Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10
41
General Religious Discussion / Re: The Ontological Argument
« Last post by Foxy Freedom on Today at 12:33:30 PM »
So Kant assesses the sentence God exists; he negates the predicate: God does not exist. The question he now asks is whether that negated conclusion is a contradiction.

Thus the statement God exists cannot be analytic and must be synthetic. Thus the ontological conclusion cannot be sound.

Interesting idea but Kant is not actually refuting the ontological argument since the conclusion at 6 that god exists is a mistake from 4.

I think it is such a laugh that the ontological argument is a proclamation of SPAG as proof that god exists. "Imagine god as external." It is typical of the religious mind that they were confusing SPAG with god exists. Religious people always have difficulty seeing concepts as merely concepts, they have a tendency to give concepts concrete form such as thinking morality is absolute.
42
The WHOLE Bible is HIS Word! He is the Word.

That's what the Bible claims, TND1997, but if one does not believe that claim it isn't a particularly useful observation.

It's telling that the claims made by believers on behalf of their respective gods tend to be either blind assertions, such as your quoted statement above, or unconvincing due to other conflicts with reality and common sense.  One would think that something as awesome as a god would represent unequivocally in the real world without recourse to scripture, and without the need for apologists.

If anything, the existence of human-generated scriptures (most of which conflict with one another), apologists, and thousands of competing versions of The Truth is a de facto admission of bollocksness.  If your god can speak at all, get off the podium and let it defend itself for a change.
43
General Religious Discussion / Re: Why Don't Christians Follow This Verse?
« Last post by Nam on Today at 11:03:51 AM »
Don't necromancer old topics. Start a new one after a few participating posts.

"Because" is not an answer.

Your verses are not an answer.

Try again.

-Nam
44
General Religious Discussion / Re: The Ontological Argument
« Last post by wheels5894 on Today at 10:49:34 AM »
Yet, actually, god does really exist - in the mind of Skep! It's part of his brain talking to him. Obviously that's the only place it exists (apart from the brain of all over theists who have a slightly different version - which is why they fight over it!)
45
General Religious Discussion / Re: The Ontological Argument
« Last post by jaimehlers on Today at 10:38:40 AM »
Atheists claim there might be infinite universes. If there are infinite universes, then anything we imagine exists somewhere. Thus, God exists.
What some atheists might claim is irrelevant.  We currently have knowledge of exactly one universe, therefore there is no cause to assume that there are multiple other universes to begin with.

Furthermore, even if someone shows that there is more than one universe, it does not follow that there is an infinite number of them.  Indeed, the whole concept of infinity is impossible to measure, therefore it is not reasonable to conclude that anything that can possibly be imagined actually exists somewhere.
46
Religion & Society / Re: ethical question/rant about ignorance
« Last post by jetson on Today at 10:21:03 AM »
Mat - my wife has told me that she believes I became "angrier" as I dove into atheism. By that, I mean once I embraced the term, and called myself atheist, she believes I have less tolerance for BS, and I am overly critical, in some cases, of people's belief systems when they are steeped in religion.

I have taken her criticism into account, and I try hard not to be too judgmental - very difficult, when my feeling is that ALL religions are based on judgment of others in some form. Christianity is the worst, IMO.

In real life, I don't talk like I do on the forums. There are some friends I have that want me to see the light, and with them, we have polite disagreements.
47
General Religious Discussion / Re: The Ontological Argument
« Last post by screwtape on Today at 10:09:19 AM »
Balderdash.

#5 is nonsensical. Zero logic, zero sense. That is not a counter at all.

Ipse dixit.  You've not made an argument.  You've just said "nuh-uh".  The logic is as sound as the ontological argument.  The claims therein are of equal merit.

Piece of advice for you: don't bring up topics that are so far over your head.  It will only lead to suffering. 


Atheists claim there might be infinite universes.

Some theists may say this too.  Don't get too hung up on who says what.

If there are infinite universes, then anything we imagine exists somewhere. Thus, God exists.

No, that's not how it works.  I'm not getting into the intricacies of it, because I do not think you would understand anyway.  Suffice it to say, only possible things are possible.  It is a dubious claim that trolls, fairies, Wizards and gods are possible in the first place.

48
General Religious Discussion / Re: The Ontological Argument
« Last post by penfold on Today at 10:04:49 AM »
Kant's response


There are two types of proposition: analytic and synthetic:

analytic = true or false by definition, for example: a triangle has three sides
synthetic = true or false according to empirical evidence, for example a triangle is blue

Kant observes that if I negate the predicate of an analytic truth I am left with a contradiction; for example a triangle has three sides -> a triangle does not have three sides. On the other hand the negation of a predicate of a synthetic statement does not lead to a contradiction; for example a triangle is blue -> a triangle is not blue

Thus if I have a statement and can negate the predicate without getting a contradiction then the statement cannot have been analytic and must have been synthetic. So far so uncontroversial.

The ontological argument (as it invokes nothing but a definition of God, and no evidence) can only be sound if the conclusion "God exists" is analytic (were it synthetic it would require evidence, which the argument does not provide).

So Kant assesses the sentence God exists; he negates the predicate: God does not exist. The question he now asks is whether that negated conclusion is a contradiction.

Here we must refer back to our earlier example:

a triangle does not have three sides - this is obviously contradictory, but why? Kant makes the following astute observation, if I negated the subject along with the predicate; i.e. from a triangle has three sides to not a triangle has three sides; bad grammar aside I have no contradiction. Another way of thinking about this, is to try and hold a triangle before your mind's eye, now try to add the quality of not having three sides - immediate contradiction. But now take the triangle away too - contradiction resolved!

Kant applied this insight to the God example, he points out that to say God does not exist is precisely what we mean by cancelling the subject. In other words God exists to God does not exist is not like a triangle has three sides -> a triangle does not have three sides but actually like a triangle has three sides -> not a triangle has three sides which is not a contradiction. God does not exist is not a contradiction because there is nothing left to be contradicted! We get rid of God along with his existence.

Thus the statement God exists cannot be analytic and must be synthetic. Thus the ontological conclusion cannot be sound.

This insight is often summed up in the phrase "existence is not a predicate" and is a fundamental insight that underpins all modern logical notion (where existence is held to be a 'quantifier' rather than predicate).

This in fact should not surprise us, Kant's conclusion that all existence claims are synthetic and requiring empirical evidence is so obviously true the only shocking thing about the ontological argument is how it survived from the C12th to the C18th without being shown to be wrong.

 :D
49
Chatter / Re: Thanksgiving
« Last post by jynnan tonnix on Today at 10:02:44 AM »
Our 17 year old opportunist. Oddly, she has never shown any interest in "people food" up until this past year or so. The platter of turkey had been passed around once and was on the kitchen table, out of the way. Luckily my husband caught her sneaking up there to investigate, and my daughter was quick enough to snap the photo a split second before the cat was chased off.

She did get her very own bit if turkey later on, though, and enjoyed in immensely.


 

Editing to add that I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving...I've been taking a break from the board for the past few weeks, but thought I'd come back and see what was going on.
50
Biblical Contradictions / Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Last post by Andy S. on Today at 10:01:39 AM »

No contradiction.

He said unto them, Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn. But when the people were put forth, he went in, and took her by the hand, and the maid arose. (Matthew 9:24-25)

Hey thinkernotdoubter!  Welcome to the forum!

I did not use the maid in Matthew 9:24-25 as an example of resurrected dead people.  I used the zombies of Matt. 27 and Lazarus in John 11 as examples of resurrected dead people.

You would have an argument if I did use the maid in Matt. 9 as an example because it does appear that the girl was just snoozing which doesn't make this story much of a miracle at all.  However, you can't say that Lazarus was just sleeping because the text says that he was "dead" (John 11:14). 

Take note that Jesus also said that Lazarus was "asleep" when he was actually dead (John 11:11).  Paul also uses the word "asleep" to describe people who have died (1 Thes. 4:15).  It seems like I could make an argument that the maid was actually dead in Matt. 9:24 but the text is not completely clear because it seems like the word "sleep" has two meanings. 

If the maid was actually dead then the problem you face is the fact that Jesus is not the sinless Messiah that you worship because it is evident that Jesus lied when he explicitly stated that the maid "had not died". 

Thinkernotdoubter, next time you try to say an apparent contradiction is not a contradiction try to actually use the examples given in a post.  Read the original posts carefully! If you can't solve a contradiction by using the examples provided and can only provide a new example to solve an apparent contradiction you make yourself look like you are....well....the opposite of a good thinker. 

Making up new examples that are easier to defend is a popular logical fallacy if you know anything about logic.  If you don't know anything about logic then it is my recommendation that you google "logical fallacies".  Try to guess what logical fallacy you just committed.  Hint:  It is a common one.  If you don't care to learn anything about logic then I am afraid you might want to change your name from "thinker..." because you will get tired of all the ridicule.     

I don't know you that well quit yet so for now I will give you the benefit of doubt.  I don't doubt that you are a good thinker yet but I will say that, at the least, you don't read original posts carefully.       
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10