It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

From Nothing to Nothing

page: 12
31
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Why must the "gods vie with each other" that is a rather monotheistic and Abrahamic bias.

I still will insist that Gödel's modal ontological argument is flawed in its axioms and thus can not constitute "proof".




posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

I am sure one could argue that. One would not be talking as a scientist, or one who is literate in the sciences however. One would be talking as a philosopher.

So I return to stating, this is not science. Nor is Gödel's ontological proof, and the axioms on which it is based are simply deconstructed, thus invalidating it as "proof".

I return to "show me the evidence".

Again I have no issue with points of belief, as long as they are acknowledged as unprovable personal or shared gnosis. WHich they are.


Show me the absence of evidence that negates the weak and subjective evidences that I have already previously suggested.




posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Sorry all,

For some reason the text I wanted to put in answer to one post, appeared in the answer to another.

I have fixed it now so please review what I said, to whom, over my last two posts.

Apologies to all for any confusing responses.



edit on 1/9/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: mOjOm

I am a polytheistic follower of the pre-Christian gods of Ireland. They are not all powerful, I've never seen evidence for that, Nd I've looked (in the spiritual sense). They are of several types. The "Shinning ones" who are Gods in the classical pagan sense, but then there are the divine ancestors (Don is an example, the first Gael to die in EIre), and then there are spirits of place.

I'm also a hard polytheist, I believe in all gods. Including Jehovah, he(?) is just not preeminent, omni anything. He is a successful tribal deity of the Semetic people.

There are many theistic scientists, which is why I get in the face of any posters who are "all who believe in evolution are atheists" its a fallacy.


I appreciate your standpoint, thank you for clarifying it.

The argument for a supreme monotheistic God is a totally different definition of 'a god' than a polytheistic one and it can can be argued that this concept has not arisen from polytheistic roots (as is sometimes posited).

It goes like this:

In a polythesitic view, the gods have separate existence from each other and can vie one against the other. They are also subservient to "the realm of the gods" which has rules of existence to which they must comply. They do not exist in, and of, themselves, like a monotheistc God can. The realm in which they exist must have been in place previous to their generation.

This means that a 'weaker' human can manipulate the realm of the gods or play them off one against the other, making the gods do the will of the human (in other words, magic).

It also removes "first cause" as argument for, and about, these gods because they are dependent upon a prexistent 'environment of the gods' and each other (explanantion needs to be made to expain where each of the gods 'came from').

In the case of a monotheistic God, the is no need to explain a preexistent environment as heaven and the physical realms are created by, and existent after, God. God becomes the only uncaused cause of all else. God simply is, and all other is created.

This means that a monotheistic God cannot be controlled through magic. A monotheistic God is the ultimate authority and everything, even philosophical ideas, are created by or through them.

A monotheistic God does not need to arise from environment nor be given birth, by other gods or processes.

That is partly why I choose to believe in a single supreme God.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I return to the fact that you have shown no evidence, only supposition. You've loosely talked about some hypotheses, which in the scientific world are things being tested, and thus evidence is limited, or non existence. Similarly red or blue shifts are data points, show me how a God is involved. As I pointed out Gödel's ontological proof has been pulled apart as a "proof" of anything.

This is weasel words, circular arguments and deflection.

Where can you prove God is there? Other wise it's Hitchen's Razor for it all



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

it does that, and I got who you were replying too



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

My comment remains that this is a very Abrahamic and monotheistic view of polytheism and the occult
It is biased, and non representative.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
The very order of nature, which seems to seek towards the lowest energy state in all things, shows that something is directing things against what we know of the principles of physics (a singular result rather than a variety). Even a many worlds interpretation does not adequately answer the questions raised by the current state of this one.

Energy, matter, time and space ARE order. If an alternate world exists with those properties, then what are the ordering force/s? If a world does not have those attributes, or any others, does it even exist? If it cannot exist, surely it cannot then be one of the possibilities from which our one is a unique example. So all the infinte alternate worlds that do exist must all have to have an ordering principle of some type, already. The logic of the many worlds argument circularly opposes itself, in that regard.



I'm not so sure about that although I understand how one might view it that way. What you're really talking about is a foundation for which existence might be possible in the context of order and disorder. What may seem like some intelligence keeping order may in fact just be a necessary attribute rather than some optional willful purpose. By that I mean a certain amount of order doesn't have to be intentional if it's simply required.

There may not be any other way for it to function and all other failed attempts are just discarded. If a certain degree of order is required simply for existence to happen, or perhaps even some unique order, then there is no point in even including any other possible outcomes. What we experience as "what is" is simply the only possible way, making it a certainty not a highly improbable possibility. If it must be then it must be and there is no other option and no need for something to order it.

Clearly existence is happening in some form. The fact that we are here talking about it shows that. So if this is the only possible way for it to be then that's it. It was destined to be. No need for something to make it happen. Since there was no other options. It was a must.

That would make it unique, yes, but also the only possibility other than nothing. So if we're not nothing, we are the only other option. There was no other possibility other than those two.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

My comment remains that this is a very Abrahamic and monotheistic view of polytheism and the occult
It is biased, and non representative.


