Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-03-2015, 04:01 PM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 03:17 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 11:40 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  The bolded part is an assertion for which you have failed to provide any proof or justification.

Sooo, I have to explain why something that BEGINS to exist needs a transcendent explanation for its existence?? Wow.

Tell ya what, do this for me. I want you to explain the origins of your computer, but the catch is, the answer has to lie within the computer. The answer that you give cannot be external to the computer and has to lie within it.

If you fail to give an adequate answer to that, then you have a lot of freakin' nerve sitting there making it seem as if "everything that begins to exist has a cause" needs further explaining to you.

(19-03-2015 11:40 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  In your mind, they require a "transcendent explanation". I don't see that they require any such thing. Also, step 3 of the general argument makes the bold claim that something that exists in one possible world must exist in all possible worlds.

The Modal Ontological Argument is an amazing argument, and it just might be my favorite. It took me a longggg time to grasp it, but now I think I got it down.

Allow me to educate you (in a nice genuine way).

Necessary truths: Are propositions that are either true or false in ALL possible worlds. A good example of this would be logical/mathematical truths...like 2+2= 4...that is true in all possible worlds and there is no circumstances at which the answer would be different.

Contingent truths: Are propositions that are either true or false, but the truth value or the proposition COULD be different under certain circumstances. For example, it is true, I am an army veteran, but there is a possible world (set of circumstances) where I would have been a navy veteran, or marines.

Now, with respects to 3, an attribute of God is his necessity, and his omnipresence...so if God exists in one possible world, then it follows that he must exist in ALL possible worlds, because his existence would be necessarily true, and necessary truths are true in all possible worlds.

And it just so happens that the actual world (our world) is among the possible worlds that God would have to exist in.

See how that works??? You've just been educated, my friend. No charge Big Grin

No, let me educate you, as you seem sorely in need of it. The ontological argument (in either form) basically claims that God exists by definition (which is just plain nonsense, but that's by the way). It says nothing whatsoever about things beginning to exist, or transcendent causes, or any of that stuff. That comes from a different argument. You are mixing up your arguments -- which is no big deal, since none of them are worth anything. But if you're claiming to defend the modal ontological argument, perhaps you should stick to what it actually says. And what it actually says is laugh-out-loud nonsense.

I am well aware of the definitions of necessary and contingent, and how they are used in the various "proofs" of God's existence. None of those are convincing either. They are all word games that assume the conclusion in their basic definitions. They don't "prove" anything. And none of that has anything to do with the ontological argument. It has a silliness all its own.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 04:17 PM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 02:55 PM)morondog Wrote:  Bullshit. Why are you back here anyway?

Don't worry. I am kicking so much knowledge on here that I will be banned soon. Kinda reminds me of Jesus, and how he knew that the stuff that he was saying was going to eventually get him killed. But hey, If I am banned for telling the truth, then it will not be without honor Laugh out load

(19-03-2015 02:55 PM)morondog Wrote:  It was fucking lovely when your disgusting presence wasn't wafting around nauseating people.

No one is forcing you to read my shit...whats the matter? Can't stay away? Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 04:23 PM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 01:53 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 11:37 AM)Nieko Sx Wrote:  Ok, so we can run with the idea that your god without doubt totally 100% clearly and definitively TOLD you to kill your kid. That makes your god a sadistic maniac that can't even stick to one set of his own commandments.

The death penalty is not murder, buddy.

Who said anything about the death penalty?

- Talking lions, magic wardrobes, witches with Turkish Delight - GOOD - Muggles, Quidditch and Dark Arts Lessons - BAD -
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 04:27 PM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 04:01 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  No, let me educate you, as you seem sorely in need of it.

"Preparing to be educated, sir!!!" *salutes* Laugh out load

(19-03-2015 04:01 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  The ontological argument (in either form) basically claims that God exists by definition (which is just plain nonsense, but that's by the way).

No, as you cannot define a being into existence. Everyone knows that Big Grin

(19-03-2015 04:01 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  It says nothing whatsoever about things beginning to exist, or transcendent causes, or any of that stuff. That comes from a different argument. You are mixing up your arguments -- which is no big deal, since none of them are worth anything.

I am not mixing the arguments up..the point was; One argument supplements the other. One argument, a transcendent being is necessary..and the other argument, a transcendent, necessary being POSSIBLY exists...if the kalam fails, then the MOA also fails. But if the kalam is true, then the MOA is also true.

That was the point, and it is no coincidence that this is the case.

(19-03-2015 04:01 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  But if you're claiming to defend the modal ontological argument, perhaps you should stick to what it actually says. And what it actually says is laugh-out-loud nonsense.

