Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 25, 2024, 12:20 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion
#91
RE: Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion
(March 21, 2015 at 3:12 pm)Delicate Wrote: An argument from tradition says "X is traditional, therefore x is true."

I'm saying "The definition of God as non-contingent existed long before the arguments. Therefore the definition of God was not invented to support these arguments."

What is a "god"
I have heard a lot of contradictory explanations so what is your take.
Quote:How in the world does the argument from tradition fallacy come into play here? I'm not saying the definition of God is true.

Again which one?

Is yours the not liking gays god? or the I am too lazy to learn science therefore the answer to all the hard questions is god god?

Quote: I don't think it even matters. You could replace God is any other word you prefer.

I replace the word god with the word non-existent.



You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.

Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.




 








Reply
#92
RE: Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion
(March 21, 2015 at 2:58 pm)Delicate Wrote: These days I feel like anything you say or do comes with a double-serving of hubris. It's hard to accept one and reject another. Smile
"These Days?" Didn't you register, like, yesterday? Did I miss something? Are you the reincarnation of someone else?
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great

PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
Reply
#93
RE: Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion
(March 21, 2015 at 3:12 pm)Delicate Wrote: An argument from tradition says "X is traditional, therefore x is true."

I'm saying "The definition of God as non-contingent existed long before the arguments. Therefore the definition of God was not invented to support these arguments."

Well, given that I never once suggested that the definition of god was created specifically to defend that argument, I guess maybe the facepalm wasn't in order. The issue is that simply giving a definition doesn't prove what you're saying; the question under discussion is one of the nature of "uncaused" things, whether god could be one, whether that category even exists in reality, and so on. Your answer, simply defining god as uncaused, is not only criminally lazy, it also doesn't help; you can't demonstrate the efficacy of Kalam through fiat assertion of its premises.

Furthermore, you're creating a bit of a false dichotomy there, since the god definition you're using isn't the only god definition available to us when we're discussing creation issues, and so we don't need to take it as a given that the god you're defining is the one we need to be talking about; you are effectively picking and choosing from a range of different god definitions, and you've just so happened to come up with the one that nullifies a prominent objection to the argument we're having. The "uncreated god" definition might not have originated with you, but that doesn't mean you aren't using it to define your way around problems, either.

Quote:How in the world does the argument from tradition fallacy come into play here?

My point is that the age and popularity of a definition still doesn't make it true... which is the thing I'm pointing out you still haven't done.

Quote:I'm not saying the definition of God is true. I don't think it even matters. You could replace God is any other word you prefer.

You don't think the definition of one of the key words in this discussion matter? Then why bother making the argument you did at all, if you aren't attached to that definition? Thinking
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee

Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Reply
#94
RE: Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion
Tens of thousands of years ago I'm pretty sure god was synonymous with "random weather event" or "chance." It took a lot of ingenious hand waving to give their superstitions a credible intellectual cloak.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Reply
#95
RE: Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion
(March 21, 2015 at 4:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote:
(March 21, 2015 at 3:12 pm)Delicate Wrote: An argument from tradition says "X is traditional, therefore x is true."

I'm saying "The definition of God as non-contingent existed long before the arguments. Therefore the definition of God was not invented to support these arguments."

Well, given that I never once suggested that the definition of god was created specifically to defend that argument, I guess maybe the facepalm wasn't in order. The issue is that simply giving a definition doesn't prove what you're saying; the question under discussion is one of the nature of "uncaused" things, whether god could be one, whether that category even exists in reality, and so on. Your answer, simply defining god as uncaused, is not only criminally lazy, it also doesn't help; you can't demonstrate the efficacy of Kalam through fiat assertion of its premises.

Furthermore, you're creating a bit of a false dichotomy there, since the god definition you're using isn't the only god definition available to us when we're discussing creation issues, and so we don't need to take it as a given that the god you're defining is the one we need to be talking about; you are effectively picking and choosing from a range of different god definitions, and you've just so happened to come up with the one that nullifies a prominent objection to the argument we're having. The "uncreated god" definition might not have originated with you, but that doesn't mean you aren't using it to define your way around problems, either.

Quote:How in the world does the argument from tradition fallacy come into play here?

My point is that the age and popularity of a definition still doesn't make it true... which is the thing I'm pointing out you still haven't done.

Quote:I'm not saying the definition of God is true. I don't think it even matters. You could replace God is any other word you prefer.

You don't think the definition of one of the key words in this discussion matter? Then why bother making the argument you did at all, if you aren't attached to that definition? Thinking

These words come from your own post. They constitute among the most compelling arguments you've presented so far.

(March 21, 2015 at 2:00 pm)Esquilax Wrote: I didn't say it as dishonest, I said it was lazy. And it is, in that it's guilty of the same sort of poor argumentation that Kalam itself is guilty of, and you too, in fact, when you define god as uncreated because that's how you want to define him. The point is that you can't define your way to a good argument; the "begins to exist" language has no better justification than the original cosmological premise did.

You're clearly saying that I define God as uncreated because that's how I want to define him.

And as I have shown, that's clearly false.
Reply
#96
RE: Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion
(March 21, 2015 at 5:01 pm)Nestor Wrote: Tens of thousands of years ago I'm pretty sure god was synonymous with "random weather event" or "chance." It took a lot of ingenious hand waving to give their superstitions a credible intellectual cloak.

With most of these dorks it doesn't take much to be "credible."
Reply
#97
RE: Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion
(March 21, 2015 at 7:15 pm)Delicate Wrote: These words come from your own post. They constitute among the most compelling arguments you've presented so far.

Considering the way you've avoided the majority of my other arguments as though you have no answer to them, I won't take this as a signifier of the actual quality of my argument.

Quote:You're clearly saying that I define God as uncreated because that's how I want to define him.

And as I have shown, that's clearly false.

And, as with all the other arguments I've made that you can't rebut, you've ignored the more present point in favor of harping on the irrelevant one. As I've said before, regardless of where the definition comes from, you still can't define your way around an argument. You've selected your definition of god from a range of them, and I don't care what reasons you had for doing so; the point is that "...by definition!" is not an argument.

Now, are you going to address the ninety percent of my arguments that you've thus far simply avoided, or not?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee

Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Reply
#98
RE: Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion
(March 21, 2015 at 2:32 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: I don't know if anybody has mentioned this, but what does "a cause"/"cause"/etc. mean? Why should every change in reality have a cause from the past? The cause and effect model may be something that works well for our hunter/gatherer brains, but it doesn't work for cosmology?
A cause basically reduces down to the idea of what makes something the thing that it is, i.e. its nature. In the case of efficient cause, which one of the four types of Aristotelian causes, the question it answers about a sensible body is "How did it come to be?"

As noted in other posts people easily misunderstand the origin of the phrase 'begins to exist'. The original dilemma from which it sprang initially had nothing at all to do with the gods. The problem concerned the tension between how things remain the same throughout change: Paracelsus versus Heraclitus. Anyone can see that things come into existence, persist for a time, them cease to be. How does this apply to the whole of reality. If All of Being could change then what keeps it from ceasing to be? But if All of Being were unchanging then nothing would happen. Thus began the search for the universals that persist within all things subject to change.
Reply
#99
RE: Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion
(March 22, 2015 at 6:36 pm)Mezmo! Wrote:
(March 21, 2015 at 2:32 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: I don't know if anybody has mentioned this, but what does "a cause"/"cause"/etc. mean? Why should every change in reality have a cause from the past? The cause and effect model may be something that works well for our hunter/gatherer brains, but it doesn't work for cosmology?
A cause basically reduces down to the idea of what makes something the thing that it is, i.e. its nature. In the case of efficient cause, which one of the four types of Aristotelian causes, the question it answers about a sensible body is "How did it come to be?"

As noted in other posts people easily misunderstand the origin of the phrase 'begins to exist'. The original dilemma from which it sprang initially had nothing at all to do with the gods. The problem concerned the tension between how things remain the same throughout change: Paracelsus versus Heraclitus. Anyone can see that things come into existence, persist for a time, them cease to be. How does this apply to the whole of reality. If All of Being could change then what keeps it from ceasing to be? But if All of Being were unchanging then nothing would happen. Thus began the search for the universals that persist within all things subject to change.
Most things that we observe existing for a time are only abstractions for organizations of other things (the Earth, a human body, a nation, etc.). The time of birth and death we assign to these abstractions depends on when certain properties of the abstraction begin to exist and cease to exist.

How about things like truth? Does truth begin to exist and cease to exist?

Just as a layman who doesn't know philosophy, I'm not impressed with what I've heard of the First Cause argument for God. It seems very shallow.
Reply
RE: Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion
(March 22, 2015 at 7:19 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: Most things that we observe existing for a time are only abstractions for organizations of other things (the Earth, a human body, a nation, etc.). The time of birth and death we assign to these abstractions depends on when certain properties of the abstraction begin to exist and cease to exist.
Sensible bodies are not themselves abstractions; but rather, the real things having an independent existence from which we abstract the qualities that allow them to be conceived in the the intellect. It is my position that even in the absence of human perception the universe is filled with real objects that have distinct qualities and essential natures.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The fascinating asymmetry of theist-atheist discussion Astreja 5 661 July 22, 2023 at 8:02 pm
Last Post: Thumpalumpacus
  "Why is it reasonable to believe in prisons, but not in the hell?" FlatAssembler 124 11182 February 19, 2021 at 12:11 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
Information [Serious] How many reasonable solutions are there to any particular social issue? Prof.Lunaphiles 69 9933 April 11, 2020 at 8:55 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Looking for comments / ideas for WIP project ABCs of Atheism Judashpeters 18 5263 April 9, 2018 at 2:22 pm
Last Post: Judashpeters
  Old threads of discussion I have had. Mystic 125 20549 April 3, 2018 at 4:43 pm
Last Post: Mister Agenda
  Am I a Deist? Cosmological Argument seems reasonable to me. _Velvet_ 97 19515 September 28, 2016 at 8:05 am
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Atheism Looking Good! TrueChristian 52 8628 February 15, 2016 at 8:13 pm
Last Post: God of Mr. Hanky
  Mock dialogue of the Theist/Atheist discussion here. Mystic 99 27696 January 11, 2016 at 1:14 am
Last Post: robvalue
  christian looking to understand athiests msid 212 40122 August 21, 2015 at 10:38 am
Last Post: Mr Greene
  JW looking clarity followup Won2blv 108 14543 April 27, 2015 at 12:43 am
Last Post: Aractus



Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)