Why do people believe that their is a god?

God being greater than the island isn't the point. What does affect the argument is the divide between the divine and the material. Thinking about the greatest conceivable island is meaningless, because it's part of the material world and therefore inherits its limitations, including going in and out of existence. The only way Anselm's proof works is by looking to the infinite and divine God, since He can be defined as something than which we can imagine NOTHING being greater.

Of all the points you raised in your essay, this is the one most commonly dismissed by modern thinkers, for reasons I've already explained. You do a fine job summarizing Kant, but trying to shoehorn this flawed argument only hurts your criticism.

mysterylobster

I'm honestly trying to see your point mysterylobster but I still think Anselm's argument works on anything that you try to conceive of as perfect. I'll construct an argument about lost island so that you can show me the specific part where it stumbles.

P1 Anybody, even a fool, can imagine an island that is the greatest of any island imaginable

P2 An island that exists only in the imagination is not as great as an island which exists in both the imagination and reality

Therefore: The greatest imaginable island must exiss in the imagination and in reality

Just show me how the form of that argument is different to the argument for God and then we can make some headway on this.

[QUOTE="FrKnPuertoRican"]Why are some of the most foundational principles governing nature and the molecular world more complicated than the greatest inventions the human mind can come up with or even understand? I think it is easier to believe that there is a creator than Time + Chance= complexity. MrGeezer

The problem with that point of view is that no one questions the "creator".

No one ever tries to prove that it is POSSIBLE for their to be an intelligent creator. No one ever asks HOW an intelligent creator created everything. We're just suddenly not supposed to have to explain that, since now we're dealing with "magic".

Okay...so it's difficult to imagine the universe as we know it being solely the result of natural and unthinking processes? Fair enough. The problem I have is when those "skeptics" then go and say that god must have done it.

Umm...excuse me, but if we suddenly stop having to explain things as soon as we invoke god, then how can god legitimately be an explanation for anything?

Well, i agree that your argument makes a fair point that intelligent design does not offer much of an explanation of how and necessarily why a creator put everything into place. To be fair though, neither does any other argument. I am more of a common sense guy, and i invoke occam's razor, that is is most reasonable to assume that complexity is a result of intelligence, until proven otherwise.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="FrKnPuertoRican"]Why are some of the most foundational principles governing nature and the molecular world more complicated than the greatest inventions the human mind can come up with or even understand? I think it is easier to believe that there is a creator than Time + Chance= complexity. FrKnPuertoRican

The problem with that point of view is that no one questions the "creator".

No one ever tries to prove that it is POSSIBLE for their to be an intelligent creator. No one ever asks HOW an intelligent creator created everything. We're just suddenly not supposed to have to explain that, since now we're dealing with "magic".

Okay...so it's difficult to imagine the universe as we know it being solely the result of natural and unthinking processes? Fair enough. The problem I have is when those "skeptics" then go and say that god must have done it.

Umm...excuse me, but if we suddenly stop having to explain things as soon as we invoke god, then how can god legitimately be an explanation for anything?

Well, i agree that your argument makes a fair point that intelligent design does not offer much of an explanation of how and necessarily why a creator put everything into place. To be fair though, neither does any other argument. I am more of a common sense guy, and i invoke occam's razor, that is is most reasonable to assume that complexity is a result of intelligence, until proven otherwise.

? Ockham's razor?

But you're introducing more than one element in order to explain the phenomena. Supernatural + natural rather than just natural.

[QUOTE="FrKnPuertoRican"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="FrKnPuertoRican"]Why are some of the most foundational principles governing nature and the molecular world more complicated than the greatest inventions the human mind can come up with or even understand? I think it is easier to believe that there is a creator than Time + Chance= complexity. domatron23

The problem with that point of view is that no one questions the "creator".

No one ever tries to prove that it is POSSIBLE for their to be an intelligent creator. No one ever asks HOW an intelligent creator created everything. We're just suddenly not supposed to have to explain that, since now we're dealing with "magic".

Okay...so it's difficult to imagine the universe as we know it being solely the result of natural and unthinking processes? Fair enough. The problem I have is when those "skeptics" then go and say that god must have done it.

Umm...excuse me, but if we suddenly stop having to explain things as soon as we invoke god, then how can god legitimately be an explanation for anything?

Well, i agree that your argument makes a fair point that intelligent design does not offer much of an explanation of how and necessarily why a creator put everything into place. To be fair though, neither does any other argument. I am more of a common sense guy, and i invoke occam's razor, that is is most reasonable to assume that complexity is a result of intelligence, until proven otherwise.

? Ockham's razor?

But you're introducing more than one element in order to explain the phenomena. Supernatural + natural rather than just natural.

Well, that is certainly one perspective of it. However, the natural explanation on its own requires impossible feats in my summation of it, and thus is not a sufficient explanation. Thus intelligent design would be the next in line for reasonable explanations. It is the only theory that does not require the impossible, assuming you don't think the idea of a being with more intelligence and capabilities than humans to be impossible.

I believe in a creator.

Be it an infinate creation particle, a planet or whatever.

I dont believe in god as a 6'4 white guy with a long beard.

I have my own independant beliefs, i think some things in cristianity just ruined the idea of "religon" because people just laff at the bible and point out the absurtity and BS. And because its the largest religon, religon = christianity to alot of people. When you discuss religon, its centered around christianity. (Dont get me wrong, im not insulting christianity, im just saying i believe its absurd and ruins the discussions of religon because .... yah.)

I believes in the morals of Islam. I dont believe in about 90% of it, but my parents do so ill still attend mosque and do all of that. I believe in an idea of a creator. I dont think im that dumb to believe in that.

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="FrKnPuertoRican"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="FrKnPuertoRican"]Why are some of the most foundational principles governing nature and the molecular world more complicated than the greatest inventions the human mind can come up with or even understand? I think it is easier to believe that there is a creator than Time + Chance= complexity. FrKnPuertoRican

The problem with that point of view is that no one questions the "creator".

No one ever tries to prove that it is POSSIBLE for their to be an intelligent creator. No one ever asks HOW an intelligent creator created everything. We're just suddenly not supposed to have to explain that, since now we're dealing with "magic".

Okay...so it's difficult to imagine the universe as we know it being solely the result of natural and unthinking processes? Fair enough. The problem I have is when those "skeptics" then go and say that god must have done it.

Umm...excuse me, but if we suddenly stop having to explain things as soon as we invoke god, then how can god legitimately be an explanation for anything?

Well, i agree that your argument makes a fair point that intelligent design does not offer much of an explanation of how and necessarily why a creator put everything into place. To be fair though, neither does any other argument. I am more of a common sense guy, and i invoke occam's razor, that is is most reasonable to assume that complexity is a result of intelligence, until proven otherwise.

? Ockham's razor?

But you're introducing more than one element in order to explain the phenomena. Supernatural + natural rather than just natural.

Well, that is certainly one perspective of it. However, the natural explanation on its own requires impossible feats in my summation of it, and thus is not a sufficient explanation. Thus intelligent design would be the next in line for reasonable explanations. It is the only theory that does not require the impossible, assuming you don't think the idea of a being with more intelligence and capabilities than humans to be impossible.

Also I think it is quite natural to believe that something that has a high level of complexity had an intelligent being to create it. You would not argue that examples of this exist all over the natural world I assume. I'm sure you have heard the old teleological argument. I think it is pretty strong because it envokes the natural order we see around us everyday.

Hmm well that would be a fair enough estimation if a natural explanation for the world was impossible.

Clearly though that is our point of disagreement.

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

God being greater than the island isn't the point. What does affect the argument is the divide between the divine and the material. Thinking about the greatest conceivable island is meaningless, because it's part of the material world and therefore inherits its limitations, including going in and out of existence. The only way Anselm's proof works is by looking to the infinite and divine God, since He can be defined as something than which we can imagine NOTHING being greater.

Of all the points you raised in your essay, this is the one most commonly dismissed by modern thinkers, for reasons I've already explained. You do a fine job summarizing Kant, but trying to shoehorn this flawed argument only hurts your criticism.

domatron23

I'm honestly trying to see your point mysterylobster but I still think Anselm's argument works on anything that you try to conceive of as perfect. I'll construct an argument about lost island so that you can show me the specific part where it stumbles.

P1 Anybody, even a fool, can imagine an island that is the greatest of any island imaginable

P2 An island that exists only in the imagination is not as great as an island which exists in both the imagination and reality

Therefore: The greatest imaginable island must exiss in the imagination and in reality

Just show me how the form of that argument is different to the argument for God and then we can make some headway on this.

The difference here is the statement, "Anybody, even a fool, can imagine an island that is the greatest of any island imaginable," while Anselm is talking about a being so great that nothing (note the emphasis) can be greater. This distinction is true only of the divine, not things in the material world. Being material, this perfect island can go in and out of existance. A divine being, who is greater than anything we can possibly imagine, cannot.

If everything that is complicated had to be designed, then it is safe to say the intelligent designer is complicated. Therefore the designer was designed by another designer. There must be an infinite amount of designers. Why does this not make sense?

