Caveat Lector
10 Dec 2010, 10:16 am
Right - it is well known [I could but will not start listing instances] in and out of the sciences that we see and hear and find in our data and calculations what we are looking for.
Perceiving something unexpected and contrary to our worldview is a whole lot harder. SEEING someone on the street when you KNOW he is a thousand miles away takes energy
Certain participants in these chats are much more vociferous than I was BC - and more dedicated. Most I would not impugn their honesty, though we all - I include myself with regret - will in the heat of battle toss a spitball or two.
But we see different elephants, and assume different universes.
10 Dec 2010, 10:32 am
Ok, I will respond.
I have stated that the universe has a reason for its existence. That purpose is to being people into a relationship with God for salvation. The fine tuning of the universe must only exist up to the point at which it brings human life into existence. The universe clearly is fine tuned to that extent.
As to the use of the word optimal. The problem is, optimal to what? How can you possibly show that God cannot have reasons for the universe exists as it does. The universe could exist in a different way, but it does not necessarily follow therefore that it could do so in a better way. How can you possibly show that if the universe or world was designed in a different way that more souls would come to know God? I have asked this question repeatedly and so far you have given me nothing other than the presupposition that he could do better, how can you know that? . It does not seem to follow that if God has sufficient reasons for the universe existing the way it does, then he should have designed it differently. I am not sure we are in any position to tell what an omnipotent being could or should do when he do not have any grasp of many of the reasons such a being would have. What your argument does wrong is that it presupposes to know what both what God is like and what his intentions are.
As to your use of the word, imperfect. Imperfect in relation to what? To sin, then the Christian is with you since this is a fallen world and this is caused by our own nature and our free will. In relation to physics or geology, the question then follows again, based on what and how could you demonstrate better? Backing yourself behind a massive burden of proof (since you would have to make the same case that you do in relation to optimal) does not validate the argument you are making, in fact it makes it less possible that your view could be valid, since for it to be so the presupposition must be granted and there is no reason to do this.
As to your argument in relation to free will. The simple fact is that it is self-refuting. If you believe that all actions are determined by vague laws then I have no reason to derive truth from anything you say or believe. Those same laws could cause you to believe any number of impossible things regardless of truth or fact. Stating that free will does not exist, is self contradictory (since if it is correct, then it would require you to be able to choose to believe it and that such a belief could possibly be objectively correct) in and of itself and I see no reason to place any validity in your statement.
You state that anything that is logically sufficient may be possible. As I have repeatedly indicated to you, all that is required to prove God exists from the possible is the ontological argument.
1. It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By S5)
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
It is in relation to this argument that you have demonstrated the least understanding. You have claimed that it can disprove God and some have claimed it could prove a maximally great pizza. The problem is that the argument logically collapses when the object you place into the formula is not maximally great or an objective certainty. For the example of the maximally great pizza, it may exist possibly, but a maximally great pizza would not exist in every possible world, if it existed in any. As to the disproof of God, I have already explained that the ontological argument can only disprove God when that argument is based on a certainty. Since if it is not argued as certainty it is still possible and the negative feedback from this possibility cancels out the argument. Since you have as good as admitted to the posibility I can say that the ontological argument therefore proves the existence of God. It is not just you who does not understand this argument, but the vast majority of atheists; this is why Christian apologists have been using it a great deal more in the last few years.
You also stated ‘ Just the fact that there is ongoing academic dispute seems sufficient.’ This is the same argument that people who put forward intelligent design use, ‘teach the controversy’. Despite this, the Penrose position does not represent anything other than an attempt to reintroduce an infinite universe and considering that I can pick holes in it, I cannot wait for Dr. Craig’s response.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
10 Dec 2010, 11:44 am
I have stated that the universe has a reason for its existence. That purpose is to being people into a relationship with God for salvation. The fine tuning of the universe must only exist up to the point at which it brings human life into existence. The universe clearly is fine tuned to that extent.
Baseless assertion. The purpose of this universe is life just because there is life we know in this universe? The same can be said for black holes. Moreover, if we are indeed defined by our souls, then how is the law of physics relevant? God can make us live in ANY universe.
Ironically, you always assert your god is all loving etc. Based on what do you make such judgement?
10 Dec 2010, 11:58 am
I have stated that the universe has a reason for its existence. That purpose is to being people into a relationship with God for salvation. The fine tuning of the universe must only exist up to the point at which it brings human life into existence. The universe clearly is fine tuned to that extent.
As to the use of the word optimal. The problem is, optimal to what? How can you possibly show that God cannot have reasons for the universe exists as it does. The universe could exist in a different way, but it does not necessarily follow therefore that it could do so in a better way. How can you possibly show that if the universe or world was designed in a different way that more souls would come to know God? I have asked this question repeatedly and so far you have given me nothing other than the presupposition that he could do better, how can you know that? . It does not seem to follow that if God has sufficient reasons for the universe existing the way it does, then he should have designed it differently. I am not sure we are in any position to tell what an omnipotent being could or should do when he do not have any grasp of many of the reasons such a being would have. What your argument does wrong is that it presupposes to know what both what God is like and what his intentions are.
As to your use of the word, imperfect. Imperfect in relation to what? To sin, then the Christian is with you since this is a fallen world and this is caused by our own nature and our free will. In relation to physics or geology, the question then follows again, based on what and how could you demonstrate better? Backing yourself behind a massive burden of proof (since you would have to make the same case that you do in relation to optimal) does not validate the argument you are making, in fact it makes it less possible that your view could be valid, since for it to be so the presupposition must be granted and there is no reason to do this.
As to your argument in relation to free will. The simple fact is that it is self-refuting. If you believe that all actions are determined by vague laws then I have no reason to derive truth from anything you say or believe. Those same laws could cause you to believe any number of impossible things regardless of truth or fact. Stating that free will does not exist, is self contradictory (since if it is correct, then it would require you to be able to choose to believe it and that such a belief could possibly be objectively correct) in and of itself and I see no reason to place any validity in your statement.
You state that anything that is logically sufficient may be possible. As I have repeatedly indicated to you, all that is required to prove God exists from the possible is the ontological argument.
1. It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By S5)
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
It is in relation to this argument that you have demonstrated the least understanding. You have claimed that it can disprove God and some have claimed it could prove a maximally great pizza. The problem is that the argument logically collapses when the object you place into the formula is not maximally great or an objective certainty. For the example of the maximally great pizza, it may exist possibly, but a maximally great pizza would not exist in every possible world, if it existed in any. As to the disproof of God, I have already explained that the ontological argument can only disprove God when that argument is based on a certainty. Since if it is not argued as certainty it is still possible and the negative feedback from this possibility cancels out the argument. Since you have as good as admitted to the posibility I can say that the ontological argument therefore proves the existence of God. It is not just you who does not understand this argument, but the vast majority of atheists; this is why Christian apologists have been using it a great deal more in the last few years.
You also stated ‘ Just the fact that there is ongoing academic dispute seems sufficient.’ This is the same argument that people who put forward intelligent design use, ‘teach the controversy’. Despite this, the Penrose position does not represent anything other than an attempt to reintroduce an infinite universe and considering that I can pick holes in it, I cannot wait for Dr. Craig’s response.
in what universe was your maximally great being created?
who/what created it?
if your maximally great being == the creator, and needs no creator, how is this less difficult to prove than the position that reality lacks a beginning point?
do you even care about these questions?
i'd accuse you of intellectual dishonesty, but i think keet really said it best when he said:
_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
10 Dec 2010, 1:11 pm
Intellectual dishonest is probably an inherent characteristic of all human beings, in the manner I described it, so as to allow for people to hold on to what they have learned and not let it slip through their hands like sand in an hourglass. I think it could even be a design feature of the human mind, requiring that the mental barriers be broken down prior to the acceptance of data or propositions which run contradictory to what has already been accepted as factual. In this way, people would be more apt to hold on to what they perceive as truth and pass it down rather than just accept or reject anything haphazardly or whimsically even.
10 Dec 2010, 1:45 pm
Intellectual dishonest is probably an inherent characteristic of all human beings, in the manner I described it, so as to allow for people to hold on to what they have learned and not let it slip through their hands like sand in an hourglass. I think it could even be a design feature of the human mind, requiring that the mental barriers be broken down prior to the acceptance of data or propositions which run contradictory to what has already been accepted as factual. In this way, people would be more apt to hold on to what they perceive as truth and pass it down rather than just accept or reject anything haphazardly or whimsically even.
yes. this is something i took away from frank herbert's wonderful "dune" series. he did a great job stealing philosophies from different places and smashing them together to illustrate the effect of time on what humans consider history. it was a favorite notion of mine. that you can't learn something new if you already (easily wrongly) know how it works.
i've noticed a change in your demeanor, lately, and you always intrigue me. am i mistaken in this or is your worldview changing?
_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
10 Dec 2010, 2:19 pm
Intellectual dishonest is probably an inherent characteristic of all human beings, in the manner I described it, so as to allow for people to hold on to what they have learned and not let it slip through their hands like sand in an hourglass. I think it could even be a design feature of the human mind, requiring that the mental barriers be broken down prior to the acceptance of data or propositions which run contradictory to what has already been accepted as factual. In this way, people would be more apt to hold on to what they perceive as truth and pass it down rather than just accept or reject anything haphazardly or whimsically even.
yes. this is something i took away from frank herbert's wonderful "dune" series. he did a great job stealing philosophies from different places and smashing them together to illustrate the effect of time on what humans consider history. it was a favorite notion of mine. that you can't learn something new if you already (easily wrongly) know how it works.
i've noticed a change in your demeanor, lately, and you always intrigue me. am i mistaken in this or is your worldview changing?
My worldview hasn't changed, but I suppose my demeanor has been. I'm getting to feel more and more tired as I realize what a facade Rasmussen College is, having apartment inspections, looking for scheduled work (I've finally been able to find work for a couple days through a paid-daily place though) is still somewhat discouraging. My worldview in regard to history is the same, morality the same, politics the same, but towards what I now consider to be falsely so called "higher education" I am feeling extremely disheartened to consider that college is just yet another business - at the very least Rasmussen is if nowhere else is also - and am now in about $12,000 of debt for the first of 4 years of my bachelors degree in accounting. I really wish I had been able to qualify for financial aid back in 2004 for Bethel University, as at least then I'd have a degree in a field I'm interested in - chemistry - rather than a trade which changes the rules each time congress sits down and proceeds to issue defecation from its corporate mouth.
10 Dec 2010, 3:49 pm
91 - bravo. If I had ever had your energy and lung capacity I might have masde something of myself.
And 01001011, first show me an argument - any argument for anything - that does not ultimately rest on a baseless premise? And in any case there is not room here to list the bases I suspect 91 in fact has.
There is the story - relevant here, I think - of the gentleman who felt a strong urging, he believed divinely sourced, to go to a certan place and preach. He went. It was an abandoned church in a clearing in the forest, not a living soul miles around. Not without some inward "this is just dumb - how I know the feeling - he preached. Finished, left.
About a year letter he got a letter from a stranger. A guy on the run from the authorities who was hiding in the trees while outr friend preached, which preraching turned his life around.
So, bravo.
10 Dec 2010, 6:01 pm
Intellectual dishonest is probably an inherent characteristic of all human beings, in the manner I described it, so as to allow for people to hold on to what they have learned and not let it slip through their hands like sand in an hourglass. I think it could even be a design feature of the human mind, requiring that the mental barriers be broken down prior to the acceptance of data or propositions which run contradictory to what has already been accepted as factual. In this way, people would be more apt to hold on to what they perceive as truth and pass it down rather than just accept or reject anything haphazardly or whimsically even.
yes. this is something i took away from frank herbert's wonderful "dune" series. he did a great job stealing philosophies from different places and smashing them together to illustrate the effect of time on what humans consider history. it was a favorite notion of mine. that you can't learn something new if you already (easily wrongly) know how it works.
i've noticed a change in your demeanor, lately, and you always intrigue me. am i mistaken in this or is your worldview changing?
My worldview hasn't changed, but I suppose my demeanor has been. I'm getting to feel more and more tired as I realize what a facade Rasmussen College is, having apartment inspections, looking for scheduled work (I've finally been able to find work for a couple days through a paid-daily place though) is still somewhat discouraging. My worldview in regard to history is the same, morality the same, politics the same, but towards what I now consider to be falsely so called "higher education" I am feeling extremely disheartened to consider that college is just yet another business - at the very least Rasmussen is if nowhere else is also - and am now in about $12,000 of debt for the first of 4 years of my bachelors degree in accounting. I really wish I had been able to qualify for financial aid back in 2004 for Bethel University, as at least then I'd have a degree in a field I'm interested in - chemistry - rather than a trade which changes the rules each time congress sits down and proceeds to issue defecation from its corporate mouth.
ah. that's terrible to hear. it seems this world will never have a shortage of people willing to take advantage of others. i hope your employment situation improves soon. i've been out of work for some months now and it's an epic pain to look for work in california. i'm sure it's a pain for you too. good luck.
10 Dec 2010, 7:30 pm
91, you haven't refuted the points, which is why I keep on restating them. It seems depressingly obvious to me that you are the person in this conversation that has the "mental barrier". It is not as if most of your points are new either.
Now, frankly, I am really kind of annoyed and tired of YOUR intellectual dishonesty. I understand that your religion is important to you, but you need to stop putting forward sh***y arguments, pretending that they are irrefutable, and then using rebuttals of poor quality and then acting as if they actually *mean* something.
sartresue
Veteran
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 71
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism
10 Dec 2010, 7:32 pm
I have stated that the universe has a reason for its existence. That purpose is to being people into a relationship with God for salvation. The fine tuning of the universe must only exist up to the point at which it brings human life into existence. The universe clearly is fine tuned to that extent.
As to the use of the word optimal. The problem is, optimal to what? How can you possibly show that God cannot have reasons for the universe exists as it does. The universe could exist in a different way, but it does not necessarily follow therefore that it could do so in a better way. How can you possibly show that if the universe or world was designed in a different way that more souls would come to know God? I have asked this question repeatedly and so far you have given me nothing other than the presupposition that he could do better, how can you know that? . It does not seem to follow that if God has sufficient reasons for the universe existing the way it does, then he should have designed it differently. I am not sure we are in any position to tell what an omnipotent being could or should do when he do not have any grasp of many of the reasons such a being would have. What your argument does wrong is that it presupposes to know what both what God is like and what his intentions are.
As to your use of the word, imperfect. Imperfect in relation to what? To sin, then the Christian is with you since this is a fallen world and this is caused by our own nature and our free will. In relation to physics or geology, the question then follows again, based on what and how could you demonstrate better? Backing yourself behind a massive burden of proof (since you would have to make the same case that you do in relation to optimal) does not validate the argument you are making, in fact it makes it less possible that your view could be valid, since for it to be so the presupposition must be granted and there is no reason to do this.
As to your argument in relation to free will. The simple fact is that it is self-refuting. If you believe that all actions are determined by vague laws then I have no reason to derive truth from anything you say or believe. Those same laws could cause you to believe any number of impossible things regardless of truth or fact. Stating that free will does not exist, is self contradictory (since if it is correct, then it would require you to be able to choose to believe it and that such a belief could possibly be objectively correct) in and of itself and I see no reason to place any validity in your statement.
You state that anything that is logically sufficient may be possible. As I have repeatedly indicated to you, all that is required to prove God exists from the possible is the ontological argument.
1. It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By S5)
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
It is in relation to this argument that you have demonstrated the least understanding. You have claimed that it can disprove God and some have claimed it could prove a maximally great pizza. The problem is that the argument logically collapses when the object you place into the formula is not maximally great or an objective certainty. For the example of the maximally great pizza, it may exist possibly, but a maximally great pizza would not exist in every possible world, if it existed in any. As to the disproof of God, I have already explained that the ontological argument can only disprove God when that argument is based on a certainty. Since if it is not argued as certainty it is still possible and the negative feedback from this possibility cancels out the argument. Since you have as good as admitted to the posibility I can say that the ontological argument therefore proves the existence of God. It is not just you who does not understand this argument, but the vast majority of atheists; this is why Christian apologists have been using it a great deal more in the last few years.
You also stated ‘ Just the fact that there is ongoing academic dispute seems sufficient.’ This is the same argument that people who put forward intelligent design use, ‘teach the controversy’. Despite this, the Penrose position does not represent anything other than an attempt to reintroduce an infinite universe and considering that I can pick holes in it, I cannot wait for Dr. Craig’s response.
Design parameters topic
An interesting forum? I suppose I am wondering why god needs to be proven or disproven. Beliefs to me are like statements (nonfactual). Person A writes that s/he believes in X. Is X disputed? then there is no argument, since the premise cannot be agreed upon to generate an argument. In this case, X is god. Some believe in X, and some do not. Interesting to read about, but there is no argument that is going to really settle matters. Choose to believe if you will. Live and let live. Believe it or not. Best wishes.
_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind
Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory
NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
10 Dec 2010, 7:36 pm
Actually, I would think that everyone has mental barriers to the consideration of foreign or contradictory thoughts, everyone in general not merely any specific debate opponent.
10 Dec 2010, 7:56 pm
Actually, I would think that everyone has mental barriers to the consideration of foreign or contradictory thoughts, everyone in general not merely any specific debate opponent.
Not saying I don't. Only pointing out that in 91's case it seems very clear. I've made comment about 91 having this issue in the past. I've made private comments to people I know on WP about how severe it seems. I've even outright refused to talk to 91 based upon my belief in his intellectual dishonesty in the past. To me, the issue is clear with him, it isn't about truth, none of these arguments have anything to do with truth, it is about winning his particular argument, even if he has to try to contort the grounds of the argument as given, even if he has to try to twist things into positions that don't really support Christian theism at all, even if his only answer is just some stupid bit of absurdity that was scraped off of the floor of a philosophy classroom. Once he has this, he is "obviously right", the rest of us who disagree (some being correct in disagreement, others having a more tenuous grasp) are just wrong and dishonest in how they are so wrong. I've made objections to 91. I've made objections that I don't think he's ever faced up to honestly. I consider myself to have refuted many of his points already, but he stubbornly refuses to recognize the clear factual nature of my refutations. To me, it is quite clear, he is very intellectually dishonest.
10 Dec 2010, 8:06 pm
Actually, I would think that everyone has mental barriers to the consideration of foreign or contradictory thoughts, everyone in general not merely any specific debate opponent.
Not saying I don't. Only pointing out that in 91's case it seems very clear. I've made comment about 91 having this issue in the past. I've made private comments to people I know on WP about how severe it seems. I've even outright refused to talk to 91 based upon my belief in his intellectual dishonesty in the past. To me, the issue is clear with him, it isn't about truth, none of these arguments have anything to do with truth, it is about winning his particular argument, even if he has to try to contort the grounds of the argument as given, even if he has to try to twist things into positions that don't really support Christian theism at all, even if his only answer is just some stupid bit of absurdity that was scraped off of the floor of a philosophy classroom. Once he has this, he is "obviously right", the rest of us who disagree (some being correct in disagreement, others having a more tenuous grasp) are just wrong and dishonest in how they are so wrong. I've made objections to 91. I've made objections that I don't think he's ever faced up to honestly. I consider myself to have refuted many of his points already, but he stubbornly refuses to recognize the clear factual nature of my refutations. To me, it is quite clear, he is very intellectually dishonest.
Let me second that. The man has no interest in truth, merely squashing opposition. I disagree with both him and AngelRho but AngelRho may have a distorted sense of reality but he's at least earnest and honest. Not so 91.
10 Dec 2010, 8:28 pm
thats all I got to say on this pathetic and boring topic
Views may differ but manipulative methods of discussion are not acceptable. Nobody forces you to read or participate.
