In the previous post we concluded that there must be an ultimate, objective Reality. Plato, the Rationalists, Empiricists, and Transcendentalists all realised the problem of knowing what the reality is actually like. Descartes attempted to argue that our senses do tell us truths about the world because, having proved to his own satisfaction that God exists, God is not a deceiver. Berkeley denied the existence of mind-independent objects. Hume argued that the concept MIND-INDEPENDENT OBJECT is actually the result of confusion. Kant explicated the principle that certain concepts cannot be derived from experience, but are in fact necessary presuppositions in order to interpret experience.
Accepting the existence of the ultimate Reality is one thing. Showing that the Reality is God is another. Even if one shows the existence of God, further work is necessary to demonstrate that God corresponds to the figure found in the Bible, as opposed to that articulated by other religions. It certainly is true that the different religions are mutually exclusive. They cannot all be true. Either one is right or they are all wrong.
The Reality must be coherent. What is coherence? Coherence is the absence of contradiction. It must also be non-contingent. If it is ultimate, it depends on nothing else for its own existence.
However, reality is more than these things. Humans attach, for want of a better word, meaning to reality, which is bound up with the problem of Truth. The struggle between the Rationalists and Empiricists revealed the difficulty that arises when one tries to say what reality actually is, independent of our senses. And so, Kant elaborated transcendentalism. This epistemological wall that hinders penetration of the garden of ontology is the reason why metaphysicists sound like mystics.
Atheism is not a common metaphysical commitment among humans. It is very natural for humans to attribute personal qualities to the Reality. In attributing personal qualities, humans turn that Reality into God. The naturalness of such attribution, if accepted, is not an argument that the Reality actually is God. Since humans are capable of mistakes, this could be a mistake.
However, “attribution” is a misleading word. It assumes that humans are fashioning God, whereas they may in fact be discerning His qualities through legitimate reasoning. The argument from coherence seeks to show that the nature of the Reality can be sufficiently explored to demonstrate that the Reality is God.
The key to the problem is personality. Hume thought that an impersonal Reality was no less reasonable a proposition than God. Such being the case, with no side in Hume’s estimation having a conclusive power, the agnostic was perfectly entitled to withhold his assent. (The atheist, having an assertive position, would need further material before he could claim legitimacy).
Was Hume’s assessment correct? He stood in opposition to St Paul, who declared in the opening of the Epistle to the Romans that:
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse…
Although the context of this passage concerns other matters, the use of it in this post is appropriate. In order for Paul to address his view that humans are rebelling against God, he must presuppose that:
- God exists;
- Humans are capable of knowing that God exists;
- Humans are capable of knowing God’s will; and
- Humans are capable of freely choosing to disobey God’s will.
The following posts will tackle the problem of inferring personhood from the existence and nature of the Reality, and from that inference accepting that there is a God.
All Along the Watchtower 
A presuppositional argument that has no basis in evidence.
LikeLike
Evidence.
LikeLike
Mathematics and logic have no basis in evidence.
LikeLike
You begin with a presupposition.
God Exists.
You have no evidence that warrants such an assertion, especially as the god you are inferring is the Christian god, Yahweh.
LikeLike
I don’t accept your assertion that every valid claim must be externally validated by evidence.
Provide evidence for your baseless assertion, or shut up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t care if you accept it or not.
You have to support your claim with evidence. So far you have not done so.
And the more vitriolic with your replies you become the more stupid and childish you look.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m giving you a taste of your own medicine – if it tastes vitriolic, too bad.
Your principle is this – that every assertion must be supported by external evidence.
So evidence that assertion, or shut up. For most denizens of this blog, and indeed, most reasonable people, the intrinsic validity of logical argument is sufficient, at least in some cases.
LikeLike
If you do not understand the principles of evidence then let’s not talk about you god and switch to Muslim claims that Mohammed rode to heaven on a winged horse.
LikeLike
There is a tradition that he did this. That is in favour of the claim.
LikeLike
Yes, it is a claim. There is no evidence for it.
LikeLike
Is it possible that Mohammed rode to heaven on a winged horse? Yes. At least in a vision.
Is it probable? No.
