This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Religion Debate
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
yes,show me were you found that definition of proof because here proof=facts that have some obvious evidence left behind
A fact is a fact...
Joe is 6 feet tall.
The sun rose at 6:48 this morning.
There are 10 cents in a dime.
And those have some pretty obvious evidence behind them. But calling them "proofs" is absurd.
See the example I gave
above
...that is a logical proof.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
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 definition.
So, if the existence of this island is a predicament, it will exist.
Anselm's argument only works with TTWNGCBT (<3 aconyms). If i tried to replace it with, say, unicorn, it wouldn't work for obvious reasons (the
reductio ad absurdum
portion fails). It's the same with your island; because it's not TTWNGCBT, you can't get through that one portion and the argument falls apart.
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.
If the argument is, that existence is a definition of something
, then it is only a repeating of the initial argument and then the argument has brought us nothing.
That's not the argument...I'm not sure what part of it you got that from. The argument isn't to define God, it's to demonstrate that said concept must exist.
Post by
TheMediator
I think he means proof as in physical evidence of something. Its one of the definitions of the word.
Sort of like how people try to pass off their crazy ideas as theories, since that's an acceptable general definition, even if the actual technical definition doesn't match up.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
327953
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I think he means proof as in physical evidence of something. Its one of the definitions of the word.
Sort of like how people try to pass off their crazy ideas as theories, since that's an acceptable general definition, even if the actual technical definition doesn't match up.
thank you,couldn't say that better
If you're talking about whether the Physical Sciences can prove God's existence then your whole spiel on logic was a bit out of place.
Theories are statements based on unsubstantiated evidence. If you actually cared to look at the proofs I gave you'd see that they were substantiated...and even if you didn't agree that they were substantiated, you'd then be able to point to where the lack of evidence is.
In all honesty I can't understand people like you. You dismiss me for believing certain things without proof, and then you dismiss me again for providing proof for other things.
That being said, I'm going to end this branch of the argument unless you can bring any sort of logic into it.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
another problem that i see with religion is..
there are many gods, how do we know which god is the real god?
say that i am a radical islamist... it is my divine destiny to tie myself up with bombs and detonate myself. it is the only way to go to heaven to show your sacrifice to Allah.. will i be going to heaven and everyone else to hell?
or how about believing in god but denying jesus? will i go to hell if i don't believe in jesus?
or believing that jesus is also god? will i go to hell for thinking that jesus is the son of god?
we don't know which path is the real path.
anyways,
it's logical to say that in the beginning, there was a single organism, but how can that organism divide into so much diversity that we have today?
if cows were once our relatives, is it wrong to eat steak and pour some nice A-1 sauce on it?
and why are we the only beings that are intelligent. there is no other creature in this planet that can do what we humans have achieved.
apes and chimps are still in the forest. there has to be something that distinguished us from every other organism in this planet and that had to be a higher being, blessing or bestowing us the curse of being human.
this always rings up in my head..
i know there is a creator.
something cannot come out of nothingness.. but which is the right path back to our creator if there is one, or are we nothing more than mortal experiments to see what we would do just to humor and entertain god?
when a boy gets rejected by a girl, does god laugh at the boy, pity, or remorse with him?
You're jumping too far ahead. Before determining
who
God is, you have to determine
whether
he is. The former is dependent on the latter, but not vice versa.
As a philosopher, I can truthfully say that Jews, Christians, and Muslims (and even Native Americans to a good extent) all worship the same God (again, insofar as we consider philosophy). Each however developes their own theology which cannot be analyzed philosophically.
Post by
Starkie
Carry on.
Post by
327953
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
about the divesity.Let's acept everything started from a single super simple microrganism.This organism would start multiplying.After a X time it will spread over an area.Generally microrganisms tend to evolute quickly.As with this the microrganism strted having harder ....dunno how it is called in English, shell thingy anyways...in cold areas and thiner one in hotter ones.Generally species evolve faster than we think.We evolve faster than we think.Species can change diet within 10 or less generations.So thus the diversity.
This train of thought was addressed in the second of Thomas' arguments that I gave. Further sign that you didn't actually read them :P
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
i did read them...i know about the planned design blah blah it's all......won't swear.Anyway,yes weare indeed an accident...or more specifically a more successfull product of evolution that normal.Yes,church was created to give comfort of answers to enigmas that couldn't be explained at the time.Today is it strange that the main thing religions consern themselves with is afterlife?It is one of the few things that can't yet be explained and frightens humans
Who brought up planned design? Sure wasn't me. Argument 2 is based in causes.