Based on what? You sitting there pouting and saying it is so?

(19-03-2015 04:01 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I am well aware of the definitions of necessary and contingent, and how they are used in the various "proofs" of God's existence. None of those are convincing either. They are all word games that assume the conclusion in their basic definitions. They don't "prove" anything. And none of that has anything to do with the ontological argument. It has a silliness all its own.

What I'd like is a point by point refutation of what I said regarding #3 and #4...instead of the typical waving of the hands and brushing it off crap that you people on here like to do when you can't refute an argument, but you still want to make comments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 04:30 PM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 02:51 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 02:17 PM)Impulse Wrote:  I know, right? I'm surprised at how many people don't know about the fine print on the tablet under "thou shalt not kill" that says "except when it's an eye for an eye".

Rolleyes

"thou shalt not kill" is obviously talking about premediated MURDER. Cmon now, people.

Agreed. And in the example, God instructs a premeditated killing. You're claiming that killing isn't murder? Please do explain. Drinking Beverage

Edit: Wait, not completely agreed. The commandment is talking about murder, but "premeditated" is irrelevant.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 04:34 PM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 04:23 PM)Nieko Sx Wrote:  Who said anything about the death penalty?

When God commands someone to be killed, it is the death penalty Dodgy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 04:38 PM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 04:30 PM)Impulse Wrote:  Agreed. And in the example, God instructs a premeditated killing. You're claiming that killing isn't murder? Please do explain. Drinking Beverage

First off, all life belongs to God, first and foremost...second, when God orders an execution, it is the death penalty. The death penalty is not malice murder, it is a just penalty for a crime that has been committed.

(19-03-2015 04:30 PM)Impulse Wrote:  Edit: Wait, not completely agreed. The commandment is talking about murder, but "premeditated" is irrelevant.

No it isn't, because God ordered many people to be killed...but the people that are being killed aren't "murdered". Apparently, you people need to educate yourselves on the difference between premediated murder and the death penalty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 04:49 PM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 04:17 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Don't worry. I am kicking so much knowledge on here that I will be banned soon. Kinda reminds me of Jesus, and how he knew that the stuff that he was saying was going to eventually get him killed. But hey, If I am banned for telling the truth, then it will not be without honor Laugh out load

1) why would you be banned? It isn't aginst forum rules to be an infanticidal idiot.
2) So you are now comparing your "tribulation" here to Jesus? Right, even IF it were true, you aren't going to be killed for anything you say here.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 04:59 PM
RE: Question about flood
I wish I could say I've never met anyone as blindly stupid and morally reprehensible and willfully delusional as CoTW, but unfortunately I have. He is in the top bracket though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like photon9's post
19-03-2015, 05:00 PM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 04:27 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 04:01 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  No, let me educate you, as you seem sorely in need of it.

"Preparing to be educated, sir!!!" *salutes* Laugh out load

(19-03-2015 04:01 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  The ontological argument (in either form) basically claims that God exists by definition (which is just plain nonsense, but that's by the way).

No, as you cannot define a being into existence. Everyone knows that Big Grin

(19-03-2015 04:01 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  It says nothing whatsoever about things beginning to exist, or transcendent causes, or any of that stuff. That comes from a different argument. You are mixing up your arguments -- which is no big deal, since none of them are worth anything.

I am not mixing the arguments up..the point was; One argument supplements the other. One argument, a transcendent being is necessary..and the other argument, a transcendent, necessary being POSSIBLY exists...if the kalam fails, then the MOA also fails. But if the kalam is true, then the MOA is also true.

That was the point, and it is no coincidence that this is the case.

(19-03-2015 04:01 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  But if you're claiming to defend the modal ontological argument, perhaps you should stick to what it actually says. And what it actually says is laugh-out-loud nonsense.

Based on what? You sitting there pouting and saying it is so?

(19-03-2015 04:01 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I am well aware of the definitions of necessary and contingent, and how they are used in the various "proofs" of God's existence. None of those are convincing either. They are all word games that assume the conclusion in their basic definitions. They don't "prove" anything. And none of that has anything to do with the ontological argument. It has a silliness all its own.

What I'd like is a point by point refutation of what I said regarding #3 and #4...instead of the typical waving of the hands and brushing it off crap that you people on here like to do when you can't refute an argument, but you still want to make comments.

No. You people seem to think those arguments are the bee's knees. I think they're crap. Been there, done that. Not gonna waste any more time on them. Life is short, and there are better things to do. You can continue to think you've got it all figured out. Have fun.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: