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
are you so weak that you need a crutch?
Until 3 weeks ago, yes...two crutches to be exact.
Post by
marmalade
I iz better than ju. I am so much stronger because I haven't accepted Jesus as my lord and savior. Your are all weak minded cowards
fix'd
Don't just post dumb, ignorant comments that really don't need to be posted.
Being an intolerant d-bag is just stoopid.
N' fyi, I also don't believe in God or religion.
Post by
TheMediator
LoL @ saying that evil doesn't exist if there isn't a God, what a joke. In both the deontological and utilitarian ethics system doing something that is harmful to someone else with little to no gain are considered wrong . If you define evil to mean violating someone's rights and at the same time lowering the overall happiness of society, then you can clearly track scientifically whether something is evil or not. I don't know many people who would disagree with this definition (unless you're on a religious crusade). So, we assigned the definition of evil... where does God fit in?
Yes, if you define things in a way that makes their interpretation subjective, of course you'll then say that you can't objectively determine things. But that's your own damn fault, it'd be like counting things in terms of "a little", "a lot", etc and then whining its hard to lock down the exact number of something, when there's a perfectly good number system in place.
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
(a) Why does "god" automatically = the greatest thing that can possibly be conceived ?
He defines the word that way. Nothing wrong with saying that's what it is.
(b) The basic concept of god, we can understand ... but to actually assume we can understand the existence of a being than which no greater can be conceived is a big leap. I don't think this assumption is valid... Maybe a being as great as WE can conceive, but the being that has nothing greater that CAN BE conceived? I don't think we even come close to understanding that.
Agreed. This is where the logic falls apart. We can understand the concept of infinity, but we can't understand what something infinite would be in reality. Try to imagine something infinitely small or large... then however small or large that thing is, within that thing there is still something infinitely smaller, or something infinitely larger. The easiest infinity to deal with is the infinite number of points between 0 and 1. Still, as you start breaking it down into points, between each point there is that number of points, and then repeat that process again, and again, and again, and again, and again, etc., until you die, and you're still effectively 0% of the way of describing the number of points.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
(a) Why does "god" automatically = the greatest thing that can possibly be conceived ?
He defines the word that way. Nothing wrong with saying that's what it is.
(b) The basic concept of god, we can understand ... but to actually assume we can understand the existence of a being than which no greater can be conceived is a big leap. I don't think this assumption is valid... Maybe a being as great as WE can conceive, but the being that has nothing greater that CAN BE conceived? I don't think we even come close to understanding that.
Agreed. This is where the logic falls apart. We can understand the concept of infinity, but we can't understand what something infinite would be in reality. Try to imagine something infinitely small or large... then however small or large that thing is, within that thing there is still something infinitely smaller, or something infinitely larger. The easiest infinity to deal with is the infinite number of points between 0 and 1. Still, as you start breaking it down into points, between each point there is that number of points, and then repeat that process again, and again, and again, and again, and again, etc., until you die, and you're still effectively 0% of the way of describing the number of points.
TTWNGCBT (that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought) is a definition, yes.
On the second point...the argument has nothing to do with understanding or describing God, all it is is demonstrating that he exists. I can't describe infinity, true, but I know that it exists, or else we couldn't predicate anything of it.
The premises are not reliant on TTWNGCBT being knowable by us. All (b) is saying is that the phrase TTWNGCBT is an intelligible phrase.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
LoL @ saying that evil doesn't exist if there isn't a God, what a joke. In both the deontological and utilitarian ethics system doing something that is harmful to someone else with little to no gain are considered wrong . If you define evil to mean violating someone's
rights
and at the same time lowering the overall happiness of society, then you can clearly track scientifically whether something is evil or not. I don't know many people who would disagree with this definition (unless you're on a religious crusade). So, we assigned the definition of evil... where does God fit in?
Yes, if you define things in a way that makes their interpretation subjective, of course you'll then say that you can't objectively determine things. But that's your own damn fault, it'd be like counting things in terms of "a little", "a lot", etc and then whining its hard to lock down the exact number of something, when there's a perfectly good number system in place.
Rights? Well, you can't posit inalienable rights. What then makes something a right besides custom?
Bottom line as you so elegantly put...everything's subjective and relative. Who are you to tell me my rights? Who are you to say I
can't
do xyz? If there is no external standard, nothing is really evil, even according to your definition.
"Perfectly good number system" - You're positing a completely arbitrary numbering system for evilness? What makes your numbering system the right numbering system?
Essentially you're saying "I don't believe in an extrinsic standard of morality...but I know for a fact that my standard is right." They just don't work together.
Post by
TheMediator
The premises are not reliant on TTWNGCBT being knowable by us.
vvv
Hyperspacerebel(c) We can conceive of such a being's existing in reality.
We can understand the concept of infinity, but we can't understand what something infinite would be in reality.
You could say you could understand the concept of "a being than which no greater being can be conceived", but try to explain it without saying "God", or infinity, or another abstract concept that itself can't be explained, and you'll realize you really can't truly conceive of something like that.
Rights? Well, you can't posit inalienable rights. What then makes something a right besides custom?
If I am doing something that does not interfere with anyone else, and you do something that interferes with me doing what I am doing, you are violating my rights. Basically, one must act in a way that only he is affected by his own actions, or else he will be violating the rights of others. Pretty cut and dry way of saying things. There's no iffy space, if you effect me, you violate my rights. If I effect you, I violate your rights. Throw in the utilitarian factor, and you get a system that mostly parallels the moral system that most people already have.
Who are you to say I can't do xyz?
You can do XYZ, but it doesn't mean you didn't violate someone's rights. Just like murder happens everyday, but according to you it can't happen because God said "Thou shalt not kill".
If you mean extrinsic standard of morality to mean a morality system that isn't circumstantial and can be applied universally, sure I know it exists... I just don't think some old geezer who sent his son to die because a snake told a woman to eat an apple made it up. Math is pretty universal, doesn't mean God has to exist otherwise 2+2 suddenly equals snake.
Post by
452972
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
349103
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Arcage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz6T5rr3DrA
It must be pretty cool listening to nuts like this. Fortunate, I can think for myself. Must suck being weak...
you know if you put him in a garbage bag, some rags, they'd lock him in a mental institution.
and this guy makes money of the desperate weakness of others..
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
(a) Why does "god" automatically = the greatest thing that can possibly be conceived ?
He defines the word that way. Nothing wrong with saying that's what it is.
No, not for the premise of the proof.. but once the proof fails, the assumptions must be wrong. IE: One possibility is that the definition of "God" is incorrect.
Definitions cannot be incorrect if they are defined prior to the argument. Essentially what it means is "When I say the word God, I mean TTWNGCBT." So if you're going to prove to me that said God does not exist, you have to use that definition.
I'll address you're topic later, TheMediator, I'm booked almost all day :P
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The whole point of a proof is to start with something that is known and build from there.
If i can start with any definitions that I want to, I can prove anything.
You can define god to mean anything you want and attempt to prove it, but when the proof fails ... it shows the definition to be flawed. I am not saying that proves that god does not exist. I'm simply saying that the proof does not prove that he does.
No you can't. let's take an example.
I define God as a hamburger.
Then I go and prove that said hamburger exists.
Therefore God exists, right?
Yes, but only God
qua
hamburger. If you then proceed to go out and tell random people that God exists, then you're equivocating. Because you definition of God is different than theirs.
I'll say it again,
definitions in and of themselves cannot be flawed.
Misuse of definitions can, but that's different.
But a smart person like you Hyper, could surely see how many holes and how much
lack of evidence
there is to support
what you believe
, so then why do you specifically believe what you do?
Those two things have nothing to do with each other. I know things via logic and philosophy, I believe things via faith. Evidence only falls under the first, not the second.
I'll right, I really have to go now...you won't see me till late tonight.
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
147614
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
Good post. I'm not sure why people are so adamant about proving the existence of a greater being, when proving that has little to no association with proving that Yahweh came down to earth in the form of his own son to get killed so that the sins that all humans had when a woman ate an apple at the request of a snake were able to be purged from our systems.
I have no disagreement with the concept that there is a first cause, but I don't know if I can agree that the first cause is actually some deity appearing out of nowhere and creating the universe, I'd have an even harder time seeing that deity creating humans, and even a harder time than that seeing that deity caring about every single individual human on earth ever.
First cause, ok, makes sense... but then how do you go from that to saying that God is his own father, his own son, and the holy spirit all at the same time with that original proof?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.