Monday, May 25, 2015

Proof of God’s Existence? Eh sa pambalot ata ng tinapa galing yan eh.

I have read a lot of articles about the existence of god, from the most scholarly written to the absurd and I can sometimes tell where the particular apologetics comes from. Most Pilipino Roman Catholics I have talked to uses philosophy to prove god exists, but I am astonished on how Filipino Born-Again Christians do it. Gosh! Where do they get their apologetics, from dried-fish wrappers? I have read Norman Giesler and William Craig Lane’s explanation and frankly speaking, I felt ridiculous comparing the following “apologetics” you are about to read to the works of Giesler and Lane. Today, I would like to share these “apologetics” that I have received and read in a certain Friendster group in which I am a member. Well...this is not an example of scholarly works and from the looks of it; they appear to be for laughs. Nevertheless, this is how most Filipino Born-Again Christians think they can attest their god’s existence.

Here is from a certain “tutti”.
God Exists Absolutely. By this we do not mean merely that God is always there or that he does not tend to go out of existence. These things are true, in a sense. But we mean something more.

God is the source of being, or existence, for all things. Looking at the universe we see that in every creature there is a distinction between its essence and its existence; that there is a difference between what things are and the fact that they are. That is why, as we saw, limited things are by nature existential zeros, why they have a need for being that they cannot themselves supply.

If God is the answer to this question about finite being, then he cannot suffer from this same need. In other words, in God there can be no such distance between what he is and that he is. That he exists is not a happy accident, not due to some other being as his cause. Being must be inseparable from what he is; it must belong to him by nature. More radically put: God must be identical with the fullness of being. That is what we mean by saying that God exists absolutely.

John the Atheist: So according to tutti:
1. Limited beings exist
2. Limited beings existence is cause since it is impossible for a limited being to cause itself.
3. Therefore, limited beings are cause by another being.
4. That which cause (provides the sufficient reason for) the existence of a limited being must be either (i) another limited being or (ii) a noncontingent (necessary) being.
if (i) = infinitum.
5. Therefore that which causes (provides the sufficient reason for) the existence of a limited being must be either (iii) an infinite series of limited beings or (iv) a necessary being.
6. An infinite series of limited beings (iii) is incapable of yielding a sufficient reason for the existence of any being.
7. Therefore (iv) exist.
8. This (iv) is God.

Obviously this was a copy-paste article from a certain Christian website. But being a copy-paste article is really not tutti’s problem regarding his apologetics. The problem in tutti’s argument is that he is begging the question regarding the cause of limited beings - that limited being has a cause. Tutti never gave us an explanation why he thinks that limited beings are not cause-less. Besides, if tutti believe that “he (God) exists is not a happy accident” – that follows that limited beings existence can be from such “happy accident”. If that is the case, then limited beings exist for no reason at all!

In (4) and (5) why will tutti wants us to believe that there is only one “necessary being” (if it does exist?). He never really gave us a good reason to believe this. In fact, we can have a plurality of necessary beings causing different limited beings!

In addition, in (8) a necessary being may not be a god nor does it be associated to a god.

The major flaw of tutti’s argument is that he already assumed that there are two kinds of being: limited or finite and a “god” which supposed to be the infinite source of all beings. Then he assumes that all limited being needed this “god’ in order to exist.

Tutti’s argument is base on Bruce Reichenbach’s cosmological argument which also suffer the same set backs. The difference between Reinhenbach’s argument from tutti is that Reinhenbach was trying to established the existence of a necessary being while tutti is trying to convince us that the necessary being is no other than his god.

The next is from Pablo. This is an example of crass apologetic that came out from an illogical out pouring of emotions. As you will notice, unlike tutti, who at least used some philosophical explanation base on a certain Christian apologist, Pablo’s claim is a little messy.

it does'nt matter if you call me delusional but in fact you atheist are the one who is delusional... you thought by not believing in God it makes you look rational and intelligent person but what you dont know is there are things that cannot be seen nor be sense by marely common sense.
John the Atheist: Let us talk about delusional. How can you say a person is delusional? Delusional means someone who is suffering from or characterized by delusions. Right? You can also call it neurotic or psychoneurotic.

In psychology, delusion means erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary. So what evidence did Pablo have shown me to prove the validity of his proposition? Did he substantiate that faith in god is synonymous to reason? Is he suggesting that a person can also be rational and intelligent in believing on the invisible by faith? All he did is to utter washout rhetoric.

Being rational means having its source in or guided by the intellect and not from experience or emotion. It is consistent with or based on or using reason. To use reason, one must use logic to arrive in a sound conclusion. Remember that @ Pablo.

So let see, according to Pablo’s prattle, an intelligent person must believe in something “that cannot be seen nor be sense by merely common sense”. So how will that make me smart? Pablo is an “intelligent person” because he believes on things that is supposed to be invisible and beyond common sense. A “thing” that is invisible and beyond commonsense? Gosh, if it is imperceptible and outside sound judgement how on earth have you known it is a “thing” in the first place?

in my job, we understand that the one who is cannot be seen is the most important of all. we design the structures not from its physical appearance because this doesnt matter at all... to arrive in a certain structures, you must understand and communicate to the things that cannot be seen nor touch... i am referring to the stresses or force of a certain members of the structures that acts on it. without understanding this, you cannot have what you need. actually nobody can see forces but you can sense its effect. using certain formulas, we communicate to the members of the structures one by one and ask them what they want for them to carry this certain loads. you see theres alot of things here on earth that you cannot see but you believe they are there. only intelligent person could understand that. and in that way, we are not delusional but you atheist are delusional... you easily believed that there is no God because nobody can produce a scientific data that explicitly pin point God.
John the Atheist: I really do not know if Pablo knows what he is saying. Most Christians do this mistake anyway. Why would Pablo compare a sentient being from a thing?

Pablo argued that like his job (whatever that is) they design structure not from its physical appearance but rather on things not seen nor cannot be touch. This is odd? How can you design something that is not detectable by your senses? How did it become a structure?

Suppose I am an engineer and I am thinking of a new building in Ortigas. So according to Pablo, we design the structures not from its physical appearance because this doesnt matter at all... to arrive in a certain structures, you must understand and communicate to the things that cannot be seen nor touch...

Wait a minute...So I will design a structure that is not base on physical appearance because it really does not matter at all. . So how will I do it? OK, I would like to create a building that is bigger than the biggest building in Singapore and I would like to squeeze the super-structure in the busy street of Ortigas, Mandaluyong City – next to Robinson’s Department Store and SM Mega Mall! Oh wow! However, the space between the two buildings (Robinson and SM) is not enough. Beside, the triangular shape of my dream building will cause too much stress on the structure. I also plan to make the base of the building thinner compare to the apex of the building, will it cause too much stress on the steel frames of the structure because of force and gravity? Well, according to Pablo’s explanation, I can create that structure and it will float on a sidewalk – to hell with stress, force and gravity. It will float in the air like Lando Calresian’s Bespin Palace in Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back!

My goodness! With this kind of thinking, we will reduce the science of engineering to Harry Potter!

In engineering, a structure is an arrangement of designed components that provides strength and stiffness to a built artifact such as a building, bridge, dam, automobile, airplane, or any thing that is man-made.

In design, the engineer first developed the goal from a creative stage. Maybe this is what Pablo is trying to say. The engineer’s projects usually arise at the outset as mental images, which is document first as sketches or notes and then successively tests, refine, organize, and ultimately file by using consistent layouts. This is concept formulation.

Is concept formation ex nihilo? By that, what I mean is – Does concept formation came from things that cannot be seen nor touch as Pablo suggested? Remember that an engineer test his ideas against physical, economic, and functional reality. Therefore, Pablo has an oversight in his argument. To arrive in a certain structures, you must understand and communicate to the things that are physical (which can be seen, smell, hear, taste or touch – physical objects are empirical), economic (economic are observable), and functional realities (functional realities are observable) not on things that “cannot be seen nor touch”.

Gosh, this is the problem of most Filipino Christian Fundamentalists – they seem to get lost on their own explanations.

The following is really an odd rationalization- if you believe that air, force, gravity and stress exist, so does god. Pablo is trying to compare a personal god to invisible, impersonal objects and ideas.

So what is Pablo’s problem about force, gravity and stress? This kind of argument about the existence of god reminds me of the usual “If you believe in the existence of air which is invisible, surely you also have to believe in God” crap. There is really a hitch with this analogy. Fist all these things are measurable. Stress is a measure of the internal reaction between elementary particles of a material in resisting separation, compaction, or sliding that tend to be induces by external forces. Gravity is measure using a gravity meter. Force cab also be measured (MLT−2 (M = mass, L = length, T = time). So can Pablo measure god in a laboratory?

In addition, we can prove the existence of stress, force and gravity by doing experiments in the laboratory. So, can Pablo prove the existence of his god in a laboratory? Metaphysics is very different from Physics.

Always remember, analogies are effective only if the concept is very similar to the subject discussed.

we use our eyes to see things that is visible. our sense of touch to know the presence of the things that cannot be seen by eyes. nose to know the presence of the odor which failed to descibed by the first 2 senses. our ears to detect the sound which other senses cannot sense and toungue to know what the rest of our senses failed to understand.

John the Atheist: What sense Pablo is going to use to know god? If Pablo wants to be taken seriously, he must explain his new means of perception. Otherwise, if he cannot provide us any sufficient proof of this new perception, then he just only proves he is delusional.

biologist use microscope to see the unseen, astronomers uses telescopes and mathematical formulas to see the farthest distance they can understand. and We Christians use our Faith to see what is eternal.

you cannot use microscope to see jupiter in the sky, who's crazy man will do that? nobody... also, you cannot use telescope to see bacteria... nobody will do that because that is not the proper instrument to be use for that certain job.

John the Atheist: So what kind of an apparatus will be use to see god. Wait a minute! Do you know what the meaning of the word “apparatus” is? If Pablo is careful, he will notice that he is making a fallacy of faulty comparison in this statement. Why is he comparing faith to different scientific apparatus? Faith is not a piece of equipment; it is a method of acquiring knowledge...same as reasoning. Now, the microscope is use to see things that are too small to be seen by the naked human eye. The telescope is use to see things too far to be seen. Those equipments are not use to see mental ideas or abstract objects. Unless Pablo can prove to me god is a concrete object, well...his comparison is weak.

so what is my point here?
my point is, you should use proper instrument to see things that your common sense has failed to grasp.the problem with the non-believers like atheist is that you are not using the proper instrument to understand what needs to be understand. and that makes you less intelligent than us Believers.

John the Atheist: What is Pablo’s point? If Pablo used faulty reasoning then there is no valid conclusion. If Pablo keeps using faulty reasoning to make his point, then how will he persuade me to believe that Christians like him have a superior intelligence that a typical atheist? I have seen elementary students who can make better arguments @ Pablo.

(Oh and I forgot to tell Pablo that he has to check his grammar? Please visit @ Pablo. I really feel nauseated reading his superior intelligent “carabao English”.)

Going back to Pablo’s “arguments”. You do not use “instruments” like a microscope and a telescope when dealing with abstract ideas .You use reasoning – and always use the proper one.

In addition, I have notice that you keep telling me this so-called “common sense”, unless you are talking about Thomas Paine’s publication with the same title – an atheist is not into “simple common sense”. What is “common-sense”? According to Mr. Webster, common sense is sound, practical judgement. However, simple common sense is sometimes deceiving. Intellectually speaking, simple common sense is not that always true. Let me illustrate:

Using mere common sense, you might conclude that the sun and the stars revolve around the Earth...which is not the case. An intelligent person does not rely purely in simple common sense – that is why we have this scientific method in the first place. Sometimes the result of experimentation will even disprove what our cherished “common sense” has dictated to us. Gosh! Just imagine if Earth science and astronomy was built in simple common sense, we are all nuts by now!

An atheist does not create his argument base on simple common sense. Non-believers use different method in constructing his arguments - from using the scientific methods to studying different philosophical discourses.

You should go beyond “simple common sense” to reach a more productive conclusion @ Pablo. Remember @ Pablo, you are the one who is insisting that believers are more intelligent than the average non-believer.

have you ever went to divisoria or to dagat dagatan malabot fish market early in the morning? if not, try to go there even once in your life... once you go there as early as 4 or 5, you will see alot of vegetables and fish in different variety that trucks or ships is unloading... there are so many goods from different part of the Philippines accumulates there... sometimes, you will ask yourself, "how is it possible to have alot of this everyday and yet it happened everyday?" God nourished us with alot of foods we need to feed us everyday for our entire life and in succeeding generations. look how generous He is to us, sinners, though we are impertinent to Him, He (God) continues to shower us this blessings... it is everyday for our entire life... it is everyday and so natural and routinely that most of us thinks that it just happened because there are men and women are working for that to be possible but what you dont know non-believers is that God orchestrated it for our sake because He love us more than we love Him.
John the Atheist: What is the connection of Divisoria and Dagat-Dagatan, Malabon with god-belief? How these vegetables and fishes entered the topic? @ Pablo Well for your information, these food products accumulate to Divisoria because someone planted and harvested these vegetable matters for food and I think anglers in Navotas and Cavite are doing a very good job@ Pablo in delivering their catch in Malabon.. So, can we also say that muggers, conmen, rapists, kidnappers and jerks flooded the streets of Divisoria because God also orchestrated them for the sake of the merchants and peddlers? Seriously speaking, this is really an example of fallacious argument. I think this is a sample of a hasty conclusion.

what data you want if you can see it everyday? the evidence are very near that it is right under your nose. lets not go further John the atheist, you are reading this message because you are able to read this because you are healthy. that alone is so much to be thankfull to God.

John the Atheist: This is another invalid inference. Being healthy is not proof of a god’s existence. It is a proof that I am careful with my body both physically and mentally. There are more Filipino today, who are not so healthy. To think about it, no one in this world can claim that he/she is 100% without health problems. Now base on Pablo’s argument, does that mean his god does not exist? Remember, Pablo insisted that being healthy is an evidence of his god’s existence.

i was scrolling in your group long time ago (this january or february, i cant remember the exact date) when i read about this story... (i will narrate it according to what i remembered and understand... i cant narrate it word by word but rather i will present it according to the essence... just correct me for accuracy if you know this or better if you could give me here the story that i am reffering to, it is in your group, i am serching it again in your group but i cant remember were is it)

there is a priest preaching the word of God in front of people... he is so devoted that he never tired to speak about the greatness of God to us...

also there is a police who dont believe that there is God. this man keep criticizing those believers about the existence of God... and nobody can challenge this man because he is so intelligent and so good to present his views, believers cant stand his rebuttals about God.

one time this man came to the priest while preaching in front of many people and boldly ask the priest to prove the existence of God infront of them...

“if God is existing, Let me dissapear in front of you and be forever be gone!!!"

... so he started to count loudly ...

everybody is silent and waiting what will happened


everybody were shocked and waiting for the man to just dissapear...


then you know what happened?

to their surprised the man did'nt disapear... he still standing unhurt and well infact and still healthy and intact...

"God doesnt exist because im still here!!!"
the police are very boasty that he sarcastically criticized the priest about his imaginary friend...

speechless and shocked the priest prayed silently and then he approach the police and said;

“if you exist, shoot me with your gun and let me die infront of them right now!"

so he started to count


the police were so shocked that he cant even lift the gun until the counting were over... everybody is silent and the priest stand still unhurt and healthy as before then the priest shout;

“this man is not existing!"

this story is so good that i want to have and read it again and ironically, i read it from the atheist group were john the atheist belong...

John the Atheist: I do not really know what the purpose of this story is. Is Pablo trying to prove his god by telling me a yarn? Hohum...

I have some questions on Pablo’s story.

1. If the police was so intelligent and so good to present his views, why did he say, “if God is existing, Let me dissapear in front of you and be forever be gone!!!” – That is not a good way to present an argument intelligently.

2. When the priest said, “If you exist, shoot me with your gun and let me die infront of them right now!” why the “intelligent police” did not say, “Since you are a believer Father, you believe that we all have free-will. I exist as a creature having a free will and I have my free will not to shot you. Therefore, you cannot say I do not exist just because I did not shot you Father. ”

3. Why do Christians like Pablo never study the story before posting them?

Telling tall tales and urban legends are not an effective way to disprove rationality.

well that story is very similar to all of you atheist who keep doubting the existence of God
John the Atheist: Rational people are not that dim-witted @ Pablo. Only delusional people fall to such twaddle.

Until next time,
John the Atheist

ATHEISM - A Philosophical Justification by Michael Martin (Temple University Press)
McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Science & Technology
Atheist Universe - David Mills (Ulysses Press)

No comments: