3 of 4
3
Poll
is there a good way to defend the three arguments?
no 8
yes 2
agnostic 1
Total Votes: 11
You must be a logged-in member to vote
Existence - Arguments about Him- that square circle
Posted: 08 August 2010 10:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2010-08-01
Carneades [ lord griggs1947] - 15 November 2006 12:01 PM

Existence [ the Multiverse] is the first cause , ultimate explanation , greatest and necessary being and through natural selection without plan the great arranger of life forms. So , the cosmological, ontological and the teleological arguments are useless . This argument I got from Quentin Smith in his book on religion and ethics. The cosmological argument rests on the circular argument that there is a starting point and the teleological one rests on our being the result of a super mind’s action. The other one rests on the joke that perfection has a definition.    As Jonathan Harrisson in his "God , Freedom and Immortality," maintains it takes a case of more than one object to compare with: one can ask why there is nothing in one room , but many things in another ; but that is not the case with the Multiverse. There is only this one. So it does not make sense to ask why Existence is. It is not just that we do not know how to answer it correctly. There is nothing that could count a correct answer to it," he notes. :D smile See the two category mistake for more on the teleological argument.

Mayhaps some one denizen herein would be so kind as to define existence as it is being used herein?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2010 10:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2010-08-01

The Kalam is the temporal version of the cosmological family of arguments that states that there must be a starting point, because there can be no actual infinity. Muslim philosophers composed it, and Craig is trying to rehabilitate it. Now the premiss of that start is a non sequitur, because we find sub-atomic events without causes, and thus no starting point. 

Assuming the premise is true then God must also have a starting point or he does not actually exist. Thus Kalam kicks itself into the abyss of infinite regress which nullifies its initial premise.


      Flew made this argument implicitly as he didn’t mention its name decades ago before his dementia ; dishonest people are trying to use him as an ex-atheist now supporting their position when he is only a deist. See what my friend Richard Carrier states about hm @ FRDB’s library.
      Aquinas’s argument is that the First Cause is the ultimate explanation. Leibniz’s sufficient reason is that only He can be that explanation. The ignostic-Ockham dismisses both as nebulous- no there there.They cannot then override the presumption of empiricism, naturalism, rationalism and skepticism. There are not facts for them. Natural causes are sufficient. Reason overrides faith for them. And thus they lack any provisional basis.

Indeed, the primitive mind must have found the complexity of nature overwhelming, coupled with an underlying sense that there must be something foundational to it all, and took the right idea in the wrong direction. If everything I see is so complex and mysterious, then its progenator must be even more so. Yet even modern science still looks for that elusive unifying theory. Alas that pesky sense of something foundational just has to exist somewhere in all this data, if only we can tune our instruments to the correct frequencies, etc.

      Leibniz’s big blunder rests on the proposition that nothing would be more reasonable to exist [!] than Existence were there not God. Nothing is nebulous here. The quanta field are eternal. One might state that it would take God to create that nothing!
      Stenger posits nothing as those fields, not nothingness.

And the existence of nothing is a contradiction in terms, therefore something has always existed.

      Is Santa Claus the sufficient reason and ultimate explanation for giving gifts to children at Christmas? Are gremlins and demons such reasons and explanations?
      Craig and Richard Swinburne maintain that there must be that personal explanation. They cannot fathom that that is just their preference! More against that anon.
        As George S.Smith notes, one conflates a natural process with a teleological one when she states that living things are comparable to watches. This is the nonsense behind that oxymoron creationist evolution noted @ that other thread .
      The Ground of Being’s incoherency next time.


Unfortunately, the more we learn and theorize, the more we realize how little we really know. Why should Muons display a characteristic of preferring to exist in a state of matter rather than anti-matter a greater percentage of the time? Why should complex chemical compounds procreate when the energy depleted in procreation delimits their temporality? Why should we not admit that sentience/thought is another, more refined force of energy?