I believe in a creator.

Be it an infinate creation particle, a planet or whatever.

I dont believe in god as a 6'4 white guy with a long beard.

I have my own independant beliefs, i think some things in cristianity just ruined the idea of "religon" because people just laff at the bible and point out the absurtity and BS. And because its the largest religon, religon = christianity to alot of people. When you discuss religon, its centered around christianity. (Dont get me wrong, im not insulting christianity, im just saying i believe its absurd and ruins the discussions of religon because .... yah.)

I believes in the morals of Islam. I dont believe in about 90% of it, but my parents do so ill still attend mosque and do all of that. I believe in an idea of a creator. I dont think im that dumb to believe in that.

Phenom316

How can you accept the most disputed part of religion, ie. a god exists and created us, yet not accept the lesser factors of it? That seems illogical.

Why. why was there the big bang?

I think my physics professor put it best. The other day one student asked why two giant objects attracted each other with gravity, and she responded, "Because God made it that way. The real question I think you were trying to ask was HOW gravity attracts to two objects."

Science does nothing to actually disprove God.

[QUOTE="Phenom316"]

I believe in a creator.

Be it an infinate creation particle, a planet or whatever.

I dont believe in god as a 6'4 white guy with a long beard.

I have my own independant beliefs, i think some things in cristianity just ruined the idea of "religon" because people just laff at the bible and point out the absurtity and BS. And because its the largest religon, religon = christianity to alot of people. When you discuss religon, its centered around christianity. (Dont get me wrong, im not insulting christianity, im just saying i believe its absurd and ruins the discussions of religon because .... yah.)

I believes in the morals of Islam. I dont believe in about 90% of it, but my parents do so ill still attend mosque and do all of that. I believe in an idea of a creator. I dont think im that dumb to believe in that.

Lansdowne5

How can you accept the most disputed part of religion, ie. a god exists and created us, yet not accept the lesser factors of it? That seems illogical.

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

God being greater than the island isn't the point. What does affect the argument is the divide between the divine and the material. Thinking about the greatest conceivable island is meaningless, because it's part of the material world and therefore inherits its limitations, including going in and out of existence. The only way Anselm's proof works is by looking to the infinite and divine God, since He can be defined as something than which we can imagine NOTHING being greater.

Of all the points you raised in your essay, this is the one most commonly dismissed by modern thinkers, for reasons I've already explained. You do a fine job summarizing Kant, but trying to shoehorn this flawed argument only hurts your criticism.

mysterylobster

I'm honestly trying to see your point mysterylobster but I still think Anselm's argument works on anything that you try to conceive of as perfect. I'll construct an argument about lost island so that you can show me the specific part where it stumbles.

P1 Anybody, even a fool, can imagine an island that is the greatest of any island imaginable

P2 An island that exists only in the imagination is not as great as an island which exists in both the imagination and reality

Therefore: The greatest imaginable island must exiss in the imagination and in reality

Just show me how the form of that argument is different to the argument for God and then we can make some headway on this.

The difference here is the statement, "Anybody, even a fool, can imagine an island that is the greatest of any island imaginable," while Anselm is talking about a being so great that nothing (note the emphasis) can be greater. This distinction is true only of the divine, not things in the material world. Being material, this perfect island can go in and out of existance. A divine being, who is greater than anything we can possibly imagine, cannot.

P1 Anybody, even a fool, can imagine an island so great thatnothingcan be greater.

P2 An island that exists only in the imagination is not as great as an island which exists in both the imagination and reality

Therefore: The greatest imaginable island must exist in the imagination and in reality

Therefore: The greatest imaginable island must exist in the imagination and in reality

Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Therefore: The greatest imaginable island must exist in the imagination and in reality

Jandurin

Flawed logic, isn't it? And since it is a reductio ad absurdum of the Ontological argument, the Ontological argument can therefore be discounted.Funky_Llama

just a hunch

[QUOTE="FrKnPuertoRican"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="FrKnPuertoRican"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="FrKnPuertoRican"]Why are some of the most foundational principles governing nature and the molecular world more complicated than the greatest inventions the human mind can come up with or even understand? I think it is easier to believe that there is a creator than Time + Chance= complexity. domatron23

The problem with that point of view is that no one questions the "creator".

No one ever tries to prove that it is POSSIBLE for their to be an intelligent creator. No one ever asks HOW an intelligent creator created everything. We're just suddenly not supposed to have to explain that, since now we're dealing with "magic".

Okay...so it's difficult to imagine the universe as we know it being solely the result of natural and unthinking processes? Fair enough. The problem I have is when those "skeptics" then go and say that god must have done it.

