And who the hell said theists mould their notion of God to make it immune to science?
Modern day theism still holds dear notions of God that were formulated before science was prominent. Several theists subscribe to the metaphysics of the ancient Greeks for goodness sake.
Honestly, that seems more of an indictment or weakness of theism if they truly haven’t adjusted or changed their views since the ancient Greeks. Truly, the Greeks were greatly influential on Western thought, philosophy, and science, but there were a lot of things they were wrong about too, understandably so though. They just did not have the tools and wealth of knowledge that has been created, honed, and amassed since then.
They were wrong about the elements, geocentrism, and spontaneous generation, just to name a couple of things that are pretty commonly accepted today as being inaccurate to outright wrong.
http://listverse.com/2009/01/19/10-debunked-scientific-beliefs-of-the-past/
There have been a number of discoveries that have been made since then that would require what I would think at least a bit of updating to the notions that the Greeks put forth to keep them accurate with what we currently know.
It also seems a bit wonky to me to use theistic arguments from the Greeks, who were patently using such arguments to prove entirely different kinds of gods than what Christianity would use. However, historically, it makes sense since Christianity did borrow a lot from the religions that existed before it.
See, atheists always say this, yet never cite a God argument and demonstrate it.
What God arguments are you familiar with?
I don't mean that in a rude way, but if you're not familair with prominent theistic arguments you can't say "theists start with the assumption .." etc.
Honestly, it seems like most atheists just form these ideals of what God arguments are like, so they're easier to refute.
Seriously, name a respected theistic philosopher or theologian who has actually made the argument from ignorance.
Honestly, the argument that "because science can't answer it, it must be God" is never brouhgt up in any philosophy of religion text book or course, so I don't know where you guys are getting the idea that that's the main theistic argument.
For my part, my post was made partly in reference to the types of arguments I feel you have generally been putting forth, but I wasn’t making myself very clear it seems.
To be honest, the most common types of arguments that I’ve run into are indeed the “Science can’t explain X, so therefore God did it/exists” or “The Bible says so” kind of thing. Even if not immediately evident or explicitly said, that’s often what it turns into when I’ve talked with other religious people. So, unfortunately, experience has sort of grained into me to expect that sort of underpinning in a lot of theistic arguments, and I’m sure a lot of atheists probably are the same way as a result, at least the American ones.
Partly, I also feel that you are implicated in arguments from ignorance as well, but I really can’t say for sure, since it seems every time before this that I pressed you about your argument, you would never fully explain it, and back off into something else.
However, lets turn to, say, Aquinas’ list of attributes for this god from the Wikipedia page. Is that agreeable to you?
God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form.[66]
God is perfect, lacking nothing. That is, God is distinguished from other beings on account of God's complete actuality.[67]
God is infinite. That is, God is not finite in the ways that created beings are physically, intellectually, and emotionally limited. This infinity is to be distinguished from infinity of size and infinity of number.[68]
God is immutable, incapable of change on the levels of God's essence and character.[69]
God is one, without diversification within God's self. The unity of God is such that God's essence is the same as God's existence. In Aquinas's words, "in itself the proposition 'God exists' is necessarily true, for in it subject and predicate are the same."[70]
It seems to me that to assign such attributes to a deity is going beyond any reasonable or solid foundation. How would you even go about determining the necessity of any of these attributes, or the basis for having them? Let’s say that god even did the one thing that we can all observe: the universe. How does that even allow for logically concluding that this deity even has to have these attributes from that?
Regardless, science has no authority on what caused that which science studies.
If that’s the case, then can the same be said of all logical reasoning? By what basis do you decide what fields of inquiry can or cannot have any say in particular issues?
You're talking as if this is the first time you've looked at Aquinas...
Seriously, how can you guys (this goes for everyone) make claims about what all theists assume, when you haven't even read the most prominent God arguments?
And again, all you've made is just general claims without refuting anything specific.
It's no different to me commenting on Laurence Krauss and saying "His theory sounds good at first, but closer inspection reveals several flaws". I've just made a conclusion without any premises, what you guys are doing is no different.
So again, if you want to actually make a point against God, take a God argument and tear it to shreds, instead of just making pointless and misinformed assumptions about the mentality of theists.
I readily admit I haven’t read much Aquinas, and my exposure to his work is mostly by proxy, which is why I say that I am completely willing to be persuaded to a different opinion upon a more enlightening reading or explanation of his work. Unfortunately, a comprehensive reading of his work will just not be feasible by me in any reasonably short period of time, so I have to rely on what little I do know of him and what I’ve read (criticisms and otherwise) of his work.
What are the prominent God arguments then? I know what kind of arguments I’ve regularly run into, and your approach is certainly not like any of them (for better or for worse). It seems you have a completely different expectation of what kinds of God arguments are put forth, versus what actually seems to be the majority that are out there.
Then what specific arguments would you say there are? It seems either we are taking arguments that either not prominent, or are just straw-manning theists’ position, in your opinion.
It seems your arguments have very little coherence to them, if not due to the fact that you never really supply reasoning or references for them, or just throw out “theories” about things like “God seeing all events at once” without the slightest inkling for why anyone would arrive at that position. It makes it very difficult to talk about a specific argument when you hold discourse in such fashion.
You are perfectly able to say that about Krauss’ lecture. I don’t know why you could not or should not be able to. People would just inquire as to specifically why you feel there are flaws, and what they are. It’s not really a conclusion, it’s more a personal observation.
The other issue is that I generally try to talk about god arguments in the broadest sense possible, in case that I find someone who doesn’t behold themselves to Christian theology, or maybe even some uncommon flavor of it. You have to realize that, at least with me, I realize to some extent my position is flawed and biased in some fashion, but unless I put it out there and have someone take me up on it, I can’t really work on it and fix it.
Anyone saying Aquinas lacks complexity evidently hasn't read his metaphysics, which mind you, has nothing to do with cosmology
He's pretty much the greatest academic in the history, not just for his quality, but sheer quantity, and how much of his work relates to other bits. You could study him for ten years and still have more to learn about his philosophy, it's just that immense in terms of quantity and compelxity.
Seriously guys, get educated on what you're talking about. I'm not saying become an authority on the subject, because none of us (including myself) ever will be in the time frame of this debate. But at least become informed to the point that you don't throw around common misconceptions of theism, and at least know the promienent theistic arguments first.
I never said he wasn’t complex, I’m just saying his arguments probably don’t sidle too well into arguments about cosmology, just because, at his time, the field was practically nonexistent compared to the mathematically complex and counter-intuitive field it is today.
Unfortunately, it seems metaphysics is regularly pulled into the arena of cosmology, which, in some sense, is logical. Both in a way can deal with the question “why are things the way they are?”, if not only in a superficial sense.
I wouldn’t know about calling Aquinas the greatest academic in history, he was certainly important, but from all that I can read and gather, there have been other academics that were much more influential and arguably important, like, say, Newton or Kant.
You keep saying prominent theistic arguments, but you have never stated what you think they are. From my experience, it’s always been the two ones I mentioned earlier.
So you think one day science is going to be able to explain metaphysics? That which is beyond the physical?
The question is, can anything explain metaphysics? Is there even a point to thinking about metaphysics, since all our reasoning and thinking comes from our experience and observation of physics and the material world (our brain itself is material). If science can’t, which it may or may not be able to, I don’t really see anything else that can.
I guess it begs the question, do you believe in a dualistic view of the world?