Nothing can be it's own efficient/agent cause. It can't be an infinite string of agents because if there is no first cuase then there is no effect of the first cause (ie any number of intermediate causes) and thus no ultimate causes, which is clearly absurd. Therefore there must be some first agent cause which is uncaused...this is what we call God.
Post by
Skyfire
The 2nd and 5th case of Aquinas' arguments can be defeated simply:
With respect to the 2nd case, there is no reason we cannot eternally regress. Presuming we must have a first cause is poor form when we cannot know, either way.
With respect to the 5th, he makes the presumption that we were 1) created by intelligence, and 2) created for an end, neither assumption of which we can infer simply from our existence.
I have objections to the rest of his, but they're based on fuzzy memories from several months ago. I'll have a look into my philosophy notes to see if they ended up in there.
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I typed up a long reply in the other thread only to find it locked, and I lost my response Too #$%^ed off to bother writing it again.
Basically, I said the conclusion of (k) is wrong because the other possibility is that the original assumptions are flawed.
Which ones and in what way.
The 2nd and 5th case of Aquinas' arguments can be defeated simply:
With respect to the 2nd case, there is no reason we cannot eternally regress. Presuming we must have a first cause is poor form when we cannot know, either way.
With respect to the 5th, he makes the presumption that we were 1) created by intelligence, and 2) created for an end, neither assumption of which we can infer simply from our existence.
I have objections to the rest of his, but they're based on fuzzy memories from several months ago. I'll have a look into my philosophy notes to see if they ended up in there.
First of all, your use of "eternal" isn't the best since it is generally understood in relation to time. I'm not (and neither is Aquinas) arguing against an eternal regress (in fact, Aquinas later demonstrated that you can't prove that the universe had a beginning), but rather for an "infinite regress." It's not a "chicken and the egg" argument. I'm not sure if that was just a mistaken use of terms on your part or you really don't understand the argument, so I'll hold off re-explaining it until I find out what you meant.
Edit: Totally forgot to address you second point.
The 5th argument only uses the assumption of humans' being created in intelligence as an analogy. The argument itself only deals with unintelligent bodies.
Assume just for a second that everything does have an end. Unintelligent bodies would not be able to direct themselves towards that end (an arrow can't fly to the target by itself). There may even be a chain of unintelligent bodies acting on each other but it must always be initiated by an intelligent being (the archer in this case directing the bow to direct the arrow to the target). Now it should be fairly obvious that humans are not the cause of rocks, trees, birds, etc. fulfilling their ends so there must an intellegence higher than us which directs them. This is whom we call God.
Now to the issue of whether all things are directed towards an end (note the argument only needs unintelligent things to be directed towards an end). I would direct you to Aristotle for that. The fact that we know a rock won't start writing poetry implies that it has some end apart from that. If it had no end, we couldn't deny it the possibility.
Post by
Skyfire
First of all, your use of "eternal" isn't the best since it is generally understood in relation to time. I'm not (and neither is Aquinas) arguing against an eternal regress (in fact, Aquinas later demonstrated that you can't prove that the universe had a beginning), but rather for an "infinite regress."
Infinite, indeed.
I'll be back later. Have lines to memorize.
Post by
marmalade
imo, there are
two
three types of people who believe in god,
1. Those who truly believe in a higher being, with love and compassion for everyone.
2. The crazy people who completely misinterpret gods message and do things halfway insane.
3. And those who only believe because they think they're supposed too. Basically told to believe anything, which can but not necessarily leading to blindy following those in the #2 category.
___________________________________________________________________
then there are the non religious, who just spit on anyone religious for whatever reason.
then those who are kind and don't care if you believe what you believe.
I personally don't believe in god, but I'm not ruling it out all together. There
could
be a higher being watching over us.
But here is my question, how can our *Savior* let all these bad things happen to so many good people?
ie- rape, murder, kidnappings etc..
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
imo, there are
two
three types of people who believe in god,
1. Those who truly believe in a higher being, with love and compassion for everyone.
2. The crazy people who completely misinterpret gods message and do things halfway insane.
3. And those who only believe because they think they're supposed too. Basically told to believe anything, which can but not necessarily leading to blindy following those in the #2 category.
___________________________________________________________________
then there are the non religious, who just spit on anyone religious for whatever reason.
then those who are kind and don't care if you believe what you believe.
I honestly don't see how trying to force people into categories has any bearing on the discussion.
I personally don't believe in god, but I'm not ruling it out all together. There
could
be a higher being watching over us.
But here is my question, how can our *Savior* let all these bad things happen to so many good people?
ie- rape, murder, kidnappings etc..
I detailed a short dialectical argument
here
.
Post by
349103
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.