rsl12

edited--i wanted to start a new thread.

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

moonstrucksoul

As I said in my previous post.

*oops- this is actaully :::OshnSoul::: I keep doing that!

__________________
no signature required

Mantus

Giltwist, sorry for not responding here for a while. I have been working on the Modal Ontological Argument for the past few days. As a break let me take another stab at trying to explain the flaw in St. Thomas Aquinas' argument. My last attempt ended with nitpicking about unrelated subjects, hopefully this will go better.

The flawed cosmological argument embodies Aquinas’ arguments.

The cosmological argument:

We assume that everything needs a purpose. Purpose is defined as a reason to exist which is given by another object. For example a gear exist because a clock exists. A clock exists because humanity exists. If we didn’t exist the clock would not exist. So the assumption is made that this has to stop somewhere because sooner or later some one is going to ask: why does it all exist? So some one came up with the idea that world exists because a deity exist who is outside “it all” and therefore doesn’t follow our rules of purpose.

The critique:

- Objects exist because of god. If it is conceivable that god exists with it’s own purpose then it is equally conceivable that objects exit with their own purpose as well.

- God is as complex as the world. If the complexity of god can exist without purpose then it is equally possible that the complexity of the world can exists without its own purpose.

- The world is the sum of all objects in it. If everything is One then purpose is a flawed concept. Purpose is an allusion created by our minds as we try to subdivide the world in order to try to understand it better. To use Giltwist’s analogy, we are trying to subdivide a sphere into circles.

- There is no need for god if infinity is introduced to the world. Such a concept can be conceived as a an infinite chain of purpose or circular infinity where: X because of Z because of Y because of X. In such a case there would be no need for G as there would never be an end to the chain of purpose.

- If creation did happen from an outside non-purpose bound entity. The entity does not need to be a deity. It could simply be some other phenomenon.


Lastly I would like to state that I am not trying to disprove the concept of god, as that cannot happen. I am trying to illustrate that we have no objective knowledge of a deity and therefore the existence of one remains a hypothesis. I am also pointing out that the hypothesis in question (St. Thomas Aquinas arguments) is unlikely or at least as likely as any other hypothesis out there.

Giltwist

I don't like that argument. Isn't it possible, nay likely, God is MORE complex than the world? And from that excess of complexity, may come the ability to be self-purposeful.

But wouldn't such an entity seem like a deity to us causality-bound beings?

Explain this reasoning please?

X implies Y implies Z implies X is the format for a the following are equivalent proof. All that this means is that they all hold the same truth value, it doesn't say ANYTHING about causality. Also, there are kinds of infinity which do not encompass everything. For example, the interval (0,1) is infinitely big. In fact, its uncoutably big. And yet, I think we can all see it hardly encompasses everything involved with numbers.

Mantus

“I don't like that argument. Isn't it possible, nay likely, God is MORE complex than the world? And from that excess of complexity, may come the ability to be self-purposeful.”

- You know I said, “as” complex to be on the safe side…anyways, please read the next sentence.

“But wouldn't such an entity seem like a deity to us causality-bound beings?”

- Yes, but we would not know if it has intelligence, consciousness or any other human quality that seems to be so sheik in our gods.

“Explain this reasoning please?” [concerning: “If everything is One then purpose is a flawed concept.”]

- All right ill try again. There are no boundaries to be found. Mankind imagines the boundaries that create what we call “objects”. There are no objects everything is simply one. The gear does not exist because of the clock, which does not exist because humans made it. They all exist because they are part of the whole universe. Therefore purpose is an allusion. The same applies for causality. Everything is in motion as a whole. We may see that the objects A, B and C all seem to hold their own cause and effect yet they are part of the whole and they are effected by the whole. To make a long story short everything is One.

“X implies Y implies Z implies X is the format for a the following are equivalent proof. All that this means is that they all hold the same truth value, it doesn't say ANYTHING about causality.”

- Sure it does. X caused Y, which caused Z, which caused X.

“Also, there are kinds of infinity which do not encompass everything.”

- Therefore I hope I was talking about the kind of infinity that DID encompass everything.


Giltwist, for god sakes, I am not trying to tell you that my theories are laws. They are only ideas. I am stating them to illustrate how the same arguments that are used to prove a creator, can be used to prove a world without a creator.

What my ideas do show is that there is no objective knowledge of god. This is what this thread is all about.

tecoyah

It would seem to me that we should look at the underlying problem so obvious in this discussion. Generally speaking, those individuals with strong faith in"God", will have to ignore much of the theory worked up by science. If not they would have to accept the destruction of said faith under the scrutiny of the data. whereas, those of a more analitical nature would never be able to accept the faith based arguments due to the very nature of blind faith.Although this is indeed an interesting thread due to the opinionated replys it will inevitably create, it is also impossible to resolve the differences without resorting to the religious tactic of converting each other.As a debate it may be entertaining(and I realize that is the intent) but, the phylisophical value is limited to endless bickering and dogma recital.Obviously this "god" is either far to smart to show itself to such a violent creature as mankind, or could simply care less, as it rarely has an impact on the 25% of us bright enough to truly understand what it could mean.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Giltwist

tecoyah: Why the heck would I need to abandon science to believe in a god?

mantus:

Ok, so you are talking about monism. Gotcha. So let me ask the question in another way, why does the One exist?

That is not what it means, a the following are equivalent proof says that you cant have one without the others, it doesn't mean they all cause each other. The definition of x->y is ~x OR y, there is no causality there. When you do the appropriate reductions on [((x-y)&(y->z))&(z->x)] and take advantage of the selfcontradicting (x&~x), you are left with [(x&(y&z)) OR (~x&(~y&~z))]. Logically speaking, the implication need not be used.

tecoyah

Giltwist....I should have been more precise in terminology, this thread has much debate between "christian" faith and science, in an attempt to be civil, I simply used faith an god in place of the words christian, or christianity. I also made it quite clear that I was generalizing my input, my opinion will certainly not apply to everyone, as no opinion does.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Giltwist

Understood, but I still don't understand why science should inhbit the ability to have faith.

Also
One of my favorite quotes deals with this. It comes from Calvin & Hobbes. "Sometimes I think the surest sign that there is intelligent life in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."

:::OshnSoul:::

You seem to be grasping something here. Science within the years of existance has not even come close to inhibiting the ability to have faith, but moreso discovering the innevitable ways of the essence of Life- scientific explainations aren't too far off the beaten path of such things as the paranormal, gravity, and our bodies. Also, in recent years, scientists have found it hard to deny that everything and everyone is mainly made up of one thing: energy. The faster it vibrates, the more solid it becomes.


Well, what if we were to think of it this way for a moment: Let's stop blaming an outside or superior entity and possibly think that "God" (or the Source) communicates with us in every given moment, mainly through experience (the things we usually take for granted) and that we sometimes ignore that communication, sometimes we don't.
And that this Source is not "outward" from us, but within and all around us. Possibly, we could see a connection of this "Source" as not being superior, not being any type of form, and not being "outside" of us- but it is that which runs through everything and everyone. That IS everything and everyone. The purest, truest, innevitable, infinite Source that can never cease to exist that you cannot see with the naked eye, but feel it, move it, change it, spread it, push it, pull it, what-have-you. It is perfect, because it just IS. And what we create of it are the results of our life and what happens.
I know to some, this may sound far off, but that's just the thing. Comprehending such a thing seems so impossible- that energy is "God", so to speak, and that we don't have to keep thinking that there is an outside, superior being that either ignores us, loves us, or damns us to "Hell" depending on what we do, although this "God" is told to be all-loving, loving us all uncondionally (without any conditions, rules, exceptions, or commandments) and that this Source created us all equally and in the "image and likeness" of him (as a spiritual entity in a physical form).

Wow. Now, you may not understand or agree with this, but this is something I have felt deep down all my life, sitting in church, sitting in Philosophy class, and reading books. Then I happened upon a series of books that absolutely and clearly spelled it all out for me- as if everything I felt deep down was written on those pages. It all makes sense to me now. This is just my view, my Truth. I wanted to share it with you all.

tecoyah

Well put....damn good articulation of those things no one can really explain.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Giltwist

Woohoo! I am not the only Gnostic around here. Oshnsoul, if you haven't you really need to look into Gnosticism, it is based around exactly what you are talking about, God within, Gnosis. Now, having been raised Christian, you could say I am a Christian Gnostic. Which, amoung other things, means I believe that existence is as it was intended to be by the demiurge, not a mistake.

Peace be with you,
G.