Newsweek - Scientists Prove God Exists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-05-2017, 03:52 PM
Newsweek - Scientists Prove God Exists?
(16-05-2017 12:42 PM)morondog Wrote:  A friend tricked me into reading Platinga a while ago... I'm not keen to repeat the experience.

CC: Please: If this Aquinas argument is sound and you understand it, then lay it out for us.


It's easier for CC to just say, "You're wrong."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rachel's post
16-05-2017, 04:45 PM
RE: Newsweek - Scientists Prove God Exists?
(16-05-2017 02:26 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(16-05-2017 02:19 PM)ColdComfort Wrote:  Grasshopper gets what I've been saying. If I knew nothing about a subject. If it was as if I had never heard of it before this would be one of the last places I'd look for a good explanation. Internet discussion boards aren't generally filled with experts on whatever the particular subject is. And posters have hard opinions.

So, you DO understand it then? So why is wrong of me to ask you, when you are saying "You don't understand this" to say why?

I'm not asking you to explain it in the greatest of detail. But if you could for example just state in your own words the argument (is it Kalaam?), then I can say "that bit makes no sense" and you're free to rebutt. As it is I'm saying "that bit makes no sense" and you're just saying "go read a book n00b". It's not very convincing.

Because I am not capable of writing an explanation nearly as good as the one I cited. It's written by a professional philosopher. I suppose. The issue again was not to present the argument from Aquinas. It was simply to say that his arguments do not depend on a view of causation described by that poster a long time ago now.

You keep baiting me to engage in an argument about St. Thomas's proofs for the existence of God. And it has to be in my own words. I don't care to. Sorry.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2017, 04:59 PM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2017 05:24 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Newsweek - Scientists Prove God Exists?
OMG.
Why would an apologist come here and say "I can't really explain that, read a book", (that insults you on every page) ? Facepalm
"I don't care to" = "I'm not up to that". Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
16-05-2017, 05:31 PM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2017 05:38 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Newsweek - Scientists Prove God Exists?
(15-05-2017 05:10 PM)ColdComfort Wrote:  Yeah. That's all I meant. Perhaps a better example. I throw a brick at a window and the glass breaks. Me throwing the brick is a cause if you regress in the sequence a bit. The causes exist when the brick hits the window. The brick has enough force and the window has the potential to be shattered when struck by that force. A steel wall doesn't. Isn't this simultaneous? The window and the brick come into contact at the same time.

You contradicted yourself.
1. "Me throwing the brick is a cause if you regress in the sequence a bit. (Regression --going back-- requires time ... you admitted your example is temporally dependent).
2. "The causes exist when the brick hits the window". (Hitting the window appears to be an event, but in fact, we know from physics, it can be slowed (for viewing) to a process. It's not instantaneous. It also requires time.)
3. "Isn't this simultaneous? The window and the brick come into contact at the same time. (No it isn't. At all). The energy transfer is not simultaneous, even though on a macro level, it may appear to be.

So which is it ?
First you claim a preceding event (throwing) is the cause. Then you say it doesn't exist until brick hits the window. Then you contradict what you just said, and say the cause is simultaneous. Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2017, 05:34 PM
RE: Newsweek - Scientists Prove God Exists?
(16-05-2017 05:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(15-05-2017 05:10 PM)ColdComfort Wrote:  Yeah. That's all I meant. Perhaps a better example. I throw a brick at a window and the glass breaks. Me throwing the brick is a cause if you regress in the sequence a bit. The causes exist when the brick hits the window. The brick has enough force and the window has the potential to be shattered when struck by that force. A steel wall doesn't. Isn't this simultaneous? The window and the brick come into contact at the same time.

You contradicted yourself.
1. "Me throwing the brick is a cause if you regress in the sequence a bit.
2. "The causes exist when the brick hits the window"
3. "Isn't this simultaneous? The window and the brick come into contact at the same time.

So which is it ?
First you claim a preceding event (throwing) is the cause. Then you say it doesn't exist until brick hits the window. Then you contradict what you just said, and say the cause is simultaneous. Facepalm

It's probably a poor example as has been pointed out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2017, 06:00 PM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2017 06:04 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Newsweek - Scientists Prove God Exists?
The temporal position of a cause (pre, post, or simultaneous) isn't really the problem here. The problem is that any description of a timeless being "doing something" is incoherent. Even "existence" without time, is incoherent. It's eternal (timeless) past, and eternal (timeless) future is "time-stamped" by the act (of creation). The only thing you can do, (without invoking special pleading) is to say nothing, about a timeless being. The timeless being who *does something* exists eternally, with the act having been done, and not having been done, simultaneously, eternally.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
16-05-2017, 06:51 PM
RE: Newsweek - Scientists Prove God Exists?
(16-05-2017 06:00 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The temporal position of a cause (pre, post, or simultaneous) isn't really the problem here. The problem is that any description of a timeless being "doing something" is incoherent. Even "existence" without time, is incoherent. It's eternal (timeless) past, and eternal (timeless) future is "time-stamped" by the act (of creation). The only thing you can do, (without invoking special pleading) is to say nothing, about a timeless being. The timeless being who *does something* exists eternally, with the act having been done, and not having been done, simultaneously, eternally.
And those are just the temporal problems. A being that exists outside of spacetime is not observable and therefore no one can say anything credible about that being. Once you have information then the being is part of the natural order and thus not "supernatural".

