Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose
- Thread starter andersbranderud
- Start date
Oops. I'm an idiot. Clearly there is a God.
This exact argument is what made me leave philosophy as a major and switch to english. Part of it is because I saw clearly, that there is no answer to this. It can never logically be proven that there is or that there is not a god.
It's a circular argument that actually favors the non-deity believing scientist, because none of us have ever met god in a true, actual physical person that can be scientifically measured.
So, it comes down to having faith, or not having faith. Personally, I think a discussion about whether one should have faith or not have faith would be more fruitful. It might potentially have a final, logical answer.
Personally, I believe that if a higher being exists, than there is no reason that we should assume that we would be able to understand the how or why it exists. I do not believe the existence of a higher power could possibly be proven with mere human logic.
It's a circular argument that actually favors the non-deity believing scientist, because none of us have ever met god in a true, actual physical person that can be scientifically measured.
So, it comes down to having faith, or not having faith. Personally, I think a discussion about whether one should have faith or not have faith would be more fruitful. It might potentially have a final, logical answer.
Personally, I believe that if a higher being exists, than there is no reason that we should assume that we would be able to understand the how or why it exists. I do not believe the existence of a higher power could possibly be proven with mere human logic.
Wouldn't it be more of debate about having faith in an invisible, omniscient sky daddy verses having faith in the process of deriving empirical evidence through experimentation and observation? Can you only have faith in a deity? Is there some reason people can't have faith in science? Is it wrong for people to have more faith in science, which has done more to progress humanity, than believing in a silent, invisible spiritual being ever has?
I agree with you main point. If there is a God, then he would have to be beyond human logic.
Last edited:
LOL, Satya, I agree with you. I was about to go off into something similar to this, but realized it was a tangent and deleted it before I posted. LOL. How very cool that you did it anyway.
But yes, what is faith? Is there categories of faith - faith that your partners not cheating on you, versus faith in the spaghetti monster? Why should 'faith' be limited to a greater being (like the spaghetti monster - which I loved the idea and pic of btw)--or why shouldn't it? Are belief and faith any different from one another or are they mutually exclusive?
OR, is there a problem with the word 'faith' itself? Do we use it for too much? Is it too encompassing? Is it the same feeling one has that is faith in the spaghetti god versus faith that santa claus will bring toys or that your friends will be there for you when you're down?
Finally, what evidence do we post our faith on?
Does one need ANY sort of evidence for faith?
It seems that a single thing can be the object of either KNOWLEDGE or FAITH. For example: some philosophers know that there must be cause of the existence of everything that observably exists; and some religious people believe in an existing cause of everything. ie. philosophers know of God, believers believe in God.
The difference between these two is not in the object (God), but in the motivating factor in assenting to the existence of God.
The philosopher assents to the existence of God based on the universal characteristic of every observable thing, of being subject to causality - thus necessarily implying the existence of a cause of existence. ie. the philosopher knows of God because of knowledge gathered from the senses and through intellectual conclusions.
The believer assents to the existence of God based on assent that God has communicated the fact that he exists and that this communication is true. Evidence for the truth of revelation is taken from miracles, which accompany the revelation itself.
A miracle being understood thus: since everything follows natural laws (gravity, etc), a being which can operate outside these laws is above nature - ie. supernatural. So any rare occurrence, definitely outside of what naturally happens confirms the existence of a supernatural being. However, the existence of a supernatural being and belief in what this being communicates of itself are distinct. So that belief seems to be: taking to be true, what is proposed as being true by a being able to operate beyond the set limitations of nature.
Flavus, I understand where you're coming from, but have a difficulty with your beginning and ending, especially your beginning.
I'm sorry, this is not logical to me. A philosopher cannot 'know' that, and a religious person may 'know' because of belief. I'm sorry, this doesn't work for me.
The middle part I can see, except for the use of the word philosopher - maybe scientist would be better - and I am not sure faith has anything to do with God communicating with someone in all cases of belief. It sounds specifically like you are talking about major religion, which may or may not have anything to do with faith (but I digress).
So, I guess I'm saying, please show me why belief is about communication with a deity? Or why a philosopher knows, but a religious person believes but doesn't know.
I'm sorry, this is not logical to me. A philosopher cannot 'know' that, and a religious person may 'know' because of belief. I'm sorry, this doesn't work for me.
The middle part I can see, except for the use of the word philosopher - maybe scientist would be better - and I am not sure faith has anything to do with God communicating with someone in all cases of belief. It sounds specifically like you are talking about major religion, which may or may not have anything to do with faith (but I digress).
So, I guess I'm saying, please show me why belief is about communication with a deity? Or why a philosopher knows, but a religious person believes but doesn't know.
I agree this is most likely true.
Last edited:
I see what you say - my point is not to make a distinction between philosophers and believers, but between knowing and believing. A believer who studies classical philosophy will most likely no longer believe in the EXISTENCE of God, because (s)he will know it, so that a believer will know and believe certain things, but one cannot both know and believe the same thing.
I speak of philosophers, not scientists, because philosophers (in the classical sense) seek understanding of the most universal causes of things. Scientists may engage in this, but their interest is more directed to proximate causes. The scientist asks how? and the philosopher asks why?
Interesting way to prove your point between drawing a separation between knowing and believing! It's a very interesting idea - I just don't know that it's been proven yet that they are separate or mutually exclusive ideas.
Ok, so you're saying:
1. A philosopher studies the 'why' of things
2. A philosopher who believes in a higher power, does so because they 'know' it, through studying both sides of the God debate (I assume)
3. A religious person, who is not a philosopher, believes, but doesn't 'know' because...
(why?)
4. One cannot both know and believe.
(and why not?)
I just don't know that I can see it fully fleshed yet... I'm trying, though! This would be so much easier if we were all sitting in the same room - lol!
But, I really like what you said in your last paragraph between philosophers and scientists. I can see that - Cool!
Ok, so you're saying:
1. A philosopher studies the 'why' of things
2. A philosopher who believes in a higher power, does so because they 'know' it, through studying both sides of the God debate (I assume)
3. A religious person, who is not a philosopher, believes, but doesn't 'know' because...
(why?)
4. One cannot both know and believe.
(and why not?)
I just don't know that I can see it fully fleshed yet... I'm trying, though! This would be so much easier if we were all sitting in the same room - lol!
But, I really like what you said in your last paragraph between philosophers and scientists. I can see that - Cool!
A religious person, who is not a philosopher, believes, but doesn't 'know' because...
Because very few people have the time or inclination to undertake philosophical studies - and even then there are so many intrusions from schools dedicated to sophistry and not wisdom, that very few ever come to knowledge of the highest causes. However, because knowledge of the highest causes brings about the greatest intellectual satisfaction, and is the essence of what beleivers call beatitude, it is fitting and kind that God should make certain knowledge of himself available to all, through belief and not through study.
Indeed, the truths of faith are more certain than the truths of knowledge, because, as said, philosophy is difficult and fraught with much room for error. The believer is relying on God not to deceive him/her - and given that God, whatever he might be like, is a being so superior to us, so that he could not make intellectual mistakes, nor profit anything from our deception - the believer's truths are more secure than those of a philosopher.
As for not being able to believe/know something at the same time: you can hold that there is a cat in the next room on the basis of believing the report to be true. However, if you see the cat in there, your knowledge is then direct and not indirect through a report. So you then know, not believe that there is a cat (Your trust that the report was accurate remains unchanged). Indeed, Christians hold that in the next life two of the three "theological virtues" will be disolved: in heaven there will remain neither faith nor hope, because they will be replaced by the immediate vision of God and the firm possesion of this. Only charity, that is love will remain unchanged.
Oh, crikey, I don't want to keep disagreeing with you..... Your beliefs sounds lovely and very personal, so please know that I am not criticizing your personal beliefs, just your argument.
2. This is a religious belief, including belief in your higher power as 'him.'
2. This assumes that a higher power cares.
3. This assumes that a higher power would not care to deceive.
I could go on but that's enough for now.
2. Lovely sentiment. Not fact, but a lovely idea.
This argument is not being based on fact, but your beliefs. If that's on purpose, than that's a very sly maneuver to prove a point. IF. I get the sense though that this is truly what you believe. Which is great, believe on.
Ok, bit by bit here.
1. Greatest intellectual satisfaction is arbitrary, and changes for everyone.
2. This is a religious belief, including belief in your higher power as 'him.'
1. This assumes that a higher power is 'good.'
2. This assumes that a higher power cares.
3. This assumes that a higher power would not care to deceive.
I could go on but that's enough for now.
1. No, you don't know there is a cat. You believe there is a cat because you see it and you trust your own perceptions (which may not be true either, but that's a different argument).
2. Lovely sentiment. Not fact, but a lovely idea.
This argument is not being based on fact, but your beliefs. If that's on purpose, than that's a very sly maneuver to prove a point. IF. I get the sense though that this is truly what you believe. Which is great, believe on.
Last edited:
In Buddhism there is actual proof. We chant and that is where we find proof of the practice, which is why we keep chanting. There is the idea of earthly desires lead to enlightenment. So someone come and chants about a problem. Perhaps they need to get a job. They get the job. That person chants to get what they want but the act of chanting raises the life condition so that person becomes more compassionate. I know it sounds strange. It works. Tina Turner, Orlando Bloom, Herbie Hancock are all Buddhists that chant.
1. That the Greatest intellectual satisfaction comes from knowledge of the higest causes is evident, because the more proximate a cause is to an effect, the less understanding is required. eg. Q: Why is the table wet? A (prox): Because there is water on it. A (less proximate): because I threw water on it. A (remote): because I agreed with my friend that this would be the signal that his enemy had arrived at the house. Knowledge of the highest cause explains why and how everything is.
2. I am both a Catholic and philosopher.
3. Belief/Faith assumes (believes) that God is good - and his activity seems to concur. Indeed, the communication or giving a part of anything which is perfect would seem to be a good thing. And as God is perfect, anything he gives (including knowledge of himself) will be good. The question remains: does revelation (which is to believed to be such) lead one away or towards knowledge of God? Given that what is believed to have been revealed by Christians concurs (or at least is not contradictory) of what the greatest philosophers before Christ held, one cannot say that what Christians hold to be revelation is leading them away from knowledge of God.
4. Most skepticism about the veracity of our senses is only hypothetical or is limited to a criticism that our senses do not show us the true nature of things. However, our senses do show that things exist. Even the most skeptical of idealists would have to admit of the existence of their sense impressions.
The proof of the mystic law of Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. This means the mystic law of cause and effect through sound and vibration. Renge means lotus blossum. Lotus seeds and blooms simultaneously and they grow in the yuckiest places. It represents the simultanaity of cause and effect. When you chant you purify your life. I needed a jog a few years ago and I chanted 5 hours a day for 3 days. A week and a half later I was moving to North Carolina to take on a position at a school.
Moxie: I was tempted to formulate a counter-example stylising a religion which leads their followers away from knowledge of the highest cause (God) and instead into unusual practices for the purpose of mundane advantages. But sookie has done it for me: