Blogs


Notices

Common arguments for the existence of a god

Old 07-06-2006, 11:10 AM
  # 21 (permalink)  
I'm an addict.
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hyde Park, NY
Posts: 1,201
THe teleological argument is also based in logical fallacy called corellation implies causation.

By that resoning we can state that a super intelligent alien race exists b/c stone hendge is a very large, complicated structure that seems to be beyond the abilities of the people of the time, so they must have been put there by intelligent beings from another place.

Is it possible? Yes, it is, but that doesn't prove it.

The only thing that really matters in this discusion is personal faith. You either believe in a god or you don't. It can't be proven either way.
Blake is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 07:29 PM
  # 22 (permalink)  
To Life!
 
historyteach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 9,293
Just a gentle reminder, this is what I stated earlier...
Personally, I would challange the premise of the modality arguement too. If it is possible, that doesn't make it necessary.
I think they make this arguement for G*D only. And that would make sense, if you believed in G*D to begin with! LOL!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, any logical arguement must be able to be used in other circumstances than just the one it's being used in. It must be able to be generalized, if I remember correctly.
Is that correct? If so, this arguement falls. This arguement would only work for G*D.
It doesn't help to preach to the choir.

Blake;
If you accept that something could have just allways existed, then why not the matter itself? What if the uncaused cause (or god) is the matter, itself? Wouldn't that make everything god?
Bingo! Give the boy the prize!
In my opinion, you've hit the nail right on the head.

Shalom!
historyteach is offline  
Old 07-07-2006, 07:08 AM
  # 23 (permalink)  
Member
 
PaperDolls's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Midwest
Posts: 8,539
Blog Entries: 10
Originally Posted by historyteach
Just a gentle reminder, this is what I stated earlier...

It doesn't help to preach to the choir.
Amen.....er.....right on brotha!
PaperDolls is offline  
Old 07-07-2006, 07:24 AM
  # 24 (permalink)  
Don't get undies in a bunch
 
best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Shore MA
Posts: 7,120
Originally Posted by historyteach
But, it's ironic how the leading Christian philosopher's arguement for the necessity of G*D rests on a pagan's work about the natural world.
Teach and do you know why the pagans gave arguement as they did?
Lack of acceptance and denial of the God of Abraham is why they wrote. It was their attempts at refuting the Hebrew's God. They gave arguements so that people would have a choice and replacement when they refused the truth as told in the sacred writings of Moses and the Prophets.

So I guess you could say that Aquanis was taking back what was taken and returning it to a rightful place.
best is offline  
Old 07-07-2006, 08:09 AM
  # 25 (permalink)  
I'm an addict.
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hyde Park, NY
Posts: 1,201
Well that is a little presumptuous now, isn't it best?

Am I right in assuming that you are saying that Aristotle's metaphysical writings and theories we based solely in trying to disprove the jewish god? If that's the case, he did a horrible job since aquinas lifted his unmoved mover "truth" directly from him.

THe reality of the situation is that aristotle's life wasn't influenced by jewish theology, he was a greek living in ancient greece, jewish theology was inconsequential to him.


None of this really matters as all of aquinas's "ways" have been proven to be crippled by logical fallacies. You can not logically prove the existence of god.
Blake is offline  
Old 07-07-2006, 08:47 AM
  # 26 (permalink)  
Member
 
paulmh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,415
With respect

Strictly speaking the Greeks referred to the Jews as a "nation of philosophers", so it's not fair to say that Jewish thinking was inconsequential to Aristotle, although the term was only applied after Aristotle's death. It's certainly the case that the Greeks were familiar with the Jews long before - many philosophers, traders and adventurers from the Mediteranean travelled from as far as Southern Britain, North Africa all the way to India and possibly China. The ancient world was a good deal less compartmentalised than people seem to imagine. That said the God of the Jews was one system of religious belief among many and there is no particular evidence that it really excercised the Greek thinkers. They were much more interested in social and political philosophy, and metaphysics wasn't really a field they concerned themselves with. I think they thought it was vulgar.
paulmh is offline  
Old 07-07-2006, 10:16 AM
  # 27 (permalink)  
I'm an addict.
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hyde Park, NY
Posts: 1,201
Exactally, the greeks may have respect the philosophy of the jews, but they didn't concern themselves with the theology. That is why I said jewish theology was inconsequential to aristotle, he didn't come to formulate his theories as a refutation of the jewish god out of denial of the "truth as told in the sacred writings of Moses and the Prophets" to use best's terminology.

And the ancient greeks did have quite a bit to say on metaphysics, Aristotle wrote an entire book on the topic which is where the "unmoved mover" theory comes from. Plato's views on metaphysics are labled Platonic Realism and deal with the theory there is a distinct seperation of the perceptual world and nonperceptual world with sub seperations of actual and reflected forms.

While the majority of greek philosophy does pertain to social and political writings, they did spend sometime on metaphysics and alot of western philosphy on the subject has roots in those theories.
Blake is offline  
Old 07-07-2006, 01:37 PM
  # 28 (permalink)  
Member
 
paulmh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,415
I was gently suggesting that the Greeks didn't undertake their philosophical investigations to refute Judaism.

And Plato/Socrates, in the exploration of the notion of Forms, is trying to find a rational basis - and a fundamental premise - from which a set of natural laws can be deduced to form the backbone of the ideal society. Plato/Socrates' imperative remains the social and the political. And the question which fascinated the pre-Aristotlean philosophers, and one of the reasons they had I think a natural affinity with Jewish teachers, was their attempts to answer the question - how shall a man live?

I'm nothing like as familiar with Aristole as I could be. I know more about his life in context than I do about the work of the man himself. I know that he was more concerned with science than with religion, and it is in this that the great legacy of the ancients still comes down to us.

Thank God for the Arabs, who kept all this stuff alive in the Dark Ages.

Best wishes

Paul
paulmh is offline  
Old 07-07-2006, 02:12 PM
  # 29 (permalink)  
I'm an addict.
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hyde Park, NY
Posts: 1,201


Sorry....You are correct that socrates focused on ethics mainly and didn't really concern himself with the metaphysical world, however plato did deal with metaphysics in some detail, here is an article from stanford on the topic. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-metaphysics/

and metaphysics doesn't equal religion...I think none of them truly concerned themselves with religion.

I hate nitpicking like this...but I can't help it.....sorry......thats how god made me.....
Blake is offline  
Old 07-07-2006, 11:41 PM
  # 30 (permalink)  
Member
 
paulmh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,415
I didn't realise I was nitpicking.... lol! Please don't apologise. I'm just fascinated by the ancient world. The Mediterannean of 2500 years ago was the silicon valley of its time.

We talk more about God in the secular forum than we do anywhere else.
paulmh is offline  
Old 07-08-2006, 01:15 AM
  # 31 (permalink)  
I'm an addict.
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hyde Park, NY
Posts: 1,201
Nah paul, I was nitpicking, not you...I too am facinated by all that has come before me, it our best teacher and contains some very important lessons.

As far as the god thing, I think it is important to have a place to talk about the spiritual, metaphysical world without having to have the confines of religion. god doesn't nesecarily mean God.

I consider myself secular, but I still have beliefs of more to life than the absolute tangible...... the word, god, is just a shortened convienient term that I have moved past the preconceptions that I once had about it. In all actuality, I used to call what ever it is I believe in, billybob jinglebunns....not joking....it really helped me for a time, now I can substitute the word god in b/c it's just a mater of semantics for me now.....but thats also how I can do the 12 step thing and remain secular.
Blake is offline  
Old 07-08-2006, 01:26 AM
  # 32 (permalink)  
Member
 
paulmh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,415
I agree with all my heart that it's a matter of semantics. Having opinions about God or not-God is one thing. For far too long all I had were thin-skinned prejudices. Typical alkie. Thank God for the 12 steps!
paulmh is offline  
Old 12-15-2006, 08:35 AM
  # 33 (permalink)  
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1
Sobering thoughts on the God Question!!!

Ebook review: The Final Freedoms

On the horizon appears an approaching confrontation so contentious, any clash of civilizations will have to wait its turn. On one side, a manuscript titled: The Final Freedoms, against all the gravitas religious tradition can bring to bear.

This, the first wholly new interpretation for 2000 years of the moral teachings of Jesus the Christ focuses specifically on marriage and human sexuality, challenging all natural law theory and theology. At stake is the credibility of several thousand years of religious history, not to mention cosmology, all psychology related to human sexuality, and theories on the nature of consciousness.

What at first appears an utterly preposterous challenge to the religious status quo rewards those who persevere in closer examination, for it carries within its pages an idea both subtle and sublime, what the theological history of religion either ignored, were unable to imagine or dismissed as impossible. An error of presumption which could now leave 'tradition' staring into the abyss and even humble the heights of scientific speculation. For if this material is confirmed, and there appears to be both the means and a concerted effort to authenticate it, the greatest unresolved questions of human existence may finally have been untangled.

Published [at the moment] only on the web as a free pdf download, made up of twenty nine chapters and three hundred and seventy pages, this new teaching has nothing whatsoever to do with any existing religious conception known to history. It is unique in every respect.

This new teaching is pure ethics. It requires no institutional framework, no churches, no priest craft, no scholastic theological rational, no dogma or doctrine, costs nothing and ‘worship’ requires only conviction, faith and the necessary measure of self discipline to accomplish a new, single moral imperative and then the integrity and fidelity to the new reality.

