Thursday, September 11, 2008
-
The Xangalogical Argument For God's Existence, Pt. 1
by mr willow 
Does God exist?A while ago I mentioned that I’d been formulating an original answer to this most cherished of philosophical questions. Many answers have been formulated and debated over the ages. Since most of the arguments for God’s existence have fancy technical names (The Ontological Argument! The Teleological Argument! The Cosmological Argument!), I’ll call mine The Xangalogical Argument, for reasons that should become apparent.
Recently I enjoyed a friendly online debate with a Xanga blogger who is skeptical about God. Explaining why he is doubtful that God exists, he wrote:
Would you called me close-minded if I said I don’t believe in toothfairies? or the flying spaghetti monster? or the invisible pink unicorn? or the celestial teapot? The burden of proof is always on the affirmative side. I’ll demonstrate this with the celestial tea pot: If I said there is a china tea pot orbiting Jupiter, and I am careful to add that it’s too small to be detected even with the best telescope available, therefore, makes it impossible to disprove, since it cannot be seen. Aren’t you going to assume no such tea pot exists until you see evidence?
The assertion that the burden of proof is always on the affirmative side is problematic: it is an affirmative statement itself, so by its own logic, shouldn’t we assume it’s false until we see evidence that it’s valid? Nonetheless, my acquaintance, like Bertrand Russell before him, does have a good question. Where is the evidence that God exists? If there’s no evidence at all, why do people believe in Him?
Let’s back up. A point I think too many people overlook—and I include some Christian apologists with the skeptics on this one—is that Christians don’t merely believe that God exists; they believe Him to be a personal being. As theologians like to say, a being is personal if it has “intellect, emotions, and will.” To this we might add that such a being has a desire to communicate, and that you can form a two-way personal relationship with it. Thus (according to Christian theology) the relationship between a human and God is far more like the relationship between me and my wife, or my friends, or my father, than it is like the relationship between me and a teapot.
This is easily seen in the most famous of Christian prayers, which begins, “Our Father who art in heaven….” Likewise, the Apostles’ Creed, a more or less definitive statement of what Christians believe, begins, “I believe in God the Father almighty.” Notice, by the way, it doesn’t bother to say “I believe that God the Father almighty exists…” At issue is not belief that but belief in. In other words, you are not agreeing with a proposition but trusting in a Person.
Of course, the statement that God is a personal being entails that God exists; it would be nonsense to say “I believe in a personal God who isn’t real.” This brings us back to the question of the evidence for His existence, but with an important clarification. The question should be, “What would we accept as sufficient evidence for the existence of a personal being?”
Here’s where Xanga comes in. In our own lifetimes, we’ve watched a revolution take place in the role computers play in personal communication. Social networking sites like Xanga, MySpace, Blogger, and Facebook have become the norm for millions if not billions of people. Friendships are made, formed, and broken online all without any other personal contact. On a personal note, I even met my wife solely through comments we left on each other’s Xanga blogs.
Think about what you are doing at this very moment with this website. You are looking at words on your computer screen. As you read these words, almost without realizing it, you make an assumption: you assume that there exists a being (me) responsible for writing them. You even assume several things about this being, since your assumption entails that it can type, write, understand English, and navigate a computer interface.
Aside from these words, you have absolutely no other evidence that I exist. You can’t hear me. You can’t see me. You can put your hand on your computer screen, but you can’t touch me. Turn off your computer, and even the words will disappear. What makes you so sure that I really exist?
To be continued...
-
recommend
- recs 2
- give stars
- votes 1
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Comments (122)
Great point, Mr. Willow. Hats off to you.
people believe in god because is a human need, they used god to explain dead and natural phenomenons before science and now they use it to ask for forgivness, ask him favors, still the same logic used by neanderthals to explain death.
i'm NOT sure that you exist.
even if i was sure that you existed (via this blog), i'd have no way of knowing that you're who you say you are. you could be joe lieberman, or my sister, or something non-human. you could even be a computer program with a directive to post blogs on revelife.
yes, your readers INTUIT that you are mr. willow, a human blogger, because it seems obvious. but there's no epistemic certainty about you or about God.
