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
122776
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Laihendi
1. If there was no God how was anything made? Now think beyond the formation of earth, there is so much space and it goes on forever but it all started some where.
2. For earth to exist it had to have been designed. Earth is perfect we have an atmosphere protecting us we spin, have a moon ,we're the perfect distance from the sun, the list keeps going. If any of this was slightly off we would not be here.
1. Nobody knows how the universe was created, or what existed before it. That doesn't mean everyone should just assume some god did it. If humans always attributed the unknown to God... then think of all the discoveries that have been made in human history that would never have been made.
Also... a question the religious never seem to consider when asking how anything was made: How was your god made?
2. Yes, the Earth has a a moon and is the right distance from the sun to support life... that's not God, that's gravity.
And there are countless planets and suns in the universe. It is only reasonable that among them, there will be some that end up the the right place, and contain the right conditions to support life. Now, how is life initially created? No one knows, but that doesn't mean God did it.
People should not attribute the unknown to God, because when they do, they no longer strive to learn, and then there is no more intellectual progress among humans.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm back! (No need to stand and applaud)
Work is over. The world is good.
1. If there was no God how was anything made? Now think beyond the formation of earth, there is so much space and it goes on forever but it all started some where.
You can't prove the universe has a beginning. And thus can't use that as a proof of God's existence.
Also... a question the religious never seem to consider when asking how anything was made: How was your god made?
That question is meaningless if you understand what we mean by God. We don't consider it because it is an intrinsic part of the definition.
Post by
MyTie
1. If there was no God how was anything made? Now think beyond the formation of earth, there is so much space and it goes on forever but it all started some where.
2. For earth to exist it had to have been designed. Earth is perfect we have an atmosphere protecting us we spin, have a moon ,we're the perfect distance from the sun, the list keeps going. If any of this was slightly off we would not be here.
1. Nobody knows how the universe was created, or what existed before it. That doesn't mean everyone should just assume some god did it. If humans always attributed the unknown to God... then think of all the discoveries that have been made in human history that would never have been made.
Also... a question the religious never seem to consider when asking how anything was made: How was your god made? The inverse is also true. Your counter-arguement is equally as invalid as the posed arguement.
2. Yes, the Earth has a a moon and is the right distance from the sun to support life... that's not God, that's gravity.
And there are countless planets and suns in the universe. It is only reasonable that among them, there will be some that end up the the right place, and contain the right conditions to support life. Now, how is life initially created? No one knows, but that doesn't mean God did it.
People should not attribute the unknown to God, because when they do, they no longer strive to learn, and then there is no more intellectual progress among humans.He isn't trying to propose that gravity is proof of God's existance. He is questioning the remarkable amount of coincidence inherent to our lives. You argue that he shouldn't immediately ascribe it to God. I agree. You, however, should not immediately dismiss the idea.
Post by
122776
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm getting my argument from St Thomas Aquinas might as well give a direct quote since he explains it much better
I already gave them Aquinas' arguments, either no one understands them or no one want's to admit they've been had; I think a total of maybe 3 people actually addressed them.
Post by
122776
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
It is impossible to hold such arguments BECAUSE:
Religous: It's all about faith, so no matter what it appears to be and you really just have to believe it's god.
Athiest: Can put limitless amounts of fact in religous peoples faces, but it's all about faith, so it doesn't matter.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
It is impossible to hold such arguments BECAUSE:
Religous: It's all about faith, so no matter what it appears to be and you really just have to believe it's god.
That's actually not true. If it were, why am I so adamant about philosophical proofs?
Post by
Laihendi
MyTie:
Laihendi didn't ask about how God was made as a way to disprove that God exists, he asked that question to point out that people can't ask how the universe was made as a way of "proving" God's existence.
Damontis:
Your argument is flawed from the beginning. The first point from the "Argument from Motion" is wrong. Senses don't prove an object is in motion. Senses don't prove anything. You can feel, see, hear, taste, and smell things that aren't there... whether it be in dreams, hallucinations, or whatever. That entire argument is based on a fallacy, which makes it invalid.
The second point... as far as humans know, nothing can exist without being created by something before it. That logically makes sense... but then you break that logic when you say God has always existed, and didn't need anything to exist before it.
The third argument: Once again, you're attributing the unknown to a being called God. Logically it would seem like something must have always existed for the universe to exist today. Does that mean it is some sort of
being
that has always existed? No. Maybe it was something that does not live, and only contains life that has always existed. Then maybe it was a God... but you have no way of knowing, and you're basing your beliefs off of an assumption.
Fourth argument: You are assuming that there is a maximum for everything. Heat.. you assume there is a maximum heat that can be attained. How do you know that temperature can't be raised one degree higher? You don't. And there is simply no way to explain how an item at the maximum heat (assuming such a thing exists...) is responsible for all heat in the universe. So the "maximum genus" theory doesn't hold up well at all... even when you assume that there is a "maximum genus."
Point Five... more assumptions. You say that natural bodies work toward some goal. Most natural bodies don't even have the capability to think. Inanimate objects do not work toward anything. If you're talking about life working toward a goal... does that mean it was determined by a god? No. Maybe it was... but you can't say an assumption is a fact, because it isn't. And many achieve goals through guidance from others... that still doesn't prove there is a God, that just shows that people have a habit of working together to accomplish things.
Post by
122776
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
MyTie:
Laihendi didn't ask about how God was made as a way to disprove that God exists, he asked that question to point out that people can't ask how the universe was made as a way of "proving" God's existence.
Yeah, I know.The inverse is also true. Your counter-arguement is equally as invalid as the posed arguement.Allow me to 'inverse' this for you:
People can't ask how the universe was made as a way of "disproving" God's existance.
WHICH MEANS that although you are showing his arguement is invalid, you are not showing that the opposite is true either.
Post by
kattib
I am going to stick in a fact about an experiment that I know of, it is called the primordial soup theory. An experiment was done where scientists gathered together the chemicals they thought were in the primordial soup, they then ran an electric current through them and they created amino acids (building blocks of protein and life). There are several flaws with the theory (listed
here
) I just wanted to throw that out there since I am bored currently.
I have my own ideas about religion and science and how they merge and I do not feel like stating them currently
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Damontis:
Your argument is flawed from the beginning. The first point from the "Argument from Motion" is wrong. Senses don't prove an object is in motion. Senses don't prove anything. You can feel, see, hear, taste, and smell things that aren't there... whether it be in dreams, hallucinations, or whatever. That entire argument is based on a fallacy, which makes it invalid.
Laihendi trusted his senses enough to assume someone actually wrote that.
Senses do prove that things are in motion. Why? Because first I sense something, then I don't. Something changed. Whether it was the object itself, or just my senses moving on my own, something did move. (Note we are not talking merely about locomoton...that one type of motion, but not the only type).
The second point... as far as humans know, nothing can exist without being created by something
before
it. That logically makes sense... but then you break that logic when you say God has
always
existed, and didn't need anything to exist
before
it.
Laihendi needs to look at the argument again, the premise is that "nothing is the efficient cause of itself," not as Laihendi said that everything has an efficient cause.
The third argument: Once again, you're attributing the unknown to a being called God.
Logically it would seem like something must have always existed for the universe to exist today. Does that mean it is some sort of
being
that has always existed?
No. Maybe it was something that does not live, and only contains life that has always existed. Then maybe it was a God... but you have no way of knowing, and you're basing your beliefs off of an assumption.
To paraphrase that bolded part: "logically x is true, so x is not true." Unless Laihendi is equivocating with the word "being." A being is something that exists (as opposed to non-being). A rock is a being (not a
living
being, ofc).
Fourth argument: You are assuming that there is a maximum for everything. Heat.. you assume there is a maximum heat that can be attained. How do you know that temperature can't be raised one degree higher? You don't. And there is simply no way to explain how an item at the maximum heat (assuming such a thing exists...) is responsible for all heat in the universe. So the "maximum genus" theory doesn't hold up well at all... even when you assume that there is a "maximum genus."
Actually Aquinas' example is wrong because physics wasn't advanced enough in his day. It would have to be flipped around nowadays. Absolute zero is the "utmost" as far as temperature is concerned.
Point Five... more assumptions. You say that natural bodies work toward some goal. Most natural bodies don't even have the capability to think. Inanimate objects do not work toward anything. If you're talking about life working toward a goal... does that mean it was determined by a god? No. Maybe it was... but you can't say an assumption is a fact, because it isn't. And many achieve goals through guidance from others... that still doesn't prove there is a God, that just shows that people have a habit of working together to accomplish things.
Work is probably a bad term to use because it's taken on different connotations since being used in physics.
Operantur propter finem
is better translated tends toward an end.
That being said, I've never been a fan of the fifth way.
Post by
Laihendi
1. Laihendi assumes that what he sees is real. That does not mean it is. Once again... senses don't
prove
anything. If Laihendi hallucinates and sees a cow floating in mid-air, that doesn't mean the cow is actually there, floating in mid-air.
2. If nothing is the efficient cause of itself, then God is not the efficient cause of himself. Laihendi's argument stands...
3. No... what you said isn't paraphrasing what Laihendi said. And yes, by "being", Laihendi meant "living being". But still, what you're saying does not represent what Laihendi said.
4. Absolute zero is theoretical... maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't. But as of right now, as far as humans know, it exists only in theory.
5. The fifth argument is still based on assumptions...
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
1. Laihendi assumes that what he sees is real. That does not mean it is. Once again... senses don't
prove
anything. If Laihendi hallucinates and sees a cow floating in mid-air, that doesn't mean the cow is actually there, floating in mid-air.
Laihendi is obviously a relativist. As such he just removed himself as a meaningful speaker in the conversation. We people over here who
know
we're having a conversation will carry on having it. You can stay and wait for us to vanish in a puff of smoke if you want.
2. If nothing is the efficient cause of itself, then God is not the efficient cause of himself. Laihendi's argument stands...
Who ever said God is his own efficient cause? Laihendi appears to be the only one.
3. No... what you said isn't paraphrasing what Laihendi said. And yes, by "being", Laihendi meant "living being". But still, what you're saying does not represent what Laihendi said.
Well then next time if Laihendi is going to use slightly different meanings for words then he should say so. Aquinas uses being in the sense I did.
Secondly, who ever said God was a
living
being? All it's saying is that some being must be necessary (as opposed to contingent). And we call this necessary being God.
4. Absolute zero is theoretical... maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't. But as of right now, as far as humans know, it exists only in theory. Temperature is the measure of kinetic energy in the atoms. Absolute zero (whatever it may be) is the point at which there is 0 kinetic energy. It is the limit.
Post by
MyTie
1. Laihendi assumes that what he sees is real. That does not mean it is. Once again... senses don't
prove
anything. If Laihendi hallucinates and sees a cow floating in mid-air, that doesn't mean the cow is actually there, floating in mid-air. I had the same thoughts. I agree with this point.2. If nothing is the efficient cause of itself, then God is not the efficient cause of himself. Laihendi's argument stands...Nothing proven by humans is the efficient cause of itself.3. No... what you said isn't paraphrasing what Laihendi said. And yes, by "being", Laihendi meant "living being". But still, what you're saying does not represent what Laihendi said.
4. Absolute zero is theoretical... maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't. But as of right now, as far as humans know, it exists only in theory. Absolute zero is not theoretical. It is simply unmeasurable.5. The fifth argument is still based on assumptions...As most, if not all, of your world is.
Post by
452972
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Laihendi
Hyperspacerebel:
Laihendi isn't a meaningful speaker because you think he's a relativist? Why do you assume that everything has to be absolute? What Laihendi has been saying is that you can't take assumptions for fact...
Laihendi will clarify his argument against the second point. It makes the assumption that a "series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past." That is not a fact. Nobody can even begin to know whether that is true or not, so it should not be treated as fact. That argument also states something cannot exist without a previous efficient cause, but states that God is the first efficient cause, and does not have a previous efficient cause. This argument is contradicting itself.
Third point... living in the sense that it is a being that thinks, makes choices, etc. If the God you are talking about is anything remotely close to any god worshiped by people, then it is the same thing that Laihendi is talking about. Either way, a being like that is only necessary according to the theory about necessary and contingent beings... which is a theory based on the assumption that a necessary being is required for contingent beings to exist, which means it cannot be taken as fact, and should not be treated as fact.
Absolute zero
is
a theory. Give an example of something or some place that exists at absolute zero. Until someone can, it exists only in theory.
All of MyTie's counters to Laihendi seem to be answered by Laihendi's response to Deepspacerebel or are insults, so Laihendi won't bother typing up another response to them.
Post by
MyTie
All of MyTie's counters to Laihendi seem to be answered by Laihendi's response to Deepspacerebel or are insults, so Laihendi won't bother typing up another response to them.
Insults? What?
If you think that me saying that most, if not all of your world is based on assumptions is an insult, then you need to relax a little. I think that most of everyone's world, including mine, is based on assumptions.
The biggest point I wanted to introduce is this:
Nothing that humans have discovered is the efficient cause of itself. Does this mean that there can be nothing to the contrary?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.