|Re: cut to the chase...|
- Monday, December 5 2011, 21:44:26 (UTC)|
from 18.104.22.168 - V32-04.opera-mini.net Network - Linux - Opera
>>When you say “proof”, you mean a priori or a posteriori? Does the possibility of an uncaused instigator sound more illogical than its alternative: infinite regression?
>...there you go again. No proof PERIOD!
That's not an answer to the questions above. Anyway, in scientific or philosophical discourses, there is no such thing as “no proof, period”. When it comes to the issue of God, you tend display the following fallacy: http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html
If in the next breath you say, "oh yeah, then how do you explain the sky"? My response is that I don't try to explain the sky...the sky is there, I don;t have to explain it, I'd just like to keep it blue and clean.
That has nothing to do with the discussion. That's more like existentialism.
And you can't explain it, or god, either. You think you've explained things but you start out BELIEVING them to begin with.
And you start out BELEIVING that there is no God.
You already believe there is a god, therefore your questions are loaded, as are your proofs
I do not get the “therefore”.
a scientist doesn't go looking for the evidence that will prove his point....a scientist has no point to prove..he's just LOOKING...and he'll take whatever comes.
Not really. Scientists come up with all sorts of theories and then try to back them up with empirical evidence, not the other way around. But I am not trying to prove anything here. How about you prove that I'm trying to prove God existence!
Aquinas starts out by saying "we know a god exists"...and then he thinks to prove it.
Source? Quote? I don't think so.
I am not asking for blind faith but at least let's not adamantly negate a hypothesis purely on the bases of lack of evidence. We do not have proofs for the existence of parallel universes or extraterrestrial life but scientists do postulate and discuss them.
>...yes but they have never killed anyone for not believing.
That's another discussion. You have shifted from one topic to another.
Anyone who looks out to the night time sky would be foolish to not admit the almost certainty that life must exist on other planets
I don't see why one would be foolish to consider the possibility of a creator. At first, you used the word “silly”, and now “foolish”. What next? That's not an argument. It's not a refutation. What seems foolish to you might not seem foolish to others like Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein or Francis Collins who recently headed the human genome project.
...but to begin describing and explaining that life is the work of a fool
Why? Are you anti-philosophy, anti-metaphysics, anti-science, anti-research?
...as foolish as claiming god only made life on THIS planet.
God is one of the possibilities. Not only you reject it, you reject also the search for an alternative explanation. It would be foolish to do so, you say.
by the way, which god do you believe exists? Thor...Isis....Zeus? Let's establish that first.
The name doesn't matter. What matters is the notion of a creator whose essence carries with it the unique property of being uncaused, something you have discarded as silly. Maybe God and nature in its entirety are one as opposed to being a separate entity, a view espoused by Einstein. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/
>In my opinion: IF God exists then we are under his control, and therefore
>...then how do you explain that I am NOT in his control? I'll tell you how...by saying that whether I know it or not, he is in control
Perhaps the words “under his control” implies determination as opposed to free will. That's another discussion. Let's just say that he, as a creator, has enough control to decided whether or not his creation should be granted the privilege to prove his existence.
...I ask you, how can you have an intelligent discussion with someone who is going to tell what YOU should think?
I don't see what you mean. No one is telling you what you should think.
we can prove his existence ONLY if HE wants us to prove it. It follows that: IF we proved God's existence AGAINST his will, then in this case he wouldn't be God.
>...how do you know we can only prove his existence if he wants us to?
Please reread the paradox. I sometimes get the impression that you reply hastily, that you respond to a sentence as soon as you stumble upon it, that you treat it separately without putting it in its intended context, and that you spare no time for reflection. Have you ever considered reading the entire reply before responding?
And by the way, you are using the word "proof" again....you want to watch that.
I don't see what you mean... What I provided was simply a one-sided logical paradox. An example of a two-sided one is: “can God create a stone which he himself cannot lift?”. If we say yes, then he's not God because he can't lift the stone. And if we say no, then he's not God either because there's something he can't do.
>>but you start out saying you BELIEVE, and on no evidence.
>>When? When? When? When did I, or the author I quoted, start out by saying “I BELIEVE”? When did I ever begin an argument by saying: “GIVEN that God exists....”?
>...you said earlier that you believe it...glad to hear you don't. Then why do you make claims about something you DON'T believe?
You have not answered the above questions. I do believe in God. When I told you so, I was giving you a personal answer. It was not in the context of a debate. What I meant to say is that neither I nor the author I quoted has ever employed personal beliefs as a premise or a basis for an argument, otherwise you would have provided a quotation.
* * *
I see you have commented twice on subject of absolute and relative morality. Please I'd like delve into it later... regards.
The full topic:|
Accept: text/html, application/xml;q=0.9, application/xhtml+xml, image/png, image/webp, image/jpeg, image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, ...
User-agent: Opera/9.80 (X11; Linux i686; U; en) Presto/2.9.168 Version/11.51