Posts: 44051
Threads: 529
Joined: July 24, 2013
Reputation:
109
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
February 26, 2022 at 6:32 pm
(February 26, 2022 at 6:26 pm)Angrboda Wrote: (February 26, 2022 at 6:23 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Neither Kant nor Hume agree with you. I guess I should be proud of how stupid I am.
You're full of shit. I can quote you where Hume shits all over the teleological argument. Show us where Kant or Hume say the teleological argument isn't crap.
(And Kant is a moot point, as he was a theist bound determined to bend himself into a pretzel to prove God, so he's hardly a worthwhile defeated.)
^This is why I suspect Kloro hasn’t read Hume’s ‘Dialogues’. Cleanthes’ assertion quoted above is pretty handily demolished. The ‘Dialogues’ were written as a framework of fictional debates to reject arguments for God.
Hume had his weaknesses, but supporting teleology wasn’t one of them.
Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 1101
Threads: 15
Joined: November 29, 2019
Reputation:
2
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
February 26, 2022 at 6:33 pm
(February 26, 2022 at 6:26 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Show us where Kant or Hume say the teleological argument isn't crap.
Sure:
‘This proof always deserves to be mentioned with respect’: Immanuel Kant.
Posts: 28335
Threads: 114
Joined: February 22, 2011
Reputation:
159
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
February 26, 2022 at 6:36 pm
(February 26, 2022 at 6:33 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: (February 26, 2022 at 6:26 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Show us where Kant or Hume say the teleological argument isn't crap.
Sure:
‘This proof always deserves to be mentioned with respect’: Immanuel Kant.
As noted, Kant's testimony is rather moot, but where did he say that?
Posts: 1101
Threads: 15
Joined: November 29, 2019
Reputation:
2
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
February 26, 2022 at 6:36 pm
(This post was last modified: February 26, 2022 at 6:39 pm by R00tKiT.)
Let's not get sidetracked on a few quotes. I am aware that neither Kant nor Hume accept the TA, if that's what you want to know.
Back to the argument :
Let A be a new successful (valid and sound) argument for the God of classical theism, based on an uncontroversial set of premises, and discovered by someone (a philosopher, for example) at the date T. Here is now an argument (by reductio ad absurdum) against the very possibility of A.
1. Argument A wasn't known to (almost) anyone before the date T.
2. (From 1.) No one was rationally justified in believing in God before T.
3. (Restatement of 2.) God didn't make his existence known to anyone before T.
4*. God is willing, and was always willing, to make his existence known to everyone.
5. If God is willing, and was always willing, to make his existence known to everyone, then God was willing to make his existence known to anyone who lived before the date T.
6. (From the conjunction of 3. and 5.) God is both willing and unwilling to make his existence to everyone before T. Absurd conclusion. (3. and non-3. are simultaneously true, non-3. being: God made his existence known to at least one person. And 5. entails non-3.)
Therefore, there is no date t at which belief in the God of classical theism suddenly becomes rationally justified.
So, is premise 4 the only controversial premise? If 4. is conceded, is the argument valid ?
(February 26, 2022 at 6:36 pm)Angrboda Wrote: (February 26, 2022 at 6:33 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Sure:
‘This proof always deserves to be mentioned with respect’: Immanuel Kant.
As noted, Kant's testimony is rather moot, but where did he say that?
http://www.epistemology.pe.kr/kant/Criti.../ideal.htm
Ctrl+F and type "with respect"
Posts: 28335
Threads: 114
Joined: February 22, 2011
Reputation:
159
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
February 26, 2022 at 6:44 pm
(February 26, 2022 at 6:36 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: (February 26, 2022 at 6:36 pm)Angrboda Wrote: As noted, Kant's testimony is rather moot, but where did he say that?
http://www.epistemology.pe.kr/kant/Criti.../ideal.htm
Ctrl+F and type "with respect"
Skip on down a bit brother....
Quote:I therefore maintain that the physico-theological proof can never by itself establish the existence of a supreme being, but must always fall back upon the ontological argument to make good its deficiency.
Posts: 1101
Threads: 15
Joined: November 29, 2019
Reputation:
2
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
February 26, 2022 at 6:46 pm
(This post was last modified: February 26, 2022 at 7:13 pm by R00tKiT.)
Kant on the teleological argument :
"This proof always deserves to be mentioned with respect.
It is the oldest, the clearest, and the most accordant with the
common reason of mankind. It enlivens the study of nature,
just as it itself derives its existence and gains ever new vigour
from that source. It suggests ends and purposes, where our
observation would not have detected them by itself, and extends
our knowledge of nature by means of the guiding-concept of a
special unity, the principle of which is outside nature. This
knowledge again reacts on its cause, namely, upon the idea
which has led to it, and so strengthens the belief in a supreme
Author [of nature] that the belief acquires the force of an irre-
sistible conviction.
It would therefore not only be uncomforting but utterly
vain to attempt to diminish in any way the authority of this
argument."
http://www.epistemology.pe.kr/kant/Criti.../ideal.htm
Even though he rejected the argument, it's undeniable that this argument is much more appealing (even to the philosophers) than the ontological or the cosmolgical, both of which are more abstract and independent of our everyday experience with nature around us, if that makes sense..
Again, @ Angrboda , I am not arguing here that Kant defended this argument. But you called it crap, that was unfair.
Does the TA prove that there is a unique, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being? No, not by itself, but this doesn't means it has zero argumentative force. In other words, it can be used in conjunction with other arguments to reach the ambitious conclusion of theism.
I have the perceptual experience of an external world, therefore I posit the existence of an external world.
There appears to be other people than myself, therefore it's reasonable to posit the existence of other people.
There appears to be design, therefore it's reasonable to posit a designer.
This seems to be the most natural and straightforward way to believe in God. Every other argument is contrived.
Posts: 27256
Threads: 519
Joined: June 16, 2015
Reputation:
90
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
February 26, 2022 at 7:25 pm
Oh boy, arguing god into existence.
Wheeeeeeeeeeee.............
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem.
Posts: 10826
Threads: 29
Joined: December 8, 2019
Reputation:
14
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
February 26, 2022 at 7:34 pm
Yay another tired attempt by Klor to make belief an invisible sky wizard into being
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
Posts: 44051
Threads: 529
Joined: July 24, 2013
Reputation:
109
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
February 26, 2022 at 8:16 pm
(February 26, 2022 at 6:36 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Let's not get sidetracked on a few quotes. I am aware that neither Kant nor Hume accept the TA, if that's what you want to know.
Back to the argument :
Let A be a new successful (valid and sound) argument for the God of classical theism, based on an uncontroversial set of premises, and discovered by someone (a philosopher, for example) at the date T. Here is now an argument (by reductio ad absurdum) against the very possibility of A.
1. Argument A wasn't known to (almost) anyone before the date T.
2. (From 1.) No one was rationally justified in believing in God before T.
3. (Restatement of 2.) God didn't make his existence known to anyone before T.
4*. God is willing, and was always willing, to make his existence known to everyone.
5. If God is willing, and was always willing, to make his existence known to everyone, then God was willing to make his existence known to anyone who lived before the date T.
6. (From the conjunction of 3. and 5.) God is both willing and unwilling to make his existence to everyone before T. Absurd conclusion. (3. and non-3. are simultaneously true, non-3. being: God made his existence known to at least one person. And 5. entails non-3.)
Therefore, there is no date t at which belief in the God of classical theism suddenly becomes rationally justified.
So, is premise 4 the only controversial premise? If 4. is conceded, is the argument valid ?
(February 26, 2022 at 6:36 pm)Angrboda Wrote: As noted, Kant's testimony is rather moot, but where did he say that?
http://www.epistemology.pe.kr/kant/Criti.../ideal.htm
Ctrl+F and type "with respect"
3 doesn’t follow from 2, nor can it be called a ‘restatement’ of 2. One can be ‘rationally justified’ in believing in God without God making his existence known.
Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 1101
Threads: 15
Joined: November 29, 2019
Reputation:
2
RE: A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?
February 26, 2022 at 8:28 pm
(This post was last modified: February 26, 2022 at 8:28 pm by R00tKiT.)
(February 26, 2022 at 8:16 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: 3 doesn’t follow from 2, nor can it be called a ‘restatement’ of 2. One can be ‘rationally justified’ in believing in God without God making his existence known.
Boru
Easy proof:
4. God made his existence known to someone before T.
5. (From 4.) At least one person is justified in believing in God before T.
The contraposition of the conditional statement (4.->5.) is (non-5. -> non-4.), which is exactly (2.->3.). QED.
|