Perhaps, but it's what I have.

As I said previously, both sides of the argument are blind.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Convenient, except I'm not 'both sides' I've a foot in each camp of science and faith. I recognize Jehovah/Allah as a deity. I just reject that man in some cultures have called it/him supreme
I'm also an armchair student of history, and know there were other gods besides him in the cultures which are associated with him. Humans like Jehovah are capricious



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Wow. You're a very interesting person IMO. I would love to know you better and to have a better grasp of what you're like and the way you live your life and think on a daily basis.

Not in some judgemental way or anything, but just out of curiosity as I can honestly say I don't think I've ever met someone or talked to someone with such a complex perspective or world view.

I'm not sure I could even keep up with so much complexity or how it effects the way you think and live but I'm sure I'd find it interesting.

I didn't mean to put you on blast or anything either or try and get you to expose your deep beliefs too much here in the open. I just find your perspective very different than any I've ever heard anyone talk about.

Hopefully we'll talk more in the future.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

Short answer: Wikipedia.



Wiki can't tell me why YOU think it's such a valid and/or reasoned argument though.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Private messages are not ignored
Beyond that I have a thick skin, BUT I also treat these discussions as combat training on some levels, which unsettles some of the more fragile egos



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Convenient, except I'm not 'both sides' I've a foot in each camp of science and faith. I recognize Jehovah/Allah as a deity. I just reject that man in some cultures have called it/him supreme
I'm also an armchair student of history, and know there were other gods besides him in the cultures which are associated with him. Humans like Jehovah are capricious


I think we must agree to disagree.


Please do not take my adversarial position as a personal affront. I am enjoying the challenge of trying to answer your posts (and mOjOm's) they are erudite and thought provoking.
(I'd hope that I am not as capricious as I once was, too, an ever upward path & all that...)

I have also studied comparative theology, though as you have noted, my core beliefs are Christian and it is sure to filter my views.

I don't believe that science can make any determination on the existence of God or otherwise, it is just the wrong tool for the job. Many seem to assume that because science is about knowledge, that it can tell us everything. It simply cannot. For instance, one of the principles of science is that a theory must be falsifiable to be able to test it against its alternate. In many areas of knowledge, such is not the case.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: chr0naut

Short answer: Wikipedia.



Wiki can't tell me why YOU think it's such a valid and/or reasoned argument though.


Oh, I see (sometimes I'm a bit 'Aspergers' and miss the personal aspect).

I actually don't think it is a particularly strong argument. Its axioms assume, perhaps, too much and it hasn't also been fully investigated and fully 'proven' yet. However, acceptance of the axioms of the argument does not allow for non-existence of God. There is neccesarily ONLY the existence of a being with all attributes of "goodness" and no attributes of the opposite ('badness'?). The case of there not being such a "good" God is not logically possible, neither is a "bad" God possible (within the constraints of the argument).

In comparison to alternate atheist argument, it is rigourous in a mathematical sense (actually modal logic) and appears to have some validity.

The alternate (atheist) argument is weaker, intellectually, in my view, as it hangs itself upon nothing. It offers a fairly absolute 'absence of evidence' for itself and suggests that that is good enough. As has probably been repeated everywhere "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence".

edit on 1/9/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Oh trust me you will know when I am afronted
I enjoy this sort of discussion, when a person is willing to listen to one side and CAN talk about what they think. The fact its another Kiwi helps too


I don't believe science can or should talk about deities at all, its not its (sorry to anthropomorphize) job. BUT I also do not believe faith should be in my science either.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

That's cheating.

Long answer please. If you claim Godel's ontological proof is valid, you should understand it well enough to give us your own account of it.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah, that's pretty much my view of it also. The logical steps are well structured but the axioms are just too open to subjective interpretation making them debatable in their accuracy about being true.

That's how most of those arguments go when taking on such subjects though. I've even heard similar ones dealing with the objective truths of science in pretty much the same way. I don't remember the specific example now but it was basically that there very early assumptions that are taken as true that we've built our entire understanding on and that will still work out fine like they have, however, that doesn't mean it is in fact true in how we understand it. That assumption could be incorrect and we might not realize it or it's effects in a way that points it out. Resulting in what seems to be a working science but also has anomalies we can't account for as a result of that initial incorrect assumption.

Which is exactly what we have.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

The axioms can be ripped apart!

skepticsplay.blogspot.co.nz...

A thought experiment is a poor way to do science, you need to get your hands dirty, and make measurements and observations, and then let someone else repeat them ... peer review. Otherwise it is intellectual masturbation



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

That's cheating.

Long answer please. If you claim Godel's ontological proof is valid, you should understand it well enough to give us your own account of it.


OK, but you should perhaps request it in long form, stating the parts of the argument to which you disagree with and why.

Also, explain why you feel that the summary posted in Wikipedia is not sufficient an answer.

... and for what purpose would you require a more thorough long form answer?

Please provide your request in 500 words or more with full formal referencing of supporting quotes and conformant with standard academic style guidelines. Marks will be out of 100. Deadline is 12:00 PM before next Tuesday's lecture.





top topics



 
31
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join