Interesting point, but I'm not sure you can really compare the two. I can read said hypothetical internet friend's blog. I can read their comments on my blog. If we IM, I can read their responses.
Maybe this person does not exist, but there is at least SOMEONE writing all of these things. If not that, then a highly advanced computer.
I do not hear god, talk with god, read anything from him, or see anything from him. Where in the first case, there was at least someone or something responding to what I was saying, in the case with god I know no response at all.
You can never really be 100% certain about anything in life. For all we know, this whole existence could be a complex computer simulation a la the Matrix. But that's besides the point.
Your argument seems a little simplistic to me. Trusting that you are who you say you are in this blog is not the same thing as trusting that God exists.
The greater the claim, the greater the burden of proof. Because all you are claiming to be is Mr Willow, your claim isn't very great. The consequence of whether you really are Mr Willow or not is relatively small, and so as readers, the burden of proof we place on you is minute to the point that it's inconsequential.
But now, if you start claiming you are the Prime Minister of Canada (does Canada even have a Prime Minister?), or that you're the real founder of Xanga and John stole your idea, or that you're the 1000th reincarnation of Buddah, you'll find that we're going to accept your statements with far less trust than we do right now. We're going to expect you to support your statement with considerable proof.
And now... let's bring it a step further. Let's say you're claiming to be God. Let's say that not only are you claiming to be God, but that you're demanding that all humanity believe in you and commit our lives to your son or risk eternal damnation. And to top it off, not only are you not writing on xanga with frequent updates and where we can leave you comments and expect a comment in return, but all your claims were made over 2000 years ago on manuscripts. And all we have are copies and incomplete fragments of the originals. Are we still going to accept that with the same level of belief as we would if all you're saying is "Hi I am Mister Willow"?
So... sorry dude, but argument doesn't really fly. =\
Can you compare the existance of a personal God to the existance of an a friend you know only through the internet?
I don't think that comparison would do God justice.
If I say I have seen Jesus you would call me crazy. If I quote the scripture that "He shows himself to those he loves" you doubt his words. (well not you per say)
I have come to the conclusion that God is more interested in proving himself to those that, "ask, seek, and knock" than to the sceptic.
C. S. Lewis was once an athiest. Reading his journey from athiest to believer is a great starting point for a sceptic that is really interested in logic based belief that ultimatly has to become faith based.
Personally, I don't think the two compare that well. In theory, I suppose one could track down the IP address and corresponding physical address (perhaps with the help of a government agency willing to ignore the Constitution for a moment) to locate the computer the text was written on, and go on to find you. As far as God, I don't think it works quite that way.
I do want to briefly comment on the concept that "The burden of proof is always on the affirmative side.". While I do agree with that, I think people need to be aware of the fact that EVERY worldview will make affirmative statements. Even different flavors of atheism have to make statement regarding their basic ontology and epistemology (which are the fundamental starting points of one's worldview). Even though they may not make an affirmative statement regarding the existence of God, they will need to make affirmative statements of how one comes about knowledge, and the nature of reality that allows for such a epistemological standard. So in this regard, EVERYBODY has the burden of proof for their own professed worldviews.
However, what's tricky about "proving" one's ontology and epistemology is the fact that these are your most fundamental presuppositions. They are the very starting points in your thinking, and you cannot reference a more fundamental set of premises to show where you derived these beliefs (otherwise, we would keep forcing ourselves to go further and further, and fall into an infinite regress). However, what one can do is to argue from these basic premises to see if these alleged presuppositions can account for themselves and the intelligibility of human experience (e.g. their presuppositions allow for laws of logic, spatial and temporal symmetries, etc.)-- things that are necessary for reason altogether. If these things are not in place, then the starting premises prove to be self defeating.
In the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (which I'm wanting to write a more detailed blog about sometime in the future), one attempts to show that non-theistic (or even non-Christian, depending upon whom you speak with) worldviews are unable to produce ontological and epistemological starting points that don't undermine themselves and the intelligibility of human experience. In this case, the atheist certainly has the burden of proof to show that their espoused worldview does indeed not undermine itself. In understanding where the true conflict between theism and non-theism lies (at the fundamental ontological and epistemological levels-- because other arugments for and against the existence of God are forced to presuppose either theistic or non-theistic ontologies and epistemologies), one sees that we all make basic affirmative claims. If we were all aware of this, then atheists would no longer say the burden of proof lies upon the theist, and leave the argument without even attempting to substantiate their own worldview.
I know that someone somewhere sat down at a computer to write down this entry. it sounds like you are going closer to investigating sollipsism than defending the idea of whether not there is a god. there's no way god is real, much less a personal being. why would he show up in every ancient race's history telling them that they are "the chosen"? either there's multiple gods that are aliens that were messing with our ancestors or uneducated primitive societies felt the urge to attribute the unknown to SOMEthing. you really think moses was talking to god on mt. sinai? hallucinations clearly. same with that burning bush. lol. no way that's real. that's all I have to say
i must say i'm not enjoying the way revelife is cutting short the blog posted in subs and making one come to the post proper to finish reading it - but - i just found a 'half full ' in that-
By the time i reached this point -
Aren’t you going to assume no such tea pot exists until you see evidence?
i already had my comment formulated...
I have tasted the Tea~ and the Tea is Good....
@tupacodaman88@xanga -
"why would he show up in every ancient race's
history telling them that they are "the chosen"? either there's
multiple gods that are aliens that were messing with our ancestors or
uneducated primitive societies felt the urge to attribute the unknown
to SOMEthing."
-- Those certainly aren't the only two alternatives to that question. In fact, I'm hesitant about taking that question at face value anyway. Does EVERY ancient race truly have its history telling them that they are "the chosen"? While different cultures may have had different ideas of God(s), that doesn't mean much in itself. From that alone, one could say different people just had different gods (no need to introduce aliens). One could say that there is one supreme God, but he revealed himself differently to different people at different times in history. One could also say that certain cultures met with the true God/gods, but other cultures god(s)' were not real, and were just made up or were mere idols. One could also say that God exists, but all of these cultures screwed up his message, or just made things up entirely (a deist may use something along this line of argument, for example). There's a lot of different ways to get around it, even if the presupposition in your question is indeed correct.
"you really think moses was talking to god on mt. sinai? hallucinations clearly."
-- How is it so clear? The only clear thing to me in that statement is your question-begging epitaph.
"same with that burning bush. lol. no way that's real."
-- You care to prove how you can know that there's "no way" that the event was real? It's one thing to say that you would never be able to prove it, or that you don't know how to prove it, and therefore you doubt it. But to say it's impossible requires a totally new level of knowledge (universal negatives are always a pain to prove).
Excellent thought provoking statements, thechris38. What do you believe, if I may ask?
I used to be a huge fan of apologetics and studied the books up and down but not anymore. Don't get me wrong. I love apologetics and learning how to "defend" my faith, but I've come to learn that when engaging in debates with people over Xian matters (does God exist, is the Bible accurate, etc.) that the people on the other end are not in it to really seek out the truth...but rather they're in it for fun or to find some way to deride a faith they do not understand. What I would ask of anyone who wants to debate whether God exists is, "if I can show you the answer, would you be willing to let go of everything you have in this life, your pride, your wants and needs and get on your knees and devote the rest of your life to God?" More often than not, the person on the other end would answer "no."
That being said, in regards to the practice of medicine I've always felt that ordinary theories need ordinary proof, while extraordinary theories need extraordinary proof. If you want to show me that drinking Tang can cure cancer, you better show me extraordinary proof. I believe the reverse of what many people in the secular world believe. I believe that one would need extraordinary proof to prove that God does NOT exist. Just look at the sun, they sky, the amazing physiology behind the human being and the intangible soul that makes us tangible. There are too many random things that had to happen to produce the world that exists today. With that said, I ask you...how can you prove to me with extraordinary proof that God does NOT exist? Prove it to me and I will cast off my Christian faith and devote my life to being an atheist.
there is plenty of proof that God exists. we could fill volumes with it, and there are already plenty of books proving that God exists.
but after a point, arguments become futile. you can argue with a person's intellect forever, but at the end of the day, that person has to make the choice to believe in God. all the proof in the world won't convince everybody to believe in God. it's about that choice they have to make.
Saying that God doesn't exist, or implying he doesn't create us. Is like looking at a dog. And saying, this dog created himself, he has no parents, it was made by no one.
It's Impossible. They will tell you in Biology class.
Everything that Exists Needs a Creator, Otherwise, It Wouldn't Exist, lol
Interesting...I think I'm going to read CS Lewis. He seems like a good example of dispelling these doubts and getting to the questions of faith from a former skeptics point of view.
@bubbadirt@xanga - I think I'm going to look into CS Lewis writings about this..it seems interesting.
@droftreeology@xanga - that is true and if you build a relationship with Him He will give you signs that He exist and that He loves you like anyone else in a good relationship would. It's like saying a person doesn't exist because you never met them when you aren't even reaching out to really find that person in the first place.
@pamilvr@xanga - lol@ I have tasted the tea.
@tupacodaman88@xanga -
I need to make a correction in my response to you. When I said "question-begging epitaph", I meant to say "question begging epithet". I mistakenly clicked the wrong word on the browser's spell check. My bad. Hopefully that makes more sense now, lol.
@BlessedMom2@xanga -
What do I believe? Are you asking this in reference to a particular response of mine one this post (there are a couple actually), or is it just a general question? Rather than babbling on about all sorts of things (many of which you probably aren't seeking an answer to), I'll just ask you to specify what you want to know my beliefs on (whether it by my general religious beliefs, my beliefs regarding different apologetic arguments and methods, my beliefs regarding different cultures having different religious beliefs, and/or something else).
What a weak arguement for God. No offense, but you probably shouldn't attempt constructing new philosophical arguments for the existence of God if this is the best you can do.
@thechris38@xanga -
Very solid response.
@newbeginningschick@xanga -
"Everything that Exists Needs a Creator, Otherwise, It Wouldn't Exist, lol"
The first cause arguement really isn't the strongest arguement for God, seeing as it runs into an inherent problem, namely if everything that exists needs a creator, who created God? To try and construct an exception for God is to deny the very principle you are trying to follow. There are stronger philosophical arguments for God out there.
hey thechris38,
basically, I doubt that any culture can be wrong about their gods. and they also can't all be right. if god were truly omnipotent, he wouldn't have just shown up at different times to different cultures to create confusion. also, why would he just chill while people misinterpret their message, if it IS the case that there is one god and he revealed himself at different times to different people? clearly not an omnipotent god. so... what is "god"? while erich von daniken's suggestions may seem unlikely, I still see his idea that aliens visited earth and visited our ancestors as more plausible than this nonmaterial being who's supposedly in charge of everything showing up to cultures to reveal his message.
and the mt sinai/burning bush comment I was jk. but seriously. if I walked up a big ol' mountain I'd probably start seeing things from my combined fatigue+thirst. and there's no way the commandments are real. there's a lot more than 10, and some of them talk about destroying cities if they don't accept your faith. sounds more like an alien toying with inferior beings than an all-powerful and loving entity
@newbeginningschick@xanga -
But who's God's father's father?
And so on, and so on.
@whataboutbahb@xanga -
To try and construct an exception for God is to deny the very principle you are trying to follow.
Not really. The argument is that everything that has a beginning, needs a creator. God has no beginning and therefore requires no creator. Either something has always existed, whether it be God or something else, or everything that exists in the universe somehow came into existence from nothing.
@newbeginningschick@xanga - "Did it ever occur to you, that maybe God has a father too? Idiot"
This is unnecessary and condescending. (and fallible)