Wouldn't that make a god, bipolar?
Offline The god that's talked about in the bible certainly is manic, and prone to severe mood swings.
He comes off as a petulant tyrannical infantile.
What's with all his out of control rage issues?
He'd get arrested in this world.
And he would be a piss poor designer of anything practical.
Is that why he's supposedly jealous of other gods?
Because he just couldn't measure up in comparison?
So he'd create a band of fanboys and groupies that elect him #1?
Ya, that's some champ.
Whadda hero!
If he wanted his creations to follow a pattern, why would he design in a mechanism that could arbitrarily override his original pattern?
Just so he could get pissy over something?
That's retarded.
Ya, talk about working in 'mysterious' ways.
Is that an apologists euphemism for being drunk, or retarded?
What a drama queen.
Who would want to put up with that ch1t, let alone sign up for that?
And why is it that he wouldn't be able to control his emotions, and just 'get over it', when we do what we like?
What would have been his issue?
We didn't ask to be born, and we certainly didn't ask for free will. So why get pissy over something he would have been responsible for making us have?
As Hitchens says, "Of course I have free will. I had no choice!"
And if he gave us a gift (life), why would he want something in return?
Isn't "It's better to give than receive" supposed to be a virtue ?
Why justification for being petty, and wanting something in return, would he have?
That's not doing something out of the goodness of your heart.
It doesn't sound like he would actually have much heart at all.
The dude sounds like he'd have a lot of anger, some real dysfunction going on, and severe control issues.
And where would he get off on hurting people that aren't strong enough to put up a fight?
He'd be beating up on women and children?
Real tough guy.
Sound like he'd be a complete fcuking douchebag.
It sounds like this dude would be completely out of control, of his emotions, and actions.
Things that we humans are supposed to learn to control.
Sound like he would have been able to learn to be more 'human', and that he should take guidance from us.
And apologize to all of us for being so despicable, and all the insane ch1t he'd have done to us.
I don't think he'd be man enough.
He really would need to piss off, and leave the minions alone, if he were real. And I'm glad he's not, and just a fairy tale.
They could use some better role models.
Why aren't those minions looking at how we (humans) are infinitely better 'beings' than a freak like that would be?
WTF?
Glad he's not real.
That would be a nightmare...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
- Login to post comments
According to whom?
Are you giving orders?
No.
It does no such thing, because you've equivocated.
You're lying.
And I demonstrated clearly all the areas where you've been deceptive, and avoided key questions to the veracity, validity, and reliability of your claims.
Your whole argument is a house of cards.
That's illogical in, and of itself.
You are making both a category error, and a logical fallacy.
Atheism and theism are dichotomies, and a state of being.
Much like being 'ill'.
Or being 'French'
It's nonsensical to say that being 'ill', or being 'French' is 'false'.
Irrelevant.
Appeal to emotions.
He didn't make any claims.
You're jumping to foregone conclusions (confirmation bias).
He made a 'narrative'.
This is a strawman.
He didn't claim his beliefs were based on a general consensus.
The implication that he did, is yours.
He did not implicate himself.
Unequivocally?
According to whom?
You?
Good for you.
But, no, not unequivocal proof.
But what works for you, is personal.
So you have proven to yourself, that you assume you have a logical reason to assume that your personal god assumption is justifiable.
Congratulations.
But neither your 'facts', 'logic', or 'conclusions' of your personal beliefs in ancient folklorish legends, are neither novel, intelligent, or compelling.
Your assumptions are based on your equivocations, and your preconceived notions.
Which means exactly 'squat'.
If you had much more than 'squat', you'd be a worldwide hero.
Instead, you're just another snowflake.
"No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." : Voltaire
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
No, I'm saying I don't understand how a word game actually applies to reality, and I'm pointing out that your own discipline can't even agree that the word game is valid.
I'm not sure why you think this is emotional to me, the only thing I really *feel* is confusion, because I honestly don't get it. When I ask you these questions you just blow it off. You say these things like they should be self evident, as though I should naturally care about the outcome of a word game that the experts can't even agree on.
If there is something in science that no-one can agree on, and that is beyond my knowledge, I'm content to wait it out. The problem here is this is a philosophy question that, to me, your own discipline seems incapable of answering, but you expect me, a layman, to just accept your opinion about the truth of it when you seem terribly biased. Look at this:
It just seems terribly convenient that you are a theist, you have this preconceived notion and then as you study philosophy there is a happy coincidence where you agree on everything that validates your preconception. Again, your peers don't agree on this stuff...theist philosophers fall on one side, non-theists on the other, and you can't use your own discipline to find resolution. When your discipline makes unfalsifiable claims, what is the purpose?
What I'm asking is that when people with giant brains can't figure this stuff out with hundreds and in some cases thousands of years of debate, why do you think it is a useful exercise? What use is it beyond giving a philosopher a warm fuzzy about whatever preconceived notions they hold going into it.
You call my questions 'softball' stuff, but you've not even tried to answer my core complaint. You say your word games proves God, but all I see is that your word game proves philosophers can make word games that don't *mean* anything. If they meant something, these questions would be resolved, rather than going around in circles for generations.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Very good reply
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
He's proven atheism false ? He's done what thousands and literally millions of others have never been able to do ? Shouldn't he be like on the front cover of Time Magazine if it was so cut and dried ? I remember a quote one time about a fanatic is just someone trying to overcompensate a serious doubt.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Exactly.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
I certainly agree with you that that suffices as an adequate response contrary to my source which is as usual the source of several other sources.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
I honestly want to know why I should value this entire exercise as it seems like the only purpose is to give philosophy professors something to do. The whole thing seems to be, literally, 'the art of playing word games to make unfalsifiable sentences', but if that is all there is to it it just seems like such a colossal waste of time...so I hope there is more to it than that. As it stands all that seems to happen is someone makes an unfalsifiable statement, half the community cheers and nods knowingly, the other half jeers and creates counter-proofs and...that's it. On and on.
Maybe he isn't the guy to ask though...he, admittedly even, has a lot riding on the outcome of his conclusions, he's invested in this stuff already and that means he has a bias towards the whole system meaning something in general.
Don't get me wrong, this stuff has great value when used as a tool, but once you take it past that stage and indulge in it for its own sake all value seems to be lost....if it was just a 'game' I'd be fine with it, but people take it very seriously and they act like what they come up with actually has objective worth, and that is what I'm trying to understand. How do you make that leap and why.
Honestly, it comes down to me wanting to know if I'm actually missing something or if they've been so busy jerking for a few thousand years they've forgotten the purpose of the tools.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
The best I have been able to understand it is that Mr. Metaphysics admits that reversing this argument as with others of its type would reach a stalemate but that the onus would be on our backs to either prove atheism or disprove theism. However he also believes that his argument proves theism? I am still unclear as to how but am trying to see anything in his particular argument that move forward from someone like Plantinga or Hartshorne that are but children of a 2600 year old dialog:
It is possible that God exists. God is not a contingent being, i.e., either it is not possible that God exists, or it is necessary that God exists. Hence, it is necessary that God exists. Hence, God exists. (See Malcolm (1960), Hartshorne (1965), and Plantinga (1974) for closely related arguments.)
There is a simple argument that God is creator. If there were no creation He would not be a creator. But there is a creation so the Creator is contingent upon the creation being actual. A response would be prior to creation God was not a contingent being.
I would think that given the impasse that other areas such as science, history, biblical criticism or what have you. And would would think that given the historical progress of the freedom to think as oppose to the requirement to believe or face death from the Church is the source of atheism. One who makes claims that there is a god may well present how there is (would be) a god but also demonstrate there is..
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Haha, what? I'm sorry, I must need to read some more philosophy books, because I didn't follow that.
I understand the first paragraph, then I'm lost. Oh well, more reading to be done I suppose. As always, I appreciate your honest efforts!
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Circular reasoning.
Basically, it's a mindfcuk of the "Necessity is the Mother of all Invention"
Basically, if you can demonstrate that it necessarily need exist, it must exist.
It would only be logical.
However, this all hinges on the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which is based on if something exists, then another something, made it into existence.
A philosophical 'self fulfilling prophecy'
A convoluted chicken and egg paradox, that outputs a 'logical' solution.
Pfffft....
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
The part that "there is a simple response" is one that I've heard often from panentheistic process theologians of which hartshorne is one. It was a quite common argument at Emory when I was there. I certainly did not say that I agree with it or that it was legitimate but it goes to the point that what do you mean by limited. You would not be a guitar player if you never had a guitar. Your attribute of being a guitar player is dependant upon you knowing how to play guitar and by having one to play. You never had a guitar you never have played one you aint a guitar player. You are not a creator if you haven't created if you have you being a creator is contingent upon having created and the creation. So the classical concept of god as absolute, not a contingent being or unlimited fails as a description of a god as well as the argument. I mentioned earlier I think Artistotle's god might work ( big might) in such arguments as Mr. metaphysics but it was not a creator or involved with the cosmos. It was self aware or turned only to its own properties. So I guess I'm saying that the ontological argument does not work for a theistic god as quoted above:
It is possible that God exists. God is not a contingent being, i.e., either it is not possible that God exists, or it is necessary that God exists. Hence, it is necessary that God exists. Hence, God exists. (See Malcolm (1960), Hartshorne (1965), and Plantinga (1974) for closely related arguments.) Mr. Metaphysic's argument falls into this category of arguments. But then I could be misunderstanding some element???
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Is it?
According to whom?
According to what?
In lieu of those answers, let's suppose that this is not incompatible with all of reality.
Is it so?
According to whom?
According to what?
In lieu of those answers, let's suppose that this is not incompatible with all of reality.
Is it so?
According to whom?
According to what?
In lieu of those answers, let's suppose that this is not incompatible with all of reality.
Is it so?
According to whom?
According to what?
In lieu of those answers, let's suppose that this is not incompatible with all of reality.
Is it so?
According to whom?
According to what?
In lieu of those answers, let's suppose that this is not incompatible with all of reality.
Is it so?
According to whom?
According to what?
How do you know this conclusion is absolutely compatible with all of reality?
Do you have complete and absolute knowledge and absolute understanding of all of reality?
Yes, or no?
If yes, are you a god?
If no, WTF are you to try and play the part of a god?
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
So they are saying the fact that we can imagine an unlimited being (whatever that is) means that such a being exists, because the fact that we can imagine that being is a character trait of such a being, therefor it must exist?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
In the absence of complete knowledge of reality, the Ontological Argument is not only circular but makes the nonsense assertion that a particular ambiguously defined entity 'could possibly exist'. It is not even worth seriously considering the idea that we could possibly decide whether such a being must exist.
Apart from trying to support this ridiculous argument, he has demonstrated poor awareness of the practice of Science, first by asserting it did not investigate 'cause' and 'effect', then that it had no concern with "why", but merely "how".
Then he refused to accept the the logic of very clear examples that 'cause' is not necessarily greater than 'effect'.
And that complexity can indeed arise from far simpler origins.
Finally admitting that he only believed in God personally because of "personal experience".
This person is a sad joke. Or a troll, or something similar.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
You have not even come close to offering a serious refutation of the argument. The best you came up with was that the argument begs the question, which is no different than saying that the inference to 'therefore, there is a four sided figure' from 'there is a square' is begging the question--something that a serious scholar would never claim.
If you actually read a book on this subject, you'll note that there are plenty of good objections that can be raised. You've merely raised sophomoric objections that you would be likely get from a college student taking philosophy for the first time. And, laughably so, it appears that you are under the impression that you actually came up with something so absolutely devastating that anyone seriously considering this argument should have an epiphany.
You admitted in your very examples that nothing was giving to itself what it did not have, and, insofar that my contention stands or falls upon this assumption, all you've done is agreed with me while simultaneously disagreeing with me.
Yet it is you who is stalking me across the forum, attempting to hijack every single discussion that I am having with someone else. The bottom line is, you merely have jejune reasons for rejecting theism, and most of what you say could be dismantled by your run-of-the-mill undergraduate philosophy major. You really are not difficult to defeat. (I recommend checking out the debate between William Lane Craig and Peter Atkins, and also the debate between Craig and Victor Stenger; it's no coincidence that the philosophy guy makes the physics guys look foolish.)
Why can't we all just get along? The emotive can drive the irrational as well as the rational.
Well that we can imagine that our thought of an unlimited being can bring to mind that the thought is limiting in that it allows us to to negate it as only our own idea (only exists in our head). We thus can conclude that an unlimited being is only unlimited if it is not our own idea but exists. So after reading what I thought was different than what you said (which maybe it ain't) I would say yes.
But we can then imagine that that whole idea we had is negative... it only exists in our head but not in fact because god does not exist or there is no unlimited being. Mr. Metaphysics put into his argument necessity. Godel did it with his axiom5:
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive
Cut and paste:
Closely related to Hume's critique of all efforts to demonstrate the existence of any being by means of a priori reasoning, is his critique of the notion of necessary-existence in general. In the Dialogues Hume explains his position as follows:
As Hume puts the point in the Treatise, when we believe that God exists our “idea of him neither encreases nor diminishes” — we simply conceive of “the idea of such, as he is represented to us” in a more forceful or vivid manner (T, 1.3.7.2/94; cp. 1.3.7.5n/96n). We join nothing to our idea of his parts or qualities, nor do we have a distinct and separate idea of existence itself (e.g., qua abstract idea). In so far as we have any clear idea of God we can conceive of him existing or not existing. From these observations Hume draws the conclusion that the words “necessary existence, have no meaning; or what is the same thing, none that is consistent” (D, 92).
Hume applies this point directly to the claim that “the material world is not the necessarily existent Being”. If it is possible to conceive of the material world as not existing the same is true of God: we can imagine him “to be non-existent, or his attributes to be altered” (D, 92). If God's non-existence is impossible because of some “unknown inconceivable qualities”, why should we assume that these qualities do not belong to matter? All this puts an end to the efforts of Clarke and other “religious philosophers” to prove that God necessarily-exists. (Clarke offers another argument for God's necessary existence based on absolute space and time. Although Hume does not mention this in the Dialogues, in the Treatise he was careful to present sceptical arguments against the doctrine of absolute space and time — so Clarke and his Newtonian followers could not rest their position on this foundation either.)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-religion/#3
In turn this has been debated for centuries. So it is an impasse that I really think requires us to look at other areas like science, experience, phenomenology.
Looking at the world the way it is which vision explains our experience of the world better? ... an omnipotent, all knowing and good god or some of the philosophical constructs off the things like the Matrix movie. We live in a world controlled by one of many possible worlds where a super race has evolved that can create virtual big bangs and watch them evolve by supplying different variables. We live in one of their experiment in which there is a lot of suffering and evil as well as good.
Not that I believe that either but it explains the theodicy issue.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
You have not come close to making a serious argument out of the absurdity that is the OA, let alone responding to my specific objections.
Begging the question is a fallacy. Your propositions are only valid "if God exists", so you are claiming that God exists 'by definition'.
You are in fact correct - God exists only in the same sense that an ideal square exists, as a concept, not in actuality.
Your comment only seems to refer to the 'complexity from simplicity' examples, therefore I will take it that you have no refutation of the fact that 'causes' can be much smaller than their effect'. I will take that as a concession, and your non-response to my pointing out your misunderstanding of the practice of Science also. Thank you.
Since the emergence of entities possessing properties not possessed by their constituent parts, not 'themselves', was my point, which does not require that anything 'give itself what it did not have', there is no contradiction in my agreeing with you on a claim that was not relevant to my examples, and disagreeing with you on my point.
An atom is not a subatomic particle. Its properties are not those of individual subatomic particles, but of a structure composed of such particles structured in a particular way.
No entity, no thing, 'gives itself' anything. Its attributes are a consequence of its components and its structure, determined by the relevant Laws of Physics etc, which are descriptions of observed regularities and constraints of existence and the way various elementary 'bits' interact.
My point was that your claim about 'things giving to themselves what they do not have' is not relevant to the way complexity actually grows. So if your position is based on that, then clearly you do not have a refutation. Thank you again.
You have come late into several threads which you did not start, so you have no case, about 'stalking' - I was already in all these threads before you came in.
You have demonstrated again in this very post that you do appear to not have refutations of my examples and arguments, despite your claim that I am 'not difficult to defeat'. Thank you once again for demonstrating the weakness of your position.
I have watched a couple of 'debates' involving the fuckwit Craig, and I am not at all surprised that someone with your warped understanding would view them that way. His 'arguments' are a triumph of rhetoric and style over logic and substance.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
False.
The premises are 'personal'
The final verdict is 'personal'.
It's no better than 'Because I said so', or 'Because it's the only thing that makes sense to me'. 'Because I agree with myself'.
Acquiescence is demanded of the polemic, in the absence of empirical and scientific findings, or demonstration, or heresy is alleged of the polemic.
Any one 'individual' doesn't have knowledge, or evidence of everything that is all of reality.
Any collective of individuals doesn't have knowledge, or evidence of everything that is all of reality.
A consensus of sympathetic 'personal verdicts' does NOT increase the veracity of any verdict.
Whether it's correct, or incorrect.
This is logical. This is also empirical.
The whole ontological argument is based, and entirely reliant on intuition (which may/may not be correct, and has an abominable track record throughout history), which is based on the individual's thought process. Which may, or may not be compatible with all of reality.
Since no two individuals have the same knowledge, or intuition, the formulas effectively focuses on the one thing that is going to be most 'intuitive'.
That 'everything' has a 'prime mover', EXCEPT and UNTIL a god (the priori assumption) is reached.
Right back where we started.
A god.
Then, a suspension of 'intuition', or logic, or imagination is assumed.
Acquiescence.
A personal 'verdict' that there is nothing prior to god, is the absence of analysis, or modeling, and is merely 'projection' that nothing was needed to be prior to a god.
Based on a 'belief' that nothing could exist 'prior' to a god.
That's merely a confession that the human mind cannot conceptually 'model' any further.
Which is very well understood by scientists.
We are very limited in our ability to model and test predictions in comparison to machines.
Intuition is merely a tool to scientists. It's not the solution to any given problem.
Scientists use 'intuition' to lead us into areas where we might be able to observe more.
But do not RELY on intuition as being a suffcient proof of reality.
They have much higher standards than philosophers. Which is why philosophy is a psuedoscience.
Philosophers will accept their premises, and predictions, (based on their intuitions) as the solution, whether or not it is compatible with reality, as long as it 'feels right'.
That's sophisticated?
Something that any child could do?
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Of course.
Once they can't get their fuzzy logic way, they take their ball and go home.
But I like to play. What do we do now? I've not been able to get any of the opposing team to post the Christmas Story so I did my own in the errancy section called How to Make a Virgin Birth. I really wanted to play that one. Spoiled sports ya think? Lions- 7 Christians- 0
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
I don't need Mr_Mega Dufus to play.
He's a textbook theologian, ala William Lane Craig.
He lost the debate.
He was out of his league. Lots of us on here, are not average Joe Schmoes.
He was fighting waaaaaaaaay above his weight class.
All you get from these theologians is more obfuscation, red herrings, and misdirection.
They're never being scientific in their inquiry.
Right from the get go.
They're apologists.
They're not trying to determine reality. They're selling their ideas, and presuppositions.
They are not only biased, but they intentionally build strawmen, throw out red herrings, filibuster and misdirect everyone into a haze, with circular arguments.
They're con artists.
I don't expect anything less. And they never disappoint.
I'll just continue debunking the basis for all their BS strawmen. Including the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which they feel is their Trump Card. When it's nothing more than a poor corollary.
I can't believe this KCA gets any traction at all. Or the 'fuzzy logic' formula they think is an accurate method of making predictions of reality.
I'd be embarrassed to show how ignorant I was, to use the strawman premise of the KCA, and such speculative 'reasoning' as 'fuzzy logic'.
It just shows how patently 'foolish' and archaic their thinking is.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Yeah, I'm a little disappointed.
I keep thinking up all these ways of picking apart and re-phrasing the Ontological 'Argument' to make it ever clearer what nonsense it is, to throw it in Mr Metacrap's face, and then find he's disappeared.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I was asking honest questions. I still want to know how you arrive at the conclusion that the ontological argument is worth something...I can't imagine you wake up one morning and decide to be wowed by it.
So anyway, I hope he is just taking a break.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
I couldn't find where I got this quote from. I would like to find it again.
It is quite obvious that God doesn't necessarily exist. Otherwise there would be no need for ontological arguments. Ontological arguments in this sense refute themselves. They aim to show necessary existence when, if God necessarily existed, we'd have no need for the ontological argument to prove necessary existence. Imagining a property of necessary existence, doesn't make a property that is contingent change to be necessary.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
These types of arguments are known as rhetorical tautology.
The condensed explanations of tautologies are on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)
There is always a contigency in those forumulas, as Bob, and others pointed out.
The problem with *cough* philosophers, is that they spend all their time in circle jerks, waving their dicks menacingly at each other, going around in circles, and not much else.
The never look into hard sciences, that show that presuppositional logic, and reality, are not mutually inclusive, and are often completely incompatible.
We see this in electronic circuit design, mathematics, engineering, transmission line theory, nuclear physics, biology, etc.., all the time.
The schematic, model, or formula, appears logical, sound, and flawless.
But............................................ according to whom? According to what?
Logic?
Pfffft....
Presuppositional logic is fine when you're just dick waving, but, put a bullet in one of the chambers, and let's see you put it in your mouth and pull the trigger.
That's when you see Mr_Mega Dicks, go limp.
There's nothing at stake when you're simply waving your dicks at each other, but, when you run the risk of getting electrocuted , or dying of radiation burns, or poisoning yourself, then the pussy comes out. Or the imbecile.
Sometimes they're mutually inclusive...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
The problem with *cough* philosophers, is that they spend all their time in circle jerks, waving their dicks menacingly at each other, going around in circles, and not much else.
This caused me to have a terrible vision of Hume, Locke and Leibniz looking at Kant.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Don't be disappointed, it does help everyone involved. With every one of those 'rational' theists I learn more. They represent the best that the theistic community has to offer, and refuting their nonsense involves a bit of research. I always try and simplify their claims. It all sounds nice when you're copping and pasting paragraphs from philosophers that have spent years fine tunning their nonsense. When you break it down into plain English, intuition refutes the argument 95% of the time. The 5% of the time that you have a counter intuitive argument, you need to explain it extensively and this is where they again fail.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Good analogy but I could have done without the mental image.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Well, it shows how they're actually incapable of doing any thinking on their own. All they can do is parrot things from 2000 yrs ago.
Point out something that requires them to think, and they hijack the discussion into another topic. Usually a tirade of vitriol or ad hominems.
I made a pretty pointed analysis on the dysfunctional behaviour in their god, and all I got was them running their mouths, and derailing into 'my dick' can beat 'your dick', up.
And they can't even do that, because their big dick logic, is really lame (limp).
My OP still stands.
None of these pussies want to try and touch it.
Defenders of the faith?
Pfffft....
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
I would read that
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
It would sell.
I have complete 'faith' in that...
The Christian god's mental and emotional issues:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdxeqEoDXco
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Hahahaha, you really are obsessed with me.
Okay. I'll start a new topic just for you.
Don't flatter yourself.
You're simply Mr_Metaphor for every lame brained dimwit, who thinks they've got a clue.
I take it you've been hitting the books, ready to come in and wow us with more fuzzy logic?
It must be my lucky day.
I was hoping you'd stick your neck out again...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris