Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Where do Gods come from?

chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 1:02:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
How does a God form spontaneously from non-God?

How many Gods are there? The collected holy books describe hundreds of Gods.

How can we pick the right one?

What do Gods hate most, atheists or believers in false gods?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 1:42:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 1:02:41 PM, chui wrote:
How does a God form spontaneously from non-God?

By all accounts, he didn't. He's eternal.

You may fuss at that, but the fact that we exist presents only 2 logical options that I can think of:
1) Something arose spontaneously, and from nothing
2) Something was eternal.

#2 somehow feels more sensible to me, so that's what I'm going with.
This space for rent.
Subutai
Posts: 3,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 9:33:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 1:42:49 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/17/2014 1:02:41 PM, chui wrote:
How does a God form spontaneously from non-God?

By all accounts, he didn't. He's eternal.

You may fuss at that, but the fact that we exist presents only 2 logical options that I can think of:
1) Something arose spontaneously, and from nothing
2) Something was eternal.

#2 somehow feels more sensible to me, so that's what I'm going with.

What's more sensible to you isn't necessarily true. First off, you present a false dichotomy between monotheism or naturalistic ex nihilo creation, where there are other options. And it seems rather ad hoc to put God above creation (i.e. that he wasn't created).
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 9:37:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 1:02:41 PM, chui wrote:
How does a God form spontaneously from non-God?

The most insipid one comes out of believer's imaginations, particularly their conceptions of what constitutes being "Most Great" and "Perfect"

the more engaging ones come out of old stories.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 6:09:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 1:02:41 PM, chui wrote:
How does a God form spontaneously from non-God?

How many Gods are there? The collected holy books describe hundreds of Gods.

How can we pick the right one?

What do Gods hate most, atheists or believers in false gods?

Mu
"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
v3nesl
Posts: 4,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 7:02:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 9:33:15 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 1:42:49 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/17/2014 1:02:41 PM, chui wrote:
How does a God form spontaneously from non-God?

By all accounts, he didn't. He's eternal.

You may fuss at that, but the fact that we exist presents only 2 logical options that I can think of:
1) Something arose spontaneously, and from nothing
2) Something was eternal.

#2 somehow feels more sensible to me, so that's what I'm going with.

What's more sensible to you isn't necessarily true. First off, you present a false dichotomy between monotheism or naturalistic ex nihilo creation, where there are other options.

Just no option(s) you could make the effort to list while you were here, lol. "Something came from nothing" vs. "Something always was", and you think you can get away with blithely bluffing "there are other options".
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 7:04:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 9:37:32 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 11/17/2014 1:02:41 PM, chui wrote:
How does a God form spontaneously from non-God?


The most insipid one comes out of believer's imaginations, particularly their conceptions of what constitutes being "Most Great" and "Perfect"

the more engaging ones come out of old stories.

Agreed. So where did the old stories come from?
This space for rent.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 8:29:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 7:04:10 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:37:32 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 11/17/2014 1:02:41 PM, chui wrote:
How does a God form spontaneously from non-God?


The most insipid one comes out of believer's imaginations, particularly their conceptions of what constitutes being "Most Great" and "Perfect"

the more engaging ones come out of old stories.

Agreed. So where did the old stories come from?

They evolved over much time through the imaginations of many people...

and not limited to only being drawn from what people think of as "Most Great" or "perfect", but drawn more richly from multiple aspects of the imaginations of many in response to observing the wold.

Generally the gods of stories are very rich, but unsupported, hypotheses about how the world works/why it is the way it is.

The god of the Ontological argument is just one person's view of what's best.
(one person's view of Perfection)
Subutai
Posts: 3,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 9:22:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 7:02:56 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:33:15 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 1:42:49 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/17/2014 1:02:41 PM, chui wrote:
How does a God form spontaneously from non-God?

By all accounts, he didn't. He's eternal.

You may fuss at that, but the fact that we exist presents only 2 logical options that I can think of:
1) Something arose spontaneously, and from nothing
2) Something was eternal.

#2 somehow feels more sensible to me, so that's what I'm going with.

What's more sensible to you isn't necessarily true. First off, you present a false dichotomy between monotheism or naturalistic ex nihilo creation, where there are other options.

Just no option(s) you could make the effort to list while you were here, lol. "Something came from nothing" vs. "Something always was", and you think you can get away with blithely bluffing "there are other options".

Under a theistic universe, God could have created the universe out of nothing, or he could have simply made form out of the chaotic existing matter (this was the principal belief on the creation of the universe in ancient Greece). In addition, there's also the various forms of pantheism. Under an atheistic universe, the universe could be eternal, going through cycles of birth and death, or there was a start of the universe (let's be careful not to claim that the latter is impossible, for the physics could very well be outside our knowledge).
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 9:57:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 9:22:33 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/18/2014 7:02:56 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:33:15 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 1:42:49 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/17/2014 1:02:41 PM, chui wrote:
How does a God form spontaneously from non-God?

By all accounts, he didn't. He's eternal.

You may fuss at that, but the fact that we exist presents only 2 logical options that I can think of:
1) Something arose spontaneously, and from nothing
2) Something was eternal.

#2 somehow feels more sensible to me, so that's what I'm going with.

What's more sensible to you isn't necessarily true. First off, you present a false dichotomy between monotheism or naturalistic ex nihilo creation, where there are other options.

Just no option(s) you could make the effort to list while you were here, lol. "Something came from nothing" vs. "Something always was", and you think you can get away with blithely bluffing "there are other options".

Under a theistic universe, God could have created the universe out of nothing, or he could have simply made form out of the chaotic existing matter (this was the principal belief on the creation of the universe in ancient Greece).

Well, if "God created", he didn't really create out of nothing, since he already existed.

But this idea of bringing order to chaos, that's also the Egyptian view. You have these carvings of one of the gods creating a bubble in the chaos, the bubble where man lives. And the Hebrews coming out of Egypt, they likely had more of this concept than the 20th century YEC folks realize. You can see a lot of 'separating' in Genesis 1 (which is a close literary equivalent to the concept of 'make holy') - God separates light from dark, sky from sky, earth from water, etc.

But none of that is really what I presented. I simply noted that you have to have something come from nothing or something always being. I try to start with the root logic, not my preferred worldview.

Under an atheistic universe, the universe could be eternal, going through cycles of birth and death, or there was a start of the universe (let's be careful not to claim that the latter is impossible, for the physics could very well be outside our knowledge).

If the physics is outside our knowledge, then what's to say it's physics at all? Take the time to honestly absorb the point there.
This space for rent.
Subutai
Posts: 3,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 2:43:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 9:57:52 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/18/2014 9:22:33 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/18/2014 7:02:56 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:33:15 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 1:42:49 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/17/2014 1:02:41 PM, chui wrote:
How does a God form spontaneously from non-God?

By all accounts, he didn't. He's eternal.

You may fuss at that, but the fact that we exist presents only 2 logical options that I can think of:
1) Something arose spontaneously, and from nothing
2) Something was eternal.

#2 somehow feels more sensible to me, so that's what I'm going with.

What's more sensible to you isn't necessarily true. First off, you present a false dichotomy between monotheism or naturalistic ex nihilo creation, where there are other options.

Just no option(s) you could make the effort to list while you were here, lol. "Something came from nothing" vs. "Something always was", and you think you can get away with blithely bluffing "there are other options".

Under a theistic universe, God could have created the universe out of nothing, or he could have simply made form out of the chaotic existing matter (this was the principal belief on the creation of the universe in ancient Greece).

Well, if "God created", he didn't really create out of nothing, since he already existed.

But this idea of bringing order to chaos, that's also the Egyptian view. You have these carvings of one of the gods creating a bubble in the chaos, the bubble where man lives. And the Hebrews coming out of Egypt, they likely had more of this concept than the 20th century YEC folks realize. You can see a lot of 'separating' in Genesis 1 (which is a close literary equivalent to the concept of 'make holy') - God separates light from dark, sky from sky, earth from water, etc.

But none of that is really what I presented. I simply noted that you have to have something come from nothing or something always being. I try to start with the root logic, not my preferred worldview.


Well if you accept the order out of chaos view, where did the pre-existing matter come from? It seems a little silly to create matter and then assemble it. Atheistic explanations also rely on rational logic.
Under an atheistic universe, the universe could be eternal, going through cycles of birth and death, or there was a start of the universe (let's be careful not to claim that the latter is impossible, for the physics could very well be outside our knowledge).

If the physics is outside our knowledge, then what's to say it's physics at all? Take the time to honestly absorb the point there.

The fact that quantum mechanics wasn't discovered until the 1920s doesn't mean that atoms didn't behave that way beforehand. We've made tremendous strides in understanding the early universe, but we still have a lot more to do.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 3:06:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 2:43:18 PM, Subutai wrote:
...

Well if you accept the order out of chaos view, where did the pre-existing matter come from? It seems a little silly to create matter and then assemble it.

Really? So you want the house built before the lumber arrives?

Atheistic explanations also rely on rational logic.

I know, and it's a fatal flaw. If you're going to be an atheist, you shouldn't be relying on God stuff.

Under an atheistic universe, the universe could be eternal, going through cycles of birth and death, or there was a start of the universe (let's be careful not to claim that the latter is impossible, for the physics could very well be outside our knowledge).

If the physics is outside our knowledge, then what's to say it's physics at all? Take the time to honestly absorb the point there.

The fact that quantum mechanics wasn't discovered until the 1920s doesn't mean that atoms didn't behave that way beforehand. We've made tremendous strides in understanding the early universe, but we still have a lot more to do.

Hey, well, I wasn't really expecting you to try to get the point.
This space for rent.
Subutai
Posts: 3,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 8:41:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 3:06:15 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/18/2014 2:43:18 PM, Subutai wrote:
...

Well if you accept the order out of chaos view, where did the pre-existing matter come from? It seems a little silly to create matter and then assemble it.

Really? So you want the house built before the lumber arrives?


Can't God do that?
Atheistic explanations also rely on rational logic.

I know, and it's a fatal flaw. If you're going to be an atheist, you shouldn't be relying on God stuff.


Since when is logic "God stuff"?
Under an atheistic universe, the universe could be eternal, going through cycles of birth and death, or there was a start of the universe (let's be careful not to claim that the latter is impossible, for the physics could very well be outside our knowledge).

If the physics is outside our knowledge, then what's to say it's physics at all? Take the time to honestly absorb the point there.

The fact that quantum mechanics wasn't discovered until the 1920s doesn't mean that atoms didn't behave that way beforehand. We've made tremendous strides in understanding the early universe, but we still have a lot more to do.

Hey, well, I wasn't really expecting you to try to get the point.

Then I don't think you're getting my point.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,965
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 2:11:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Logic and rationality must be grounded in absolute truth. Absolute truth doesn't exist as an aspect of the physical, only pertains to a conscious process, and remains true regardless of what people think of it. This is the transcendental argument for God's existence (and an argument that Kant said was deductively valid, I might add.)
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 2:24:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 1:02:41 PM, chui wrote:
How does a God form spontaneously from non-God?

How many Gods are there? The collected holy books describe hundreds of Gods.

How can we pick the right one?

What do Gods hate most, atheists or believers in false gods?

Fear. Need. Justification. Pain. That's where every god that has ever been invented comes from. It doesn't matter how many there are. Don't worry about picking one, because they're all the same. Gods can't hate, only people hate. So have at it, pick a god any god. The same let down comes with them all.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
v3nesl
Posts: 4,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 6:48:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 2:11:50 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Logic and rationality must be grounded in absolute truth. Absolute truth doesn't exist as an aspect of the physical, only pertains to a conscious process, and remains true regardless of what people think of it. This is the transcendental argument for God's existence (and an argument that Kant said was deductively valid, I might add.)

Well said. Of course, this an argument for a god of some sort, not any specific deity. But at least it lets us know we should be looking, should be making a religious inquiry.

"I think, therefore God is"
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 6:53:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 2:24:15 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/17/2014 1:02:41 PM, chui wrote:
How does a God form spontaneously from non-God?

How many Gods are there? The collected holy books describe hundreds of Gods.

How can we pick the right one?

What do Gods hate most, atheists or believers in false gods?

Fear. Need. Justification. Pain. That's where every god that has ever been invented comes from. It doesn't matter how many there are. Don't worry about picking one, because they're all the same.

But they're not, of course, not even close. Even just taking them as myths, YHWH is radically different from the pantheist gods and Yeshua is just from out of this world.

And as to fear, need, guilt, pain - as C.S. Lewis so brilliantly pointed out - if we are products of nature and this is the only nature we have ever known, how could we possibly have the sense that something is wrong with nature? Nature can explain "I should avoid that", but cannot explain "that is wrong, it should not be this way".
This space for rent.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 8:42:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 1:02:41 PM, chui wrote:
How does a God form spontaneously from non-God?

How many Gods are there? The collected holy books describe hundreds of Gods.

How can we pick the right one?

What do Gods hate most, atheists or believers in false gods?

What is this doing in the Science Forum?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 11:42:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 1:42:49 PM, v3nesl wrote:
You may fuss at that, but the fact that we exist presents only 2 logical options that I can think of:
1) Something arose spontaneously, and from nothing
2) Something was eternal.

#2 somehow feels more sensible to me, so that's what I'm going with.

Feeling something is more sensible does not mean it is more sensible, especially when there isn't anything other than belief systems to support it.

People "felt" the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 8:21:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 11:42:49 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/17/2014 1:42:49 PM, v3nesl wrote:
You may fuss at that, but the fact that we exist presents only 2 logical options that I can think of:
1) Something arose spontaneously, and from nothing
2) Something was eternal.

#2 somehow feels more sensible to me, so that's what I'm going with.

Feeling something is more sensible does not mean it is more sensible, especially when there isn't anything other than belief systems to support it.

People "felt" the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it.

I'm just nitpicking here, but people never really believed the Earth was flat. That just came into vogue in the 19th century with the advent of Protestantism and a more direct interpretation of the Bible.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 12:20:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 8:42:31 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 11/17/2014 1:02:41 PM, chui wrote:
How does a God form spontaneously from non-God?

How many Gods are there? The collected holy books describe hundreds of Gods.

How can we pick the right one?

What do Gods hate most, atheists or believers in false gods?

What is this doing in the Science Forum?

Because I wanted a scientific answer. All other forms of answer are just useless collections of words.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 12:23:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 6:09:19 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/17/2014 1:02:41 PM, chui wrote:
How does a God form spontaneously from non-God?

How many Gods are there? The collected holy books describe hundreds of Gods.

How can we pick the right one?

What do Gods hate most, atheists or believers in false gods?

Mu

Ah yes of course the Mother's union they will have the answer.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 12:36:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 8:21:00 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:42:49 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/17/2014 1:42:49 PM, v3nesl wrote:
You may fuss at that, but the fact that we exist presents only 2 logical options that I can think of:
1) Something arose spontaneously, and from nothing
2) Something was eternal.

#2 somehow feels more sensible to me, so that's what I'm going with.

Feeling something is more sensible does not mean it is more sensible, especially when there isn't anything other than belief systems to support it.

People "felt" the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it.

I'm just nitpicking here, but people never really believed the Earth was flat. That just came into vogue in the 19th century with the advent of Protestantism and a more direct interpretation of the Bible.

Protestantism was around in the 16th century (1517?) so this basic mistake suggests you are making things up. It was around this time that the bible was being translated into everyday language so direct interpretation also starts back then.

I am fairly sure primitive people would not believe the earth was a ball.

I remember reading that the first recorded statement that the earth is a ball comes the Greeks when they observed lunar eclipses.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 12:46:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 1:42:49 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/17/2014 1:02:41 PM, chui wrote:
How does a God form spontaneously from non-God?

By all accounts, he didn't. He's eternal.

The Hindu account disagrees so it is not 'by all accounts'. It is likely that many other accounts also differ but I have not researched this. However the important point is that your faith beliefs are just one of many possibly thousands. How do you know what to believe?

You may fuss at that, but the fact that we exist presents only 2 logical options that I can think of:
1) Something arose spontaneously, and from nothing
2) Something was eternal.

#2 somehow feels more sensible to me, so that's what I'm going with.

The 'something' that is eternal does not have to be a god. A completely reasonable suggestion is that the universe is eternal and there is no need to invent a mysterious unknown entity to 'answer' difficult questions.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 12:56:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 2:11:50 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Logic and rationality must be grounded in absolute truth.

This is a postulate which cannot be proven.

Absolute truth doesn't exist as an aspect of the physical, only pertains to a conscious process,

Another postulate that conscious processes are not physical.

and remains true regardless of what people think of it.

