Arguments about Him-that square circle

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.

Does God probably exist?.

No
8
33%
Maybe
2
8%
Yes
7
29%
Impossible for anyone to say
7
29%
 
Total votes: 24

enegue
Posts: 1950
Joined: September 4th, 2009, 8:18 am
Favorite Philosopher: God
Location: Australia

Re: Arguments about Him-that square circle

Post by enegue »

Hi, Ignostic Morgan.

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
Ignostic Morgan
Posts: 36
Joined: August 27th, 2010, 7:28 am

Re: Arguments about Him-that square circle

Post by Ignostic Morgan »

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. :P
Thus God not only would not have intent, He couldn't even have a mind to have it! :bored:
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! :oops:
enegue, ok.
enegue
Posts: 1950
Joined: September 4th, 2009, 8:18 am
Favorite Philosopher: God
Location: Australia

Re: Arguments about Him-that square circle

Post by enegue »

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. :P
Thus God not only would not have intent, He couldn't even have a mind to have it! :bored:
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! :oops:
enegue, ok.
Well, no, it's not 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
Ignostic Morgan
Posts: 36
Joined: August 27th, 2010, 7:28 am

Re: Arguments about Him-that square circle

Post by Ignostic Morgan »

Who might seriously address these pertinent arguments? What is the evidence for a disembodied mind? Ti's just a theological inanity to aver that God metaphysically could act in the Cosmos yet we'd just see teleonomy at work. No, science trumps metaphysics! Thus, it would be that new Omphalos argument to aver that He uses epistemic distance to hide Himself ambiguously so as not to overwhelm our wills by letting teleonomy seem to rule! :P
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! :idea:
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! :oops:
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! :oops:
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! :oops:
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.
enegue
Posts: 1950
Joined: September 4th, 2009, 8:18 am
Favorite Philosopher: God
Location: Australia

Re: Arguments about Him-that square circle

Post by enegue »

This is the voice of good Ignastic Morgan.

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.
Ignostic Morgan
Posts: 36
Joined: August 27th, 2010, 7:28 am

Re: Arguments about Him-that square circle

Post by Ignostic Morgan »

Reduced animism is still as superstitious as regular animism! No wizard exists behind the Cosmic Curtain!
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?
enegue
Posts: 1950
Joined: September 4th, 2009, 8:18 am
Favorite Philosopher: God
Location: Australia

Re: Arguments about Him-that square circle

Post by enegue »

Hi, IM.

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
Ignostic Morgan
Posts: 36
Joined: August 27th, 2010, 7:28 am

Re: Arguments about Him-that square circle

Post by Ignostic Morgan »

Lamberth's non-genetic argument argues that supernaturalists themselves absolve us naturalists of using the genetic argument whenever we note how they come to believe. They use their unsubstantiated arguments from happiness-purpose and from angst to get people to believe in Him. That pellucidly- crystal clear- illuminates that in fact they do have psychological and sociological reasons to believe. :D Xenophanes notes that people see God in their likenesses. I note in the argument from pareidolia that they see what is not there- intent and design when mechanism and patterns are there. This means that they resort to a psychological mechanism to ascribe intent and design and why then they are reduced animists. The term reduced animism rests on no category mistake as it refers to ascribing intent at the level Nature herself as full animism refers to spirits behind natural causes. No intent exists for the wind spirit nor for the Spirit of Nature. :oops: eneque, I have no soul or spirit. Science finds none. I'm valuable, just because I exist and due to our level of consciousness. Cheerio!

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!
User avatar
Naturalist Griggsy
New Trial Member
Posts: 4
Joined: December 15th, 2012, 8:36 pm

Re: Arguments about Him-that square circle

Post by Naturalist Griggsy »

Lamberth's the Malebranche Reductio is that Nicholas Malebranche himself unwittingly reduces to absurdity the Deity with his occasionalism that Deity does the actual job when things happen! Again, theists must show how He acts. Aquinas' own superfluity argument boomerangs on his five ways! Percy Bysshe Shelley states it implicitly: " To suppose that some existence beyond, or above them [ the descriptions- laws- of Nature ] is to invent a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what already is accounted for." For theists then to claim that this is a category mistake would beg the question. :D

-- 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?
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021