ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
Slogan/motto:
Life is its own validation and reward and ultlimate meaning to which neither God nor the future state can further validate!"
Reputation:
Arguments about Him- that square circle -
September 29th, 2010, 02:46 PM
Why do you believe in or not in God or just don't know or care?
Angeles's^ argument from Existence is that since Existence is all, no transcendental entity can therefore account for it nor can it come from any exterior matter. The inner matter would be the quantum fluctuations [ David Mills's " Atheist Universe."].
Angeles' infinite regress argument notes that cause, event and time presuppose previous ones. Therefore, in accordance with what most physicists now maintain, eternal time exists.
Lamberth's atelic or teleonomic argument notes that since the weight of evidence evinces teleonomic causation- no planned outcomes- then to add teleology- planned outcomes- not only contradicts natural causation but also violates the Razor. Not only does this argument eviscerate teleological arguments but also any with intent such that there can be no Primary Cause behind the Big Bang, intent for patterns as designs, intent for miracles and so forth, and therefore, He cannot exist as not having those referents1 And since He has those incoherent, contradictory attributes, He cannot exist! No more than a square circle or married bachelor can.
Since He does not have intent to influence matters, then the presumption of naturalism rules. This, as the late Antony Garrard Newton Flew, before his dementia and deism, notes is like the presumption of innocence and to which Aquinas himself alluded and failed to overcome with his five failed arguments. This neither sandbags supernaturalists nor begs questions but is simply the demand for evidence as when Einstein overcame Newton. This is our common ground.
What are your arguments for or against His existence? I'll deal with honest inquiries and deal with Aquinas's five failed arguments soon.:think
Let's have lively but serious inquiry!
Peter Adam Angeles " The Problem of God: a Short Introduction "
This argument is the supreme Christian apologetic so far as I am concerned.
The above link explains it to some degree but you're not likely to understand it based on that article. If you want to see the argument in action read THIS post and or this entire thread.
Resting in Him,
Clete
P.S. Have you ever read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged?
"The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders
Slogan/motto:
Life is its own validation and reward and ultlimate meaning to which neither God nor the future state can further validate!"
Reputation:
December 4th, 2010, 08:40 PM
Bob Enyart thus is the master of the straw man as we atheists find truth, morality [ See my our humanism thread. and so forth. We do reject rationally the absolute Truth whilst affirming the provisional truth- our best conservation of knowledge and contextual morality.
Against Plantinga, that sophist, I maintain that the argument from physical mind indeed does exclude God's disembodied mind as part of that knowledge, because we ever find only minds in brain cases. No one can use faith, postulation or definition without evidence to instantiate Him.
Supernaturalists ever beg that question of His attributes with non-evidential definitions. Therefore, to postulate and to define Him as being different from other beings, does not obviate the questions what made or what designed Him. Therefore, William Sahakian does that when he faults us naturalists for using the fallacy of multiple questions when in fact ti's he who begs that question in postulating His being different!
That's not trivial,Plantinga!
Clete, I read that novel of mystery and thought it right until I discovered reality. She and Nathaniel Branden helped me- with his existence exists- become an atheist.
However, as Michale Shermer notes in " Why Do People Believe Weird Ideas?", she was a failed rationalist. I have not anywhere tackled TAG but will do so when I read more about it, including those sites you note. Thanks for that!
"Schrodinger's cat is alive!" is a statement that can be true and false in the same sense, at the same time.
Do logical absolutes break down at the subatomic level? Then logical absolutes are dependent on physical nature and are therefore not absolute.
Schrodinger's cat is a philosophical illustration, and nothing more. The idea that the statement is actually [factually] true and false at the same time is not a logical absolute. In fact it is not logical at all. It is completely illogical. Either the cat is dead or it is alive. It is not both. It is merely either/or at the same time from the point of view of those outside the box due to the fact that they cannot see the cat and therefore do not know either way.
Slogan/motto:
The Church was not founded on the Bible. The Bible was assembled by the Church.
Reputation:
December 5th, 2010, 12:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse
Either the cat is dead or it is alive. It is not both. It is merely either/or at the same time from the point of view of those outside the box due to the fact that they cannot see the cat and therefore do not know either way.
That's not what Schrodinger's cat means at all.
The idea is that the subatomic particle actually exists in two states at once. A photon, for example, has a probability of being in almost unlimited positions. Until it is observed, it occupies all possible positions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse
The idea that the statement is actually [factually] true and false at the same time is not a logical absolute. In fact it is not logical at all. It is completely illogical.
This argument is circular. It's as if to say, "A logical absolute is true if it pertains to all logical statements. A statement is only logical if it abides by logical absolutes."
Arguments about Him- that square circle -
September 29th, 2010, 02:46 PM
Why do you believe in or not in God or just don't know or care?
Your "catholic" is showing. - Sozo
Linear Mode
