Total Posts:87|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Aristotle's Logical Proof Of God

TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 7:59:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
My Ethics teacher has been spending the entire semester trying to subliminally provide substantiation for God's existence, and in one case, he claims that Aristotle's argument is completely unbeatable, with the best counter to merely result in a draw. The argument is that everything in existence must have a cause; therefore, there must be an uncaused cause, or something along those lines. However, in my mind, that is not only contradictory, but the initial premise hasn't necessarily been established as far as I'm aware. Me and some other students questioned this, but the prof wasn't budging.

I'm curious as to what some other people on this site might think of this argument.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 8:08:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Even if it's correct, it doesn't prove anything meaningful, unless the god he worships is defined as a universe factory.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 8:13:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 7:59:56 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
My Ethics teacher has been spending the entire semester trying to subliminally provide substantiation for God's existence, and in one case, he claims that Aristotle's argument is completely unbeatable, with the best counter to merely result in a draw. The argument is that everything in existence must have a cause; therefore, there must be an uncaused cause, or something along those lines. However, in my mind, that is not only contradictory, but the initial premise hasn't necessarily been established as far as I'm aware. Me and some other students questioned this, but the prof wasn't budging.

I'm curious as to what some other people on this site might think of this argument.

That is pitiful. He needs to go back to school redo his philosophy degree. Sorry, but that's unexcusable for a philosophy professor to be that incompetent. All the philosophy professors I've had always demonstrated a deep understanding and vast knowledge of philosophy.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 8:17:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 8:13:59 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/13/2011 7:59:56 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
My Ethics teacher has been spending the entire semester trying to subliminally provide substantiation for God's existence, and in one case, he claims that Aristotle's argument is completely unbeatable, with the best counter to merely result in a draw. The argument is that everything in existence must have a cause; therefore, there must be an uncaused cause, or something along those lines. However, in my mind, that is not only contradictory, but the initial premise hasn't necessarily been established as far as I'm aware. Me and some other students questioned this, but the prof wasn't budging.

I'm curious as to what some other people on this site might think of this argument.

That is pitiful. He needs to go back to school redo his philosophy degree. Sorry, but that's unexcusable for a philosophy professor to be that incompetent. All the philosophy professors I've had always demonstrated a deep understanding and vast knowledge of philosophy.

Not to mention, most importantly, critical thinking and formal logic.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 8:17:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 7:59:56 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
My Ethics teacher has been spending the entire semester trying to subliminally provide substantiation for God's existence, and in one case, he claims that Aristotle's argument is completely unbeatable, with the best counter to merely result in a draw. The argument is that everything in existence must have a cause; therefore, there must be an uncaused cause, or something along those lines. However, in my mind, that is not only contradictory, but the initial premise hasn't necessarily been established as far as I'm aware. Me and some other students questioned this, but the prof wasn't budging.


Lol, that is not Aristotle's argument.

I'm curious as to what some other people on this site might think of this argument.

It's okay. But it relies on a metaphysics that a lot of people reject.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 8:20:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 7:59:56 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
My Ethics teacher has been spending the entire semester trying to subliminally provide substantiation for God's existence, and in one case, he claims that Aristotle's argument is completely unbeatable, with the best counter to merely result in a draw. The argument is that everything in existence must have a cause; therefore, there must be an uncaused cause, or something along those lines. However, in my mind, that is not only contradictory, but the initial premise hasn't necessarily been established as far as I'm aware. Me and some other students questioned this, but the prof wasn't budging.

I'm curious as to what some other people on this site might think of this argument.

Aristotle's unmoved mover is not god. Aristotle is my main figure (the philosopher I am making my emphasis on to cap stone my phil major).

The unmoved mover takes matter that is ALREADY IN EXISTENCE and moves it. That is all. It didn't create the matter, nor is it personal or cares about the matter, nor does it give it a purpose. It just does things. It is just a natural force (like gravity).

Only an uneducated twit (or someone who adores Aquinas) would equate the unmoved mover to theologists "God."
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 8:26:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 8:17:34 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

That is pitiful. He needs to go back to school redo his philosophy degree. Sorry, but that's unexcusable for a philosophy professor to be that incompetent. All the philosophy professors I've had always demonstrated a deep understanding and vast knowledge of philosophy.

