What is wrong with this argument?
in [Logic]
|
Next: arithmetic in ZF
From: Icarus on 30 Mar 2005 05:49 Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote: ========= <unsnipping the text you snipped:> ========== >>> 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?". ========= <end of unsnip> =========== You declined to answer this bit. He (allegedly) came down to tell us once, why could he not do so again? >>> 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. Sorry, you'll have to do better than that. Aquinas begins with God as a premise, an axiom, rather than proving that a god is a necessary thing: "Now some substances are simple and some are composite, and essence is in both, though in the simple substances in a truer and more noble way, as these have existence in a nobler way: indeed, the simple substances are the cause of the composite ones, or at least this is true with respect to the first simple substance, which is God." See what I mean? The first time 'God' is mentioned, the existence of such a thing is an unstated assumption, not a conclusion of reasoned argument. Try again. >> 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. No - you're blustering and trying to ignore the point, which is that my nonsense argument has exactly as much support as yours, i.e. none. >>> 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). You didn't give me the specific contradiction that you think is involved in this case, which was of your god being aware of what is going on *right now*. If your god is so powerful that he is able to create an entire universe, why do you assume that he does not have the ability to be aware of what is going on within it? Please support your assertions with reasoned arguments. >> 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. We're not talking about Turing machines or radioactive decay, we're talking about whether or not this god of yours, who apparently had the power to create the universe, is capable of altering the course of events within it. Is he or isn't he? According to your religion he is, and has done so numerous times. If you assert there is a contradiction involved here, please present your reasoned argument to that effect. > 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're re-stating an issue I've already responded to, rather than answering my response. What you have to address is this: What contradiction is involved in your god knowing what is happening *right now* and having the power, if he so chooses, to influence events? According to your religion he did it numerous times in the past, so why not today? >>> 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. So far you appear reluctant to reveal any of them.
From: Elroy Willis on 30 Mar 2005 08:31 sob(a)sob.com (Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)) wrote in alt.atheism > To avoid being prejudicial, you should at least study prophesy. If > after you have done that you can provide reasons that you do not > accept it, then at least you cannot be branded an anti-religious bigot > by those who differ with you. I've studied Biblical prophecies as well as the predictions of people like Nostradamus and Edgar Casey. They are all intentionally vague predictions which can fit where people want them to fit, after the fact. It doesn't take a true prophet to predict there will be earthquakes, famines, plagues, wars, disasters, etc, since those things happen all the time all around the world, year after year. -- Elroy Willis www.elroysemporium.com
From: D. Stephen Heersink on 30 Mar 2005 09:43 Prophets, that alien bunch, haven't proved anything to be true, except as an accidental. The Bible itself teaches us to avoid prophesy of all kinds as a tool of the devil. Not that the Bible has much going right about it in the first place, but it does recognize that prophesy is about as informative as reading the stars. On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 13:31:26 GMT, Elroy Willis <elroywillis(a)swbell.net> wrote: >sob(a)sob.com (Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)) wrote in alt.atheism > >> To avoid being prejudicial, you should at least study prophesy. If >> after you have done that you can provide reasons that you do not >> accept it, then at least you cannot be branded an anti-religious bigot >> by those who differ with you. > >I've studied Biblical prophecies as well as the predictions of people >like Nostradamus and Edgar Casey. They are all intentionally vague >predictions which can fit where people want them to fit, after the >fact. > >It doesn't take a true prophet to predict there will be earthquakes, >famines, plagues, wars, disasters, etc, since those things happen all >the time all around the world, year after year. ___________________ D. Stephen Heersink San Francisco
From: Elroy Willis on 30 Mar 2005 09:48 dshsfca(a)ixpres.com (D. Stephen Heersink) wrote in alt.atheism > Prophets, that alien bunch, haven't proved anything to be true, except > as an accidental. The Bible itself teaches us to avoid prophesy of all > kinds as a tool of the devil. Not that the Bible has much going right > about it in the first place, but it does recognize that prophesy is > about as informative as reading the stars. If the Bible teaches against prophesy, then why are so many of the writers of it considered prophets by so many people? -- Elroy Willis www.elroysemporium.com
From: SOB) on 30 Mar 2005 10:42
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 12:14:35 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn" <bob(a)bobbybobbobthebobster.com> wrote: >There is no god Define what you mean by "god" so we can understand what it is that does not exist. -- 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." |