[ Edited: 08 August 2010 10:52 AM by whynot ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2010 09:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  39
Joined  2010-06-11

whynot, my idea is that as everyday arrives on
time forever by successive addition, then infinity ever adds more days but never completes itself! A double whammy!  And how can WLC’s actual infinity be infinty if it completes itself? I understand what he means by actual and potential are idiosyncratic,eh? Samuel M. Thompson makes a similar argument. Anon.
  thales@ blogger.com
  .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
  strato of ga.@ blogger.com
carneades thales strato of ga. @ atheist bloggers.com
other blogs

[ Edited: 09 August 2010 03:49 PM by Carneades Thales Strato of Ga. [griggsy ] ]
 Signature 

[size=6][/“size][color=redLife is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning>” Inquiring Lynn
      ” God is in a worse condition than the Scarecrow, who had a body to which a mind could enter whilst He has neither. He is that married bachelor. No wonder he is ineffable. ” Ignostic Morgan
” Religion is mythinformation.” An Englishlman.
  ” Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.” Griggsy[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2010 08:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2010-08-01
Carneades Thales Strato of Ga. [griggsy ] - 08 August 2010 09:24 PM

whynot, my idea is that as everyday arrives on
time forever by successive addition, then infinity ever adds more days but never completes itself! A double   And how can WLC’s actual infinity be infinty if it completes itself? I understand what he means by actual and potential are idiosyncratic,eh? Samuel M. Thompson makes a similar argument. Anon.
  thales@ blogger.com
  .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
  strato of ga.@ blogger.com
carneades thales strato of ga. @ atheist bloggers.com
other blogs

I agree. Dilineation between potential infinities and actual/completed infinities are ideosyncratic. An actual infinity will ever be nothing more than a potential. What would a completed infinity look like? It would cease to be an infinity. The only example of an actual infinity would be to arbitrarily choose a point on a circle and begin establishing points around the circle ad infinitum. At least you have something to work with. The circle itself is an actuality whereas the division into points around and around the circle ad infinitum is the potential.  Mayhaps WLC is just conjuring up a jump from one circularity to another?

BTW, could you please define “Existence” as you are using it in your responses?

[ Edited: 09 August 2010 08:28 AM by whynot ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2010 03:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  39
Joined  2010-06-11

whynot, I use the term Existence for all there is which by factual definition [Lee Smolin], excludes God, and thus He can not be the transcendental Primary Cause! And if He is transcendent, He cannot be omnipresent and thus, affirms the ignostic challenge! A double whammy!
  Existence being so, there can be no exterior to it and no whence it came! It expands into itself!
whynot, please address yourself to Thompson’s quotes in my post 27. Yesterday somewhere that I’ll have to find later, I gave my cursory view about his thought in them. What do you find to be his sophisticated solecistic sophistry?

[ Edited: 09 August 2010 04:27 PM by Carneades Thales Strato of Ga. [griggsy ] ]
 Signature 

[size=6][/“size][color=redLife is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning>” Inquiring Lynn
      ” God is in a worse condition than the Scarecrow, who had a body to which a mind could enter whilst He has neither. He is that married bachelor. No wonder he is ineffable. ” Ignostic Morgan
” Religion is mythinformation.” An Englishlman.
  ” Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.” Griggsy[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 August 2010 09:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2010-08-01
Carneades [ lord griggs1947] - 21 December 2009 12:12 AM

In ” A Modern Philosophy of Religion,” Samuel M Thompson uses the Kalam without its name ,stating that it stems from the time of Zeno. I think that like Parmenides’s arguments ,it fails. He states that yes, in arithmetic there is infinity, but one recognizes that there s the distinction betwixt the the discrete and the continuous.“But he parts we obtain by such analysis are not parts of which the continuum is constructed, they exist when considered by themselves only as conceptual constructs. For the limits which differentiates a part from the rest of the continuum… are completely determined; they do not exist apart from each other in the thing itself.” And he claims for some unknown reason that since the past is no longer and the future hasn’t arrive, then “[h]ow could a partially non-existent whole confer existence upon the the contingent parts of the whole?”
    . . .
  ” Any sum of actual entities,...., must be a finite number. To designate a a series or sum as infinite is to deny that it is a series or sum of real existences.’
  I am now wondering that maybe Hume- Russell- Edwards- Lamberth were right after all in finding that theists use the fallacy of composition in cosmological arguments as Existence, unlike a car, is not separate from its constituents and so not like the car that has parts made by another manufacturer ; the old notion was that Existence was like a team which has no mother, but each member had one. Anyway, nothing can be a cause of Existence and it can come from no outside materials as it is all there is. One begs the question in assuming otherwise.Now Qunten Smith has the theory of each part of the Metaverse causing each other.
  How could there ever be nothing?  As Peter A. Angeles notes, since the time of the pre-Socraitcs we recognize that ” nothing” has no   existence.
  I, ignostic, find that it is meaningless to speak of disembodied God. Some atheists were wrong in seeing Him as having a body detectible in principle.
  We only know of minds that depend on brains , so that when a part of the brain malfunctions, so does the mind. Since theists use the it must be that He is disembodied, then He has no brain and so no mind. And so we have no souls.
  Some argue that the Metaverse is his body, but then where are the ganglia and the axons and the neurons,eh? This is just more it must be.
  Theists use the argument from God to establish our rights in maintaining that as he grants them the are inalienable rather than from the state and so revocable. No, they stem form our level of consciousness, as the UN, in effect, acknowledges. I support the Great Ape Project to grant more protections to the other great apes [We are the third chimpanzee with the chimps and the bonobos as the other two, some declare.]. This would be in line with Morgan’s Canon. New Zealand and Spain are in the forefront in protecting the other great apes.
kritkos and Doug, so how errs Thompson?

Thompson makes two critical errors in his reasoning to arrive at his erroneous conclusion. Both are based on his linear spatio-temporal criticism about past and future.

In the first place to assume the future must be inclusive in the establishment of an infinity is to invoke Occam’s razor. One can posit an infinite regress of events up to this very minute and still logically sustain an infinity. To invoke the uncertainty of the future is a fallacy of composition and an unnecessary additional encumbrance upon the establishment of an infinity.

Secondly, to say the past is no longer, is equally erroneous for the present is most certainly the sum of all previous events. If the past ceased to have any meaningful role in establishing the present then we may as well abandon all empirical observations. One can certainly envision an infinite past without invoking an infinity that runs forward as well. A line that starts at this precise moment in time and runs backwards in time infinitely so is no less infinite if it runs no further forward than the time it took to type this response. Thus infinities can only run backwards logically without invoking Humes criticism of inference. IOW’s if a history ran backwards infinitely and ended tomorrow it would still retain its infinity, for who could follow it backwards infinitely and find the other end? But if one tries to posit an infinity forward one is wading into troubled waters. It is just these two equivocations that Thompson is playing like a fiddle that, under closer scrutiny, end up sounding like a croaking frog.

[ Edited: 10 August 2010 09:16 PM by whynot ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 August 2010 10:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7665
Joined  2008-04-11

Hmm, smile You may criticize other posts, yet none may criticize yours!!

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2010 08:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2010-08-01
asanta - 10 August 2010 10:00 PM

Hmm, smile You may criticize other posts, yet none may criticize yours!!

I welcome critical review of anything I post, so long as the review doesn’t imply or specify there is something wrong with me personally for stating X, Y, or Z.  From now on, criticisms that include ad hom will be perfunctorily ignored.


And, I was asked to review Thompson’s remarks by another poster herein.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 August 2010 06:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  39
Joined  2010-06-11

whynot, that rings too true! I knew that as with all theology that that argument was mere sophistry but couldn’t’ quite see why. and so Kant himself errs in his first antimony! Google Rudiger Vaas to find out about Kant’‘s false dichotomy.
  I hope that finally my copy of his anthology on the eternal Metaverse after two years of delay soon!
  Yes, fault my argumentation, and not my style.
  That self-declared despoiler of naturalism and the logical argument from evil relies on sophisticated, solecistic sophistry!
  He cannot fathom that we new atheists will queriy any supernaturalist assumptions! He cannot fathom that the notion of disembodied mind is quite a daunting problem for supernaturalists as the argument from physical mind notes that we have no evidence of such a putative mind, and thus such a mind cannot exist as it rest simply on the it must be, because He cannot have a body, therefore,  it must be that He is disembodied. Wow!
  Frankly, Darwin could have relied on some monkey’s mind - one that mostly made good choices. So naturalism is not self-defeating as Plantinga prattles on. He argues that how if not directed,  evolution produces a species who could trustt their minds when adaptation does not mean getting to the truth? No ,but those who make bad choices as to crossing the road,etc. wouldn’t last too long. Furthermore, we rely on trial and error in trusting our faculties, which being somewhat defective require instruments.
  Platinga, as he does with the problem of evil, makes the it may be that perhaps the Devil causes false outcomes, and sin has distorted our faculties.No, this putative logical solution lacks evidence on which to speculate, another it may be or its must be!
    Sin is the theological notion of not pleasing God rather than a moral failure! No literal or metaphorical fall of humankind ever happened!
And that defeats Michael Ruse’s defense of the fall as being compatible with science! So much for that compatibilist woo! Check out the two category.. thread, please for a critique of him.
    Frankly, were it not for others critiquing WLC and Plantinga, I’d hardly have a start to do so myself! I daresay that theologians and paranormalists are on the same level of woo, despite those of the former who write in modal logic and abstruse style or whatever! Do not confuse style for content! Rev. Billy Crackers and Pope Ratz make no more sense than John Edwards or Sylvia Brown[e]! Yet we atheologians take account of the former as worthy adversaries! As usual, I defer to Doug!
    And evolutionary creationists-Miller and creationist evolutionists- Behe- depend on that directivilty,but in the end, just differ on where to put its use.
    And even our fellow atheists wonder why we take a rougter approach! Scams demand justice!
    I take delight that we are continuing my threads after so much time as their subjects deserve more acute attention. Supernaturalists keep on with new defenses that demand criitiuqe, and as one philosopher notes, it’s so much fun to take on the arguments, mental exiercise!
    carneades.aimoo.com
    democritus.posterous.com
    thales. wordpress.com

[ Edited: 16 November 2010 04:24 PM by Carneades Thales Strato of Ga. [griggsy ] ]
 Signature 

[size=6][/“size][color=redLife is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning>” Inquiring Lynn
      ” God is in a worse condition than the Scarecrow, who had a body to which a mind could enter whilst He has neither. He is that married bachelor. No wonder he is ineffable. ” Ignostic Morgan
” Religion is mythinformation.” An Englishlman.
  ” Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.” Griggsy[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2010 10:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  39
Joined  2010-06-11

I challenge supernaturalists to define God factually meaningful, give evidence of Heaven and Hell without resort to scriptures,  contra-causal free will - free will minus causes and for Christians the Atonement and the Resurrection.Christians have to answer not only us naturalists but Muslims and Jews about that Trinity.
              Ignosticism recalls that as He has no referents as Primary Cause and so forth and He has incoherent, contradictory attributes then He cannot exist, and no atheist has to traverse the Metaverse or- be omniscient.
              The Atonement is a barbaric notion, requiring blood-letting on par with that of the Aztecs! The Holy Communion means metaphorical cannibalism and vampirism and the Eucharist means the real stuff!
              Supernaturalists must adduce evidence that a disembodied mind can even exist. No such mind can exist!
             
              We naturalists cannot allow supernaturalists to assume whatever: it is their burden to present those notions with evidence and reason.
           
              http:// inquiringlynn.posterous.com use http:// before the above mentioned blogs.

 Signature 

[size=6][/“size][color=redLife is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning>” Inquiring Lynn
      ” God is in a worse condition than the Scarecrow, who had a body to which a mind could enter whilst He has neither. He is that married bachelor. No wonder he is ineffable. ” Ignostic Morgan
” Religion is mythinformation.” An Englishlman.
  ” Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.” Griggsy[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 October 2010 05:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  20
Joined  2010-10-15

Oops! I voted “yes” by mistake. I meant to vote “no”. Is there anyway one of the moderators can correct it?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 October 2010 07:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15358
Joined  2006-02-14
murshid - 18 October 2010 05:20 AM

Oops! I voted “yes” by mistake. I meant to vote “no”. Is there anyway one of the moderators can correct it?

Unfortunately we can’t.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 October 2010 04:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  39
Joined  2010-06-11

[color=green][/coloI declare that my form of ontological naturalism is provisional methodological naturalism , the majority view amongst scientists. PMI does not like IMN reject the supernatural and the paranormal a pirori as not   scientific subjects. It requires evidence which in principle the supernaturalists could provide. Now, my version does include the ignostic challenge, but should the supernaturalists ever provide evidence for His attributes and referents, without contradictions and with coherent attributes, then they could overcome the presumption of naturalism itself.]
                    Both PZ Myers and Eugenie C. Scott favor IMN, to which ID’‘ERS rightly object as to that apriorism.
                    As science is ever changing, its and that of ontological naturalism, that is their glory! Therefore, any supernaturalists would have to adduce the evidence is light of the then conservation- background- of knowledge as any would have to do in claiming any miracle as Hume would note.
    Thanks ,Doug for your help!
    http:// Naturalist Giriggsy.blogspot.com
    ditto Skeptic Griggsy ditto
    ditto Ignostic Morgan’s Blog. wordpress.com

[ Edited: 23 October 2010 05:24 PM by Carneades Thales Strato of Ga. [griggsy ] ]
 Signature 

[size=6][/“size][color=redLife is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning>” Inquiring Lynn
      ” God is in a worse condition than the Scarecrow, who had a body to which a mind could enter whilst He has neither. He is that married bachelor. No wonder he is ineffable. ” Ignostic Morgan
” Religion is mythinformation.” An Englishlman.
  ” Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.” Griggsy[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 November 2010 04:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  39
Joined  2010-06-11

Plantinga likes to spike his comments with begged questions as Kai Nielsen notes. He begs the question in assuming that teleology exists behind natural causes and explanations in his argument from reason- the self-defeating of naturalism .He avers that how can we find the truth should natural selection operate without His intent? Selection has no intent as science reveals, so that Plantinga has to override that without begging the question of planned outcomes. That then he cannot do!
  Had the warming period,  the flowering plants and the disappearance of the dinosaurs not have occurred, we would not have evolved as He through convergence or tweaking something or the other did not interfere with evolution to cause us or any comparable species to evolve. See Amiel Rossow’s take on Kenneth   Miller and Jerry Coyne’s on Miller and Karl Giberson in his ” Seeing and Believing” on that tweaking- directed-evolution- @ Talk Reason.
  No attempt was needed for selection to make sure that we would know the truth:our faculties can indeed err as selection has no say in finding the truth, which with instruments, we find by trial and error!
He finds it simple-minded to note that without a body and thus without a brain, that then He wouldn’t have a mind. Neurologists find that should something harm a part of the brain, that affects the mind: essentially thus they are the same in different aspects. Thus, we naturalists remind others of that fact to note then, that He can neither act nor think without a mind! We only know of embodies minds. To argue otherwise is to commit the argument from ignorance! Plantinga does that also with his defence of the free-will defence in advocating unknown reason defence.
  For the sake of argument, let Plantinga gainsay us with it making sense to claim that nevertheless He has a mind.
  He still could not be that Primary Cause, Mover and so forth, as as He depends on the laws of physics themselves to act!
  Yet, philosophers find him the real thing! No, he just makes solecistic, sophisticated sophistry- ignorant, complicated nonsense- like any other advanced theologian!
  I shall deal with other arguments for and against Him, in further revealing those begged questions.
“Logic is the bane of theists.”

[ Edited: 16 November 2010 04:19 PM by Carneades Thales Strato of Ga. [griggsy ] ]
 Signature 

[size=6][/“size][color=redLife is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning>” Inquiring Lynn
      ” God is in a worse condition than the Scarecrow, who had a body to which a mind could enter whilst He has neither. He is that married bachelor. No wonder he is ineffable. ” Ignostic Morgan
” Religion is mythinformation.” An Englishlman.
  ” Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.” Griggsy[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 November 2010 10:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6020
Joined  2009-02-26
whynot - 09 August 2010 08:25 AM
Carneades Thales Strato of Ga. [griggsy ] - 08 August 2010 09:24 PM

whynot, my idea is that as everyday arrives on
time forever by successive addition, then infinity ever adds more days but never completes itself! A double   And how can WLC’s actual infinity be infinty if it completes itself? I understand what he means by actual and potential are idiosyncratic,eh? Samuel M. Thompson makes a similar argument. Anon.
  thales@ blogger.com
  .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
  strato of ga.@ blogger.com
carneades thales strato of ga. @ atheist bloggers.com
other blogs

I agree. Dilineation between potential infinities and actual/completed infinities are ideosyncratic. An actual infinity will ever be nothing more than a potential. What would a completed infinity look like? It would cease to be an infinity. The only example of an actual infinity would be to arbitrarily choose a point on a circle and begin establishing points around the circle ad infinitum. At least you have something to work with. The circle itself is an actuality whereas the division into points around and around the circle ad infinitum is the potential.  Mayhaps WLC is just conjuring up a jump from one circularity to another?

BTW, could you please define “Existence” as you are using it in your responses?

I should like to introduce a concept which actually addresses all those questions. In fact, the concept has already been introduced, but as usual is given only cursory consideration as a adjective and not as a noun for a fundamental condition (metaphysical existence) as precursor to reality.
Potential (noun): That which may become reality. My posit is that before reality can manifest itself, there has to be a fundamental condition of Potential present. Without this condition, reality cannot become manifest.
This would hold for every quantum event in the past (including the BB), the present, and the future.
David Bohm addresses this also in his “Implicate and Explicate order”. In it he cites a non physical universal condition called “pure potential”

[ Edited: 16 November 2010 11:07 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 4
3