Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

vjssy · 03-10-2006, 12:35 AM

It seems the forum members have already addressed why the original argument doesn't work. I only wanted to point out the origin of the argument.
Roughly 750 years ago, Thomas Aquinas (St.Thomas Aquinas, for you Catholics) devised the "first cause" proof, also known as the "cosmological argument," insisting that God is the first cause of all cosmos. Your friend should be wary of misrepresenting others' ideas as her own. -esp. those with so many criticisms, like this one-

For the record, there is yet to be a sound argument for the existence of a God (gods). Mainly because theist concepts are closed systems based on unfalsifyable claims. To prove their statements through logic is more or less impossible.

EDIT: the pork thing nanotech mentioned. It is known by anthropologists, that previous to technological advancements, nearly all cultures -regardless of religious faith- abstained from the consumption of pork. And, it was not because of some divine revelation that this knowledge was apparent, it was through observation -like anything else that humans learn-. So while shakran's rebuttal seems uneccessarily condescending and inconsiderate, nanotech's point is not completely founded. "How else could..." Being unable to prove something does not prove the opposite. You're argument is ad ignoratium (from ignorance) and a common fallacy. Just my 2cents.

03-10-2006, 12:35 AM	#82 (permalink)
vjssy Upright Location: Glendale, CA	It seems the forum members have already addressed why the original argument doesn't work. I only wanted to point out the origin of the argument. Roughly 750 years ago, Thomas Aquinas (St.Thomas Aquinas, for you Catholics) devised the "first cause" proof, also known as the "cosmological argument," insisting that God is the first cause of all cosmos. Your friend should be wary of misrepresenting others' ideas as her own. -esp. those with so many criticisms, like this one- For the record, there is yet to be a sound argument for the existence of a God (gods). Mainly because theist concepts are closed systems based on unfalsifyable claims. To prove their statements through logic is more or less impossible. EDIT: the pork thing nanotech mentioned. It is known by anthropologists, that previous to technological advancements, nearly all cultures -regardless of religious faith- abstained from the consumption of pork. And, it was not because of some divine revelation that this knowledge was apparent, it was through observation -like anything else that humans learn-. So while shakran's rebuttal seems uneccessarily condescending and inconsiderate, nanotech's point is not completely founded. "How else could..." Being unable to prove something does not prove the opposite. You're argument is ad ignoratium (from ignorance) and a common fallacy. Just my 2cents. __________________ Me saepe mone. Last edited by vjssy; 03-10-2006 at 12:43 AM..