Philosophers debate God's existence in book

The TImesDaily ^ | 9/28/2003 | Richard N. Ostling

[RadioAstronomer]

ping.

[Phsstpok]

Philosophers debate God's existence in book

It reminds me of that famous old wall graffiti, where someone scribbled "God is dead - Nietzsche". Underneath it somebody else scribbled, "Nietzsche is dead - God"

I love both of those.  What it immediately reminded me of was the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy.  There's a bit in there where they explain the babel fish.  This is from the Wikipedia:

Babel fish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The Babel fish is a fictional species of fish in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams.

It is a highly improbable biological universal translator, a "small, yellow and leechlike" fish which, when inserted into the ear canal meant that the 'wearer' could "instantly understand anything said... in any form of language." This was both a useful plot device for Adams, who wrote on the subject that he always found the ability of all aliens to speak English very strange; and also the starting point for a joke about the existence of God.

According to the Hitchhikers Guide, the Babel fish was put forth as an example for the non-existence of God:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

 

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D.."

 

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

 

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

The other bit from that book was there were supposedly several best selling books by philosophers with titles like "who is this God person anyway?"  I always wondered if Adams might be a closet Inkling.

Your graffiti reminds me of a series of billboards down here in the mid-south area.  All have huge white letters on a solid black background.  Things like

"Sunday, My House, before the game - God." 

They also had one

"What part of "Thou Shalt Not" don't you get?"

[JohnSmithee]

"No one here is denying God, but please, define your God, then we can discuss if such a God is even possible or not."

The Christian god is easily definable but this definition is often incomplete or is rejected by atheists and agnostics. The trouble is that the same kind of reasoning can be applied to many abstract terms that many of use all the time. Try rejecting abstraction and you will find that much of what we call knowledge would need to be rejected also. This is an old debate of the early twentieth century between the positivists and just about everyone else, and has never been settled.

[xJones]

Hank, if you really want a good argument, then go buy a paperback copy of C.S. Lewis's book, "Mere Christianity".

I'd really like to see you do a book review of it, although it would take some time. And it might be worth your effort to do so, because maybe you can tear it apart in front of all the FR Christians who admire Lewis's writings.

You could, of course, critique a Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist book, but that wouldn't count because FR has hardly any of those and so you wouldn't be able to challenge them. :)

I'd really like to see your book review of "Mere Christianity", if you're up to it.

[Hank Kerchief]

The trouble is that the same kind of reasoning can be applied to many abstract terms ...

Generally, any term, abstract or otherwise, that cannot be defined, is meaningless. But, in this case, the subject is God, which is not supposed an abstract concept, like, "justice," or, "importance," but an actual existent, like the, "universe".

The problem is, if I hand you a book and say, "believe this," and the book is written in a language you do not understand, you will rightly tell me you cannot believe it, because there is nothing for you to believe, you don't know what it means. You can neither reject it or accept it.

It turns out that almost every definition or description of God contains words which the describer or definer admits they do not know the meaning of. If something is defined by words without meaning, what is one to believe? First there must be something understood, then one can decided to believe or not to believe it. No one can believe what has no meaning?

Hank

[JohnSmithee]

"Generally, any term, abstract or otherwise, that cannot be defined, is meaningless."

Not really. I suppose it depends on who is doing the defining, but as any linguist will tell you many words are learned through usage *not* by using a dictionary. Try reading some Wittgenstein. Perhaps it's difficult defining certain words, but will they never be defined? I have trouble defining the term 'mind' but the term certainly has meaning. The same could be said of the term 'god', and as I said previously I have no problems coming up with a definition for it.

"But, in this case, the subject is God, which is not supposed an abstract concept, like, "justice,"

Whoever has thought 'god' wasn't an abstract term? It's almost by definition an abstraction. You seem misinformed on this point.

"but an actual existent, like the, "universe"."

Whoever told you this? The definition for 'god' that you are using is just simply wrong. That's why all those arguments about the undetectability of god are off base, since god is not a *physical* thing. This has all been covered long ago in various philosophical debates.

"It turns out that almost every definition or description of God contains words which the describer or definer admits they do not know the meaning of."

ROFL.

You seem to be parroting simplistic "arguments" that some Atheists use. All the words used in defining god are no less meaningful than other words used in English.

"First there must be something understood, then one can decided to believe or not to believe it. No one can believe what has no meaning?"

Again, you are parroting an oversimplistic "argument" that most philosophers rightly ignore. The problems you have just described with defining the term 'god' are identical to the same problems you have in defining *any* abstract term. If you want to reject all abstract terms, then feel free, and realize that you are more than likely a positivist. I would refer you to the well known literature on positivism and it's failures. Read some Ayer followed by Wittgenstein and you might begin to understand the issues.

[Hank Kerchief]

Read some Ayer followed by Wittgenstein and you might begin to understand the issues.

I've read them. They're wrong. You read them, and believed them, but that is not surprising for one who believes words do not have to have exact meanings. No doubt it is comforting to have someone reinforce one's cherished irrationalities, expecially if they call themselves philosophers.

No wonder the world of philosophy is collapsing, its full of mystics, neo-palonists, and linquistic analysists.

Sorry, this mystic garbledegook gets no purchase here.

Hank

[paulklenk]

I also believe in God, and agree that much of the universe points to Him and His influence. However, it does take some faith to believe in God.

But not as much faith as it does to believe in atheism.

[ZeitgeistSurfer]

But not as much faith as it does to believe in atheism.

Whoever can look at the miracle of existance and still be an atheist is a person who is walking around with a blindfold.

[fortaydoos]

I think athiests just like to believe that they are the most intelligent, highly evolved entity in the Cosmos. They are full of crap of course - in my opinion, and they think Christians like us are fools as well.

Lucky for us, only we can be proven right (and will be).

[JohnSmithee]

"I've read them. They're wrong."

Hehe, no one expects a philosopher to be "right" or "wrong", especially somone like Wittgentstein who changed his philosophical outlook more than once in his life.

"You read them, and believed them"

No, it's not a question of being "right" or "wrong" but of awareness. They raise issues that are not addressed by an oversimplistic understanding of language.

"but that is not surprising for one who believes words do not have to have exact meanings."

You really are talking out of your hat now. Words have always had inexact meanings and to pretend otherwise is to display simple ignorance on how words are defined.

As a start, define "exactly" the following words:

atom, exact, entity, liquid, hot, mind

"No doubt it is comforting to have someone reinforce one's cherished irrationalities"

Actually, I'm Agnostic, so I really don't know what you are talking about here.

"No" - what do you mean?
"wonder" - what do you mean?
"the" - what do you mean?
"world" - what do you mean?
"of" - what do you mean?
"philosophy" - what do you mean?
"is" - what do you mean?
"collapsing", - what do you mean?
"its" - what do you mean?
"full" - what do you mean?
"of" - what do you mean?
"mystics", - what do you mean?
"neo-palonists", - what do you mean?
"and" - what do you mean?
"linquistic" - what do you mean?
"analysists" - what do you mean?

Every term you used above has an "inexact" meaning depending on any number of factors...

[JohnSmithee]

"I've read them. They're wrong."

What exactly have you read of Ayer and how is he wrong?

[JohnSmithee]

"No doubt it is comforting to have someone reinforce one's cherished irrationalities, expecially if they call themselves philosophers."

Since Ayer was a well logical positivist I would tend to disagree with his perspective.

[The Grammarian]

So when did you turn atheist?

[Hank Kerchief]

So when did you turn atheist?

So when did you turn Grand Inquisitor?

Is someone who doesn't believe God let's you do wrong and get away with it an atheist?

Hank

[The Grammarian]

So when did you turn Grand Inquisitor?

About the same time I found out that you turned atheist. I was starting to wonder why you'd dropped out of the Calvinist/Arminian threads.

Is someone who doesn't believe God lets you do wrong and get away with it an atheist?

Would you prefer I had said, 'turned your back on Jesus Christ'?

[Hank Kerchief]

Would you prefer I had said, 'turned your back on Jesus Christ'?

I have no preferance regarding what other people say. I believe in freedom of speech, and what other's say matters not to me.

Just a word of caution, for your sake. Be careful what you say. (Mat.12:37)