Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 78 of 78

Thread: An argument for God

  1. #61
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: An argument for God

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiaexz View Post
    Not really, you did a feint and I called your bluff, and it went through. However, I think we can both possibly agree that going further won't make any practical sense for either of us.
    I was very explicit in my point, you showed yourself either unwilling or unable to understand it.

    I'm saying - Jesus walked on water - normal water - because he was God.

    You can't test it, you can't disprove it, you can only deny it.

    So you're basically pretending to engage with Rhy's point or you have a huge intellectual blind spot.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  2. #62
    Ranting madman of the .org Senior Member Fly Shoot Champion, Helicopter Champion, Pedestrian Killer Champion, Sharpshooter Champion, NFS Underground Champion Rhyfelwyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    In a hopeless place with no future
    Posts
    8,646

    Default Re: An argument for God

    This thread has been frustrating. If it wasn't for Philipvs, I would be questioning myself and wondering if I was going mad.
    At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.

  3. #63

    Default Re: An argument for God

    Sorry Rhy, I misinterpreted the thread and thought it was open for all of us to just talk about what we feel is wrong with the argument. If you were looking for a specific conversation about a certain premise, I did not catch that.

    Member thankful for this post:



  4. #64
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: An argument for God

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr View Post
    This thread has been frustrating. If it wasn't for Philipvs, I would be questioning myself and wondering if I was going mad.
    Questioning yourself is not a bad start.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

    Members thankful for this post (3):



  5. #65
    Annoyingly awesome Member Booger Flick Champion, Run Sam Run Champion, Speed Cards Champion rickinator9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    957

    Default Re: An argument for God

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr View Post
    This thread has been frustrating. If it wasn't for Philipvs, I would be questioning myself and wondering if I was going mad.
    You asked for everyone's thoughts on your argument and they did so. What did everyone do wrong then?
    rickinator9 is either a cleverly "hidden in plain sight by jumping on the random bandwagon" scum or the ever-increasing in popularity "What the is going on?" townie. Either way I want to lynch him. - White Eyes

    Members thankful for this post (2):



  6. #66
    Senior Member Senior Member Brenus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Wokingham
    Posts
    3,523

    Default Re: An argument for God

    "Physics isn't called Philosophy, either, because it's just a branch of it." Can you explain how Physic is a branch of Philosophy?
    "I'm saying - Jesus walked on water - normal water - because he was God. You can't test it, you can't disprove it, you can only deny it." Nope. Even if Jesus walked on water, it doesn't prove he is/was God. There is no relationship between your two propositions. He could walk on the water as the son of Evil, of Tivr, a powerful sorceress, or an alien.
    Of course, the more simple solution is he never walked on water and this story being a pure christian propaganda.
    Last edited by Brenus; 12-08-2014 at 07:58.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire.

    "I've been in few famous last stands, lad, and they're butcher shops. That's what Blouse's leading you into, mark my words. What'll you lot do then? We've had a few scuffles, but that's not war. Think you'll be man enough to stand, when the metal meets the meat?"
    "You did, sarge", said Polly." You said you were in few last stands."
    "Yeah, lad. But I was holding the metal"
    Sergeant Major Jackrum 10th Light Foot Infantery Regiment "Inns-and-Out"

    Member thankful for this post:



  7. #67
    Ranting madman of the .org Senior Member Fly Shoot Champion, Helicopter Champion, Pedestrian Killer Champion, Sharpshooter Champion, NFS Underground Champion Rhyfelwyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    In a hopeless place with no future
    Posts
    8,646

    Default Re: An argument for God

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    Sorry Rhy, I misinterpreted the thread and thought it was open for all of us to just talk about what we feel is wrong with the argument.
    That is indeed what this thread is for but some people seem to think it is about something else entirely. I was not thinking of you when I said that, btw.

    Quote Originally Posted by rickinator9 View Post
    You asked for everyone's thoughts on your argument and they did so. What did everyone do wrong then?
    Some people (not everyone) gave thoughts that had nothing whatsoever to do with the argument. Jesus' miracles, the God of the Bible, Christian theology, spaghetti planets, Cthulhu etc are all totally irrelevant to the argument I gave in the OP, and anyone bringing them up doesn't understand the argument.

    I'm sorry for throwing all the toys out the pram, but the attitudes of some posters in this thread have been completely disrespectful.
    Last edited by Rhyfelwyr; 12-07-2014 at 11:22.
    At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.

  8. #68
    Master of useless knowledge Senior Member Kitten Shooting Champion, Eskiv Champion Ironside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,902

    Default Re: An argument for God

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr View Post
    Simulation theory doesn't crush my argument... in fact it doesn't even touch upon it. If we create a simulated universe, then that isn't somehow a separate universe from ours in any sort of metaphysical sense. It is just a part and parcel of our universe, which would exist as part of the code in our machines. Take that code away and the simulated universe disappears... it has no independent existence of its own. An AI world is no more metaphysically distinct from our own universe than a rock or a tree.
    If God can create a universe, he can also destroy it, thus making our world no more metaphysically distinct from his own plane of existance than a rock or a tree. A computer world is much easier to create than a mechanical universe (in particular the way that direct communication is one-way), but the principles are the same.

    I mean if you can prove that God acts with the world in a completely fundamentally different way then you might have an argument, but my points still stand if God can act in 4-room dimensions in our 3-D world, so it's not limited to simulations.

    We can start with something easy. Why should metaphysical distinction between worlds by default give more powers than a simulator that can control absolutely everything in the simulation?
    We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?

    Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
    Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
    TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED

  9. #69
    Annoyingly awesome Member Booger Flick Champion, Run Sam Run Champion, Speed Cards Champion rickinator9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    957

    Default Re: An argument for God

    Just a thought. Point 8 doesn't have to be the Abrahamic god as Ahura Mazda also has the properties described in point 7.
    rickinator9 is either a cleverly "hidden in plain sight by jumping on the random bandwagon" scum or the ever-increasing in popularity "What the is going on?" townie. Either way I want to lynch him. - White Eyes

    Member thankful for this post:



  10. #70
    Mr Self Important Senior Member Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Albion
    Posts
    15,930
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: An argument for God

    Quote Originally Posted by rickinator9 View Post
    Just a thought. Point 8 doesn't have to be the Abrahamic god as Ahura Mazda also has the properties described in point 7.
    That is a better example of a point I was making which was being disregarded, thank you, Rick.
    Days since the Apocalypse began
    "We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."

  11. #71
    Dragonslayer Emeritus Senior Member Sigurd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Norge
    Posts
    6,877

    Default Re: An argument for God

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr View Post
    Well, if the first cause was mechanical (lets call it a "creator universe"), then presumably it could only create our universe by an accidental mechanical process rather than intelligent design. And if this creation is a mechanical process, then wouldn't this mean that this "creator universe" acts according to [at least some of] the laws of our own universe, since it would be creating our universe through a sort of 'cause and effect' of mechanical action/reaction. To be self-existent, the first cause would have to be totally transcendent of all our natural laws including cause and effect. The very idea of mechanicity entails a sort of inner working of cause and effect.
    The current scientific view of the Big Bang is of a mechanical nature of which the singularity transcends natural laws and time as they have no meaning in a singularity.
    You have to show using logic statements how you move from mechanical to personal creator.
    Status Emeritus

    Members thankful for this post (3):



  12. #72
    Member Member Paltmull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    498

    Default Re: An argument for God

    A problem with the kalam arument is that it applies an everyday common-sense notion of causality to the creation of the universe, which probably isn't possible to do. If the statement "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is true within our universe it doesn't necessarily follow that it is true outside of it.

    Also the creation of the universe is claimed to be both timeless and ex nihilo ("out of nothing", i.e. it wasn't put together by previously existing parts but literally came from nothing), which really isn't like any kind of causality that we have ever experienced. We might even ask if this is what we mean by causality at all. It certainly is a very different form of causality than that which we refer to in saying that "everything that begins to exist has a cause".
    Last edited by Paltmull; 12-09-2014 at 01:04.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


  13. #73
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: An argument for God

    Quote Originally Posted by Brenus View Post
    "Physics isn't called Philosophy, either, because it's just a branch of it." Can you explain how Physic is a branch of Philosophy?
    Philosophy is the "Love of Wisdom" or "truth" depending on how you render it.

    Physics mercilessly searches for the truth of the structure of the universe through mathematics.

    That's why Aristotle and Newton studied it.

    "I'm saying - Jesus walked on water - normal water - because he was God. You can't test it, you can't disprove it, you can only deny it." Nope. Even if Jesus walked on water, it doesn't prove he is/was God. There is no relationship between your two propositions. He could walk on the water as the son of Evil, of Tivr, a powerful sorceress, or an alien.
    Excellent counter argument - although I would point out that it Jesus was not the Ultimate and the Ultimate didn't want him to walk on water then he would have got wet.

    Of course, the more simple solution is he never walked on water and this story being a pure christian propaganda.
    It's a solution, but it's not one we can discuss. We either have to agree to disagree and drink more wine, or we have to tear our shirts off and wrestle for it with out nipples touching.

    More wine?
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  14. #74
    Senior Member Senior Member Brenus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Wokingham
    Posts
    3,523

    Default Re: An argument for God

    "More wine?" No thanks, I don't drink alcohol. I don't like the taste, the effect, so not by religion, just me doesn't like it. I would prefer Jesus changing wine in water, even if water wasn't that safe at the time, and still is not in this region (remember my trip in Iraq). And too old for wrestling... I prefer the talking nowadays. One upon a time, I was a soldier,.... and young...
    "Jesus was not the Ultimate and the Ultimate didn't want him to walk on water then he would have got wet" Or walked on the stones as I did as a kid, crossing the river. I tried running fast, but is more err, hazardous. Worked, but one lack of momentum, and water is closing.

    "That's why Aristotle and Newton studied it." It is a quite old version. François Rabelais (16th Century) describe the possibility for all men to have the all knowledge (une tête bien faite), but as in Aristotle and Newton's case, we have to acknowledge that Philosophy is a Human Science, studying human behavior, language and others concept, when Physics studies facts that can be repeated as often you want and get always the same result. Drop an apple it will always fall. You give speed to the apple, will still fall, after a little journey in the air. Put 3 French in a room and you've got 5 opinions.
    Last edited by Brenus; 12-09-2014 at 08:07.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire.

    "I've been in few famous last stands, lad, and they're butcher shops. That's what Blouse's leading you into, mark my words. What'll you lot do then? We've had a few scuffles, but that's not war. Think you'll be man enough to stand, when the metal meets the meat?"
    "You did, sarge", said Polly." You said you were in few last stands."
    "Yeah, lad. But I was holding the metal"
    Sergeant Major Jackrum 10th Light Foot Infantery Regiment "Inns-and-Out"

  15. #75
    Member Member Tuuvi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The wild west
    Posts
    1,418

    Default Re: An argument for God

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
    It's a solution, but it's not one we can discuss. We either have to agree to disagree and drink more wine, or we have to tear our shirts off and wrestle for it with out nipples touching.

    More wine?
    I'd kinda like it if you guys started wrestling.

    Member thankful for this post:

    Hax 


  16. #76

    Default Re: An argument for God

    Quote Originally Posted by Brenus View Post
    "Physics isn't called Philosophy, either, because it's just a branch of it." Can you explain how Physic is a branch of Philosophy?
    Physics depends on philosophical underpinnings in order to even begin the scientific method. When applying the scientific method, think about whether:

    A. This information will manifest itself through experiments, in other words, that the information we seek is indeed observable.
    B. This information is in fact universal and applies everywhere.
    C. That repeated observation alone is justifiable in asserting scientific truth.
    D. That the model you obtain is indeed the truth of the matter or simply a model that describes the situation (an important distinction).

    There are many other questions related to science that are philosophical in nature. But all the above statements are still in flux and while the day to day physicists do their work and publish their findings and build upon their knowledge, the foundation of what they do is based on philosophical positions that they accept without question, whether they realize it or not.


  17. #77
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,677

    Default Re: An argument for God

    Philosophy like mathematics are part of a physicists toolset.

    Mathematics is to Physics what weight lifting is to sports.
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  18. #78
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: An argument for God

    I go away for a week and people fight my battles for me... You guys...

    Just to finesse the point - "Metaphyiscs" are literally the books that "come before Physics" in Aristotle's corpus. Aristotle called them "First Things" (never "Metaphysics") because he considered the questions they asked to be fundamental to all enquiry, including scientific enquiry.

    Today we take out Metaphysics for granted and instead of studying them Scientists skip straight to studying how to apply the Scientific Method.

    This is why so many modern Scientists are bad at philosophy.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO