Total Posts:66|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God as Inconceivability

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 8:19:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Inconceivability

The Fool: Now as a philosopher, I have always seen this as a Death blow to any rational comprehension of the concept of Gods which has the predicate of inconceivability.
First, problem is well it's inconceivable, so we couldn't even know it was a property, because we can't conceive of it.

Secondly problem, we can't even know of other properties because if it was possible to have inconceivability as a property is renders everything else uncertain. Why? Inconceivability makes Object/subject as a whole not knowable. It means anything can happen.

What should also be recognized is that inconceivability it is the absence of a property, not an actual property. This just mean it's not, as in, it does not exist that it's knowable/conceivable, but then nor can you claim it. (Rationally)

So creating something out of nothing, can never be a rational claim. Because you would need to know how it was possible, to justify that it was in fact created. But supernatural powers and all such notions fall to crap without inconceivability being and actual property rather than the non-recognition of one.

Thus and argument for God can never be Rational.

Is there any Rationalist Theist here that can defend against this argument?
(argument an in premises and conclusions)

Without appealing to ignorance!

Note:
I mean rational in the original sense by the Rationalist philosophers; As in to think in coherence with logic.
"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
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 8:22:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just because we can't comprehend something =\= it can't exist
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 8:37:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Obviously But you can't claim it does Rationally, it will always just be a wild guess.
"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
7/11/2012 8:56:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Yes it does!.
"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
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 9:21:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 8:56:50 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Yes it does!.

Mathematically it has been proven the universe is expanding. Something without boundaries cannot be expanding, thus there must be boundaries to expand.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 9:31:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't think that Theists argue that God doesn't have limits. I think what they argue is that only God knows his limits and that we as humans are incapable of perceiving them.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 9:33:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"The limits of the created universe cannot be perceived. Its limits here and beyond cannot be perceived. Many struggle to know His limits, but His limits cannot be found. No one can know these limits. The more you say about them, the more there still remains to be said."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 9:37:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 9:21:14 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:56:50 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Yes it does!.

Mathematically it has been proven the universe is expanding. Something without boundaries cannot be expanding, thus there must be boundaries to expand.

The Fool: LMFAO! No it hasn't been proven, science is evidence based, its only probabity not proofs. Secondly the claim is that the spatial portion of the universe is exanding at the speed of light. But this is an infalluable claim because we could never check because of the speed of the expansion is faster then the light of observation to ever catch up to it.

Lastly, that would make it concievable so it would fail anyways.
"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
7/11/2012 11:15:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: So death blow??
"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
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 11:34:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 8:19:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Inconceivability


The Fool: Now as a philosopher, I have always seen this as a Death blow to any rational comprehension of the concept of Gods which has the predicate of inconceivability.
First, problem is well it's inconceivable, so we couldn't even know it was a property, because we can't conceive of it.

Secondly problem, we can't even know of other properties because if it was possible to have inconceivability as a property is renders everything else uncertain. Why? Inconceivability makes Object/subject as a whole not knowable. It means anything can happen.

What should also be recognized is that inconceivability it is the absence of a property, not an actual property. This just mean it's not, as in, it does not exist that it's knowable/conceivable, but then nor can you claim it. (Rationally)

So creating something out of nothing, can never be a rational claim. Because you would need to know how it was possible, to justify that it was in fact created. But supernatural powers and all such notions fall to crap without inconceivability being and actual property rather than the non-recognition of one.

Thus and argument for God can never be Rational.

Is there any Rationalist Theist here that can defend against this argument?
(argument an in premises and conclusions)

Without appealing to ignorance!

Note:
I mean rational in the original sense by the Rationalist philosophers; As in to think in coherence with logic.

That's no problem if you realize the fact that Rationalism needs to be synthesized with Empericism! Kant ftw
"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)
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 11:36:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 8:37:58 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Obviously But you can't claim it does Rationally, it will always just be a wild guess.

Again, this doesn't mean that the thing does not or cannot exist.

Just because I can't say definitively that there is a man named Bilbo in Africa - I don't know anything about the naming of Africans, never met a Bilbo in Africa, never heard of one, seen one, touched one - doesn't mean this man does not or cannot exist.

I can guess and say he does - there are a lot of people in Africa - but my inability to know this doesn't effect his ability to exist.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 11:55:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 11:34:08 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:19:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Inconceivability


The Fool: Now as a philosopher, I have always seen this as a Death blow to any rational comprehension of the concept of Gods which has the predicate of inconceivability.
First, problem is well it's inconceivable, so we couldn't even know it was a property, because we can't conceive of it.

Secondly problem, we can't even know of other properties because if it was possible to have inconceivability as a property is renders everything else uncertain. Why? Inconceivability makes Object/subject as a whole not knowable. It means anything can happen.

What should also be recognized is that inconceivability it is the absence of a property, not an actual property. This just mean it's not, as in, it does not exist that it's knowable/conceivable, but then nor can you claim it. (Rationally)

So creating something out of nothing, can never be a rational claim. Because you would need to know how it was possible, to justify that it was in fact created. But supernatural powers and all such notions fall to crap without inconceivability being and actual property rather than the non-recognition of one.

Thus and argument for God can never be Rational.

Is there any Rationalist Theist here that can defend against this argument?
(argument an in premises and conclusions)

Without appealing to ignorance!

Note:
I mean rational in the original sense by the Rationalist philosophers; As in to think in coherence with logic.

That's no problem if you realize the fact that Rationalism needs to be synthesized with Empericism! Kant ftw

The Fool: What the hell are you talking about? I know kant like the back of my hand. lol. Empericism is based on a priori synthesis.
What does this have to do with and claiming knowledge of that which by definition can't be known. ???
"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
7/11/2012 11:59:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 11:36:34 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:37:58 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Obviously But you can't claim it does Rationally, it will always just be a wild guess.

Again, this doesn't mean that the thing does not or cannot exist.

Just because I can't say definitively that there is a man named Bilbo in Africa - I don't know anything about the naming of Africans, never met a Bilbo in Africa, never heard of one, seen one, touched one - doesn't mean this man does not or cannot exist.

The Fool: no you can't claim definitly. But that is besides the point here. The matter here is claim of what DOES EXIST! To say that doesn't not mean it doesn't exist is not a justification that God DOES EXIST!. The Main Idea is the claim that you can comprehend what is incomprehensible. In that if it is indeed incomprehenibe. You can't know what it is. because its incomprehensible. .

Ian guess and say he does - there are a lot of people in Africa - but my inability to know this doesn't effect his ability to exist.
"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
7/12/2012 12:02:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: The main idea is that you can't claim that God is has a Property of incomprehensibility and then say you comprehend what God is at the same damn time.

Therefore one has to go!. either you have no conception of God at all, or you do, but you understand God, and how he creates, and does his thing.
"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
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 12:18:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 11:55:36 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/11/2012 11:34:08 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:19:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Inconceivability


The Fool: Now as a philosopher, I have always seen this as a Death blow to any rational comprehension of the concept of Gods which has the predicate of inconceivability.
First, problem is well it's inconceivable, so we couldn't even know it was a property, because we can't conceive of it.

Secondly problem, we can't even know of other properties because if it was possible to have inconceivability as a property is renders everything else uncertain. Why? Inconceivability makes Object/subject as a whole not knowable. It means anything can happen.

What should also be recognized is that inconceivability it is the absence of a property, not an actual property. This just mean it's not, as in, it does not exist that it's knowable/conceivable, but then nor can you claim it. (Rationally)

So creating something out of nothing, can never be a rational claim. Because you would need to know how it was possible, to justify that it was in fact created. But supernatural powers and all such notions fall to crap without inconceivability being and actual property rather than the non-recognition of one.

Thus and argument for God can never be Rational.

Is there any Rationalist Theist here that can defend against this argument?
(argument an in premises and conclusions)

Without appealing to ignorance!

Note:
I mean rational in the original sense by the Rationalist philosophers; As in to think in coherence with logic.

That's no problem if you realize the fact that Rationalism needs to be synthesized with Empericism! Kant ftw

The Fool: What the hell are you talking about? I know kant like the back of my hand. lol. Empericism is based on a priori synthesis.
What does this have to do with and claiming knowledge of that which by definition can't be known. ???

Huh? You're attacking a rationalistic basis for belief in God. If you know Kant as well as you say, you should of course know his view on rationalism and empericism, as it is rather famous.
"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)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 12:41:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 9:31:37 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
STRAWMAN STRAWMAN STRAWMAN

How about learning something about theology before commenting on what "theists believe?"
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 12:51:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Inconceivability


The Fool: Now as a philosopher, I have always seen this as a Death blow to any rational comprehension of the concept of Gods which has the predicate of inconceivability.

First, problem is well it's inconceivable, so we couldn't even know it was a property, because we can't conceive of it.

Secondly problem, we can't even know of other properties because if it was possible to have inconceivability as a property is renders everything else uncertain. Why? Inconceivability makes Object/subject as a whole not knowable. It means anything can happen.

What should also be recognized is that inconceivability it is the absence of a property, not an actual property. This just mean it's not, as in, it does not exist that it's knowable/conceivable, but then nor can you claim it. (Rationally)

So creating something out of nothing, can never be a rational claim. Because you would need to know how it was possible, to justify that it was in fact created. But supernatural powers and all such notions fall to crap without inconceivability being and actual property rather than the non-recognition of one.

Thus and argument for God can never be Rational.

Is there any Rationalist Theist here that can defend against this argument?
(argument an in premises and conclusions)

Without appealing to ignorance!

Note:
I mean rational in the original sense by the Rationalist philosophers; As in to think in coherence with logic.
"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
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 1:21:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 8:22:19 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Just because we can't comprehend something =\= it can't exist

It does, however, make debating it's existence, particularly asserting it's existence, to be completely futile since "it" would have no meaning to us.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 1:35:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 11:34:08 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:19:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Inconceivability


The Fool: Now as a philosopher, I have always seen this as a Death blow to any rational comprehension of the concept of Gods which has the predicate of inconceivability.
First, problem is well it's inconceivable, so we couldn't even know it was a property, because we can't conceive of it.

Secondly problem, we can't even know of other properties because if it was possible to have inconceivability as a property is renders everything else uncertain. Why? Inconceivability makes Object/subject as a whole not knowable. It means anything can happen.

What should also be recognized is that inconceivability it is the absence of a property, not an actual property. This just mean it's not, as in, it does not exist that it's knowable/conceivable, but then nor can you claim it. (Rationally)

So creating something out of nothing, can never be a rational claim. Because you would need to know how it was possible, to justify that it was in fact created. But supernatural powers and all such notions fall to crap without inconceivability being and actual property rather than the non-recognition of one.

Thus and argument for God can never be Rational.

Is there any Rationalist Theist here that can defend against this argument?
(argument an in premises and conclusions)

Without appealing to ignorance!

Note:
I mean rational in the original sense by the Rationalist philosophers; As in to think in coherence with logic.

That's no problem if you realize the fact that Rationalism needs to be synthesized with Empericism! Kant ftw

In our debate, I didn't completely understand what you meant by this either... Kant is pretty well known as a rationalist. He became a transcendental idealist after reading empiricism, but even then all his conclusions were a priori.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 7:22:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 8:19:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Inconceivability


The Fool: Now as a philosopher...

It's inconcievable that The Fool thinks he is a philosopher, I see this as a Death blow to any rational comprehension of the concept of The Fool as a Philosopher, which has the predicate of inconceivability.

First, problem is that it's inconceivable, so we couldn't even know The Fool was a philosopher, because we can't conceive of it.

Secondly problem, we can't even know if The Fool has any properties of a philosopher because if it was possible for The Fool to have rational thought as a property, it would render his posts intelligible. Why? Because rational thought would make his posts intelligible.

What should also be recognized is that The Fool's posts demonstrate the absence of rational thought, not actual rational thought. This just mean it's not, as in, it does not exist that it's knowable/conceivable that The Fool is a philosopher, so it can't be claimed rationally.

So creating a phiosopher out of nothing even remotely resembling rational thought, can never be a rational claim. Because you would need to know how it was possible, to justify that it was in fact philosophy. But The Fool as a philosopher and all such notions fall to crap without rational thought being an actual property of The Fool, given the non-rational thought in his posts.

Thus an argument for The Fool being a philosopher can never be Rational.

Is there any Fool here that can defend against this argument?
(argument as in premises and conclusions)

Without appealing to ignorance and irrational thought processes!

Note:
I mean rational in the original sense by the Rationalist philosophers; As in to think in coherence with logic.

And finally, IJCMU
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 11:59:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 1:35:06 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/11/2012 11:34:08 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:19:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Inconceivability


The Fool: Now as a philosopher, I have always seen this as a Death blow to any rational comprehension of the concept of Gods which has the predicate of inconceivability.
First, problem is well it's inconceivable, so we couldn't even know it was a property, because we can't conceive of it.

Secondly problem, we can't even know of other properties because if it was possible to have inconceivability as a property is renders everything else uncertain. Why? Inconceivability makes Object/subject as a whole not knowable. It means anything can happen.

What should also be recognized is that inconceivability it is the absence of a property, not an actual property. This just mean it's not, as in, it does not exist that it's knowable/conceivable, but then nor can you claim it. (Rationally)

So creating something out of nothing, can never be a rational claim. Because you would need to know how it was possible, to justify that it was in fact created. But supernatural powers and all such notions fall to crap without inconceivability being and actual property rather than the non-recognition of one.

Thus and argument for God can never be Rational.

Is there any Rationalist Theist here that can defend against this argument?
(argument an in premises and conclusions)

Without appealing to ignorance!

Note:
I mean rational in the original sense by the Rationalist philosophers; As in to think in coherence with logic.

That's no problem if you realize the fact that Rationalism needs to be synthesized with Empericism! Kant ftw

In our debate, I didn't completely understand what you meant by this either... Kant is pretty well known as a rationalist. He became a transcendental idealist after reading empiricism, but even then all his conclusions were a priori.

I know he had different beliefs before re-reading Hume, but see link. http://plato.stanford.edu...
"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)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 12:23:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 7:22:20 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:19:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Inconceivability


The Fool: Now as a philosopher...

It's inconcievable that The Fool thinks he is a philosopher, I see this as a Death blow to any rational comprehension of the concept of The Fool as a Philosopher, which has the predicate of inconceivability.(ad hominen fallacy)

First, problem is that it's inconceivable, so we couldn't even know The Fool was a philosopher, because we can't conceive of it.(ad hominen fallacy)

Secondly problem, we can't even know if The Fool has any properties of a philosopher because if it was possible for The Fool to have rational thought as a property, it would render his posts intelligible. (ad hominen fallacy)Why? Because rational thought would make his posts intelligible. (ad hominen fallacy)

What should also be recognized is that The Fool's posts demonstrate the absence of rational thought, not actual rational thought. (ad hominen fallacy)This just mean it's not, as in, it does not exist that it's knowable/conceivable that The Fool is a philosopher, so it can't be claimed rationally.(ad hominen fallacy)

So creating a phiosopher out of nothing even remotely resembling rational thought, can never be a rational claim. (ad hominen fallacy)(ad hominen fallacy)Because you would need to know how it was possible, to justify that it was in fact philosophy. But The Fool as a philosopher and all such notions fall to crap without rational thought being an actual property of The Fool, given the non-rational thought in his posts.(ad hominen fallacy)

Thus an argument for The Fool being a philosopher can never be Rational.(ad hominen fallacy)

Is there any Fool here that can defend against this argument?
(argument as in premises and conclusions)(ad hominen fallacy)

Without appealing to ignorance and irrational thought processes!

Note:
I mean rational in the original sense by the Rationalist philosophers; As in to think in coherence with logic.

And finally, IJCMU

The Fool: So you are not able to defend the argument right?

Then Q.E.D. I think you need to learn some hate control there.
"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
7/12/2012 12:25:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 11:59:04 AM, phantom wrote:
At 7/12/2012 1:35:06 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/11/2012 11:34:08 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:19:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Inconceivability


The Fool: Now as a philosopher, I have always seen this as a Death blow to any rational comprehension of the concept of Gods which has the predicate of inconceivability.
First, problem is well it's inconceivable, so we couldn't even know it was a property, because we can't conceive of it.

Secondly problem, we can't even know of other properties because if it was possible to have inconceivability as a property is renders everything else uncertain. Why? Inconceivability makes Object/subject as a whole not knowable. It means anything can happen.

What should also be recognized is that inconceivability it is the absence of a property, not an actual property. This just mean it's not, as in, it does not exist that it's knowable/conceivable, but then nor can you claim it. (Rationally)

So creating something out of nothing, can never be a rational claim. Because you would need to know how it was possible, to justify that it was in fact created. But supernatural powers and all such notions fall to crap without inconceivability being and actual property rather than the non-recognition of one.

Thus and argument for God can never be Rational.

Is there any Rationalist Theist here that can defend against this argument?
(argument an in premises and conclusions)

Without appealing to ignorance!

Note:
I mean rational in the original sense by the Rationalist philosophers; As in to think in coherence with logic.

That's no problem if you realize the fact that Rationalism needs to be synthesized with Empericism! Kant ftw

In our debate, I didn't completely understand what you meant by this either... Kant is pretty well known as a rationalist. He became a transcendental idealist after reading empiricism, but even then all his conclusions were a priori.

I know he had different beliefs before re-reading Hume, but see link. http://plato.stanford.edu...

I literally have the critique right in front of my. And I am on my third reading.

anyways it has no barring on the arguement here.
"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
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 12:30:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 12:25:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/12/2012 11:59:04 AM, phantom wrote:
At 7/12/2012 1:35:06 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/11/2012 11:34:08 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:19:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Inconceivability


The Fool: Now as a philosopher, I have always seen this as a Death blow to any rational comprehension of the concept of Gods which has the predicate of inconceivability.
First, problem is well it's inconceivable, so we couldn't even know it was a property, because we can't conceive of it.

Secondly problem, we can't even know of other properties because if it was possible to have inconceivability as a property is renders everything else uncertain. Why? Inconceivability makes Object/subject as a whole not knowable. It means anything can happen.

What should also be recognized is that inconceivability it is the absence of a property, not an actual property. This just mean it's not, as in, it does not exist that it's knowable/conceivable, but then nor can you claim it. (Rationally)

So creating something out of nothing, can never be a rational claim. Because you would need to know how it was possible, to justify that it was in fact created. But supernatural powers and all such notions fall to crap without inconceivability being and actual property rather than the non-recognition of one.

Thus and argument for God can never be Rational.

Is there any Rationalist Theist here that can defend against this argument?
(argument an in premises and conclusions)

Without appealing to ignorance!

Note:
I mean rational in the original sense by the Rationalist philosophers; As in to think in coherence with logic.

That's no problem if you realize the fact that Rationalism needs to be synthesized with Empericism! Kant ftw

In our debate, I didn't completely understand what you meant by this either... Kant is pretty well known as a rationalist. He became a transcendental idealist after reading empiricism, but even then all his conclusions were a priori.

I know he had different beliefs before re-reading Hume, but see link. http://plato.stanford.edu...

I literally have the critique right in front of my. And I am on my third reading.

anyways it has no barring on the arguement here.

For someone who has never seen up close and personal any supernatural event or spiritual warfare of any kind, can not speculate on things unknown.
So yes, that would classify one as a fool.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 12:39:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 12:25:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/12/2012 11:59:04 AM, phantom wrote:
At 7/12/2012 1:35:06 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/11/2012 11:34:08 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:19:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Inconceivability


The Fool: Now as a philosopher, I have always seen this as a Death blow to any rational comprehension of the concept of Gods which has the predicate of inconceivability.
First, problem is well it's inconceivable, so we couldn't even know it was a property, because we can't conceive of it.

Secondly problem, we can't even know of other properties because if it was possible to have inconceivability as a property is renders everything else uncertain. Why? Inconceivability makes Object/subject as a whole not knowable. It means anything can happen.

What should also be recognized is that inconceivability it is the absence of a property, not an actual property. This just mean it's not, as in, it does not exist that it's knowable/conceivable, but then nor can you claim it. (Rationally)

So creating something out of nothing, can never be a rational claim. Because you would need to know how it was possible, to justify that it was in fact created. But supernatural powers and all such notions fall to crap without inconceivability being and actual property rather than the non-recognition of one.

Thus and argument for God can never be Rational.

Is there any Rationalist Theist here that can defend against this argument?
(argument an in premises and conclusions)

Without appealing to ignorance!

Note:
I mean rational in the original sense by the Rationalist philosophers; As in to think in coherence with logic.

That's no problem if you realize the fact that Rationalism needs to be synthesized with Empericism! Kant ftw

In our debate, I didn't completely understand what you meant by this either... Kant is pretty well known as a rationalist. He became a transcendental idealist after reading empiricism, but even then all his conclusions were a priori.

I know he had different beliefs before re-reading Hume, but see link. http://plato.stanford.edu...

I literally have the critique right in front of my. And I am on my third reading.

anyways it has no barring on the arguement here.

K, but did he argue for a snythesized rationalism/empericism or did he not?
"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)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 12:57:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 12:30:32 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/12/2012 12:25:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/12/2012 11:59:04 AM, phantom wrote:
At 7/12/2012 1:35:06 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/11/2012 11:34:08 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:19:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Inconceivability


The Fool: Now as a philosopher, I have always seen this as a Death blow to any rational comprehension of the concept of Gods which has the predicate of inconceivability.
First, problem is well it's inconceivable, so we couldn't even know it was a property, because we can't conceive of it.

Secondly problem, we can't even know of other properties because if it was possible to have inconceivability as a property is renders everything else uncertain. Why? Inconceivability makes Object/subject as a whole not knowable. It means anything can happen.

What should also be recognized is that inconceivability it is the absence of a property, not an actual property. This just mean it's not, as in, it does not exist that it's knowable/conceivable, but then nor can you claim it. (Rationally)

So creating something out of nothing, can never be a rational claim. Because you would need to know how it was possible, to justify that it was in fact created. But supernatural powers and all such notions fall to crap without inconceivability being and actual property rather than the non-recognition of one.

Thus and argument for God can never be Rational.

Is there any Rationalist Theist here that can defend against this argument?
(argument an in premises and conclusions)

Without appealing to ignorance!

Note:
I mean rational in the original sense by the Rationalist philosophers; As in to think in coherence with logic.

That's no problem if you realize the fact that Rationalism needs to be synthesized with Empericism! Kant ftw

In our debate, I didn't completely understand what you meant by this either... Kant is pretty well known as a rationalist. He became a transcendental idealist after reading empiricism, but even then all his conclusions were a priori.

I know he had different beliefs before re-reading Hume, but see link. http://plato.stanford.edu...

I literally have the critique right in front of my. And I am on my third reading.

anyways it has no barring on the arguement here.

For someone who has never seen up close and personal any supernatural event or spiritual warfare of any kind, can not speculate on things unknown.
So yes, that would classify one as a fool.

The Fool: That would make God conceivable now wouldnt' it. But there is not clear definition to even if you were seeing that which is God, Spirit comes from "breath air" and Ghost is (violent air) those are the definition in the bible. I am sure that was existing. Secondly you still have not been able to defend the argument. Of knowing God who is supposed to be inconcievable. So I take it you concede
"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
7/12/2012 1:00:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 12:39:51 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/12/2012 12:25:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/12/2012 11:59:04 AM, phantom wrote:
At 7/12/2012 1:35:06 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/11/2012 11:34:08 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:19:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Inconceivability


The Fool: Now as a philosopher, I have always seen this as a Death blow to any rational comprehension of the concept of Gods which has the predicate of inconceivability.
First, problem is well it's inconceivable, so we couldn't even know it was a property, because we can't conceive of it.

Secondly problem, we can't even know of other properties because if it was possible to have inconceivability as a property is renders everything else uncertain. Why? Inconceivability makes Object/subject as a whole not knowable. It means anything can happen.

What should also be recognized is that inconceivability it is the absence of a property, not an actual property. This just mean it's not, as in, it does not exist that it's knowable/conceivable, but then nor can you claim it. (Rationally)

So creating something out of nothing, can never be a rational claim. Because you would need to know how it was possible, to justify that it was in fact created. But supernatural powers and all such notions fall to crap without inconceivability being and actual property rather than the non-recognition of one.

Thus and argument for God can never be Rational.

Is there any Rationalist Theist here that can defend against this argument?
(argument an in premises and conclusions)

Without appealing to ignorance!

Note:
I mean rational in the original sense by the Rationalist philosophers; As in to think in coherence with logic.

That's no problem if you realize the fact that Rationalism needs to be synthesized with Empericism! Kant ftw

In our debate, I didn't completely understand what you meant by this either... Kant is pretty well known as a rationalist. He became a transcendental idealist after reading empiricism, but even then all his conclusions were a priori.

I know he had different beliefs before re-reading Hume, but see link. http://plato.stanford.edu...

I literally have the critique right in front of my. And I am on my third reading.

anyways it has no barring on the arguement here.

K, but did he argue for a snythesized rationalism/empericism or did he not?

The argued that that you need both to gain knowedge of the world as sense information, and how they have limits alone.
"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
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 1:16:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 9:21:14 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:56:50 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Yes it does!.

Mathematically it has been proven the universe is expanding.
Well, it's been shown through observation...

Something without boundaries cannot be expanding, thus there must be boundaries to expand.
1) Something can expand AND have no boundaries.
2) The Universe has no boundaries because there is no "outside" to the Universe. You cannot be outside of "everything."
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 1:43:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 1:16:04 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/11/2012 9:21:14 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:56:50 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Yes it does!.

Mathematically it has been proven the universe is expanding.
Well, it's been shown through observation...

Something without boundaries cannot be expanding, thus there must be boundaries to expand.

1) Something can expand AND have no boundaries.

The Fool: The Idea is that we don't have a way to tell. We cannot observe what is moving away at the speed of light. Aka they don't know that there is a limit of space its and assumption.. It has not been demonstrated

2) The Universe has no boundaries because there is no "outside" to the Universe. You cannot be outside of "everything."

The Fool: you go find me the paper talking about how they observed this. I would like to see how they observed nothingness. (space is not nothingness it has dimension and can be filled up.)
"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