|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Dec 15, 2015 21:22:37 GMT -5
It's about time to open a thread for apologetics. Does anyone here find any of the apologetic arguments convincing? Which do and do not convince you?
I personally find all of them lacking...I wish I didn't. I especially don't think they prove the Christian God.
I can throw up some examples for those not familiar with apologetics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 15, 2015 22:10:50 GMT -5
I was into Christian apologetics for a time. It represented salvation to me, and in its own right it still does. I'm more in touch with the enigmatic aspects of Christ today. Similarly, as I've grown older life has become more enigmatic than defined. I wouldn't say I don't have a dog in the hunt for man's search for meaning. At 45 I think have a better grasp of meaning than anytime before.
|
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Dec 15, 2015 22:55:29 GMT -5
It's about time to open a thread for apologetics. Does anyone here find any of the apologetic arguments convincing? Which do and do not convince you? I personally find all of them lacking...I wish I didn't. I especially don't think they prove the Christian God. I can throw up some examples for those not familiar with apologetics. I need help with this one DD. After C. S. Lewis, I'm lost! |
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Dec 16, 2015 7:36:22 GMT -5
It's about time to open a thread for apologetics. Does anyone here find any of the apologetic arguments convincing? Which do and do not convince you? I personally find all of them lacking...I wish I didn't. I especially don't think they prove the Christian God. I can throw up some examples for those not familiar with apologetics. I need help too. I am not familiar with apologetics but if it has anything to do with some of the explanations I sometimes hear espoused then apologetics are doing a better job of encouraging me not to believe anything rather than the other way around. Some examples of what I’m thinking: - God is all powerful, God causes good things to happen but suffering that’s due to free will.
- God doesn’t prove her/his existence because we have to have free will to believe.
- God is all loving, but people are going to hell because God is just.
- The complexity of the natural world is evidence of a designer.
- Science has not shown how life began. It must be God.
- Nothing comes from nothing. God must have caused the big bang/ created the universe.
- Jesus is the only way of salvation the proof is: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
- The early church/ beginnings of Christian faith prove the resurrection happened.
Are these the kind of things you are referring to? |
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Dec 16, 2015 11:22:28 GMT -5
'And the truth shall set/make you free'
Eg: Forgiveness
If we forgive we are no longer spiritually tied to that person in a negative way.
With true forgiveness a release happens between two people. Torment, hatred, animosity, anger etc no longer fester our mind it leaves. And doesnt return.
Is this what you are referring to DD?
I would call this experiencial knowledge.
It may not prove there is a Christian god to some. What this does prove is that the invisible things. Emotions. Thoughts. Convictions . etc Are all powerful to help change us into becoming better individuals. The fundamental teaching is about being overcomers of (self) negativity if you like. Having the power and conviction to be a more positive force encouraging each other to aim high as individuals to care be humane share ourselves and be a positive light in the world we live in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 16, 2015 11:24:21 GMT -5
Christian apologetics roughly fall into two groups: big God and little god. In big God apologetics, God literally sent his Son who appeared as the Jew known as Jesus of Nazareth, approximately A.D. 0-33. As such, according to classical apologists he was both a literal propitiation and a testament to our sins, of our imperfections as human beings, and of our need to repent, reform, habilitate, and rehabilitate. Whereas in little God apologetics, Jesus is just a man who became a convenient vehicle for the creativity and imagination of people who were or are interested in ultimate consequences and endings, and unfortunately, of people who were interested in power for power's sake, but that's a separate issue. Little God apologetics is probably more disposed to finding similarities and equivalencies in other religious traditions, whereas big God apologetics will tend to assert the primacy of God's intentionality and initiatory role in salvation.
|
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 16, 2015 13:49:11 GMT -5
It's about time to open a thread for apologetics. Does anyone here find any of the apologetic arguments convincing? Which do and do not convince you? I personally find all of them lacking...I wish I didn't. I especially don't think they prove the Christian God. I can throw up some examples for those not familiar with apologetics. I need help too. I am not familiar with apologetics but if it has anything to do with some of the explanations I sometimes hear espoused then apologetics are doing a better job of encouraging me not to believe anything rather than the other way around. Some examples of what I’m thinking: - God is all powerful, God causes good things to happen but suffering that’s due to free will.
- God doesn’t prove her/his existence because we have to have free will to believe.
- God is all loving, but people are going to hell because God is just.
- The complexity of the natural world is evidence of a designer.
- Science has not shown how life began. It must be God.
- Nothing comes from nothing. God must have caused the big bang/ created the universe.
- Jesus is the only way of salvation the proof is: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
- The early church/ beginnings of Christian faith prove the resurrection happened.
Are these the kind of things you are referring to? I think these statements are more to be considered statements of faith. Apologetics believe they are presenting "proofs", tangible and/or empirical, of the above statements. To me such attempts of proof are usually a bigger turn-off than the statements themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Dec 16, 2015 15:34:38 GMT -5
I'll post arguments this evening. Or maybe one a day for a few days.
|
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Dec 16, 2015 16:39:28 GMT -5
I need help too. I am not familiar with apologetics but if it has anything to do with some of the explanations I sometimes hear espoused then apologetics are doing a better job of encouraging me not to believe anything rather than the other way around. Some examples of what I’m thinking: - God is all powerful, God causes good things to happen but suffering that’s due to free will.
- God doesn’t prove her/his existence because we have to have free will to believe.
- God is all loving, but people are going to hell because God is just.
- The complexity of the natural world is evidence of a designer.
- Science has not shown how life began. It must be God.
- Nothing comes from nothing. God must have caused the big bang/ created the universe.
- Jesus is the only way of salvation the proof is: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
- The early church/ beginnings of Christian faith prove the resurrection happened.
Are these the kind of things you are referring to? I think these statements are more to be considered statements of faith. Apologetics believe they are presenting "proofs", tangible and/or empirical, of the above statements. To me such attempts of proof are usually a bigger turn-off than the statements themselves. Oh dear. I don't think these are provable positions. I will wait to see what DD posts. |
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Dec 16, 2015 19:04:23 GMT -5
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Thomas Aquinas argues on the basis that there exist things that need not necessarily exist. And if existence is not a necessity, then at one time no such objects/beings existed. The argument runs like this (paraphrasing):
1. There exist beings which may or may not be (he calls them "contingent beings")
2. If a thing can fail to exist, then at some time it didn't
3. If all things are contingent, then at one time nothing existed
4. Whatever begins to exist is caused to exist by something already existing
5. Therefore, if there were ever a time when nothing existed, then nothing would exist today
6. Thus not all beings are contingent. At least one being is "necessary" at any time to serve as a creator
7. There cannot be an infinite series of necessary beings, each dependent upon another for creation
8. Therefore, there exists a necessary being having of itself its own necessity. This being we call God.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 16, 2015 19:10:47 GMT -5
4. Not sure if that's true. Can something come from nothing? I don't know.
7. Can there be an infinite parallel (as opposed to series -- think of electrical circuits) of necessary being?s I don't know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Dec 16, 2015 19:21:46 GMT -5
4. Not sure if that's true. Can something come from nothing? I don't know. 7. Can there be an infinite parallel (as opposed to series -- think of electrical circuits) of necessary being?s I don't know. I think it's fair to say 4 has been disproven. But for 7, are you suggesting that A caused B and B caused A? |
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 16, 2015 19:27:18 GMT -5
4. Not sure if that's true. Can something come from nothing? I don't know. 7. Can there be an infinite parallel (as opposed to series -- think of electrical circuits) of necessary being?s I don't know. I think it's fair to say 4 has been disproven. But for 7, are you suggesting that A caused B and B caused A? No, I'm saying that there could be two (or more) necessary beings working in parallel -- two lines that never cross. Logically (in the construct provided regarding contingent vs. necessary beings), there cannot be a series of necessary beings, because if B, following A, is dependent upon A, then B, by definition, is a contingent being -- not a necessary being. But (logically, at least) is there anything to prevent a necessary being A followed by contingent beings B, C, D...infinity, while there is in parallel, a necessary being 1 followed by contingent beings 2, 3, 4...infinity. In other words, an argument for multiple 'gods.' |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2015 19:42:13 GMT -5
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT Thomas Aquinas argues on the basis that there exist things that need not necessarily exist. And if existence is not a necessity, then at one time no such objects/beings existed. The argument runs like this (paraphrasing): 1. There exist beings which may or may not be (he calls them "contingent beings") 2. If a thing can fail to exist, then at some time it didn't 3. If all things are contingent, then at one time nothing existed 4. Whatever begins to exist is caused to exist by something already existing 5. Therefore, if there were ever a time when nothing existed, then nothing would exist today 6. Thus not all beings are contingent. At least one being is "necessary" at any time to serve as a creator 7. There cannot be an infinite series of necessary beings, each dependent upon another for creation 8. Therefore, there exists a necessary being having of itself its own necessity. This being we call God. I've no particular difficulty with points 1 to 8. My difficulty arises when I try to make the leap from the God in point No. 8 to the merciless monster of the Old Testament which is otherwise referred to as the Christian God. Perhaps that link is coming. Matt10 |
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Dec 17, 2015 6:37:38 GMT -5
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT Thomas Aquinas argues on the basis that there exist things that need not necessarily exist. And if existence is not a necessity, then at one time no such objects/beings existed. The argument runs like this (paraphrasing): 1. There exist beings which may or may not be (he calls them "contingent beings") 2. If a thing can fail to exist, then at some time it didn't 3. If all things are contingent, then at one time nothing existed 4. Whatever begins to exist is caused to exist by something already existing 5. Therefore, if there were ever a time when nothing existed, then nothing would exist today 6. Thus not all beings are contingent. At least one being is "necessary" at any time to serve as a creator 7. There cannot be an infinite series of necessary beings, each dependent upon another for creation 8. Therefore, there exists a necessary being having of itself its own necessity. This being we call God. Ah yuck! I did not realise apologetics was going to be philosophy related! I have at least a couple of separate problems with this line of reasoning. - If I consider the big bang as a ‘whole’ and everything subsequent to the big bang as a contingent being or part. The first problem I have is applying the same rules of contingency to the whole (big bang) as we would to the parts of the universe. As far as I can see it doesn’t make sense to apply the same rules to the parts of something as we do to the whole. The big bang is not the same as the parts of the universe and could function under an entirely different set of properties. In such a set of properties the big-bang may not be reliant on a necessary being.
- Step eight also causes me some problems. Assuming I was ok with all the other steps at step eight I can’t equate the necessary being with God. God does not seem the only logical option. The necessary being could be any other being that I don’t know for certain is contingent. I don’t know for sure that the big bang was contingent on anything so I could think that it was the necessary being.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 17, 2015 9:34:33 GMT -5
I think these statements are more to be considered statements of faith. Apologetics believe they are presenting "proofs", tangible and/or empirical, of the above statements. To me such attempts of proof are usually a bigger turn-off than the statements themselves. Oh dear. I don't think these are provable positions. I will wait to see what DD posts. Or falsifiable. |
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Dec 17, 2015 9:43:23 GMT -5
yuck, Ellie? You haven't seen anything yet, stay tuned!  |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 17, 2015 9:50:22 GMT -5
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT Thomas Aquinas argues on the basis that there exist things that need not necessarily exist. And if existence is not a necessity, then at one time no such objects/beings existed. The argument runs like this (paraphrasing): 1. There exist beings which may or may not be (he calls them "contingent beings") 2. If a thing can fail to exist, then at some time it didn't 3. If all things are contingent, then at one time nothing existed 4. Whatever begins to exist is caused to exist by something already existing 5. Therefore, if there were ever a time when nothing existed, then nothing would exist today 6. Thus not all beings are contingent. At least one being is "necessary" at any time to serve as a creator 7. There cannot be an infinite series of necessary beings, each dependent upon another for creation 8. Therefore, there exists a necessary being having of itself its own necessity. This being we call God. Is there any evidence that any special noncontingent objects exist. Making the creator a part of the premise definition, results in circular reasoning. |
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 17, 2015 11:50:01 GMT -5
Before God sent us atheists to enlighten us we all thought existence was evidence of something greater than ourselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Dec 17, 2015 12:20:45 GMT -5
Before God sent us atheists to enlighten us we all thought existence was evidence of something greater than ourselves. haha, thank God for atheists, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Dec 17, 2015 12:27:06 GMT -5
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT Thomas Aquinas argues on the basis that there exist things that need not necessarily exist. And if existence is not a necessity, then at one time no such objects/beings existed. The argument runs like this (paraphrasing): 1. There exist beings which may or may not be (he calls them "contingent beings") 2. If a thing can fail to exist, then at some time it didn't 3. If all things are contingent, then at one time nothing existed 4. Whatever begins to exist is caused to exist by something already existing 5. Therefore, if there were ever a time when nothing existed, then nothing would exist today 6. Thus not all beings are contingent. At least one being is "necessary" at any time to serve as a creator 7. There cannot be an infinite series of necessary beings, each dependent upon another for creation 8. Therefore, there exists a necessary being having of itself its own necessity. This being we call God. Is there any evidence that any special noncontingent objects exist. Making the creator a part of the premise definition, results in circular reasoning. Depends on what you consider "evidence" I guess. We believed via logic that black holes existed before we found evidence of any. But having no evidence, we use proofs like this one...or am I missing your point? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 17, 2015 13:07:14 GMT -5
Is there any evidence that any special noncontingent objects exist. Making the creator a part of the premise definition, results in circular reasoning. Depends on what you consider "evidence" I guess. We believed via logic that black holes existed before we found evidence of any. But having no evidence, we use proofs like this one...or am I missing your point? Most logical proofs do not contain circular reasoning and remain valid. Black holes were based on observing the motion of objects in their vicinity and the mathematics that supported the observed system. What would be the point of speculating the existence of a black hole if there was no evidence that something existed to explain the data? This syllogism defines the conclusion as one of the premises. That plus the fact that there is no evidence to support the claim. |
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Dec 17, 2015 15:11:55 GMT -5
I'm not following you rational. At what step is a necessary being assumed? The proof is meant to show that the contingent beings we see around us imply a prime necessary being.
|
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Dec 17, 2015 16:52:11 GMT -5
If there is no other evidence to suggest God exists the only reason we need a necessary being are the contingent beings. Hence the existence of the necessary being (God) becomes contingent on there being contingent beings.
Rambling on if those contingent beings may or may not be - God also may or may not be and a necessary being can't be a may or may not be type of being.
Not sure if that's what Rat is meaning but that's a problem with the reasoning I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Dec 17, 2015 17:27:24 GMT -5
Ah! Maybe Rat thinks he is neither contingent nor necessary. Perhaps he can argue against "Rat thinks, therefore Rat is"
|
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Dec 17, 2015 18:12:21 GMT -5
Ah! Maybe Rat thinks he is neither contingent nor necessary. Perhaps he can argue against "Rat thinks, therefore Rat is" Actually I'm not sure what Rat means. But logically a necessary being just can't be proved (contingent) on contingent beings. |
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Dec 17, 2015 18:48:30 GMT -5
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
This dates back to the 11th century, I believe. Let's use this definition of God: "The being than which nothing greater can be conceived." Understand? Then here is the argument (again paraphrased a little):
1. Let's assume that God exists in the understanding but not in reality
2. premise: Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone
3. premise: God's existence in reality is conceivable
4. Therefore, if God did exist in reality, he would be greater than he is
5. Therefore, it is conceivable that there is a being greater than God is
6. Thus...going back to the definition of God...it is conceivable that there be a being greater than the being than which nothing greater can be conceived
7. This being an absurdity, we have disproven statement 1.
It follows that "the being than which nothing greater can be conceived" does exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 17, 2015 19:44:31 GMT -5
I'm not following you rational. At what step is a necessary being assumed? The proof is meant to show that the contingent beings we see around us imply a prime necessary being. Premise #6 and your conclusion. They only imply it because you have stated it was necessary. And there are other problems as well. But suffice it to say that if a person needs arguments like these to shore up their belief in god are they sure they are theists? |
|
