Does God Exist?

[Philosophy Now]

William Lane Craig says there are good reasons for thinking that He does.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/99/Does_God_Exist

[Immanuel Can]

Great article.

[MMasz]

While Craig is not my favorite apologist/philosopher nevertheless the article is pretty good. While some may take issue with some of the individual premises he presents, the entirety of the them presents a more daunting challenge.

[QMan]

Good article, finally philosophy makes some sense.

Point #8 could have stressed that the personal experience of God should be verifiable with statistical social science types of experiments with fairly high probability (my estimate 80 to 90%, never 100%) with a reasonable statistical certainty using a Population Tolerance Interval approach (a good Masters thesis for someone). What is needed is individuals to invest the time and effort to participate in the experiment following the instructions provided in the test manual (the Bible) and input from experienced experimenters (e.g., clergy and peers) who already successfully conducted this type of experiment.

The difficulty with conducting this type of experiment (as always concerning this topic) is that the experiment is not engaged in due to inherent biases, pre-conceived notions, the (correctly) perceived personal difficulties with the rigors and requirements of the experimental test conditions and protocol, and demands on time and personal involvement (6 months to a year minimum). My guess is that all these requirements rule out at least 99% of all the wannabe scientists in the PN forum who will nevertheless continue to think of themselves as objective observers of the contemporary scene.

[Ginkgo]

Good article, finally philosophy makes some sense.

Point #8 could have stressed that the personal experience of God should be verifiable with statistical social science types of experiments with fairly high probability (my estimate 80 to 90%, never 100%) with a reasonable statistical certainty using a Population Tolerance Interval approach (a good Masters thesis for someone). What is needed is individuals to invest the time and effort to participate in the experiment following the instructions provided in the test manual (the Bible) and input from experienced experimenters (e.g., clergy and peers) who already successfully conducted this type of experiment.

The difficulty with conducting this type of experiment (as always concerning this topic) is that the experiment is not engaged in due to inherent biases, pre-conceived notions, the (correctly) perceived personal difficulties with the rigors and requirements of the experimental test conditions and protocol, and demands on time and personal involvement (6 months to a year minimum). My guess is that all these requirements rule out at least 99% of all the wannabe scientists in the PN forum who will nevertheless continue to think of themselves as objective observers of the contemporary scene.

Yes, it would be a good social science project. However, it wouldn't qualify as a part of the physical sciences. You can't devise a natural experiment to prove a supernatural hypothesis. Science will always claim that mental events have physical causes. If not then it would go down as an unexplained law of nature that has yet to be determined.

Unfortunately, even the Sociology of Religion can't verify the existence of God.

[Felasco]

While philosophy can't prove that God is dead, it can demonstrate that theology is dead.

Yes, pontificators of various flavors will surely keep beating the theology corpse for additional centuries, but what thousands of years of evidence tell us is that this particular philosophical process is not going anywhere.

Intelligent, articulate, and well intentioned people, stuck riding a dead end merry-go-round to nowhere.

[spike]

You are right, this God debate is a dead-end issue and a waste of time. I am sorry to see that PN is wasting more print on it.

[Impenitent]

god? this is crowd control, nothing more

obey - government or god - obey

-Imp

[Felasco]

You are right, this God debate is a dead-end issue and a waste of time. I am sorry to see that PN is wasting more print on it.

We can distinguish between the God debate and the God inquiry. PN could provide a service by laying out the evidence that the God debate is a dead end, and then asking in what other manner the God inquiry might proceed.

The obstacle to that may be that the God debate has become an end itself. Like a card game, everybody has memorized the rules and their favorite moves, and the game is fun to play.

[QMan]

I did like the article by William Lane Craig, especially since I immediately realized that he, like so many others, has managed to once more thoroughly consign atheism to where it belongs, namely, the dust bin of history. Of course, I knew beforehand that none here could or would engage his proofs except by restating that atheism is correct and theism is an aberration. Not much of an argument, but I am confident that objective readers will be able to decide for themselves.

It's true, this merry-go-round has been going on for a long time, and the sentiment can be expressed that it will go on until there are two people left standing. Here is a very charming example of this from the year 1876. I call it charming because the English language used in those days stylistically is just so endearing. Also, the British Royal Society did not think it possible that steam locomotives could ever go as fast as 12 miles/hour, and they laughed out and did not permit Benjamin Franklin to present his paper at their meeting on how to build and install lightning rods since such an idea was just too ludicrous.

Nevertheless, philosophical thinking skills were up to snuff in those days and the same arguments carried on the same as today, and here are a few excerpts.

"A presumptuous scepticism that rejects facts without examination of their truth, is, in some respects, more injurious than unquestioning credulity."—Humboldt.

"One good experiment is of more value than the ingenuity of a brain like Newton's. Facts are more useful when they contradict, than when they support, received theories."—Sir Humphry Davy.

"The perfect observer in any department of science will have his eyes, as it were, opened, that they may be struck at once by any occurrence which, according to received theories, ought not to happen, for these are the facts which serve as clues to new discoveries."— Sir John Herschell.

"Before experience itself can be used with advantage, there is one preliminary step to make which depends wholly on ourselves: it is, the absolute dismissal and clearing the mind of all prejudice, and the determination to stand or fall by the result of a direct appeal to facts in the first instance, and of strict logical deduction from them afterwards."—Sir John Herschell.

"With regard to the miracle question, I can only say that the word 'impossible' is not, to my mind, applicable to matters of philosophy. That the possibilities of nature are infinite is an aphorism with which I am wont to worry my friends."—Professor Huxley.

Anyway, the 1876 reference below is,

"ON MIRACLES
AND
MODERN SPIRITUALISM.
BY
ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE",

consisting of three of his papers where, in one of them, e.g., he brilliantly debunks Hume's atheistic arguments, using, of all things, a flying fish analogy. Basically, the thrust of this 1876 material is similar to the article that spawned this thread.

Thus, consistently, none of the arguments in this PN forum are debunking the debunking of atheism other than by making spurious and unproven assertions.

http://www.newdualism.org/books/Wallace/index.html

[Felasco]

I did like the article by William Lane Craig, especially since I immediately realized that he, like so many others, has managed to once more thoroughly consign atheism to where it belongs, namely, the dust bin of history.

Neither theism or atheism have any such power. All such victories, whatever side proclaims them, are fantasies breeding in the minds of imaginary victors.

[QMan]

I did like the article by William Lane Craig, especially since I immediately realized that he, like so many others, has managed to once more thoroughly consign atheism to where it belongs, namely, the dust bin of history.

Neither theism or atheism have any such power. All such victories, whatever side proclaims them, are fantasies breeding in the minds of imaginary victors.

That's why I said that this will probably go on til two people are left standing.
However, at that time, it will count what the overall numbers were, did the theists outdo the atheists overall with a greater body count via superior arguments.

[Felasco]

However, at that time, it will count what the overall numbers were, did the theists outdo the atheists overall with a greater body count via superior arguments.

If we could convince the majority of the population that Walt Disney is God, would that qualify as a superior argument?

Please recall, the majority of the population, apparently including leading philosophers, have been persuaded that having the same argument over and over again for thousands of years will somehow lead to a different result.

Why is persuading fools of something a validation of that something?

[MMasz]

You are right, this God debate is a dead-end issue and a waste of time. I am sorry to see that PN is wasting more print on it.

Dead for you maybe.

Mt 8:22 "And Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead."

Sage wisdom.

[Arising_uk]

Incoherent nonsense more like.