Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Lockes argument for God

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 2:38:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
One of Lockes arguments for God, in its most simplistic form, goes basically as follows.

P.1 Only life can produce life.
P.2 Life on earth had to have come from other life.
P.3 Therefore God exists.

I see one jump he makes but thoughts?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 3:09:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 2:38:02 PM, phantom wrote:
One of Lockes arguments for God, in its most simplistic form, goes basically as follows.

P.1 Only life can produce life.
P.2 Life on earth had to have come from other life.
P.3 Therefore God exists.

I see one jump he makes but thoughts?

He'd have to prove P1. Otherwise, seems pretty valid to me (unless you go by the theory that aliens created us, but that would lead to infinite regress).
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 4:03:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 2:38:02 PM, phantom wrote:
One of Lockes arguments for God, in its most simplistic form, goes basically as follows.

P.1 Only life can produce life.
P.2 Life on earth had to have come from other life.
P.3 Therefore God exists.

I see one jump he makes but thoughts?

I guess it's an understandable argument for his time. However, we've since discovered abiogenesis and know P1 to be factually untrue. Also, the wording is a bit ambiguous. When a zygote is formed, it's developed purely out of 2 fertilized gametes and organic compounds. This is why we can create babies outside of a woman's stomach. So, the qualities that constitute life are fully accounted for in non-living substances. So even if you deny abiogenesis, we have to agree that it's a physical possibility,...and that is enough to refute the initial premise.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 4:29:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 4:27:08 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/7/2012 4:03:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
This is why we can create babies outside of a woman's stomach.

False.

Depends on how you define a "baby".
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 4:36:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, here's the thing. John Locke wasn't a biologist. He was a philosopher and politician. He was a physican, but not in the contemporary sense of the word.

In any case, he subscribed to a sort of theoretical thinking that stated that life and non-life are completely distinct. With this, I wholly disagree (lol, I know, who the hell am I, but bear with me). My opinion is that life and non-life are simply two different ways that matter interacts. In other words, when fundamental manifestations of matter are placed in a given arrangement, it interacts in a certain way that translates as life to those conscious enough to notice. This isn't to say that a rock can think or metabolize, but this is to say that if the constituents of a rock (particularly one with a high carbon content) were to be combined (chemically) with other appropriate constituents of matter, then it too will spring to life and think and/or metabolize.

I remember seeing this exemplified during a TED Talk that I've posted on this website. A scientist literally showed how one could simply place the proper types of matter to result in what seemed to be a single-celled organism, complete with interaction, metabolism, and reproduction.

Fascinating, but it goes to show that the emergence of life is not contingent on the presence of life.

In any case, God was never asserted to be "alive" in any normative sense, anyway. As far as I can tell, He's incorporeal, which isn't really "alive..."
MattDescopa
Posts: 356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 5:48:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 2:38:02 PM, phantom wrote:
One of Lockes arguments for God, in its most simplistic form, goes basically as follows.

P.1 Only life can produce life.
P.2 Life on earth had to have come from other life.
P.3 Therefore God exists.

I see one jump he makes but thoughts?

I seem to think what your getting at but I dont think you phrased it properly.

I think it should be:

P1: Only life can produce life
P2: Life is finite
P3: There cannot be an infinite regress
P4: Therefore, there needs to be a supreme eternal source by which all life comes from aka GOD

premise 1 might be objected by arguing from abiogenesis
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2012 7:27:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 2:38:02 PM, phantom wrote:
One of Lockes arguments for God, in its most simplistic form, goes basically as follows.

P.1 Only life can produce life.
P.2 Life on earth had to have come from other life.
P.3 Therefore God exists.

I see one jump he makes but thoughts?

The Fool: It doesn't lead to God. There has to be GOd in the first to premises to be a syllogism lol
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2012 7:38:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 4:36:07 PM, Ren wrote:
Well, here's the thing. John Locke wasn't a biologist. He was a philosopher and politician. He was a physican, but not in the contemporary sense of the word.

In any case, he subscribed to a sort of theoretical thinking that stated that life and non-life are completely distinct. With this, I wholly disagree (lol, I know, who the hell am I, but bear with me). My opinion is that life and non-life are simply two different ways that matter interacts. In other words, when fundamental manifestations of matter are placed in a given arrangement, it interacts in a certain way that translates as life to those conscious enough to notice. This isn't to say that a rock can think or metabolize, but this is to say that if the constituents of a rock (particularly one with a high carbon content) were to be combined (chemically) with other appropriate constituents of matter, then it too will spring to life and think and/or metabolize.

I remember seeing this exemplified during a TED Talk that I've posted on this website. A scientist literally showed how one could simply place the proper types of matter to result in what seemed to be a single-celled organism, complete with interaction, metabolism, and reproduction.

Fascinating, but it goes to show that the emergence of life is not contingent on the presence of life.

In any case, God was never asserted to be "alive" in any normative sense, anyway. As far as I can tell, He's incorporeal, which isn't really "alive..."

The Fool: Lock was a pretty thinker. I am actually reading him right now.

God seems change into something new depeding on who said his name last. Lest Be Honest. There is not realy referrence that is consitent with God what so ever.
-
The Fool: I don't Believe Life comes from non-life. I used to. I don't anymore at all. I not a theist either. I have figured out a few intresting things in my studies lately.

I don't think evolutions Account for alot. It doesn't account for conciousss. Beiing. TO say something emergies. Is to say it just POPPED UP!> Sorry that is not a rational answer. I agree with evolution as getting alot right. and alot it being a History of life. But I am starting to get more turned off. IN the ground of explanion. ITs start to sound to much like SUBSTANTIAL FORMS>
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2012 7:47:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Quick lessson on logic. You guys are killing me here.
I seem to think what your getting at but I dont think you phrased it properly.

I think it should be:
You Can't have more in your in your conclusion then you do in your premises. because that is were you are deducing you consequence from. You don't even have a conclusion. and you want to for the sake of clarity keep you larger categories higher.

P1: Only life can produce life
P2: Life is finite
P3: There cannot be an infinite regress
P4: Therefore, there needs to be a supreme eternal source by which all life comes from aka GOD

The Fool: First. The premises have to share a context. of intereation.

P1: Only life can produce life
P2: Life is finite
P3: There cannot be an infinite regress<----------Not part of the Contexst
C: Therefore, there needs to be a supreme eternal source by which all life comes from aka GOD<-----------------------------------------these have to be in the premises. Doesn't matter anyways because you beginning the question of God. All together. It could be By anything that causes. It doesn' have be God in any sense.

The Fool: Supreme source says NOTHING> about anything. That is nothing saying it can't have a circular regress. YOu can't out of know here have god POP UP> In the conclusion when he is not in the premises. You can't have any new information that is not already in your premises.

The Fool: We don't have a Good Biogenesis explain.

premise 1 might be objected by arguing from abiogenesis
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2012 7:52:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 4:03:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/7/2012 2:38:02 PM, phantom wrote:
One of Lockes arguments for God, in its most simplistic form, goes basically as follows.

P.1 Only life can produce life.
P.2 Life on earth had to have come from other life.
P.3 Therefore God exists.

I see one jump he makes but thoughts?

I guess it's an understandable argument for his time. However, we've since discovered abiogenesis and know P1 to be factually untrue.

The Fool: Ike what are smoking. We don't have biogenens in any close sense of the word. We just have WEak hypothesis.

Also, the wording is a bit ambiguous. When a zygote is formed, it's developed purely out of 2 fertilized gametes and organic compounds.

This is why we can create babies outside of a woman's stomach. So, the qualities that constitute life are fully accounted for in non-living substances.

The Fool: THis is comming from a Guy who thinks his own consciousess is an illusion. While at the same time. He needs to be concious to have an illusion.

So even if you deny abiogenesis, we have to agree that it's a physical possibility,...and that is enough to refute the initial premise.

The Fool: Now Its not solely a physical possibity and in sense perception sense. No.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2012 3:45:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 4:03:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/7/2012 2:38:02 PM, phantom wrote:
One of Lockes arguments for God, in its most simplistic form, goes basically as follows.

P.1 Only life can produce life.
P.2 Life on earth had to have come from other life.
P.3 Therefore God exists.

I see one jump he makes but thoughts?

I guess it's an understandable argument for his time. However, we've since discovered abiogenesis and know P1 to be factually untrue.

Right. So which these hypothesis renders p1 factually untrue?

http://en.wikipedia.org...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2012 3:48:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2012 3:45:36 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/7/2012 4:03:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/7/2012 2:38:02 PM, phantom wrote:
One of Lockes arguments for God, in its most simplistic form, goes basically as follows.

P.1 Only life can produce life.
P.2 Life on earth had to have come from other life.
P.3 Therefore God exists.

I see one jump he makes but thoughts?

I guess it's an understandable argument for his time. However, we've since discovered abiogenesis and know P1 to be factually untrue.

Right. So which one of these hypothesis renders p1 factually untrue?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Fixed.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2012 3:55:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2012 3:45:36 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/7/2012 4:03:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/7/2012 2:38:02 PM, phantom wrote:
One of Lockes arguments for God, in its most simplistic form, goes basically as follows.

P.1 Only life can produce life.
P.2 Life on earth had to have come from other life.
P.3 Therefore God exists.

I see one jump he makes but thoughts?

I guess it's an understandable argument for his time. However, we've since discovered abiogenesis and know P1 to be factually untrue.

Right. So which these hypothesis renders p1 factually untrue?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

all of them....I'm not,...I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2012 4:04:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2012 3:55:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/8/2012 3:45:36 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/7/2012 4:03:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/7/2012 2:38:02 PM, phantom wrote:
One of Lockes arguments for God, in its most simplistic form, goes basically as follows.

P.1 Only life can produce life.
P.2 Life on earth had to have come from other life.
P.3 Therefore God exists.

I see one jump he makes but thoughts?

I guess it's an understandable argument for his time. However, we've since discovered abiogenesis and know P1 to be factually untrue.

Right. So which these hypothesis renders p1 factually untrue?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

all of them....I'm not,...I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

And what reason do we have to believe that any of them are true or that they adequately explain the phenomena, again?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2012 4:13:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2012 4:04:25 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/8/2012 3:55:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/8/2012 3:45:36 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/7/2012 4:03:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/7/2012 2:38:02 PM, phantom wrote:
One of Lockes arguments for God, in its most simplistic form, goes basically as follows.

P.1 Only life can produce life.
P.2 Life on earth had to have come from other life.
P.3 Therefore God exists.

I see one jump he makes but thoughts?

I guess it's an understandable argument for his time. However, we've since discovered abiogenesis and know P1 to be factually untrue.

Right. So which these hypothesis renders p1 factually untrue?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

all of them....I'm not,...I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

And what reason do we have to believe that any of them are true or that they adequately explain the phenomena, again?

but that's not even what I argued. I said that they are possibilities. Obviously we don't have a set explanation for the origin of life, of but we have viable hypotheses. P1 says that there is no way for life to exist other than through life. We KNOW that it is possible to generate life out of nonliving things. Therefore, P1 is false without a shadow of a doubt.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault