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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Proof that evolution is the only answer

page: 32
13
<< 29  30  31    33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   
You guys have Zoroastran rolling in his grave.




posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped




My argument IS your argument. I merely swapped out your god of choice for mine. You then made all sorts of excuses as to why that wasn't valid.


Ever consider the fact that I wasn't making excuses, but rather telling you why Zeus doesn't work. I've study the argument for close to a year now, and I am not so dunce as to have never thought to replace it with another God in all those times.




Well, sorry champ, it is valid.


Its is valid in form but it isn't sound with the classical understanding of Zeus which would be a contingent being, but then you started redefining Zeus so I asked you to be more specific.




You don't get to make up caveats that only apply to your god of choice in an attempt to wriggle out of the obvious logical flaws in your argument.


First the argument isn't used to prove God. It is used to inform the audience of the logical equivalence of two statements that lack synonymy. I mean just calling something a logical flaw doesn't make it so. Replacing the being the ontological argument argues for, with some other being that doesn't have the quality of maximal greatness(defined as maximal excellence in every possible world), then the argument won't hold because the necessity spoken of in the argument is necessity de re not necessity de dicto. This is the whole reason it is called the ONTOlogical argument, because it relies on an ontological property of God, and tries to show thru this property the equivalence of two statements.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You still haven't defined maximal excellence to the satisfaction of your peers.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs




Which part of your premise is supported by science?


The idea that spacetime is finite is supported by science, you know the scientific evidence I presented you that you just brushed under the rug.




No. They are not equivalent. Possible does not mean necessary or required. Why must you guys continuously use such faulty logic? Please explain how suggesting something may be possible, makes it necessary and required. I'd love to hear the explanation on this one.


The reason you think its faulty logic is because you are taking the statements of people you disagree with at face value and not trying to actually understand it from the perspective of the presenter. You see I understand your position completely because I used to believe that the argument didn't work, and I used think this for all the reasons people seem to give me. I have never heard one I hadn't already thought of.

I'll explain it as simply as I can but it relies on you having the ability to abstract.

Ontology is the study of the nature of being. It discusses the set of attributes that make something what it is, and particularly the existence and type of existence of a thing.

In Ontology there are three forms of existence:

Contingent Existence: the thing exist if and only if certain prior circumstances are the case(i.e. existence in some possible world, but not all possible worlds.)

Necessary Existence: the thing cannot fail to exist(i.e. the thing exist in all possible world)

Impossible Existence: the thing cannot exist(i.e. existing in no possible worlds)


The Anslemian conception of God is defined as the greatest possible being. First we must differentiate between "greatness" and "excellence". A being's excellence in a possible world depends only on its properties in that world; a being's greatness depends on its properties in all possible worlds

The way I am speaking about possible worlds is a form of semantics used in philosophy. A possible world is a complete way things might have gone, past, present, and future. It is an abstraction. There is a set of all possible worlds, and somewhere within this set is the actual world. There is also a set of impossible worlds, which are descriptions of reality that could never be actualized. So a being that is maximally great is maximally excellent in all possible worlds. A being is said to be maximally excellent if it is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent in its world. So a maximally great being is by definition a being that is maximally excellent in any possible world in the set of all possible worlds. So part of the set of attributes that make up a maximally great being, that make it what it is and not something else, is that is has the ontological property of necessary existence. This means that type of being it is it cannot possibly be contingent, but rather must be necessary or impossible.

The word necessary in the preceding statement might be misconstrued if the following if one doesn't understand the difference between necessity de re(about a thing) and necessity de dicto(about a statement).

Example from WIKI:


"The President of the USA in 2001 could not have been Al Gore". This claim seems false on a de dicto reading. Presumably, things could have gone differently, with the Supreme Court not claiming that Bush had won the election. But it looks more plausible on a de re reading. After all, we might skeptically wonder of George W. Bush whether he could have been Al Gore. Indeed, assuming that being George Bush is an essential feature of George Bush and that this feature is incompatible with being Al Gore, a de re reading of the statement is true.


So for a maximally great being, existence is a necessary or essential feature of that being. Without it the being ceases to be what it was when we first began discussing it.

The following argument is NOTsaying a maximally great being is a necessary entity therefore a maximally great being exist, but rather is a circular argument that is used to inform rather that persuade. What the argument does is use circular reasoning to show you that the first statement is equivalent to the last statement. Now just in case you are under the misconception that circularity is always a bad thing please read the following:



In many cases, circularity is a problem -- we will call such circularity vicious circularity. However, circularity is not always a problem; for example, one can use it in arguments that are meant to inform instead of persuade, in which case the circularity is virtuous and not vicious.


Source

With all this in mind lets look at the argument:



Willam Lane Craig's phrasing:
It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
Therefore, a maximally great being exists.


This argument again is not proving the existence of maximally great being but rather showing the logical equivalence of these two statements. So you asked me to explain how suggesting something may be possible, makes it necessary and required. The answer is that saying a necessary thing is possible is equivalent to saying it necessary. Why? Because the very meaning of a necessary existence is existing in all possible worlds. To say it is possible is to say it exist in some possible world meaning its not impossible. If its not impossible, and is necessary(de re) then due to it having the property of necessary existence it must exist in every other possible world as well.




Who cares? I never said the universe was infinite. Red herring.


You do realize eternal and finite are antonyms in the context of discussing when something began. This is not a red herring. Part of our discussion was on how science backs up my philosophical position in premise 2 of the kalam cosmological argument that the universe had a beginning...finite things begin...so sorry..not a red herring.


edit on 5-11-2016 by ServantOfTheLamb because: tyo



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs




I don't think you even know what a singularity is or what it means in physics.


I don't think you know what it is:

sin·gu·lar·i·ty
ˌsiNGɡyəˈlerədē/
noun
1.
the state, fact, quality, or condition of being singular.
"he believed in the singularity of all cultures"
synonyms: uniqueness, distinctiveness
"the singularity of their concerns"
2.
PHYSICS MATHEMATICS
a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole.




For example, when you drain water from a tub or sink the water will spiral into the drain. A back of the envelope calculation (based on known principles) shows that the speed, s, that the water is moving is s=frac[c][r], where r is the distance to the center of the spin, and c is a constant that has to do with how fast the water was turning before you pulled the plug.


In general relativity, the shape of spacetime near a spherical mass is given by:

c^2 dtau^2 = left(1-frac[r_s][r]right)c^2dt^2 - left(1-frac[r_s][r]right)^[-1]dr^2 - r^2left(dtheta^2 + sin^2[(theta)]dphi^2right)

Now, unless you’re already a physicist, none of that should make any sense (there are reasons why it took Einstein 11 years to publish general relativity). But notice that, as ever, there’s a singularity at r=0. This is the vaunted “Singularity” inside of black holes that we hear so much about.


www.askamathematician.com...

My point was that when we find a singularity, which is not some actual object but a reference to what occurs in our math, normally the infinite isn't actually observed. The black hole singularity and the water singularity are exactly the same thing. A point at which a function takes an infinite value. So no comparing them isn't laughable they are just different equations attempting to describe different things, but my point was that singularities are not observed in nature. The water thing is simply an example of that.




You need evidence to assert any of those qualities to god.


You don't need evidence to explain what a thing is to a person. I would argue that omniscience and omnipotence are in no way contrary to reason, therefore are at least possible ontological properties of a thing.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

At what point did I do that, because he was saying that I was using special pleading in the ontological argument which is definitely not true.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: GetHyped

At what point did I do that, because he was saying that I was using special pleading in the ontological argument which is definitely not true.


Yes it is. You continue to insist that the Judaic god is the only one suitable for the ontological argument, but that is only your confirmation bias asserting itself. Again, I invite anyone following this exchange to plug in any of the previously mentioned deities in place of the Judaic god...it still works. And yet, this testament to the amibiguity of the ontological argument is ignored. Just like the fact that "maximal excellence" is poorly defined and untested as a property.
edit on 5-11-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




They are not the same entity, although it can be argued that the christian god borrows more elements from Zeus than coincidence can account for, and they are equally viable as patrons.


In the context of the ontological argument no they aren't. One is defined as existing contingently and the other is defined as existing necessarily.





They do. Your agreement is not necessary to demonstrate this, and I invite anyone following this exchange to refer to the kalam ontological argument and substitute the christian god with Zeus, Odin, lugh, quetzlcoatl, hotep, or Krishna, just to name a few.


