My most formidable adversary ever.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-05-2011, 03:20 PM (This post was last modified: 05-05-2011 03:53 PM by MasterRottweiler.)
Sad My most formidable adversary ever.
Hey there guys, I write this down because I'm currently having a debate with a philosopher theist, and I've been having some problems with the points he makes, also I dont know if this is the right section of the forum to post this Tongue.

He is a theist who is currently trying to challenge all the atheists on a local forum (which is not theist or atheist btw, its just for posting random funny things) since some users post things making fun of religion and vice-versa, he is now on a crusade against atheists using philosophy and metaphysics to say we are dumb for not believing in god or "necesary being" since the arguments he uses are the logical proof that there is a god.

He says that philosophy and metaphysics is the only way to really prove things that empirical science dont, because philosophy is objective and reasonably true, also he is attacking our intelectual vanity since most of us didn't study philosophy, he basically says that all empirical sciences are irrelevant comparing them with philosophy. but anyway thats not the point.

He is using so far Thomas Aquinas 5 ways to proof the existence of god, along with the Argument from Design and the Fine Tuning Argument, I can argue with the last 2 arguments, but so far the 5 ways of Thomas Aquinas are making my head hurt.

He says that NOBODY in human history since Thomas Aquinas, have ever succesfully disproved Aquinas 5 proofs. Is that true? I know that there is an article on Iron Chariots trying to disprove Aquinas. To be honest guys my head is pretty much f*cked up, and I'm quite confused now about the validity of Aquinas arguments.

Can someone truly prove the existence of god using Aquinas arguments?

"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world.”
-Georgia Harkness.

"La fe es patrimonio de los pendejos. (Faith is patrimony of the dumbfucks)."
-Diego Rivera
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2011, 03:29 PM (This post was last modified: 05-05-2011 03:35 PM by Observer.)
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
Thomas proves a deity. That deity could as well be the "deity before the big bang"
How Thomas jumps to the God of the bible is not clear to me.
Thomas gives the perfect proof for the flying spaghetti monster.
Conclude further whether
A: ...You want to worship that
B: ...It is a being in a materialistic form?
C: ...all the intellectual masturbation of you adversary is all that important in life. (Sure... you can bench press more weight then me... how does that make you feel... :sleepySmile

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2011, 03:46 PM (This post was last modified: 05-05-2011 03:50 PM by MasterRottweiler.)
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
LOL good points, I have told him yesterday about how this proves the spaghetti monster, but he replied; "you call it the Spaghetti monster, I call it the "necesary being", you are not disproving god, you are just giving it the name of spaghetti monster" Confused. Probably my tendency to get confused by his arguments its because I am not a philosopher, I didnt study philosophy like he did as a career. What I mean is that this guy is not a joke, he is not using any religious denomination, he's just asking us to prove wrong Aquinas.

"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world.”
-Georgia Harkness.

"La fe es patrimonio de los pendejos. (Faith is patrimony of the dumbfucks)."
-Diego Rivera
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2011, 04:11 PM (This post was last modified: 05-05-2011 04:16 PM by Buddy Christ.)
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
If the dude really took philosophy classes then he also already KNOWS the rebuttals to these. They're taught right after the Aquinas arguments are explained (I majored in Philosophy for 2 years before changing majors).

Aquinas uses the same technique for every argument. Taking small steps at a time, he gets you to temporary agree with him, then the very last argument is: "which everyone understands to be God." For instance, Saltine crackers are square (true), if it is not square then it is not really a Saltine cracker (ehhhh, I guess I'll give it to you), there must exists a Saltine cracker that is perfectly square (ummm, probably not but let's see where you're going with this), therefor God exists (wait, WHAT?).


1. Argument from Motion

Also known as the Domino argument.

"Some things are in motion." - Very general observation, but alright, yes some things are in motion.
"Anything moved is moved by another." - True. Nothing can cause itself to move. There are no unmoved movers.
"There can't be an infinite series of movers so there must be a Prime Mover, or First Domino in the chain of dominoes." - Not really proven that there can't be an infinite series of movers. Humans have a difficult time grasping the idea that existence may be infinite, with no beginning, it makes their head hurt so they use the next statement.
"That Prime Mover is what we call God." - Annnnnd you lost me. One, an initial force that started everything in motion does NOT have to be a God, especially not the Judeo-Christian God. It's God in your argument because you WANT it to be God. I believe it was a leprechaun named Cletus.

And two, you just violated the second rule in your little rant, the "no unmoved mover" part. You can't state there can be no unmoved mover then conclude that there IS an unmoved mover called God. Who moved God? Who was the force to push that First Domino in motion? And where did that mover come from? The argument is a contradiction of itself.


2. Argument from Cause

This is the EXACT same argument as motion only using the word "caused" instead of "moved." Both of these are simply the Cosmological Argument repackaged, which are debunked in any Philosophy of Religion class.

Again, who caused the First Cause?


3. Argument from Contingency

Once again, this is the VERY SAME freaking argument with different terms. Things that exist did not always exist. So at some point, nothing existed. There had to be something to cause things that didn't exist to start existing. This is just another way to say "create existence." And once again, the response is:

Who caused God to exist? If all things that exist(ed) at one time didn't exist. Then God couldn't have always existed. He didn't exist at one point. So how did he come into existence to bring everything else into existence.

The pattern of these arguments so far is to lay out logical rules of nature, then completely contradict these rules and call this contradiction "God." This doesn't prove their is a deity, it proves that a god couldn't have been the cause/mover/creator because in order for his to be, he'd had to break these rules. And if he is the exception, then the rules are invalid in the first place since there can be exceptions. And why can't the Big Bang just as easily be the "First Mover" or the exception?


4. Argument from Perfection
-aka the Ontological Argument

This is the dumbest of the arguments. Something that is perfect HAS to exist or else it wouldn't be perfect, being that existence is a requisite for perfection. One, who says that a perfect thing has to exist or else be imperfect? And two, I can conceive of a "perfect unicorn" as well. Consisting of all the qualities that would make the unicorn perfect, setting the standards of "what should be strived for as a unicorn." In no way, does the fact that I can conceive of a perfect creature alter its state of "exist" or "doesn't exist." The fact that it's perfect beyond true comprehension only leads me to believe that such perfection is just an idea, a concept that can't be obtained until entering the realm of metaphysics, which is basically Philosophy-speak for "imagination land."


5. Argument from Design
-aka the Teleological Argument

We've all seen the Intelligent Design argument thousands of times. I believe Hitchens, Hawkins, Harris, and a plethora of youtubers have better summaries than I could come up with on the spot. Plus I really have to poop, so my time is limited. If it the most perfect poop of which I can conceive, I will call it God.



JUST TO SUM UP. Even if these arguments prove anything. It is that of a force that caused things, not a sentient being, not a loving caring father figure. These points identify some unknown force, then label it as God. This makes the purveyors of these arguments Deists in the very least sense of the word.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Buddy Christ's post
05-05-2011, 04:22 PM (This post was last modified: 05-05-2011 04:28 PM by MasterRottweiler.)
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
You are right BC, from my little understanding, I agree that Aquinas arbitrarily implied that there cannot be an infinite regress, Am I right? Big Grin. But Again, even if he refutes these logical arguments (btw your arguments make perfect sence to me given my little understanding on philosophy) should I take them as like he said "the perfect logical proof that a necesary being exists?"

"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world.”
-Georgia Harkness.

"La fe es patrimonio de los pendejos. (Faith is patrimony of the dumbfucks)."
-Diego Rivera
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2011, 04:33 PM
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
Yeah, they all say "time cannot be infinite, there had to be a beginning, and [insert name of specific religion they believe in] was the beginning of everything."

None of this is based on anything. It's the same as saying "I want time to have a beginning because it's easier to grasp, and I want my God to have started it."


If you compact the Aquinas arguments and read the first few and the very last statements, it's almost a mockery of itself.

"Nothing can be an unmoved mover"
...
"God is an unmoved mover"


"Nothing can exist without a cause"
...
"God exists without a cause"


"2+2 HAS to equal 4"
...
"2+2 equals 5"

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Buddy Christ's post
05-05-2011, 04:48 PM
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
Here's the Iron Chariots page. BC did a good job explaining why they all fail. And I know, sometimes theists can make things very complicated and confusing, but just take it piece by piece, and if you ever need any help trying to figure what the hell is being said, you have an entire pack of atheists here that live to do just that. But I do want to say a few things. Here is his basic proof for the cosmical argument, which BC pointed out is essentially the same as the first two.

1. Everything that exists must have a cause.
2. If you follow the chain of events backwards through time, it cannot go back infinitely, so eventually you arrive at the first cause.
4. This cause must, itself, be uncaused.
5. But nothing can exist without a cause, except for God.
6. Therefore, God exists.

They try to rectify it by saying that God doesn't have to be created, but that's special pleading. If everything that exists must have a cause, and God exists, he must also have a cause, and cause must also have a cause and so on. Just because you say "Nu-uh, God's special", doesn't mean that you get out of it. If there are some things that don't need to have a cause to exist(as they claim is the case with God), why can't the universe exist without a cause?

And even if we say it's right, we aren't saying anything about God. If we decide to label whatever caused the Big bang as God, then we could very well have a quantum event as God. Just a random event that doesn't have a cause. You brushed on it by saying that it proves the FSM is real.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2011, 05:06 PM
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
Well thanks a lot my dear comrades Big Grin I appreciate your help, you have enlighted me, also, I noted that an atheist already posted the logical counter-arguments in a very complete way by analyzing each syllogism made by Aquinas and refuting it, also like BC said, if he indeed studied philosophy he MUST know the counter-arguments for the counter-arguments.

So far our arrogant philosopher have not replied yet, but I'll let you know when he does, also considering that I'm mexican, and the blog its mexican I must give myself into the hard work of translating for you ladies and gentlemen his "counter-counter-arguments".

To be honest guys, I was willing to debate him because at first he didnt showed as an arrogan self-righteous person, but then I decided not to debate him because, 1.- Regarding philosophy im a n00b, 2.- Seeing his intelectual arrogance I decided not to debate him for the moment because he is the type of person who uses ad-hominem attacks only because you dont "understand" things from his perspective.

And I can say that even if you guys try to debate with him given your bigger understanding of philosophy I bet my money that he will still call you dumb and narrow-minded, the irony. Seriously, I like to debate, but if the other person is really that way, any debate with that person is pointless IMO.

But in any case, If i decide to engage I will let you know, I will let you know how things are going. And again, this humble mexican atheists say thanks to you Tongue. And now I must get back to work lol.

Peace.

"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world.”
-Georgia Harkness.

"La fe es patrimonio de los pendejos. (Faith is patrimony of the dumbfucks)."
-Diego Rivera
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes MasterRottweiler's post
05-05-2011, 05:18 PM
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
(05-05-2011 05:06 PM)MasterRottweiler Wrote:  also like BC said, if he indeed studied philosophy he MUST know the counter-arguments for the counter-arguments.

One of the major contributing factors to me becoming an atheist (a knowledgeable one anyways, I stopped believing religion at 17, I finally understood why as a first year college student) ...was that in every Philosophy of Religion class, they would teach the theist argument, followed by the appropriate atheist rebuttal, and back and forth, but the last argument would always be an atheist rebuttal. There were no theist arguments that couldn't be answered.

That... and the theist arguments were always pseudo-science with a "faith" element that seemed to be clinging tediously to a few unraveling threads on the blanket of logic.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Buddy Christ's post
05-05-2011, 10:46 PM
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
Good post BC! +1 rep.

After my post I thought up the concept of a deity that's an abstract form like "time" or "magical big-bang-fuse" or so...

(05-05-2011 05:06 PM)MasterRottweiler Wrote:  and the blog its Mexican
Is that spanish?
(05-05-2011 05:06 PM)MasterRottweiler Wrote:  To be honest guys, I was willing to debate him because at first he didn't showed as an arrogant self-righteous person, but then I decided not to debate him because, 1.- Regarding philosophy im a n00b, 2.- Seeing his intellectual arrogance I decided not to debate him for the moment because he is the type of person who uses ad-hominem attacks only because you don't "understand" things from his perspective.
You should NEVER be intimidated by arrogance or aggressive talking. Its what made Theist got away with it for the last +2000 years. Its just a sign of their major insecureness. Wen insecure yourself, DWSD (Do what Sophocles did Smile) just ask questions. Mostly they ensnare themselves in their own bullshit without even knowing it.

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: