What is wrong with this argument?
in [Logic]
|
Next: arithmetic in ZF
From: SOB) on 30 Mar 2005 20:24 On 30 Mar 2005 14:42:29 -0800, "Hector Plasmic" <hec(a)hectorplasmic.com> wrote: >>> what caused the supreme being, etc? >> Prove that the Supreme Being needs a cause. >In order to logically prove things about this "Supreme Being" of yours, >we'll need to know something more about it, don't you think? That would help. >Why not >start with showing us some reason to believe that it exists, and some >way to determine its properties? Be patient - I am developing this in steps. After I get feedback on the presentation about Worldview I will proceed. >Until then, I'd say that if your "Supreme Being" needs a cause, the >human imagination would seem to be adequate to the task, and there >doesn't seem to be any need to discuss it further (sans some reason to >think it actually exists). The human imagination is not capable of causing anything to exist in objective reality. Here we use the word "cause" to mean "efficient cause". -- 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 30 Mar 2005 20:25 On 30 Mar 2005 14:43:55 -0800, "Hector Plasmic" <hec(a)hectorplasmic.com> wrote: >>>> What do you all mean by "intervenes in our lives"? >>>> What kind of "intervention"? > >>> That'd be a mystery, don't you reckon? :-) > >> OK, then what is meant by "mysterious intervention in >> our lives"? > >That'd be a mystery, don't you reckon? :-) Sorry, it's turtles all the >way down. Ask a substantive question. OK. If the Universe cannot be its own cause because it is mutable, what is the cause of the Universe? -- 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: Carl Kaufmann on 30 Mar 2005 20:33 The great philosopher-criminologist wrote: > What is wrong with saying that God works in Mysterious ways? > It is equivalent to admitting ignorance, while positing an explanation that explains nothing. -- EAC Liar, Damned Liar, and Statistician alt.atheist #1966 "Statistical thinking will one day be as necessary for efficient citizenship as the ability to read and write." - H.G. Wells
From: Elroy Willis on 30 Mar 2005 21:24 sob(a)sob.com (Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)) wrote in alt.atheism > Elroy Willis <elroywillis(a)swbell.net> wrote: >>> 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 is not fair to compare Prophesy to works of people like Nostradamus > or Casey. Those people operate in a different way from Prophesy. No they don't/didn't. >> 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. > How about the prediction that the Jews would return to the place of > their original homeland? How many times in history has that happened? You think such a prophecy requires supernatural abilities? Let's see them all return to Jerusalem now, so that Jesus will come back or their messiah show up. I don't see it happening myself. There are plenty of Jews who couldn't care less about living in Jerusalem. -- Elroy Willis www.elroysemporium.com
From: SOB) on 30 Mar 2005 21:57
On 31 Mar 2005 02:39:29 GMT, Enkidu <zwi6iv402(a)sneakemail.com> wrote: >> The Supreme Being can act without changing because that act is to >> cause Being. >Aside from the fact that your assertion is unclear and unfounded, it >changes nothing. That's onlt because you are too dull to understand it. >To cause something to move, to change, to alter in any >way is to ACT, to change something from what was to what is. That is correct. >If God is immutable, then God cannot change, That is also correct. >He cannot rouse Himself to action. God does not "rouse Himself to action". The Act of existence has never changed. If you must cast it into human terms, then existence has always been. There was no time when existence was not. Therefore there was no time when God had to "rouse". -- 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." |