Page 5 of 9
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:25 am
by Neutrino
Napoleon Ier wrote: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.
I find it difficult to believe that
any description of God can be termed "plausible". There is no "plausible" for God, because you have no independant information about God and therefore nothing to base your assumptions on. By definition, God is unknown and unknowable. Any particular set of actions that can be attributed to God probably serves an intention so hugely different from what one would expect from a human as to make any prediction based upon these supposed intentions absolutely worthless.
I find it equally difficult to believe that a powerful and above all
singular argument can be made for Jesus' divinity. Even if you could somehow prove your claims through historical texts, you would logically have to open the door for
every other work containing a superhuman character. Great, you proved Jesus' divinity. Unfortunately for you, you just also proved Zeus' divinity.
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:22 am
by Napoleon Ier
Neutrino wrote:Napoleon Ier wrote: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.
I find it difficult to believe that
any description of God can be termed "plausible". There is no "plausible" for God, because you have no independant information about God and therefore nothing to base your assumptions on. By definition, God is unknown and unknowable. Any particular set of actions that can be attributed to God probably serves an intention so hugely different from what one would expect from a human as to make any prediction based upon these supposed intentions absolutely worthless.
I find it equally difficult to believe that a powerful and above all
singular argument can be made for Jesus' divinity. Even if you could somehow prove your claims through historical texts, you would logically have to open the door for
every other work containing a superhuman character. Great, you proved Jesus' divinity. Unfortunately for you, you just also proved Zeus' divinity.
That's grossly untrue and you know it is. I could very easily acknowledge there is some evidence for other superhuman characters but refute it just as I refute any evidence for the Loch Ness Monster or the Yeti, whilst finding more substantial and convincing evidence for Jesus'divinity.
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:06 am
by Snorri1234
Jenos Ridan wrote:Snorri1234 wrote: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.
That's bullshit and you know it. Many well-known scientists and philosophers held racists views, because everybody was more or less racist in older times. Why would spending a lifetime on researching various gasses mean you can't be a racist?
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:12 am
by got tonkaed
I think snorri is pretty correct in a sense...people studying the eugenics movement by in large were not viewed as quacks during the times. I think part of the evidence for that can be the number of bits of legislation that were passed in favor of different forms of eugenics or eugenic like programs legislation and social messages that were pro eugenics for quite a large period of time, which was coupled with a new understanding of how the body worked.
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:24 am
by Neoteny
Napoleon Ier wrote:That's grossly untrue and you know it is. I could very easily acknowledge there is some evidence for other superhuman characters but refute it just as I refute any evidence for the Loch Ness Monster or the Yeti, whilst finding more substantial and convincing evidence for Jesus'divinity.
There is apparently a large difference as far as required burdens of proof for that situation in you and Neutrino's supernatural perspectives. You already know who I agree with.
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:23 pm
by Neutrino
Napoleon Ier wrote:
That's grossly untrue and you know it is. I could very easily acknowledge there is some evidence for other superhuman characters but refute it just as I refute any evidence for the Loch Ness Monster or the Yeti, whilst finding more substantial and convincing evidence for Jesus'divinity.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that your entire argument for Jesus' divinity consists of nothing more than removing any salt you would normally take when dealing with documents concerning Jesus and tripling the dosage with everything else.
Not exactly the most balanced and scientific approach to the problem, 'eh?
Anyways, lets have that evidence out here, then. If it's as strong as you say it is, then it should certainly be able to survive anything
this forum can throw at it.
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 12:18 am
by Jenos Ridan
Neutrino wrote: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?
Are you saying it wasn't quackery? Because six million dead jews would be simply (no pun intended, seriously) dying to contest that, Herr Goebbles. Or is it Tovarish? You keep flip-flopping so it is hard to keep it all straight.
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 12:26 am
by Jenos Ridan
comic boy wrote: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.
*shakes head and sighs*
I think you should re-read the ten points,
carefully. How you can make the even greater leap to Agnosticism is simply mind-boggling!
If the logical deductive reasoning leds to the conclusion of there being a deity of some sort, then it stands then to reason that, logically, only one can be the True God. All the religions of the world talk about other gods. All save for one. I'll leave that to your ample imagination to figure out which one I'm speaking of.
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 12:31 am
by Neutrino
Jenos Ridan wrote:
Are you saying it wasn't quackery? Because six million dead jews would be simply (no pun intended, seriously) dying to contest that, Herr Goebbles. Or is it Tovarish? You keep flip-flopping so it is hard to keep it all straight.
Whut? My only point is that scinetists are not some kind of higher order of beings. Their word is not law and they have all the human failures the rest of us do. I have absolutely no idea how you managed to mentally relate that statement to the Holocaust.
Yes, racism is bad, the people who perpetrate it are bad, blah, blah, blah. What does this have to do with all racist scientists being quacks? Newton, Galileo and Copernicus, along with more or less the entirety of humanity alive at the time were racist or sexist to some degree. Hell, even Einstien probably was, compared to modern views.
Are they all quacks too?
Beliefs on racial or sexual equality have precisely no impact on one's scientific ability.
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 12:40 am
by Jenos Ridan
Neutrino wrote:Jenos Ridan wrote:
Are you saying it wasn't quackery? Because six million dead jews would be simply (no pun intended, seriously) dying to contest that, Herr Goebbles. Or is it Tovarish? You keep flip-flopping so it is hard to keep it all straight.
Whut? My only point is that scinetists are not some kind of higher order of beings. Their word is not law and they have all the human failures the rest of us do. I have absolutely no idea how you managed to mentally relate that statement to the Holocaust.
Yes, racism is bad, the people who perpetrate it are bad, blah, blah, blah. What does this have to do with all racist scientists being quacks? Newton, Galileo and Copernicus, along with more or less the entirety of humanity alive at the time were racist or sexist to some degree. Hell, even Einstien probably was, compared to modern views.
Are they all quacks too?
Beliefs on racial or sexual equality have precisely no impact on one's scientific ability.
So sexism and racism are both completely rational. Gotcha.
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 12:42 am
by Neoteny
Jenos Ridan wrote:Neutrino wrote:Jenos Ridan wrote:
Are you saying it wasn't quackery? Because six million dead jews would be simply (no pun intended, seriously) dying to contest that, Herr Goebbles. Or is it Tovarish? You keep flip-flopping so it is hard to keep it all straight.
Whut? My only point is that scinetists are not some kind of higher order of beings. Their word is not law and they have all the human failures the rest of us do. I have absolutely no idea how you managed to mentally relate that statement to the Holocaust.
Yes, racism is bad, the people who perpetrate it are bad, blah, blah, blah. What does this have to do with all racist scientists being quacks? Newton, Galileo and Copernicus, along with more or less the entirety of humanity alive at the time were racist or sexist to some degree. Hell, even Einstien probably was, compared to modern views.
Are they all quacks too?
Beliefs on racial or sexual equality have precisely no impact on one's scientific ability.
So sexism and racism are both completely rational. Gotcha.
You make me very sad, Jenos.
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 12:43 am
by Neutrino
Jenos Ridan wrote:So sexism and racism are both completely rational. Gotcha.
*facepalm*
It must take quite some talent to miss the point so well, Jenos. Others merely avoid the point, but you seemed to be targeting an area diametrically opposed to the point and in fact, in a completely different country. Congratulations.
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 12:44 am
by Jenos Ridan
Snorri1234 wrote:Jenos Ridan wrote:Snorri1234 wrote: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.
That's bullshit and you know it. Many well-known scientists and philosophers held racists views, because everybody was more or less racist in older times. Why would spending a lifetime on researching various gasses mean you can't be a racist?
So believing in the mythical Aryan Race and judging jews to be nothing more than pests is reasonable, or even rational?
Racism is about as rational as playing soccar on the freeway.
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:18 am
by Neutrino
Ok, let me explain this in the most basic way possible.
1. Humans, in general, are prone to racism and sexism and such, yes? Even quite intelligent people are fully capable of it.
2. Scientists are humans and are therefore just as likely to be a racist, sexist bigot as the next person.
3. Being a racist, sexist bigot has precisely no impact on their scientific ability. This is proved by the vast numbers of brilliant racist, sexist bigot scientists that abound in the last few hundred years of history.
That's pretty much it. Yes, I agree with you, racism is horrible and is in no way excusable. That doesn't mean that scientists are immune to it, or that any scientist who is one is also automatically a quack, as you claimed.
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 2:46 am
by comic boy
Jenos Ridan wrote:comic boy wrote: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.
*shakes head and sighs*
I think you should re-read the ten points,
carefully. How you can make the even greater leap to Agnosticism is simply mind-boggling!
If the logical deductive reasoning leds to the conclusion of there being a deity of some sort, then it stands then to reason that, logically, only one can be the True God. All the religions of the world talk about other gods. All save for one. I'll leave that to your ample imagination to figure out which one I'm speaking of.
1) Why does it stand to reason that there is only one God, the 10 points lead to a creator but not a singular diety, there might be an entire race of creators .
2 ) I have made no leap towards Agnosticism which is in fact supportive of the concept of a designer and therefore fits, it is you taking the leap by insisting that Christianity is the logical next step.
3 ) Are you seriously attempting to prove your point by indicating that only Christianity follows one God, did you forget Islam and Judaism ?
Shakes head and giggles
Re:
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:34 pm
by Jenos Ridan
comic boy wrote:1) Why does it stand to reason that there is only one God, the 10 points lead to a creator but not a singular diety, there might be an entire race of creators .
2 ) I have made no leap towards Agnosticism which is in fact supportive of the concept of a designer and therefore fits, it is you taking the leap by insisting that Christianity is the logical next step.
3 ) Are you seriously attempting to prove your point by indicating that only Christianity follows one God, did you forget Islam and Judaism ?
Shakes head and giggles
1) if "God" is not a singular entity, then He cannot be God. "I AM WHO I AM", He once said to a man many thousands of years ago.
2) In the concept of a creator, you are correct. But the catch is, who or what is the nature of the creator? Only one concept of the creator is correct, they can't all be correct.
3) In Islam, Allah is Arabic for "a god", not God (notice the difference? If not, look into why the spellings are different in the two cases). Judaism is the remnants of the Pharises, a sect of ancient Judaism that resisted Christ and handed Him over to the Romans.
Re: The Ontological Argument
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:31 am
by comic boy
1) We are discussing the 10 points that you posted and my argument is that they point to a creator or creators , where does it point to a single deity - you just saying there is a single God proves nothing except your bias.
3) Truly laughable, find me one single Muslim who believes in more than one God. As for the Jews it is utterly irrelevent that they denounced Jesus, they still only believe in one God. I dont know which religion,if any, is correct and nor do you as its purely a matter of faith, stop attempting to justify yourself and stick to the point please.
Re: The Ontological Argument
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:36 am
by Jenos Ridan
comic boy wrote:1) We are discussing the 10 points that you posted and my argument is that they point to a creator or creators , where does it point to a single deity - you just saying there is a single God proves nothing except your bias.
3) Truly laughable, find me one single Muslim who believes in more than one God. As for the Jews it is utterly irrelevent that they denounced Jesus, they still only believe in one God. I dont know which religion,if any, is correct and nor do you as its purely a matter of faith, stop attempting to justify yourself and stick to the point please.
Seeing as how you didn't respond at all to #2, you clearly agreed and therefore your third responce is wasted text. Returning to point one, it is clear, as you already agreed, that the 10 steps led, logically, to a creator entity.
If there were not a single entity at work, we'd have to then hypothosize the nature of the myriad 'gods'. Occam's Razor demands that there be a simple solution; therefore, a single God.
Next step would be, then, to assertain which of the monotheistic faiths has it square on the button. I'll get to that later.
Re: The Ontological Argument
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:13 am
by comic boy
Despite the fact that I am Atheist I am prepared , for the sake of the debate, to argue from an agnostic view and concede the possibility of there being a creator. You simply rehash the same dogma and dodge direct debate which is a waste of everyones time, simply write a blog if you have no intention of broadening your view...good day !
Re: The Ontological Argument
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:19 am
by Snorri1234
Jenos Ridan wrote:If there were not a single entity at work, we'd have to then hypothosize the nature of the myriad 'gods'. Occam's Razor demands that there be a simple solution; therefore, a single God.
Occam's Razor doesn't demand anything, it's not a law. Especially regarding things like gods, the simplest solution doesn't have to be the correct one.
Seeing as how you didn't respond at all to #2, you clearly agreed and therefore your third responce is wasted text.
#2 is stating the obvious.
However, the third response doesn't actually have anything to do with the second. "allah" is the word for god, not "a" god. And when they capitalize the word, it's referring to God. Muslims believe in the fucking same god you do, they just have a different book.
Re: The Ontological Argument
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:19 am
by Snorri1234
Also, it seems there was already a thread about this argument a year ago...
Re: The Ontological Argument
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:11 pm
by Napoleon Ier
Snorri1234 wrote:Also, it seems there was already a thread about this argument a year ago...
Really snorrarse? And this matters because...?
What? It wasn't a poll your ass got whooped in? Is that why you're whinging?
Re: The Ontological Argument
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:47 pm
by Snorri1234
Napoleon Ier wrote:Snorri1234 wrote:Also, it seems there was already a thread about this argument a year ago...
Really snorrarse? And this matters because...?
What? It wasn't a poll your ass got whooped in? Is that why you're whinging?
No the fun thing is that the whole thread turned out exactly the same.
Re: The Ontological Argument
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:54 pm
by Dancing Mustard
So, what's going on in here? Is everybody having fun?
Re: The Ontological Argument
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:55 pm
by Snorri1234
Dancing Mustard wrote:So, what's going on in here? Is everybody having fun?
Well, you know, same old same old. Fundies post proof, rest of the forum proves that it isn't proof, fundies fail to read thread.