The Most Obvious Thing

Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
The Most Obvious Thing

Atheists like to switch up their standards of evidence in mid conversation.

So, I have a solution.

Just state the most obvious thing, and I will prove that God exists from it.

That is all.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Bob,

Since empiricism has been proven via adhominem via the empiricists themselves (e.g. David Hume), then why would I use something that is a failure in its attempts towards knowing.

The psyche and nepheesh for soul is only used humans. Bios is used for animals. bios just means they have life, while the Greek and Hebrew specifically point to man having a soul.

And God breathed into man, not into monkeys or Kangaroos. Unless he brethed into animals in the book of Hezekiah? Look it up in Hezekiah.

LOL.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

"Proven via ad Hominem"? WTF do you mean by that?

Empiricism doesn't need to be 'proven' or 'disproven'. It works quite adequately enough to have allowed the continual development of knowledge which allows the design and construction of the computer and the infrastructure you are using to communicate with us.

Non-empirical, non-evidence-based assumptions and intuitions are not worth the air it takes to voice them.

Words used for 'soul' and related areas are obviously used by people who believe in the reality of the 'soul', but what has that to do with proving that the assumed fundamental difference between humans and animals is more than a naive prejudice, other than in obvious matters of degree of mental faculties?

Simply stating that many, or most people still believe in the fundamental distinction between us and our distant cousins in the 'animal' world, is a 'D'uh'. We knew that.

Serious study of many 'higher' species has continued to reveal we have far more in common with other life-forms than has traditionally been believed, even among scientists.

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:"Proven via

BobSpence1 wrote:

"Proven via ad Hominem"? WTF do you mean by that?

Don't take the bait...


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
 Sry, was AFK.

 Sry, was AFK.


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
(1) Whatever begins to exist

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

We good so far?


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

We good so far?

No.

Define 'begins' and 'cause' and 'existence'

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Whatever exists at all

Whatever exists at all arguably requires a reason for why it exists, rather than something else, or nothing.

Time is an artefact of our perception, so 'begins' is not a fundamental criteria.

The simpler and more elementary is the nature of that which exists, the simpler and more basic need its reason for existing be.

The closer something is to nothing, the more reasonable is its a priori existence.

A field of energy at the minimum state allowed by Quantum Physics would qualify there, and is all that is necessary for spawning a Big Bang, so proposing anything more than that is not justified. 

God is unnecessary, by any criteria. The existence of a God makes the explanation of 'what is' unnecessarily complicated.

You would need to supply an argument why the primary state, or 'cause, must be an omnipotent sentient being.

Back to you. Justify your presupposition.

 

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


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

We good so far?

It all leads up to what caused your god el capitan.

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
This actually just gave me

This actually just gave me an idea for a theory. Man created god so maybe man created the universe. Yes yes, we were so powerful that we got bored or something, wiped our minds and made up a god to replace ourselves so we could start over, yea! Yea I think now that I mentioned it it's all coming back to me now. . . . Now to figure out how to make this a religion ..

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Another thought:"begins to

Another thought:

"begins to exist" would translate in a multidimensional reality as something with a boundary in at least one dimension.

So that boundary would arguably require an explanation, a 'reason'.

An all-pervading energy field would not have such a boundary, therefore it still fits.

Whereas a sentient being requires some form of structure, so it requires 'reasons', origins for that structure in something more fundamental, just as our brains require a process of evolution from simpler forms.

Still a giant fail for God.

 

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Another

BobSpence1 wrote:

Another thought:

"begins to exist" would translate in a multidimensional reality as something with a boundary in at least one dimension.

So that boundary would arguably require an explanation, a 'reason'.

An all-pervading energy field would not have such a boundary, therefore it still fits.

I believe it's Stephen Hawking that postulates that as long as there is gravity and particles/energy, nothing else is needed for the universe to have occurred.

There's no reason to assume that these things did not always exist.

 

The dialectic problem with narratives like 'begins to exist', is that it's implicitly leading in a specific direction.

In science, diamonds 'form', as a result of a chain of events (occurences).

They don't 'begin to exist'. They are not 'created'. They are not 'made'.

They 'form'.

There is no 'cause', per se. They form (in a specific subset of a larger superset) due to a chain of 'events' that are 'governed' by universal constants in a universe with forces, and particle/energy.

 

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It's boringly repetitious to state

 

that Presup is indulging an argument from complexity but there you have it.

That's an interesting point you make Bob, about the requirement for an original partition pre-cause. I did not think of that...

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Another

BobSpence1 wrote:

Another thought:

"begins to exist" would translate in a multidimensional reality as something with a boundary in at least one dimension.

So that boundary would arguably require an explanation, a 'reason'.

An all-pervading energy field would not have such a boundary, therefore it still fits.

Whereas a sentient being requires some form of structure, so it requires 'reasons', origins for that structure in something more fundamental, just as our brains require a process of evolution from simpler forms.

Still a giant fail for God.

 

I like this a lot.  Would the one dimension be a  "point?"  Would this be  in line with the idea of singularity which is being replaced by the inflationary scenario (most tend toward it)? Would an all-pervading energy ( or whatever type of field ) be one dimensional and no different from a point? I may not be expressing what I am visualizing well.

"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


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:BobSpence1

TGBaker wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Another thought:

"begins to exist" would translate in a multidimensional reality as something with a boundary in at least one dimension.

So that boundary would arguably require an explanation, a 'reason'.

An all-pervading energy field would not have such a boundary, therefore it still fits.

Whereas a sentient being requires some form of structure, so it requires 'reasons', origins for that structure in something more fundamental, just as our brains require a process of evolution from simpler forms.

Still a giant fail for God.

 

I like this a lot.  Would the one dimension be a  "point?"  Would this be  in line with the idea of singularity which is being replaced by the inflationary scenario (most tend toward it)? Would an all-pervading energy ( or whatever type of field ) be one dimensional and no different from a point? I may not be expressing what I am visualizing well.

That is very interesting.  If there was only one thing in the universe would it take up no space, or all space?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I would imagine a minimal

I would imagine a minimal field having extension, but how much? Hmm...

When I mentioned alone at least one dimension, I was thinking of a multidimensional entity or 'thing', and the boundary along at least one dimension being the dimension we perceive as 'time', so that 'thing' could be said to "begin to exist", or alternatively, or as well, "to cease to exist", at some point along that dimension.

 

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Atheists like to switch up their standards of evidence in mid conversation.

So, I have a solution.

Just state the most obvious thing, and I will prove that God exists from it.

That is all.

So prove to me that God exists, based on what is extremely obvious to me, that He doesn't exist...

Or perhaps the associated observation, which is even more obvious, that if there is a God, he is deeply immoral, essentially evil.

Or how about another obvious thing, that the Bible is the work of men, who had limited knowledge of history of the nature of the world and the larger universe.

Do you really think anything you have said in that post actually makes sense?

We quite reasonably adjust our standards of evidence based on the relative plausibility of the claims being made - the further beyond ordinary experience and observation they are, it is entirely legitimate to require stronger evidence.

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


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
 I think

 I think that Presuppositionalist was hoping the conversation would go something like this(well minus the bridge part at the end):

 

Presup:  What is the most obvious thing?  

Atheist:  Why that I exist of course.  What could be more obvious then that.  

Presup:  And do you require empirical evidence to prove your existence?  

Atheist:  Why of course not silly.  The mere fact that I experience reality proves that I exist.  

Presup:  Then why isn't personal experiencing good enough to prove that god exist?

Atheist.  Why gosh.  I never thought of it that way before.  

Presup:  I  know.  You atheists are such hypocrites.  Ha ha ha.

Atheist:  Yea I know.  Ha ha ha.  For some weird reason I always thought different claims required different kinds of evidence.  

Persup:  Ha ha ha.  You really are a weird bunch. 

Atheist:  By the way.  I have bridge I would like to sell you for a mere 10 grand.  

Presup:  Do you have evidence that this bridge exists?  

Atheist:  I experience the bridge deep in my heart, and isn't that all the evidence I really need.  

Presup:  Why of course.  I'll buy that bridge right after I sell my house.

Atheist.  Thats great.  I'm glad we had this little talk.    

 

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, that sounds like the

Yeah, that sounds like the kind of thing he would try. It does make sense of his post.

