Arguments about Him-that square circle
-
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: September 4th, 2009, 8:18 am
- Favorite Philosopher: God
- Location: Australia
Re: Arguments about Him-that square circle
The question appears to be poorly put. Did you mean to ask, "Does God exist? -Yes, -No, -Maybe, -Impossible to say."
Are you conducting an experiment?
Can you tell me the difference between the responses, "Yes, God probably exists." and "Maybe, God probably exists."? Maybe, "Maybe, God probably exists." is the same as, "It is impossible to say that God exists". Regardless, the question needs some polish.
Cheers,
enegue
-
- Posts: 36
- Joined: August 27th, 2010, 7:28 am
Re: Arguments about Him-that square circle
Thus God not only would not have intent, He couldn't even have a mind to have it!
Since transcendence precludes omnipresence, He cannot be both. He cannot even be transcendent as Existence is all! Were He, however, transcendent, then He couldn't act in the Cosmos had he mind and intent.
Now that makes Him that square circle!
enegue, ok.
-
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: September 4th, 2009, 8:18 am
- Favorite Philosopher: God
- Location: Australia
Re: Arguments about Him-that square circle
Well, no, it's not ok.Ignostic Morgan wrote:Per the argument from physical mind,despite Alvin Plantinga's silly dismissal of it, as we only know of physical mnds, then a disembodied one would contradict our conservation of knowledge. What would be the empirical basis for it? MInd came late in evolution.
Thus God not only would not have intent, He couldn't even have a mind to have it!
Since transcendence precludes omnipresence, He cannot be both. He cannot even be transcendent as Existence is all! Were He, however, transcendent, then He couldn't act in the Cosmos had he mind and intent.
Now that makes Him that square circle!
enegue, ok.
How do you know I exist? I could be that part of your brain that challenges your thinking and you are imagining this exchange of posts. You know, like the good Ignostic Morgan vs the bad Ignostic Morgan. How could you prove that I exist as a separate entity?
Let me put it to you that it doesn't matter if I exist or not. What matters is what you do in the world where there is just you and everything else is an illusion. What are you doing in your imaginary world to increase the level of content and decrease the level of discontent. In your imaginary world there is a book called, the Bible, that tells stories about a deity that revealed his formula for abundant life. Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to live according to that formula and test for yourself whether you favourably impact the levels of content and discontent in your imaginary world.
The behaviour of other people isn't even a consideration, your behaviour is all that matters.
Cheers,
enegue
-
- Posts: 36
- Joined: August 27th, 2010, 7:28 am
Re: Arguments about Him-that square circle
Again, per Reichenbach's argument not only is Existence all, it precludes any way to compare it to other objects such that not only do all teleological arguments beg the question per Carneades's argument, it eviscerates the fine-tuning and probability arguments, because how could one argue for the former without comparing tuned and non-tuned universes, and without comparison , no probability ensues!
No teleology wanted us so that conditions had to just right for us! No, conditions depended on randomness- mutations, the demise of the dinosaurs, the cooling-off period and the rise of flowering plants -as well as natural selection. The puddle argument disposes of both arguments: a puddle says to itself, how glorious that I was the effect of fine-tuning and probability! No, natural causes caused the hole and the rain that filled it up as teleonomy works that way!
Theism is just reduced animism- that superstition that discerns intent behind natural causes as the Azande do when they find the germ spirit acting behind natural causes for diseases or the wind spirit behind the wind when it knocks off tiles that harm human beings!
Lamberth's Malebranche Reductio notes that Nicholas Malebranche in positing that God is the true force behind actions unwittingly keel hauls God as that Primary Cause! He just makes the let there be light mystery that we never will discern how He acts as that Primary Cause with natural ones being just secondary ones!
The Supreme Mystery,surrounded by other mysteries has no explanatory value! God did it means God did it metaphysically as the God of the explanatory gap!
Supernaturalism,despite Gregor MacGregor, rests in magic!
Supernaturalists themselves use the genetic argument against themselves with their arguments from angst and from happiness-purpose!And no e vidence exists for either argument!
God wills what He wills is just a empty tautology.
