I get to debate a Priest!

Matt-Evolved
Matt-Evolved's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2006-04-14
User is offlineOffline
I get to debate a Priest!

Within the next few weeks, my mom and my aunt (both Catholics) are arranging a meeting with me and this Catholic priest to discuss religious issues like does god exist and stuff like that.

I was just hoping you guys could outline the things that would really win this argument for me. I'm really not sure where to start and I'll have to bring a written-up outline to this debate. I'm just asking for some things to bring up at this debate.

Thanks for you help!

"I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough - I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race." -


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Gravity further relies on

Gravity further relies on space and mass for the attraction between bodies to exist. These further rely on something else to exist...ect. until the First Cause.

Gravity is a net force only when space and matter exist. What put matter and space together in such a way that matter began?

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Kemono
Posts: 137
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
I intend to reply in the

I intend to reply in the next few days.


Kemono
Posts: 137
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: The human

StMichael wrote:
The human mind is subsistent as the ability of humans to know does not depend on matter for its existence (which is the condition for its subsistence). The reasons offered have been mainly three: the mind can know all bodies (which cannot be explained if the mind were a material sense organ;


If 'know' is understood in a sufficient general sense (e.g. 'to possess and be able to utilize information' ), I am aware of no reason why a machine (like a brain or a computer) could not know all the bodies a mind can know.

StMichael wrote:
the mind knows more intelligible things more clearly (which would be the opposite if the mind were a sense organ),


It is not my position that the mind is a sense organ. My position is that the mind is what the brain does. The brain is not a sense organ and what the brain does is not identical with what the brain is.

StMichael wrote:
and the fact that the mind knows universals (which would be impossible if it were matter; matter is particular in character).


If by knowing universals is meant the utilization of universals in cognitive processes, I see no reason why this should be beyond the abilities of a machine. If something more profound is meant by knowing, it becomes hard to show that the mind indeed 'knows' universals in such a sense.

StMichael wrote:
Kemono wrote:
Yes. The behaviour of any object can be predicted without resorting to either the design stance or the intentional stance. However, computers belong to the small subset of things whose behaviour can be predicted in a much more economic manner (in terms of processing power) by resorting to the design stance: this machine is designed to do X; therefore pressing this button will likely result in X. The fact that such a cognitive shortcut is available is strong evidence that computers are designed. By contrast, no cognitive shortcut is available for determining the behaviour of rocks. The assumption of agency behind the rock's behaviour makes the calculations no simpler. Therefore the behaviour of the rock provides no evidence of agency.


Why not? We understand that the rock itself is not an agent, but it follows from the fact that it tends toward ends that a rational agent orders it.


An end can be posited for any phenomenon. It does not mean that everything is driven by an intelligence. We can distinguish between agent-driven phenomena and not-agent driven phenomena, and a rock falling is of the latter kind. The demarcation criterion is the one which I mentioned earlier: if the assumption of intelligence works as a cognitive shortcut for predicting the phenomenon, the phenomenon is driven by an intelligence.

StMichael wrote:
Kemono wrote:
Agency or intelligence can be recognized by trying the intentional stance on a phenomenon. If the new stance makes the predictions more economical (again, in terms of processing power), there is evidence of agency. This is not the case with falling rocks.


First, there is no reason “economy” ought to be the standard for causal explanation.


Agency is synonymous with intelligibility through the intentional stance. The economy criterion does not merely indicate agency; it is a definition of agency.

StMichael wrote:
Second, even assuming this, it is not less economic to posit an ordering God that causes rocks to proceed according to rules of nature.


Not less economic, but not more economic either. Contrast this with saying 'What is the time?' to a human. We can posit agency and make an educated guess about what he will do. This is much more efficient than trying to understand the person as a molecular machine, in which case we would spend the rest of our natural lives trying to figure out the neural impulses flowing through his brain and never get anywhere.

This is why a human's reaction to 'What is the time?' should be considered the act of an agent why the fall of a rock should not.

StMichael wrote:
Third, this is an “intention” if the rock achieves an end, just as if I were to move an arrow toward a target by my intentional firing of it.


There is no reason to posit an intention because it would not help us anticipate the behaviour of the rock.

StMicheal wrote:
Action does not assume change.


It is a strange definition of action indeed that does not assume change. Do you have any uncontroversial examples of actions without change?

StMichael wrote:
If the agent is the same as the act itself, no temporal priority need to postulated. Further, temporal priority is not the same as logical priority (look at causation in quantum mechanics where a logical priority is necessary, but a temporal priority is not). The act and the subject could be identical. This is the case with God, as His act of existing is identical with what He is.It also depends what you mean by “stability” because I think you are using the term univocally in a context where it can have equivocal meanings (agents cannot exist without what sort of “stability” versus the “stability” required in the universe). God’s “stability” as being is the ground of “stability” in general because it is the source of reality. God does not preexist this stability, but is the stability.


Agents must process information and they must act. Stability per se does neither. Stability can therefore not be an agent.

StMichael wrote:
Kemono wrote:
No, by desired results I mean knowledge that can be used effectively. People need information to solve problems (like 'how do I determine if this bridge design is strong enough to support X tonnes of weight' . There are many ways to get information, but some are more likely than others to provide the kind of information that solves the problem. The best method we have at the moment is to come up with hypotheses and try to disprove them. It is called science.


But this idea of what “works” or what is “desired results” presumes that notion that our ideas can really correspond to reality, and, hence, are true.


Indeed they must correspond to reality. This is not a problem for materialism.

StMichael wrote:
If we were to base science in just a practical consideration, what is the point? If I believe that the existence of a purple snarfwidget helps me to fry my toast “better,” what can you do, scientifically, to negate that? Nothing, as it would be based entirely on my pragmatic consideration.


If positing a purple snarfwidget really made predictions which help one fry toast, the purple snarfwidget hypothesis would probably be onto something. But of course it does no such thing.

StMichael wrote:
Further, it begs the question of what it is to do something in a “better” manner.


The existence of subjective preferences is scarcely controversial.

StMichael wrote:
Because minds are not equally susceptible to all ideas. A meme machine's fitness crucially depends on its tendency to be infected with fitness-increasing memes and not be infected with fitness-decreasing memes. For obvious reasons, it is in most (but certainly not all) cases fitness-increasing to hold true beliefs and fitness-decreasing to hold false beliefs.


But you beg the question of how true ideas are true. If ideas are merely infectious material entities, there can be no ground even to determine what is more of less “fitness-increasing.”


For natural selection to take place it is not necessary for anyone to have a concept of fitness or of anything else for that matter. Natural selection had been going on for four billion years on this planet before we even got here with our words and ideas.

StMichael wrote:
All standards of truth or falsity, better or worse, are then merely materially decided by the particular things existing in my material brain.


The terms hold no meaning and speech between agents would be impossible.


That does not follow. If two minds tend to conceptualize the same kinds of things, they can learn to recognize each other's concepts. When they do that, discourse becomes possible.

StMichael wrote:
My ideas would be in my brain and his ideas would be in his brain, and ne’er the two shall meet. Matter itself cannot be universal in the same way an idea can. If I wanted to speak to him my idea, I would need to put it into a sound, which would infect itself in his brain. But it would not be the same idea; it would be now his idea, existing in his numerically one brain. There could be no room for me to speak of “our” idea, but only of my own.


Perfect coincidence of concepts is not required for communication. It suffices to have some degree of overlap. This is evident when one thinks about foreign languages. For example, while the Japanese "水" (mizu) is not quite synonymous with the English "water", an English speaker who does not speak Japanese can avoid death by dehydration if he just assumes it means roughly the same as "water".

StMichael wrote:
Kemono wrote:
You may recall that in this context by metaphysical claims I mean unfalsifiable claims. Logical and mathematical claims are falsifiable and therefore not in this sense metaphysical. If the claim p is unfalsifiable, its veracity cannot be evaluated. It makes no sense to ask 'is p true'. The veracity of the claim must therefore be irrelevant for all practical considerations.


And you own statement that “only falsifiable claims are true” is not falsifiable.


Setting aside the fact that the wording is yours and not mine, I am not making unfalsifiable claims. My claim "It makes no sense to ask 'is p true' if p is unfalsifiable" could be falsified by showing a criterion by which the veracity of unfalsifiable claims can meaningfully by evaluated.

StMichael wrote:
Kemono wrote:
I do not see how either mathematics or logic can be falsifiable in the traditional sense.


Propositions in mathematics and logic can be falsified by proving that they contradict an axiom.

StMichael wrote:
If you consider that they are, then my metaphysical claims are justified because they are falsifiable (metaphysics proceeds from natural truths using logic and hence the same standards apply).


Yes, they would be justified if they were true.

StMichael wrote:
Kemono wrote:
The problem here is that you define knowing in a needlessly extravagant way. If knowing is defined in a way that makes it possible for an external observer to differentiate between knowing and not knowing, I see no reason why a purely material system (like the brain) could not display all those external signs of knowledge. While it is clear that minds know things in an everyday sense of the word 'know', it is not at all clear that they 'properly know' things, i.e. have subsistent thoughts about them.


What is “needlessly extravagant?” I find that statement highly arbitrary.


If I defined 'a duck' as 'a thing which has a duck-soul', I could make all kinds of claims about ducks and when someone would point out a duck whose behaviour contradicted my claims I would simply say, "that is not really a duck". Similarly, if you tell me that a mind knows something a material machine cannot and I counter by saying that there is no reason to think that machines could not know it, there would be a temptation for you to redefine 'know' in a way which would allow you to say, "the machine does not really know". I am pointing out this risk so that you may avoid it.

StMichael wrote:
Further, knowledge can be differentiated from non-knowing on external signs.


Which signs?

StMichael wrote:
Further, I know something in a universal way. I do not need to prove whether you know something in a universal way to prove that I do.


Please explain what it means to know something in a universal way and present evidence that you do.

StMichael wrote:
Further, a purely material system can only know particulars. A material system would be unable to know universals (the concept of “whiteness” or “blackness”); it would only know “X, Y…Z are black; A, B…C are white.”


Please explain:

1) what it means to know universals as opposed to particulars

2) what evidence there is that minds do this

3) what evidence there is that machines cannot do this.

The reason I am asking these questions is that I suspect we will find that depending on the definition of 'knowing universals', it will either be impossible to show that minds do or it will be impossible to show that machines cannot.

StMichael wrote:
Kemono wrote:
Do you hold on the basis of 'revelation' (the scare quotes are needed as there is no reason to think that these beliefs come from a higher power) any beliefs that affect your behaviour? I you do not, this 'revelation' thing seems of little import. If you do, you may be harming yourself and others by basing your actions on false beliefs.


We are assuming that the Revelation is comes from God; this is what makes it Revelation. However, I see no reason why my beliefs and my behaviors harm anyone else.


Here are two concrete examples: witch hunts and exorcisms. These acts of violence (mental and/or physical) are only possible because some poor deluded people believe in witchcraft and evil spirits. You may not personally take part in these acts of violence, but you give your tacit approval to the beliefs and even fund an entity which propagates them. Therefore you are partly responsible for the suffering and death caused by these acts now and in the future.

StMichael wrote:
Kemono wrote:
The claims 'every thing in motion has a mover' and 'there is a first mover' contradict each other.


The Prime Mover is not in motion at all. He only moves. He is pure act.


It would violate the conservation of momentum to 'move' (exert a force upon) an object without being oneself 'moved'.

StMichael wrote:
As nothing is not in motion that is not put in motion by another, every thing in motion has a mover.


This is not true. Motion is relative; whether an object is in motion or at rest depends only on our coordinate system. Any object that exists is by necessity in motion in an infinite number of coordinate systems.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I will, likewise, take some

I will, likewise, take some time in getting around to answering this.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:The human

StMichael wrote:The human mind is subsistent as the ability of humans to know does not depend on matter for its existence (which is the condition for its subsistence). The reasons offered have been mainly three: the mind can know all bodies (which cannot be explained if the mind were a material sense organ; If 'know' is understood in a sufficient general sense (e.g. 'to possess and be able to utilize information' ), I am aware of no reason why a machine (like a brain or a computer) could not know all the bodies a mind can know.

But a body cannot know universals. A mind can.  
Quote:
StMichael wrote:the mind knows more intelligible things more clearly (which would be the opposite if the mind were a sense organ), It is not my position that the mind is a sense organ. My position is that the mind is what the brain does. The brain is not a sense organ and what the brain does is not identical with what the brain is.
The mind is then an material organ, which is the same thing. It would then be the “organ that knows,” which could be said to be a sense organ if it were purely material, as knowledge would be a purely material phenomenon.  
Quote:
StMichael wrote:and the fact that the mind knows universals (which would be impossible if it were matter; matter is particular in character). If by knowing universals is meant the utilization of universals in cognitive processes, I see no reason why this should be beyond the abilities of a machine. If something more profound is meant by knowing, it becomes hard to show that the mind indeed 'knows' universals in such a sense.
A machine cannot understand the idea of “two-ness” or “dog-ness” in itself. It can merely associate particulars together in sets, without abstracting the universal from that set.
Quote:
StMichael wrote:Kemono wrote:Yes. The behaviour of any object can be predicted without resorting to either the design stance or the intentional stance. However, computers belong to the small subset of things whose behaviour can be predicted in a much more economic manner (in terms of processing power) by resorting to the design stance: this machine is designed to do X; therefore pressing this button will likely result in X. The fact that such a cognitive shortcut is available is strong evidence that computers are designed. By contrast, no cognitive shortcut is available for determining the behaviour of rocks. The assumption of agency behind the rock's behaviour makes the calculations no simpler. Therefore the behaviour of the rock provides no evidence of agency. Why not? We understand that the rock itself is not an agent, but it follows from the fact that it tends toward ends that a rational agent orders it.An end can be posited for any phenomenon. It does not mean that everything is driven by an intelligence. We can distinguish between agent-driven phenomena and not-agent driven phenomena, and a rock falling is of the latter kind. The demarcation criterion is the one which I mentioned earlier: if the assumption of intelligence works as a cognitive shortcut for predicting the phenomenon, the phenomenon is driven by an intelligence.
An end can be posited for some phenomenon, but things are not naturally ordered toward ends in a way that their action always or for the most part turns out for the better. This, however, is the case in natural processes such as chemical reactions where the reaction always tends toward stability.  
Quote:
StMichael wrote:Kemono wrote:Agency or intelligence can be recognized by trying the intentional stance on a phenomenon. If the new stance makes the predictions more economical (again, in terms of processing power), there is evidence of agency. This is not the case with falling rocks. First, there is no reason “economy” ought to be the standard for causal explanation.Agency is synonymous with intelligibility through the intentional stance. The economy criterion does not merely indicate agency; it is a definition of agency.
I am not sure what you mean here. I think you address it below, so I will answer it below/ 
Quote:
StMichael wrote:Second, even assuming this, it is not less economic to posit an ordering God that causes rocks to proceed according to rules of nature. Not less economic, but not more economic either. Contrast this with saying 'What is the time?' to a human. We can posit agency and make an educated guess about what he will do. This is much more efficient than trying to understand the person as a molecular machine, in which case we would spend the rest of our natural lives trying to figure out the neural impulses flowing through his brain and never get anywhere.This is why a human's reaction to 'What is the time?' should be considered the act of an agent why the fall of a rock should not.
There is no reason why “economy” ought to be the standard for the same reason as above. Economy does not give a good definition of what a thing is, so I would reject it prima facie. Also, it seems arbitrary as a standard. Finally, it is irrelevant because we know our acts interiorly without having to guess what another’s thoughts are. As long as we can prove that the human soul is immaterial and subsistent, there is no need to debate about whether I can tell if a computer is subsistent.  
Quote:
StMichael wrote:Third, this is an “intention” if the rock achieves an end, just as if I were to move an arrow toward a target by my intentional firing of it. There is no reason to posit an intention because it would not help us anticipate the behaviour of the rock.
Why not? If there was intent in action, why would this not help us to anticipate its behaviour?
Quote:
StMicheal wrote:Action does not assume change. It is a strange definition of action indeed that does not assume change. Do you have any uncontroversial examples of actions without change?
“Acting” involves change as a movement in time from potency to act; aka, I move the rock. Action itself can have change in its object, but this does not necessarily exist in the subject. My movement of the rock does not necessitate a change in my disposition.
Quote:
StMichael wrote:If the agent is the same as the act itself, no temporal priority need to postulated. Further, temporal priority is not the same as logical priority (look at causation in quantum mechanics where a logical priority is necessary, but a temporal priority is not). The act and the subject could be identical. This is the case with God, as His act of existing is identical with what He is.It also depends what you mean by “stability” because I think you are using the term univocally in a context where it can have equivocal meanings (agents cannot exist without what sort of “stability” versus the “stability” required in the universe). God’s “stability” as being is the ground of “stability” in general because it is the source of reality. God does not preexist this stability, but is the stability. Agents must process information and they must act. Stability per se does neither. Stability can therefore not be an agent.
God does not need to process information or act temporally. He acts in a matter of logical, not temporal priority, to the universe. God is the stability in that He forms the ground on/from which things can exist in this universe.  
Quote:
StMichael wrote:Kemono wrote:No, by desired results I mean knowledge that can be used effectively. People need information to solve problems (like 'how do I determine if this bridge design is strong enough to support X tonnes of weight' . There are many ways to get information, but some are more likely than others to provide the kind of information that solves the problem. The best method we have at the moment is to come up with hypotheses and try to disprove them. It is called science. But this idea of what “works” or what is “desired results” presumes that notion that our ideas can really correspond to reality, and, hence, are true.Indeed they must correspond to reality. This is not a problem for materialism.
Oh yes it is.How can an idea correspond to reality if it is numerically different and materially different from reality? The only way we could truly know something was if possessed the thing itself in our heads. Even then, the thing in our heads is not the thing being known in reality. Reality would be unable to be known at all. 
Quote:
StMichael wrote:If we were to base science in just a practical consideration, what is the point? If I believe that the existence of a purple snarfwidget helps me to fry my toast “better,” what can you do, scientifically, to negate that? Nothing, as it would be based entirely on my pragmatic consideration. If positing a purple snarfwidget really made predictions which help one fry toast, the purple snarfwidget hypothesis would probably be onto something. But of course it does no such thing.
Science is thus merely a matter of personal arbitrary decisions of what it is to make “predictions” about reality. Your terms are universals and not empirically able to be tested or hypothesized. Your standard of “economy” or of “making better empirical predictions” is a bad standard because it denies its own validity. 
Quote:
StMichael wrote:Further, it begs the question of what it is to do something in a “better” manner. The existence of subjective preferences is scarcely controversial.
But you are positing then that science becomes merely a game of personal preference. And as I could easily say that the purple snarfwidget makes me toast my toast BETTER, according to my subjective standard, there is no reason you ought to tell me I cannot posit the snarfwidget. 
Quote:
That does not follow. If two minds tend to conceptualize the same kinds of things, they can learn to recognize each other's concepts. When they do that, discourse becomes possible.
That is impossible in a purely material universe. My ideas are purely my own material entities. They are not the same as yours, because mine exist in my head and yours exist in your head. There can never ever be any overlap at all, even if similarity exists between them because of, at least, the numerical difference. We can never think the same idea, ever.
Quote:
StMichael wrote:My ideas would be in my brain and his ideas would be in his brain, and ne’er the two shall meet. Matter itself cannot be universal in the same way an idea can. If I wanted to speak to him my idea, I would need to put it into a sound, which would infect itself in his brain. But it would not be the same idea; it would be now his idea, existing in his numerically one brain. There could be no room for me to speak of “our” idea, but only of my own. Perfect coincidence of concepts is not required for communication. It suffices to have some degree of overlap. This is evident when one thinks about foreign languages. For example, while the Japanese "水" (mizu) is not quite synonymous with the English "water", an English speaker who does not speak Japanese can avoid death by dehydration if he just assumes it means roughly the same as "water".
But this is a bad analogy. You are already speaking of a world assuming universal concepts. Matter cannot have universal concepts. No overlap exists (except in a universal) between the line shaped like a “U” on this computer screen and the “U” on your computer screen. No knowledge is possible because knowledge is of universals, not of particulars. The universal idea of “water” exists in the English man’s understanding which he corroborates with a sound in another language. While he does not know that the term means exactly, he knows that it means something. Similarly, the Japanese man has an understanding of the concept “water” which is tied to a specific enunciation of sounds. If it were purely materialist, no communication could be possible. Even if I threw a glass of water on the Japanese man, it would never be identical with the “water” that existed in his brain and hence he could never process what was meant. 
Quote:
StMichael wrote:Kemono wrote:You may recall that in this context by metaphysical claims I mean unfalsifiable claims. Logical and mathematical claims are falsifiable and therefore not in this sense metaphysical. If the claim p is unfalsifiable, its veracity cannot be evaluated. It makes no sense to ask 'is p true'. The veracity of the claim must therefore be irrelevant for all practical considerations. And you own statement that “only falsifiable claims are true” is not falsifiable.Setting aside the fact that the wording is yours and not mine, I am not making unfalsifiable claims. My claim "It makes no sense to ask 'is p true' if p is unfalsifiable" could be falsified by showing a criterion by which the veracity of unfalsifiable claims can meaningfully by evaluated.
That is utterly irrelevant. It nevertheless remains an unfalsifiable claim according to empirical evidence. What, then, is the falsifiable standard of “unfalsifiability,” or even any of the other terms in the statement? I could equally say, as well, that God’s existence is a matter of falsifiability, as is a claim that the soul exists. It is possible to hold an opposite opinion. It is incorrect, but it is possible absolutely speaking. A metaphysical statement is not unfalsifiable in the sense that no contrary answer is possible. It would just be wrong.    
Quote:
StMichael wrote:Kemono wrote:I do not see how either mathematics or logic can be falsifiable in the traditional sense.Propositions in mathematics and logic can be falsified by proving that they contradict an axiom.
Metaphysics proceeds from axioms. There should be no contradiction, then. You can logically uphold that God exists according to logical necessity.  
Quote:
StMichael wrote:If you consider that they are, then my metaphysical claims are justified because they are falsifiable (metaphysics proceeds from natural truths using logic and hence the same standards apply). Yes, they would be justified if they were true.
Go ahead then. Feel free to accept that God exists any time.
Quote:
StMichael wrote:Kemono wrote:The problem here is that you define knowing in a needlessly extravagant way. If knowing is defined in a way that makes it possible for an external observer to differentiate between knowing and not knowing, I see no reason why a purely material system (like the brain) could not display all those external signs of knowledge. While it is clear that minds know things in an everyday sense of the word 'know', it is not at all clear that they 'properly know' things, i.e. have subsistent thoughts about them. What is “needlessly extravagant?” I find that statement highly arbitrary.If I defined 'a duck' as 'a thing which has a duck-soul', I could make all kinds of claims about ducks and when someone would point out a duck whose behaviour contradicted my claims I would simply say, "that is not really a duck". Similarly, if you tell me that a mind knows something a material machine cannot and I counter by saying that there is no reason to think that machines could not know it, there would be a temptation for you to redefine 'know' in a way which would allow you to say, "the machine does not really know". I am pointing out this risk so that you may avoid it.
“What is a duck” is the question that is begged? For it to be a duck in the first place, it must have a definition. This definition is a form of universal. It would be the same as saying, “This animal has a duck-soul, the essence of a duck, therefore it is a duck.” But the definition does depend on the actually existent thing. The universal of what a duck is exists only in the material conditions of duck-hood. But the universal is separate from an individual duck. Otherwise, we couldn’t say Donald is a duck because he would not be the same duck that I used to define duck that exists on my patio. A machine can only know particulars if it is truly only material. As a material machine, it can only know particulars because matter is by nature particular. A mind knows universals because immaterial substances are by nature universal.    
Quote:
StMichael wrote:Further, knowledge can be differentiated from non-knowing on external signs. Which signs?
A knower understands the essence of a thing. Speech is possible, as is irony.  
Quote:
StMichael wrote:Further, I know something in a universal way. I do not need to prove whether you know something in a universal way to prove that I do. Please explain what it means to know something in a universal way and present evidence that you do.
I know what the number two is. I do not have different numbers for every specific thing that exists. I have a universal concept of 2, whether it’s two shoes or fairies or pumpkins. 
Quote:
StMichael wrote:Further, a purely material system can only know particulars. A material system would be unable to know universals (the concept of “whiteness” or “blackness”); it would only know “X, Y…Z are black; A, B…C are white.”
Quote:
1) what it means to know universals as opposed to particulars
I showed above. 
Quote:
2) what evidence there is that minds do this
From the fact that I know 2, regardless of it being in apples or oranges. 
Quote:
3) what evidence there is that machines cannot do this.
A body only uses matter. Matter is by nature particular. A universal is unlimited and applies to any number of material bodies. A computer does not have a mind, an immaterial substance in which to know universals because it is entirely matter, and hence cannot have universal knowledge.  
Quote:
StMichael wrote:Kemono wrote:Do you hold on the basis of 'revelation' (the scare quotes are needed as there is no reason to think that these beliefs come from a higher power) any beliefs that affect your behaviour? I you do not, this 'revelation' thing seems of little import. If you do, you may be harming yourself and others by basing your actions on false beliefs. We are assuming that the Revelation is comes from God; this is what makes it Revelation. However, I see no reason why my beliefs and my behaviors harm anyone else.Here are two concrete examples: witch hunts and exorcisms. These acts of violence (mental and/or physical) are only possible because some poor deluded people believe in witchcraft and evil spirits. You may not personally take part in these acts of violence, but you give your tacit approval to the beliefs and even fund an entity which propagates them. Therefore you are partly responsible for the suffering and death caused by these acts now and in the future.
Witch hunts do not exist as condoned by the Catholic Church. I give no such support. Further, exorcisms do not do violence to a person when conducted according to the rules of the Catholic Church. You might be referring in both cases to Protestant fundamentalists who “beat” the demons out of them or something like this, but the Catholic Church does no such thing. I refer you to actually read the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” if you want to make claims about what we do or do not do.  
Quote:
StMichael wrote:Kemono wrote:The claims 'every thing in motion has a mover' and 'there is a first mover' contradict each other. The Prime Mover is not in motion at all. He only moves. He is pure act.It would violate the conservation of momentum to 'move' (exert a force upon) an object without being oneself 'moved'.
This only assumes physical force and that a body exerts the force. God does neither. God causes things to exist in motion, not to physically push a body.  
Quote:
StMichael wrote:As nothing is not in motion that is not put in motion by another, every thing in motion has a mover. This is not true. Motion is relative; whether an object is in motion or at rest depends only on our coordinate system. Any object that exists is by necessity in motion in an infinite number of coordinate systems.
If things are changing in any of these ways, that counts as motion. The thing in motion on any number of coordinate systems nevertheless possesses the energy of movement in its intertia, regardless of whether its movement is relative to a particular point. This is why a thing can collide with another in space. Movement might be relatively measured, but it exists as energy in the thing moved and the change in the object is observable.  Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


blacksheeplord
blacksheeplord's picture
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-01-20
User is offlineOffline
Yes when you get bogged

Yes when you get bogged down in reason, just dazzell them with idiocy. Maybe they will think you are insane. Maybe you should add:

#9 (or is it 10?) Just because they have well thoughtout and logical arguments that seem to refute whatever you have decided is true you can always retreat to overstatement, fallacies, made-up histories, and personal attacks. 

 


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Not an answer. Don't

Not an answer. Don't insinuate I'm lying or wrong unless you can justify your accusation, if that is what you are trying to do...

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
blacksheeplord wrote:

blacksheeplord wrote:

Yes when you get bogged down in reason, just dazzell them with idiocy. Maybe they will think you are insane.

Please remember that this is the "Kill 'Em With Kindness" forum. The rules are a little different here.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forums/sapient/kill_em_with_kindness/tentative_rules_for_this_forum

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Kemono
Posts: 137
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: A machine

StMichael wrote:
A machine cannot understand the idea of “two-ness” or “dog-ness” in itself. It can merely associate particulars together in sets, without abstracting the universal from that set.

You gave speech as an example of an external sign of knowing universals. Speaking machines exist. Therefore machines can know universals in your sense.

StMichael wrote:
How can an idea correspond to reality if it is numerically different and materially different from reality

An idea can correspond to reality in the sense that some mental models can predict future events (and ultimately, sensory inputs) more accurately than others. Why this is the case is not known.

Quote:
Witch hunts do not exist as condoned by the Catholic Church. I give no such support.Further, exorcisms do not do violence to a person when conducted according to the rules of the Catholic Church.

It is not relevant who is actually carrying out these acts. By failing to criticize these beliefs you and the Catholic church make it easier for everyone, not just Catholics, to hold them.

StMichael wrote:
Go ahead then. Feel free to accept that God exists any time.

No credible case for the existence of a deity has been presented.

StMichael wrote:
If things are changing in any of these ways, that counts as motion. The thing in motion on any number of coordinate systems nevertheless possesses the energy of movement in its intertia, regardless of whether its movement is relative to a particular point. This is why a thing can collide with another in space. Movement might be relatively measured, but it exists as energy in the thing moved and the change in the object is observable.

How is this relevant to my criticism that moving objects do not require a mover because all existing objects are by necessity in motion?


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: You gave speech as

Quote:

You gave speech as an example of an external sign of knowing universals. Speaking machines exist. Therefore machines can know universals in your sense.

Mouthing words is not the essence of speech. Understanding the concept is. Further, it doesn't matter for the argument's sake whether a machine might mimic our speech, but only the fact that I know with certainty that I can understand universals.

 

Quote:

An idea can correspond to reality in the sense that some mental models can predict future events (and ultimately, sensory inputs) more accurately than others. Why this is the case is not known.

Go ahead and destroy science with that comment. All knowledge is right out if there is no real correspondence between reality and the mind. If all we have are random things that arbitrarily predict phenomena better, your own statements are going to be contradictory when you say that we can know that with certainty.

 

Quote:

It is not relevant who is actually carrying out these acts. By failing to criticize these beliefs you and the Catholic church make it easier for everyone, not just Catholics, to hold them.

That's nonsense. The Catholic Church condemns violence against innocent persons in any context. Our belief in demonic possession does not morally validate the opinions of those who do so in a wrong way any more than your (assumed) knowledge of how to drive a car condones crimes committed in automobiles.

 

Quote:

No credible case for the existence of a deity has been presented.

Then why did you say, and I quote, "Yes, they would be justified if they were true."

 

Quote:

How is this relevant to my criticism that moving objects do not require a mover because all existing objects are by necessity in motion?

Because they are not in motion without a mover relatively speaking, or absolutely speaking, the energy conservation and momentum remains and requires a mover. In the last place, it is obvious to us that things are in motion, at least considered relatively, which is all that is necessary. All objects are not necessarily in motion, otherwise physics would have no reason to investigate motion in things, as well as other nasty consequences. Even relative rest "counts." I see no necessary reason to postulate that all things are always in motion. And even if all things are in motion, it still requires an absolute unmoved mover to set them in motion.

 

 

 Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Kemono
Posts: 137
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Mouthing

StMichael wrote:
Mouthing words is not the essence of speech. Understanding the concept is. Further, it doesn't matter for the argument's sake whether a machine might mimic our speech, but only the fact that I know with certainty that I can understand universals.

It matters very much because by your logic a machine that can speak and use irony has a subsistent soul, which is clearly absurd.

 

StMichael wrote:
Kemono wrote:

An idea can correspond to reality in the sense that some mental models can predict future events (and ultimately, sensory inputs) more accurately than others. Why this is the case is not known.

Go ahead and destroy science with that comment. All knowledge is right out if there is no real correspondence between reality and the mind.

The only thing that is required for science to work is the existence of predictable phenomena. If the correspondence between mental models and sensory input is not 'real' enough for you, that is your problem.

StMichael wrote:
If all we have are random things that arbitrarily predict phenomena better, your own statements are going to be contradictory when you say that we can know that with certainty.

I am not saying we know anything with certainty.

StMichael wrote:
Kemono wrote:

No credible case for the existence of a deity has been presented.

Then why did you say, and I quote, "Yes, they would be justified if they were true."


I am saying that I am not rejecting your 'proofs' on methodological grounds but on the grounds that they contain false premises and erroneus reasoning.

StMichael wrote:
Because they are not in motion without a mover relatively speaking, or absolutely speaking, the energy conservation and momentum remains and requires a mover. In the last place, it is obvious to us that things are in motion, at least considered relatively, which is all that is necessary. All objects are not necessarily in motion, otherwise physics would have no reason to investigate motion in things, as well as other nasty consequences. Even relative rest "counts." I see no necessary reason to postulate that all things are always in motion. And even if all things are in motion, it still requires an absolute unmoved mover to set them in motion.

Is it your position that

1) all objects which are in motion in one coordinate system or another require a mover

or that

2) all objects which are in motion in a given coordinate system require a mover?

If the former is the case, you are claiming that all existing objects require a mover. If this is your position, please provide evidence.

If the latter is the case, it follows that all objects both require and do not require a mover as each object is at rest in some coordinate systems and in motion in others.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: It matters very

Quote:
It matters very much because by your logic a machine that can speak and use irony has a subsistent soul, which is clearly absurd.

No machine can do that. But regardless of the status of the question of whether a machine can do it or not, I recognize clearly that my soul is subsistent from the nature of those thoughts. There is no need to compare my thoughts to a machine a priori. It's a red herring.

Quote:
The only thing that is required for science to work is the existence of predictable phenomena. If the correspondence between mental models and sensory input is not 'real' enough for you, that is your problem.

Then science is impossible. Science tries to make statements about the nature of reality. If it can't, there is no more science. It becomes merely an exercise in futility.

Quote:
I am not saying we know anything with certainty.

Including your statement that we cannot know anything with certainty? Infinite ad absurdum.

Quote:
I am saying that I am not rejecting your 'proofs' on methodological grounds but on the grounds that they contain false premises and erroneus reasoning.

You have not yet exposed any of these errors.

Quote:
Is it your position that

1) all objects which are in motion in one coordinate system or another require a mover

or that

2) all objects which are in motion in a given coordinate system require a mover?

Both.
If an object is in any form of motion (which is not just local motion measured on coordinate systems, but any variety of change), such requires a mover. For a thing to be in a state of movement between potency and actuality, it requires an actor that is in act. So, for the log to be really hot instead of just potentially so, it requires an actual heat. The same is true of local motion: if an object is to be in motion, it requires something to move it.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Father Vasily
Father Vasily's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Enjoy debate!

Mattheos,

Go and have good time with Catholic Priest. Maybe you go and make him think. If at best time just have cup of coffee and look at statues. Maybe if you bother him enough he convert to good church like Orthodoxy, no? haha sorry I make bad joke.

 Fr. Vasily


Father Vasily
Father Vasily's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Enjoy debate!

I keep double-posting. How why it does this?


Kemono
Posts: 137
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: But

StMichael wrote:
But regardless of the status of the question of whether a machine can do it or not, I recognize clearly that my soul is subsistent from the nature of those thoughts. There is no need to compare my thoughts to a machine a priori.

From the nature of your thoughts you clearly recognize that your soul is subsistent? You are free to conclude what you will, but you have not presented any evidence or reasoning why such a conclusion is warranted. Your only argument seems to be the rather inane word-game that 'the mind is not limited to a particular species of material body'. A reader would have to be obtuse indeed to not see through such elementary trickery. That the objects of the mind's powers of perception are not limited to a particular kind of body implies nothing about whether the mind requires a brain for its existence.

StMichael wrote:
Kemono wrote:
The only thing that is required for science to work is the existence of predictable phenomena. If the correspondence between mental models and sensory input is not 'real' enough for you, that is your problem.
Then science is impossible. Science tries to make statements about the nature of reality. If it can't, there is no more science. It becomes merely an exercise in futility.

So it could help us cure disease and build bridges and aquaducts but it would not 'really' be science because it would not 'really' make statements about the nature of reality?

StMichael wrote:
Kemono wrote:
I am not saying we know anything with certainty.
Including your statement that we cannot know anything with certainty? Infinite ad absurdum.

Did I say we cannot know anything with certainty? I do not recall saying it, but I may have. If I did, I probably meant that we probably cannot know anything with certainty. Now you will probably see that it is tedious to write 'probably' every time one makes a claim. However, the probable uncertainty of everything probably does not make logical thought impossible. It is probably possible to operate with approximate probabilities.

Let me reiterate without excessive use of the word 'probably'. There is probably nothing that can be known without some uncertainty. That does not make science, logical thinking or life in general impossible. We can come to terms with uncertainty.

StMichael wrote:
If an object is in any form of motion (which is not just local motion measured on coordinate systems, but any variety of change), such requires a mover. For a thing to be in a state of movement between potency and actuality, it requires an actor that is in act. So, for the log to be really hot instead of just potentially so, it requires an actual heat. The same is true of local motion: if an object is to be in motion, it requires something to move it.

Would you be kind enough to rewrite this obscure pre-scientific philosophy in terms that make sense in the light of modern physics.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: StMichael

Quote:
StMichael wrote:

But regardless of the status of the question of whether a machine can do it or not, I recognize clearly that my soul is subsistent from the nature of those thoughts. There is no need to compare my thoughts to a machine a priori.

From the nature of your thoughts you clearly recognize that your soul is subsistent? You are free to conclude what you will, but you have not presented any evidence or reasoning why such a conclusion is warranted.

I presented three different arguments, which all conclude that a soul is subsistent: the fact that it knows universals which don't exist in matter, the fact that it can know all bodies, and the fact that it knows more intelligible things more clearly. All of which demonstrate that the soul is subsistent.

Quote:

Your only argument seems to be the rather inane word-game that 'the mind is not limited to a particular species of material body'. A reader would have to be obtuse indeed to not see through such elementary trickery. That the objects of the mind's powers of perception are not limited to a particular kind of body implies nothing about whether the mind requires a brain for its existence.

Why not? Just saying it is not is not a reason. If the mind can know all bodies, it is not in any way a body, but entirely incorporeal. If incorporeal, the mind obviously has an operation "per se" because it doesn't need the body to have the ability to know. Thus, the soul is clearly incorporeal and subsistent if it can know all bodies.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Kemono wrote:

The only thing that is required for science to work is the existence of predictable phenomena. If the correspondence between mental models and sensory input is not 'real' enough for you, that is your problem.

Then science is impossible. Science tries to make statements about the nature of reality. If it can't, there is no more science. It becomes merely an exercise in futility.


Quote:

So it could help us cure disease and build bridges and aquaducts but it would not 'really' be science because it would not 'really' make statements about the nature of reality?

If it can do those things, it really says something about reality. If it could not definitively say whether some medicine can heal a particular ailment, it would be utterly unable to do these things. A correspondence between reality and our science must exist if science is to be at all meaningful. Otherwise, it's just sounds coming out of evolved apes without any meaning whatsoever. We just poke things into other people's liver and magic happens which causes somebody to get better. It would be the entire and complete antithesis of science and reason if there were no correspondence. Every action would happen by chance or magic.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Kemono wrote:

I am not saying we know anything with certainty.

Including your statement that we cannot know anything with certainty? Infinite ad absurdum.

Quote:

Did I say we cannot know anything with certainty? I do not recall saying it, but I may have. If I did, I probably meant that we probably cannot know anything with certainty. Now you will probably see that it is tedious to write 'probably' every time one makes a claim. However, the probable uncertainty of everything probably does not make logical thought impossible. It is probably possible to operate with approximate probabilities.

If some probability exists, it definitively exists. Otherwise all knowledge is probable and no knowledge at all is able to be had. There at least has to be some basic knowledge of reality in general if any science is to exist. Some knowledge is certainly probable, but if all was there could be no science or thought.

Quote:

Let me reiterate without excessive use of the word 'probably'. There is probably nothing that can be known without some uncertainty. That does not make science, logical thinking or life in general impossible. We can come to terms with uncertainty.

It is certain that there is uncertainty.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

If an object is in any form of motion (which is not just local motion measured on coordinate systems, but any variety of change), such requires a mover. For a thing to be in a state of movement between potency and actuality, it requires an actor that is in act. So, for the log to be really hot instead of just potentially so, it requires an actual heat. The same is true of local motion: if an object is to be in motion, it requires something to move it.

Quote:

Would you be kind enough to rewrite this obscure pre-scientific philosophy in terms that make sense in the light of modern physics.

It is not physics, hence it is not written in physical terms. But, act and potency: a log is potentially on fire. But it requires some agent - some actor possessing energy - that causes it to actually be on fire. Or, kinetic and potential energy: a ball at 200 feet above the ground potentially has energy in falling, but is not actually falling. When released, it actually falls. Act and potency.
What does this have to do with what I am talking about? Any change in any form requires some actor - some initial thing that causes the change. So, the motion of any thing or any perception of motion in a thing requires that some thing is changing, and that some other thing has caused that thing to change. Time, for instance, is one variety of change; the thing is potentially in the future and in the past, but actually in the present, and it constantly moves through various stages of actuality and potency to the past, present, and future. The change of chemical substances - the iron is potentially rust, but only actually becomes such in the presence of oxidizing agents.
Now, we do see things that are changing - in motion - all around us. But things that are in motion require other things that act upon them in order for those things to be in motion. There can be no infinite regress in movers, otherwise no motion would exist (as all motion exist only insofar as the moving thing has been put in motion by another). Then, we have to posit one Prime Mover, which moves other things but is not itself moving. This is what we call God.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


ChosenByPasta
ChosenByPasta's picture
Posts: 141
Joined: 2006-08-08
User is offlineOffline
Matt-Evolved wrote: Within

Matt-Evolved wrote:
Within the next few weeks, my mom and my aunt (both Catholics) are arranging a meeting with me and this Catholic priest to discuss religious issues like does god exist and stuff like that. I was just hoping you guys could outline the things that would really win this argument for me. I'm really not sure where to start and I'll have to bring a written-up outline to this debate. I'm just asking for some things to bring up at this debate. Thanks for you help!


I personally try not to approach an argument with the hope that I will win it. I think it's unethical. I always approach a discussion with the goal of learning more, understanding someone else's position, and pointing out their bad reasoning if I can find it. Logic should be about searching for a truth, finding it, and sharing it with others.  If you use correct reasoning, all of the debunking will take place on it's own.

In this situation, however, it is reasonable to approach it with somewhat of a bias because, come on, it's a priest! haha.  But just go there with an open mind. You have the easiest job and nothing to break a sweat over. You don't have to demonstrate anything. He is the one who is trying to get you to believe in a god in the first place. If he thinks you should believe in the existence of a god, make him do all of the explaining. Just listen to his arguments and wait for the fallacies and then just say things like "so wait, explain that to me", and just point out the contradicitons. Reason is the final court of appeal.

If you already haven't, you should read atheism: the case against god by george smith. I haven't read a better book than that yet, and noone has ever told me otherwise. Just make him explain his terms, you will push him into a corner and his arguments will become subjective whims. If he wants to continue believing in his nonsense, that's his fault. You just have to point out that he deserves no respect for intellectual honesty.

Beware of theisitic tools of evasion. When he avoids the points of "is theism true?" or "what reasons are there for believing in a god?" point it out. He will try to psychologize you to establish the validity of his position. Do not tolerate it. A life based on a delusion has nothing to do with intellectual truth. If he fails to demonstrate why you should believe in a god, the validty of atheism will be established.

Don't sweat it, and good luck!

"Every true faith is infallible -- It performs what the believing person hopes to find in it. But it does not offer the least support for the establishing of an objective truth. Here the ways of men divide. If you want to achieve peace of mind and happiness, have faith. If you want to be a disciple of truth, then search." - Nietzsche


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Matt-Evolved wrote: Within

Matt-Evolved wrote:
Within the next few weeks, my mom and my aunt (both Catholics) are arranging a meeting with me and this Catholic priest to discuss religious issues like does god exist and stuff like that. I was just hoping you guys could outline the things that would really win this argument for me. I'm really not sure where to start and I'll have to bring a written-up outline to this debate. I'm just asking for some things to bring up at this debate. Thanks for you help!

If I can assume that, given the fact that you'll be having this discussion with a catholic priest, he will be arguing the existence of the CATHOLIC god, then I would stick to the obvious and most damaging position -- the bible's fallibility.  Load up on biblical contradictions, insane statutes, the way in which it was compiled, etc.  That help any?

 

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Except that a Catholic God

Except that a Catholic God is not proven from Scripture, but from reason (would it make sense, anyway, to try to prove God's existence because "the Bible says so?"). And then there is the fact that Catholics don't just take the Bible alone as justification for their beliefs.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

EDIT: Oh, and their position is that the composition of the Bible was by the Church, and so attacks on Protestant fundamentalists don't really work there either.

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Except

StMichael wrote:
Except that a Catholic God is not proven from Scripture, but from reason (would it make sense, anyway, to try to prove God's existence because "the Bible says so?&quotEye-wink

The catholic god isnt proven from anything, nor does scripture provide proof for anything. It doesnt make sense to prove god's existence because the bible says so, but I would argue that millions of believers do exactly that(I'd bet the proverbial farm that this priest in question will have nothing else to offer either). 16 years of catholic schooling, and I never heard of one other source that contributed to the catholic framework other than the bible.

.

Quote:
And then there is the fact that Catholics don't just take the Bible alone as justification for their beliefs. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael EDIT: Oh, and their position is that the composition of the Bible was by the Church, and so attacks on Protestant fundamentalists don't really work there either.

As far as the basis for believing that jesus was the son of god, was buried, etc., they sure as hell do. That story doesnt exist anywhere else. The compilation of the bible by the church is exactly what our future debater here should be picking apart.

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The catholic god

Quote:
The catholic god isnt proven from anything, nor does scripture provide proof for anything.

I would argue you can know that clearly from natural reason. For example, I can observe the world around me and see that there are things which are dependent beings - they depend on other things for their existence. So, the cat Bob isn't the cause of its own existence, but was brought into being by the cat Joe. So, it is not necessary for it "to be." The same is true of me and you - we were both born and will both die. But, if all things were dependent beings, which relied on other dependent beings for their existence ad infintum, no beings would exist. The entire series would lack existence. But this is not the case. Thus, we have to posit one being which is the cause of its own existence - God.
Scripture is Revelation. If you accept that God has so revealed Scripture, it can prove a great deal.

Quote:
It doesnt make sense to prove god's existence because the bible says so, but I would argue that millions of believers do exactly that(I'd bet the proverbial farm that this priest in question will have nothing else to offer either).

Yes...I agreed with you that it doesn't...and?
Millions of Catholics doing such is nonsense. I know of no Catholic who tries to establish the existence of God from Scripture alone. Also, priests are better informed than that in almost every circumstance.

Quote:
16 years of catholic schooling, and I never heard of one other source that contributed to the catholic framework other than the bible.

Other than, say, the Pope or the teaching of the Church or of Tradition? Or, natural reason? I would find it odd to go through sixteen years of Catholic school without hearing an inkling about the Pope...

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: I would

StMichael wrote:
I would argue you can know that clearly from natural reason. For example, I can observe the world around me and see that there are things which are dependent beings - they depend on other things for their existence. So, the cat Bob isn't the cause of its own existence, but was brought into being by the cat Joe. So, it is not necessary for it "to be." The same is true of me and you - we were both born and will both die. But, if all things were dependent beings, which relied on other dependent beings for their existence ad infintum, no beings would exist. The entire series would lack existence. But this is not the case. Thus, we have to posit one being which is the cause of its own existence - God.

You can argue that all you want, and I could then go on and argue then that something would have needed to create god, and then god's god needs a creator ad nauseum. It's the fork in the road in which people choose to either believe that or not. However, favoring my side is the fact that you have no proof of the existence of something, whereas I have no such burden(you cant be asked to prove a negative).

Quote:
Scripture is Revelation. If you accept that God has so revealed Scripture, it can prove a great deal.

Scripture is a book of fables, campfire stories and legends pilfered from previous "religions." Not to mention an incohesive mess. If you choose to accept that god wants you to start stoning to death non-virgin women, it sure proves something alright...

Quote:
Yes...I agreed with you that it doesn't...and? Millions of Catholics doing such is nonsense. I know of no Catholic who tries to establish the existence of God from Scripture alone.

I was arguing that the majority of catholicism DOES argue their belief in god based solely upon scripture. Dont know any? Well, come to Chicago someday, I'll introduce you to a few thousand. Even if they argued the existence of a "supreme being" through other means, if they consider themselves to be catholic, then they have to come back to the bible eventually because it's the only place where the tenets of catholicism can be found.

Quote:
Also, priests are better informed than that in almost every circumstance.

You give catholic priests far too much credit.

Quote:
Other than, say, the Pope or the teaching of the Church or of Tradition?

Which are all derived from?????????

Quote:
Or, natural reason? I would find it odd to go through sixteen years of Catholic school without hearing an inkling about the Pope... Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

I know quite a bit about the pope(s). With the exception of their being, again, well-versed in scripture, they dont offer much. Except for that cool car, that is.

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: You can argue that

Quote:
You can argue that all you want, and I could then go on and argue then that something would have needed to create god, and then god's god needs a creator ad nauseum. It's the fork in the road in which people choose to either believe that or not. However, favoring my side is the fact that you have no proof of the existence of something, whereas I have no such burden(you cant be asked to prove a negative).

I never claimed you ought to prove that no god exists.
However, your position is a misunderstanding of my position. Again, I never say that every being needs a cause. I merely point to the fact that there ARE things in the world which are dependent and need a cause. We cannot proceed to infinity with dependent causes, but must posit one being which is necessarily existent. It is necessary that one being be this way to account for the existence of dependent beings. AKA, God is necessary to account for the existence of other things. It is foolish to ask, "What caused God?" because His entire point is to suffice as the necessary cause of all other beings. If anything caused something Him, it would be God and the other thing would be a dependent cause.

Quote:

I was arguing that the majority of catholicism DOES argue their belief in god based solely upon scripture. Dont know any? Well, come to Chicago someday, I'll introduce you to a few thousand. Even if they argued the existence of a "supreme being" through other means, if they consider themselves to be catholic, then they have to come back to the bible eventually because it's the only place where the tenets of catholicism can be found.

It is most certainly not. Where in Scripture will you find the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary? Where in Scripture does it explicitly state the infallibility of the Pope of Rome? I would argue that these are supported by Scripture, but it would be foolish to say that these are clearly and explicitly laid out in the same manner as the doctrine we have today.

Quote:

Which are all derived from?????????

Christ.

Quote:
I know quite a bit about the pope(s). With the exception of their being, again, well-versed in scripture, they dont offer much. Except for that cool car, that is.

First, the last and the current Pope both have and do write philosophy. They do not just argue from Scripture. In fact, that just shows that you have not read anything the Popes have written. I ask you to go ahead and read the Regensburg lecture of Benedict the XVI. Tell me all he does is repeat Scripture.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: I never

StMichael wrote:
I never say that every being needs a cause. I merely point to the fact that there ARE things in the world which are dependent and need a cause. We cannot proceed to infinity with dependent causes, but must posit one being which is necessarily existent. It is necessary that one being be this way to account for the existence of dependent beings.

That is a convenient, and logically shaky, jump to "ergo, god exists!" In any case, the argument only can be used in terms of debating a "lifeform"(or whatever) that created our universe. A "supreme being," if you will. However, using it to prove the catholic fabrication of god is completely useless. Going back to my original post on this topic, our debater here was debating a catholic priest, and I was suggesting he argue against the catholic version, rather than get into a metaphysical discussion about an overall creator.

Quote:
AKA, God is necessary to account for the existence of other things. It is foolish to ask, "What caused God?" because His entire point is to suffice as the necessary cause of all other beings.

Again, awfully convenient.

Quote:
It is most certainly not. Where in Scripture will you find the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary? Where in Scripture does it explicitly state the infallibility of the Pope of Rome? I would argue that these are supported by Scripture, but it would be foolish to say that these are clearly and explicitly laid out in the same manner as the doctrine we have today.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Matthew:18-25

Even if it wasnt explicitly spelled out here, how is it not laughable that the catholic church, in the midst of the prudish victorian era, would start issuing edicts concerned with sex? And, where did the pope even get the idea? Pulled out of thin air? No, the idea came from the bible, whether or not it is explicitly mentioned therein.

Quote:
Christ.

Who only exists where?

Quote:
First, the last and the current Pope both have and do write philosophy. They do not just argue from Scripture. In fact, that just shows that you have not read anything the Popes have written. I ask you to go ahead and read the Regensburg lecture of Benedict the XVI. Tell me all he does is repeat Scripture. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

I admittedly had not read the Regensburg lecture, so at your suggestion I did(quickly, I'll admit). Benedict seems to like the Stoic view of god that we've already talked about(in arguing god as reason), only he does reference the bible quite a few times.(The use of the burning bush story was my favorite). He certainly didnt say anything new in the lecture, and I saw nothing in the text that would cause me to take back my "they dont offer much" remark. I'll read it again more closely when I have a bit more time and see if I missed anything substantial.

 

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: That is a

Quote:

That is a convenient, and logically shaky, jump to "ergo, god exists!" In any case, the argument only can be used in terms of debating a "lifeform"(or whatever) that created our universe. A "supreme being," if you will. However, using it to prove the catholic fabrication of god is completely useless. Going back to my original post on this topic, our debater here was debating a catholic priest, and I was suggesting he argue against the catholic version, rather than get into a metaphysical discussion about an overall creator.

First, you have not shown how "logically shaky" this argument is. If you want to maintain a fallacy exists, show it.
Second, this argument would show that a necessary being does exist, which is what God is. Hence, it proves God's existence as the necessary being which is the source of the existence of all things.

The Catholic "version" identifies itself with this "overall creator." Likewise, this "overall creator" exists and is most properly called God, being all-knowing, all-powerful and the like.

Quote:

Again, awfully convenient.

That isn't an argument against its truth.

Quote:

Even if it wasnt explicitly spelled out here, how is it not laughable that the catholic church, in the midst of the prudish victorian era, would start issuing edicts concerned with sex? And, where did the pope even get the idea? Pulled out of thin air? No, the idea came from the bible, whether or not it is explicitly mentioned therein.

The Immaculate Conception is of the stainless conception of Our Lady without original sin, not of the virgin birth of Christ.
The idea for issuing the dogma about the Immaculate Conception was taken from Tradition, which holds that Our Lady was born without original sin. This Tradition (with a capital T) is one of the essential components the Catholic Church uses in its interpretation of what Scripture means.

Quote:

Who only exists where?

He did exist in history and, assuming you are Christian, in heaven. We get our interpretation of Scripture and essential doctrines of the Church directly from Christ, passed down through the centuries in the apostolic succession. This is a good deal of what the Catholic Church teaches.

Quote:

I admittedly had not read the Regensburg lecture, so at your suggestion I did(quickly, I'll admit). Benedict seems to like the Stoic view of god that we've already talked about(in arguing god as reason), only he does reference the bible quite a few times.(The use of the burning bush story was my favorite). He certainly didnt say anything new in the lecture, and I saw nothing in the text that would cause me to take back my "they dont offer much" remark. I'll read it again more closely when I have a bit more time and see if I missed anything substantial.

Of course he references Scripture. But he does not only speak of Scripture. I also point to the encyclical letter of "Fides et Ratio" by John Paul II, which is much more clearly philosophical. The Regensburg lecture was just an example of a Pope using philosophy. Also, in fact, John Paul II was actually a philosopher, not a theologian. His particular area was moral philosophy.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:

Quote:
First, you have not shown how "logically shaky" this argument is. If you want to maintain a fallacy exists, show it.

It's completely illogical because, 1) There is no logical basis for presuming that god is the end(or start, depending on your viewpoint) of the line. And 2) Even if there were a "terminator," there is completely no justification for granting it attributes such as goodness, ESP, omniscience/omnipresence(another crock logically speaking), etc. Now, if I assumed incorrectly, and you were talking about a god that doesn't claim these traits, then I apologize for my assumption.

Quote:
Second, this argument would show that a necessary being does exist, which is what God is. Hence, it proves God's existence as the necessary being which is the source of the existence of all things.

I disagree, see above.

Quote:
The Catholic "version" identifies itself with this "overall creator." Likewise, this "overall creator" exists and is most properly called God, being all-knowing, all-powerful and the like.

Again, I disagree. And, as for your "all-knowing, all-powerful" claim, I liberally steal from Richard Dawkins -- "If god is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent."

Quote:
The Immaculate Conception is of the stainless conception of Our Lady without original sin, not of the virgin birth of Christ. The idea for issuing the dogma about the Immaculate Conception was taken from Tradition, which holds that Our Lady was born without original sin. This Tradition (with a capital T) is one of the essential components the Catholic Church uses in its interpretation of what Scripture means.

Well, aren't I a moron? I seem to have my terminology mixed up. Some good catholic I was! Getting back on track, so let me get this straight. The bible says Jesus was born without sin, but the bible does NOT say that Mary was sinless, thus potentially causing a problem. So, pope Pius XI, in 1854 says, "Wait a second, Mary couldnt have been cursed with original sin if Jesus was born sinless, so we decree that Mary was without original sin!" I hope the catholic priest brings that up in his conversation with our original poster. That concept is flimsy with a HUGE capital 'F'.

 

Quote:
I also point to the encyclical letter of "Fides et Ratio" by John Paul II, which is much more clearly philosophical.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll take a look at it a little later.

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
It seems todangst is having

It seems todangst is having me banned because he disagrees with me, and calls everything I say a "lie." As such, I cannot continue this post and post it as is. I'll be praying for all of you and wish you the best.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.