Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
08-16-2002, 07:23 AM | #261 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 96
|
Mike,
Do you believe God is dead? |
08-16-2002, 07:26 AM | #262 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 100
|
Koy,
Entertaining response. The bible says that Adam ( the first man) was the son of God. The bible also says "be ye therefore perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect" So God is a perfect man. I didn't lable him, that's the traditional Judeo-christian concept as taught in the bible. If you don't want to call that a definition. Fine. But the implications are that if we truly understand God, we understand ourselves and if we truly understand ourselves we understand God. So here is your definition: God is a human being who is perfected or has maximized all positive human traits. By this definition he doesn't necessarily exist, but the concept of God moves from the realm of an impossible fable to theoretic possibility. |
08-16-2002, 08:20 AM | #263 | |||||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me.
Posts: 6,508
|
Quote:
Quote:
It says a lot of things. Quote:
Since there is no such thing and can be no such thing as a "perfect man" in reality, however, this exegesis serves little purpose, that I can see, unless it is to further prove that no such man (named "God") exists. Quote:
<ol type="1">[*] There are several differing and contradictory "traditional" Judeo/Christian concepts of God as taught in the bible[*] A commonality to those concepts is that God (the Father) is not human; that humans were fallible and simply made in God's image[*] Fine, what difference does this make?[/list=a] Quote:
A perfect man would be a man entirely without fault (i.e., flaw) or defect. The fact that such a man is dead would automatically destroy that claim, yes? Being dead would certainly be a defect, yes? Unless you wish to argue that he died a "perfect" death or some other such meaningless drivel. Quote:
I don't mean imagine it or write some poetry about it or anything like that, I mean understand that there was once a man without flaw or defect who died, thereby arguably proving him to be with at least one flaw or defect, which in turn negates the "perfect" claim? What's more, who cares? A "perfect" man is still just a man with no supernatural powers or abilities to raise the dead or heal the sick or create the entire universe ex nihilo by will alone, so, again, you'd only be arguing for a different form of impossible being. It's good work if you can get it, but what's the point? Quote:
Quote:
According to you, God was a human being who perfected or maximized all positive human traits who died and rotted into the ground like all men do. As a man with "perfect" positive human traits, he did not create the universe or any of the other creatures on earth and had no supernatural attributes. He was just very healthy, exceedingly kind and generous and, I guess, had really good eyesight and a muscular body and could play a really good game of chess. Does that about cover it? Quote:
You'd get no argument from me. A puzzled look, perhaps, since that person most likely already has/had a name that their own parents gave them, but hey, whatever floats your boat. According to you, there was once a man who was as close to being a perfect human being as is possible and you have decided to name that man "God," a name that has no intrinsic meaning and is just the letters "g," "o," and "d" put together. As a man, he therefore did nothing supernatural, had no particular significance, did not create the universe and everything in it and, if dead, is burried somewhere on the Earth and that's the end of it. Got it. [ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p> |
|||||||||
08-16-2002, 10:35 AM | #264 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 100
|
1. Why do you suggest that a perfect man is impossible? If He is theoretically possible, he is possible in reality.
2. I'm not claiming that the bible proves God's existence, only explaining the biblical concept of God. The idea that we are his children (race) is biblical, the idea that we, or the universe were created ex-nihilo is not biblical. The Hebrew word that is translated as "created" can also be translated as "organized." 3. Death is as natural as birth, but the biblical God did not rot into the ground, he had power over death, and rose again. Perhaps resurrection is as natural as birth and death. I guess you won't know until you die yourself, but that is what the bible claims. Yes, God died, No he is not dead. Birth isn't permanent, why should death be. Isn't matter and energy indestructable by the definition of science. Aren't we composed of matter and energy? |
08-16-2002, 11:27 AM | #265 | |||||||||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me.
Posts: 6,508
|
Quote:
Quote:
<ol type="1">[*] You have yet to define what a "perfect man" is[*] What is theoretically possible does not necessarily mean it is therefore possible in reality[/list=a] Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Upon what basis should we accept your word on this matter? Further, again, upon what basis should we accept the bible's word on this matter? You claimed that you were not using the bible to prove God's existence, yet, here you are, using the bible to prove God's existence. Whether directly or indirectly doesn't matter, of course. The bible is nothing more than a collection of cult mythology. How you do or do not translate certain words in your own personal exegesis is irrelevant across the board, not just to the question of a fictional character's factual existence. Further, even if it were accepted that Genesis stated that God "organized" the universe, it is still an impossible task for a man, perfect or otherwise, since implicit in the claim is that he did it by will alone. So, unless you're going for another pointless derivation of solipsism, reality is where we all live and reality is where this "perfect man" would have been living prior to there being a reality, so how do you propose he "organized" the big bang, for example, and from where did he accomplish this? Quote:
In the real world, however, dead men do not rise from their graves, perfect or otherwise. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In other words, there is no way to be unborn. Quote:
Quote:
What's your point? A full water balloon is composed of matter and energy and it will still be composed of matter and energy when you pop it, but the full water balloon will no longer be full of water or, for that matter, much of a balloon any more, right? This has no bearing on the fact that all of its components remain composed of mater and energy, yes? The proper phrase, by the way, is "energy cannot be destroyed, only diverted." Since Einstein convincingly demonstrated that matter is energy and vice versa, it's ok to throw in "matter," but equally unnecessary, so unless you want to argue that when humans die their bodies are somehow preserved and the energy that was previously stored in bodily form is not diverted (i.e., dissipated or otherwise altered) as is so clearly the case when decomposition sets in, you'd have quite an uphill battle on your hands, yes? |
|||||||||||||
08-16-2002, 05:07 PM | #266 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: India
Posts: 6,977
|
Phil, the monkey can see the pentium iv and show it to others.
No one has ever seen God except in hallucinations. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> |
08-16-2002, 10:33 PM | #267 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 717
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
08-19-2002, 09:34 AM | #268 | |||||||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: South Bend IN
Posts: 564
|
Automaton,
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That clarification stated, however, in the specific case of atheism verses theism, I do believe that atheists suffer from a cognitive malfunction brought about by the noetic effects of sin. Because of original sin, human beings have an innate aversion to the things of God which causes them to repress the truth of God’s existence, even though God has made it plane and obvious to them through Creation and conscience, and atheism is one of the ways in which certain members of humanity carry out this tendency. No doubt you believe that I am the one who suffers from a cognitive malfunction, that I believe in God for emotional reasons or because of social and cultural conditioning, etc. and that I am thereby unable to see the truth concerning the matter. So who judges who is right? Well, I suppose we do (the ones making the judgments). I do not believe myself to be delusional even though the theoretical possibility exists that I am mistaken in that respect. Likewise, I doubt you believe that you are repressing any truth about God or that you have engaged in any form of self-delusion. Who’s right – that depends on what the nature of reality actually is. We can challenge each other’s views of reality, draw out their various metaphysical and epistemological consequences, and see where things lead. Ultimately, though, it is reality that settles the matter. If God really exists and has implanted knowledge of His existence in the human heart and made His existence clearly known through His creation, then it is very likely that my belief in Him is warranted and that your lack of belief is the result of some sort of cognitive malfunction (which Christianity would attribute to the effects of sin). If, on the other hand, God does not exist, then you are correct and it is very likely that I am delusional and that my belief in God is unwarranted. Quote:
But, to agree on mathematical truths, certain basic intuitive postulates must be accepted at the outset. It is possible to provide proofs that 2+2=4, for example, that rely on other basic intuitive postulates such as 1+1=2, for instance. And, there are even proofs that 1+1=2, but, of all of these proofs, none of their premises are any more intuitive than “1+1=2” itself. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I do admit that this particular argument is not very useful for convincing non-theists. That’s why I chose it as my example, as my point here is not about coming up with a convincing argument, but discussing the manner in which differing intuitive and intellectual commitments can condition our epistemic attitudes toward whether or not a particular argument is sound. God Bless, Kenny [ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p> |
|||||||||||||||||
08-19-2002, 09:44 AM | #269 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: South Bend IN
Posts: 564
|
With this post, I wrap up my participation on this thread (at least concerning the OA, I may or may no be back to mop up some side issues which may come up as a result of some of my other comments). Responses are welcome, but I will make no further replies. I am sorry that I have not addressed all responses, but I hope to have hit upon most of the major issues with my reply to Automaton in conjunction with this post.
First of all, I never adequately explained Plantinga’s version of the OA or the rational behind it, a lapse which I will correct. Then, I will sum up my opinion of the argument and its value. Finally, I will make some concluding remarks. Plantinga’s Argument in a Nutshell Definitions: (a) Maximal excellence - the property of having omniscience, omnipotence and moral perfection with respect to a possible world. (b) Maximal greatness - the property of having maximal excellence in every possible world. These definitions, combined with the first premise, are the real workhorses of this argument and the source (or claimed source) of much of its intuitive warrant. The idea here is that “greatness” involves, not just being accidentally great, but necessarily great. One can think about this in terms of a being’s worship worthiness. A being who is maximally excellent in some possible world, W, but just so happens to be that way because it is lucky enough to reside in a possible world with just the right contingent features to make it that way, or whose greatness is derived in some way from the contingent features of that world, is not so nearly as great or worthy of admiration as a being who holds its excellence irrespective of the contingent features of which ever possible world it finds itself, a being that holds its greatness intrinsically and not in such a way that its greatness is a function of the contingent features of a particular world. The definition of “maximal excellence,” itself, is simply held on the intuitive grounds that things like knowledge, power, and goodness, are excellent making qualities and that these qualities can be held to a maximal degree. 1) There is a possible world in which maximal greatness is instantiated. This is the only real premise of the argument, and the key to the whole thing. All it really asserts is that maximal greatness, as defined, is a logical possibility. As already stated, it is accepted, for the believer in this argument, on the basis of intuition. 2) Necessarily, a being is maximally great only if it has maximal excellence in every possible world. This just follows from the definition of maximal greatness. 3) Necessarily, a being has maximal excellence in every possible world only if it has omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection in every possible world. This just follows from the definition of maximal excellence. 4) Maximal excellence is instantiated in every possible world. This just modally follows from 1) and 2) 5) Therefore, in the actual world there is a being that is omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect. This just follows from 3) and 4), since if maximal excellence is instantiated in every possible world, then it is instantiated in the world in which we find ourselves. On My Assessment of the Argument’s Value I believe that the argument is both valid and sound. Though it is charged with question begging, I do not see how, exactly, the charge is supposed to stick. The conclusion of the argument is not identical with the first premise, and the first premise along with the definitions are not accepted on the basis of the conclusion, but on the basis of certain intuitions concerning the notion of greatness and great-making properties and the intuition concerning the logical possibility of there being something that is maximally great. That being said, I do not believe that this argument’s primary value lies in its being an argument. It’s not very convincing to those who are not already inclined to believe, and those that do believe likely do so on different and (I, believe) far stronger grounds. I think the chief value in the argument is theological; it explores the connections between various attributes of God’s being and suggests that they can be subsumed under a single all-encompassing attribute (maximal greatness). It also helps us (Christians/Theologians/Philosophers of Religion) understand to some extent, how and why we can properly think of God as existing necessarily. Furthermore, the concept of necessary existence underscores a number of other theistic arguments, so even if the OA is not convincing as an argument for the existence of God, it may be beneficial in helping to put the idea of necessary existence on firm philosophical grounds. However, I do think that the OA has potential as an argument. It may be that there are ways to actually argue for the first premise that rely on more basic intuitions which might be shared by a wider community. In fact, Kurt Godel (the same one of the Incompleteness Theorems), has made just such an attempt in this area. See <a href="http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html" target="_blank">this article</a> for more information. Perhaps even more progress will come in time. Even if, however, the only real widely conceded conclusion that comes out of investigations of the OA is that “If it is logically possible for God to exist, God must exist,” that is no small accomplishment. Closing Comments The real point of this discussion is that differing intuitive and intellectual commitments can condition our assessments of whether or not particular arguments are sound, and that the mere fact that one person may not recognize that a particular argument is sound does not mean that it is not. The charge from an atheist that there are no sound theistic arguments is, thus, a rather hollow one. God Bless, Kenny [ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p> |
08-19-2002, 09:53 AM | #270 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Posts: 374
|
Again, this is identical to the argument:
1. God is perfect 2. It is more perfect to exist than to not exist ~3. God exists Kenny, if "to exist in all possible worlds" were a necessary part of "maximal greatness", then the premise: Quote:
Edit to add that I find this to be a despicable form of argument! You act at first like the maximal greatness definition is really no big deal. Hey, of course a being can possibly exist which has power, knowledge, etc to their maximal degree! Who would disagree with this? Later, in a stealthy and altogether dishonest tactic, all of a sudden maximal greatness is understood to mean that any being possessing such qualities must actually exist, because hey! If he didn't actually exist he wouldn't be maximally great, now would he? And remember, we said he was maximally great! This argument really is quite underwhelming. Kenny: Quote:
You seem to be trying to suggest that the actual soundness of an argument depends on the "intuitions" of the person examining it! [ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p> |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|