Freethought & Rationalism Archive

05-29-2002, 08:16 PM

Richard Dawkins said it best:

Quote:

We are all brought up with the religion of our parents, grandparents and great-grandparents and by golly that just happens to be the one true religion. Isn't that remarkable!

HRG · 05-29-2002, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gemma Therese:
Dear HRG:

You said: But even if they were valid, where is your argument that each beings referred to in one of the 7 arguments is unique, and that those 7 beings are identical ?
The creator of the universe (if he exists) might be a low-level functionary in a whole uncountably transfinite divine hierarchy. Morality might be assigned to a different department. Designers and producers may be different entities, and so on.

Did you think that calling all 7 alleged entities "God" would make their differences vanish ?"

The attributes of God:

Correction: those are the attributes which you include in your definition of the term "God".

Quote:

God possesses -- and is -- all the perfections of being, without limitation. Because He is infinite, all of these perfections are one, perfectly united in Him. Man, however, because of his limited power of understanding views

Please speak for yourself. My powers are not so limited that I cannot determine that an argument is not a logical conclusion. This "beyond human understanding"-argument is not a Get-out-of-jail-free card which can be whipped out every time an apologist is caught in an error of logic.

The concept "creator" is logically different from "lawgiver", and "designer" is logically different from "producer".

Quote:

these perfections separately, as distinct characteristics -- even though they are not actually distinct in God.

Hope this helps.

No it doesn't. If you want to make an argument for the existing of a being with certain attributes, you'll have to stick to the rules of logic, I'm afraid. The term "God" does not have a pre-existing meaning, it needs to be defined.

If you define the term "God" as a being possessing all those attributes, then none of your arguments is an argument for the existence of "God".

The cosmological argument claims to prove the existence of a creator of the universe (let's call it "God-1"), but it does not even attempt to show in the least that this alleged God-1 has the other attributes which you ascribe to God.

The moral argument claims to prove the existence of a lawgiver (let's call him God-2), but it does not even attempt to show that this God-2 has the other attributes, e.g. that he created the universe. Etc. Etc.

Calling all entities (God-1 to God-7) by the same name is a nice rhetoric trick; but it cannot replace an identity proof.

Regards,
HRG.

Kamchatka · 05-29-2002, 09:43 PM

Ion & his echo,

Ion posted, "No Gemma, in conscious life there are only logic and reason. In unconscious life there are other traits, but that's being unconscious."

I inquired, "Would you care to provide us with the evidence that proves your assertions?"

You responded, "Around you only science and technology builds empirical tangible objects. I haven't seen yet a highway 100% built on prayers, but I see that all highways are built on 100% science and technology."

Echo backed you up with "So what's the deal? Are evidence, logic, and reason the tools we need to determine what is true, or do we need something else? And if we need something else, what the heck are you asking Ion for "evidence" for?"

"The deal" is if you are going to claim evidence, logic and reason as "the tools we need" then you should demonstrate the proper utilization of your tools when making assertions.

Assertion #1- "In conscious life there are only logic and reason."

Assertion #2- "In unconscious life there are other traits, but that's being unconscious."

The "evidence", Proposition #1- "Around you only science and technology builds empirical tangible objects."

Proposition #2- "I haven't seen yet a highway 100% built on prayers . . ."

Proposition #3- ". . . but I see that all highways are built on 100% science and technology."

"The deal" is assertions #1 & #2 do not follow from propositions #1, 2 & 3.

In fact, your argument appears better suited to the inference that logic and reason are gods.

If that is your argument, I have no more problem acknowledging the existence of your gods than Gemma's. But do not expect me to worship them.

Gemma utilizes faith, prayer and spirituality as her tools in conjunction with her perspective on cognitive experience. She is not unconscious.

You believe that logic and reason are your consciousness, according to your assertions. Given your demonstrated mastery of logic and reason, you are not fully conscious.

Philosoft · 05-29-2002, 09:59 PM

Jebus, Kamchatka. Are you intent on labeling everything a god?

Gemma Therese · 05-30-2002, 02:27 AM

<<since you don't accept, adjust, learn and respect other's people ideas>>

Yep, Ion, that's why I've studied anthropology.

In God's Love,

Gemma Therese

-=Vagrant=- · 05-30-2002, 02:29 AM

Gemma, why don't you believe in pink dragons?

Thanks, and have a nice day.

Gemma Therese · 05-30-2002, 02:37 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-:
[QB]Gemma, why don't you believe in pink dragons?

Because they do not exist.

In God's Love,

Gemma Therese

05-30-2002, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Because they do not exist.

Got any PROOF that they don't exist?

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: atheist_in_foxhole ]</p>

Kassiana · 05-30-2002, 04:11 AM

Gemma, why don't you believe in pink dragons?

Gemma:
Because they do not exist.

Kass:
And to almost all of us here, your God doesn't exist or doesn't mind if we don't worship him. So give it up, as I advised before.

Echo · 05-30-2002, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kamchatka:
Ion & his echo

Awww shucks, now I feel all giddy

Quote:

Ion posted, "No Gemma, in conscious life there are only logic and reason. In unconscious life there are other traits, but that's being unconscious."

I inquired, "Would you care to provide us with the evidence that proves your assertions?"

You responded, "Around you only science and technology builds empirical tangible objects. I haven't seen yet a highway 100% built on prayers, but I see that all highways are built on 100% science and technology."

Echo backed you up with "So what's the deal? Are evidence, logic, and reason the tools we need to determine what is true, or do we need something else? And if we need something else, what the heck are you asking Ion for "evidence" for?"

"The deal" is if you are going to claim evidence, logic and reason as "the tools we need" then you should demonstrate the proper utilization of your tools when making assertions.

Assertion #1- "In conscious life there are only logic and reason."

Assertion #2- "In unconscious life there are other traits, but that's being unconscious."

The "evidence", Proposition #1- "Around you only science and technology builds empirical tangible objects."

Proposition #2- "I haven't seen yet a highway 100% built on prayers . . ."

Proposition #3- ". . . but I see that all highways are built on 100% science and technology."

"The deal" is assertions #1 & #2 do not follow from propositions #1, 2 & 3.

In fact, your argument appears better suited to the inference that logic and reason are gods.

If that is your argument, I have no more problem acknowledging the existence of your gods than Gemma's. But do not expect me to worship them.

I'll leave Ion to defend his own assertions, although I suspect he was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek with his quip about consciousness and unsconsciousness. So I'll only respond to your comments directed at me.

When you say that even atheists should use proper logic and reasoning when making claims, I couldn't agree more. So no argument there.

Quote:

Gemma utilizes faith, prayer and spirituality as her tools in conjunction with her perspective on cognitive experience. She is not unconscious.

And what I want to know is whether these tools of "faith, prayer, and spirituality" are reliable when it comes to determining the truth of a claim.

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

05-29-2002, 09:43 PM	#133
Kamchatka Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 157	Ion & his echo, Ion posted, "No Gemma, in conscious life there are only logic and reason. In unconscious life there are other traits, but that's being unconscious." I inquired, "Would you care to provide us with the evidence that proves your assertions?" You responded, "Around you only science and technology builds empirical tangible objects. I haven't seen yet a highway 100% built on prayers, but I see that all highways are built on 100% science and technology." Echo backed you up with "So what's the deal? Are evidence, logic, and reason the tools we need to determine what is true, or do we need something else? And if we need something else, what the heck are you asking Ion for "evidence" for?" "The deal" is if you are going to claim evidence, logic and reason as "the tools we need" then you should demonstrate the proper utilization of your tools when making assertions. Assertion #1- "In conscious life there are only logic and reason." Assertion #2- "In unconscious life there are other traits, but that's being unconscious." The "evidence", Proposition #1- "Around you only science and technology builds empirical tangible objects." Proposition #2- "I haven't seen yet a highway 100% built on prayers . . ." Proposition #3- ". . . but I see that all highways are built on 100% science and technology." "The deal" is assertions #1 & #2 do not follow from propositions #1, 2 & 3. In fact, your argument appears better suited to the inference that logic and reason are gods. If that is your argument, I have no more problem acknowledging the existence of your gods than Gemma's. But do not expect me to worship them. Gemma utilizes faith, prayer and spirituality as her tools in conjunction with her perspective on cognitive experience. She is not unconscious. You believe that logic and reason are your consciousness, according to your assertions. Given your demonstrated mastery of logic and reason, you are not fully conscious.

05-29-2002, 09:59 PM	#134
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	Jebus, Kamchatka. Are you intent on labeling everything a god?

05-30-2002, 02:27 AM	#135
Gemma Therese Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: new york Posts: 608	<<since you don't accept, adjust, learn and respect other's people ideas>> Yep, Ion, that's why I've studied anthropology. In God's Love, Gemma Therese

05-30-2002, 02:29 AM	#136
-=Vagrant=- Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Here and there Posts: 11	Gemma, why don't you believe in pink dragons? Thanks, and have a nice day.

05-30-2002, 02:37 AM	#137
Gemma Therese Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: new york Posts: 608	[QUOTE]Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-: [QB]Gemma, why don't you believe in pink dragons? Because they do not exist. In God's Love, Gemma Therese

05-30-2002, 04:11 AM	#139
Kassiana Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: USA Posts: 5,046	Gemma, why don't you believe in pink dragons? Gemma: Because they do not exist. Kass: And to almost all of us here, your God doesn't exist or doesn't mind if we don't worship him. So give it up, as I advised before.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.