What is wrong with this argument?
in [Logic]
|
Next: arithmetic in ZF
From: thomas p on 1 Apr 2005 14:11 On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:02:24 +0800, bob young <alaspectrum(a)netvigator.com> wrote: > > >George Dance wrote: > >> The great philosopher-criminologist wrote: >> snip >> I hope you get the drift - all the evidence that there isn't a god that >> loves people and cares for their welfare can be dismissed with the >> 'Mysterious Ways' argument; "There's a God that loves people and cares >> for their welfare" is saved from being disproved, but at the cost of it >> actually meaning or implying anything (as it's being true is compatible >> with anything at all happening). >> >> As I see it, that's the point of the 'Mysterious Ways' argument, and >> probably why a version of it is attributed to God Himself in Job 38-40. > >If god were real he would not have to be mysterious > Paraphrasing the fat boy in "Lord of the Flies": If god were real, nothing would work. Thomas P. "Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards" (Kierkegaard)
From: Tom on 1 Apr 2005 15:04 "Dan Listermann" <dan(a)listermann.com> wrote in message news:114qiucquhs741b(a)corp.supernews.com... > > "Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob(a)sob.com> wrote in message > news:424ca863.17988936(a)news-server.houston.rr.com... > >> At the outset it is critical that >> you adopt the Worldview of Existential Realism or else you won't be >> able to understand the discussions about objective reality. > > Or, stated differently, you must buy into my blathering in order to > understand it. . . . Exactly, SOB is truly that.
From: Tom on 1 Apr 2005 15:06 "Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob(a)sob.com> wrote in message news:424d7d99.9201310(a)news-server.houston.rr.com... > On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:10:18 -0500, "Dan Listermann" > <dan(a)listermann.com> wrote: > >>My "blathering" is that there are things I may never know and I am man >>enough to be able to admit it instead of making up fantasies to explain >>them. Pretty simple and easily to understand - only one sentence of >>"blathering." > > All of us suffer from ignorance but that does not mean we have to > indulge it like atheists do. Yes, most Christains that I know exhibit ignorance and wear this ignorance like a badge of honor, similar to what you are doing right now, SOB.
From: Tom on 1 Apr 2005 15:14 "Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob(a)sob.com> wrote in message news:424d29ec.51150650(a)news-server.houston.rr.com... > On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:48:32 -0600, Paul Erickson > <paul.erickson(a)softhome.net> wrote: > >>Can you prove that _anything needs a cause? > > Physics tells us that Causality is operative. > > Don't get fooled into thinking that just because there are some random > aspects to quantum mechanics that Causality is not operative. > Randomness has nothing to do with Causality in Physics. Anyway, > Schrodinger's Equation is deterministic because it uses Unitary > operators. Relativity requires Causality because only events inside > the Light Cone can be connected. In Metaphysics Causality is needed > for there to be Order. > > If there is no Order in objective reality, there is no Physics or > Metaphysics because how would you describe objective reality is there > was no way to distinguish objects? You could do like the Platonic > Idealists and claim that Order exists in subjective reality but you > are not able to prove anything because there is no way to convince > anyone that you exist. > > Without Causality you have a real mess on your hands because there is > no Order and therefore no way to explain things in an objective way. I don't recall whether or not anyone has shown that the initial point of the universe requires causality, SOB, can you point me to these studies?
From: Dan Listermann on 1 Apr 2005 15:32
"Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob(a)sob.com> wrote in message news:424d7d99.9201310(a)news-server.houston.rr.com... > On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:10:18 -0500, "Dan Listermann" > <dan(a)listermann.com> wrote: > >>My "blathering" is that there are things I may never know and I am man >>enough to be able to admit it instead of making up fantasies to explain >>them. Pretty simple and easily to understand - only one sentence of >>"blathering." > > All of us suffer from ignorance but that does not mean we have to > indulge it like atheists do. I would rather suffer from ignorance than hold tight to fantasy like theist do. |