Well first it is Alvin Platinga's ontological argument which is based off of St. Anslem's version. The Kalam cosmological argument is another argument. You are sitting here telling every one to listen to you and you don't even know what the argument is called. I am sure that makes us think you are studied on the topic. You can substitute anything you want the vast majority will fail at premise three in which it states if x exist in some possible then x exist in all possible worlds. This holds true for a maximally great being because it exist necessarily pretty sure all of those Gods would be contingent.





I did turn it on its head.


And I told you exactly why I am ok with someone doing that already, and after realizing it did nothing for you, you took off.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




There are also the minor issues of "great" or "maximal excellence" being poorly defined,


I defined them in my last response to Barcs




the premise doubling as the conclusion, also known as begging the question.


Hmm you make so many silly mistakes in your analysis of the argument its not even funny.

Circular reasoning and question begging aren't the same thing, and circularity is not always a bad thing. Examples of the two are shown at the source below.



In many cases, circularity is a problem -- we will call such circularity vicious circularity. However, circularity is not always a problem; for example, one can use it in arguments that are meant to inform instead of persuade, in which case the circularity is virtuous and not vicious.


www.webpages.uidaho.edu...

Now you are right. It is a circular argument, but its not meant to persuade, it is meant to inform. I have told you this already and it apparently went in one ear and out the other. The purpose of the argument is to inform you that the statement "it is possible god exist" is equivalent to the statement "it is necessary god exist".





You could take a banana, ascribe immeasurable properties to it (because immeasurable properties are impossible to disprove, hence the appeal) and plug it into the argument. Its really not that clever.


No you can't...the moment you take a banana and add properties to it that a banana doesn't actually have the object your talking about is no longer a banana but something else that you have labeled a banana......





In other words, you simply cannot be convinced otherwise regardless of the measures taken or proofs provided.


How do you get this idea from me saying that I have no religious reason to think body plan morphogenesis doesn't happen, but rather my position is that we don't have enough evidence to know that it doesn't happen. All it would take is for someone to be capable of explaining exactly what mechanisms are used to produce a new body plan and escape the canalization of the developmental gene regulatory networks.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




Yes it is. You continue to insist that the Judaic god is the only one suitable for the ontological argument, but that is only your confirmation bias asserting itself.


No I didn't. I asserted that Zeus was not suitable for the argument and the Judaic-Christian God is suitable for the argument. This is not the same as saying only the Judaic-Christian God fits that argument. A deistic god would also be suitable for this argument. Allah might be suitable for this argument. So no its not special pleading just somethings work and others don't, and I'd appreciate if you'd more accurately represent my position rather than assuming I meant something I didn't actually mean.




s. And yet, this testament to the amibiguity of the ontological argument is ignored. Just like the fact that "maximal excellence" is poorly defined and untested as a property.


Prove that it still works. Pick a deity define it and show us that it works. I am tired of this blanket assertion...



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


In the context of the ontological argument no they aren't. One is defined as existing contingently and the other is defined as existing necessarily.


But this "existing necessarily" is an unconfirmed property, as is the "existing contingently". Also, let's not get boxed in by the parameters of a fallacious argument, because that requires that we assume it to be functional and applicable, the whole crux of this tangent being that it is not.



Well first it is Alvin Platinga's ontological argument which is based off of St. Anslem's version. The Kalam cosmological argument is another argument. You are sitting here telling every one to listen to you and you don't even know what the argument is called. I am sure that makes us think you are studied on the topic. You can substitute anything you want the vast majority will fail at premise three in which it states if x exist in some possible then x exist in all possible worlds. This holds true for a maximally great being because it exist necessarily pretty sure all of those Gods would be contingent.


My apologies for getting momentarily confused. This exchange has gone in so many circles, it makes my head spin sometimes. What even is "maximally great"? Has this property been tested and observed in controlled settings in a manner that can be repeated by anyone with the skills and tools to do so? Or is it a presumption?



I defined them in my last response to Barcs


"A point at which a function takes on an infinite value" in other words, it has not been tested or observed in a controlled setting. Also known as hypothetical. MES is not hypothetical, but you would have us invoke hypothetical properties without due diligence because of convenience.


Hmm you make so many silly mistakes in your analysis of the argument its not even funny.

Circular reasoning and question begging aren't the same thing, and circularity is not always a bad thing. Examples of the two are shown at the source below.


The bible is circular reasoning, the ontological argument is begging the question. I'm not going to debate the merits of circularity.


Now you are right. It is a circular argument, but its not meant to persuade, it is meant to inform. I have told you this already and it apparently went in one ear and out the other. The purpose of the argument is to inform you that the statement "it is possible god exist" is equivalent to the statement "it is necessary god exist".


It is meant to present the illusion of rationality by which one might conclude such a possibility. Its a mental magic trick, just like trying to confuse possibility for necessity. These are not synonyms.


No you can't...the moment you take a banana and add properties to it that a banana doesn't actually have the object your talking about is no longer a banana but something else that you have labeled a banana......


The fun part is where you prove to me that a given banana does not possess omnipotence or atemporality. The banana is the incarnated Odin who has chosen this form to spread the philosophy of his good friend the FSM who has amicably agreed to take his place while the all father goes on vacation to the Andromeda islands where his favorite Klingon ladies are waiting for him to regale them with hilarious tales of the christian god and his unlikely adventures among the hominids of planet earth. Prove me wrong.




How do you get this idea from me saying that I have no religious reason to think body plan morphogenesis doesn't happen, but rather my position is that we don't have enough evidence to know that it doesn't happen. All it would take is for someone to be capable of explaining exactly what mechanisms are used to produce a new body plan and escape the canalization of the developmental gene regulatory networks.


...because you just said so. Your comprehension cannot be corrected unless its to give your god even more credit. Unless you flatly deny this, you confirm it to be the case.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


No I didn't. I asserted that Zeus was not suitable for the argument and the Judaic-Christian God is suitable for the argument. This is not the same as saying only the Judaic-Christian God fits that argument. A deistic god would also be suitable for this argument. Allah might be suitable for this argument. So no its not special pleading just somethings work and others don't, and I'd appreciate if you'd more accurately represent my position rather than assuming I meant something I didn't actually mean.


Allah, yet another infantile deity who unsurprisingly can be traced back to the abrahamic god who serves as the inspiration for all three flavors of the contemporary deity so popular in recent centuries. Why is Odin not applicable? Why not kronos? Why not hotep or quetzlcoatl or Krishna? Why not Buddha?


Prove that it still works. Pick a deity define it and show us that it works. I am tired of this blanket assertion...


Simple, I pick one of the gods I just mentioned above, assert its maximal excellence or greatness and insist that you prove me wrong. That's the modus operandi for theological proof as I understand it.

edit on 5-11-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




But this "existing necessarily" is an unconfirmed property, as is the "existing contingently".


This again is just silly....contingent things are all around us. Your body exist contingently. Without DNA you cannot have a cell much less a human body. Galaxies are contingent upon the temperature variations within one part in 100,000 over scales as small as one degree or less found in the cosmic background radiation known as the great galaxies seeds. Computer programs and their functions are wholly dependent upon their source code, which is wholly dependent upon some human agent. DNA is wholly dependent up on the chemicals A, T, C,G. I can go on and on. Everything we observe is contingent.

As I explained to you earlier in the other thread, denying the existence of necessary things proves the existences of at least on necessary thing and therefore defeats itself.




My apologies for getting momentarily confused. This exchange has gone in so many circles, it makes my head spin sometimes. What even is "maximally great"? Has this property been tested and observed in controlled settings in a manner that can be repeated by anyone with the skills and tools to do so? Or is it a presumption?

I defined them in my last response to Barcs


"A point at which a function takes on an infinite value" in other words, it has not been tested or observed in a controlled setting. Also known as hypothetical. MES is not hypothetical, but you would have us invoke hypothetical properties without due diligence because of convenience.


I see why you got confused but if you'll look you'll see you posted the definition of a singularity. This is what I was referring to:





First we must differentiate between "greatness" and "excellence". A being's excellence in a possible world depends only on its properties in that world; a being's greatness depends on its properties in all possible worlds.

A being is said to be maximally excellent if it is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent in its world. So a maximally great being is by definition a being that is maximally excellent in any possible world in the set of all possible worlds.


Now what you seem to have a hard time grasping is that this argument isn't to show you that a maximally great being exist. A maximally great being is an abstraction. What it seeks to show you is that for this particular abstraction saying that it is metaphysically possible is equivalent to saying it is metaphysically necessary. After someone understands this it becomes easy to prove that the abstraction exist because we can prove its possibility.




The bible is circular reasoning, the ontological argument is begging the question. I'm not going to debate the merits of circularity.


You aren't going to debate it because the source I sent you explains exactly what I just said to you, but since your to lazy here:

www.webpages.uidaho.edu...

Lets say we have person A and person B.

- Context
erson B doesn't know that a person with suicidal tendencies is a person who wants to kill himself.

so person A says ": "People with suicidal tendencies are insane, because they want to kill themselves."

Argument with implicit premises:

People with suicidal tendencies want to kill themselves.
*) People who want to kill themselves are insane.

People with suicidal tendencies are insane.

In a situation where person B disputes the conclusion but are unaware of the identity given in (a), this argument could be offered to inform you, and so in that context it would not be question-begging, but it would be circular as the premises and conclusion have the same truth condition.

I mean you are simply refusing to hear things that might mean you need to reform your opinion. Your simply incorrect on this point.




It is meant to present the illusion of rationality by which one might conclude such a possibility. Its a mental magic trick, just like trying to confuse possibility for necessity. These are not synonyms.


And I have said numerous time, that these statements are logically equivalent not synonymous. Yea it must be an illusion. It couldn't be the fact that its actually reasonable if you aren't so predisposed to denying it.


I said this:



No you can't...the moment you take a banana and add properties to it that a banana doesn't actually have the object your talking about is no longer a banana but something else that you have labeled a banana......


And the way you respond to this is by taking a banana and applying properties to it most people wouldn't think of when talking about a banana.




The fun part is where you prove to me that a given banana does not possess omnipotence or atemporality. The banana is the incarnated Odin who has chosen this form to spread the philosophy of his good friend the FSM who has amicably agreed to take his place while the all father goes on vacation to the Andromeda islands where his favorite Klingon ladies are waiting for him to regale them with hilarious tales of the christian god and his unlikely adventures among the hominids of planet earth. Prove me wrong.


What I mean by banana when I use it on a daily basis is a long curved fruit that grows in clusters and has soft pulpy flesh and yellow skin when ripe. What you are talking about is Odin incaranated in the form of a banana. As I said the moment you start being ridiculous you and applying properties to a banana a banana doesn't actually have it becomes something else. Your banana is Odin, and Odin is what?




...because you just said so. Your comprehension cannot be corrected unless its to give your god even more credit. Unless you flatly deny this, you confirm it to be the case.


Is English your first language I have told you exactly what you can do to prove body plan morphogenesis occurred.




Why is Odin not applicable? Why not kronos? Why not hotep or quetzlcoatl or Krishna? Why not Buddha?


I mean tell me what you think these things are. What is Odin? What is kronos? The issue here is these are not your actual beliefs. In order for the ontological argument to work for these the burden of proof is not on me. i am not the one saying it works for those.




Simple, I pick one of the gods I just mentioned above, assert its maximal excellence or greatness and insist that you prove me wrong. That's the modus operandi for theological proof as I understand it


The problem is asserting it is maximally great isn't always consistent with tradition, which is why I say you have to redefine the vast majority of deities in order for them to fit. So you are saying Odin is maximally great, but Bor and Bestla had three sons: Odin was the first, Vili the second, and Vé the third. Odin again is contingent according to definition. So you aren't talking about the Norse Odin your talking about a different Odin.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


At what point did I do that


The part where you stated the grounds for your personal god but rejected those same grounds when your personal god was substituted for one of the thousands of other personal gods.

Oh, to be so blind.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm




Yes it is. You continue to insist that the Judaic god is the only one suitable for the ontological argument, but that is only your confirmation bias asserting itself.


No I didn't. I asserted that Zeus was not suitable for the argument and the Judaic-Christian God is suitable for the argument.


For entirely arbitrary, made-up reasons, aka "special pleading".



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


This again is just silly....contingent things are all around us. Your body exist contingently. Without DNA you cannot have a cell much less a human body. Galaxies are contingent upon the temperature variations within one part in 100,000 over scales as small as one degree or less found in the cosmic background radiation known as the great galaxies seeds. Computer programs and their functions are wholly dependent upon their source code, which is wholly dependent upon some human agent. DNA is wholly dependent up on the chemicals A, T, C,G. I can go on and on. Everything we observe is contingent.

As I explained to you earlier in the other thread, denying the existence of necessary things proves the existences of at least on necessary thing and therefore defeats itself.


Excellent, those are some good examples of contingent existence. Now, what exists necessarily? Nothing is necessary except maybe gravity. Gravity has to be for anything at all to be. Gravity is god? But that's misleading because gravity is not divine or conscious.


I see why you got confused but if you'll look you'll see you posted the definition of a singularity.


Then I guess we are still at a loss concerning the substantial definition of "maximal greatness" or whatever.


Now what you seem to have a hard time grasping is that this argument isn't to show you that a maximally great being exist. A maximally great being is an abstraction. What it seeks to show you is that for this particular abstraction saying that it is metaphysically possible is equivalent to saying it is metaphysically necessary. After someone understands this it becomes easy to prove that the abstraction exist because we can prove its possibility.


Abstract, metaphysical, these things are not concerned with proof because they are immeasurable. They cannot be quantified, hence the label abstract, in the mind, or imaginary. Can we get back to science and evolution?



You aren't going to debate it because the source I sent you explains exactly what I just said to you, but since your to lazy here:

www.webpages.uidaho.edu...

Lets say we have person A and person B.

- Contexterson B doesn't know that a person with suicidal tendencies is a person who wants to kill himself.

so person A says ": "People with suicidal tendencies are insane, because they want to kill themselves."

Argument with implicit premises:

People with suicidal tendencies want to kill themselves.
*) People who want to kill themselves are insane.

People with suicidal tendencies are insane.

In a situation where person B disputes the conclusion but are unaware of the identity given in (a), this argument could be offered to inform you, and so in that context it would not be question-begging, but it would be circular as the premises and conclusion have the same truth condition.

I mean you are simply refusing to hear things that might mean you need to reform your opinion. Your simply incorrect on this point.


Hypocrisy much? I'm just pointing out the incongruency of comparing metaphysics with actual biology, actual physics, and actual science in general. Testable, measurable, recordable, repeatable data instead of hypothetical imaginary "what ifs".



And I have said numerous time, that these statements are logically equivalent not synonymous. Yea it must be an illusion. It couldn't be the fact that its actually reasonable if you aren't so predisposed to denying it.


You sound like you are starting to appreciate the frustration scientists have when debating with creationists. You are even using the same phrases.



And the way you respond to this is by taking a banana and applying properties to it most people wouldn't think of when talking about a banana.


Just because you don't do it doesn't make it wrong. I suppose you would mock someone who does worship bananas?



What I mean by banana when I use it on a daily basis is a long curved fruit that grows in clusters and has soft pulpy flesh and yellow skin when ripe. What you are talking about is Odin incaranated in the form of a banana. As I said the moment you start being ridiculous you and applying properties to a banana a banana doesn't actually have it becomes something else. Your banana is Odin, and Odin is what?


A banana, obviously. Like I didn't just explain that. The interesting part here is where you prove me wrong, and so far, you are failing. The burden of proof is on you, buddy. Odin the banana god is here to let you know that with the FSM as the honorary stand in, your prayers will be answered with yes, no, or maybe. Which one is up to you to figure out - in the meantime, have faith and remember to give an offering occasionally. But don't get confused between Odin's banana and Jesus. They hate that. They told me in a vision i had while I was sleeping.


Now, about evolution...you know, the actual topic...got anything for that?

edit on 5-11-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped





The part where you stated the grounds for your personal god but rejected those same grounds when your personal god was substituted for one of the thousands of other personal gods.

Oh, to be so blind.

For entirely arbitrary, made-up reasons, aka "special pleading".


You don't even know what special pleading is. Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.

I rejected those grounds with Zeus because Zeus is obviously defined as contingent within Greek Mythology. You can't have a contingent necessary being.

You quote this


No I didn't. I asserted that Zeus was not suitable for the argument and the Judaic-Christian God is suitable for the argument.


Out of context when this very response shows that what I have done is not special pleading.



posted on Nov, 6 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Judging by servantofthelamb's silence, it would seem that proponents of creationism are not immune to the inane tactics by which they defend their hypotheses. That is to say, their arguments are easily and effectively reversed, demonstrating the fickleness of the logic in such arguments. In short, I have proven that Odin incarnated as a banana. Which is ridiculous, I will freely admit, but sufficiently defended by such rules that if we are playing fairly, a creationist has no choice but to accept it or break their own toys and return to the drawing board. You are welcome.

Now, is there anything we would like to discuss concerning evolution, or are we done here?
edit on 6-11-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
The idea that spacetime is finite is supported by science, you know the scientific evidence I presented you that you just brushed under the rug.


That's not what you said in your premise. You said the universe has a beginning. Funny how you keep changing your argument. You can't prove the universe has a beginning via science, it's impossible right now. Can you prove the singularity ever had a beginning?


The Anslemian conception of God is defined as the greatest possible being.First we must differentiate between "greatness" and "excellence". A being's excellence in a possible world depends only on its properties in that world; a being's greatness depends on its properties in all possible worlds


And again, this argument is faulty because there is no way to prove that there is a "greatest" possible being". It's 100% subjective bull#.


The way I am speaking about possible worlds is a form of semantics used in philosophy.

And that's precisely why it proves zilch. It basically says, "If XYZ, then A" Too bad you can't prove the IF part of it.


So a being that is maximally great is maximally excellent in all possible worlds. A being is said to be maximally excellent if it is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent in its world.

And literally none of that can be proved or verified, so what's the point of the argument in the first place? Like I said originally, they are all hypothetical "what if" statements, none of which can be verified as factual, which is a problem if you are suggesting logical reasoning. Plus there is no way to tell that this being is even possible. It can't be demonstrated logically that this "maximallly excellent being is possible. Based on the laws of physics it is not possible.



"The President of the USA in 2001 could not have been Al Gore". This claim seems false on a de dicto reading. Presumably, things could have gone differently, with the Supreme Court not claiming that Bush had won the election. But it looks more plausible on a de re reading. After all, we might skeptically wonder of George W. Bush whether he could have been Al Gore. Indeed, assuming that being George Bush is an essential feature of George Bush and that this feature is incompatible with being Al Gore, a de re reading of the statement is true.


Based on the logic above, you are saying that since the president could have been Al Gore, that it WAS Al Gore. It's laughably stupid, sorry.

1. It is possible that Al Gore could have been president in 2001.
2. If it is possible that Al Gore was president, then Al Gore being president exists in some possible world.
3. If Al Gore as president exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If Al Gore as president exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If Al Gore as president exists in the actual world, then Al Gore as president exists.
6. Therefore, Al Gore was president.


So for a maximally great being, existence is a necessary or essential feature of that being. Without it the being ceases to be what it was when we first began discussing it.


No, because the properties listed for this being are 100% subjective and made up. The augment is faulty because it requires numerous assumptions. I'm not sure why you don't see this. All of the properties are ASSUMED. The idea that a greatest being even exists is assumed. They are merely WHAT IF statements. The problem is you can't prove a single thing about any of it. You have to rely on faith, gee where have I seen that before?


The following argument is NOTsaying a maximally great being is a necessary entity therefore a maximally great being exist, but rather is a circular argument that is used to inform rather that persuade. What the argument does is use circular reasoning to show you that the first statement is equivalent to the last tatement.

Exactly. It's a circular argument, which is fallacious logic. You have informed me of your opinions, sure.



1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.


#2 is illogical. I don't care what apologetics you use to support it. How does it being possible mean it exists in some possible world? We don't live in a possible world. We live in THIS world and that is all that matters.
#3 is also false. How does a being existing in one possible world make it exist in all possible worlds? Another baseless connection that is completely bunk.
#4 just continues the bastardizing of logic. How does something existing in a "possible" world make it exist in the real world? It's pure assumption on top of assumption on top of assumption. Indeed it is circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy.

This argument is illogical and I have debunked it before. You have to use semantics to the extreme to defend a view like this and there is no way to verify ANY of that, sorry. Typical philosophy guy that thinks he knows it all. The same argument could be used to support fairies or flying invisible crocodiles. So basically anything that could possibly exists, automatically does exist.


You do realize eternal and finite are antonyms in the context of discussing when something began. This is not a red herring. Part of our discussion was on how science backs up my philosophical position in premise 2 of the kalam cosmological argument that the universe had a beginning...finite things begin...so sorry..not a red herring.


You are wrong. Something can be timeless / eternal without having infinite density or energy. They are different concepts but you are treating them as equal. For example energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change forms. This suggests that energy is timeless or eternal, not that there is an infinite amount of energy or spacetime. To suggest such is an assumption and is not based on science. The singularity prior to the big bang cannot be measured. Scientists can only look back so far. It's funny how you post the definition of singularity as if that is synonymous with THE singularity that came prior to big bang. I'm not talking about math functions, I'm talking about literally spacetime or energy/matter being infinite.


edit on 11 7 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   
An omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time including all the fake fossil and carbon dating evidence. Anyone of faith who does not believe in God's omnipotence is lacking faith in God. Evolution is irrelevant to the faithful.

People who have strong faith do not have their faith weakened by science.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
An omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time including all the fake fossil and carbon dating evidence.


There is no fake evidence. dinosaur fossils are found in the same layers as human remains (Assemblage of evidence). Carbon dating says dinosaurs are no older than 50,000 years old (Assembled information). And there are also countless dinosaur depictions in both art and literature that indicate humans lived alongside dinosaurs. The teachers of the law are still hellbent on defending an outdated theory for which the old heads have invested their entire lives - it will take a while before the obsolete theoretical dogma is realized as a house of cards...
edit on 7-11-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




Excellent, those are some good examples of contingent existence. Now, what exists necessarily? Nothing is necessary except maybe gravity. Gravity has to be for anything at all to be. Gravity is god? But that's misleading because gravity is not divine or conscious.


Gravity is a contingency as it is an expression of the impact a massive object or on a minuscule scale energy has on the fabric of spacetime, affecting all things within that gravitational field. I have already caught you on this once I suppose I can do it again. If you take the position there are no necessary entities, then you are taking a self defeating position as the denial gives the first two premises of the sum styled leibnizian argument we were discussing in our other thread. If there are no necessary entities, everything from your perspective does not exist by necessity, and everything that doesn't exist by necessity owes its existence to something other than itself(1), so again from your perspective the collection of all things that exist is the summation of thing which do not exist by necessity(2). Now that you have given 1 and 2 to me 3-4 logically follow.

(1): Everything not existing by necessity (i.e. everything that could fail to exist) owes its existence to something external to itself. (For example, planets, lightning, and humanity each owes existence to something else.)
(2): Something exists (call it “the Universe”) which is the sum of all these things which do not exist by necessity.
(3): Therefore, the Universe owes its existence to something external to itself.
(4): Whatever exists externally to the Universe obviously cannot itself be contingent (i.e. cannot be part of that sum).
(5): Therefore, whatever exists externally to the Universe is not contingent; by definition it exists of necessity. Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe owes its existence to something that exists by necessity.




Abstract, metaphysical, these things are not concerned with proof because they are immeasurable. They cannot be quantified, hence the label abstract, in the mind, or imaginary. Can we get back to science and evolution?



All you do is speak of immeasurable things. Omnipotence for example is being able to do anything that is logically possible and omniscience is having all knowledge. How are these immeasurable? I think what you mean is you have never experienced something with these properties or do you really mean you can't grasp understand what this type of being would and would not be capable of.




Hypocrisy much? I'm just pointing out the incongruency of comparing metaphysics with actual biology, actual physics, and actual science in general. Testable, measurable, recordable, repeatable data instead of hypothetical imaginary "what ifs".


You seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between concepts of logical equivalence, virtuous circularity, and synonymy....




Just because you don't do it doesn't make it wrong. I suppose you would mock someone who does worship bananas?


Your not worshipping a banana. You were worshipping the incarnated Odin in banana form. Odin is contingent....destroyed get out of here with your banana worship and inferior god!




A banana, obviously. Like I didn't just explain that.


No you explained to me that you and I were using different definitions of bananas.

You: The banana is the incarnated Odin who has chosen this form......

Now you are saying Odin is the banana. Your position is inconsistent and incoherent. Obviously false god. Sorry try again. If Odin the Norse God is in the form of a banana your God is still defined as contingent and wouldn't fit the conclusion of either argument.




The burden of proof is on you, buddy.


Actually no. You are the one attempting a disproof so the burden would lie upon you here. I am in the negative.




Now, about evolution...you know, the actual topic...got anything for that?


Evoltuion? Nothing but a ton of a questions.



new topics




 
13
<< 29  30  31    33 >>

log in

join