FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-18-2003, 02:37 PM   #201
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 102
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Jinto
No, they aren't, but if you insist on making that assertation, then what is the cause? (And please don't say goddidit).
An uncaused event by its very nature would be eternal, which those events are not. They are being caused. Just because we can't identify the cause does not mean they lack one.
Soma is offline  
Old 03-18-2003, 02:39 PM   #202
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 102
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Philosoft
I'd like to see you expound upon this, but I think Science & Skepticism would be the better forum. Would you discuss this if I opened a thread over there?
A scientific explanation is not necessary. If those events are not caused, then they would persist eternally, which they obviously do not.
Soma is offline  
Old 03-18-2003, 02:40 PM   #203
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 957
Default

Quote:
An uncaused event by its very nature would be eternal, which those events are not. They are being caused. Just because we can't identify the cause does not mean they lack one
Okay. Let's review:

You assert: all uncaused events are eternal.
I counter with examples of uncaused events which are not eternal.
You say: but they can't be uncaused events because they are not eternal.

Is it just me, or do I smell a "No true scotsman" fallacy?
Jinto is offline  
Old 03-18-2003, 02:41 PM   #204
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 719
Default

I personally feel that the notion of a "greatest possible being" is a bit silly. In fact, in my mind it's just as silly as the notion of the "greatest possible song." It's subjective. There is no absolute "greatest" when referring to a being just like there is no absolute "greatest" when referring to art.

Or another example: what about the greatest possible woman? Do you think any two men would agree on the description of who would fit that bill? One would want an atheletic red-head with a fiery temperment. Another might want a demure brunette with big...personalities.

As an illustration of the subjective nature of things, how would you reconcile mercy with justice in a "greatest" possible being? Different people will have different opinions as to which mix is the best. Do you go the "eye for an eye" route? Do you go the "turn the other cheek" route? Which one is greatest? The two attributes are in subjective conflict with each other and yet you're looking for an objective absolute maximum. What about the fact that your GPB knows what will happen at every instant in time? How does a being with such knowledge apply justice? Does he allow the crime to be commited before punishing it or can he use his knowledge of what will happen to just punish crimes beforehand? Which is more just? One gives the person a chance to change (even though God already knows for a fact he won't) whereas the other prevents the crime from happening in the first place and thus protects innocent people from harm. A GPB is full of contradictions and will never satisfy any objective notion of "greatest."
Lobstrosity is offline  
Old 03-18-2003, 02:42 PM   #205
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 378
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Dr Rick
[B]A non-existent being cannot have actual anything. The contradictions of the IPU are no more real than the contradictions of the J-C omnigod.

The definition can have an actual contradiction. Unless you are equating actual to exist- which in that case I agree. Anything that is defined as being logically contradictory cannot possibly exist.

Quote:
Neither does the IPU if I define it that way. It's pink when it's not invisible, and invisible when its not pink, and it is the GPB either way
yup. if you define the IPU like this, it is no longer contradictory. It is still infinitely inferior to the GPB, however.


Quote:
Now the IPU has no apparent contradictions, but the J-C omnigod still does.
ahhh, I disagree completely.

Quote:
The purpose of the IPU argument is not to disprove the J-C omnigod, but to show that other make-believe deities with the same attributes are just as possible.
you cannot have another deity with the same attributes. Logical neccessity mutually excludes two GPB's from existing. There can only be one.
Quote:
"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I believe the JCG = GPB.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"

Irrelevent
Lets see, the topic of this forum= "What does the word "God" mean? Does a god exist? What are the arguments for and against? What does the evidence say?"

so now your opinion on these matters is relevant and mine is not?

How cordial of you.


Quote:
The problem of evil is one that makes the J-C omnigod a logical contradiction; whether or not you have a "problem" with it is also irrelevant.
the problem of evil is one that makes your atheist subjective definition of your proposed J-C God a logical contradiction.

And if talking about God is so irrelevant, then why dont you just scoot along and post in another forum?

I'm going to continue to post my opinions regarding this subject.

And

they

are

relevant.
xian is offline  
Old 03-18-2003, 02:42 PM   #206
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Soma
A scientific explanation is not necessary. If those events are not caused, then they would persist eternally, which they obviously do not.
Nevertheless, I would like to pursue this further. Again, would you be open to a new topic in Science & Skepticism?
Philosoft is offline  
Old 03-18-2003, 02:43 PM   #207
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 102
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Jinto
Okay. Let's review:

You assert: all uncaused events are eternal.
I counter with examples of uncaused events which are not eternal.
You say: but they can't be uncaused events because they are not eternal.

Is it just me, or do I smell a "No true scotsman" fallacy?
Uncaused events must be eternal. The examples provided are NOT uncaused events. Their temporal nature reduces them to caused events.
Soma is offline  
Old 03-18-2003, 02:45 PM   #208
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 719
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Soma
They are being caused. Just because we can't identify the cause does not mean they lack one.
It's not that science can't identify the cause, it's that science has actually empirically demonstrated that there is no cause. I know this might not sit well with you emotionally, but emotions are no basis for logical reasoning. This is why you'd do better to take these ideas to the Science forum such that people might help you understand what we already know about the true nature of the universe in which we live.

Quote:
Uncaused events must be eternal. The examples provided are NOT uncaused events. Their temporal nature reduces them to caused events.
This is faulty reasoning. It has no logical backing. You're trying to use intuition in a way that's not valid.
Lobstrosity is offline  
Old 03-18-2003, 02:45 PM   #209
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 957
Default

Quote:
Or another example: what about the greatest possible woman? Do you think any two men would agree on the description of who would fit that bill? One would want an atheletic red-head with a fiery temperment. Another might want a demure brunette with big...personalities
I'll take an alien bluenette (sic), thanks.
Jinto is offline  
Old 03-18-2003, 02:45 PM   #210
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 102
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Philosoft
Nevertheless, I would like to pursue this further. Again, would you be open to a new topic in Science & Skepticism?
I'm not a scientist, so I can't offer much...
Soma is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:13 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.