|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
extro...*
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:32 am Post subject: 41 |
 |
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Define 'wrong' in your worldview please. |
It doesn't matter! |
Really, right and wrong don't matter in your worldview?!?
|
No, I meant how I define it doesn't matter with regard to your proof. Why are you asking questions at all? Present your proof.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
Suppose I say: In my world view, wrong means anything that is morally wrong, in the absolute moral sense, as I believe there is an absolute moral right and wrong.
I may believe there is.
You said you'll prove there is. Now go ahead: prove my belief is correct.
|
I said I would prove that God exists. The proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything. The fact that you believe that absolute morals exist has nothing to do with the proof. The fact that absolute morals exist is evidence that God exists.
|
OK, if the fact that absolute morals exist is essential to your proof that God exists, then you need to prove that fact too. If it isn't essential, then I'll drop it - you don't need to prove it.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
Are you suggesting that if somebody objects to something, it must be wrong? |
Of course not, but for the objection to have meaning it must have a foundation. |
| extro...* wrote: |
Perhaps it has no meaning. |
We almost agree here. Your objection has no meaning. |
And if my objection to rape and child molestation has no meaning, this furthers your argument ... how?
Can you explain that? I'm looking at it, but I'm not seeing either a proof that God is required for anyone to prove anything, or a proof of the impossibility of the contrary of that.
What do you mean by:
| Quote: |
| The argument is that you must borrow from the Christian worldview, and a God who makes universal, immaterial, unchanging laws possible in order to prove anything. |
In what sense must I "borrow from the Christian worldview"? People proved things long before there was a Christian worldview.
And in that very sentence, are you assuming the existence of "a God who makes universal, immaterial, unchanging laws possible", or are you proving the existence of such?
I'm glad you pointed me to that page (which I had already read), but I think the argument presented could be fleshed out a bit to make clear the premises, logical inferences and conclusions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Coyote
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:35 am Post subject: 42 |
|
|
From the link given:
| Quote: |
Note that the proof does not say that professed unbelievers do not prove things. The argument is that you must borrow from the Christian worldview, and a God who makes universal, immaterial, unchanging laws possible in order to prove anything.
In logic, this type of proof is called 'transcendental logic,' or 'the impossibility of the contrary,' where God is the basis for any rational thought. Only the Christian worldview can logically support rationality. |
You've stated the impossibility of the contrary here, but you haven't actually demonstrated it. Why can't the universal laws simply exist, uncaused? It would still be possible to prove things, by basing our proofs on the existence of those laws.
You seem to be arguing that we're not justified in basing proofs on those laws unless we can account for their existence, and that we can account for their existence by postulating a God.
But then, should we not also be required to account for the existence of God in order to justify those proofs--perhaps by postulating a 'Meta-God'?
On the other hand, if it's not necessary to account for the existence of God in order to justify our proofs, why can't it be equally unecessary to account for the existence of universal laws? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:00 am Post subject: 43 |
|
|
Wow, broke my own record at getting ignored. 
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:29 pm Post subject: 44 |
|
|
Proof that God does not exist.- God is all-powerful and can do anything, so for any x, the question "Could God do x?" would have to be answered "yes."
- God is perfect and therefore has no unnecessary attributes since a useless feature would be an imperfection.
- Would God be able to do everything that He has done even if He didn't exist? The answer must be yes.
- Since God doesn't need to exist, existence is a useless attribute to Him.
- Since God has no useless attributes, God doesn't exist.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:01 pm Post subject: 45 |
|
|
But everything exists. Formal proof follows:
Claim: For all X, X Exists.
Proof is by contradiction.
We take the negation of the claim: There exists an X such that X does not exist.
The negation of the claim is immediately absurd.