Not to mention, most importantly, critical thinking and formal logic.

Yeah, I've noticed that he's been one of the most assertive profs I've had. For arguments and disputes that have not been settled, he injects one side of the matter as complete undeniable fact, which I found to be questionable.

For instance, it's one thing for a Biology teacher to correctly assert that Evolution is about as factual as any other theory, but it's probably more opinion than fact to assert that String Theory is just as factual. He seems to take topics that are under continuing investigation and act as if the debate is over...
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 8:27:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
i think there was probably and uncaused cause, yes. but it doesn't need to have been a choice though, like one made by a free willed god or something like that, just an uncaused cause...like nothing exploding into something for no reason whatsoever lol.. :) the universe is crazy...
signature
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 8:28:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 8:20:36 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:

Aristotle's unmoved mover is not god. Aristotle is my main figure (the philosopher I am making my emphasis on to cap stone my phil major).

The unmoved mover takes matter that is ALREADY IN EXISTENCE and moves it. That is all. It didn't create the matter, nor is it personal or cares about the matter, nor does it give it a purpose. It just does things. It is just a natural force (like gravity).

Only an uneducated twit (or someone who adores Aquinas) would equate the unmoved mover to theologists "God."

I honestly believe that it's a mixture of both. Funny enough, he didn't mention anything about an unmoved mover -- only an uncaused cause, and he fully attributed such an argument to Aristotle.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 8:31:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 8:27:04 PM, badger wrote:
i think there was probably and uncaused cause, yes. but it doesn't need to have been a choice though, like one made by a free willed god or something like that, just an uncaused cause...like nothing exploding into something for no reason whatsoever lol.. :) the universe is crazy...

He did clarify that there are 3 different forms of this happening. There is the accidental Pantheism/naturalism (he sorta equated the two), Deism, and Theism. However, I think it's a bit early for philosophers and scientists to be claiming that infinite regress is out of the question...

I honestly don't know, though. I've barely studied anything having to do with philosophy.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 8:32:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 8:27:04 PM, badger wrote:
i think there was probably and uncaused cause, yes. but it doesn't need to have been a choice though, like one made by a free willed god or something like that, just an uncaused cause...like nothing exploding into something for no reason whatsoever lol.. :) the universe is crazy...

this just seems to be more plausible to me than there being no findable beginning :) though, at the same time, it doesn't lol..
signature
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 8:33:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 8:17:55 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

Lol, that is not Aristotle's argument.

Honest question: What is Aristotle's argument on this subject?

It's okay. But it relies on a metaphysics that a lot of people reject.

That was another issue I had. He seemed to take the metaphysical aspect as a given.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 8:33:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 8:31:43 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 2/13/2011 8:27:04 PM, badger wrote:
i think there was probably and uncaused cause, yes. but it doesn't need to have been a choice though, like one made by a free willed god or something like that, just an uncaused cause...like nothing exploding into something for no reason whatsoever lol.. :) the universe is crazy...

He did clarify that there are 3 different forms of this happening. There is the accidental Pantheism/naturalism (he sorta equated the two), Deism, and Theism. However, I think it's a bit early for philosophers and scientists to be claiming that infinite regress is out of the question...

i can't wrap my head at all at all around infinite regress though.. at least with the uncaused cause i'm not completely lost in madness :) even though i am :)

I honestly don't know, though. I've barely studied anything having to do with philosophy.
signature
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 8:35:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 8:28:58 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 2/13/2011 8:20:36 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:

Aristotle's unmoved mover is not god. Aristotle is my main figure (the philosopher I am making my emphasis on to cap stone my phil major).

The unmoved mover takes matter that is ALREADY IN EXISTENCE and moves it. That is all. It didn't create the matter, nor is it personal or cares about the matter, nor does it give it a purpose. It just does things. It is just a natural force (like gravity).

Only an uneducated twit (or someone who adores Aquinas) would equate the unmoved mover to theologists "God."

I honestly believe that it's a mixture of both. Funny enough, he didn't mention anything about an unmoved mover -- only an uncaused cause, and he fully attributed such an argument to Aristotle.

*slaps forehead* Even my professor who is teaching me about Aristotle (she graduated from Notre Dame and is a hardcore Christian philosopher) says that Aristotle's unmoved mover is NOT god - it doesn't have the traits of the theist's god.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 8:48:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 8:20:36 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Aristotle's unmoved mover is not god. Aristotle is my main figure (the philosopher I am making my emphasis on to cap stone my phil major).

The unmoved mover takes matter that is ALREADY IN EXISTENCE and moves it. That is all. It didn't create the matter, nor is it personal or cares about the matter, nor does it give it a purpose. It just does things. It is just a natural force (like gravity).

Only an uneducated twit (or someone who adores Aquinas) would equate the unmoved mover to theologists "God."

Yeah, I was going to point that out as well, but you did a much better explanation than I could've given.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 8:53:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 8:31:43 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
He did clarify that there are 3 different forms of this happening. There is the accidental Pantheism/naturalism (he sorta equated the two),

Wow. So many things wrong here. Neither Pantheism nor naturalism are accidental, nor should Pantheism be automatically be equated with naturalism, though it's possible for Pantheism to be naturalistic.

Deism, and Theism. However, I think it's a bit early for philosophers and scientists to be claiming that infinite regress is out of the question...

Um, I don't see that at all as becoming anywhere near obsolete. As far as I'm aware, most scientists and philosophers accept the validity of an eternal Universe. It's usually Creationists who say otherwise.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 8:54:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 8:35:35 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:

*slaps forehead* Even my professor who is teaching me about Aristotle (she graduated from Notre Dame and is a hardcore Christian philosopher) says that Aristotle's unmoved mover is NOT god - it doesn't have the traits of the theist's god.

This is where I think he knows the facts, but his personal bias is too much for him to handle. He made multiple efforts to point out that Aristotle was not referring to a theistic God, but that he was referring to God. When it came to the definition of God, he got really vague.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 9:01:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 8:53:29 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Wow. So many things wrong here. Neither Pantheism nor naturalism are accidental, nor should Pantheism be automatically be equated with naturalism, though it's possible for Pantheism to be naturalistic.

Well, to be fair, I meant accidental as in not designed or planned by a deity. But, the problem was that he didn't clarify the possible distinctions between Pantheism and Naturalism.

Um, I don't see that at all as becoming anywhere near obsolete. As far as I'm aware, most scientists and philosophers accept the validity of an eternal Universe. It's usually Creationists who say otherwise.

Yeah, all I'm aware of is that the possibility of eternal regress is not out of the question. Contrarily, he explicitly and implicitly ruled out that possibility throughout his lectures.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 9:06:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Examine any argument deep enough and the only conclusion you will find is that the nature of the universe is fundamentally paradoxical.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 12:18:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 9:06:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Examine any argument deep enough and the only conclusion you will find is that the nature of the universe is fundamentally paradoxical.

oh shut up
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 12:23:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
he argument is that everything in existence must have a cause; therefore, there must be an uncaused cause, or something along those lines. However, in my mind, that is not only contradictory, but the initial premise hasn't necessarily been established as far as I'm aware.
Prof stupid. Point at him and laugh.

At 2/13/2011 9:06:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Examine any argument deep enough and the only conclusion you will find is that the nature of the universe is fundamentally paradoxical.

The universe is there.

And there's no particular reason for it. Go on, get deep on that.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 12:34:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/14/2011 12:18:24 AM, TheSkeptic wrote:
At 2/13/2011 9:06:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Examine any argument deep enough and the only conclusion you will find is that the nature of the universe is fundamentally paradoxical.

oh shut up

lol
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 4:26:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/14/2011 12:18:24 AM, TheSkeptic wrote:
At 2/13/2011 9:06:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Examine any argument deep enough and the only conclusion you will find is that the nature of the universe is fundamentally paradoxical.

oh shut up

There are no words to describe how...amazing that response was.
I miss the old members.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 4:27:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 7:59:56 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
My Ethics teacher has been spending the entire semester trying to subliminally provide substantiation for God's existence, and in one case, he claims that Aristotle's argument is completely unbeatable, with the best counter to merely result in a draw. The argument is that everything in existence must have a cause; therefore, there must be an uncaused cause, or something along those lines. However, in my mind, that is not only contradictory, but the initial premise hasn't necessarily been established as far as I'm aware. Me and some other students questioned this, but the prof wasn't budging.

I'm curious as to what some other people on this site might think of this argument.

Wow I have never heard that argument before, my mind is totally blown. Your teacher is a retard.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 1:17:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
He certainly is, C & N. Moreover, he just stated today that the US government wasn't founded upon Judeo-Christian principles, but that it was found on Protestant principles.

If he keeps this crap up, I'm going to have to report him. He's literally spending all class presenting factually incorrect information, little of which even has to do with ETHICS! He has talked minimally about ethics in specific, but has instead gone on incoherent tangents about philosophy in general.

On top of that first claim though, he also stated that Conservatives want to deal with society as it is, while Liberals want to make society better. This may have been somewhat true during the French Revolution or something, but he did not elucidate that, but instead gave the impression that modern Conservatives don't want to change anything. Anyone who has watched television over the last two years knows that BOTH Conservatives and Liberals want to change the system; they just disagree on HOW.

He also rambled on about how Jews and Catholics care more about society, while Protestants value the individual more. That's probably true to an extent, but he just laid that out there as some sort of given or something.

WTF. 0_0
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 2:48:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 7:59:56 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
My Ethics teacher has been spending the entire semester trying to subliminally provide substantiation for God's existence, and in one case, he claims that Aristotle's argument is completely unbeatable, with the best counter to merely result in a draw. The argument is that everything in existence must have a cause; therefore, there must be an uncaused cause, or something along those lines. However, in my mind, that is not only contradictory, but the initial premise hasn't necessarily been established as far as I'm aware. Me and some other students questioned this, but the prof wasn't budging.

I'm curious as to what some other people on this site might think of this argument.

Its sound (the argument).
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 2:52:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/14/2011 2:48:16 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
At 2/13/2011 7:59:56 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
My Ethics teacher has been spending the entire semester trying to subliminally provide substantiation for God's existence, and in one case, he claims that Aristotle's argument is completely unbeatable, with the best counter to merely result in a draw. The argument is that everything in existence must have a cause; therefore, there must be an uncaused cause, or something along those lines. However, in my mind, that is not only contradictory, but the initial premise hasn't necessarily been established as far as I'm aware. Me and some other students questioned this, but the prof wasn't budging.

I'm curious as to what some other people on this site might think of this argument.

Its sound (the argument).

Lol.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 2:56:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/14/2011 1:17:37 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
He certainly is, C & N. Moreover, he just stated today that the US government wasn't founded upon Judeo-Christian principles, but that it was found on Protestant principles.

But... what?


If he keeps this crap up, I'm going to have to report him. He's literally spending all class presenting factually incorrect information, little of which even has to do with ETHICS! He has talked minimally about ethics in specific, but has instead gone on incoherent tangents about philosophy in general.


I think a report is long overdue, you are at university right? The standard should be way, way higher than this.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
maninorange
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 6:18:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 7:59:56 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
The argument is that everything in existence must have a cause; therefore, there must be an uncaused cause, or something along those lines.



This is equivocation... there's a conflict over what "exists" means. When he says that everything in existence has a cause, what he actually means is everything that belongs to the universe. The universe itself does not belong to the universe, but instead exists by a different definition of "exists." Therefore, the universe need not have a cause based upon what we know. Once we have a universe, we have quantum wave functions and all sorts of other fun things to simulate the reality we see.

Go... play with this new... toy.
This is not a signature.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 6:50:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/14/2011 12:18:24 AM, TheSkeptic wrote:
At 2/13/2011 9:06:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Examine any argument deep enough and the only conclusion you will find is that the nature of the universe is fundamentally paradoxical.

oh shut up

lmao thats exactly what i was thinking when i read it
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...