(February 27, 2015 at 2:16 am)Pizza Wrote: Prove the necessary being is a thinking being.

Summa Theological, fifth way I.e. final cause.

(April 21, 2015 at 12:23 pm)Mezmo! Wrote:

(February 27, 2015 at 2:16 am)Pizza Wrote: Prove the necessary being is a thinking being.

Summa Theological, fifth way I.e. final cause.

The fifth way is Aquinus trying to sneak intelligence into natural laws. The natural laws are a byproduct of symmetries. For example, translation invariance (this spot over here is no different than that spot over there) -> conservation of momentum. No intelligence is required for the conservation laws to exist.

(April 20, 2015 at 11:48 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: You are. Atheism has nothing to say about prejudices. All atheism is is that we don't think that gods exist.
Now atheists tend to be less prejudiced than theists but that is because we tend to evaluate things using evidence.

Do you have evidence on your own conscious experiences?

(April 20, 2015 at 11:48 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: But there is nothing to stop an atheist being prejudiced.
Religions however, demand it.  

Study Islam before making rash statements against religion.

(April 20, 2015 at 12:03 pm)robvalue Wrote: Harris: I'm very sad to hear that you would have no idea how to act morally without the existence of an undemonstrated celestial fascist dictator.

Morality has no meaning if it is based in god's opinion. Any definition of morality which isn't evaluated by the wellbeing of living creatures is a pointless one to begin with, concerned more with toadying than on caring about anyone or anything.

I would like to think that you would be very surprised by your own morality if you did lose your belief and find you do have an internal moral compass. I would estimate 9 out of 10 people who talk like you are mistaken about themselves.

Please check my response to Bennyboy.

(April 20, 2015 at 12:11 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Perhaps, for humans -those somewhat intelligent and social animals inhabiting the planet Earth - "fittest" means those that can best cooperate with each other and survive as a group. You ever think of that?

I cannot think of that because of the presence of Stalin, Mao, and other atheist dictators.

(April 20, 2015 at 12:11 pm)pocaracas Wrote: One person alone is weak, no matter how strong he is compared with other humans... one person alone cannot maintain his sustenance, health, home, family,... gadgets, transportation, thirst for knowledge or recreation for very long.
One person alone is so much less than a community.

True.

(April 20, 2015 at 1:43 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I was attacking your ideas about God, which are illogical, and you used the greatness of Islam, especially its growth, as evidence supporting you God idea.

If in your mind God is Illogical then does that mean that all those who believe in God are Illogical people who are much greater in number than you (atheist) are.

Do not undermine the fact that we are interested in knowledge, fiction, necessity, causation, or sensation, so we find ourselves studying about what interests us. Large number of positive views about existence of God in general inform and support philosophical positions on the real objects of philosophical interest.

(April 20, 2015 at 1:43 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Still a red herring. Are we talking about the social injustices which may or may not be faced by the Muslim community (for which I have some sympathy), or about proof of God?

Please be refrain from dragging me into politics if you are only interested in “Proof of God.”

(April 20, 2015 at 1:43 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Sure they do. I know they do, because all those words have meaning, and there is no God. Those things are good which seem to me beneficial and healthy, and those things are bad which seem to me counterproductive or destructive.

This argument is a perfect example of Argumentum Ex Culo

You: "If there were a good God, then He would not make a world that could have evil. There is evil in the world; therefore, a good God did not create it."

Me: "How do you define good without God."

You: "I just know what is good and what is not by feeling."

(April 20, 2015 at 1:43 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Humans are a social animal,

Why humans are social animals?

(April 20, 2015 at 1:43 pm)bennyboy Wrote: and have instincts that allow us to work together. These include a sense of right and wrong, the feelings of familial love and brotherhood, and so on.

From where all these instincts came into human?

(April 20, 2015 at 1:43 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Your religious texts didn't create moral feelings-- they reflect an ancient (and mostly uneducated) culture's response to those feelings.

You advocate the idea of no God blindly and by overruling all the logical facts in favour of God. For instance, I have argued that without God:

• Universe came out of nothing,
• Life appeared on earth by accident, and
• Intelligence happened by lucky mutation.

In this entire scenario what is the meaning of GOOD and what is the meaning of BAD. Nothingness, accident, and chance do not know GOOD and do not know BAD. Therefore, nonexistence of God confirms that good and bad have no meanings.

Dawkins and many other renowned atheists follow this idea:

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won't find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.
- Richard Dawkins, Out of Eden, page 133.

Here Dawkins is clearly saying there is no good and no evil. Well if that is the case then there is no point in charging God or religion or anything else with evil because he has abolished the concept. Think of the twin towers, if the people who flew the planes into the twin towers were just dancing to the music of their DNA then nobody would blame them for doing it. In fact, BLAME becomes a NON-CONCEPT. So the whole thing dissolved into a non-moral universe.

(April 20, 2015 at 1:43 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Harris Wrote: I thought atheists are unprejudiced people. It seems I am mistaken.

Bennyboy Wrote: I seriously doubt you ever thought that.

If you can doubt in the existence of God without whom the existence of everything is an impossibility then who am I in comparison to God.

(April 21, 2015 at 1:07 pm)Surgenator Wrote:

(April 21, 2015 at 12:23 pm)Mezmo! Wrote: Summa Theological, fifth way I.e. final cause.

The fifth way is Aquinus trying to sneak intelligence into natural laws. The natural laws are a byproduct of symmetries. For example, translation invariance (this spot over here is no different than that spot over there) -> conservation of momentum. No intelligence is required for the conservation laws to exist.

The concept of quantitative conservation laws, such as those of mass and energy, is of much later origin. Even prior to the development of modern mechanics, symmetries were employed to solve some dynamical problems. The relation between conserved quantities and symmetries has come to play a central role in the physical sciences. Conservation laws may reflect as much about the way the human mind organizes the phenomena of the world as they do about physical reality itself.

In fact, there are principles of lawfulness and of causality, which reflect basic and universal characteristics of human thought and understanding. This suggests that our various conservation laws may be rooted as much in the human mind as they are in any external reality.

(April 22, 2015 at 1:44 pm)Harris Wrote:

(April 21, 2015 at 1:07 pm)Surgenator Wrote: The fifth way is Aquinus trying to sneak intelligence into natural laws. The natural laws are a byproduct of symmetries. For example, translation invariance (this spot over here is no different than that spot over there) -> conservation of momentum. No intelligence is required for the conservation laws to exist.

The concept of quantitative conservation laws, such as those of mass and energy, is of much later origin. Even prior to the development of modern mechanics, symmetries were employed to solve some dynamical problems. The relation between conserved quantities and symmetries has come to play a central role in the physical sciences. Conservation laws may reflect as much about the way the human mind organizes the phenomena of the world as they do about physical reality itself.

In fact, there are principles of lawfulness and of causality, which reflect basic and universal characteristics of human thought and understanding. This suggests that our various conservation laws may be rooted as much in the human mind as they are in any external reality.

Why would it matter when human beings discovered the relationship between symmetry and conservation? The direct-consequential relationship would still exist prior to humans discovering it. So Aquinas arguing that intelligence is required to explain these laws is him arguing from ignorance.

Also, Aquinas argues that physical laws are inherent to the reality itself. The admission that physical laws could be a byproduct of the human mind organization undermines Aquinas's argument further.

(April 22, 2015 at 1:44 pm)Harris Wrote:

(April 20, 2015 at 1:43 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I was attacking your ideas about God, which are illogical, and you used the greatness of Islam, especially its growth, as evidence supporting you God idea.

If in your mind God is Illogical then does that mean that all those who believe in God are Illogical people who are much greater in number than you (atheist) are.

I didn't say "God is Illogical." I said "your ideas about God. . . are illogical." And this is no more a matter of opinion than whether the world can logically be considered flat. Good god + dying babies = illogical.

Quote:Please be refrain from dragging me into politics if you are only interested in “Proof of God.”

Please stop using politics to support your idea of God.

Quote:

(April 20, 2015 at 1:43 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Sure they do. I know they do, because all those words have meaning, and there is no God. Those things are good which seem to me beneficial and healthy, and those things are bad which seem to me counterproductive or destructive.

This argument is a perfect example of Argumentum Ex Culo
You: "If there were a good God, then He would not make a world that could have evil. There is evil in the world; therefore, a good God did not create it."
Me: "How do you define good without God."
You: "I just know what is good and what is not by feeling."

If you're going to quote, don't paraphrase the thing you just quoted. I didn't say that I magically know what is good and not by feeling; I say that people's feelings about things DEFINE what is good to them. That's what meanings MEAN: people have a feeling or idea, and make a word to describe it. However, the supposed goodness of God-- suffering babies and religious wars-- do not meet any sane person's definition of goodness.
If you want to argue that babies who are born, get malaria, and die a week later are good, then it's pretty much /thread, because you're insane.

Quote:

(April 20, 2015 at 1:43 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Humans are a social animal,

Why humans are social animals?

Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution.

Quote:

(April 20, 2015 at 1:43 pm)bennyboy Wrote: and have instincts that allow us to work together. These include a sense of right and wrong, the feelings of familial love and brotherhood, and so on.

From where all these instincts came into human?

Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Evolution.

Quote:

(April 20, 2015 at 1:43 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Your religious texts didn't create moral feelings-- they reflect an ancient (and mostly uneducated) culture's response to those feelings.

You advocate the idea of no God blindly and by overruling all the logical facts in favour of God. For instance, I have argued that without God:
• Universe came out of nothing,
• Life appeared on earth by accident, and
• Intelligence happened by lucky mutation.

I've never said that philosophically speaking, God is not a possibility. I have good evidence, however, that your God idea does not represent reality. I can also say that if God is intrinsically good, your particular religion represents neither reality NOR God.

Quote:In this entire scenario what is the meaning of GOOD and what is the meaning of BAD. Nothingness, accident, and chance do not know GOOD and do not know BAD. Therefore, nonexistence of God confirms that good and bad have no meanings.

Fuck off with that. Go look in a dictionary, and you'll see the meanings of GOOD and BAD. None of them are dependent on a 1500 year-old mythology rooted in a 3000 year-old mythology.

You know what is funny Benny, I am on another website and it shouldn't shock you that while atheists agree, you do have those who want to protect religion as if it deserves a pedestal, and will like liberal theists, falsely equate any verbal challenge polite or blunt, as some sort of call to get rid of all religion.

The argument, even from liberal theists is "what is the harm", and I read your rightful response here, and know the affect religion has on the human brain..

(April 22, 2015 at 1:44 pm)Harris Wrote:

(April 20, 2015 at 12:11 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Perhaps, for humans -those somewhat intelligent and social animals inhabiting the planet Earth - "fittest" means those that can best cooperate with each other and survive as a group. You ever think of that?

I cannot think of that because of the presence of Stalin, Mao, and other atheist dictators.

Who did nothing that much worse than theist dictators, like Franco, Salazar, Charles Taylor, Ali Khamenei, and others...

Maybe the common thread on those people wasn't their belief or disbelief in any deity, huh?
I'd suggest you do think about it, in spite of those personalities you mentioned.

(April 22, 2015 at 1:44 pm)Harris Wrote:

(April 20, 2015 at 12:11 pm)pocaracas Wrote: One person alone is weak, no matter how strong he is compared with other humans... one person alone cannot maintain his sustenance, health, home, family,... gadgets, transportation, thirst for knowledge or recreation for very long.
One person alone is so much less than a community.

True.

Peace, bro!

Good is relative to the event, society, the individual, evolution, etc..

Is death good? Without death, the planet would be immersed in insects, dinosaurs, bacteria, etc..  Without death. what would anyone eat?

Is cutting one's self bad? Not if you ask a masochist.  Is cutting someone else bad?  Not if you ask a sadist.

Is god good? not if you ask an atheist.  Is god evil? not if you ask a theist.

Good and bad or good and evil are subjective terms.

How could god be either?

Harris: Good and Bad have no meaning without God, so God must be real.
Others: ***provide countless meaningful definitions of good and bad not dependent on God***
Harris: Yes, but Good and Bad have no meaning without God, so God.

(April 23, 2015 at 9:08 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Harris: Good and Bad have no meaning without God, so God must be real.
Others: ***provide countless meaningful definitions of good and bad not dependent on God***
Harris: Yes, but Good and Bad have no meaning without God, so God.

The moral argument for god in a nutshell.

---

(April 21, 2015 at 12:23 pm)Mezmo! Wrote:

(February 27, 2015 at 2:16 am)Pizza Wrote: Prove the necessary being is a thinking being.

Summa Theological, fifth way I.e. final cause.

If Aquinas ever actually tried to show his arguments to be sound I'd take them seriously. There's more to a good deductive argument than mere validity, the premises have to be true.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm Wrote:The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Why are we believe that the bolded premise is true? The fact that we have localized cases of unintelligent beings producing order effects counts for something, since we can't just assume god or not god from the start without begging the question.