Problem is, it is not the content of personal experience which 'proves' I exist, it is the fact that I have personal experience.

So that is all 'personal experience' can prove.

My younger sister, when a child, seemed to have 'personal experience' of an invisible friend, so I guess that friend must have been real.

Also, I had a real personal 'epiphany' that involved the utter conviction of the non-existence of God, so even if you want base 'truth' on personal experience, it goes both ways.

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


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I would

BobSpence1 wrote:

I would imagine a minimal field having extension, but how much? Hmm...

When I mentioned alone at least one dimension, I was thinking of a multidimensional entity or 'thing', and the boundary along at least one dimension being the dimension we perceive as 'time', so that 'thing' could be said to "begin to exist", or alternatively, or as well, "to cease to exist", at some point along that dimension.

 

  This is where I keep going back to the Zeno parallels. We are dealing with our thoughts of extension and location. If a one dimensional field does have extension then is it  a Plank length? Or does a field have to have extension? Could a field's extending from nothingness be a point.  When I went with the idea of (I think) Parmenides I pondered whether a boundless state is bounded by it's own self reference as a point  and therefore could remain boundless as for as extension but limited by location. or actualized as existent. I wish I knew enough about fractual geometry replacing Euclidean as a means to deal with these types of thought. We have the same location/extension problem with "is it a particle or a wave." and determining location and momentum. Let me ask this because I do not know. Is a Plank length the shortest distance we can measure because of our formula or is the Plank length simply the shortest  length period? The same may be said of Plank time.  I never could accept Alfred Whitehead's concept of an actual entity because it was the same issue. It seemed easier to posit particles as the interaction of waves. But I never got around to taking physics.

"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


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:TGBaker

RatDog wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Another thought:

"begins to exist" would translate in a multidimensional reality as something with a boundary in at least one dimension.

So that boundary would arguably require an explanation, a 'reason'.

An all-pervading energy field would not have such a boundary, therefore it still fits.

Whereas a sentient being requires some form of structure, so it requires 'reasons', origins for that structure in something more fundamental, just as our brains require a process of evolution from simpler forms.

Still a giant fail for God.

 

I like this a lot.  Would the one dimension be a  "point?"  Would this be  in line with the idea of singularity which is being replaced by the inflationary scenario (most tend toward it)? Would an all-pervading energy ( or whatever type of field ) be one dimensional and no different from a point? I may not be expressing what I am visualizing well.

That is very interesting.  If there was only one thing in the universe would it take up no space, or all space?

It would be the universe.

 

"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


Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:This actually

robj101 wrote:

This actually just gave me an idea for a theory. Man created god so maybe man created the universe. Yes yes, we were so powerful that we got bored or something, wiped our minds and made up a god to replace ourselves so we could start over, yea! Yea I think now that I mentioned it it's all coming back to me now. . . . Now to figure out how to make this a religion ..

 

That actually makes me think of an interesting thought experiment I read in a short story called 'Gods Debris' in which it posits that there isn't a deity per se but in fact there was an all powerful being that thought to unmake itself out of curiosity and we are Gods debris, slowly reconstructing the deity, we are, in essence, self aware cells putting the body back together. There are some fallacies in the book and some mistakes but the concept is pretty interesting and the way that it's shown makes for a fun read if being a bit silly.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Joker wrote:robj101

Joker wrote:

robj101 wrote:

This actually just gave me an idea for a theory. Man created god so maybe man created the universe. Yes yes, we were so powerful that we got bored or something, wiped our minds and made up a god to replace ourselves so we could start over, yea! Yea I think now that I mentioned it it's all coming back to me now. . . . Now to figure out how to make this a religion ..

 

That actually makes me think of an interesting thought experiment I read in a short story called 'Gods Debris' in which it posits that there isn't a deity per se but in fact there was an all powerful being that thought to unmake itself out of curiosity and we are Gods debris, slowly reconstructing the deity, we are, in essence, self aware cells putting the body back together. There are some fallacies in the book and some mistakes but the concept is pretty interesting and the way that it's shown makes for a fun read if being a bit silly.

Shoulda known it wasn't original ><

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Joker

robj101 wrote:

Joker wrote:

robj101 wrote:

This actually just gave me an idea for a theory. Man created god so maybe man created the universe. Yes yes, we were so powerful that we got bored or something, wiped our minds and made up a god to replace ourselves so we could start over, yea! Yea I think now that I mentioned it it's all coming back to me now. . . . Now to figure out how to make this a religion ..

 

That actually makes me think of an interesting thought experiment I read in a short story called 'Gods Debris' in which it posits that there isn't a deity per se but in fact there was an all powerful being that thought to unmake itself out of curiosity and we are Gods debris, slowly reconstructing the deity, we are, in essence, self aware cells putting the body back together. There are some fallacies in the book and some mistakes but the concept is pretty interesting and the way that it's shown makes for a fun read if being a bit silly.

Shoulda known it wasn't original ><

Eh, your idea is different. If you want I think it's still free if you want to download it, oddly it was made by the same guy that draws dilbert.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Damn, we seem to have

Damn, we seem to have demolished Presup's arguments before he got to present them.

Poor guy, must be so frustrating...

 

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Lol, this thread is really

Lol, this thread is really funny. I laughed a lot.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Atheists like to switch up their standards of evidence in mid conversation.

So, I have a solution.

Just state the most obvious thing, and I will prove that God exists from it.

That is all.

The tooth fairy is actually your parents.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
 Sry, was AFK.

 Sry, was AFK.


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
 (2) Objective moral values

 (2) Objective moral values exist.

Are we still good?


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Should we call the fact that

Should we call the fact that mammal females nurse their young moral?


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

 (2) Objective moral values exist.

Are we still good?

Says who?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

 (2) Objective moral values exist.

Are we still good?

No, because they don't.

Shared values do exist, within the context of each society. 'Objective' is going a bit far, IMHO.

We have values based on our common empathic feelings toward other members of our society, which we largely share, but not in every detail.

These have naturally evolved as encouraging cooperation, which enhances our ability to survive and reproduce.

These basic principles, that cooperation is an advantage to the survival of a group, and that empathy promotes cooperation, are truths, which can be derived from logic and reason.

Species that went around killing each other would not survive. That's why the ones that are still around, not just humans, are those that don't do that sort of thing. Have you seen the video where a herd of buffalo come back to rescue a calf from a pack of lions? 'Morals' are an aspect of the behaviour and instincts of any social animal.

This is all that is required.

Religion is a perversion of these natural urges, it is parasitic on our native instincts and intuitions.

You label this (2). Was (1) your much earlier comment about things that "begin to exist"? Have you read what has been posted in response to that? Because that idea doesn't go anywhere for you either.

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:
(2) Objective moral values exist.

No.

Presuppositionalist wrote:
Are we still good?

We were never good in the first place. Nobody agreed to the first premise yet.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101

robj101 wrote:

Presuppositionalist wrote:

 (2) Objective moral values exist.

Are we still good?

Says who?

God. Lol.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist wrote:

Presuppositionalist wrote:
(2) Objective moral values exist.

Total non sequitur.

Presuppositionalist wrote:
 Are we still good?

No.

You're 0 for 2.

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


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
WTF are we still waiting for

WTF are we still waiting for an answer?  Rather than throwing in my philosophical BS I'll throw in some empirical stuff for OP.   An older English release of Ilya Prigogene' s Order out of Chaos shows how things spontaneously form from high from entropy states. Absolute morality in the classical theological sense do not exist.  Certainly not as a system. And even if AM existed  it would be counter productive of life. We can speak of contextual absolute. While mothers will nuture their babies we have seen many occasions where they don't. But that is not because of a lack of evolutionary programming in the human female. It isinterrupted by a myrid of factors; abusive husband, environmental disaster, genetic abnormalities.  The problem with deontological ethics is you wind up with casuistry having to debate about two conflicting absolutes. I live in Nazi Germany and am a respected businessman of Munich. I am also hiding a Jewish family in my attic.  The Nazi SS knocks on  my door. I answer, they recognize me and have some tea. I asked why are they here tonight. The soldier apologetically says that they are required to ask if any citizens are harboring Jews.  Because of the situation if I lie they will say good night and take me at my word. If I really follow the absolute morality of Thou Shall Not Lie then the family will meet its death. So A TO absolutes: Be the cause of a family's death or LIE. Ooops I wound up in philosophy 101 again... 

"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


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
 (3) If a maximally great

 (3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

Still good?

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Anymouse (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Standards of evidence?

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Atheists like to switch up their standards of evidence in mid conversation.

So, I have a solution.

Just state the most obvious thing, and I will prove that God exists from it.

That is all.

I do not ever recall an atheist "switching standards of evidence." I admit I have not met all atheists, though. To my experience, that is a Christian logical fallacy. (You must accept the Bible as evidence, but your evidence doesn't count unless it squares with my Bible.)

And when the evidence is overwhelming, toss out the Argumentum ad Satanium fallacy: You do not believe, you must be a Satanist. The sort of "standard" that ends all discussion.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist wrote:

Presuppositionalist wrote:
(3) If a maximally great being

Logical fallacy. 

Hyperbole.

Presuppositionalist wrote:
Still good?

No.

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


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

 (3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

Still good?

NO WE ARE NOT STILL GOOD WITH THIS ONE. ENOUGH WITH UNSUBSTANTIATED PREMISES.The actual failure and feigned  success is in the definition of this premise.  If by maximally great being (g) you mean an omniscient, omnipotent and alll loving god then the premise fails empirically because :

 

1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p). 

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over  possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

3)x necessarily would not allow  q

4)p--> not q

5) It is possible that god is x

6)q --> not p

7) Our world=q therefore not p

8)not p

9)not p--->not x

10)not x

11)god= not x

 Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being. No sky daddy like the theistic one.

"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


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Erm

 

 

Presuppositionalist wrote:

 (2) Objective moral values exist.

Are we still good?

 

The rank assertion hove into view...

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
What does this even mean?

 

Presuppositionalist wrote:

 (3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

Still good?

 

Maximally great as in Maximus Decimus Meridius? 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

 (3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

Still good?

No. You haven't reached 'good' yet, so 'still' does not apply.

You cannot demonstrate that such a definition is coherent - 'great' is meaningless without being applied to a list of qualities or attributes.

Even if you could decide on a definition, you can only discover whether anything exists by empirical investigation.

The only things that must exist are things which are essential to the existence of reality as we know it, but it would require complete knowledge of reality to know whether there are such things, and if there are, what their nature is.

The current thoughts on what might necessarily exist is some kind of all-pervading minimal energy field.

The OA is the dumbest argument for God ever devised.

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


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Presuppositionalist wrote:

 (3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

Still good?

 

Maximally great as in Maximus Decimus Meridius? 

 

Say that three times fast. I tried but couldn't.

"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


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Presuppositionalist wrote:

 (3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

Still good?

Maximally great as in Maximus Decimus Meridius? 

 

Now look at what you did.......

http://montypython.50webs.com/scripts/Life_of_Brian/13.htm wrote:

Life of Brian Script

Scene 13: What's So Funny About Biggus Dickus?

The sketch:

trumpets

PONTIUS PILATE: ...Make one large living awea. Ahh.

CENTURION: Hail Caesar.

PILATE: Hail.

CENTURION: Only one survivor, sir.

PILATE: Ah. Thwow him to the floor.

CENTURION: What, sir?

PILATE: Thwow him to the floor.

CENTURION: Ah.

whump

BRIAN: Aagh!

PILATE: Hmm. Now, what is your name, Jew?

BRIAN: 'Brian', sir.

PILATE: 'Bwian', eh?

BRIAN: No, no. 'Brian'.

slap

Aah!

PILATE: Hoo hoo hoo ho. The little wascal has spiwit.

CENTURION: Has what, sir?

PILATE: Spiwit.

CENTURION: Yes. He did, sir.

PILATE: No, no. Spiwit, siw. Um, bwavado. A touch of dewwing-do.

CENTURION: Oh. Ahh, about eleven, sir.

PILATE: So, you dare to waid us.

BRIAN: To what, sir?

PILATE: Stwike him, Centuwion, vewy woughly!

slap

BRIAN: Aaah!

CENTURION: Oh, and, uh, throw him to the floor, sir?

PILATE: What?

CENTURION: Thwow him to the floor again, sir?

PILATE: Oh, yes. Thwow him to the floor, please.

BRIAN: Aah!

whump

PILATE: Now, Jewish wapscallion.

BRIAN: I'm not Jewish. I'm a Roman.

PILATE: A Woman?

BRIAN: No, no. Roman.

slap

Aah!

PILATE: So, your father was a Woman. Who was he?

BRIAN: He was a centurion in the Jerusalem Garrisons.

PILATE: Weally? What was his name?

BRIAN: 'Nortius Maximus'.

CENTURION: Ahh, ha ha!

PILATE: Centuwion, do we have anyone of that name in the gawwison?

CENTURION: Well, no, sir.

PILATE: Well, you sound vewy sure. Have you checked?

CENTURION: Well, no, sir. Umm, I think it's a joke, sir,... like, uh, 'Sillius Soddus' or... 'Biggus Dickus', sir.

GUARD #4: chuckling

PILATE: What's so... funny about 'Biggus Dickus'?

CENTURION: Well, it's a joke name, sir.

PILATE: I have a vewy gweat fwiend in Wome called 'Biggus Dickus'.

GUARD #4: chuckling

PILATE: Silence! What is all this insolence? You will find yourself in gladiator school vewy quickly with wotten behavior like that.

BRIAN: Can I go now, sir?

slap

Aaah! Eh.

PILATE: Wait till Biggus Dickus hears of this.

GUARD #4: chuckling

PILATE: Wight! Take him away!

CENTURION: Oh, sir, he-- he only--

PILATE: No, no. I want him fighting wabid, wild animals within a week.

CENTURION: Yes, sir. Come on, you.

GUARD #4: Ha ha haa ha, ha ha ha. Hooo hooo hoo hoo. Hoo hoo...

PILATE: I will not have my fwiends widiculed by the common soldiewy. Anybody else feel like a little... giggle... when I mention my fwiend... Biggus...

GUARD #1: chuckling

PILATE: ...Dickus?

GUARD #1: chuckling

PILATE: What about you? Do you find it... wisible... when I say the name... 'Biggus'...

GUARD #3: chuckle

PILATE: ...'Dickus'?

GUARD #1 and GUARD #2: chuckling

PILATE: He has a wife, you know. You know what she's called? She's called... 'Incontinentia'. 'Incontinentia Buttocks'.

GUARDS: laughing

PILATE: Stop! What is all this?

GUARDS: Ha, ha ha ha ha ha...

PILATE: I've had enough of this wowdy webel sniggewing behavior. Silence! Call yourselves Pwaetowian guards? You're not-- Seize him! Seize him! Blow your noses and seize him!

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Here's the video...    

Here's the video...

 

 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Here's the video...

cj wrote:

Here's the video...

 

 

No matter how many times you see it, it's still funny.


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
wow...

So much fail on the part of Mr. Presup! Hey man, I can do it too!

1)I take what I currently think as being absolute without any evidence to back up said assertion.

2)I think something without any evidence since it sounds nice to me.

3)If I like the idea of something, therefore it must exist!

THEREFORE GOD!

Sorry Mr. Presup, but without any empirical evidence to back up your silly claims, we will treat you the same as anyone else who would claim that what they want to be real is real since they like the idea of it. All you've done is show us how gullible you are. But then again, none of us should be surprised, as your very name means that you proudly discount any empirical evidence that doesn't sit well with your preconceived notions of how you think the real world should be and not how it is.

Again, so much fail...

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the video cj!

I love Life of Brian. It's probably my favorite Monty Python movie.

What a great song!

 


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
 (4) Therefore, God

 (4) Therefore, God exists.

Logically and inescapably entailed by the premises stated and accepted thus far.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Okay, okay. So, we have: (1)

Okay, okay. So, we have:

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

(2) Objective moral values exist.

(3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

(4) Therefore, God exists.

 

Uuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhh.....................?????????????  

Here, watch this completely unrelated but somewhat related video.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Chuckle

 

Presuppositionalist wrote:

 (4) Therefore, God exists.

Logically and inescapably entailed by the premises stated and accepted thus far.

 

A logically proven god....

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck