~ Proof That God Exists ~

[ReliStuPhD]

...oh, and the I'm turning off the thread bit is a GREAT way to get-out when you find yourself way over your head.

It's also a great way to "get out" when it's evident that the person with whom you're debating is under-prepared and over-zealous. Nevertheless, you're welcome to belief whatever you need to to sleep well at night.

And fwiw, I certainly have not found myself way over my head here. If anything, I've been rather disappointed at how unsophisticated some of the "arguments" have been, especially in light of this being a forum for a philosophy magazine. Luckily, I've started to pick out a few names that do, in fact, appear to have formal training in philosophy/philosophy of religion. Currently, you don't appear to be one of them, but perhaps you'll prove me wrong. I would certainly welcome it.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



Apology accepted.


I think you will do fine here.


Please seriously consider the advice I offered earlier when your emotions quell a bit...



You're welcome. And again, welcome to The Forum!




.

[ReliStuPhD]

Please seriously consider the advice I offered earlier when your emotions quell a bit...

Do you mind repeating that advice? I either missed it or have forgotten it.

[Arising_uk]

I wouldn't bother ReliStuPHD,

Bill is the kind of ex-theist who gives atheists a bad name as he has not come to terms with his loss of faith and what living without a 'God' entails.

[ReliStuPhD]

I wouldn't bother ReliStuPHD,

Bill is the kind of ex-theist who gives atheists a bad name as he has not come to terms with his loss of faith and what living without a 'God' entails.

That's my sense of things as well, but having taken a similar route myself, I'm at least curious about what his advice was.

[Immanuel Can]

ReliStuPhD:

No, I stand with my statement about Alvin Plantinga. His writings are bullshit. The fact that he was in academia as a learned philosopher explains the books & papers he has written. He wrote for extra cash & to keep his ego propped-up. Trust me, he's NOT impressive.

Other than "trust me," nothing here of substance offered. A couple of slanderous claims -- unsubstantiated, naturally -- and gratuitous dismissal of a philosopher generally acclaimed as one of the most accomplished of the last century, even by those who heartily disagree with his work.

I've actually met Plantinga, but won't stoop to telling you to just "trust me." Whether he's an impressive person or, as his detractor claims, only "wrote for extra cash" are simply ad hominem claims, as you can see. I will say that I found his work on language very challenging and impressive. To those who can manage to understand it, (and it's a real challenge for those of limited skill in reading academic literature not simply to caricature and misrepresent his version instead of addressing it) his revisions on Anselm's Ontological Argument are generally considered to be the terms upon which that proof must be addressed by a serious critic or supporter nowadays. It's quite fair to say that no current support or refutation of that line of argument would be considered to be complete without some reference to Plantinga's work. Ask any scholar of Ontology, and you'll find out I'm telling you the truth right away. So you need not take my word for it.

In any case, you can tell by the number of times he's quoted and challenged by his opponents on a variety of topics that he's someone they take very seriously indeed...hardly the type to be dismissed with an offhanded "bullshit." But it's easy to do that with what one does not really understand.

You may or may not decide that you like Plantinga. But his work is definitely worth a read. That he is extremely well published and widely reviewed -- by both supporters and critics -- will speak more eloquently of his actual achievements than the "trust me" you have been offered in its place.

[thedoc]

ReliStuPhD:

No, I stand with my statement about Alvin Plantinga. His writings are bullshit. The fact that he was in academia as a learned philosopher explains the books & papers he has written. He wrote for extra cash & to keep his ego propped-up. Trust me, he's NOT impressive.

Other than "trust me," nothing here of substance offered. A couple of slanderous claims -- unsubstantiated, naturally -- and gratuitous dismissal of a philosopher generally acclaimed as one of the most accomplished of the last century, even by those who heartily disagree with his work.

I've actually met Plantinga, but won't stoop to telling you to just "trust me." Whether he's an impressive person or, as his detractor claims, only "wrote for extra cash" are simply ad hominem claims, as you can see. I will say that I found his work on language very challenging and impressive. To those who can manage to understand it, (and it's a real challenge for those of limited skill in reading academic literature not simply to caricature and misrepresent his version instead of addressing it) his revisions on Anselm's Ontological Argument are generally considered to be the terms upon which that proof must be addressed by a serious critic or supporter nowadays. It's quite fair to say that no current support or refutation of that line of argument would be considered to be complete without some reference to Plantinga's work. Ask any scholar of Ontology, and you'll find out I'm telling you the truth right away. So you need not take my word for it.

In any case, you can tell by the number of times he's quoted and challenged by his opponents on a variety of topics that he's someone they take very seriously indeed...hardly the type to be dismissed with an offhanded "bullshit." But it's easy to do that with what one does not really understand.

You may or may not decide that you like Plantinga. But his work is definitely worth a read. That he is extremely well published and widely reviewed -- by both supporters and critics -- will speak more eloquently of his actual achievements than the "trust me" you have been offered in its place.

IC, perhaps I misunderstand your intentions, but Bill Wiltrack authored the quote in your post, page 2. 10th post from the top, not RelistuPhD. If your intention was just to clarify for Reli, OK my misunderstanding.

I finally realized what ReliStuPhD sounds like when pronounced out loud, was that intentional?

[Immanuel Can]

thedoc:

Yes, I know. My intention was setting the record straight FOR ReliStuPhd, not attributing the cited reply TO him.

You see, in reaction to that reply, ReliStudPhD had written...

If anything, I've been rather disappointed at how unsophisticated some of the "arguments" have been, especially in light of this being a forum for a philosophy magazine.

I regard his comment on that as entirely justified -- yourself and some few others being an exception, of course. So I was not quoting ReliStuPhD himself, but rather citing (without attempting to accuse) the author of the original comment. I did not think it necessary to embarrass anyone in particular.

I felt ReliStudPhD's interest was not honoured by the reply he received, and I saw that he felt that. I sought to provide him a better one, one more in keeping with the facts. I'm sure you would do the same yourself, as I find you invariably useful and interesting as a conversationalist. So too, as I say, some others...but regrettably, as RelStuPhD has pointed out, not all.

P.S. -- Yes, I noticed the pun too. I wondered whether it was deliberate, but did not wish to point it out just on the off chance is it was accidental. I actually find RelStuPhD quite astute.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




HERE;




The problem with this image is the assumption that this is what Christians argue about the Bible. I think it's fairly clear that, as far as tradition goes, this is not at all the argument being made. The Bible is not proof that God exists. While the existence of a non-contingent ground of being (what Xians refer to as "God") can be "proved" on logical grounds, if Plantinga is correct, and belief in God is properly basic, "proof" in the empirical sense is not required. That is to say, the Xian accepts that God exists and, as a result, considers the Bible to authoritative.

Put another way, God is proof that the Bible exists [as divine revelation rather than simply literature].



I responded:


I'm a little let-down. Thought WE may be able to have a productive philosophical discussion.

Apparently, at least two of your opposing egos, have already taken BOTH sides of this argument.

Lemmie get some popcorn and I will get ready to enjoy your point-counterpoint with yourself.





And I post later:

Wikipedia:

Alvin Plantinga has argued that some people can know that God exists as a basic belief, requiring no argument. He developed this argument in two different fashions: firstly, in God and Other Minds (1967), by drawing an equivalence between the teleological argument and the common sense view that people have of other minds existing by analogy with their own minds. Plantinga has also developed a more comprehensive epistemological account of the nature of warrant which allows for the existence of God as a basic belief.

Plantinga has also argued that there is no logical inconsistency between the existence of evil and the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, wholly good God.


...so, you have an individual, Alvin Plantinga, saying that people can know a god exists by belief alone.


Proof is empirical. Not based upon belief. Belief is not proof.


However, if you want to base your proof upon belief, then my original post upon this thread is true.


Now, choose whatever position you wish, at this point, you will be arguing illogically or arguing for ill-logic.


...yeah, yeah, I'll just sit here with my popcorn and watch you thrash it out.



You will soon realize why the one new member opted-out so quickly.


.

[thedoc]

P.S. -- Yes, I noticed the pun too. I wondered whether it was deliberate, but did not wish to point it out just on the off chance is it was accidental. I actually find RelStuPhD quite astute.

Yes I think he does quite well in forum conversation, I thought his user I.D. might be a bit of self-deprecation.

[thedoc]

I regard his comment on that as entirely justified -- yourself and some few others being an exception, of course. So I was not quoting ReliStuPhD himself, but rather citing (without attempting to accuse) the author of the original comment. I did not think it necessary to embarrass anyone in particular.

Just a thought, but from reading many of his posts, I seriously doubt if Bill Wiltrack could be embarrassed by anything anyone else says about him. On the other hand I think he would take any mention of his name as a compliment.

[Immanuel Can]

I have no desire to be contentious, however your claim is unfair to Plantinga, and in the interest of fairness, I should challenge it further.

...so, you have an individual, Alvin Plantinga, saying that people can know a god exists by belief alone.

Remember I said that it's easy to caricature, misrepresent and then mock what Plantinga actually says? Well....

I don't entirely blame you, though. It's an easy mistake to make one has actually never read what he wrote, and particularly if one does not understand the philosophical term "properly basic" or Plantinga's explanation for how one ought to regard beliefs as "properly basic." If one already thought he knew what "properly basic" entailed, or if one substituted common language for Plantinga's more complicated stipulated concept, then one would be quite likely to go badly wrong in critique. The solution is simple: read what he actually wrote, not the dilatory summary of some lesser interpreter on (gasp) Wikipedia, and make up one's own mind.

Proof is empirical. Not based upon belief. Belief is not proof.

If you read a bit in epistemology, and particularly in the philosophy of science, you will find that this claim is epistemologically naive, from two perspectives. Firstly, even science itself is inductive, not deductive, as every philosopher of science knows; and "empirical" means, "derived from sensory inputs produced by experience or experiment." Both experience and experiment are only capable of producing probabilistic results, not "proof" in any pure sense. "Proofs" happen in mathematics and formal logic only, not in science. "Proof" is not empirical. "Evidence" is empirical -- and probabilistic.

Secondly, your claim is naive about belief. Belief is the action of estimating the probability of the veracity of a claim, and therefore science does it all the time: it looks at the probabilities that its empirical findings will continue, and ventures a conclusion (tentatively) based on best evidence. It "believes" its results.

The idea that Atheists possess some kind of "proof" and all that Theists have instead is some kind of "belief-minus-anything" is simply naive on both counts.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.






I didn't make a mistake. I haven't made a single mistake within ALL of my posts within this thread.


You use the word naive quite a bit in your responses.

The only naive member upon this thread opted-out when the water got too high for them.

It is EXTREMELY naive for any member to think that another member's opinion will somehow disappear if one no longer visits that particular thread.

Enough said.


As far as your interpretation of the terms upon this thread I believe that we have some common ground;


When it comes to the subject of gods - belief is just as valid as logic. Both are false.

Neither side of the argument is able to possess proof that a god does exist or that a particular god does not exist.

I think the statement above is where I kind-of hover above all other member's views thus far.

If you would like to join me in these deeper philosophical waters I am right here...and I will be waiting for you.







...................................................






.

[Immanuel Can]

As far as your interpretation of the terms upon this thread I believe that we have some common ground;

When it comes to the subject of gods - belief is just as valid as logic. Both are false.

You've misunderstood me, I'm afraid. I didn't suggest that because a belief is probabilistic it's "false."

Scientists believe in gravity: they know that it is very probable that an object dropped from a height will fall downward...but they don't per se have "proof" until after they drop the object; and afterward, they have absolute "proof" only for that object. They are never 100% sure of what the next trial may show... but they "believe" what will happen next, and I think they're quite rational to do so...even if only probabilistically.

I also think claims about God are "falsifiable" in the sense that people like Karl Popper and Anthony Flew asserted science is and religion should be (respectively). One can hold true and false beliefs about science, and true and false beliefs about God.

Neither side of the argument is able to possess proof that a god does exist or that a particular god does not exist.

Quite true. But neither is it reasonable to expect that of either side. Like all propositions made about objective facts, they can only be probabilistic, never absolute. Yet science is still good, for all that, and so, I would insist, are rational claims about God. Good claims in both fields are made based on the best facts available, and with probabilistic certainty, not absolute "proof."

You see, to make "proof" the only standard is to believe in nothing save mathematics...not even to be sure of the existence of an external world. And yet, at the moment you are typing messages to me *as if* that external world actually exists, as if *I* actually exist, as if I am who I am representing myself to be (despite my moniker), and as if our mutual propositions are intelligible -- all things which require faith on your part, that is, belief of things you do not have "proof" for.

If you would like to join me in these deeper philosophical waters I am right here...and I will be waiting for you.

I'm not feeling over my head, thank you.

[ReliStuPhD]

Right. His reference to Plantinga was a "philophaster" was my first clue. I can understand someone saying something along the lines of "Plantinga is just wrong," but to refer to him as some sort of pretend philosopher? Absolutely ridiculous. Not only is it evidence of a tremendous gap in his understand of philosophy in the 20th century, it's just plain childish. I love debating those with opposing views when they can support them (or at least undermine mine), but I draw the line at such gross ad hominems and displays of ignorance. Generally speaking, I do not debate philosophy with children. Why I should with an adult who seems not to be bringing much more to the table is beyond me.

And as for the advice I was looking for, he repeated it. It is as nonsensical on a second reading as it was the first. At least now I know using the ignore feature was the right move in this case. I just don't have the time for drivel these days.