QED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mudbuck
Dirty Dollar
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:51 pm Post subject: 46 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| mudbuck wrote: |
Every group that shares the same general beliefs has morals, distinct from other groups. And yes, group consensus is right |
So the Nazis were right?!? |
Under their national democracy, yes. However, in a world democracy, they would lose, even with some support.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| mudbuck wrote: |
You might be mistaken for things such as murder and rape following absolute universal morals just because the groups behind those morals are extremely large, extending almost around the world, but that does not make it right for the smaller groups that think otherwise. |
Absolute morals have absolutely nothing to do with the amount of people that support them. |
I never said they're absolute, I'm saying you're mistaking them for being absolute. If anything, moral is carried in the majority of the population. What seems absolute in a Christian population is just a fraction of the worldview. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:24 pm Post subject: 47 |
|
|
Let me focus on just one of the arguments listed above.
That absolute morality is a consequence of the existence of God.
This means that God chooses what is right and what is wrong (otherwise he just agreed with a pre-existing absolute morality).
This also means God is good by definition (His own definition, by which we must abide).
Now if I was to cut my son's throat and offer it up as a sacrifice to God, I think you would all agree that this would be morally wrong.
Yet, this is what, the Bible tells us, that Abraham was asked by God to do.
Naturally, it was not immoral in this case, because it was God's will.
So what is moral is just whatever God thinks at the time.
Doesn't seem very absolute to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:00 pm Post subject: 48 |
|
|
I'll settle for proof of any one of the four itaclicized claims below where the proof does not assume one of the other three as a premise, implicitly or explicitly. The first and third are directly from the site. The second and fourth I added as, when pressed, the author stated that the proof of one of them was the impossibility of the contrary (isn't that called begging the question?).
Proof of "Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist."
Proof of the impossibility of the contrary to the above, i.e. proof of "It is impossible that universal, immaterial, unchanging laws could exist in a universe that is not governed by God."
Proof of "Only in a universe governed by God can rational thinking be possible."
Proof of the impossibility of the contrary to the above, i.e. proof of "It is impossible that rational thinking could be possible in a universe that is not governed by God."
I ask for proof, and not hand-waving arguments, because proof is what the author claims to have.
Hmmm..., wait - what's all this:
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/welcome.php
| Quote: |
| If you are honest with what you truly believe, this website will lead you to the proof that God exists. This website offers logical proof, not persuasion. |
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/about-this-site.php
| Quote: |
| Contrary to how it may appear, this website is in no way trying to prove that God exists, I am only using this website to demonstrate that there IS proof that God exists. |
Whatever. Prove one of the four italicized statements above, or just demonstrate that there IS proof (they're quivalent to me). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:17 pm Post subject: 50 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| Wow, broke my own record at getting ignored. |
Sorry, did not mean to ignore you, I just thought that arguing with someone who thinks that the law of non-contradiction could be wrong is utterly pointless.
I something could possibly be true and not true at the same time, then what is the point in arguing about what is true?
I will try to get to the other posts when I have some time - possibly this evening.
Cheers,
Sye
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:41 pm Post subject: 51 |
|
|
Since this is a puzzle site, I thought I'd add this conundrum here:
| Gen 46:5-11 wrote: |
5 Then Jacob left Beersheba, and Israel's sons took their father Jacob and their children and their wives in the carts that Pharaoh had sent to transport him.
6 They also took with them their livestock and the possessions they had acquired in Canaan, and Jacob and all his offspring went to Egypt.
7 He took with him to Egypt his sons and grandsons and his daughters and granddaughters—all his offspring.
8 These are the names of the sons of Israel (Jacob and his descendants) who went to Egypt:
Reuben the firstborn of Jacob.
9 The sons of Reuben:
Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron and Carmi.
10 The sons of Simeon:
Jemuel, Jamin, Ohad, Jakin, Zohar and Shaul the son of a Canaanite woman.
11 The sons of Levi:
Gershon, Kohath and Merari. |
So Kohath existed before the Israelites entered Egypt.
And...
| Exodus 6:18-20 wrote: |
18 The sons of Kohath were Amram, Izhar, Hebron and Uzziel. Kohath lived 133 years.
19 The sons of Merari were Mahli and Mushi.
These were the clans of Levi according to their records.
20 Amram married his father's sister Jochebed, who bore him Aaron and Moses. Amram lived 137 years. |
So the Israelites were in Egypt a maximum of 270 years before Moses was born.
Now...
| Deut 34:7 wrote: |
| 7 Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone. |
So the absolute maximum amount of time the Israelites could have spent in Egypt must be less than 390 years.
So how come, given that there are no errors in the Bible, it states...
| Exodus 12:40-41 wrote: |
40 Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt [a] was 430 years.
41 At the end of the 430 years, to the very day, all the LORD's divisions left Egypt. |
I wonder if absolute laws of logic do not apply to God's word.
After all he can change those at a whim too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coyote
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:39 am Post subject: 52 |
|
|
Heh..I've seen that video, and it's definitely a classic. One of the best rebuttals I've heard asks how those two would explain the existence of the pineapple. 
It's the sort of link that would be well suited for OT...but we're in S,A,&C now, and so I would ask that discussions be treated a bit more seriously.
It's not that I have a problem with the occasional joshing around in this forum--I'm sure I've indulged in that a few times myself here. But normally those threads are populated mainly by long-established members.
But in this thread, the primary focus is upon someone who is, essentially, a guest here. And not just a guest who's dropped by to say 'hi', but one who's entered a wholly foreign environment to defend an argument that several long-standing members are in clear disagreement with.
I may not agree with Canuckfish, but I think he's shown the courage of his convictions, and I respect him for that. I would not repay that courage with irrelevant derision, and I hope everyone else here will follow suit.
There's still plenty of room for irrelevant derision in OT, you know.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Amb
Amb the Hitched.
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:02 am Post subject: 53 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So Kohath existed before the Israelites entered Egypt. |
Discluding the possibility of more than one persone with this name of course? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:25 am Post subject: 54 |
|
|
Hear, hear Coyote.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:49 am Post subject: 55 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
Regrading the question of whether you ever proved: Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
Again, as noted in the site, the proof is the impossibility of the contrary.
|
Can you please elaborate on your proof of the impossibility of the contrary? That is, your proof that universal, immaterial, unchanging laws can't exist in a universe not governed by God. What is the proof of that?
|
First let's note that you said the proof of the 'impossibility of the contrary," was not in the site. You did not acknowledge that you were wrong about this.
The impossiblity of the contrary means that if it is impossible for it not to to be true. Of course you are free to deny this, but you would have to show how universal, immaterial, unchanging laws CAN exist in a universe without God.
| extro...* wrote: |
Apart from God, neither you nor I can account for it. So what?
|
If you cannot account for logic, you cannot rationally support your worldview, whatever it may be. Please try it if you like though.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
Again, there have been many things throughout history which nobody could account for, which today are accounted for. If I can't account for these things apart from God today, that doesn't mean someone won't be able to tomorrow. |
That's the problem with your worldview, you live by blind faith. |
| extro...* wrote: |
Huh? You don't know me or how I live, but you delved into that because you can't chew what you bit off when you claimed to be able to prove something.
You are using the fact that we can't account for something as proof of God's existence. |
No, the proof is that without God you could not prove anything, we prove things, therefore God exists.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:52 am Post subject: 56 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
Very enjoyable discussion everyone and I thank everyone for being civil.
*prays it stays that way* |
Thanks Samadhi. Just out of curiosity, who do you pray to? 
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:53 am Post subject: 57 |
|
|
I was being intentionally ironic. 
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:06 am Post subject: 58 |
|
|
To clarify, I'm essentially (as I see it) an agnostic atheist.
My personal interpretation of agnostic is that faith is belief without proof.
I'm atheist because it doesn't seem logical or necessary, and so would require me to be "touched" as it were. And I haven't. But not for lack of desire.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:20 am Post subject: 59 |
|
|
Sorry extro, but I've had to skip some of your posts. If you would consolidate your questions into one post, it would be easier for me to answer them. I do not have the time to answer each of your posts.
| extro...* wrote: |
I'll settle for proof of any one of the four itaclicized claims below where the proof does not assume one of the other three as a premise, implicitly or explicitly. The first and third are directly from the site. The second and fourth I added as, when pressed, the author stated that the proof of one of them was the impossibility of the contrary (isn't that called begging the question?).
Proof of "Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist."
Proof of the impossibility of the contrary to the above, i.e. proof of "It is impossible that universal, immaterial, unchanging laws could exist in a universe that is not governed by God."
Proof of "Only in a universe governed by God can rational thinking be possible."
Proof of the impossibility of the contrary to the above, i.e. proof of "It is impossible that rational thinking could be possible in a universe that is not governed by God."
I ask for proof, and not hand-waving arguments, because proof is what the author claims to have. |
Ok, look the only proof I offer on the site is the proof that God exists. All the other ones you have listed are true as well "by the impossibility of the contrary." If you like, pose a contrary, so we can evaluate it here.
I don't see the difficulty here, as I said, I am not trying to prove that God exists, I merely offer the proof, and those who are honest with what they truly believe, will find it.
| extro...* wrote: |
Whatever. Prove one of the four italicized statements above, or just demonstrate that there IS proof (they're quivalent to me). |
The proof is the impossibility of the contrary. You are free to posit a contrary which we can evaluate here in order to test the validity of the proof.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:45 am Post subject: 60 |
|
|
| Coyote wrote: |
You've stated the impossibility of the contrary here, but you haven't actually demonstrated it. Why can't the universal laws simply exist, uncaused? It would still be possible to prove things, by basing our proofs on the existence of those laws.
|
You make a good point and it shows that you are well read on this topic.
How would you know whether a law is universal if it is uncaused?
| Coyote wrote: |
You seem to be arguing that we're not justified in basing proofs on those laws unless we can account for their existence, and that we can account for their existence by postulating a God.
But then, should we not also be required to account for the existence of God in order to justify those proofs--perhaps by postulating a 'Meta-God'?
On the other hand, if it's not necessary to account for the existence of God in order to justify our proofs, why can't it be equally unecessary to account for the existence of universal laws? |
We can account for the existence of God as He has revealed in His word that He has always existed. The problem with assuming the uncaused existence of universal laws, is that as I said, you would have no way of knowing that they are universal. They would end up being contingent to your experiences and not be law-like.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:50 am Post subject: 61 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| Proof that God does not exist.[list][*]God is all-powerful and can do anything, so for any x, the question "Could God do x?" would have to be answered "yes." |
This is a fallacy. Nowhere does it say that being all powerful means that God can do anything. God can only do things that are consistent with His nature. For instance, if I was all powerful, I could walk through a wall, but I could not both walk through a wall and not walk through a wall at the same time.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:55 am Post subject: 62 |
|
|
| mudbuck wrote: |
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| mudbuck wrote: |
Every group that shares the same general beliefs has morals, distinct from other groups. And yes, group consensus is right |
So the Nazis were right?!? |
Under their national democracy, yes. |
Tell that to a German Jew circa 1940.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:55 am Post subject: 63 |
|
|
| It's not a fallacy. It's proof that an all-powerful being is impossible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:58 am Post subject: 64 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| It's not a fallacy. It's proof that an all-powerful being is impossible. |
This is ridiculous. It would be like arguing that an all-knowing being is impossible because it does not know that 2+2 = Penguin.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:03 am Post subject: 65 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
Let me focus on just one of the arguments listed above.
That absolute morality is a consequence of the existence of God.
This means that God chooses what is right and what is wrong (otherwise he just agreed with a pre-existing absolute morality).
This also means God is good by definition (His own definition, by which we must abide).
Now if I was to cut my son's throat and offer it up as a sacrifice to God, I think you would all agree that this would be morally wrong.
Yet, this is what, the Bible tells us, that Abraham was asked by God to do.
Naturally, it was not immoral in this case, because it was God's will.
So what is moral is just whatever God thinks at the time.
Doesn't seem very absolute to me. |
Absolute morality is not 'whatever God thinks at the time,' it is a reflection of the character of God.
By what standard "would you all agree" that cutting your son's throat was absolutely morally wrong?
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:06 am Post subject: 66 |
|
|
| God cannot be all-knowing. He might very well be aware of everything that exists but He can't know for sure that there isn't more. If there were something that He wasn't aware of then His knowledge would be exactly the same as it is now. Since there would be no difference as far as He's concerned He can never know for sure that He knows about everything. This constitutes a gap in His knowledge. Omniscience is impossible, even for God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:15 am Post subject: 67 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
Since this is a puzzle site, I thought I'd add this conundrum here: ...
So how come, given that there are no errors in the Bible, it states... Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt [a] was 430 years.
41 At the end of the 430 years, to the very day, all the LORD's divisions left Egypt. |
I'm sorry, but I do not have time to do an exegesis on the Old Testament chronology of the exile. One thing is for certain though that any evidence for or against Biblical accuracy will be viewed through the lense of our individually presupposed worldviews.
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
I wonder if absolute laws of logic do not apply to God's word.
After all he can change those at a whim too. |
Yes, logic applies to the word of God.
God did not create the laws of logic, they reflect His thinking, and therefore cannot change.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:21 am Post subject: 68 |
|
|
| Coyote wrote: |
Heh..I've seen that video, and it's definitely a classic. One of the best rebuttals I've heard asks how those two would explain the existence of the pineapple.
It's the sort of link that would be well suited for OT...but we're in S,A,&C now, and so I would ask that discussions be treated a bit more seriously.
It's not that I have a problem with the occasional joshing around in this forum--I'm sure I've indulged in that a few times myself here. But normally those threads are populated mainly by long-established members.
But in this thread, the primary focus is upon someone who is, essentially, a guest here. And not just a guest who's dropped by to say 'hi', but one who's entered a wholly foreign environment to defend an argument that several long-standing members are in clear disagreement with.
I may not agree with Canuckfish, but I think he's shown the courage of his convictions, and I respect him for that. I would not repay that courage with irrelevant derision, and I hope everyone else here will follow suit.
There's still plenty of room for irrelevant derision in OT, you know. |
Thanks Wile E.
I actually don't mind the 'joshing around,' and have come to expect straw man arguments. Just because some Christians make dopey videos does not mean that God does not exist
Things are getting a little unwieldly here though. I hope that only people with legitimate questions or comments post, so that I can keep up with the answers.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mudbuck
Dirty Dollar
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:25 am Post subject: 69 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| mudbuck wrote: |
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| mudbuck wrote: |
Every group that shares the same general beliefs has morals, distinct from other groups. And yes, group consensus is right |
So the Nazis were right?!? |
Under their national democracy, yes. |
Tell that to a German Jew circa 1940. |
That doesn't change the facts. You're just trying to make me feel bad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:25 am Post subject: 70 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
To clarify, I'm essentially (as I see it) an agnostic atheist.
My personal interpretation of agnostic is that faith is belief without proof.
I'm atheist because it doesn't seem logical or necessary, and so would require me to be "touched" as it were. And I haven't. But not for lack of desire. |
Of course the Christian claim is that all men know God, and are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1 18 - 20).
One of the ways this is evidenced in that you reason, but deny the only One who makes reasoning possible.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:30 am Post subject: 71 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| God cannot be all-knowing. He might very well be aware of everything that exists but He can't know for sure that there isn't more. |
And er, how do YOU know this Chuck? Wouldn't you have to be all knowing to know what cannot be known?
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:33 am Post subject: 72 |
|
|
| mudbuck wrote: |
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| mudbuck wrote: |
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| mudbuck wrote: |
Every group that shares the same general beliefs has morals, distinct from other groups. And yes, group consensus is right |
So the Nazis were right?!? |
Under their national democracy, yes. |
Tell that to a German Jew circa 1940. |
That doesn't change the facts. You're just trying to make me feel bad. |
Um no, Maybe I should re-word. Ask a German Jew who was part of the German society back in 1940 if what his society did was, as you claim, right.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:34 am Post subject: 73 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| God cannot be all-knowing. He might very well be aware of everything that exists but He can't know for sure that there isn't more. |
And er, how do YOU know this Chuck? Wouldn't you have to be all knowing to know what cannot be known? |
I proved it using the universal and unchanging logic that you claim exists. I don't know everything. I know this because there's absolute proof. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canuckfish
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:19 am Post subject: 74 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| God cannot be all-knowing. He might very well be aware of everything that exists but He can't know for sure that there isn't more. |
And er, how do YOU know this Chuck? Wouldn't you have to be all knowing to know what cannot be known? |
I proved it using the universal and unchanging logic that you claim exists. I don't know everything. I know this because there's absolute proof. |
But um, I claim that these laws can only exist if God exists. So isn't your absolute proof self-refuting?
Feel free to posit an alternate explanation for universal, abstract, invariant laws to support your proof though.
_________________
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:34 am Post subject: 75 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Samadhi wrote: |
To clarify, I'm essentially (as I see it) an agnostic atheist.
My personal interpretation of agnostic is that faith is belief without proof.
I'm atheist because it doesn't seem logical or necessary, and so would require me to be "touched" as it were. And I haven't. But not for lack of desire. |
Of course the Christian claim is that all men know God, and are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1 18 - 20).
One of the ways this is evidenced in that you reason, but deny the only One who makes reasoning possible. |
I don't, and you seem to agree.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| God did not create the laws of logic |
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:04 am Post subject: 76 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| God cannot be all-knowing. He might very well be aware of everything that exists but He can't know for sure that there isn't more. |
And er, how do YOU know this Chuck? Wouldn't you have to be all knowing to know what cannot be known? |
I proved it using the universal and unchanging logic that you claim exists. I don't know everything. I know this because there's absolute proof. |
But um, I claim that these laws can only exist if God exists. So isn't your absolute proof self-refuting?
Feel free to posit an alternate explanation for universal, abstract, invariant laws to support your proof though. |
There's no evidence that God is required for logic to exist. Even if He is required, it might be that He doesn't exist and all of our attempts at reasoning are useless. Even if He does exist, He's certainly not all-powerful and all-knowing since those attributes are logically impossible according to His own system of reasoning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:34 am Post subject: 77 |
|
|
| Quote: |
Sorry, did not mean to ignore you, I just thought that arguing with someone who thinks that the law of non-contradiction could be wrong is utterly pointless.
I something could possibly be true and not true at the same time, then what is the point in arguing about what is true? |
Beats me, but it kinda puts a damper on the whole "proof that God exists", don't you think? I mean, if you can't prove it unless the other guy agrees to some assumptions, then it's possible those assumptions are wrong and then God doesn't exist, and boy would your face be red.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:03 am Post subject: 78 |
|
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
Regrading the question of whether you ever proved: Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
Again, as noted in the site, the proof is the impossibility of the contrary.
|
Can you please elaborate on your proof of the impossibility of the contrary? That is, your proof that universal, immaterial, unchanging laws can't exist in a universe not governed by God. What is the proof of that?
|
First let's note that you said the proof of the 'impossibility of the contrary," was not in the site. You did not acknowledge that you were wrong about this.
|
I'm not wrong about this. I'm asking you to elaborate because the "proof", as you would call it, is incomplete, and as such is not a prof at all.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| The impossiblity of the contrary means that if it is impossible for it not to to be true. |
Obviously. But can you prove it is impossible for it not to be true? You haven't even made an attempt at that yet.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
Of course you are free to deny this, but you would have to show how universal, immaterial, unchanging laws CAN exist in a universe without God.
|
I'm free to deny it, but I'm not denying it. You're free to prove it, as you say you can, but you haven't.
Understand that my failure to prove the contrary of your claim does not constitute a proof of your claim. The burden of proof is on the one who claims to be able to prove - YOU.
| extro...* wrote: |
Apart from God, neither you nor I can account for it. So what?
|
| Canuckfish wrote: |
| If you cannot account for logic, you cannot rationally support your worldview, whatever it may be. Please try it if you like though. |
I don't agree, but I won't debate it, as it's irrelevant to your unsubstantiated claim about what you can prove.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
No, the proof is that without God you could not prove anything, we prove things, therefore God exists. |
But you haven't proved that without God you could not prove anything. You merely state it.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
Sorry extro, but I've had to skip some of your posts. If you would consolidate your questions into one post, it would be easier for me to answer them. I do not have the time to answer each of your posts.
| extro...* wrote: |
I'll settle for proof of any one of the four itaclicized claims below where the proof does not assume one of the other three as a premise, implicitly or explicitly. The first and third are directly from the site. The second and fourth I added as, when pressed, the author stated that the proof of one of them was the impossibility of the contrary (isn't that called begging the question?).
Proof of "Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist."
Proof of the impossibility of the contrary to the above, i.e. proof of "It is impossible that universal, immaterial, unchanging laws could exist in a universe that is not governed by God."
Proof of "Only in a universe governed by God can rational thinking be possible."
Proof of the impossibility of the contrary to the above, i.e. proof of "It is impossible that rational thinking could be possible in a universe that is not governed by God."
I ask for proof, and not hand-waving arguments, because proof is what the author claims to have. |
Ok, look the only proof I offer on the site is the proof that God exists. All the other ones you have listed are true as well "by the impossibility of the contrary." If you like, pose a contrary, so we can evaluate it here.
|
I've listed two of your "conntrary" statements above - the second and fourth italicized statements. Your alleged proof that God exists depends on you proving any one of the unsubstantiated claims (italicized) above. Prove any one of those, and your proof is complete. They're all claims you made within your attempt at a proof, but you haven't substantiated them at all.
| Canuckfish wrote: |
The proof is the impossibility of the contrary. You are free to posit a contrary which we can evaluate here in order to test the validity of the proof. |
I have.
Understand that I believe in God.
At this point though, I believe you know you can't prove He exists. You're dancing around the central claims in your alleged proof, but you're not attempting to prove them. The four italicized statements above - two are your statements, verbatim, and two are statements which assert the impossibillity of the contrary (which in my view are equivalent). You claim X is proved by the impossibility of the contray of X, but you don't prove the impossibility of the contrary of X - you merely assert it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:19 am Post subject: 79 |
|
|
Extro: Since you argue strenuously against the suggested proofs of God's existence, but believe in God, would you agree that it requires faith*?
*Faith: belief without proof
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:14 pm Post subject: 80 |
|
|
First, I only argue against the proofs offered because they are not proofs. One certainly can't prove anything by merely asserting "the impossibility of the contrary", as Canuckfish is doing.
I don't know that I'm ready to agree that there can be no proof. I think that with proof, faith is not required (but "faith" is a difficult word to define).
I have often marvelled, though, at how the universe has randomness within it at a microscopic level that affects things on a grand scale. If God wanted to create a universe with life in it, and with conscious intelligent beings such as ourselves, but didn't want there to be proof of his existence, evolution, determined by barely observeable microscopic events which appear random, would be an ideal way to do it. He could affect random events through His will, and there would be no proof that he did so. It's interesting that we have this randomness - room for a God to exercise his will and affect things on a grand scale, without leaving proof (scientific proof) that he did so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
 |
The Grey Labyrinth Forum Index
-> Science, Art, and Culture |
All times are GMT
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
|
| Page 2 of 9 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