Umm...excuse me, but if we suddenly stop having to explain things as soon as we invoke god, then how can god legitimately be an explanation for anything?

Well, i agree that your argument makes a fair point that intelligent design does not offer much of an explanation of how and necessarily why a creator put everything into place. To be fair though, neither does any other argument. I am more of a common sense guy, and i invoke occam's razor, that is is most reasonable to assume that complexity is a result of intelligence, until proven otherwise.

? Ockham's razor?

But you're introducing more than one element in order to explain the phenomena. Supernatural + natural rather than just natural.

Well, that is certainly one perspective of it. However, the natural explanation on its own requires impossible feats in my summation of it, and thus is not a sufficient explanation. Thus intelligent design would be the next in line for reasonable explanations. It is the only theory that does not require the impossible, assuming you don't think the idea of a being with more intelligence and capabilities than humans to be impossible.

Also I think it is quite natural to believe that something that has a high level of complexity had an intelligent being to create it. You would not argue that examples of this exist all over the natural world I assume. I'm sure you have heard the old teleological argument. I think it is pretty strong because it envokes the natural order we see around us everyday.

Hmm well that would be a fair enough estimation if a natural explanation for the world was impossible.

Clearly though that is our point of disagreement.

People usually believe in god if their parents believed in god.

Of course, there are exceptions. Atheists "finding God," and vice-versa.

I shall attempt to CLIMB this wall...

Stringerboy

Lets see.

Miracles and unexplained phenomena (including Jesus' resurrection)

The fact that the universe exists rather than not

The aparrent design found in biology and the world around us

Fulfilled prophecies

The afterlife

Authority

Fear

Upbringing

Religious texts

Changed lives

Morality

domatron23

By Jove, I think he's got it!

[QUOTE="Stringerboy"]

I shall attempt to CLIMB this wall...

Greatgone12

[QUOTE="Greatgone12"][QUOTE="Stringerboy"]

I shall attempt to CLIMB this wall...

Jandurin

Irrational exceptions, maybe, but they're still exceptions.

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

God being greater than the island isn't the point. What does affect the argument is the divide between the divine and the material. Thinking about the greatest conceivable island is meaningless, because it's part of the material world and therefore inherits its limitations, including going in and out of existence. The only way Anselm's proof works is by looking to the infinite and divine God, since He can be defined as something than which we can imagine NOTHING being greater.

Of all the points you raised in your essay, this is the one most commonly dismissed by modern thinkers, for reasons I've already explained. You do a fine job summarizing Kant, but trying to shoehorn this flawed argument only hurts your criticism.

mysterylobster

I'm honestly trying to see your point mysterylobster but I still think Anselm's argument works on anything that you try to conceive of as perfect. I'll construct an argument about lost island so that you can show me the specific part where it stumbles.

P1 Anybody, even a fool, can imagine an island that is the greatest of any island imaginable

P2 An island that exists only in the imagination is not as great as an island which exists in both the imagination and reality

Therefore: The greatest imaginable island must exiss in the imagination and in reality

Just show me how the form of that argument is different to the argument for God and then we can make some headway on this.

The difference here is the statement, "Anybody, even a fool, can imagine an island that is the greatest of any island imaginable," while Anselm is talking about a being so great that nothing (note the emphasis) can be greater. This distinction is true only of the divine, not things in the material world. Being material, this perfect island can go in and out of existance. A divine being, who is greater than anything we can possibly imagine, cannot.

I grant you that the argument for lost island is slightly different to Anselm's but they both end up with the same conclusion (which is what I disagree with). The conceptualization of lost island as a perfect island includes the quality of its existence here and now. Sure, being material, it could be destroyed and made to not exist but at that point it would no longer be perfect. What I wanted you to do was to show me how the conclusion of my argument is unsound while the conclusion of Anselm's argument is sound. Calling God divine and the greatest thing imaginable doesn't affect my conclusion.

Fine then.

P1 Anybody, even a fool, can imagine an island so great thatnothingcan be greater.

P2 An island that exists only in the imagination is not as great as an island which exists in both the imagination and reality

Therefore: The greatest imaginable island must exist in the imagination and in reality

Funky_Llama

Actually I disagree with you on that one. An island would be limited in its potential greatness by merit of being an island. For example the perfect continent imaginable might be greater than lost island which would make P1 of yur argument false.

Nevertheless that doesn't mean that the lost island argument is invalidated. Anselm's logic applies equally to it and any other thing you might try to imagine as being the greatest imaginable.

