What is wrong with this argument?
in [Logic]
|
Next: arithmetic in ZF
From: Christopher A. Lee on 29 Mar 2005 15:33 On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:02:03 GMT, sob(a)sob.com (Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)) wrote: >On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:48:23 +0100, "Icarus" <icarus_uk(a)email.com> >wrote: > >>> This line of thinking solves the dilemna of Free Will. You can make >>> decisions that even God does not know about until you make them. > >>I'm afraid that doesn't let your god off the hook at all. Even *I* can see >>that if someone locks a hundred people in a shed and reaches for the tap >>marked "Poisonous Gas", something bad is going to happen. > >What would you propose that God do in such an instance? Not his problem. He's talking about something hypothetical, that is at most a logical varial in an abstract exercise. >>If your god actually existed > >He better exist or else nothing exists. Non-sequitur. Come back when you have learned some basic logic.
From: Icarus on 29 Mar 2005 17:16 Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote: > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:48:23 +0100, "Icarus" > <icarus_uk(a)email.com> wrote: > >>> This line of thinking solves the dilemna of Free Will. You >>> can make decisions that even God does not know about until >>> you make them. > >> I'm afraid that doesn't let your god off the hook at all. >> Even *I* can see that if someone locks a hundred people in a >> shed and reaches for the tap marked "Poisonous Gas", >> something bad is going to happen. > > What would you propose that God do in such an instance? Send down a minor bolt of lightning and say "Oy, I told you not to do that, didn't you guys listen to me?". >> If your god actually existed > > He better exist or else nothing exists. Oh please give me the reasoned argument to that effect, I'd love to hear it :-) Seems to me I could say, with exactly as much justification, "Gods can't exist if a universe exists", and since a universe clearly exists, I disprove the existence of gods. >> he would either have to be ignorant of everything that >> happens in the world (not much of a god) > > Why do you say that? You are assuming that God can be expected > to do something that you claim He should. But God cannot be > expected to do certain things that result in contradictions. Elaborate on what contradictions are involved here. >> or powerless to change anything (still not much of a god) > > Why do you say that? You are assuming that God can be expected > to do something that you claim He should. But God cannot be > expected to do certain things that result in contradictions. Elaborate on what contradictions are involved here. >> or chooses not to change anything (a sicko). > > Why do you say that? You are assuming that God can be expected > to do something that you claim He should. But God cannot be > expected to do certain things that result in contradictions. Elaborate on what contradictions are involved here. >> Which do you think fits the bill best? > > None of you expectations can be fulfilled without resulting in > contradiction. Therefore it is your expectations that are > invalid, not God. By all means demonstrate how. > You left out the most obvious. But you won't be able to see it > if you continue to blind yourself with anti-religious bigotry. Well let's have your rationalisation and we'll see how good it is.
From: Gavan on 29 Mar 2005 17:58 "The great philosopher-criminologist" <bedford_park2000(a)yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<1112102440.840079.321670(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>... > Elroy Willis wrote: > > The great philosopher-criminologist wrote in alt.atheism > > > > >> Also with the euthanasia debate flaring again due to the Terri > Schiavo > > >> case do you believe that it is god who determines whether or not a > person > > >> dies and the manner in which this death will take place? > > > > > Yes. > > > > So all those people who died on 9/11 died because your god willed > > their deaths? And the hundreds of thousands that died in the last > > tsunami died because it was your god willed them to die? > > Planned it all from the beginning. Based on the above if your god is responsible for determining when a person dies (apparently as well as their employment) I would also have to assume that he inflicts all the disease and illness in the world. If this is the case why do Christians consult physicians? Surely it is god's will that they be inflicted with the disease or illness and any intervention by a doctor would be against the will of god? Further to this wouldn't you therefore say that doctors who are practicing Christians are walking contradictions?
From: SOB) on 29 Mar 2005 22:34 On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:33:40 -0500, Christopher A. Lee <calee(a)optonline.net> wrote: >>He better exist or else nothing exists. >Non-sequitur. >Come back when you have learned some basic logic. Come back when you have learned some basic metaphysics. -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html "If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life."
From: SOB) on 29 Mar 2005 22:45
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:16:32 +0100, "Icarus" <icarus_uk(a)email.com> wrote: >> He better exist or else nothing exists. >Oh please give me the reasoned argument to that effect, I'd love to >hear it :-) Read Aquinas - and I don't mean Summa Theologica, which is a religious work. I mean "On Being and Essence", which is a metaphysical work. >Seems to me I could say, with exactly as much >justification, "Gods can't exist if a universe exists", and since a >universe clearly exists, I disprove the existence of gods. If you can construct a rational metaphysics to explain that, more power to you. >> Why do you say that? You are assuming that God can be expected >> to do something that you claim He should. But God cannot be >> expected to do certain things that result in contradictions. >Elaborate on what contradictions are involved here. I will give an example. You cannot expect God to make a rock so big that He cannot lift it. The reason is because such a rock cannot exist in objective reality. If it did, it would result in a contradiction. Objective reality does not allow contradictions (Principle of Consistency). >Elaborate on what contradictions are involved here. See above regarding God's purported omnipotence. Another regards God's purported omniscience. There are certain aspects of objective reality that are completely unknowable. For example it is not possible to know whether a Turing Machine will halt or not in general. It is not possible to know when a particular radioactive atom will decay. You cannot expect God to know that which is completely unknowable. If He did know such tings, it would result in a contradiction. Objective reality does not allow contradictions (Principle of Consistency). >> You left out the most obvious. But you won't be able to see it >> if you continue to blind yourself with anti-religious bigotry. >Well let's have your rationalisation and we'll see how good it is. I do not have any rationalization. I only have rational arguments. -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html "If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life." |