This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Religion Debate
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
108385
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Arathian
MoD is not going to like this...
Hell, any of the mods at that.
imo,we are getting somewhere.Lemme contribute.I am a person that believe in cold logic.I also live in Greece were everyone is an Christian Orthodox and the few that are not have serious problems.I am an atheist 3 years now.I simply cannot accept something because a guy with black robes told me.Heck,i don't accept anything from anyone without proof and i would accept something so grand as the existence of something all powerful without evidence?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
imo,we are getting somewhere.Lemme contribute.I am a person that believe in cold logic.I also live in Greece were everyone is an Christian Orthodox and the few that are not have serious problems.I am an atheist 3 years now.I simply cannot accept something because a guy with black robes told me.Heck,i don't accept anything from anyone without proof and i would accept something so grand as the existence of something all powerful without evidence?
This thread and this post in particular shows a great deal of misunderstanding of religion and of Christianity in particular. 90% of the proofs for God's existence are philosophical/logical.
And believe it or not Theology follows much the same lines of reasoning as philosophy, except you start with certain principles of faith (all of which have been a part of the faith since the beginning, and are not made up by priests as you so euphemistically put it).
TL;DR All you cold, logical people out there claiming there is no God....prove it. If all truth is logical truth, I want to see the logical argument.
Post by
Arathian
logic says that:nothing is true until proven not the other way around.If you provide me evidence of god's existance then god will exist till i bring evidence of the opposite.Till then the logic says that god doesn't exist
Post by
327953
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
logic says that:nothing is true until proven not the other way around.If you provide me evidence of god's existance then god will exist till i bring evidence of the opposite.
Till then the logic says that god doesn't exist
Haha what a faulty view of logic.
Logic says
NOTHING
until a proof is supplied
.
If no proof is supplied from either side, then the matter is a-logical.
But I'll humor you, though from what you've written so far I have a feeling this'll go way over you head :P
The Thomistic arguments. Aquinas is hard to digest at first if you're not used to his style/terminology so I'd be happy to clarify anything here.
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
Anselm's Ontological Argument (the break down (
found here
) isn't mine, but I have read the original and I can assure you that it is essentially the same)
Assumptions:
(a) By "God" we mean "a being than which no greater being can be conceived"
(b) We understand what it means to speak of a being than which no greater can be conceived. We understand what these words mean.
(c) We can conceive of such a being's existing in reality.
(d) If we understand what it means to speak of X, then X exists in the understanding.
From a + b + d we get:
(e) "God" exists in the understanding.
Reductio ad absurdum assumption:
(f) Suppose that "God" exists in the understanding but not in reality.
From f + c we get:
(g) "God" in fact exists in the understanding alone, but he may be conceived to exist in reality as well as in the understanding.
Assumption:
(h) If something exists in the understanding alone, but can be conceived to exist in reality, then that thing can be conceived to be greater than it actually is.
From g + h we get:
(i) "God" can be conceived to be greater than it actually is.
But i is absurd, so given our assumptions, f must be false. Therefore:
(k) God exists in reality.
QED
That's only a handful of proofs. Ball's in your court now.
Post by
Arathian
/sigh....i don't care about philosophies.If people worked hard enough everybody could get convinced that a pink pony will rule the world in 2873.All of this stuff you posted has NOTHING to do with proof.Some of them were interesting,the last one stupid imo,but non of these is proof.I can say a convincing arguement too....about anything but it doesn't mean that it is true.
edit:Plus,you really wanna start counter philosophies?
edit2:cause i can bring X10 times arguements you brought here in half the time
edit3:but it won't prove anything because it won't bring any PROOF that god doesn't exist as there isn't a PROOF that god exists
edit4:That's als why people still believe/don't believe,if there was proof for either everyone would believe/not believe
edit5:last edit
edit6:not really
Post by
210282
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
/sigh....i don't care about philosophies.If people worked hard enough everybody could get convinced that a pink pony will rule the world in 2873.All of this stuff you posted has NOTHING to do with proof.Some of them were interesting,the last one stupid imo,but non of these is proof.I can say a convincing arguement too....about anything but it doesn't mean that it is true.
HAHAHA
I have lost all respect for you and your "logic."
If they aren't proofs...PROVE IT!
You're no different than the "sheeple" you're so ardently against.
If anyone else would like to have a logical conversation on the proofs I supplied, I'd be more than willing.
Post by
210282
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Arathian
/sigh....i don't care about philosophies.If people worked hard enough everybody could get convinced that a pink pony will rule the world in 2873.All of this stuff you posted has NOTHING to do with proof.Some of them were interesting,the last one stupid imo,but non of these is proof.I can say a convincing arguement too....about anything but it doesn't mean that it is true.
HAHAHA
I have lost all respect for you and your "logic."
If they aren't proofs...PROVE IT!
You're no different than the "sheeple" you're so ardently against.
If anyone else would like to have a logical conversation on the proofs I supplied, I'd be more than willing.
/sigh again,let's start with the basics.Do you know what proof even means?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Regarding the Ontological proof, there's been two major backsides of this, one pointed out by Gaunilo, a monk living at the time of Anselm, and Immanuel Kant, a philisoph of the Enlightment.
Gaunilo pointed out, that if you can imagine an island of inconceivable perfection, then it too, must exist.
Kant easily points out the falsehood of the argument with this example:
Token: the cat is grey.
Now, if we say "the cat exists" we are not explained any of the cats abilities or its form, only that it exists. Therefore, 'existance' is not a predicate.
Thank you for actually being logical. Arathian, you should learn something from this guy.
To the Gaunilo argument:
Nope, you can't imagine an island of inconceivable perfection, for 2 reasons. First, inconceivable means that it can't be imagined. That word fails in an "ontological" argument; you can't argue from being if it's inconceivable.
Secondly, islands aren't perfect. You'd have to do better than that...a land without limits. But then better than that, a 3 dimensional area...and so on. You can keep adding better and better things on to things, which is why Anselm uses the term "that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought." He's not defining what that is...it's merely a starting term to be understood in itself.
To Kant:
That doesn't necessarily follow if you consider existence as an accident of the cat. It's not the essence of a cat to exist (that only can be said of God, but that's neither here nor there). So just like it's shape, color, etc. are accidents of the cat that can be predicated of it. So to can existence.
Post by
210282
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Arathian
/sigh....i don't care about philosophies.If people worked hard enough everybody could get convinced that a pink pony will rule the world in 2873.All of this stuff you posted has NOTHING to do with proof.Some of them were interesting,the last one stupid imo,but non of these is proof.I can say a convincing arguement too....about anything but it doesn't mean that it is true.
edit:Plus,you really wanna start counter philosophies?
Honestly, how do you believe you can describe something of the spiritual language with concepts of the empirical language? Niels Bohr shows how these two languages cannot be united, and are completely different for completely different purposes.
While the spiritual language describes moods, feelings or even god (as a mood or feeling), the empirical language deals with concepts able to be weighted, measured and calculated.
True,i didn't ask you to describe the god.I asked you to bring proof of his mere existense.l2proof ffs,proof =/=good arguements proof =/=description
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
/sigh again,let's start with the basics.Do you know what proof even means?
Yup, a proof is a combination of congruent arguments aimed towards a specific truth.
An argument is combination of meaningful declarative sentences, known as premises, which lead to some other single or set of declarative sentences, known as conclusions.
Any questions?
Edit: Example (silly, I know, but it illustrates a point)
Proof: That George Bush is not a plant
Arguement 1: (DARII argument)
GWB is a human being
Human beings are by definition rational animals
Therefore, GWB is a rational animal
Arguement 2: (DARII argument)
GWB is a rational animal
Every rational animal is by definition an animal
Therefore, GWB is an animal
Argument 3: (FERIO argument)
GWB is an animal
No animal is a plant
Therefore, GWB is not a plant
QED
Post by
Arathian
yes,show me were you found that definition of proof because here proof=facts that have some obvious evidence left behind
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
yes,show me were you found that definition of proof because here proof=obvious evidence that have some obvious evidence left behind
Show me where you studied English grammar; that makes not only no logical sense, but also no grammatical sense.
And I didn't "find" it anywhere. When you study a subject intensely, you tend to know things like definitions by heart.
Post by
Arathian
yes,show me were you found that definition of proof because here proof=obvious evidence that have some obvious evidence left behind
Show me where you studied English grammar; that makes, not only no logical sense, but also no grammatical sense.
And I didn't "find" it anywhere. When you study a subject intensely, you tend to know things like definitions by heart.
you are right actually about the grammatical sense,sorry for that editing it
Post by
210282
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.