Ive read alot of your post but why do you always discredit any chance of an after life not god though do you belive in ghots or entities or any of that at all just wandering.Bigboss232

I'm a materialist/naturalist/physicalist so I try and discredit anything supernatural.

[QUOTE="Bigboss232"]Ive read alot of your post but why do you always discredit any chance of an after life not god though do you belive in ghots or entities or any of that at all just wandering.domatron23

I'm a materialist/naturalist/physicalist so I try and discredit anything supernatural.

There's a reason they call it the supernatural.

Last time I checked Scientist have been able to try and prove everything in a Scientifical Way. How is it that they can tell us things about our planet, our universe, our cells but they Have never been able to try and disprove GOD. There might be a reason behind this.

Last time I checked Scientist have been able to try and prove everything in a Scientifical Way. How is it that they can tell us things about our planet, our universe, our cells but they Have never been able to try and disprove GOD. There might be a reason behind this.

DarknessLion

The scientific method?

I believe in God because I have experienced Him in my life personally and so have my family and religious friends. If you don't believe me, that's perfectly fine because you have no reason to, but then again, I have no reason to lie. Also, it's completely impossible for me to prove the existence of God to you since that's something you need to do on your own through faith and prayer. On the same token, it's impossible for you to disprove God's existence to me because of my day-to-day experiences and relationship with Him.

If you still want to argue logic, here's my logical approach: scientific theories about how everything came from nothing, and about how life started arbitrarily with no creator make much less sense to me than God. It's as simple as that. Regardless of what science is able to prove, it all eventually goes back to a point where there was no earth and no life, and out of that nothing appeared this complex and beautiful world and the precious thing called life.

Am I supposed to believe that started with a blob of matter which, in the right conditions, reacted and exploded to form the universe and eventually some of these big blocks of matter started rotating around this huge ball of gas called the sun, and once conditions were perfect, one of these blocks of matter was transformed into the earth we have today. Even if that was true, how did these perfect conditions for the formation of the earth come about - what caused them to become that way?

If I pretend, for a moment, that somehow the earth formed itself without the guidance of any greater being (or God), then am I supposed to now believe that, in a similar set of arbitrary conditions, elements and compounds in the atmosphere reacted to create a living cell from a bunch of abiotic factors? Nevermind the staggering complexity of the cell and of life in general, now am I supposed to believe that the environment molded the immeasurable diversity and complexity of life we see on Earth today from a single organism and without the existence of a God?

Even after I acknowledge the existence of evolution, can science explain how the environment could've created mankind with free will? Are you going to deny that humanity has free will? If you do, then could you care to explain what environmental or hereditary factors are causing you to visit this website and read my post right now? Would you care to explain how suicide or war or genocide or any art forms such as music or drawing or painting are the product of conditioned responses to environmental or hereditary stimuli? We are not robots people, and evolution certainly can't account for the existence of free will.

The point I'm trying to make is that even if you were to take a logical and empirical approach to the world around you, there will always be some question or phenomena that science can not and will never be able to answer or explain logically or empirically. As a result of this, the only possible deduction left is the presence of a greater being, a God, that ties everything together, that explains the scientifically inexplicable and answers the scientifically unanswerable.

This is not to say that science should be disregarded or thrown out, but rather paired with religion and with God as they compliment each other so perfectly. Some of the greatest scientists were deeply religious and with great reason. From my point of view, science is the quest to figure out how it is that God made everything we observe around us and to try to figure out the rules by which he runs the laws of nature and all things that aren't under our direct control or influence. Nothing you can present to me makes more sense than that.

And on a final note, I don't believe in God only because the lack of one is an absurd idea as I've explained above, but because He does truly exist, and I know this for a fact based on my own experiences with Him as well as what I've learned about the experiences of other with Him.

Last time I checked Scientist have been able to try and prove everything in a Scientifical Way. How is it that they can tell us things about our planet, our universe, our cells but they Have never been able to try and disprove GOD. There might be a reason behind this.

DarknessLion

Because science can only study and experiment upon that of which exists in the physical world, properties that can be seen, smelled, touched, heard or tasted. The Christian god cannot be studied or experimented upon because he does not exist within the physical world, and thus science does nothing to disprove Him.

I have never seen any kinda of proof of their being a god that created us. To me religion is all based on opinions with no facts behind them.

At least science has had facts in the past and shows you somthing that could have actually happen like the Big Bang.

Thoughts?

JangoWuzHere

God doesn't show himself because you people would keep bothering him/her/it or is it he she...

And I god knows alot of people would say keep asking god to save them, people need to save themselves most of the time. And no god doesn't give you what ever you want cause that is greed, you have to learn... When it comes to serious time he/she/it would come.