-
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: September 4th, 2009, 8:18 am
- Favorite Philosopher: God
- Location: Australia
Re: Arguments about Him-that square circle
Hey, IM, why don't you give some thought to what enegue just said? Telling him a whole bunch of stuff that he didn't say is only going to distract you from considering really important things. Go on. Tell him what God recommends as the formula for abundance life. You've read the BIble. Tell him what you found.
Cheers,
GIM.
-
- Posts: 36
- Joined: August 27th, 2010, 7:28 am
Re: Arguments about Him-that square circle
Ferengi is an inane person at Amazon Discussions who prides himself on asking inane questions. Such deserve no responses!
How might a serious inquirer respond yea or nay, in part or whole to the previous commentary?
-
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: September 4th, 2009, 8:18 am
- Favorite Philosopher: God
- Location: Australia
Re: Arguments about Him-that square circle
Do you see yourself as tripartite - body, mind and spirit. or bipartite - body and mind? In other words, do you believe in the existence of your spirit?
Cheers,
enegue
-
- Posts: 36
- Joined: August 27th, 2010, 7:28 am
Re: Arguments about Him-that square circle
http://gnu.tumblr.com http://skepticicality.blogspot.co http://grigggsthenaturalist. wordpress.com
-- Updated Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:32 pm to add the following --
Before theists can talk about God meaningfully, they must give evidence as to how He operates in the Cosmos instead of merely assuming that He does have those omni-attributes! Where lies the evidence that He acts in the Cosmos. No, the Primary Cause and the Design arguments are no evidence as natural phenomena say sufficiently why things are as they are! They must show that He does have intent so that He can be the Primary Cause and so forth. Not only should they give that evidence but also for Heaven, Hell, the future state and free will instead of just assuming them!
- Naturalist Griggsy
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: December 15th, 2012, 8:36 pm
Re: Arguments about Him-that square circle
-- Updated January 21st, 2013, 11:34 pm to add the following --
Steele's argument from timelessness argues that being timeless, God could not be Himself as He could not act in time, and thus, the Kalam fails as it purports that first He acts outside time and once He creates, He is in time. Dwight's series argument argues that were He part of a series, He couldn't create nor could He be the Creator outside the series. His history/contingency argument argues that He couldn't create as being non-contingent and were somehow, contingency tied to Him, He'd be incoherent, and I add, that would affirm ignosticism. How might anyone have a relationship with some being who is incoherent, and for the sake of argument allow to be coherent, He'd be superfluous? Keith Parsons states:' Occult power wielded by a transcendent being in an inscrutable manner for unfathomable purposes be any kind of a good explanation?' He's be that Grand Mystery, surrounded by still other mysteries, ostensibly as that Ultimate Explanation but only the Ultimate Obscurantism! Lamberth's argument from inherency argues that chaos, order, regularity and the descriptions- laws- of Nature inhere in the Cosmos, and thus, He'd rely on them as the primary cause and He a secondary one just as morality lies outside His sphere of action. By the way, no divine right for divine rights exists!
-- Updated February 18th, 2013, 8:18 pm to add the following --
Dwight's serial argument argues that the series of things in the Cosmos would include God, and as part of that series, He could not be the Creator or else He lies outside the Cosmos and thus cannot exist [ as Reichenbach's argument notes.]. His contingency/ history argument is that to act God would have to be contingent but then He could not be the necessary being or He has some sort of combined necessary- contingency aspect that He would have another incoherent attribute and thus could not exist. Again, how then could He be that ultimate explanation, and how could one have a relationship with Him? I don't desire a relationship with any divinity! I worship none. None rule me. None have rights over me and could not morally judge and punish me.
-- Updated February 25th, 2013, 9:17 pm to add the following --
Dwight also makes his the argument from immutability that were He immutable, then He could not act in the Cosmos. Dwight's blog is Atheology. Why do you need to believe in Him? Would you go " beserk" without Him? Would you find life meaningless and purposeless without a purpose-giver? Why then would you find yourself then a thing to which Being Itself will give purpose as we give purpose to things? Would you comprehend less without Him as the ultimate explanation? Why would you find Him the primary cause when the Malebranche Reductio brings forth the reduction to absurdity that God is the power that does anything. How could one have a personal relationship with the Unnecessary Being?
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023