Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free! If you are a member, please log in.
Search found 16 matches
December 8th, 2011, 5:26 pm
Alan, If you took the time to read my argument, you would see that when I was generous to your argument, I said we could at least conclude that your premises can neither be proved nor disproved. “Thus it is obvious that this supreme mind, is and must, be beyond human comprehension” I am actually ast...
December 8th, 2011, 4:02 pm
Alan, It seems that we have come to an end in our debate. You simply ignorantly, and continually contradict yourself. You are arguing that every possible attribute that I place on God is incorrect because my limited mind cannot comprehend God. Your arguments are all ad homonym. Therefore, I will res...
December 7th, 2011, 9:47 pm
Alan, Although I’m sure you Googled those names and got most of your information from Wikipedia, I thought I would point out more of your flaws. Darwin was not a Theist, in fact, his entire work was to represent and counter the main arguments of theists. Please, on this note, do both of us a favor a...
December 6th, 2011, 6:27 pm
Alan; What an interesting attempt at an argument. However, through the poorly written paragraphs it seems you are contradicting yourself. At the end you say “This entity to me is simply beyond human comprehension”, and at the start you say “the closest to a god by my why of thinking is the prime mov...
December 5th, 2011, 9:55 pm
Wooden Shoe, That’s a rather disappointing post for a philosophy forum, and is clearly false. To hold so firmly that we can never prove the existence of something is a tricky endeavor, at one time people thought that we could NEVER know what distant stars and planets are composed of. First I will in...
December 4th, 2011, 10:52 pm
Seahunt, I’m, just wondering if you could elaborate on your argument. I’m not sure how to take it, are you actually giving an argument, or is it simply showing your relation to God and Genetics? If it is from God and genetics I feel as though this is an already exhausted argument. Unless I am manipu...
December 4th, 2011, 12:52 pm
Martin, Very interesting point, and it oddly reminds me of a Star Trek episode, however that is not of concern. The point you make is one that has been looked at many times however, and to some acts as a good argument against the existence of God. I will attempt to expand on it and depict it from th...
December 4th, 2011, 12:37 pm
I would have to agree that the topic of Ghosts is one that usually does not get far in philosophical debate. There are two main reasons for this. The first, is that personal experience of a ghost will not move the debate further. It is the same paradox that comes up for debates on the existence of G...
December 4th, 2011, 12:21 pm
Well instead of addressing my counter argument you said that when we die we will find out for ourselves.......... not exactly something most would include in an intellectual debate. However, to each their own.
Do you have any other arguments worthy of philosophical discourse?
Do you have any other arguments worthy of philosophical discourse?
December 4th, 2011, 9:29 am
Alan,
I thought you made a post to have an intellectual debate, if you wanted everyone to agree with you, next time please say that no differing views aloud, Theists only. I hope there is an afterlife for you, disappointment can hit harder than a philosophical debate if there isn’t.
Thanks
I thought you made a post to have an intellectual debate, if you wanted everyone to agree with you, next time please say that no differing views aloud, Theists only. I hope there is an afterlife for you, disappointment can hit harder than a philosophical debate if there isn’t.
Thanks
December 4th, 2011, 9:25 am
Very nice counter Stirling, I believe we are getting closer to the same idea of art. One point I would like to bring up is the idea that art is merely subjective. Your description of only humans being able to notice beauty is very similar to Kant’s; perhaps you took in more than you thought! However...
December 3rd, 2011, 11:48 pm
Alan McDougall, You certainly have a sound understanding of arguments for the existence of God. Before I continue too far I want to clarify that this is not an ad homonym argument. I’m just curious if you are familiar with the arguments against the existence of God? I would like to address your last...
December 3rd, 2011, 1:06 pm
This is towards Nameless’ attempt at a proof. Before I begin however, please note I am not defending the existence of God, on the contrary I am a strong believer that there is no ‘God’. However, I do not agree with arguments that do not take consideration the theistic practice and belief system. If ...
November 30th, 2011, 11:00 am
I understand this is certainly not a discussion of Kant, however I’m inclined to believe your interpretation of Kant is flawed. When he describes our moments of experience what he defines as good should not be taken in a moral or ethical way. What he means by good is simply that it fulfills out view...
November 28th, 2011, 10:51 pm
I tend to agree with Hegel when it comes to art, to view art as something which is simply sensuous is an outdated notion. There are very few accomplished, modern artists who will create a piece of art simply to look nice. As Hegel would say, art must point to something beyond itself. This is clearly...
- Search found 16 matches • Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2