• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Interested in your answers

DonExodus

New Member
arg-fallbackName="DonExodus"/>
Homework for the day! Rebuttals?



The First Way: Argument from Motion

1.

Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
2.

Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
3.

Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
4.

Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
5.

Therefore nothing can move itself.
6.

Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
7.

The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
8.

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

1.

We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
2.

Nothing exists prior to itself.
3.

Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.
4.

If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.
5.

Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
6.

The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
7.

Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

1.

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
2.

Assume that every being is a contingent being.
3.

For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
4.

Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
5.

Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
6.

Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
7.

Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
8.

We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
9.

Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
10.

Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

1.

There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
2.

Predications of degree require reference to the "uttermost" case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
3.

The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
4.

Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

1.

We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
2.

Most natural things lack knowledge.
3.

But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
4. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.






-=DonExodus=-
 
arg-fallbackName="ArthurWilborn"/>
Homework for the day! Rebuttals?

The First Way: Argument from Motion

1.

Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
2.

Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
3.

Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
4.

Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
5.

Therefore nothing can move itself.
6.

Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
7.

The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
8.

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Bolded for where it falls apart. Prove it's God and not my invisible pink pet elephant, or some impersonal physical process.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

Again, the fact that you want the last step to be God does not demonstrate that it actually is.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

1.

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
2.

Assume that every being is a contingent being.
3.

For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
4.

Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
5.

Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
6.

Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.

You never assumed that contingent beings required a cause to begin their existence. In this argument, a contingent being could pop into existence from nothing.
The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

1.

There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.

This is opinion, not fact.
The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

1.

We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.

Again, opinion. That things "work to a goal" is a determination that is imposed upon an object, not an inherent property of the object itself.
 
arg-fallbackName="mirandansa"/>
ArthurWilborn said:
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Bolded for where it falls apart. Prove it's God and not my invisible pink pet elephant, or some impersonal physical process.

Not all theistic views see God as a personal agent. God could mean "some impersonal physical process".

Larry King: Do you believe in God?
Stephen Hawking: Yes, if by God is meant the embodiment of the law of the universe.
(Larry King Live, 1999.12.25)

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

Again, the fact that you want the last step to be God does not demonstrate that it actually is.

Again, read carefully:
"8. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God."
"God" is just a name. It could refer to a personal cause or an impersonal cause. The real question you should have asked here is: Is this notion of "first efficient cause" valid?

2. Assume that every being is a contingent being.
You never assumed that contingent beings required a cause to begin their existence. In this argument, a contingent being could pop into existence from nothing.

contingent
-- dependent on something that may or may not happen

If something is contingent, it by definition requires a cause to begin its existence. A contingent being cannot by definition "pop into existence from nothing". The assumption in question is already included in (2).

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

1. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.

This is opinion, not fact.

What if "better/worse" are replaced with "more/less advantageous"? Isn't such a gradation the basis for natural selection, one of the principles of evolution, a scientific fact?

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design
1. We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.

Again, opinion. That things "work to a goal" is a determination that is imposed upon an object, not an inherent property of the object itself.

All objects are inherently interconnected across the universe. There is no discrete determination imposed upon a single object; the determination or "working to a goal" is a holistic force.
 
arg-fallbackName="ArthurWilborn"/>
Not all theistic views see God as a personal agent. God could mean "some impersonal physical process".

Larry King: Do you believe in God?
Stephen Hawking: Yes, if by God is meant the embodiment of the law of the universe.
(Larry King Live, 1999.12.25)

Sure, I'm fine with that; although that's more properly called "deism".
Again, read carefully:
"8. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God."
"God" is just a name. It could refer to a personal cause or an impersonal cause. The real question you should have asked here is: Is this notion of "first efficient cause" valid?

Semantics. You know darn well that by "God" he means the Christian great sky beard wizard. But, if you can show that a "first efficient cause" is not necessary, please do so.
contingent
-- dependent on something that may or may not happen

If something is contingent, it by definition requires a cause to begin its existence. A contingent being cannot by definition "pop into existence from nothing". The assumption in question is already included in (2).

He should have made that clearer. :?

What if "better/worse" are replaced with "more/less advantageous"? Isn't such a gradation the basis for natural selection, one of the principles of evolution, a scientific fact?

I'll grant that, but then step 3 becomes a problem:
3. The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.

This is the inverse of natural selection, where things grow increasingly advantageous; instead of less advantageous from a perfect ancestor as proposed.
All objects are inherently interconnected across the universe. There is no discrete determination imposed upon a single object; the determination or "working to a goal" is a holistic force.


... Sorry, I don't talk moonspeak.
 
arg-fallbackName="Vizard"/>
mirandansa said:
Not all theistic views see God as a personal agent. God could mean "some impersonal physical process".

Larry King: Do you believe in God?
Stephen Hawking: Yes, if by God is meant the embodiment of the law of the universe.
(Larry King Live, 1999.12.25)

If a word can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, then it's a useless word and needs to be discarded. The point of words are for communicating thoughts and ideas. Terms like "god", "divine", and "deity" are meaningless, especially when the person using them refuses to define them clearly. If I have to ask each individual to define "god" because we can't come to any consensus, then why bother using it anymore?
 
arg-fallbackName="TheFlyingBastard"/>
Vizard said:
mirandansa said:
Not all theistic views see God as a personal agent. God could mean "some impersonal physical process".

Larry King: Do you believe in God?
Stephen Hawking: Yes, if by God is meant the embodiment of the law of the universe.
(Larry King Live, 1999.12.25)

If a word can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, then it's a useless word and needs to be discarded. The point of words are for communicating thoughts and ideas. Terms like "god", "divine", and "deity" are meaningless, especially when the person using them refuses to define them clearly. If I have to ask each individual to define "god" because we can't come to any consensus, then why bother using it anymore?

Oh god, here we go again.
 
arg-fallbackName="lrkun"/>
Vizard said:
mirandansa said:
Not all theistic views see God as a personal agent. God could mean "some impersonal physical process".

Larry King: Do you believe in God?
Stephen Hawking: Yes, if by God is meant the embodiment of the law of the universe.
(Larry King Live, 1999.12.25)

If a word can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, then it's a useless word and needs to be discarded. The point of words are for communicating thoughts and ideas. Terms like "god", "divine", and "deity" are meaningless, especially when the person using them refuses to define them clearly. If I have to ask each individual to define "god" because we can't come to any consensus, then why bother using it anymore?

Having read Stephen's answer, it only means that he believes in a god if that's the definition. God is defined as something besides what he stated. Therefore he doesn't really believe in a god. ^-^
 
arg-fallbackName="mirandansa"/>
ArthurWilborn said:
Not all theistic views see God as a personal agent. God could mean "some impersonal physical process".

Larry King: Do you believe in God?
Stephen Hawking: Yes, if by God is meant the embodiment of the law of the universe.
(Larry King Live, 1999.12.25)

Sure, I'm fine with that; although that's more properly called "deism".

Deism concerns the cause of the universe. The law of the universe is post-cause, so Hawking's God is more like pantheism's.

Again, read carefully:
"8. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God."
"God" is just a name. It could refer to a personal cause or an impersonal cause. The real question you should have asked here is: Is this notion of "first efficient cause" valid?

Semantics. You know darn well that by "God" he means the Christian great sky beard wizard.

This is why i suggest people avoid the term "God" when talking about a specific monotheistic deity. In this case, preferably "Yahweh", otherwise at least "deity" (from which "divinity" in pantheism and panentheism can be distinguished).

But, if you can show that a "first efficient cause" is not necessary, please do so.

("efficient cause" is a confusing phrase. One could just say "direct cause" instead.)

The notion of "first" comes from the human frame of reference. Objectively, time has no arrow, no direction. Physical laws are time-reversal-invariant (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-symmetry).

Another point of consideration is that spacetime, according to relativity theory, is non-Euclidean. So there is no absolute "timeline" for an absolute "first" cause, to begin with.

What if "better/worse" are replaced with "more/less advantageous"? Isn't such a gradation the basis for natural selection, one of the principles of evolution, a scientific fact?

I'll grant that, but then step 3 becomes a problem:
3. The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.

This is the inverse of natural selection, where things grow increasingly advantageous; instead of less advantageous from a perfect ancestor as proposed.

Advantage is situational, determined by the environment. So, i wouldn't plainly say "things grow increasingly advantageous". Evolution can also be a process of decreasing complexity. The lower jaw in vertebrates shows such a decrease from fish to reptiles to mammals. Malaria and mycoplasma often dispense with complexity so that reproduction becomes less energy-demanding, which is advantageous. Here the key is still the degree of advantage, but they achieve this by de-growing.

Nevertheless, i agree that this step 3 overall seems problematic.

All objects are inherently interconnected across the universe. There is no discrete determination imposed upon a single object; the determination or "working to a goal" is a holistic force.

... Sorry, I don't talk moonspeak.

You said a determination is imposed upon an object. I wanted to point out that there is no "one determination for one object"; if an object is determined, that affects all objects throughout the universe atomically, quantum mechanically, via matter waves. The determinant force is shared. So, from the most inclusive perspective of the physical universe, it would be noted that "natural bodies" as a whole does exhibit "working to some goal" as the determinant force is actually internal to the whole itself.
 
arg-fallbackName="DeathofSpeech"/>
TheFlyingBastard said:
Oh god, here we go again.
I'd like a Jumbo Popcorn with extra butter, a box of Raisinettes, some snowcaps, a large coke... and a fistfull of vallium.

Oh well. So much for that thread. All ur internets belongz to mirandansa nowz. :facepalm:
 
arg-fallbackName="mirandansa"/>
Vizard said:
mirandansa said:
Not all theistic views see God as a personal agent. God could mean "some impersonal physical process".

Larry King: Do you believe in God?
Stephen Hawking: Yes, if by God is meant the embodiment of the law of the universe.
(Larry King Live, 1999.12.25)

If a word can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, then it's a useless word and needs to be discarded. The point of words are for communicating thoughts and ideas. Terms like "god", "divine", and "deity" are meaningless, especially when the person using them refuses to define them clearly.

By calling the universe "God", one can directly express the reverence and awe that one has for it. Some people don't experience such qualities to the same fullest extent or even none at all. The use of "God", then, helps differentiate one's worldview from others'. It is thereby not meaningless. And it is not to mean "whatever anyone wants it to mean". As i have just pointed out, "God" is readily an appropriate term for something which one reveres with a sense of awe and sacredness with no supernatural assumption. In fact, if you study Eastern philosophies, you'll notice that such usage of "God" is pretty more than rare.

YouTube atheists' conception of "God" is predominantly Western, the supernatural anthropomorphised one moulded by polytheistic and monotheistic religions (and naturally so, because these YouTubers are predominantly of Western backgrounds). If they are truly interested in examining theism, the God question, they should recognise a more comprehensive scope of it just so as to become capable of properly addressing non-Western ideas. And, of course, it doesn't have to go as far as including "toaster", "sandwich", etc. If someone insists on sticking with the traditional definition from the anxiety for "anything goes", that would be as bigoted as those anti-homosexual campaigners supporting Proposition 8 with the baseless anxiety that "if we changed the definition of marriage, people would start to marry dogs and cats".

Here's a relevant quote from Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot (1994):
"A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge."

From my perspective, atheism is not the final stage of awareness for free thinkers. They can go beyond that. Not by discarding rationality, of course, but by integrating it into a broader perspective of existential reality. That is to say, by recovering the immediate sense of significance of subjective experiences, by cultivating and embracing cosmological reverence and awe. In order to do that, however, one must be open to progressive notions of God. One must not be stuck with the conventional, supernatural, mythological ones. One must be willing to develop their understanding of the category of divinity.
 
arg-fallbackName="mirandansa"/>
lrkun said:
Having read Stephen's answer, it only means that he believes in a god if that's the definition. God is defined as something besides what he stated. Therefore he doesn't really believe in a god. ^-^

He answered yes, and defined the kind of God he believes in.

Also consider this:

A: Do you believe in God?
B: No, if by God is meant Yahweh.

Does B believe in God?
 
arg-fallbackName="lrkun"/>
mirandansa said:
lrkun said:
Having read Stephen's answer, it only means that he believes in a god if that's the definition. God is defined as something besides what he stated. Therefore he doesn't really believe in a god. ^-^

He answered yes, and defined the kind of God he believes in.

Also consider this:

A: Do you believe in God?
B: No, if by God is meant Yahweh.

Does B believe in God?

It depends.

B does not believe in a god if it mean yahweh.
B may or may not believe in a god if it means something other than yahweh.
B may not decide on the issue at all.
 
Back
Top