Need me to be more specific?
Nice dissection, let me do the same:
A priori scriptum:
I didn't know you took yourself for an atheist.. your first post was not really clear. Guess I read what I wanted to.
Hugo: God is the inaccessible, He is the inevitable.
If that is all that you are defining God to be, then He has a greater probability of existing than with the conventional definition. However, we still have no evidence of either (by definition).
This is far from an exhausive definition, it was quoted to reflect the undeniable fact that no man can compleatly seaze the existence of God and that no man can live and die a conscious life without
being halted to think and wonder about the existence of God.
"Dieu est l'inaccessible, Il est l'inévitable"
non-accessible unavoidable -(Strict traduction)
1-It is impossible to reasonnably believe that everything is a pure folly and that our intricate universe is only made out of luck.
This is not based on anything. It simply states that the opposing view is absurd without saying why.
While Pascal only made a vague attempt to explore this path, Aristotle and Descartes have clearly made important discourses concerning the "Argument of Design" which you hopefully know. Just in case you don't, it states that the intricate structure of the universe, intricate in the sense that any componant that would be taken out would dramatically alter its balance, cannot have meshed together by pure circumstances. A sub-argument to this is also wondering why is their any balance in this universe?!
Since Einstein railroaded Newton's mecanic of the universe, science has since been incapable of explaning how a heterogeanous universe that is continuously expanding can hold itself relatively stable. Sure, science can isolate spatial phenomenons from each other and call them gravity, force fields, planetary revolutions, mass.. but the question still remains: how can a physical theory that has for a common denomiator chaos, be in fact homeostatic?
Finally, Aristotle in particular speculated of the "First Cause". He starts off by establishing that science is possible. If science is possible it is because things have a certain order to them, they do not act randomly. Thus, since we live in a Cause-Effect world, then it is the purpose of theo-logy to explore the first cause: the cause that started it all and to which its existence is necessary.
These are the common arguments against atheists that believe that somehow the sun, gravity, stars and practically the whole universe are all functionning for no particular reason.
This is what I meant by
improbable .
2-If we are capable to recognize God virtues, how can he not exist?
This is non sequitur. The existence of a meme about something says nothing about whether that something exists. I can comprehend the possibility of aliens, but that doesn't necessitate their existence.
I will enjoy this one...
Having mentionned Kant in my post, I would have thought you would have recognized him. But I guess your title with the word philosophy in it did not truly suggest that it was a philosopher writting.
The argument is simple:
The concept of good is not of this world, nor is morality. Thus I can conclude that they are foreign concepts to this material world, deprived of any meanning.
Your second objection lies in the existence of things. While it is true that aliens may or may not exist, the very process in which a concept is built can influence its probability. Example:
Man is a terrestrial (meanning he lives on Earth) being. Any being that is not terrestrial is extra-terrestrial.
These conditions of being show greater probability and strenght than many other conditions of being of other concepts. What I mean by this is that as soon as we find just one being that does not live on Earth (be it a damn cell conglomerate frozen on Uranus that has lived 1,000,000 years ago) it will show that extra-terrestrials exist(ed).
Another strong point is that if human existence is absurd, what on earth
)) would prevent another absurdity from happening light years away? None...
Now the whole fondation of such arguments concerning God does not lie in the fact that you can comprehend God and that thusly he exists. It is much rather the idea that the atheist is simply taking way too much of this world for granted. He grabs to the lesser probable alternative... just because. Kinda like faith.
Firely rightly points out Kant's reply:
Only Faith is outside of Reason, without being unreasonable.
No, if it is outside of reason, it is unreasonable. If this is disputed, one must dispute the law of non-contradiction, which is not likely to yield any useful results, given that logic, communication, and thought processes are based on this law.
Again, this is a quote from a great philosopher that wasn't appreciated to its correct value. All that Kant said is that all theory of knowledge must leave faith out, for faith can simply not participate in any knowledge process... eventhough it exist.
Atheist scientists admit they know nothing of the external universe, and that is the reason they do not believe in God. There is no way to believe in or even know of a being that by definition is not in the realm of the universe.
Its funny that you mentionned the word science because the last time I checked Einstein and Hawkins both entertained the possibilty of parralel universes. While some people would think it is the death of God... it is really his portal. For such theories re-open the debate concerning the belief that God is most likely in a parralel universe, thus making it reasonable for him not to be in ours.
As mentionned, science is arrogant even downright dogmatic, since it does not consider anything as existing that cannot be mesured. However I can easily conceptualize and know that man has not always measured the periodical table, but the chemicals were still there! (At least I hope so)
In a paradoxal way, mathematics, physical science, and espescially psychology are all truffled with abstract concepts that cannot themselves be mesured.
Descartes: what if our entire mathematical systems were wrong? No way of verifying, but science seem to have undying faith into them, until the next scientific revolution brings forth another all mighty system! Praise the scientifics!
Also, it is very possible to believe in an entity outside of this universe. Ready? Just did.
As for knowing about it, I'll just say the same thing the atheist are saying: let science time to get there.
The burden of proof is on anyone who states something about the external world: the strong atheist and the theist. The weak atheist has no such obligation. The theological arguments from Plato, Aristotle, and Descartes are nothing more than word play and thinly-veiled desire, and I'm sure that the rest follow suit. If not, be sure and let me know.
I really can't agree on the static belief that one is only in contradiction when stating propositions. For the very way we live our lives reflect our beliefs. This said, one can be in contradiction with the world, simply in the way he lives his|her life.
As for witholding judgement, its called: agnosticism
Concerning fancy word peddling, I would suggest you read more philosophy before saying anything that I would expect to heir from an avid Packers fan. I think that the short pieces of basic philosophical history I have written to be sufficiant.
This means that man is predisposed to believing in a deity. It says absolutely nothing else. It does not say that a deity exists. It does not say that there is truth in faith. There is a jump here from the bandwagon to the pulpit, and it's not logical at all.
It is 100% logically certified my friend, nothing wrong in the logical form. What I think you mean is that it is a false proposition.
That I am willing to concead, but that was not my goal. It was much rather the feeling of the pointy serynge of doubt that I attempted to insert in the psychological belief that all they examine leads to atheist conclusions.
As they see no probable links between man is engineered and the way he should live, I say that the structure of the human psyche IS the blueprint of happiness.
Of course, modern existentialists state and expect the world to live according to man's own standards... you can't keep such an attitude without snaping and unrooting on what this universe is based on.
Concret examples: Pollution, sleep deprivation, having a stressful life, drinking a liter of motor oil.
All this said, I do feel that the atheist rest on very shaky grounds and that in order to refute the obvious, they better come up with some serious arguments that would .
compell me to stop believing, not just attempt to show me what i already know: God must be meet with faith... but with me in philosophy I am argumenting in order to make the gap smaller, to the point of his existence being utterly improbable.
Master Aivahov:
"When a man see's a book he knows there is an author, how can he rationally look at the universe and believe that he is alone?"
I have enjoyed debating with you. I can barely wait to receive your second wave of arguments, if you have any.
Please excuse my little "débordements" I tried to adopt an equivalently toned response.
Peace