The supernatural, and timelessness, are both useless concepts (or absolutely essential concepts, depending on your objectives) because they render god and information about him unobtanium. How convenient is that?!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mordant's post
16-05-2017, 10:28 PM
RE: Newsweek - Scientists Prove God Exists?
(16-05-2017 03:41 PM)Rachel Wrote:  
(15-05-2017 05:10 PM)ColdComfort Wrote:  Yeah. That's all I meant. Perhaps a better example. I throw a brick at a window and the glass breaks. Me throwing the brick is a cause if you regress in the sequence a bit. The causes exist when the brick hits the window. The brick has enough force and the window has the potential to be shattered when struck by that force. A steel wall doesn't. Isn't this simultaneous? The window and the brick come into contact at the same time.

It's not simultaneous. The motion of the brick preceded the striking of the window. The kinetic energy of the brick in motion caused the window to shatter.

Is the brick an African brick or a European brick?

Yog Sothoth! Yog Sothoth! Come back old ones! Yog Sothoth!

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Cheerful Charlie's post
16-05-2017, 11:50 PM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2017 12:19 AM by morondog.)
RE: Newsweek - Scientists Prove God Exists?
(16-05-2017 04:45 PM)ColdComfort Wrote:  Because I am not capable of writing an explanation nearly as good as the one I cited. It's written by a professional philosopher. I suppose. The issue again was not to present the argument from Aquinas. It was simply to say that his arguments do not depend on a view of causation described by that poster a long time ago now.

You keep baiting me to engage in an argument about St. Thomas's proofs for the existence of God. And it has to be in my own words. I don't care to. Sorry.

Well then fuck you, you're as fake as every other two bit apologist. I expect you'll spend your time here making other claims and declining to defend them then? What exactly is your point Mr #unthinkingatheist? You insult us but any time you're asked to defend your bullshit you're too good for that?

ETA: Let's say for example I read this book you've recommended and conclude it's bullshit, are you then going to argue with me? Or are you going to still think that I've misunderstood? You're the one claiming that this argument makes sense. I'm not giving you a pass. It makes zero sense to me. You won't even state the argument yourself, which is bullshit again. How the fuck can anyone argue when the premises and logic are not laid down? I'm giving you the opportunity to state it as you see fit because you've already claimed my understanding of it is flawed.

Here's what I understand the argument to be:
1. Everything that exists requires a cause.
2. An infinite string of causes is impossible.
3. Therefore there must be a *first cause* which does not require a cause.
4. That first cause is God.

You tell me what's wrong with that.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2017, 03:00 AM
RE: Newsweek - Scientists Prove God Exists?
(16-05-2017 11:50 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(16-05-2017 04:45 PM)ColdComfort Wrote:  Because I am not capable of writing an explanation nearly as good as the one I cited. It's written by a professional philosopher. I suppose. The issue again was not to present the argument from Aquinas. It was simply to say that his arguments do not depend on a view of causation described by that poster a long time ago now.

You keep baiting me to engage in an argument about St. Thomas's proofs for the existence of God. And it has to be in my own words. I don't care to. Sorry.

Well then fuck you, you're as fake as every other two bit apologist. I expect you'll spend your time here making other claims and declining to defend them then? What exactly is your point Mr #unthinkingatheist? You insult us but any time you're asked to defend your bullshit you're too good for that?

ETA: Let's say for example I read this book you've recommended and conclude it's bullshit, are you then going to argue with me? Or are you going to still think that I've misunderstood? You're the one claiming that this argument makes sense. I'm not giving you a pass. It makes zero sense to me. You won't even state the argument yourself, which is bullshit again. How the fuck can anyone argue when the premises and logic are not laid down? I'm giving you the opportunity to state it as you see fit because you've already claimed my understanding of it is flawed.

Here's what I understand the argument to be:
1. Everything that exists requires a cause.
2. An infinite string of causes is impossible.
3. Therefore there must be a *first cause* which does not require a cause.
4. That first cause is God.

You tell me what's wrong with that.

I made no claim that the arguments you are referring to are valid. I said you were wrong in claiming that the argument used 'cause' in the sense of a regress into the past. I think you know that. Grasshopper pointed it out. I know when I'm being baited into a long fight that will go no where.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: