Argument with my Philosophy Teacher
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-06-2013, 02:13 PM
RE: Argument with my Philosophy Teacher
I can't believe that someone teaching philosophy would seriously think Aquinas' "proofs" have any merit whatsoever; but then, I suppose, William Land Craig exists so it must be possible. Rolleyes

I'll just assume that either the teacher is pandering to the theist in the class out of fear of religious reprisal, is actually a religious believer themselves, or is trying to be on the fence by defending all viewpoints.

Regardless,

These are the obvious counter arguments; You can't prove a negative; There is no reason to believe something that there is no evidence for; Something as specific and complex as god is highly improbable to exist; And god has no more explanatory power than reality existing just by natural causes, because god raises more complicated questions etc etc...

The problem with this is that you can easily dismiss the idea of god with scientific thinking; unfortunately in philosophy it seems to be the case that the way of thinking is that you can know truths about reality, and validate claims, with purely spoken arguments. No matter how many scientific objections you give to a religious philosopher they will always zealously reply with layers upon layers of ever more contrived and complicated spoken arguments and 'logical' mantras.

George Orwell Wrote:"Winston shrank back upon the bed. Whatever he said, the swift answer crushed him like a bludgeon...

But anyway; I'll address the 5 "proofs" for you:

1. God is the Unmoved Mover; for things to be in motion there has to be an unmoved mover which must be (for unknown reasons) god;

This one is laughable bullshit. Physics has advanced well beyond this primitive understanding of motion. We know now that everything in the universe is indeed in motion; but not because of god, because the universe is in motion expanding from the Big Bang; or rather, the universe expanding outwards from a single point is the Big Bang.

This happened because of the laws of thermodynamics, not god; so much energy couldn't be contained so densely and so the universe had the expand; high energy meant that the universe had to go from simple and ordered to complicated and chaotic by expanding, as it is now; that's entropy.

This is a proven fact shown by the red shift of stars from the Hubble Telescope, and analysis of the universe's cosmic microwave radiation background. Bang! Argument 1 down. (So to speak) Big Grin

(Forgetting all that, the obvious rebuttal is that there is no reason to assume god is the first mover anyway)

2. Everthing that is caused needs a cause. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes. Therefore there must have been a first cause. Therefore,for some reason god is the first cause.;

This one is hilariously flawed. First, there is no reason to assume everything needs a cause; this is just an assertion.

It may yet turn out that some things do not have a cause; in fact, assuming that the universe is causeless but just exists in a changing state is the most probable explanatory explanation as it removes all of the other problems like the infinite regress of causes, and it doesn't make any assumptions about the nature of the universe or causality, and is less complicated and improbable than a highly complicated eternal human-esque consciousness existing (god).

Second; there is no reason anyway to think that an infinite regress of causes is impossible, again this is an assertion. Infinite sets are already predicted in mathematical models and cyclic models of the universe are already plausible.

If time itself was infinite both 'ways' backwards and forwards - although time isn't really linear like that - then why is a regress either way not possible? An infinite regress of nonliving, inanimate, unconscious and natural causes will always be more probable than an infinite regress involving conscious supernatural beings (god or gods making other gods).

Again, there is no reason to think there should be a definite 'first' cause, this is an assertion. What does it even mean to say first? Its impossible that there could be a finite point before which reality didn't exist, because there is no such thing as non-reality; any kind of existence is reality. A first cause itself, by the very logic of this "proof" should have a cause because of the former assertion that everything must have a cause so its a self defeating argument.

Finally, there is absolutely no reason to assume that a first cause has to be god. That's just a totally random assertion. Smartass

3. Caused things are contingent on causes...so there must be something that isn't contingent...this has to be god...or something...

I'm not even sure what the fuck this argument is even supposed to be, what the hell even is this 'contingency' property? but I'll bear with it; basically there is no reason to think everything is contingent, or that the universe must be contingent on something else; if god can be allowed to be non-contingent, why not cut out the middleman with Occam's razor and just say the universe is non-contingent? Consider

4. Varying perfections of varying degrees may be found throughout the universe...blah blah fucking blah... this shit is based on Aristotle's ignorant, contrived ideas about the world, thousands of years ago before Science was called Science; there is no reason to accept these archaic, out of date ideas; we know now that the world doesn't work like that - there are no 'degrees of perfection' or whateverthefuck. Rolleyes

And 5. The universe is designed therefore there must be a designer No. The universe is not designed. At all. We know now that life has... some elements of an illusion of design due to evolution, but in reality most organisms are faulty, from a human perspective, even humans ourselves, we have inherited genetic disorders like cystic fibrosis, and things like Alzheimer's disease - basically we break down like the machines we really are - this isn't design.

The cosmos clearly isn't designed either; our star, the sun, which is apparently so perfectly designed for us, is going to explode or burn out one day, destroying its solar system, like every other one of the trillions of stars and their equally random solar systems. We know that the universe itself is going to end one way or another, due to its expanding - the very thing that is allegedly the ever so important cause clause mentioned earlier. This is not designed.

Finding yourself in a world where you can exist does not mean it was supposed to, or was supposed to be there for you. It just means you happen to exist in it and that's just how things are. Without no assumptions and leaps of logic - or, dare I say, leaps of faith. Wink

Drinking Beverage

(Yes I know this is a long post but the refutations were necessary and contingent on the length Thumbsup )

"Humans always measure what they see in front of them to what they already know. They will deny anything outside of that. They are shallow lifeforms, so enthralled with superficial appearances that they fail to see the truth."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2013, 02:17 PM
RE: Argument with my Philosophy Teacher
*realises date of when this thread was posted*...fuck. Undecided

Well...I hope my rebuttal post is a good read for any theist who happens to stumble by...err...I guess...

Oh well. Cool

"Humans always measure what they see in front of them to what they already know. They will deny anything outside of that. They are shallow lifeforms, so enthralled with superficial appearances that they fail to see the truth."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2013, 02:23 PM
RE: Argument with my Philosophy Teacher
HOW THE FUCK YOU DO ANY THINKING WITHOUT CONTINGENCY, YOU NECROPOSTING MOTHERFUCKER,,,,1111!!!!

lolz. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2013, 02:43 PM
RE: Argument with my Philosophy Teacher
(22-06-2013 02:23 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  HOW THE FUCK YOU DO ANY THINKING WITHOUT CONTINGENCY, YOU NECROPOSTING MOTHERFUCKER,,,,1111!!!!

lolz. Big Grin

Laugh out load

Please, forgive me! Bowing

"Humans always measure what they see in front of them to what they already know. They will deny anything outside of that. They are shallow lifeforms, so enthralled with superficial appearances that they fail to see the truth."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2013, 02:48 PM
RE: Argument with my Philosophy Teacher
(22-06-2013 02:43 PM)MrAttacus Wrote:  
(22-06-2013 02:23 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  HOW THE FUCK YOU DO ANY THINKING WITHOUT CONTINGENCY, YOU NECROPOSTING MOTHERFUCKER,,,,1111!!!!

lolz. Big Grin

Laugh out load

Please, forgive me! Bowing

No. Evil_monster

I'm ambivalent about necroposting. I don't like it in that there is near-zero chance of interacting with the original posters; I do like it in that thoughts and opinions evolve over time. Or some new peeps come up with some new neck.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2013, 03:39 PM
RE: Argument with my Philosophy Teacher
(22-06-2013 02:48 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(22-06-2013 02:43 PM)MrAttacus Wrote:  Laugh out load

Please, forgive me! Bowing

No. Evil_monster

I'm ambivalent about necroposting. I don't like it in that there is near-zero chance of interacting with the original posters; I do like it in that thoughts and opinions evolve over time. Or some new peeps come up with some new neck.

Hopefully, this thread will develop due to your latter reasons, preferably in the form of "new neck" Big Grin

I have to point out though; the irony of YOU being led into a chain of necroposting!!!!!111 Evil_monster

"Humans always measure what they see in front of them to what they already know. They will deny anything outside of that. They are shallow lifeforms, so enthralled with superficial appearances that they fail to see the truth."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2013, 03:56 PM
RE: Argument with my Philosophy Teacher
(22-06-2013 03:39 PM)MrAttacus Wrote:  
(22-06-2013 02:48 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  No. Evil_monster

I'm ambivalent about necroposting. I don't like it in that there is near-zero chance of interacting with the original posters; I do like it in that thoughts and opinions evolve over time. Or some new peeps come up with some new neck.

Hopefully, this thread will develop due to your latter reasons, preferably in the form of "new neck" Big Grin

I have to point out though; the irony of YOU being led into a chain of necroposting!!!!!111 Evil_monster

But there ain't much to say, beyond "hey, your philosophy teacher is a douchebag!" No one here is convinced by those arguments. Undecided

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2013, 04:02 PM
RE: Argument with my Philosophy Teacher
(22-06-2013 03:56 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  But there ain't much to say, beyond "hey, your philosophy teacher is a douchebag!" No one here is convinced by those arguments. Undecided

Yea. I would have crucified the piece of shit at, "Stop scaring your classmates." What? The? Fuck? Dodgy

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2013, 10:18 AM
RE: Argument with my Philosophy Teacher
You should have asked him to state the five proofs.

Then you should have obliterated them.

Then you should of shat on his desk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: