[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1091: Undefined array key 0 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1091: Trying to access array offset on null [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Undefined array key 0 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Trying to access array offset on null [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Undefined array key 0 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Trying to access array offset on null The Ontological Argument - Page 4 - Conquer Club
Snorri1234 wrote:Whether or not renowned scientists believed in god has no bearing on it's rationality. You might as wel say that because some scientists supported eugenics or thought black people were inferior that it's rational to think that.
Well then it would be just as logical to say that just because renowned scientists didn't believe in God would have no bearing on it's rationality either. You might as well say that because some atheists support communism that it's rational to adopt that kind of government!
PLAYER57832 wrote:I hope we all become liberal drones.
Whether there is a full scientific explanation for the universe or not doesn't matter in regard to the rest of the argument I believe.
Why doesn't it matter? I'm not saying science could give a full explanation for the universe, but it if could, wouldn't that be impressive?
Well ofcourse it would, I think Neoteny was talking more about it mattering within the argument that Jenos posted. The step from non-full scientific explanation to God isn't neccesarily a logical one.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war. Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
Whether there is a full scientific explanation for the universe or not doesn't matter in regard to the rest of the argument I believe.
Why doesn't it matter? I'm not saying science could give a full explanation for the universe, but it if could, wouldn't that be impressive?
Well ofcourse it would, I think Neoteny was talking more about it mattering within the argument that Jenos posted. The step from non-full scientific explanation to God isn't neccesarily a logical one.
I see. I don't agree but I see what you're pointing at.
PLAYER57832 wrote:I hope we all become liberal drones.
Snorri1234 wrote:Whether or not renowned scientists believed in god has no bearing on it's rationality. You might as wel say that because some scientists supported eugenics or thought black people were inferior that it's rational to think that.
Well then it would be just as logical to say that just because renowned scientists didn't believe in God would have no bearing on it's rationality either. You might as well say that because some atheists support communism that it's rational to adopt that kind of government!
You're right.
Science shouldn't have anything to do with atheism or theism anyway, it's a means to understand the world and how it functions, not why it functions. I don't think religion should have anything to do with politics either, but sadly it does.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war. Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
Snorri1234 wrote:Whether or not renowned scientists believed in god has no bearing on it's rationality. You might as wel say that because some scientists supported eugenics or thought black people were inferior that it's rational to think that.
Well then it would be just as logical to say that just because renowned scientists didn't believe in God would have no bearing on it's rationality either. You might as well say that because some atheists support communism that it's rational to adopt that kind of government!
You're right.
Science shouldn't have anything to do with atheism or theism anyway, it's a means to understand the world and how it functions, not why it functions. I don't think religion should have anything to do with politics either, but sadly it does.
Hang on then, so what about the design argument, which seems to be refutable with science?
What about using quantum mechanics is philosophy of religion?
What about string theory and the case for necessary existence?
Yo've clearly read that albeit noble-sounding statement on some naive left-leaning cactus smokers' blog and pasted it here without too much thought...
MeDeFe wrote:6. Why do there have to be initial physical conditions outside of the universe? In a thread some time ago someone pointed out that there is evidence that a physical constant (I think something to do with electrons) has changed over the last 15B years. That shouldn't be possible since it's supposedly a constant, but if it is possible I really see no reason why there can't be initial conditions inside this universe at one point that simply don't occur nowadays and which started off the universe we see. A proto-universe so to speak, we've had that discussion as well, with time not yet an established dimension and suchlike, remember? He makes the scientific explanation look very simple, but hides the fact that C and L can take on some vastly complex forms.
I dunno about the rest of this gobbledegook, but this is something to which I can respond. I believe Morris' postulate #6 is correct, and we've discussed this before at a couple of points. This postulate, i.e. that scientific explanation of the universe cannot be complete without reference from outside the universe, is formalized mathematically in Godel's incompleteness theorem. Godel proved that no system (which the universe must be, if there is a scientific explanation for it) can be fully explained without external reference. This theorem has been tested time and again, and contemplation of its ramifications on human existence are profound. Douglas Hofstadter has written a beautiful analysis of the theorem and its implications with respect to human experience. See 'Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid' if you're interested. Whether you're interested or not, though, Godel's incompleteness theorem pretty much rules out the potential for a full scientific explanation of the universe (even if quantum mechanics didn't already).
As true as it might be, I'm not sure how relevant it is anyhow. I believe Jenos' point is that this concept implies there must be an external. I don't see how that is necessarily required, which I think may have been what MeDeFe might have been aiming at (correct me if I'm wrong). Also, the concept of something being outside the universe implies that it cannot have an effect in our universe, making it irrelevant. But I'll admit my physics/philosophy is based on older Hawking publishings...
No need to correct you, that's exactly what I was aiming at.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
Whether there is a full scientific explanation for the universe or not doesn't matter in regard to the rest of the argument I believe.
Why doesn't it matter? I'm not saying science could give a full explanation for the universe, but it if could, wouldn't that be impressive?
Well ofcourse it would, I think Neoteny was talking more about it mattering within the argument that Jenos posted. The step from non-full scientific explanation to God isn't neccesarily a logical one.
My comment, as I mentioned, had little to do with the rest of the topic of this discussion other than the point about whether science can or cannot offer a full explanation of the universe. I apologize if that was a digression. I agree completely that there is not an automatic logical connection between the lack of a scientific explanation for the universe and the conclusion that God Is. I've made my views on this subject pretty clear in other threads, so I'll go back to just reading and enjoying the views of folks who are more versed in the philosophical arguments than I.
Chance favors only the prepared mind.
-Louis Pasteur
Napoleon Ier wrote: Hang on then, so what about the design argument, which seems to be refutable with science?
What about using quantum mechanics is philosophy of religion?
What about string theory and the case for necessary existence?
Yo've clearly read that albeit noble-sounding statement on some naive left-leaning cactus smokers' blog and pasted it here without too much thought...
I meant that science shouldn't focus on the question of god, not that you can't use scientific data to argue about god. Science should be about gathering info, and philosophy should be about what that info means.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war. Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
I have to say that I agree with snorri, here, as I've argued in other threads until blue in the face. Science really shouldn't worry about God too much because all science has proven is that it cannot disprove God. Therefore it has nothing to say about the subject.
Chance favors only the prepared mind.
-Louis Pasteur
Napoleon Ier wrote: Hang on then, so what about the design argument, which seems to be refutable with science?
What about using quantum mechanics is philosophy of religion?
What about string theory and the case for necessary existence?
Yo've clearly read that albeit noble-sounding statement on some naive left-leaning cactus smokers' blog and pasted it here without too much thought...
I meant that science shouldn't focus on the question of god, not that you can't use scientific data to argue about god. Science should be about gathering info, and philosophy should be about what that info means.
That's a slightly different contention to your
Science shouldn't have anything to do with atheism or theism
Napoleon Ier wrote: Hang on then, so what about the design argument, which seems to be refutable with science?
What about using quantum mechanics is philosophy of religion?
What about string theory and the case for necessary existence?
Yo've clearly read that albeit noble-sounding statement on some naive left-leaning cactus smokers' blog and pasted it here without too much thought...
I meant that science shouldn't focus on the question of god, not that you can't use scientific data to argue about god. Science should be about gathering info, and philosophy should be about what that info means.
That's a slightly different contention to your
Science shouldn't have anything to do with atheism or theism
a flip-flop...again.
The reason I said "atheism and theism" and not "religion" was because I wanted to make a distiction between not believing in god and believing in god and I didn't want to type it out.
Are you saying that those aren't basically what those terms stand for? I.e. is there something more to basic theism than the belief in a god?
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war. Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
Whether there is a full scientific explanation for the universe or not doesn't matter in regard to the rest of the argument I believe.
Why doesn't it matter? I'm not saying science could give a full explanation for the universe, but it if could, wouldn't that be impressive?
Well ofcourse it would, I think Neoteny was talking more about it mattering within the argument that Jenos posted. The step from non-full scientific explanation to God isn't neccesarily a logical one.
My comment, as I mentioned, had little to do with the rest of the topic of this discussion other than the point about whether science can or cannot offer a full explanation of the universe. I apologize if that was a digression. I agree completely that there is not an automatic logical connection between the lack of a scientific explanation for the universe and the conclusion that God Is. I've made my views on this subject pretty clear in other threads, so I'll go back to just reading and enjoying the views of folks who are more versed in the philosophical arguments than I.
Well, I'm glad we got all that sorted out...
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Jenos Ridan wrote: It should come as a cold splash of water to the face that in light of that, a good number of the major names in science were/are strong believers in some sort of deity; examples being Boyle, Babbage, Davy, Fabre, Faraday, Pascal (of the Wager), Kelvin, Lister, Maxwell, Newton, Pasteur, Riemann and Simpson.
Product of the times. Whether or not renowned scientists believed in god has no bearing on it's rationality. You might as wel say that because some scientists supported eugenics or thought black people were inferior that it's rational to think that.
The underlined portion is a cop-up and the rest is riddled with logical fallacies; the scientists who advocated eugenics programs and held racial views were hucksters peddling quackery and do not merit serious concideration. All you are doing is proving my point.
Last edited by Jenos Ridan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
"There is only one road to peace, and that is to conquer"-Hunter Clark
"Give a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life"- Something Hunter would say
You do know many scientists had to say they believed in god so they wouldn't get excommunicated and so in turn they could be allowed money to fund their projects?
Skittles! wrote:You do know many scientists had to say they believed in god so they wouldn't get excommunicated and so in turn they could be allowed money to fund their projects?
The fear of excommunication didn't stop Kepler, Copernicus or Galileo from holding to their discoveries. Newton even faced sharp criticim, from members of the nacent scientific community noless. Galileo didn't stop believing because he saw a flaw in the theory of heliocentrism, Newton firmly believed only "God" could be the reason for the order of the natural world, and ad infinatum for just about every major scientist in history. Even Darwin, at the end of his life, warned people not to take his theory too seriously.
But does that stop people like you? Apparently not. Like Snore, you've proven my point.
"There is only one road to peace, and that is to conquer"-Hunter Clark
"Give a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life"- Something Hunter would say
Jenos Ridan wrote: The underlined portion is a cop-up and the rest is riddled with logical fallacies; the scientists who advocated eugenics programs and held racial views were hucksters peddling quackery and do not merit serious concideration. All you are doing is proving my point.
What makes you so certain? Being a brilliant and well respected scientist makes you no more and no less likely to be a racist, sexist or any other variety of "-ist". Claiming that religious scientists form clear evidence for God is exactly as pointless as the opposite claim; "The existence of Athiest scientists disproves God!", and you clearly didn't give any credence to that argument...
We own all your helmets, we own all your shoes, we own all your generals. Touch us and you loooose...
Jenos Ridan wrote:To put the method of determining rationallity on paper, I quote a summart of pamplet on the ten steps put forth by Philosophy Professor Tom Morris:
1. The existance of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation (this is confirmed by the definition of the term intelligiblity.)
2. The existance of the Universe is therefore either: a. unintelligible, or b. has an explanation
(logical deduction from #1)
3. No rational person should accept 2a. (confirmed by the definition of rationallity.)
4. Therefore, 2b is the rational conclusion and the Universe has an explanation.
5. But there are only three kinds of explanation: a) Scientific: C + L = E (Independent physical, initial conditions, plus relevant laws, yield the Event explained.) b) Essential: the essense of the thing to be explained requires it's existance. c) Personal: this posits explanations that cite the intentions and powers of some personal Agent.
6. The existance of the Universe cannot be explained Scientifically; if the Universe is just natural conditions and laws, there can be no initial physical conditions or laws outside of it--independent of it--to explain it.
7. The explanation cannot be an Essential one; the Universe is a contingent one, and therefore is not necessary. It could just as well 'not exist' as exist. Its essence doesn't require it to existence.
8. So a rational person should believe that the Universe has a Personal explanation.
9. The only personal agent capable--having the power and wisdom--to create the entire universe out of nothing is 'God'.
10. Therefore, a rational person believes there exists a God.
It all the rage these days in alot of university and other colliegate settings to equate religious belief with irrationallity. It should come as a cold splash of water to the face that in light of that, a good number of the major names in science were/are strong believers in some sort of deity; examples being Boyle, Babbage, Davy, Fabre, Faraday, Pascal (of the Wager), Kelvin, Lister, Maxwell, Newton, Pasteur, Riemann and Simpson. It should be a little supprising to learn that as our knowledge of the Universe increases, it becomes ever clearer that there indeed is a God and it is quite rational to believe in one. The next logical step is to ask "can this God be known?" The reassuring answer is yes. Since He created the human mind, He is more that able to communicate with us in a logical, reasonable manner. Whatsmore, He wants to have a truelly one-on-one relationship with each of us. To facillitate this understanding, Jesus came to us and will, as He said, come back soon.
In linking up with the Source of Wisdom we become rational in the fullest sence.
If one were to accept all that prof Morris says then I can see it as only a base for Agnosticism, nothing logical in making a jump from that to acceptance of the divinity of Jesus or that Christianity is the true faith.
Except for the fact that he says "A rational person believes that there is a God." Which automatically means that if you believe ALL that he said, but are agnostic, you do not believe yourself to be rational.
You are correct in saying that proof of God's existence does not automatically lead to Christianity, only to deism. However, in light of the fact that Christianity is the most internally consistent & fully developed deistic system, it does not seem to be far behind.
AAFitz wrote:There will always be cheaters, abusive players, terrible players, and worse. But we have every right to crush them.
MeDeFe wrote:This is a forum on the internet, what do you expect?
MR. Nate wrote:Except for the fact that he says "A rational person believes that there is a God." Which automatically means that if you believe ALL that he said, but are agnostic, you do not believe yourself to be rational.
You are correct in saying that proof of God's existence does not automatically lead to Christianity, only to deism. However, in light of the fact that Christianity is the most internally consistent & fully developed deistic system, it does not seem to be far behind.
Yes sorry I did not make myself clear, I was talking of agnosticism in its newly popular sense which is an acceptance of some form of God but independent of any particular faith system. Most of the people I know who describe themselves as agnostic do actually believe in some form of creator but are unwilling to commit themselves further, original agnostic thought is of course closer to that of atheists.
MR. Nate wrote:Except for the fact that he says "A rational person believes that there is a God." Which automatically means that if you believe ALL that he said, but are agnostic, you do not believe yourself to be rational.
You are correct in saying that proof of God's existence does not automatically lead to Christianity, only to deism. However, in light of the fact that Christianity is the most internally consistent & fully developed deistic system, it does not seem to be far behind.
Not to be insulting, but have you actually investigated other deistic systems to any great extent? Claiming your own system's incredible superiority is all well and good, but you do tend to appear more than a little closed-minded if it's revealed you haven't actually done the research.
We own all your helmets, we own all your shoes, we own all your generals. Touch us and you loooose...
The step made to belief in Christianity is a logical one in that Christianity has some of the more sophisticated and plausible theological descriptions of God. You can also make a powerful argument using historical evidence for Jesus' divinity.
The step made to belief in Christianity is a logical one in that Christianity has some of the more sophisticated and plausible theological descriptions of God. You can also make a powerful argument using historical evidence for Jesus' divinity.
And for a thousand years, if you didn't buy into the church, you could be killed, or made a social, economic pariah. Compelling proof there.
