/23/2006 10:06:38 AM (GMT-5)

POW: I'm pretty sure that is what Greg understood as nominalist and realist too: definitions crafted in opposition to each other.

Tom: Not exactly. They’re definitions arising out of opposing views of the world.

POW: But present politics can cloud an understanding of history. Can you imagine all that being part of the divisions between Nominalism and Scholasiticism, between Luther and Calvin? No. I think you just didn't get it.

Tom: I’m just not interested here in how, whether, or why Luther and Calvin differed or agreed. All I was interested in was noting a distinction between the world itself and the language we use to describe it. That there IS a distinction is undeniable.

POW: BUT... If I desire to be humble on the subject, I'd better go "back to school" on the subject. I'l start with  http://www.drury.edu/ess/history/modern/nominalism.html. Maybe I'll learn something. LIke: Nominalism can be understood as compatible with a thorough-going materialism (only matter -- that "stuff" which can be detected by the five senses -- is real) and correlative empiricism (only knowledge of material entities is legitimate knowledge).

Tom: So what? If that’s how nominalism can be understood, fine. It’s irrelevant to to the distinction between ‘language’ per se and ‘world’ per se. What I’m talking about has nothing to do with the debate over whether material objects constitute the only existing entities that make up all that's 'real'. That’s an entirely different debate.

In other words, in saying ‘language’ maps the ‘world’ and is distinct from though related to the world, I am not saying materialism is true or universals aren’t real. If nominalism is ‘compatible’ with materialsm, it doesn’t follow that it entails materialism. But who cares? I’m a realist. And BOTH nominalists, conceptualists, and realists make the distinction between ‘language’ (as map) and ‘world’ (as territory). So do you.

Tom

Mephi: A BASIC BELIEF in process thought is that there is not a fundamental ontological distinction between God and Creation, such that God and Creation can be said to be "irreducibly different." In other words, God is seen as the chief exemplification of metaphysical realities hinted to in Creation, NOT an utter exception.

Hence, Doc, me (and I'm thinking Tom) are realists in this way.

Tom: Couldn't have said it better. God cannot be the "absolutely other."

Tom

Metallinos said...

It has been said that in the East the antithesis between faith and science is a pseudo-problem, Why? Because gnosiology in the East is defined by the object to be known which is twofold: the Uncreated and the created. Only the Holy Trinity is Uncreated. The universe (or universes) in which our existence is realized, is created. Faith is knowledge of the Uncreated, and science is knowledge of the created. Therefore, they are two different types of knowledge, each having its own method and tools of inquiry.

The believer, moving within the territory of supernatural, or knowledge of the Uncreated, is not called to learn something metaphysically or to accept something logically, but to experience God by being in communion with Him. This is accomplished by introducing him to a way of life or method which leads to divine knowledge.

It has been correctly stated that if Christianity were to appear for the first time in our era, it would have taken the form of a therapeutic institution, a hospital to reinstate and restore the function of man as a psychosomatic being. That is why Saint John Chrysostom calls the Church a spiritual hospital. Supernatural-theological knowledge is understood in Orthodoxy as pathos (experience of life), as participation and communion with the transcendent and not an unreachable personal truth of the Uncreated and certainly not a mere exercise in learning. Thus, the Christian faith is not the abstract contemplative adoption of metaphysical truths, it is rather, the experience of beholding True Being: the experience of the Supersubstantial (Superessential) Trinity.

This clearly expresses that in Orthodoxy, authority is found in experience. The experience of participating in the Uncreated, of seeing the Uncreated (as expressed by the terms and "theosis" and "glorification"), and is not based on texts or in the Scriptures. The tradition of the Church is not preserved within texts but in people. Texts help, but they are not the bearers of the Holy Tradition. Tradition is preserved by the Saints. Human beings are the bearers of the Gospel. The placing of texts above the actual experience of the Uncreated (an indication of the religionizing of faith) leads to their ideologization and in fact to their idolization. This in turn leads to the absolute authority of the text (fundamentalism) and all the well understood consequences.

The presupposition of the function of knowing the Uncreated, for Orthodoxy, is the rejection of every analogy (either Entis or Fide) in this relationship of the created and the Uncreated. St. John of Damascus summarizes this previously extant patristic tradition in the following manner: It is impossible to find, in creation, an icon that would reveal the way of existence of the Holy Trinity. Because, how could it be possible for the created, which is complex and changeable and describable, which has shape and is perishable, to clearly reveal Superessential Divine Essence, which is free of all these categories? (P.G. 94,821/21).

Therefore, it now becomes apparent why school education and philosophy more specifically, according to the patristic tradition, are not presuppositions for knowledge of God (theognosia). Alongside the great academic St. Basil the Great (+379) we also give honor to St. Anthony (+350), who by wordly standards was not wise. Yet they are both teachers of the faith. Both witness to knowledge of God, St. Anthony as someone uneducated and St. Basil as someone who was more highly educated than Aristotle. St. Augustine (+430) differs (something that the West would find very painful, if they knew about it) from patristic tradition at this point when he ignores scriptural and patristic gnosiology and is in essence a Neo-platonist! With his axiom credo ut intelligam (I believe in order to understand) he introduced the principle that man is lead to a logical conception of Revelation through faith. This gives priority to the intellect (the mind), which is considered by this form of knowledge to be the instrument or tool of knowing both the natural as well as the supernatural. God is considered as a knowable object that can be conceived of by the human intellect (mind) just as any natural object can be conceived of. After St. Augustine the next step in this evolution (with the intervention of the scholasticism of Thomas Aquinas+1274) will be made by Decartes (+1650) with his axiom cogito, ergo sum (I think therefore I am) in which the intellect (mind) is declared as the main basis of existence.

 

QUOTE:

...in Orthodoxy, authority is found in experience. The experience of participating in the Uncreated, of seeing the Uncreated (as expressed by the terms and "theosis" and "glorification"), and is not based on texts or in the Scriptures. The tradition of the Church is not preserved within texts but in people.

 

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 9/23/2006 5:15:19 PM (GMT-5)

Meph, I see what you are trying to do, and its "admirable." Foremostly, I'm *no one* to speak.

First, who am I, and what do I matter. *Not much!*

Second, it pops into my mind the possibility that you are embracing, only one situation, the "upgrade" of "person versus essence" and applying it to some things -- to your delight; but are not taking the other situation's need of the same to heart. Get that heart for the embrace of "person" in theology/doxology.

Notice this from Met. -- especially the bold:

"The presupposition of the function of knowing the Uncreated, for Orthodoxy, is the rejection of every analogy (either Entis or Fide) in this relationship of the created and the Uncreated. St. John of Damascus summarizes this previously extant patristic tradition in the following manner: It is impossible to find, in creation, an icon that would reveal the way of existence of the Holy Trinity. Because, how could it be possible for the created, which is complex and changeable and describable, which has shape and is perishable, to clearly reveal Superessential Divine Essence, which is free of all these categories?" (P.G. 94,821/21).

Again, admiring what Meph is trying to do, but not fully trusting it, I'm googling all over the place.