Atheist and satanic literature to be distributed in Delta County schools
95 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Mallow234;50009292]I'm wondering when the necronomicon will be required reading in schools
Praise be to the old ones[/QUOTE]
I think it will take a while until a book written by a mad arab will be onligatory to read in US schools.
Lovecraft required next.
What on earth is Atheist "literature"? Is it all just blank books? :v:
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;50008055]That was the whole point of bringing them on in the first place. You see junk like this all the time because Christian conservatives want to throw in bibles and such under free speech without offering opposing view points. These are the opposing view points, it's not like the district is only putting athiest and satanic literature in their libraries.[/QUOTE]
I'm against the passing out of the Bibles mentioned in the article as well.
Note that there's a difference between religious and academic study of the Bible and it's profound effects on western society. I have absolutely no problem with atheistic arguments being presenting alongside religious arguments, even though I have zero faith in the teachers presenting either side without bias, in a class on religious, but that's a very different thing that giving certain books that espouse one view over another a special place in the library. I wouldn't even care if they just included these books within their library for kids to check out alongside any religious books they have.
[editline]26th March 2016[/editline]
If these groups want to do it outside of the schools, then more power to them, but by passing them out within the school (or placing them in a special place within the school) they give automatic credence to the material.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50008873]I wouldn't say Aquinian philosophy is dead, that's a bit of a hasty judgement there, or necessarily incorrect.[/QUOTE]
Aquinas's philosophy relating to god is cyclic and is easily disprovable with modern thought.
[QUOTE=phygon;50011478]Aquinas's philosophy relating to god is cyclic and is easily disprovable with modern thought.[/QUOTE]
His philosophy is so much more than just proofs of God. Many of his ideas helped formed the basis of future secular philosophy. There really seems to be this common belief that secular thinking sprang out in contradiction to Christian thinking when the reality is that secular thinking was simply another step out of many things already established by western Christian thinkers.
Since we're on the topic, whats the deal with Aquinas and the city on the hills? I want to know what those guys in DX intro were talking about and all I was taught about Aquinas in school were some silly axioms that a fist-grader with a fedora would be able to disprove
[QUOTE=sgman91;50011528]His philosophy is so much more than just proofs of God. Many of his ideas helped formed the basis of future secular philosophy. There really seems to be this common belief that secular thinking sprang out in contradiction to Christian thinking when the reality is that secular thinking was simply another step out of many things already established by western Christian thinkers.[/QUOTE]
I was referring to his philosophy on god specifically, not his entire work. (as in, his philosophy (on god))
He made other great contributions but his proof of god's existence is clearly incorrect and if someone were to be presented with it without knowing why it's false they may believe it to be truth.
[QUOTE=phygon;50011746]I was referring to his philosophy on god specifically, not his entire work. (as in, his philosophy (on god))
He made other great contributions but his proof of god's existence is clearly incorrect and if someone were to be presented with it without knowing why it's false they may believe it to be truth.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you're giving those as much credit as they deserve. His first two arguments are:
1) The argument from first cause.
The normal response I hear to this is to point to possible scientific hypothosises that attempt to provide for no real starting point of the universe. Of course they are nothing more than unproven hypothosises. This leads to the second...
2) The argument from contingency. (Why do contingent things exist as opposed to contingent things not existing?)
The current response to this seems to come from Krauss who argues that quantum fields and the laws of physics replace God as the necessary being. That's fine as a response, but it doesn't disagree with the jist of the argument. It just argues that the conclusion is "quantum fields and the laws of physics" as the endpoint instead of "God" being the endpoint.
[editline]26th March 2016[/editline]
The funniest part to me is how seemingly smart people like Dawkins make the most vapid response arguments imaginable, and most atheists I meet just eat it up thinking that they are now properly informed. Good responses to the arguments exist, but they're a bit more complex than the vast majority of people give them credit for.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50011938]I don't think you're giving those as much credit as they deserve. His first two arguments are:
1) The argument from first cause.
The normal response I hear to this is to point to possible scientific hypothosises that attempt to provide for no real starting point of the universe. Of course they are nothing more than unproven hypothosises. This leads to the second...
2) The argument from contingency. (Why do contingent things exist as opposed to contingent things not existing?)
The current response to this seems to come from Krauss who argues that quantum fields and the laws of physics replace God as the necessary being. That's fine as a response, but it doesn't disagree with the jist of the argument. It just argues that the conclusion is "quantum fields and the laws of physics" as the endpoint instead of "God" being the endpoint.
[editline]26th March 2016[/editline]
The funniest part to me is how seemingly smart people like Dawkins make the most vapid response arguments imaginable, and most atheists I meet just eat it up thinking that they are now properly informed. Good responses to the arguments exist, but they're a bit more complex than the vast majority of people give them credit for.[/QUOTE]
now it's 23:55 and I'm not really at my finest intellectual capacity right now, but...
how exactly are any of those theories actually [I]proving [/I] god's existence? like, why does the first cause need to be a sentient, omnipotent being as opposed to something boring like some super dense inflation particle or something? I think that people think those theories are silly because they don't really argue in favor of god's existence at all! You said yourself that you can replace god with anything and it makes sense
Unless you just mean that his general line of reasoning was original and creative and leads to things that we know now that are cool in which case I kinda agree with you
[QUOTE=Sableye;50007864]The atheist pamphlet: We got nothing.
The satanic pamphlet: Like Christianity, but opposite.[/QUOTE]
Satanism is just a reactionary religion to Christianity. It's not the literal worship of Satan. Modern Satanism is basically parody from what I remember.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50011938]I don't think you're giving those as much credit as they deserve. His first two arguments are:
1) The argument from first cause.
The normal response I hear to this is to point to possible scientific hypothosises that attempt to provide for no real starting point of the universe. Of course they are nothing more than unproven hypothosises. This leads to the second...
2) The argument from contingency. (Why do contingent things exist as opposed to contingent things not existing?)
The current response to this seems to come from Krauss who argues that quantum fields and the laws of physics replace God as the necessary being. That's fine as a response, but it doesn't disagree with the jist of the argument. It just argues that the conclusion is "quantum fields and the laws of physics" as the endpoint instead of "God" being the endpoint.
[editline]26th March 2016[/editline]
The funniest part to me is how seemingly smart people like Dawkins make the most vapid response arguments imaginable, and most atheists I meet just eat it up thinking that they are now properly informed. Good responses to the arguments exist, but they're a bit more complex than the vast majority of people give them credit for.[/QUOTE]
No, his arguments are completely incoherent under scrutiny, they could just as easily be used to prove the existence of Vishnu or the cosmic muffin or unicorns, they are completely cyclic.
[QUOTE=WhyNott;50012216]now it's 23:55 and I'm not really at my finest intellectual capacity right now, but...
how exactly are any of those theories actually [I]proving [/I] god's existence? like, why does the first cause need to be a sentient, omnipotent being as opposed to something boring like some super dense inflation particle or something? I think that people think those theories are silly because they don't really argue in favor of god's existence at all! You said yourself that you can replace god with anything and it makes sense
Unless you just mean that his general line of reasoning was original and creative and leads to things that we know now that are cool in which case I kinda agree with you[/QUOTE]
Yes, I mean the latter. Even he recognized that none of these arguments would lead to the belief in the Christian God. He specifically wrote about the difference between natural and supernatural revelation and how you would need both to come to the truth knowledge of God. Natural arguments, like the ones I presented, only take you so far.
I would clarify that you can't replace God with anything. You would need to replace him with something that is effective in bringing about our universe while also not being completely deterministic. If it is 100% deterministic (like, say, a machine), then the result of the being must be coeternal with the being, therefore causing issues all over again.
A Godlike intelligent being fills those criterion because his free will would be non-deterministic while also being effectual in creating the universe. Krauss argues that the quantum fields and associated laws are also non-deterministic and able to cause the universe. Maybe he's right, but at the moment we just don't know enough to make any real claims about it. The argument would be a lot more clear if Krauss wasn't so deceptive with his use of the word 'nothing' for rhetorical purposes.
[editline]26th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=phygon;50012390]No, his arguments are completely incoherent under scrutiny, they could just as easily be used to prove the existence of Vishnu or the cosmic muffin or unicorns, they are completely cyclic.[/QUOTE]
OK. You're wrong, but I'm not going to put effort in if you're not going to. Based on what you've said so far, I assume you've bought into Dawkin-esk terrible counter arguments that rely on strawmen and misunderstandings.
[QUOTE=phygon;50008341]Aquinas's philosophy is as dead simple as it is incorrect, get over yourself my man[/QUOTE]
You are just presenting your opinion of his philosophy, not actually making an argument for or against it.
[QUOTE=phygon;50012390]No, his arguments are completely incoherent under scrutiny, they could just as easily be used to prove the existence of Vishnu or the cosmic muffin or unicorns, they are completely cyclic.[/QUOTE]
Same thing here.
[QUOTE=srobins;50012280]Satanism is just a reactionary religion to Christianity. It's not the literal worship of Satan. Modern Satanism is basically parody from what I remember.[/QUOTE]
There are still Theist/Classical Satanists out there who tend to be spiritual and all that but I've mostly seen Atheistic/LaVeyan Satanists which is about all about hedonism.
And no, LaVeyans don't sacrifice anyone or anything since they only seek satanic figures as nothing but a man-made symbol that represents the human beings inner self.
[QUOTE]LaVeyan Satanism is a new religious movement founded in 1966 by the American occultist and author Anton Szandor LaVey. The religion's doctrines and practices are codified in LaVey's book, The Satanic Bible. Its core philosophy is based on individualism and egoism, encouraging an epicurean pursuit of fleshly indulgence and an eye for an eye code of ethics. The philosophy positions itself in favor of Social Darwinism and opposes egalitarianism, seeing it as a conservator of mediocrity and decadence, and to a larger extent, the Abrahamic faiths, which are seen as lies which promote idealism, self-denigration, herd behavior, and irrationality. The philosophy propagates a naturalistic view of the world, seeing mankind as animals existing in an amoral universe.[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism"]The only short and self-explainatory "source" that I could come up with at 3AM.[/URL]
tbh thanks to this thread I'm now interested in LaVeyanism (even though I knew bout it before), I'll be sure to do some digging on it later on.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50012519]Yes, I mean the latter. Even he recognized that none of these arguments would lead to the belief in the Christian God. He specifically wrote about the difference between natural and supernatural revelation and how you would need both to come to the truth knowledge of God. Natural arguments, like the ones I presented, only take you so far.
I would clarify that you can't replace God with anything. You would need to replace him with something that is effective in bringing about our universe while also not being completely deterministic. If it is 100% deterministic (like, say, a machine), then the result of the being must be coeternal with the being, therefore causing issues all over again.
A Godlike intelligent being fills those criterion because his free will would be non-deterministic while also being effectual in creating the universe. Krauss argues that the quantum fields and associated laws are also non-deterministic and able to cause the universe. Maybe he's right, but at the moment we just don't know enough to make any real claims about it. The argument would be a lot more clear if Krauss wasn't so deceptive with his use of the word 'nothing' for rhetorical purposes.
[editline]26th March 2016[/editline]
OK. You're wrong, but I'm not going to put effort in if you're not going to. Based on what you've said so far, I assume you've bought into Dawkin-esk terrible counter arguments that rely on strawmen and misunderstandings.[/QUOTE]
complains about strawmen while slinging strawmen
oh man im gettin' WAY out of here
[QUOTE=sgman91;50012519]OK. You're wrong, but I'm not going to put effort in if you're not going to. Based on what you've said so far, I assume you've bought into Dawkin-esk terrible counter arguments that rely on strawmen and misunderstandings.[/QUOTE]
There's no misunderstanding here. Aquinas' logic in the Five Ways, for instance, literally ended each time with "God did it" and was from the beginning based off incorrect Aristotelian beliefs about physics (specifically, the laws of motion) that he learned while at university in Naples and Paris-- which have been completely invalidated by relativity.
[quote][b]First Way: Argument from Motion[/b]
1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
[/quote]
[quote][b]Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes[/b]
1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
2. Nothing exists prior to itself.
3. Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
6. If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
7. That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
8. Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.[/quote]
[quote][b]Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity[/b]
1. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
2. Assume that every being is a contingent being.
3. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
4. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
5. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
6. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
7. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
8. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
9. Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
10. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.[/quote]
[quote][b]Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being[/b]
1. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
2. Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
3. The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
4. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.[/quote]
[quote][b]Fifth Way: Argument from Design[/b]
1.We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
2.Most natural things lack knowledge.
3.But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
4.Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.[/quote]
Aquinas never proved the existence of God even in the most general sense of a deity imaginable. While he could be a decent logician, he was not a scientist even in his time, and the Aristotelian worldview he was educated in and based all of his arguments around was wrong. There's just no other way to put it, and that's what makes his work worthless in a modern context. It was too heavily based off of assumption, not factual understandings of the universe, nature, and existence... it was wrong.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50012519]
A Godlike intelligent being fills those criterion because his free will would be non-deterministic while also being effectual in creating the universe. Krauss argues that the quantum fields and associated laws are also non-deterministic and able to cause the universe. Maybe he's right, but at the moment we just don't know enough to make any real claims about it. The argument would be a lot more clear if Krauss wasn't so deceptive with his use of the word 'nothing' for rhetorical purposes.
[editline]26th March 2016[/editline]
OK. You're wrong, but I'm not going to put effort in if you're not going to. Based on what you've said so far, I assume you've bought into Dawkin-esk terrible counter arguments that rely on strawmen and misunderstandings.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=phaedon;50012570]You are just presenting your opinion of his philosophy, not actually making an argument for or against it.
Same thing here.[/QUOTE]
[quote]
[B]ARGUMENT FROM MOTION[/B]
1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
[B]This makes sense, next point[/B]
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
[B]This also makes sense, moving on[/B]
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
[B]This also makes sense[/B]
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
[B]This was accurate at the time but quantum theory would disagree[/B]
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
[B]Quantum theory aside, this still makes sense[/B]
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
[B]Wow, you sure did come a long way to arrive at Aristotle's unmoved mover, did you think of that yourself buddy?[/B]
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
[B]second restatement of Aristotle's unmoved mover[/B]
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
[B]Completely illogical jump to god. This exact chain of argument could be used to prove the existence of literally any cosmic being, or any cosmic event that is beyond our current knowledge. Nothing in this argument proves the christian god (or any god) over scientific ideals.[/B][/quote]
[quote]
[B]ARGUMENT FROM EFFICIENT CLAUSE[/B]
We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
[B]accurate[/B]
1. Nothing exists prior to itself.
[B]Also accurate[/B]
2. Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
[B]is this going where I think it is[/B]
3. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
[B]Oh no, this is just the unmoved mover argument again[/B]
4. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
[B]god damn it here we go again[/B]
5. If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
[B]tell me more[/B]
6. That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
[B]Listen we get that you like aristotle but you can't pass off his ideas as your own[/B]
7. Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
[B]0/10 for plagiarism and filling space with words you've already said[/B]
8. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
[B]So you made the jump from "something must have put things in motion"! to god, nice. That's not logical at all, and you would not have arrived at the christian god unless you set out looking for the christian god.[/B]
[/quote]
[quote]
[B]ARGUMENT FROM POSSIBILITY AND NECESSITY[/B]
1. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
[B]Alright, so everything comes from something[/B]
2. Assume that every being is a contingent being.
[B]Right, things have to give rise to each other (chicken to egg, hawk to -1 pidgeon, etc)[/B]
3. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
[B]Is this just the unmoved mover again[/B]
4. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
[B]jesus christ my man, I'm not commenting on any more unmoved mover aguments[/B]
5. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
[B].[/B]
Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
[B].[/B]
Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
[B].[/B]
We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
[B].[/B]
Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
[B].[/B]
Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.
[b]He keeps saying that all men speak it as god, but once again this is cyclic logic. The only reason that it is proof is because people believe it making it [I]not proof at all.[/I] in a secular country this exact train of thought would "prove" the big bang theory. In another it might "prove" that aliens created earth or that we live in a simulation :xfiles:[/b]
[/quote]
[quote]
[b]ARGUMENT FROM GRADATION OF BEING[/b]
1. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
[B]That's just like, your opinion, man[/B]
2. Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
[B]What is this, a convoluted argument that mirror's Aristotle's concept of forms?[/B]
3. The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
[B]Oh, yeah, this is Aristotle's concept of forms. Nice [/B]
4. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
[B]Nice logical leap based upon philosophy that [I]actually[/I] might not hold any water in the first place. Aristotle's concept of forms was controversial at the time and it certainly hasn't gotten any better..... but you are making 5. claims that the man himself would not agree with, logical leaps with nothing to back them, completely cyclic.[/B]
[/quote]
[quote]
[B]ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN[/B]
1. We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
[B]This is an interesting point. Here, he is saying that all natural things seem to have a goal, that they are driven- the butterfly collects nectar, the lion kills elk, the elk runs from the lion. They do these things compulsively.[/B]
2. Most natural things lack knowledge.
[B]Again, true. (But he said "most", not "all", which is strange because this implies that creatures other than humans can have intelligence which was not a common thought at the time)[/B]
3. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
[B]What lacks intelligence achieves the goals OF THE INTELLIGENT, not of itself.[/B]
4. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
[B]And there we go with the concept of forms, with god being the form of intelligence. Again, cyclic.[/B]
[/quote]
Aquinas's goal was to get knowledge and logic accepted into the house of god which was a noble goal but to pretend that his "theory" that "proved" god was anything other than horseshit is a fanciful non-reality. He copied essentially all of his arguments straight from Aristotle in this regard, often without changing anything at all. What's more, he twisted the intent of what was being said, and arrived to conclusions through cyclical logic
There, is that enough of an explanation because jesus christ I cannot believe you were defending this dude's non-logic.
[QUOTE=phygon;50016499]Aquinas's goal was to get knowledge and logic accepted into the house of god which was a noble goal but to pretend that his "theory" that "proved" god was anything other than horseshit is a fanciful non-reality. He copied essentially all of his arguments straight from Aristotle in this regard, often without changing anything at all. What's more, he twisted the intent of what was being said, and arrived to conclusions through cyclical logic
There, is that enough of an explanation because jesus christ I cannot believe you were defending this dude's non-logic.[/QUOTE]
Can we be clear here about what I had said? I said that people were not giving them enough credit. I didn't say they were the end-all-be-all God proof arguments. Yes, there are better versions of the argument.
Let's also not pretend that these 5 arguments are 1) supposed to be taken by themselves without regard to his other work and 2) are the entirety of his work.
[editline]27th March 2016[/editline]
Also, your responses are far more ignorant than the arguments you're responding to. His "jump to God" that you keep referencing has a lot more to it than you're making it seem, as I attempted to show in one of my other responses. The requirements of the "first cause" are actually incredibly narrow. If we cannot fathom any alternate explanation (like Krauss attempts to do with the quantum fields and laws), then belief in God as the first cause would be, at minimum, a justified belief as the only logical possibility.
[editline]27th March 2016[/editline]
You also seem to treat the argument from contingency as the same line of reasoning as the first cause. it's not.
[editline]27th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;50012887]complains about strawmen while slinging strawmen
oh man im gettin' WAY out of here[/QUOTE]
What strawman did I attack? If you're referring to Phygon, then I'm not sure how I can create a strawman when he hadn't actually presented an argument at all.
as atheist I feel offended and humored at once to be put at same level as Satanist ...
guess science and logic isn't enough in modern world era of space exploration
[QUOTE=sgman91;50018218]Also, your responses are far more ignorant than the arguments you're responding to. His "jump to God" that you keep referencing has a lot more to it than you're making it seem, as I attempted to show in one of my other responses. The requirements of the "first cause" are actually incredibly narrow. If we cannot fathom any alternate explanation (like Krauss attempts to do with the quantum fields and laws), then belief in God as the first cause would be, at minimum, a justified belief as the only logical possibility.[/QUOTE]
I feel like I have to say this every time I read a post of yours sgman but I'd like to point out that the absence of a provable explanation is not evidence that whatever metaphysical beliefs you would like to be true actually are. Simply because we can't provide an explanation for something like the "first cause" does not mean that it is any more logical to believe that it was caused by a diety or literally any other metaphysical explanation that I could make up on the spot, it only means that human beings currently cannot provide a provable explanation because of the limitations of what we can observe.
It most [i]certainly[/i] does not mean that God is the only logical possibility, in fact there are a literally infinite number of equally (il)logical possibilities that also have absolutely no basis in observable reality.
[QUOTE=Geikkamir;50018983]I feel like I have to say this every time I read a post of yours sgman but I'd like to point out that the absence of a provable explanation is not evidence that whatever metaphysical beliefs you would like to be true actually are. Simply because we can't provide an explanation for something like the "first cause" does not mean that it is any more logical to believe that it was caused by a diety or literally any other metaphysical explanation that I could make up on the spot, it only means that human beings currently cannot provide a provable explanation because of the limitations of what we can observe.
It most [i]certainly[/i] does not mean that God is the only logical possibility, in fact there are a literally infinite number of equally (il)logical possibilities that also have absolutely no basis in observable reality.[/QUOTE]
Give me 5 alternate logical possibilities as an example please. I have the feeling that your underestimating the difficulty of it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50018218]Can we be clear here about what I had said? I said that people were not giving them enough credit. I didn't say they were the end-all-be-all God proof arguments. Yes, there are better versions of the argument.
Let's also not pretend that these 5 arguments are 1) supposed to be taken by themselves without regard to his other work and 2) are the entirety of his work.
[/quote]
His arguments for a logical god are only impressive in that they thought of a logical god instead of a faith based god, they are NOT impressive in their accuracy, or legibility; They are all just direct apes of Aristotle's work.
[quote]
Also, your responses are far more ignorant than the arguments you're responding to. His "jump to God" that you keep referencing has a lot more to it than you're making it seem, as I attempted to show in one of my other responses. The requirements of the "first cause" are actually incredibly narrow. If we cannot fathom any alternate explanation (like Krauss attempts to do with the quantum fields and laws), then belief in God as the first cause would be, at minimum, a justified belief as the only logical possibility.
[/quote]
My responses are not more ignorant than his. Again. If he were to be in a Muslim country, he would have "proved" the existence of Allah (Still the Abrahamic god but still). If he were to be in ancient Greece, he would have arrived at the conclusion that the pantheon existed, and if he was a Scientologist he would have arrived at the conclusion that Lord Xenu controls us all. We CAN fathom another alternate explanation- Anything else which you can think of. Literally. Anything. Else. Anyone. Believes. will fit this argument.
[quote]
You also seem to treat the argument from contingency as the same line of reasoning as the first cause. it's not.
.[/QUOTE]
The argument from contingency IS the same line of reasoning, but stated differently. It's just Aristotle from top to bottom.
The entire argument WOULD NOT FUNCTION unless you already believed in god. His argument are [I]completely[/I] invalid and there is a strong jump to go at the end of each of these that would not be able to made unless one already believed in god, which makes it cyclic, which makes it invalid, do not do not pass go, do not collect 20 dollars.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50019635]Give me 5 alternate logical possibilities as an example please. I have the feeling that your underestimating the difficulty of it.[/QUOTE]
A cosmic green orangutan from the bmpfqtz dimension burping, two extraspace-time kablooies colliding, an interdimensional coil spinning in the wrong direction, literally any other absurd and nebulous concept you could devise. If you accept that a "first cause" [i]must[/i] exist (which isn't even necessarily true), and that obviously that first cause must not obey the same laws of physics that our universe does or else it would simply be invalidated by the need for a previous cause, then that cause could be [i]literally anything[/i]. There's no more reason to believe that it was the deliberate work of an intelligent being than any other hypothesis that has no basis in observable reality, and hell, if anything, the need for a first cause seems to be contrary to the idea that an intelligent entity that thinks and acts like a being in a causal reality was it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50019635]Give me 5 alternate logical possibilities as an example please. I have the feeling that your underestimating the difficulty of it.[/QUOTE]
The big bang
Allah
Ted, the guy that created the universe
Aliums
God (nono, not yours, that other guy's)
Something we don't know about
The cosmic queef, giver of life
[QUOTE=sgman91;50018218]The requirements of the "first cause" are actually incredibly narrow. If we cannot fathom any alternate explanation (like Krauss attempts to do with the quantum fields and laws), then belief in God as the first cause would be, at minimum, a justified belief as the only logical possibility.[/QUOTE]
I find it incredibly funny that the god appears to be the only logical possibility [b]simply because[/b] a lot of people believe that to be the case. A lot of people, on a span of many years. There's nothing else that justifies god (some specific one or just any god) compared to any number of other made up "explanations". "God did it" is [b]not[/b] any more logical than "I made it as is ten seconds ago and then implanted false memories into your head so you think you had a life prior to that. Just you though, everyone else is just a lifeless automaton".
[QUOTE=gudman;50021183]I find it incredibly funny that the god appears to be the only logical possibility [B]simply because[/B] a lot of people believe that to be the case. A lot of people, on a span of many years. There's nothing else that justifies god (some specific one or just any god) compared to any number of other made up "explanations". "God did it" is [B]not[/B] any more logical than "I made it as is ten seconds ago and then implanted false memories into your head so you think you had a life prior to that. Just you though, everyone else is just a lifeless automaton".[/QUOTE]
It isn't "simply because a lot of people believe that to be the case." It's because it satisfies the narrow requirements in a way that nothing else can.
[QUOTE]Phygon's list[/QUOTE]
Cool, thanks, now let's go through them:
1) The big bang.
The big bang is an action, not a thing. So I'm not sure how that would satisfy it at all.
2) Allah
Allah is still a god. So, yeah... Remember that I'm not saying this type of argument leads to the Christian God, just a minimal god that is an intelligent free agent with incredible power to create physical matter from no physical matter.
3) Ted, the guy that created the universe
Is Ted physical? If so, how did he have a non-physical existence before the creation of the physical? If he's not physical, then it seems you've just given "god" the name "Ted."
4) God (nono, no yours, that other guy's)
Refer to the answer for Allah.
5) The cosmic queef, giver of life
Refer to Ted and explain how a queef would lead to the universe.
[QUOTE]Geikkamir's list[/QUOTE]
1) The orangutang
Refer to Ted and explain how an orangutang would be effectual in creating the universe. As far as I can tell an orangutang doesn't have the intellectual capacity to design the universe as we see it. If you're positing an extremely intelligent, non-physical orangutang, then all you've done is posit god that somehow looks like an orangutang without any physical features.
2) two extraspace-time kablooies colliding
Are these "kablooies" deterministic? If not, please explain the non-deterministic mechanic behind them. If so, then the universe they create will be co-eternal with the "kablooies" recreating the issue of infinite regress of events.
3) interdimensional coil spinning in the wrong direction
Refer to the kablooies
[QUOTE]and that obviously that first cause must not obey the same laws of physics that our universe does or else it would simply be invalidated by the need for a previous cause, then that cause could be literally anything. There's no more reason to believe that it was the deliberate work of an intelligent being than any other hypothesis that has no basis in observable reality, and hell, if anything, the need for a first cause seems to be contrary to the idea that an intelligent entity that thinks and acts like a being in a causal reality was it.[/QUOTE]
Let me start off and say that if someone is a true, absolute nihilist and doesn't think we can know any truth because we are stuck within our own experience, then your example would work as an alternate explanation. If not, then you would need to provide the mechanism for how the person did that while also showing how they were able to exist prior to their creation. It's really hard, if not impossible, to answer those questions without making the person into some sort of god. Here are some of the requirements:
1) Non-physical, the first cause exists prior to the creation of the physical. So it, itself, must be non-physical.
2) Effectual to cause the universe, The first cause must be able to cause things. So, for example, a number is non-physical, but a number can't cause anything. So a number can't be the first cause.
3) Non-deterministic, If the first cause is effectual in creating the universe, but is also deterministic, then there's no point at which the first cause would exist, but it's effect (the universe) wouldn't exist. This would bring us to an eternally existing universe and the problem of an infinity of real events.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50021313]It isn't "simply because a lot of people believe that to be the case." It's because it satisfies the narrow requirements in a way that nothing else can.
[/QUOTE]
Of course it does, how can it not. It's [i]made[/i] to fit this narrow set of requirements, it's molded into the form. Can something physical create the physical reality? No, because there was nothing physical before then, so it's non-physical. Is it of this Universe? No, because it created the Universe, it can't exist in the same Universe it created, it had to inhabit some other plane, if any. Ad infinitum - you ask a question, and from the very question itself you shape an "answer". And then you call it "god".
The concept of god is sawn from the questions it's supposed to answer. It's a logical loop, no matter where you turn, it'll end up referring back to itself. In what universe can something like this be considered an answer to anything?.. It's god of the gaps - as long as you have a question, as long as there's unknown, a god will fit right in because it is automatically assigned the required characteristic. Literally, Aquinian logic is to take an unknown variable and call it God, all the other characteristics typically assigned to God (benevolence, omniscience etc.) be damned.
[QUOTE=gudman;50021720]Of course it does, how can it not. It's [I]made[/I] to fit this narrow set of requirements, it's molded into the form. Can something physical create the physical reality? No, because there was nothing physical before then, so it's non-physical. Is it of this Universe? No, because it created the Universe, it can't exist in the same Universe it created, it had to inhabit some other plane, if any. Ad infinitum - you ask a question, and from the very question itself you shape an "answer". And then you call it "god".
The concept of god is sawn from the questions it's supposed to answer. It's a logical loop, no matter where you turn, it'll end up referring back to itself. In what universe can something like this be considered an answer to anything?.. It's god of the gaps - as long as you have a question, as long as there's unknown, a god will fit right in because it is automatically assigned the required characteristic. Literally, Aquinian logic is to take an unknown variable and call it God, all the other characteristics typically assigned to God (benevolence, omniscience etc.) be damned.[/QUOTE]
2 points:
- Yes, the logic takes what we know to be the requirements and then posits something that fulfills them. That's what literally every hypothesis does, scientific, or not. The thing that fulfills the requirements also just happens to conform to the fundamental idea of the nature of God that preexisted knowledge of the problem of first cause. It's not like people came up with the idea of God to solve this issue. The concept of God already fulfilled the requirements. If anything this could be taken as a successful prediction of religion. It posited those traits long before it knew those traits would be vital to making a logically coherent first cause.
- The other traits like benevolence, omniscience, etc. do not directly follow from these types of arguments. Everyone in the business of arguing this type of thing fully acknowledges that. Those come from secondary questions such as: "Well, if there is this intelligent non-physical being, then what kind of characteristics would it have?" We would be able to surmise that the being is extremely rational based on the rational intelligibility of the world that it created, for example. We might also surmise that it has some purpose for the creation of the world.
A key part of Aquinas' work was to separate natural and supernatural revelation. So he would argue that you can't come to the full knowledge of God without the use of both together. These types of arguments are natural only.
From a modern perspective, the assumption that there must have been an original creator is flawed. There is no evidence for extraphysical anything, so assuming that one must exist is an error.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.