Some reasons to doubt the account:
1. The personal immorality of Mohammed according to the same tradition. Why would God favour such a man?
2. Winged horses are not a feature of either natural philosophy or the prophetic tradition. It seems peculiarly for God to create one ex nihilo for the sole purpose of transporting M. to heaven. Why not send an an angel? Why not send His own chariot?
3. The lack of public confirmation – in the form of public miracles – of Mohammed’s private revelation (the Koran). If M’s claimed revelation is a false prophesy, then that undermines the credibility of other claims indicating Divine favour.
4. Internal inconsistencies in the Koran. God is a God of order – but that God can and does contradict Himself is a commonplace in Islamic orthodoxy. If the Koran is not the word of God, then M. was, at best, delusional, and at worst a liar and a false prophet.
LikeLike
Excellent. So we can conclude based on the lack of evidence that this is merely a claim.
And the same applies to your claim/s.
LikeLike
Weighing the evidence for and against in the balance, it is reasonable to conclude that it is a false claim.
LikeLike
Excellent!
So you recognise that this is merely a claim and there is, in fact, no evidence.
Maybe you are nearing a breakthrough in understanding?
LikeLike
If there were evidence of M.’s uprightness and veracity, the claim would have to be taken much more seriously. Ditto if he worked miracles. It would also have to be taken more seriously if the event in question was witnessed independently by a large number of people. I don’t *think* this is claimed by Muslims.
It would not be conclusively proven – how could it be? – but it would have much stronger motives for belief than it does.
LikeLike
You have no evidence of anyone performing miracles …. only claims.
LikeLike
If a credible person says something happened, that is evidence – testimonial evidence – that the thing happened. If multiple witnesses testify to the same event, that is strong evidence.
A claim can only rightly be dismissed if there are no motives of credibility, or it can be shown to be internally inconsistent, or contrary evidence can be produced. Otherwise, it is reasonable to accept it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If the claim cannot be supported by hard evidence whether it is attested by more than one witness or not, then it is just a claim.
Therefore all your claims pertaining to your god are simply claims.
LikeLike
A credible claim is evidence. Courts of law accept that corroborated testimony (i.e. two or more witnesses that agree) is sufficient evidence on which to convict people of criminal offences.
We have a record of events. Those events evidenced, to those present, God’s miraculous working.
*At the time* there was hard evidence of, for example, Jesus’ miracle at the wedding at Cana. The wine in the vessels, which had been transubstantiated from water, was evidence of the miracle. But some carping sceptic could have said, it was a cheap trick; and since the water was no longer in evidence, who could prove him wrong, if he did not choose to believe the evidence of his own eyes?
That wine is no longer extant. Time obliterates a great deal of hard evidence.
At this distance of time, as I have said, testimonial evidence is the best you are likely to get. Even if a miracle is worked in front of you, you have to trust your own eyes (testimonial evidence), since it is in the nature of miracles to be out of the ordinary.
LikeLike
Except, you have no witnesses.
LikeLike
Yes we do. We have the authors of the new testament.
LikeLike
*Smile* You have claims and no way to verify them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No way to *prove* them, as I stated at the outset. Only truths of natural theology can be conclusively proven.
But motives of credibility. Which are notably lacking in the case of, for example, Mohammed flying to heaven.
LikeLike
You simply refuse to recognise that your claims have not a shred of evidence to support them.
THAT is the bottom line.
LikeLike
Corroborated testimony is evidence. You acknowledge this – and then you go on to say there are no witnesses. Well, unless you can give a good reason to believe that the authors of the New Testament are lying, then that is simply not a reasonable conclusion to draw.
Apart from testimonial evidence, what kind of evidence is there likely to be at this distance? What kind of evidence would you expect? What would satisfy you?
Evidence of modern day miracles is easier to obtain. The miracle of the sun at Fatima, was witnessed by some 70,000 people and reported in the Anti-Clerical secular press; announced through an apparition of the Blessed Virgin, who appeared to 3 shepherd children. A crowd of the devout was in attendance to observe, because the children had foretold the day (13 October 1917).
LikeLike
Because the claims in the bible are not supported.
Furthermore, the gospels are not independent accounts.
LikeLike
Independent, as in multiple witnesses. I obviously don’t mean that they are accounts written by sceptics.
LikeLike
Exactly which multiple witnesses are you referring to?
LikeLike
The ones who wrote the NT texts.
LikeLike
They are not eyewitness accounts. There is no evidence to suggest this.
LikeLike
What evidence is there that they *aren’t* eye-witness accounts?
LikeLike
None of the canonical gospels identify their respective authors.
The authors are unknown.
Hearsay accounts are not eyewitness accounts.
LikeLike
IF they are hearsay. Which you haven’t proven or provided any evidence for.
Consider. If you were anxious to falsify the authority of a document, wouldn’t you make the attribution pretty explicit in the text?
Ditto the apparent inconsistencies between the accounts. Why was a better job not done of ironing these out, if these accounts are fraudulent?
If there is enough to go on, as I understand, for over-excited scholars to pick apart the texts and attribute different sections to different authors (by some pretty strained reasoning, in some cases), how is that consistent with them being forged accounts?
It is, however, consistent, with someone – or perhaps multiple people – perhaps over a period of some years putting together tid bits of wisdom from a busy Apostle who had no time to sit down and write.
People do not, as a rule, go to their deaths on the basis of hearsay. I know I wouldn’t.
LikeLike
I did not say they were forged documents.
The gospels do not identify their authors.
They are unknown.
You are aware of Papias?
Thus you will know why gMark is hearsay.
G Matthew is little more than a fleshed out version of gMark and over 600 verses appear in gMatt, some almost verbatim.
And how could Matthew be an eyewitness to the birth narrative? Or the slaying of the innocents? both considered fictional additions in any case.
Much like the.raising of the dead saints.
Plain silly.
Who exactly are you referring to here?
LikeLike
The martyrdoms of early saints of the Church.
I don’t mean to be dismissive of all questions raised by scholarship, or even the conclusions of scholars – and, regarding the slaughter of the innocents, your point is obviously uncontroversial. Authorship is not a straightforward concept.
Common strands in separate traditions point to a common basis in historical fact. The attributions “According to Mark”, “According to Matthew”, &c. point to the originators of separate traditions, as I understand it. It seems excessive to doubt these attributions without good reason.
If scholarship cannot identify a different origin, the tradition stands.
LikeLike
Evidence?
In other words, you cannot provide evidence but consider the unsubstantiated attribution of the names to be good enough.
And perhaps you can now understand why
critical scholars including the likes of NT Wright reject fundamentalist claims regarding eyewitness authorship,
Here’s an interesting article….
https://steemit.com/bible/@sean-king/the-gos
LikeLike
Furthermore, mundane claims may be accepted on human authority. Scientific claims can only be accepted on the strength of evidence.
Claims in supernatural theology can only be accepted on God’s own authority. Mohammed worked no public miracle in proof of his revelation, so no man is bound to accept it.
LikeLike
Therefore, we are back to evidence ….
And there is none for your claims.
LikeLike
Incorrect.
For God’s existence, I have shown that this is rationally inferred from the evidence of a contingent universe. One atom is sufficient to prove God’s existence on the argument I presented.
For the supernatural theological claims of Catholicism, I have cited God’s own authority, as manifested in public miracles recorded in sundry verses of Holy Scripture by credible witnesses.
LikeLike
Inference without evidence to back it up is nothing more than a claim.
Your god is Yahweh. You have no evidence for this god.
LikeLike
The theological claims of scripture dovetail perfectly with the attributes of the God which are demonstrated by argument in natural theology. That is another motive for believing Holy Scripture.
LikeLike
Again … theological claims .
Claims in a religious text full of similar claims.
The god your worship -Yahweh – is also mentioned in this text and there is no evidence to support this claim.
LikeLike
Points on which the Bible and natural theology agree:
1. Unity of God.
2. Immortality of God.
3. God as first cause.
4. Creation not coeval with creator.
5. Good and evil not coeval (evil as privation of good).
&c. &c.
LikeLike
Every one a claim. No evidence to support a single one.
LikeLike
Only the evidence of the world around us, and what reason can infer from it.
“Oh look! A cosmos! I bet that exists for no reason at all.” Said no-one with a brain.
LikeLike
That is not evidence of a creator and certainly not evidence of any gods called Yahweh.
LikeLike
Some basic options, reviewing the world around us:
1. Nothing is real. It’s all a dream.
2. Everything exists for no reason.
3. Everything exists because God willed it.
The reason we are bound to ask, “Why is there anything at all?” is that we apprehend that the universe could be otherwise (or simply not be, for that matter), and yet it is as it is.
Either there is no answer to that (atheism), in which case the universe is irrational and the question (along with all other questions) is a futile one, or the answer is that there is a being Who is as He is by necessity never coming to be or ceasing to be, unlike everything in the material cosmos.
Of such a God, we do not need to move beyond Him to find the reason for His own existence. His existence is necessarily entailed by the existence of contingent beings.
Is it credible to believe that, in the same way that one might believe cold impersonal forces create condensation on a window in a humid bathroom, the universe just happens to condense out elephants, tigers, lions, bears, and atheists?
The problem with the atheist’s answer is that it undermines the basis for him being taken seriously by anyone else, namely, that he is a rational intellect whose intellect is capable of grasping truth and communicating it to others.
LikeLike
Again you make presuppositions. You have to demonstrate with evidence that, 1. a god was involved and 2. that god is Yahweh. and finally 3. how Yahweh is the character Jesus of Nazareth who you claim is also the creator.
And in case you were thinking of using scripture to ”prove” your claim, scripture is not evidence.
LikeLike
The evidence – the “scene of the crime” – is the material universe.
Where else would you look for evidence?
Even atheists acknowledge it betrays the “appearance” of design – and condemn themselves out of their own mouth, because either design is something (in which case, there is a God) or it is nothing, and their statement is meaningless.
And you don’t even need fine tuning; all you need is that quality of the universe that invites you to ask, what kind of a thing could cause the universe to be?
The answer cannot be “the universe”, because nothing causes itself. Nor can it be “something like the universe”, because that merely pushes the question back a step. The answer must be “something uncaused” ( necessary being).
Unlike the universe around us, there is a Being that exists, not because of a certain chain of causality, but by necessity.
LikeLike
”Scene of the crime”
That is not evidence of a creator only evidence of the universe.
Appearance of not evidence of.
You still have not demonstrated evidence for any god let alone your god,Yahweh.
LikeLike
So when you look at the order of the cosmos, what do you conclude from it?
Nothing? Which of the options do you plump for? Only one is reasonable.
LikeLike
What order?
LikeLike
That bad is it?
Have you tried spectacles?
LikeLike
Seriously, what do you mean by order?
LikeLike
Something like “a disposition to a definite end”.
Water is disposed to make things wet. It does it consistently.
LikeLike
You will have to be more specific regarding your ”orderly” universe claim and not use analogy.
Unless you are referring to fine tuning?
LikeLike
Well – that’s part of it, but the concept I’m getting at is much more ubiquitous and mundane than the cosmic fine tuning.
What I mean is that every part of the universe observes norms of constitution and behaviour. It is subject to physical laws, and displays coherence, and purpose (in the sense that everything in it is disposed to one thing or another). Water makes things wet. Every time.
Also, matter attracts matter. Different elements have different physical properties. Animals fulfil different ecological niches.
In short, we do not live in a shape-shifting dream world, but in an orderly cosmos.
LikeLike
Fair enough.
I was afraid you were going to suggest the universe is fine-tuned.
So how does the order represent a god, and specifically the god you worship, Yahweh?
LikeLike
The God I worship is Yahweh, but I must make clear; I accepted the existence of “a” God before I became a Christian. It was only when I asked Him to reveal to me the meaning of a certain part of scripture to me, and that prayer was answered by way of a terrifying vision, that I accepted the Gospel. But I would never have asked Him, if I did not believe He existed.
Order represents the activity of God as follows. If a thing is disposed in such a way, and not another, that implies that something disposed it in that way. This invites us to ask “What caused x?” where x is a state of affairs. In secondary causation, matter / energy disposes matter / energy – this clearly happens *a lot* in the observable universe.
But an infinite regress of causation is irrational. At any given time, it is obviously impossible for there to be an infinite number of preceding actual events.
Accordingly, the first cause is 1) uncaused, 2) brings the first disposition of matter into being, not through a further secondary cause (otherwise you’re back in the regress), but by a direct act of creation (primary causation).
It gets interesting, as I say, when you begin to ask, What causes God to create?
I think the correct answer, is that it is by an act of free will. If that is incorrect, then obviously the God of the Bible does not exist.
LikeLike
So you had a disturbing hallucination. Very familiar.
Not evidence of a god.
Furthermore, Yahweh is a narrative construct featured in the Old T. No evidence for this god.
That is a claim and is not supported by evidence.
You continually assume veracity for the biblical text.
LikeLike
In the absence of evidence one way or the other, the proper stance is agnosticism. Your stance is atheism, which requires positive evidence. Do you have any?
I am not asking anybody to believe anything based on that experience. It was entirely personal to me. I am only referring to it to illustrate the point that my acceptance of God’s existence was independent of and preceded my conversion to Christianity, and that really the two things happened in quite different ways.
How does anyone interpret evidence without applying reason?
I have referred to evidence, from which I have inferred conclusions.
Your ipse dixit does not undermine the validity of my reasoning.
LikeLike
As an atheist I am not required to provide evidence at all.
That falls to you – the one making the positive claim.
You have yet to provide evidence for your god and simply continue to make claims.
LikeLike
I have provided a logical proof. You refuse to engage with it.
Atheism entails a positive claim – the universe is not created. There is no logical argument to prove this, and neither is there any evidence.
If atheism is true, all purpose is illusory. All design is illusory. All love is illusory. All hope is illusory. All suffering is illusory.
Also (and this is why atheists want to believe it) everything is permitted. So actually quite a few claims, which are not in the least bit self-evident.
LikeLike
Atheism is the absence of belief in gods.
Nothing else.
LikeLike
Then it is indistinguishable from agnosticism.
LikeLike
It is distinguishable.
https://www.learnreligions.com/atheist-vs-agnostic-whats-the-difference-248040
LikeLike
I know it is. But the position you outlined seemed indistinguishable from agnosticism. If you *merely* do not believe, then you can do that while retaining an open mind (agnosticism) or by forming a positive judgement that “not x”.
Anyway, we can let the matter rest. I don’t intend to press you further for evidence, as I am aware there is none.
LikeLike
This is, in fact, very inciteful as it is what I have been saying to you since we began discussing. There is no evidence for your god.
LikeLike
By the way, do you happen to know which is the earliest extant text of a Gospel that doesn’t have an attribution to the traditional author?
LikeLike
Are there any original manuscripts?
LikeLike
I don’t believe so. Only extant copies.
I was wondering if you could assist me in tracking down which of these – if any – is lacking an ascription?
LikeLike
And none of the extant copies claim to be authored by the names attributed to them. Which is one reason why critical scholars dismiss the attributed names.
LikeLike
How is having a title which says “Gospel according to” not a claim to be authored by a certain person?
LikeLike
For the same reason Harry Potter novels do not say According to JK Rowling.
If you use your grey matter just a tad you will work it out….
LikeLike
If something can appear to be design, there is such a thing as design. But in an irrational universe, there is no design. Only accident.
LikeLike
There is no evidence that the universe is designed.
LikeLike
all religions are wrong. The closest to the gospel ive seen is the 7th day adventists. The only thing is that their bottom line is wrong. they say that their cult is the true cult of god…..thats not true. But i find no fault with anything else. they pretty much stick to the bible. you cant call methodist or baptist a religion because they arent and have no special things they believe. You just go in, sit down, sing , listen to whats on the preachers mind, a few verses, sing then go to the pancake house. No religion.
LikeLike
Good sister ark, behold the glory of the lord…..
Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up now thy loins like a woman; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;
13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
14 It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.
And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.
16 Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?
17 Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?
18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.
19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,
20 That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?
21 Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?
22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,
23 Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?
24 By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?
25 Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder;
26 To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man;
To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth?
28 Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew?
29 Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?
30 The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.
31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?
32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?
33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?
34 Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee?
35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?
36 Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?
37 Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven,
38 When the dust groweth into hardness, and the clods cleave fast together
Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions,
40 When they couch in their dens, and abide in the covert to lie in wait?
41 Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat.
Answer if you have wisdom.
LikeLiked by 1 person