Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 03-18-2003, 11:25 AM

Well lets assume the worst for my argument. Lets assume existence requires locality.
IF existence requires locality, then that Locality implies space and time as it exists in our natural universe.

But God is a supernatural being, hence natural locality could not be a requirement. The concept of locality has meaning only in the natural universe, and is dependent upon time and space.

Is it just me, or would the logical conclusion of this argument be that god is non-existent?

Clutch · 03-18-2003, 11:26 AM

Quote:

His posts are fully acceptable to the forum...they are not, however, acceptable to me.

Well, you would not be the first person in history to find it convenient to dodge demolitions of your claims and skewerings of your pretensions. Feel free to dislike my style of repaying unjustified arrogance with... well, direct revelation of the paucity of understanding. But this derails the thread, and changes nothing about the central facts:

1) IPU arguments are not about claiming that "IPU" and "Yahweh" have the same definition.

2) IPU arguments typically aim to illustrate special pleading on evidence.

3) You have mistakenly pursued the former idea and failed to understand the latter.

4) To the nearest approximation, everything specific you have said about infinity and logic, in the course of pursuing that overall mistake, has been wrong at the most elementary level.

Ignore these facts if you choose. What makes them facts is that they obtain irrespective of whether you wish they did.

Mageth · 03-18-2003, 11:30 AM

I reckon one could make a similar agrument concerning the "being" part of GPB - that "being" itself implies space and time as it exists in our natural universe, and so on.

xian · 03-18-2003, 11:32 AM

"Well, you would not be the first person in history to find it convenient to dodge demolitions of your claims and skewerings of your pretensions. Feel free to dislike my style of repaying unjustified arrogance with... well, direct revelation of the paucity of understanding. But this derails the thread, and changes nothing about the central facts: "

- ad-hominem post ignored. acceptable to the forum, not acceptable for me to respond to.

xian · 03-18-2003, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
I reckon one could make a similar agrument concerning the "being" part of GPB - that "being" itself implies space and time as it exists in our natural universe, and so on.

how?

Locality by definition means naturally contained.

being refers to alive. how does this necessitate naturally contained?

Mageth · 03-18-2003, 11:34 AM

however, if supernatural existence exists, that proposition could not apply.

That's a mighty big "if".

Mageth · 03-18-2003, 11:38 AM

how?

Locality by definition means naturally contained.

being refers to alive. how does this necessitate naturally contained?

"Being" and "alive" both have space and time connotations, do they not? If something can be, it can at some time in the past or future not be. The same with alive; the something could also be dead or not alive at some other time.

What does it mean to be "alive" or just "to be" if there is no space or time containment?

Soma · 03-18-2003, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fishbulb
Then which is it? Can God lift any rock, but is unable to create an unliftable rock, or can he lift any rock and thus not be able to create an unliftable one? [...]

How could you fail to understand something so simple?

Either God can create such a rock and not be able to lift it, or God can't create it. His omnipotence remains preserved in either scenario.

Quote:

That is--what's the word I'm looking for...bullshit. What people understand God to be is based on mythology, theology and culture. You know it and Aquinas knew it. Are you suggesting that he meant to say that Jesus didn't necessarily exist and that the Bible might just be a made up story, but that there was nonetheless an intelligent creator at work? Does anyone really go to church every Sunday and pray to some unnamed creator, and pay homage to Jesus even though they don't really believe the man existed?

The cosmological argument invites us to believe in Christianity (or whatever other religion is is invoked on behalf of) but it doesn't directly address it. It is intentionally deceptive in addition to being circular.

The Cosmological Argument is an attempt to demonstrate the likelihood God exists. Aquinas's subsequent writings attempt to prove that that God is the God of the Bible.

Quote:

In the first place, there is no need to accept a prime mover argument.

Explain, otherwise you've got nothing.

Quote:

There is no reason to conclude that something could not have possibly come from nothing. We have no reason to suppose that it did, but we also have no reason to suppose that it did not.

Logic refutes the possibility of anything originating out of nothingness. Nothingness is the abscence of anything, so how can anything come out of nothing?

Quote:

Secondly, even if we do accept the notion that there had to be something that has existed for all time, it is completely irrelevant to any question of the existence of God. If we accept the premise, then all we can conclude is that something has been around forever. To argue that it does not matter whether that thing is God or not torpedoes the entire argument as a proof of God, which is how the argument is presented.

God is what men call the creator of existence. The prime mover caused existence. They are the same. Proving the necessity of a prime mover proves God exists.

Quote:

Saying it isn't so doesn't mean it isn't so. Moreover, you now introduce new nonsense terms. What does it mean for God or anything else to be "subordinate to morality" or to "what is good and evil?" You just make up terms and claim they prove your point, but you apparently can't even explain what they mean.

A dictionary may be of help to you. Or perhaps this might be of use:

God
Morality
Man

^Notice how God stands above morality.

You are attempting to do this:

Morality
God

^This is absurd. God is by definition that which is the greatest. Morality cannot be above God, thus God cannot be subordinate to morality.

Quote:

*snip*

The rest of your statements are evidently the result of your contempt for Christianity. Maybe a Christian here will take it upon himself to help you here.

Hawkingfan · 03-18-2003, 11:39 AM

xian,

You still have not shown why or how the attributes of god = the attributes of the GPB. You do not realize that it is subjective. You can claim that god is moral, infinite, etc., but who says that those are the same qualities that the GPB has? What if our idea of the GPB is someone who could not create evil or let it exist? This would exclude god from being the GPB.

xian · 03-18-2003, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
however, if supernatural existence exists, that proposition could not apply.

That's a mighty big "if".

well sure it is. but the postulation of supernatural existence is not a violation of logic. A logical contradiction cannot exist. something supernatural is not a contradiction, so it could exist. if it did, it would certainly not be localized with any meaning of the word we understand.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-18-2003, 11:25 AM	#141
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Well lets assume the worst for my argument. Lets assume existence requires locality. IF existence requires locality, then that Locality implies space and time as it exists in our natural universe. But God is a supernatural being, hence natural locality could not be a requirement. The concept of locality has meaning only in the natural universe, and is dependent upon time and space. Is it just me, or would the logical conclusion of this argument be that god is non-existent?

03-18-2003, 11:30 AM	#143
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I reckon one could make a similar agrument concerning the "being" part of GPB - that "being" itself implies space and time as it exists in our natural universe, and so on.

03-18-2003, 11:32 AM	#144
xian Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Earth Posts: 378	"Well, you would not be the first person in history to find it convenient to dodge demolitions of your claims and skewerings of your pretensions. Feel free to dislike my style of repaying unjustified arrogance with... well, direct revelation of the paucity of understanding. But this derails the thread, and changes nothing about the central facts: " - ad-hominem post ignored. acceptable to the forum, not acceptable for me to respond to.

03-18-2003, 11:34 AM	#146
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	however, if supernatural existence exists, that proposition could not apply. That's a mighty big "if".

03-18-2003, 11:38 AM	#147
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	how? Locality by definition means naturally contained. being refers to alive. how does this necessitate naturally contained? "Being" and "alive" both have space and time connotations, do they not? If something can be, it can at some time in the past or future not be. The same with alive; the something could also be dead or not alive at some other time. What does it mean to be "alive" or just "to be" if there is no space or time containment?

03-18-2003, 11:39 AM	#149
Hawkingfan Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,247	xian, You still have not shown why or how the attributes of god = the attributes of the GPB. You do not realize that it is subjective. You can claim that god is moral, infinite, etc., but who says that those are the same qualities that the GPB has? What if our idea of the GPB is someone who could not create evil or let it exist? This would exclude god from being the GPB.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.