Why belief in theism is justified

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Why belief in theism is justified

Postby Erik_ » Mon Nov 26, 2018 5:12 pm

In this thread, I'm going to quickly explain why the theistic worldview is rational.

I am a perenial theist, which means that I see truths of the divine in many different religions and philosophies.

There are various forms of evidence for the existence of God.
The primary ones that are compelling are philosophical arguements.

The Kalam cosmlogical argument, to me, is the soundest one.
In essence, it posits that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and that the physical universe had a beginning and that the cause of this
universe is something timeless, immaterial, intelligent and very powerful. These qualities are conventionally associated with God.

According to popular science, the big bang theory is the most plausible explanation for the origin of the universe.

So, contrary to popular opinion, science actually evinces the possibility of God's existence, as the big bang theory is congruent
with the Kalam cosmlogical argument, something based in philosophy.

There are many more things I can state on this topic, but I will leave it at this and see what sort of dialogues can occur through this.
User avatar
Erik_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:27 pm
Location: Kingdom

Re: Why belief in theism is justified

Postby Jakob » Tue Nov 27, 2018 7:47 pm

Lol
Just yesterday I was archiving this;

The Big Bang is the greatest chunk of horseshit ever devised.
Atheists believe in it. They believe in an even more irrational notion than God.
God is simply not built of reason, you arrive at it through a more complete psychic process. It is a stage of mind, a humanity. And the poems about gods creating the world, are all about elements and logics, not about bearded old men.
The Big Bang however, this is fully and actively contrarational. I is onsensical to posit a beginning of time including a state before that, which was supposedly singular and yet gave birth to something that is not - so, you mean, god exists, we just call him "science" now, and destroy science, but dont mind because we're morons anyway not to be trusted with it... the belief of the Last Man: a seismic event in time space occurred, thus this was the god that died and we are now ashamed to believe in, because ae sin and do nothing but sin and waste out lives. Fuck Big Bangers -

The error: tto push causal logic through a state defined as negative of the causalitylogics you are working with, so as to arrive at the conclusion that everything was created in an instance out of a timeless all-being.



viewtopic.php?f=2&t=188756&start=1250#p2713695
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6092
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Why belief in theism is justified

Postby felix dakat » Sun Dec 02, 2018 5:48 pm

Erik_ wrote:In this thread, I'm going to quickly explain why the theistic worldview is rational.

I am a perenial theist, which means that I see truths of the divine in many different religions and philosophies.

There are various forms of evidence for the existence of God.
The primary ones that are compelling are philosophical arguements.

The Kalam cosmlogical argument, to me, is the soundest one.
In essence, it posits that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and that the physical universe had a beginning and that the cause of this
universe is something timeless, immaterial, intelligent and very powerful. These qualities are conventionally associated with God.

According to popular science, the big bang theory is the most plausible explanation for the origin of the universe.

So, contrary to popular opinion, science actually evinces the possibility of God's existence, as the big bang theory is congruent
with the Kalam cosmlogical argument, something based in philosophy.

There are many more things I can state on this topic, but I will leave it at this and see what sort of dialogues can occur through this.


KCA begs the question why there is anything at all including God if such a thing exists. What do we know about "timeless, immaterial" things? It's an explanation in need of an explanation. And in as much as it no empirical referent, I don't see how explanation is possible. So, it seems best understood as a metaphorical way of saying that ultimate reality is a mystery.

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8196
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Why belief in theism is justified

Postby surreptitious75 » Sun Dec 02, 2018 6:22 pm

E wrote:
There are various forms of evidence for the existence of God
The primary ones that are compelling are philosophical arguments

The Kalam cosmlogical argument to me is the soundest one
In essence it posits that whatever begins to exist has a cause and that the physical universe had a beginning and that the cause
of this universe is something timeless immaterial intelligent and very powerful . These qualities are conventionally associated with God

According to popular science the big bang theory is the most plausible explanation for the origin of the universe

So contrary to popular opinion science actually evinces the possibility of Gods existence as the big bang theory is
congruent with the Kalam cosmlogical argument something based in philosophy

The Big Bang is the most plausible explanation for local cosmic expansion not for the origin of the Universe [ they are not the same ]

The Kalam says that everything that comes into existence has a cause but virtual particles have no cause

Absolute non existence cannot be sustained because of quantum fluctuations
Therefore there cannot have been a point at which everything simply began

Philosophy can never provide evidence for anything only science can
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Why belief in theism is justified

Postby Fanman » Sun Dec 02, 2018 8:15 pm

Erik_ wrote:
The Kalam cosmlogical argument, to me, is the soundest one.
In essence, it posits that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and that the physical universe had a beginning and that the cause of this
universe is something timeless, immaterial, intelligent and very powerful. These qualities are conventionally associated with God.

Yet, there is only anecdotal evidence for the existence of such a being, such as people's testimonies. I'm agnostic, but I think that logical arguments for the existence of God all encounter the same problem, in that they all require a leap of faith. How can an argument be sound or even relatively sound if the conclusion is reliant upon faith and not fact? I don't believe that theism is unreasonable, because there may be compelling reasons why people believe in God, but I don't understand how in epistemological terms, belief can be called “justified”? How do we argue that someone's belief in God is justified, for what reasons?
Fanman
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: Why belief in theism is justified

Postby Serendipper » Mon Dec 03, 2018 5:02 am

Fanman wrote:
Erik_ wrote:
The Kalam cosmlogical argument, to me, is the soundest one.
In essence, it posits that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and that the physical universe had a beginning and that the cause of this
universe is something timeless, immaterial, intelligent and very powerful. These qualities are conventionally associated with God.

Yet, there is only anecdotal evidence for the existence of such a being, such as people's testimonies. I'm agnostic, but I think that logical arguments for the existence of God all encounter the same problem, in that they all require a leap of faith. How can an argument be sound or even relatively sound if the conclusion is reliant upon faith and not fact? I don't believe that theism is unreasonable, because there may be compelling reasons why people believe in God, but I don't understand how in epistemological terms, belief can be called “justified”? How do we argue that someone's belief in God is justified, for what reasons?

Hey there fanman :greetings-wavingblue: (Hope you're a fan of blue waves lol)

Matt Dillahunty turned me onto a good argument against faith which is: because faith can be used to justify any position, it can justify no position. Succinct and solid.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Why belief in theism is justified

Postby Fanman » Mon Dec 03, 2018 1:29 pm

Hey Serendipper, blue waves are all good buddy :) .

I agree that whilst faith can be based upon interpretations, inclinations or even seeming correlations, it lacks the rigorous validity which would allow it to be justified as knowledge. If faith could be confirmed or justified, it would cease to be faith and become knowledge. The very nature of faith is belief without evidence, so it doesn't actually justify anything outside of what the individual believes. As such, I think we are well within reason to reject faith based claims posited as knowledge. The KCA is perhaps the strongest logical argument for the existence of a creator, but it relies on cause and effect, which IMV makes it anecdotal rather than evidential. It seems logical that all things have a cause, but it is impossible to know if that is actually the case. Furthermore, if we accept that all things are caused, why should we then accept that one single being is uncaused :-k.
Fanman
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: Why belief in theism is justified

Postby Jakob » Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:18 pm

Fanman wrote:
Erik_ wrote:
The Kalam cosmlogical argument, to me, is the soundest one.
In essence, it posits that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and that the physical universe had a beginning and that the cause of this
universe is something timeless, immaterial, intelligent and very powerful. These qualities are conventionally associated with God.

Yet, there is only anecdotal evidence for the existence of such a being, such as people's testimonies. I'm agnostic, but I think that logical arguments for the existence of God all encounter the same problem, in that they all require a leap of faith. How can an argument be sound or even relatively sound if the conclusion is reliant upon faith and not fact? I don't believe that theism is unreasonable, because there may be compelling reasons why people believe in God, but I don't understand how in epistemological terms, belief can be called “justified”? How do we argue that someone's belief in God is justified, for what reasons?


Belief is seen to be justified only by its consequences.

There is, as all beginning thinkers realize, no cerainty to be attained whatsoever.

All knowledge requires a basic faith in the soundness of ones own mind. A philosopher is someone who radically questions this presumption.

In very simple terms, this is what Sokrates teaches.
The belief that one can be certain, as a limited being, of anything at all was put in question.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6092
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Why belief in theism is justified

Postby Serendipper » Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:15 am

Fanman wrote:Hey Serendipper, blue waves are all good buddy :) .

I agree that whilst faith can be based upon interpretations, inclinations or even seeming correlations, it lacks the rigorous validity which would allow it to be justified as knowledge. If faith could be confirmed or justified, it would cease to be faith and become knowledge. The very nature of faith is belief without evidence, so it doesn't actually justify anything outside of what the individual believes. As such, I think we are well within reason to reject faith based claims posited as knowledge.

All good stuff!

But what Matt meant is since faith can be used to substantiate anything, for instance flying pixies, then faith can't be used to substantiate any one thing in particular. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcB_g_ElIdQ

We could say Yahweh exists by faith or we could say Zeus exists by faith or the flying spaghetti monster exists by faith, and since faith substantiates a whole slew of contradictory things with equal authority, then faith cannot be used to substantiate anything since it makes no difference.

But there is another interpretation of faith that I'm not sure Matt or many others are aware of, which is knowledge that is not conceptual and this is differentiated from "hope" or "belief" as it is in fact knowledge, but not knowledge in the form of a concept (think of instinctual knowledge like how you beat your heart; you clearly have the knowledge of how to do it, but you've no idea what that knowledge is or how to convey it.).

More on this topic here viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193866&p=2697490#p2697490

The KCA is perhaps the strongest logical argument for the existence of a creator, but it relies on cause and effect, which IMV makes it anecdotal rather than evidential. It seems logical that all things have a cause, but it is impossible to know if that is actually the case. Furthermore, if we accept that all things are caused, why should we then accept that one single being is uncaused :-k.

What's a thing? :)

How does a cause influence an effect?

If a cause influences an effect, then how is a cause distinct from an effect?

If a cause cannot exist without an effect and if an effect cannot exist without a cause, then cause and effect are codependent and this dependency precludes either as being a separate thing. Causes influence effects because they aren't distinct things.

Also, causality is temporal in concept and time is an emergent property of the universe, and if time began after the universe began, then what does "before" mean before time existed and what are the implications on causality? It's a lot like asking what is north of the north pole.

Time can only be thought of as a relation of one aspect of the universe to another. For instance, it may take 1/24 revolution of the earth to drive to the next town which is what is meant by "1 hour". So, when we ask for a measure of time before there was movement in relation to other movement, then what does it mean? Time does not have a fixed, absolute, objective value, but is only a relation of movements within the universe and therefore time can only come into existence after there is something conceived to be moving.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Why belief in theism is justified

Postby Serendipper » Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:28 am

Jakob wrote:There is, as all beginning thinkers realize, no cerainty to be attained whatsoever.

Are you sure? :)

All knowledge requires a basic faith in the soundness of ones own mind. A philosopher is someone who radically questions this presumption.

In very simple terms, this is what Sokrates teaches.
The belief that one can be certain, as a limited being, of anything at all was put in question.

Then we must question that. If you can't trust yourself, can you trust your mistrust of yourself?

I am a liar. If I am a liar, then I'm lying when I say I'm a liar, which means I'm not a liar, but I just lied.

If you think your information is unreliable, then the information that the information is unreliable is itself unreliable.

That philosophy negates its own foundation.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm


Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]