The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

To All Religious People

Scroll to see replies

Original post by XOR_
How can you tell that the experience(s) was God and not just a mental perception based on the idea of a God?


Because it was supernatural, not natural
What made it supernatural?
Original post by XOR_
What made it supernatural?


As in, it couldn't have been attributed to any natural phenomona. You know how some people attribute God to their own actions or just chance, like getting an A on a test when in reality they just worked really hard? No, it wasn't anything like that.
Original post by XOR_
To you, does faith overrule logic?
By that I mean, if I could logically prove the likelihood of a god existing is equal to that of a unicorn would you still have faith in it's existence?

Lastly, do you think it's right to make kids have faith in something which in terms of likelihood of existing is equal to that of a unicorn?


You mean unicorn in the derogatuve, magical sense right? As opposed to simply a white, horned horse :tongue:

If you could give me very good reason to think the likelihood of God existing is very low, ofcourse i would no longer have rational belief.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Whitewell
You mean unicorn in the derogatuve, magical sense right? As opposed to simply a white, horned horse :tongue:

If you could give me very good reason to think the likelihood of God existing is very low, ofcourse i would no longer have rational belief.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Sure, may I ask what your argument for a God existing is?
(I could take intelligent design as a guess yet perhaps you have another viewpoint)
and yes unicorn as in the magical creature.
(edited 7 years ago)
Faith doesn't operate within the domain of Logic. Nothing says that you always have to be logical all the time.
Original post by XOR_
Sure, may I ask what your argument for a God existing is?
(I could take intelligent design as a guess yet perhaps you have another viewpoint)
and yes unicorn as in the magical creature.


My hat is thrown in the thomist ring. I find Aristotelian metaphysics the most plausible and Explanatory positions to take. Some may even be Incoherent to reject. From that follows the arguments for God by Aristotle and Aquinas. However, i think some contemporary arguments are adequate for rationally justified belief. Namely the contingency argument, among others. I think other issues like mind-body problems, the problem of induction etc are problems for atheism.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by XOR_
Sure, may I ask what your argument for a God existing is?
(I could take intelligent design as a guess yet perhaps you have another viewpoint)
and yes unicorn as in the magical creature.


So, no. Not intelligent design :wink:

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Whitewell
My hat is thrown in the thomist ring. I find Aristotelian metaphysics the most plausible and Explanatory positions to take. Some may even be Incoherent to reject. From that follows the arguments for God by Aristotle and Aquinas. However, i think some contemporary arguments are adequate for rationally justified belief. Namely the contingency argument, among others. I think other issues like mind-body problems, the problem of induction etc are problems for atheism.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Ok, so firstly I take it you're referring to the prime mover argument.
A prime mover whilst perhaps rationally plausible in the sense of a force transcending space and time
(I say perhaps as it's not clear to me how causality could exist outside of time)
has no reason to be deemed a god in the sense of an intelligent being.
I don't see how the contingency argument works, it makes a huge leap in saying if everything has an explanation that explanation must be a god, a similar falsehood to the prime mover needing to be anything but a unintelligent force.
I can't see how the mind-body problem directly relates to a deity.
As for the problem of induction, whilst I can't say that any knowledge obtained through induction is infallible it certainly increases the observabled probability and the attempt at voiding the very method for which science is conducted to initiate a higher probability of a god seems bizarre and I could equally suggest the problem of induction for a unicorn.

Overall, there appears no reason to rationally consider a God in any of those arguments.
(edited 7 years ago)
Faith is faith. To believe something you don't have to provide definitive proof for it...that is why it is called faith.
Original post by BobBobson
Faith doesn't operate within the domain of Logic. Nothing says that you always have to be logical all the time.

Let's say we have a coin and the chance of it landing on heads is 50% and the chance of it landing on tails is 50%.
You can 'hope' the coin lands on heads with a completely rational mindset yet if you have 'faith' it will land on heads, put simply, you are lying to yourself by telling yourself it will without any additional reason.
Original post by XOR_
Let's say we have a coin and the chance of it landing on heads is 50% and the chance of it landing on tails is 50%.
You can 'hope' the coin lands on heads with a completely rational mindset yet if you have 'faith' it will land on heads, put simply, you are lying to yourself by telling yourself it will without any additional reason.


Yep. What's wrong with that?
Original post by BobBobson
Yep. What's wrong with that?

Well if you say,
'I have faith in God'
that equates to
'I have an irrational belief in God'
if you had a rational argument for a God it wouldn't be faith.
"What's wrong with it?"
Are you asking what's wrong with irrational beliefs?
I would say it depends on the subject matter/context.
Original post by XOR_
Well if you say,
'I have faith in God'
that equates to
'I have an irrational belief in God'
if you had a rational argument for a God it wouldn't be faith.
"What's wrong with it?"
Are you asking what's wrong with irrational beliefs?
I would say it depends on the subject matter/context.


What's wrong with having an irrational belief? There are times when logic is good and even necessary, but what is wrong with believing in something irrational?
Reply 34
Avatar for RobML
RobML
6
Original post by BobBobson
What's wrong with having an irrational belief? There are times when logic is good and even necessary, but what is wrong with believing in something irrational?


Irrational beliefs lead to irrational actions which affect others

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by XOR_
Ok, so firstly I take it you're referring to the prime mover argument.
A prime mover whilst perhaps rationally plausible in the sense of a force transcending space and time
(I say perhaps as it's not clear to me how causality could exist outside of time)
has no reason to be deemed a god in the sense of an intelligent being.
I don't see how the contingency argument works, it makes a huge leap in saying if everything has an explanation that explanation must be a god, a similar falsehood to the prime mover needing to be anything but a unintelligent force.
I can't see how the mind-body problem directly relates to a deity.
As for the problem of induction, whilst I can't say that any knowledge obtained through induction is infallible it certainly increases the observabled probability and the attempt at voiding the very method for which science is conducted to initiate a higher probability of a god seems bizarre and I could equally suggest the problem of induction for a unicorn.

Overall, there appears no reason to rationally consider a God in any of those arguments.


Well to state the obvious, regarding the mind body problem and induction etc, i didnt actually make the arguments but made a small list of reasons. I dont think, and didnt say, for example, that the problem of induction is a direct argument for God. Nor would I necessarily appeal to God to explain the mind-body problem.

The unmoved mover certainly provides reasons for believing that it has intelligence. A pretty fundamental Aristotelian concept of causation is that a cause of a feature must have that feature either 'formally' or 'eminently'. Being the source of all change, the unmoved mover is the source of all things coming to have the attributes they have, at least eminently. This is the traditional argument for omnipotence but also intelligence (as humans have intellect and will in Aristotelian jargon). Ofcourse, when describing the unmoved mover as having intellect, will and personhood, it is often described in terms of the via negativa.

Briefly for the contingency argument, once it argues that contingent things have an explanation for their existence in something necessary, it argues that the only plausible way you could explain some contingency with something necessary, is through a free choice (which itself wouldnt be necessary).

So, even putting aside the success of these arguments, that they argue for theologically rich conceptions of God is well documented.

Now that being said, I think the mind body probelm does show that immaterial things exist (though the mind is by no means the only immaterial thing. I think nominalism is Incoherent and conceptualism has real struggles too. This leave realism about universals and numbers the only rational position imo). This has implications for some atheists (not all though) in how they reject certain arguments. For example, some cant imagine how something could exist outside of space, but if the mind, universals and numbers are immaterial, then they are not extended etc.

(Plus, in a cosmological argument in the manner of Locke, if the mind is "seperate" and immaterial, then whatever explanation or cause we appeal to may need to have personhood, especially if we reject reductionism as a reason for believing the mind to be immaterial anyway, but this ultimately isnt too different from the Aristotelian idea of causes have features eminently (if not formally)).


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by XOR_
To you, does faith overrule logic?
By that I mean, if I could logically prove the likelihood of a god existing is equal to that of a unicorn would you still have faith in it's existence?

Lastly, do you think it's right to make kids have faith in something which in terms of likelihood of existing is equal to that of a unicorn?


I wouldn't no and the second one yes to an extent.
Original post by RobML
Irrational beliefs lead to irrational actions which affect others

Posted from TSR Mobile


What's wrong with that?
Reply 38
Avatar for RobML
RobML
6
Original post by BobBobson
What's wrong with that?


Irrationality is ineffective in recognising good ends and achieiving good ends
Original post by RobML
Irrationality is ineffective in recognising good ends and achieiving good ends


That depends what you would define good. If everyone in the world held the same certain irrational belief, then, although, humanity might not progress technologically, people would still be happy if they're irrational belief told them to be happy. I would argue that logic and reason makes humanity less happy.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you