A tautology based on the definition of absolute truth

This is the transcendental argument for God's existence (and an argument that Kant said was deductively valid, I might add.)

Deductively valid if the first two postulates can be proven. So, just like all other philosophical arguments, gets us nowhere.

I am starting to believe that the scientific method is the only true means of attaining useful knowledge. All other attempts are really just opinion in fancy clothes.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 1:01:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 6:48:24 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/19/2014 2:11:50 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Logic and rationality must be grounded in absolute truth. Absolute truth doesn't exist as an aspect of the physical, only pertains to a conscious process, and remains true regardless of what people think of it. This is the transcendental argument for God's existence (and an argument that Kant said was deductively valid, I might add.)

Well said. Of course, this an argument for a god of some sort, not any specific deity. But at least it lets us know we should be looking, should be making a religious inquiry.

"I think, therefore God is"

...so you will accept this poor attempt at reasoning despite it being full of untestable assumptions without any attempt at critical thought. Why would that be?
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 1:06:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 2:24:15 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/17/2014 1:02:41 PM, chui wrote:
How does a God form spontaneously from non-God?

How many Gods are there? The collected holy books describe hundreds of Gods.

How can we pick the right one?

What do Gods hate most, atheists or believers in false gods?

Fear. Need. Justification. Pain. That's where every god that has ever been invented comes from. It doesn't matter how many there are. Don't worry about picking one, because they're all the same. Gods can't hate, only people hate. So have at it, pick a god any god. The same let down comes with them all.

I agree, you sum up quite profoundly the roots of god myths, of which 'justification' is to me the most worrying.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,965
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:49:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 12:56:01 AM, chui wrote:
At 11/19/2014 2:11:50 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Logic and rationality must be grounded in absolute truth.

This is a postulate which cannot be proven.

My proposition is either true or false, isn't it?

Absolute truth doesn't exist as an aspect of the physical, only pertains to a conscious process,

Another postulate that conscious processes are not physical.

Does "absolute truth" exist as a physical entity?

and remains true regardless of what people think of it.

A tautology based on the definition of absolute truth

Indefinite constancy with reality.

This is the transcendental argument for God's existence (and an argument that Kant said was deductively valid, I might add.)

Deductively valid if the first two postulates can be proven. So, just like all other philosophical arguments, gets us nowhere.

This response reinforces the notion of logic being grounded in absolute truth, once again...

I am starting to believe that the scientific method is the only true means of attaining useful knowledge. All other attempts are really just opinion in fancy clothes.

The scientific method is governed by logic.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 7:23:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 12:46:17 AM, chui wrote:
...

The 'something' that is eternal does not have to be a god. A completely reasonable suggestion is that the universe is eternal

I don't know what your definition of 'reasonable' is, but this isn't scientific. As you know, the current science maps time, space, and matter back to a singularity, not an eternal cosmos. But even if you don't like the big bang, all known physics is action/reaction (if it doesn't produce a reaction, we can't see it, and if there is no cause for an effect, we can't study it). You're left with the same conundrum in slightly different form with a steady state view: How can you have reaction without an original action? So the known laws of physics must be broken one way or another. And why would a cosmos that "just is" be any more rational than a God who "Just is", unless you don't like God for some reason?
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 7:29:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 1:01:02 AM, chui wrote:
At 11/19/2014 6:48:24 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/19/2014 2:11:50 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Logic and rationality must be grounded in absolute truth. Absolute truth doesn't exist as an aspect of the physical, only pertains to a conscious process, and remains true regardless of what people think of it. This is the transcendental argument for God's existence (and an argument that Kant said was deductively valid, I might add.)

Well said. Of course, this an argument for a god of some sort, not any specific deity. But at least it lets us know we should be looking, should be making a religious inquiry.

"I think, therefore God is"

...so you will accept this poor attempt at reasoning despite it being full of untestable assumptions without any attempt at critical thought. Why would that be?

Untestable assumptions, indeed, but most certainly an attempt at critical thinking. It is critical thinking to ask "How do I test my first assumption?". Can you answer that question?

What I, and probably Ben have, are assumptions that are logically consistent with the idea that I can think. So it is reasonable for me to try to be reasonable. For you, it's a sort of intellectual cross dressing.
This space for rent.