"To See Is To Believe"
The Situation
In several encounters in the Yahoo chatroom, I always see an Atheist being confronted by this question:
"If you accept to believe in the existence of entities such as numbers, sense of justice, compassion; how come you cannot accept the existence of God?"
The Rationale Behind
The question, more often than not, is well-intentioned. It argues that if an skeptics has the "to see is to believe" attitude, then how come he can accept abstract entities such as numbers, sets, pairs, emotions and so on, when in fact, he cannot see it? To further, how can he not accept the existence of an unseen God?
On surface, it appear that the skeptics is unfair and bias, much worst, closed-minded!
I have witnessed similar passionate and heated discussions on this subject and most of the time ending in flying of emotions, anger, insult-hurling and ill-feelings.
My Encounter
A chater (Faithful Catholic) posed the same question to me not long time ago. Unfortunately, that time, I was caught off-guard. Why? I had no answer, silly! Well, I cannot recall how I retorted on that spur-of-the-moment situation, but I am sure he was not convinced.
My Reply and Argument
For several days, I wrestled with the question. Indeed, he has a point and somehow I need to addressed as he seem to be a decent person to argue with. Below is my reply:
The idea is that there are basically only two types of things in the world: material and abstract objects. And that's presumed by all (almost) contemporary philosophers.
There is an objection to the statement above. To assume that there are two realm is controversial but if someone thinks there's a third realm, he's got to explain to us what it is. What could be this third reality that a Deity occupies? Are there some more? If one claim that there is then he has to show us. That is his best way to counter-argue.
I doubt that anyone can, unless he appeal to existence of God and in that case, it's not hard to see how arguments for that can be anything but circular.
Setting aside the existence of a third realm, I can now argue in this manner: God is either a material object or an abstract object. God is clearly not material or else He decays. God is timeless, and being not, He decays.
Therefore, God has to be abstract. If God is abstract, then like a number, He has no causal properties. A non-causal entity cannot intervene. An abstract entity contradicts the assumption that he is interventionist (such as answering a prayer).
Hence we have to reject the assumption that God exists.
joma
June 2, 2005
In several encounters in the Yahoo chatroom, I always see an Atheist being confronted by this question:
"If you accept to believe in the existence of entities such as numbers, sense of justice, compassion; how come you cannot accept the existence of God?"
The Rationale Behind
The question, more often than not, is well-intentioned. It argues that if an skeptics has the "to see is to believe" attitude, then how come he can accept abstract entities such as numbers, sets, pairs, emotions and so on, when in fact, he cannot see it? To further, how can he not accept the existence of an unseen God?
On surface, it appear that the skeptics is unfair and bias, much worst, closed-minded!
I have witnessed similar passionate and heated discussions on this subject and most of the time ending in flying of emotions, anger, insult-hurling and ill-feelings.
My Encounter
A chater (Faithful Catholic) posed the same question to me not long time ago. Unfortunately, that time, I was caught off-guard. Why? I had no answer, silly! Well, I cannot recall how I retorted on that spur-of-the-moment situation, but I am sure he was not convinced.
My Reply and Argument
For several days, I wrestled with the question. Indeed, he has a point and somehow I need to addressed as he seem to be a decent person to argue with. Below is my reply:
The idea is that there are basically only two types of things in the world: material and abstract objects. And that's presumed by all (almost) contemporary philosophers.
There is an objection to the statement above. To assume that there are two realm is controversial but if someone thinks there's a third realm, he's got to explain to us what it is. What could be this third reality that a Deity occupies? Are there some more? If one claim that there is then he has to show us. That is his best way to counter-argue.
I doubt that anyone can, unless he appeal to existence of God and in that case, it's not hard to see how arguments for that can be anything but circular.
Setting aside the existence of a third realm, I can now argue in this manner: God is either a material object or an abstract object. God is clearly not material or else He decays. God is timeless, and being not, He decays.
Therefore, God has to be abstract. If God is abstract, then like a number, He has no causal properties. A non-causal entity cannot intervene. An abstract entity contradicts the assumption that he is interventionist (such as answering a prayer).
Hence we have to reject the assumption that God exists.
joma
June 2, 2005
posted by DearestWarrior at 7:43 PM
4 Comments:
The problem with abstract entity is that it need a material entitiy in order to exist. Example: When a person says that the existence of God is like love, lust, etc., it is a fact that these abstract "ideas" need a material brain in orger to exist. If the analogy is correct, then we can conclude that an abstract "god" need a material human in order to conceptualized it's existence.
Kaya nga sabi na walang diyos sa buwan (lol).
Nice blog.
John P.
God, as often accepted, cannot be proven with mathematical certainty, kaya by logic and by philosophycal reasoning na lang.
Of course we do not set aside na baka nandyan lang sya at hinde pa tayo naaabot, like the Tirurays in the 60's, hinde nila alam na meron palang government sa Maynila.
Anyway, kapag pinasabog na ang nuclear bomb at malilipol na ang sangkatauhan, ang matitira ay mga ipis at daga na lamang. they have the higher survival records. that time wala na ring "abstract" deity na sasambahin.
salamat sa comment mo (and praises, too)... coming from one of the best blogger in the world...hmmm, what can i say?
ty bro!
Whoa! Euri is upset..
Take it easy, little sister..
I followed your harmless comment but you know how it is when one is hurting, he cannot differentiate a caress from a wallop.
joma.
Bro Joma!! ^_^ Hello!!
Salamat sa reply. :P
Post a Comment
<< Home