Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[comet]

anima, your debate has many levels and rows. We can "brake" our answers down to "logic", "emotional needs", and philosophical to put a stop to piles of bullshit.

Philosophical means we are allowed to make up any bs we want. Whatever we start with (the if's) leads us down the a path that is only as valid as the starting "if's". and even whatever knows the amount of bullshit we can self justify with is unlimited.

"Emotional". there are a lot of people emotionally attached to "no-nothing", "anti-whatever", and "Omni dude". Until we dig down and find the cause of the emotional attachment to the belief we can't really understand it. And most people won't tell us the initial event that caused the "hatred" in them. And I haven't seen "deep hate" not associated with personal events or mental illness. Most times people convolute their feelings into reality for all. An example of this is people's takes on "unions" or 'ceo's". Logically its simple, emotionally it a hole nuttier ball of wax.

"logically": this involve some formal training and an understanding of one's self. It really is for people that don't care as long as we find out what is going on. That eliminates most, not all, but most of the people. Call it "60% most" if-en ya need to think we immune.

And Don't bite into the "if you don't believe one thing stated in a stance that the whole stance is wrong. I don't agree with all the stupid rules in the usa. I am still an American. This atheist site is a cesspool of anti-theist. so any objective analysis is utterly ignored if it even hints that theist may have a point. Although I must admit, I see some rational atheist showing up, that's nice.

[Chas]

Anima, if your argument only concerns this deistic philosophical god, why are you a catholic?

The short answer is that the catholic belief in god incorporates many aspects of both the philosophical god as well as the logic of prominent philosophers (the most influential of which is Aristotle).  Most of the positions of the catholic church follow from Aristotelian logic (as expressed very well by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologia.  An excellent read I recommend for everyone).  So an educated catholic may follow the logic nearly the entire way to the end point with a little bit of faith required to make the transcendental jump to the the teleological conclusion.

While I understand the desire for explicit direct empirical proof in all things.  It is readily apparent that there is little explicit direct empirical proof for things (to my knowledge such does not exist for anything which is not axiomatic or tautological).  I would consider it hypocritical to accept implicit circumstantial empirical proof (in accordance with the scientific method established by Aristotle of metaphysical deduction supported by implicit circumstantial empirical evidence) in any number of fields of philosophical, scientific and legal studies, but not in terms of theology.

I am not sure this answer will suffice to give explanation.  As I stated before, argument may be made of objective reality, further argument may be made consolidating that reality into a single thing, further argument may even be made as to many of the particulars of that thing.  But argument may not be made to the particular deity of any given religion.  That last step will require faith.

Why is it that Catholics love Aristotle and Aquinas?  They've been dead many centuries and we have moved beyond there limited views.
Please join us in the twenty-first century

[Anima]

Why is it that Catholics love Aristotle and Aquinas?  They've been dead many centuries and we have moved beyond there limited views.  
Please join us in the twenty-first century

Argumentum ad Novitatem again? As stated in a previous thread this is a known logical fallacy. To argue that knowledge is render void due to the passage of time is to say that all knowledge is void since new knowledge is predicated upon old knowledge which was invalidated by the passage of time.

Just because something was determined centuries ago does not mean it is void with the passage of time. (Pythagorean theorem as relevant and valid today as when it was discovered in 500 BC. In fact it is the only means by which know anything of any geometric shape or figure.)

It would appear you are not aware that western civilization, the 21st century one, is built upon Aristotelian logic (Politics is a good read, should you have the time).

[Jenny A]

Well nobody's given a conclusive definition (I won't even say evidence) of either.

As written by me:

(In the following sections we will be making constant reference to a Supreme Being.  We must make note at this moment that there are five different manifestations of the Supreme Being which people tend to mix ad nauseam without any regard for the definitions.  Those being the following:  Summum Bonum (philosophical), Summum Cerebrum (theological), Summum Malum (biblical), Summum Nihilum (atheistical), and the Summum Summa (universal).  It is to be noted that we are not saying there are five supreme beings.  Rather we are saying that the Supreme Being which is the Summum Summa is represented to humanity in four ways.  

The Summum Bonum is the philosophical representation of the Supreme Being in which the partial conditions of humanity are extended to their maxims.  Mortality becomes immortality, conscience become omniscience, presents become omnipresence, mutability becomes immutability, potency becomes omnipotence, accident becomes essence, and particular becomes universal.  The Summum Bonum is the representation of the Supreme Being derived by reason alone.

The Summum Cerebrum is the theological representation of the Supreme Being based on a dialectic discursive understanding of the Supreme Being which utilizes biblical reference of the Supreme Being in relation to the deductive ability of human logic and understanding.  The Summum Cerebrum may be said to be the anthropomorphism of the Supreme Being who tends to make judgments and operate according to some plan which may be extrapolated but cannot be affirmed.

The Summum Malum is the biblical representation of the Supreme Being in which the ends justify the means.  The biblical representation may and often takes upon itself actions which are obviously termed bad for what is believed to be a greater purpose and tends to be far more reactive than active.  The Summum Malum does not tend to restrain itself but indulges to utilize actions to fulfill a plan which cannot be determined beyond the statement, “That is what he wants.”

The Summum Nihilum is the atheistical representation of the Supreme Being in which the Supreme Being is not recognized as an actual entity.  It is required as a literary object to which negation may be applied so that denial of its existence may be made.  So the Supreme Being is only a being in name in order to make denial of it as a being in being.

Finally as previously expressed the Summum Summa is the actual Supreme Being from which all other versions are merely a representation of our reason (Summum Bonum), our understanding (Summum Cerebrum), our belief (Summum Malum), or our disbelief (Summum Nihilum).

These are all just suggestions for what to call a supreme being depending upon who is talking about it.  None of them actually define what is meant by a supreme being generally.  It's as if you defined elephant as

elephant biological: a real animal studied by biologists.
elephant domestic: a real animal domesticated and used for labor.
elephant foreign:  a real animal as imagined by those who've never seen one.
elephant mythic:  a real animal as re-imagined by Disney.

None of which would give you the slightest notion what an elephant is as opposed to a horse, a cow, or a steamboat; it says only that different people might think about elephants in different ways.  Nor are these things are manifestations of an elephant.  They are concepts of elephants held by people.  Which is all you have really said about a supreme being--different people define supreme being differently.  

[Chas]

Why is it that Catholics love Aristotle and Aquinas?  They've been dead many centuries and we have moved beyond there limited views.  
Please join us in the twenty-first century

Argumentum ad Novitatem again?  As stated in a previous thread this is a known logical fallacy.  To argue that knowledge is render void due to the passage of time is to say that all knowledge is void since new knowledge is predicated upon old knowledge which was invalidated by the passage of time.

Just because something was determined centuries ago does not mean it is void with the passage of time.  (Pythagorean theorem as relevant and valid today as when it was discovered in 500 BC.  In fact it is the only means by which know anything of any geometric shape or figure.)

It would appear you are not aware that western civilization, the 21st century one, is built upon Aristotelian logic (Politics is a good read, should you have the time).

I am not saying that it is invalid because it is old, I am saying it is not the be-all and end-all that Catholics seem to believe.  There have been many more thinkers since them.

[Anima]

I am not saying that it is invalid because it is old, I am saying it is not the be-all and end-all that Catholics seem to believe.  There have been many more thinkers since them.

That is correct. There have been many more thinkers since then, but quantity is poor substitute for quality

Generally Catholic's utilize the logic of Aristotle and Aquinas for the same reason the scientific fields utilize the Aristotelian Scientific Method for the very reasons argued at length in this particular post string.

---

Two thoughts: One, nothing in what you just said proves, or even implies, that a being exists at either end of that spectrum. That's what we want out of a chain of logic; a method by which we can determine the existence of the entity under discussion, not just a laundry list of his traits.

I believe the question here was what train of logic leads to the god of philosophy. To which I present summary (for greater detail you may read the works of Plato and Aristotle) showing it was achieved by mean of logical extension (reducto ad absurdia, which is not a logical fallacy). I was not attempting to present this vaulted "proof" many Atheists desire.

None of which would give you the slightest notion what an elephant is as opposed to a horse, a cow, or a steamboat; it says only that different people might think about elephants in different ways.  Nor are these things are manifestations of an elephant.  They are concepts of elephants held by people.  Which is all you have really said about a supreme being--different people define supreme being differently.  

Not quite. What is stated in the posts is the name, definition applied, and an example:

The Summum Bonum is the philosophical representation of the Supreme Being in which the partial conditions of humanity are extended to their maxims. Mortality becomes immortality, conscience become omniscience, presents become omnipresence, mutability becomes immutability, potency becomes omnipotence, accident becomes essence, and particular becomes universal. The Summum Bonum is the representation of the Supreme Being derived by reason alone.

Name = Summum Bonum
Definition = The phiolosphical representation of the Supreme Being in which the partial conditions of humanity are extended to their maxims.
Example = Mortality become immortality, conscience become omniscience...

This is what is meant when philosophers refer to the Summum Bonum.

---

anima, your debate has many levels and rows.  We can "brake" our answers down to "logic", "emotional needs", and philosophical to put a stop to piles of bullshit.

Philosophical means we are allowed to make up any bs we want.  Whatever we start with (the if's) leads us down the a path that is only as valid as the starting "if's".  and even whatever knows the amount of bullshit we can self justify with is unlimited.

"Emotional".  there are a lot of people emotionally attached to "no-nothing", "anti-whatever", and "Omni dude".  Until we dig down and find the cause of the emotional attachment to the belief we can't really understand it.  And most people won't tell us the initial event that caused the "hatred" in them.  And I haven't seen "deep hate" not associated with personal events or mental illness.   Most times people convolute their feelings into reality for all.  An example of this is people's takes on "unions" or 'ceo's".  Logically its simple, emotionally it a hole nuttier ball of wax.

"logically": this involve some formal training and an understanding of one's self.  It really is for people that don't care as long as we find out what is going on.  That eliminates most, not all, but most of the people.  Call it "60% most" if-en ya need to think we immune.  

And Don't bite into the "if you don't believe one thing stated in a stance that the whole stance is wrong.  I don't agree with all the stupid rules in the usa.  I am still an American.  This atheist site is a cesspool of anti-theist.  so any objective analysis is utterly ignored if it even hints that theist may have a point.   Although I must admit, I see some rational atheist showing up, that's nice.

I am not sure what you are trying to say. So...Thanks?

[Cyberman]

Just because something was determined centuries ago does not mean it is void with the passage of time.

Neither does it mean it's a source of inviolable wisdom. Newton's work, though still valid in certain circumstances, has largely been supplanted by later observations of the way the Universe operates. By what metric can you determine the validity of the sources you cite?

[Anima]

Just because something was determined centuries ago does not mean it is void with the passage of time.

Neither does it mean it's a source of inviolable wisdom. Newton's work, though still valid in certain circumstances, has largely been supplanted by later observations of the way the Universe operates. By what metric can you determine the validity of the sources you cite?

Generally it is only when a new theory has established the ability to answer known observations in accordance with known theories that we are willing to trust that theory beyond a point of previously known observations. In which case most theories are not utterly refuted (though some are), but are commonly expanded or work in conjunction with one another.

I am utilizing the theory in a manner that seems to come to a viable answer. To refute that answer by saying I should stop sticking to old theories and get with the times (argument ad novitatem) is no rebuttal at all. Otherwise I am equally justified in saying that theory is new and has not been traditionally used and tested (or as tested as the old one) so we cannot use that (argumentum ad antiquitatem).

Which sources are you inquiring about?

[Chas]

I am not saying that it is invalid because it is old, I am saying it is not the be-all and end-all that Catholics seem to believe.  There have been many more thinkers since them.

That is correct.  There have been many more thinkers since then, but quantity is poor substitute for quality

Generally Catholic's utilize the logic of Aristotle and Aquinas for the same reason the scientific fields utilize the Aristotelian Scientific Method for the very reasons argued at length in this particular post string.

No, we don't.  We use the modern scientific method which is the result of not just Aristotle's thinking, but includes the contributions of others.

[Anima]

That is correct.  There have been many more thinkers since then, but quantity is poor substitute for quality

Generally Catholic's utilize the logic of Aristotle and Aquinas for the same reason the scientific fields utilize the Aristotelian Scientific Method for the very reasons argued at length in this particular post string.

No, we don't.  We use the modern scientific method which is the result of not just Aristotle's thinking, but includes the contributions of others.

You are correct sir!!! Enjoy the following list:

The Clerics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rom...scientists

The Catholics, but not necessarily clerics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cat...scientists