JREF Forum > General Topics > Religion and Philosophy > Arguments about God- those begged questions!
View Full Version : Arguments about God- those begged questions!skeptic griggsy19th March 2009, 07:01 AM:) The argument from Existence is that Existence is all, so, there can be no transcendent God.The infinite regress argument [Peter A.Angels] is that time, event and cause presuppose previous time, events and causes. This conforms to the law of conservation of mass-energy, exemplified by quantum energy. :cool:
In stating that if one takes away the First Cause, one therefore takes away all intermediate causes, Aquinas begs the question of that first cause. He also begs the question of Necessary Being in his two category classification of contingency and Necessary Being. He does so on the it must be so notion. He knew , contrary to William Lane Craig that days come on time, so, Craig begs the question in assuming a starting point in history. In answer to the challenge that if Existence cannot be infinite in time, neither can the mind of God be infinite by stating that His is qualitative rather than quantitative like Existence. Nay, the problem is that that does not overcome the infinity of notions in His mind.:blush:
Dawkins argument from complexity argues that He must have evolved to become complex, so, how?:boggled:
The argument from the physical mind is that we only know of embodied minds such that the dismebodied one of God is just another it must be with no evidence for that.:jaw-dropp
And the weight of evidence illustates no cosmic teleology, but rather teleomatic processes at work, it is useless to posit God as the designer.:(
These are just a few of our naturalist [ positive atheist] arguments against God.:D
Farvel.cj.2319th March 2009, 07:23 AM:) The argument from Existence is that Existence is all, so, there can be no transcendent God.
Logically fails if God exists, because then God has the property of existence. Is logically true if God does not exist, as God does not have the property of existence. Not much of an argument really - just a tautology, and an amusingly circular argument! Transcendence/immanence is totally irrelevant to the logic here. A classic example of begging the question!
The infinite regress argument [Peter A.Angels] is that time, event and cause presuppose previous time, events and causes. This conforms to the law of conservation of mass-energy, exemplified by quantum energy. :cool:
In stating that if one takes away the First Cause, one therefore takes away all intermediate causes, Aquinas begs the question of that first cause.
Where does Aquinas assert this? I'm looking at Aquinbas and not seeing it?
He also begs the question of Necessary Being in his two category classification of contingency and Necessary Being. He does so on the it must be so notion.
Necessary and Contingent beings are logical categories, not required to be real world entities. Think of the square root of -1, or any other abstract thing.
cj xskeptic griggsy6th November 2009, 12:00 PMTheists allege that if it were not for Him, we'd have no rights- the argument from God for rights- in that He gives them to us inalienably or else from the state which could revoke them. No, our rights derive from our level of consciousness in line with ' cousin' Morgan's Canon. ;)
Indeed, in line with that canon, we ought to support the Great Ape Project [Google that,please] to grant more protection to the other great apes as Spain and New Zealand do.:D
It'll set many on fire to state that most of us humanists will support that project and also support abortion!
Yes, we don' t need the Ground of Being for anything!:boxedin:
Why beg the question if His existence with that if? Transcendence is quite appropriate here, because there can be no transcendent anything as Existence is all period. So one ignores plainly what Aquinas states when he states that if one takes away the intermediate causes, one takes away the first.:jaw-dropp
Contingency is real : entities come and go, other than eternal quantum energy. Show that there is that Necessary One rather than assume it! :eye-poppi
So theists beg those questions.skeptic griggsy6th February 2010, 07:29 AMThe atelic/teleonomic argument is that as the weight of evidence reveals no preordained outcomes- no teleology but rather causalism- teleonomy, then the existence of God- His teleology- does indeed contradict teleonomy. So, natural causes do indeed rule rater than He, and thus creation evolution is an oxymoron. To postulate otherwise, one is making the new Omphalos argument that He hides Himself before that teleonomy just as in the old one, He made things appear millions of years older than the mere six to ten thousand years as the Tanakh reckons.
Now, we come to John L. Schellenberg's hiddenness problem: God hides Himself so that He does not overwhelm our free will to such an extent, that He cannot exist. This answers indirectly John Hick's epistemic argument for the hidddenness.
The reason for teleological argumentation rests on the pareidolia of seeing intent and designs rather than causalism and patterns as one sees Yeshua in a tortilla.
I conceived these two and the new argument from autonomy that of our rights and independence from God were He to exist. Yes, we have no obligations toward Him and He faces that one-way street as the problem of Heaven illuminates.
All teleological arguments- fine-tuning, probability, from reason/ the self-refutation of naturalism and design- beg the question of that divine intent.skeptic griggsy5th April 2010, 11:22 AMAs Existence is all, there can be no external cause or materials whence it came per the argument from Existence.
The infinite regress argument notes that cause, event and time presuppose previous causes, events and time as most physicists now accept.
No, t'is no petty argument that, contrary to that sophist Alvin Plantinga, that the argument from physical mind tells against God in that He'd have no brain and thus no mind and thus could neither think nor act so that He cannot exist per the ignostic argument.And this also tells against the soul. Psychologists find no soul; as with Him, t'is a useless redundancy.
Thus science as Victor Stenger and Clifton Richard Dawkins exhume that science indeed tells against His every existence!
The atelic argument, based on science, not only supports the empirical one but also tells against other arguments in that without that intent, there can exist no First Cause, Grand Designer and Grand Miracle Monger and so forth.
Scientists are investigating how people erroneously see agency- intent- where there is-none, affirming the argument from pareidolia.Mister Agenda5th April 2010, 11:34 AMWelcome, Griggsy. You certainly are prolific!Trent Wray5th April 2010, 01:34 PMCan I throw in 2 cents?
I think you are always quoting multiple people's thoughts and arguments which makes it difficult to distinguish for some what the point is ... because weeding through other's arguments to get to your own becomes difficult. Especially when you quote multiple conflicting arguments in the same post.
Does this make sense? I could be wrong.skeptic griggsy8th April 2010, 07:04 AMtrentwray, the teleonomic one and the argments from pareidolia and automony are mine. Oh, do tell me what are thoe conflicting ones1 cannot rest on my laurels!
Yes, Mister Agenda, as one can tel from Googling skeptic griggsy and seeing my other monikers which one can also Google as well as the blogs Carneades @ Bloggers, Rationalist @ Google Blog Spot and griggs1947's blog @WordPress. My most extensive coverage of arguments pro and con Him are @ Amazon Religion Discussions,particularly arguemts for God and arguments about Him-that square circle [ Also Google that.
Yes, to retirement!
See my older thread Existence- the arguments here and comment on my style!
What do y'all say yea or nay about arguments for or against His existence? And what do you mainain in part or in whole mine?
This your thread also, so bring forth your arguments!
I'm working on my neurological problems that make for opaqeness- hard to understand.Trent Wray8th April 2010, 10:17 AMThere is a simple argument for the existence of God.
1) Ask God outloud if he exists. Do this only once. You will have your answer.
2) Ask God outloud continually and arbitrarily till the end of your life whether or not he exists. You will have your answer.
3) Wonder whether or not God exists, ocassionally asking outloud, sometimes giving up the quest and not caring, sometimes being more fervent than others. Maybe you'll do it more than once, maybe not. Perhaps you'll even have animosity towards the very idea, perhaps not. This is called a) Life b) Faith.skeptic griggsy20th April 2010, 03:26 PMtrentwray, aah, you're referring to the Schellenberg hiddenness argument which answers Hick's epistemic distance one. He hides HImself so well that as you're noting, He doesn't respond, especially to matters like the Holocaust and all other of Hitler's crimes and Stalin's and the list goes on! Hick claims, its a its must be or it may be guess that He has to withhold Himself so as not impinge on our free will. Well, I'd rather have that than someone burning me alive! So much for the greater good and unknown begged arguments from the argument from ignorance, what a whammy! And you're also alluding to Drange's unbelief argument that had He existed, there would be pellucid - crystal clear- evidence for HIm rather than the contradictory accounts in the Tanakh and the Testament and the Qur'an and their contradictions to reality and so forth.
Trent, you're stating what it took me many words to state and our authors many chapters!
Oh, gee, then a mindless being couldn't do anything, eh? Alvin Plantinga just cannot fathom how vacuous it is to aver that it's picayune point to note that a disembodied being means a mindless one! One expects that of theologians whose expertise lies in silly sophisticated sophistry!
Yes, you and I rock!
Sir, my friend, please sum up whatever I state in any of my threads!Radrook21st April 2010, 07:03 AMIf I choose not to respond to all questions--does that prove I don't exist?skeptic griggsy2nd August 2010, 11:47 AMFolks, now how could supernaturalists answer the naturalist argument from physical mind, the corollary of the ignostic challenge? How could they adduce this world empirical evidence, direct or indirect? How can a disembodied mind do anything whatsoever?
Carneades notes that were He all virtuous, having courage. then, the contradiction would arrive that how could that be as He fears nothing and can overcome anything?
Now, as supernaturalists are ever so wont to do, they might Maritain that that is not one of His attributes ,but David Ramsay Steele begs to differ that were He not capable of virtue or -vice, then what kind of a person would He be, and I add even analogically/
Is there a valid response to these two points?
Next time more from Carneades.
Carneades.Blogspot.comAvalonXQ2nd August 2010, 11:55 AMHow can a disembodied mind do anything whatsoever?
Have you successfully identified all methods by which a being could possibly do something?
If you have not, then how can you say categorically that any being is incapable of anything, since it could carry out an action by a mechanism you have not yet identified?Earthborn2nd August 2010, 12:12 PMit could carry out an action by a mechanism you have not yet identified?A being doing things through "mechanisms" -- whether or not those mechanisms are identified -- implies that it consists of mechanisms, and has therefore a body. A disembodied mind (if such a thing is possible) would not have or need "mechanisms".AvalonXQ2nd August 2010, 12:35 PMA being doing things through "mechanisms" -- whether or not those mechanisms are identified -- implies that it consists of mechanisms, and has therefore a body. A disembodied mind (if such a thing is possible) would not have or need "mechanisms".
Ah, so you're defining a "disembodied mind", at least in part, as "a being without the ability to do anything". In which case the argument is settled by definition.
Of course, if a "disembodied mind" by definition can't do anything, and doing anything by any mechanism means that one has a "body", then God as conventionally described has a "body" (namely whatever powers allow Him to do things).
I'm confident that when God is described as "not having a body", this isn't how the word "body" is being defined.arthwollipot3rd August 2010, 03:17 AMHave you successfully identified all methods by which a being could possibly do something?
If you have not, then how can you say categorically that any being is incapable of anything, since it could carry out an action by a mechanism you have not yet identified?Actually, there are exactly four methods for doing things in the universe. Gravity, electomagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. All of them are pretty well understood. Sure, we don't know everything about them, but the mechanisms by which stuff can happen are, basically, all identified.
If something is happening that does not fall into these mechanisms, then it is something that has never been observed in the history of scientific enquiry.westprog3rd August 2010, 10:23 AMActually, there are exactly four methods for doing things in the universe. Gravity, electomagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. All of them are pretty well understood. Sure, we don't know everything about them, but the mechanisms by which stuff can happen are, basically, all identified.
If something is happening that does not fall into these mechanisms, then it is something that has never been observed in the history of scientific enquiry.
Technically, we now consider electromagnetism and the weak force to be unified. As far as I know.arthwollipot6th August 2010, 05:07 AMTechnically, we now consider electromagnetism and the weak force to be unified. As far as I know.Under certain conditions of high temperature and pressure, this is true.2001-2009, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.vBulletin® v3.7.7, Copyright ©2000-2011, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
I rework my argumentation at other sites and my blogs,so I transpose here them and what others state. I combine and permute arguments.
Please answer yea or nay in whole or in part for what I and my respondents affirm.