Hey hey, Nate back. For some more God stuff.
Some of you are probably getting a little tired of all this God stuff on my blog, but have no fear! For it shall soon end, with the end of my presentation. Actually, if the discussions are still going on strong, I might continue it, but we'll see.
As you may or may not have read, Greg stopped by! I miss that man. But he's too 'married' to hang out with us anymore. Yeesh. But as soon as the poison kicks in, he'll be wifeless, and he'll come running back to us. :)
Err...Moving on...
Greg politely asked just why I dismiss these views so. Couldn't really get too into it due to the time restraints, and the fact that I had more to cover, but now I have plenty of time. So let's go through them one by one, shall we?
Let's begin with Ontological. This one was thought up (or at least written down) by St. Anselm. He was a Benedictine Monk. With a name like the big bad in the first Kingdom Hearts game! On, Ansem. And not only was he a monk, but he was also the Archbishop of Canterbury, and one of history's great religious philosophers. And I guess they had enough time for that, with their lack of internet...Poor buggers.
This guy said that God is "that than which no greater can be conceived". You can't possibly think of something greater than God. And if'n God is that than which no greater can be conceived, Anselm argues, then nothing can be imagined that is greater than God. So that's sort of a loose definition of God, that of which no greater good can even be thought of. If God does not exist, though, then something can be conceived of that is greater than God, meaning a God that does exist. To think that God does not exist then, gets you into one big loop where you both can and can't imagine something greater. You then take an Advil, and continue.
Basically, it gives rise to a vicious loop. But I must admit, the site I'm looking at now, which has provided me with more than the bare bones of the argument, is more thought-provoking than the bare bones. But it still doesn't get me. It may have snagged Descartes, another nifty empiricist, but I can't for the life of me figure out how it got him. Descartes was an interesting type of empiricist, though...Kinda like me, he didn't believe in anything that wasn't being perceived. But he believed that God was always perceiving things, and therefore they existed because of that. But then, he believed that something was true if you believed it without a trace of doubt in your mind. He believed in God without a trace of doubt in his mind. And he believed that he existed, because well...His life would have been boring if he didn't exist. So he existed, God existed, the things he perceived existed, and anything else he couldn't perceive at the time just fell under the all-knowing eyes of God. Wacky, huh? What a guy.
But anyways, I should get to why this proof doesn't cut it for me. If I don't believe in a God, then I don't believe that there is something that is greater than all else. So I dismiss the potential 'loose definition' without much hesitation. This one is just too much of a loop to catch me in it. To accept the definition snares you into the loop. To avoid a headache, I steer clear of it. I'm sorry if I can't be much clearer than that about it, but yeah. Hopefully I'll get into this again later, but I need to move onto the next one, and House is on at nine.
But I can say that one of the opposition of this proof was Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. He was actually a fellow monk of Anselm, which is surprising. He argued that this could be used to prove the existance of the perfect
anything. His example was the perfect island.
*ahem*
"The perfect island, this argument goes, is the island than which no greater can be conceived. Any island that does not exist, though, cannot be the island than which no greater can be conceived, for it could be conceived to exist which would be greater. Anyone who thinks that the perfect does not exist, then, is confused; the concept of the perfect island entails that there is such a thing."
You could use this to prove the perfect anything. The perfect cheeseburger, the perfect sparrow, the perfect Nate (me!). And it gets even MORE confusing when you try to figure 'perfection', which may be something different to everybody.
...Yeesh.
And then there was Kant, who
was a theist, and still argued it, stating that existance wasn't really a property.
But that is WAY too much of that proof.
The Cosmological argument states that the very existance of our world is proof of a God. Basically, all things must logically have a cause. So then the cause of our world itself is God. But that, of course, raises the immediate question, what is the cause of God? If, as it states, all things require a cause, then does not God require a cause? And if, perchance, God is exempt from this, then what stops something else from being exempt, like the world at large? Why does it need a cause if God does not need one? If God is the cause of his own existance, then how did he cause himself if he didn't exist? It ends up being another confusing head-ache inducing loop.
Somebody named Kalam tried to fix this little problem by saying that anything beginning in time had to have a cause. The universe would have a cause in time, but if God is quote unquote "timeless", then he wouldn't need a cause. I see this as just nit-picking, and still doesn't add much to the original argument.
That's all I'll go into for that one, but hopefully you can see why it is that I'm not hooked from it. If you're going to go into saying things like "You agree that everything has a cause, correct?" then moving on to "The universe must have a cause, correct?" and "That cause could only be God, correct?", then it's a little unfair to start popping in little things. After being asked "Then what caused God?", saying "He's an exception" or "He caused himself" is sort of a cop-out, isn't it?
Anywho...Moving onto my favourite.
The telological argument states that our universe is just so gosh-dang complex, it couldn't possibly be true. St. Thomas Aquinas used this one, as well as the first one. Jared doesn't like that guy, but I'm fond of this argument. It was never all that well-formed until William Paley happened by though, and gave the watch analogy. He said that there are so many intricate things that work together in harmony to make things what they are now, that it suggests intelligent design, that things aren't just random chance this and that. It suggests that something made our world the way it is, and that something would of course be "God".
And this is the argument to which I have no clear rebuttal. But, the way I see it, anything is possible. It's all a matter of odds. So in my opinion, things could have come together the way they did without a designer. The odds are against it, but I don't see the odds as going particularly well for an omnipotent designer, either.
But, I am tired. And I want to move on to some argumentss for atheism. So we're not just talking about arguments for God.
First off, I should say that Atheism seems to be the default. You start out not really believing in any sort of God. In some cases, the parents are religious, and it moves onto the children, and in some cases they're not. In that case, they may or may not find religion, but atheism remains the default.
That said, the first problem with God is all that dang evil in the world. If God is truly so all-loving, the caring father, then why is there such hate in the world, so many terrible things? Wars, terrorism. Pepsi. WHY IS THERE PEPSI?! If God exists, and God is omniscient, then He knows how to end it all. End all the suffering in the world, make everything better. Stop the wars, stop the terrorism, stop the starving children around the world. Put an end to Pepsi. And God is also supposed to be omnipotent. All-powerful. So he has the know-how, and the power, to stop all evil in the world. So why doesn't he, if he truly cares for us so? Isn't it a parent's duty to care for their child? To protect them, when nobody else can?
There's problem one.
Problem two.
Ah...This is my favourite. The paradox of omnipotence. Now, this has been said in thousands of ways, but I prefer this one:
Could God cook a burrito SO HOT, that even he could not eat it?
Quite the paradox, huh? If he's omnipotent, he can, but then he can't, but then he can, and so forth and so on until the burrito cools down.
Then there's the problem of divine omniscience, which I don't like so much...I'll just cut and paste that one.
"The doctrine of
divine omniscience is the doctrine that God is all-knowing. The doctrine of divine omniscience, though, faces several philosophical objections; there are a number of arguments in the philosophy of religion that purport to demonstrate that God cannot possibly know everything. These include arguments that the doctrine of divine omniscience is logically incoherent, that it is inconsistent with the further Christian doctrine of divine impeccability (i.e. the doctrine that God cannot sin), and that it is refuted by the fact of human freedom. If any of these arguments is successful, then there can be no omniscient God."
etc.
Don't like that one so much.
Then there's the problem with divine justice.
This one states that God seems to be a bit odd with his punishments. He's supposed to be all-forgiving, correct? But God is also supposed to be just. I mean, look at the Bible. He's always smiting
somebody. Those two ideas seem to conflict, as well as heaven or hell.
But then, Greg's definition of heaven and hell clear up that part of it. Greg told me before that heaven is basically being close to God. And hell, not as cliche as all the fire and brimstone, is simply an absence of God. Which actually made a lot of sense to me. Good old Greg.
And it goes on...But quite frankly, I'm very tired. I would like to finish, post this, and go to bed. I've still written very little down, and need to spend first period tomorrow preparing my seminar. Hopefully it will go well.
Until next time,
Somewhere out there exists somebody who believes the exact opposite of you. In everything. Your duty as a person is to find this opposite and kill them.
~Kataron