Using a synthesis of scriptural material from the Old and New Testaments, the Apocrypha , The Dead Sea Scrolls,The Nag Hammadi Library, and some of the worlds great poetry, it describes and teaches a single moral LAW, a single moral principle and offers its own proof; one in which the reality of God responds to an act of perfect faith with a direct, individual intervention into the natural world; making a correction to human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception; providing new, primary insight and understanding of the human condition.

This new interpretation explains the moral foundation of all human thought and conduct and finds expression within a new covenant of human spiritual union, the marriage between one man and one woman. It resolves the most intractable questions and issues of human sexuality. Offering the potential for resolving the most pressing health issues facing the world, including AIDs.

As the first ever religious teaching able to demonstrate its own efficacy, the first ever religious claim of knowledge that meets the criteria of the most rigourous, testable scientific method, this teaching enters the public domain as a reality entirely new to human history.

The beginnings of an intellectual and moral revolution are unfolding on the web and available for anyone to test, discover and explore for themselves, and what might very well define the nature and future of humanity itself!

Links by private email for those interested?
klatu is offline  
Old 12-15-2006, 10:37 AM
  # 34 (permalink)  
Big Idiot Man Child
 
windysan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: La
Posts: 5,664
I hated logic in school.
windysan is offline  
Old 12-15-2006, 12:01 PM
  # 35 (permalink)  
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 49
It appears that we have a gordian knot.


It seem to me that G*D is a matter of revealed truth. It is opaque to either fact or logic.
CAS116 is offline  
Old 12-15-2006, 03:11 PM
  # 36 (permalink)  
Reach Out and Touch Faith
 
shockozulu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On a Sailboat
Posts: 3,871
I just finished an entire class studying these thinkers in depth. For now, I am passing on this ebook. I wonder if anyone wants to read ten pages on the political differences between Aristotle and St. Augustine in terms of who should lead the people. I was "challenging all natural law theory and theology" but not in terms of sexuality so I doubt anyone will want to read it. It was hard enough to write LOL.
shockozulu is offline  
Old 12-16-2006, 04:03 AM
  # 37 (permalink)  
To Life!
 
historyteach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 9,293
Welcome to SR, Klatu;
Sounds to me like you are the author of the ebook.

Windy, I loved logic! LOL!

Alera, I hated the natural law theories too, as a result of the totally unnatural manipulation of things and people it made manifest.

Shalom!
historyteach is offline  
Old 12-18-2006, 02:41 AM
  # 38 (permalink)  
happy joyous responsible
 
blankethog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Eureka, CA
Posts: 11

All this talk of logic & god from a religious standpoint makes my hair stand on end. ... I think that's why it's called faith: it's the belief in something unseen, unprovable. Those who have it [faith], know It; those who don't, don't know It. Get it?

My thought is that if a person believes something (whatever that might be), it's real for them and therefore what does it matter whether that thing is empirically provable or not? Same goes for "un"belief: from a god-questioning perspective, isn't that *believing* in "no god"? That's real for that person whether there's proof or not of the non-existence of god. ... wow, I've almost confused myself here ...
blankethog is offline  
Old 12-19-2006, 10:45 AM
  # 39 (permalink)  
Reach Out and Touch Faith
 
shockozulu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On a Sailboat
Posts: 3,871
That is why it is called faith, yup. I have a faith that is very conservative but I do not apply it to my recovery. It just doesn't work for me. I do ask my HP to help me by giving me strength to work my recovery but I do not rely on the HP ideal of NA/AA.

I am almost a Deist that way. I often tease that I am a Catholic Deist

There is nothing that men make a greater noise about than the "mysteries of the Christian religion." The divines gravely tell us "we must adore what we cannot comprehend." Some of them say the "mysteries of the Gospel" are to be understood only in the sense of the "ancient fathers." ... [Some] contend [that] some mysteries may be, or at least seem to be, contrary to reason, and yet received by faith. [Others contend] that no mystery is contrary to reason, but that all are "above" it. [10]

On the contrary, we hold that reason is the only foundation of all certitude, and that nothing revealed, whether as to its manner or existence, is more exempted from its disquisitions than the ordinary phenomena of nature. Wherefore, we likewise maintain, according to the title of this discourse, that there is nothing in the Gospel contrary to reason, nor above it; and that no Christian doctrine can be properly called a mystery. ...

Now, as we are extremely subject to deception, we may without some infallible rule, often take a questionable proposition for an axiom, old wives' fables for moral certitude, and human impostures for divine revelation....
From John Toland, Christianity Not Mysterious

More about Deism here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
shockozulu is offline  

Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:54 PM.