Interested in your answers

ImprobableJoe

New Member
DonExodus said:
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.
I'll just take one, because I'm lazy, and I can't move myself to do any more, and there's no one here to move me. :D

The whole thing is a mess. Even given that nothing can move itself (which I'm iffy about), you're stuck with a contradiction. If each thing must be moved by a previous action, then the sequence of motion would have to extend back infinitely. If it cannot extend back infinitely, then every thing does NOT need to be moved by something else. Some part of the reasoning is wrong, or some part of reality is misunderstood.

The theistic "solution" is to point to the contradiction, commit the special pleading fallacy, and label the exception to the contradiction "God". Except what they are really doing is labeling the contradiction itself... and you can't walk out of a logical dead end by painting a train tunnel on it. The world isn't a Road Runner cartoon.
 

mirandansa

New Member
lrkun said:
mirandansa said:
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.

So, B,
in the first context is an atheist,
in the second context, is an atheist or a theist,
in the third context, is neither an atheist nor a theist (i.e. non-atheist and non-theist).
Would you agree?
 

lrkun

New Member
mirandansa said:
So, B,
in the first context is an atheist,
in the second context, is an atheist or a theist,
in the third context, is neither an atheist nor a theist (i.e. non-atheist and non-theist).
Would you agree?

That is what the facts suggest.
 

Vizard

New Member
mirandansa said:
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.

I can look at the universe with awe, wonder, and respect and not feel the need to call it "God", because I realize that the word "God" has a lot of baggage to it. This is an English website, so I think it's a safe assumption when someone uses the term "God" that they're referring to the Western, Monotheistic kind. I would say most of us are aware of the different god concepts such as Pantheism and Panentheism, but they aren't very common in debate because they don't have a large following. I think you're unreasonable to expect the audience to know what you mean by God if it differs from the common conception of their culture.

Yes, you have Natural Pantheists who don't think there's anything beyond physical existence but they have reverence for the universe and nature. This is the Sagan, Hawking, and Einstein type of Pantheist. If you want to define the universe as "God", then by that definition I would be a theist because I believe in the existence of the universe. However, I find the use of God as the universe to be dishonest and would never use it to describe my feelings toward the universe. This is essentially just atheism without having to call itself atheism.

However, there are other types of Pantheists who view God as the "universe plus some extra stuff". From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism :

- Monist idealist Pantheism holds that there is only one type of substance, and that substance is mental or spiritual. Ultimate reality consists of a single consciousness. This version is common in Hindu philosophies and Consciousness-Only schools of Buddhism, as well as in some New Age writers such as Deepak Chopra.
- Dualist Pantheism holds that there are two major types of substance, physical and mental/spiritual. Dualistic pantheism is very diverse, and may include beliefs in reincarnation, cosmic consciousness, and paranormal connections across Nature. It is represented most widely today in literal versions of Paganism.

I would be atheist concerning these Pantheistic God concepts.
 

Vizard

New Member
mirandansa said:
lrkun said:
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.

So, B,
in the first context is an atheist,
in the second context, is an atheist or a theist,
in the third context, is neither an atheist nor a theist (i.e. non-atheist and non-theist).
Would you agree?

No, the third option would be that you would require more information to determine their beliefs. Atheism/Theism is a dichotomy so there is not a "both" or "neither".
 

lrkun

New Member
Vizard said:
No, the third option would be that you would require more information to determine their beliefs. Atheism/Theism is a dichotomy so there is not a "both" or "neither".

Nicely done. Thanks for pointing out my mistake.
 

Nautyskin

New Member
mirandansa said:
lrkun said:
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.

So, B,
in the first context is an atheist,
in the second context, is an atheist or a theist,
in the third context, is neither an atheist nor a theist (i.e. non-atheist and non-theist).
Would you agree?
Could you take this elsewhere? Some of us are interested in reading what this thread is about, and that's easier to do when it's not cluttered with all of these off-topic posts.
 

Vizard

New Member
lrkun said:
Nicely done. Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

Well actually I wasn't correct either, because there would really be only two options. Either they're an atheist or a theist that believes in a different god concept.
 

Nautyskin

New Member
TheFlyingBastard said:
Oh god, here we go again.
Note to ALL USERS:

Please make sure you use the 'Report' button in the lower-right hand section of any post that is blatantly off-topic and/or specifically tailored to derail the thread it's posted in.

Especially if it's present in every. single. fucking. thread. that user posts in.

Thanks :)
 

mirandansa

New Member
Nautyskin said:
Could you take this elsewhere? Some of us are interested in reading what this thread is about, and that's easier to do when it's not cluttered with all of these off-topic posts.

What does "God" in Don's initial post mean? It's undefined. So, if one is to answer the homework properly, one cannot really proceed by way of refuting only monotheistic deities. That was the point i was making.
 

Anachronous Rex

New Member
I bring it up again only because it seems relevant:

Does not atomic decay contradict the premise that,"only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion?" If not atomic decay then virtual particles mayhaps?

Perhaps someone versed in physics can weigh in on this?
 

Nautyskin

New Member
mirandansa said:
Nautyskin said:
Could you take this elsewhere? Some of us are interested in reading what this thread is about, and that's easier to do when it's not cluttered with all of these off-topic posts.
What does "God" in Don's initial post mean? It's undefined.
Undefined? I disagree. I found it was quite clearly defined several times in the premises themselves, and to the extent that was necessary for the discussion:

Example 1:
DonExodus said:
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
Example 2:
DonExodus said:
Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
Example 3:
DonExodus said:
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.
Example 4:
DonExodus said:
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.
Example 5:
DonExodus said:
Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
These are direct definitions as they relate to each point of the topic of the thread. Your posts were both unnecessary and, I would suggest, quite clear attempts (and might I add, successful ones) at derailing a perfectly good thread into a discussion that was completely irrelevant to the topic.

mirandansa said:
So, if one is to answer the homework properly, one cannot really proceed by way of refuting only monotheistic deities. That was the point i was making.
I see no evidence of this, and evidence all over this forum to suggest otherwise.

Wanting to share your opinions/beliefs and understanding of certain topics is fine. I'm not a moderator, and cannot tell you what to do, but what I can do is strongly suggest you keep your posts as close to on-topic as you can, as this serves to keep discussions on-track, and is only fair to the person who started the thread, and to those interested in discussing the stated topic(s).

If you want a thread discussing the topics you're interested in, feel free to make a new one dedicated to that. Perhaps people really do need to define/redefine what they mean when they refer to 'god' or 'theism', but that's not something that needs to be discussed in every thread on the forum.


Apologies to DonExodus and other posters/readers - This is the last off-topic post I will make in this thread.
 
Nautyskin said:
TheFlyingBastard said:
Oh god, here we go again.
Note to ALL USERS:

Please make sure you use the 'Report' button in the lower-right hand section of any post that is blatantly off-topic and/or specifically tailored to derail the thread it's posted in.

Especially if it's present in every. single. fucking. thread. that user posts in.

Thanks :)
That's the thing though, isn't it? It's obnoxious, but not against the rules. What is there to report?
 

lrkun

New Member
TheFlyingBastard said:
That's the thing though, isn't it? It's obnoxious, but not against the rules. What is there to report?

Ignore it. You know you're not breaking any rules. ;)

@ DonExudus will you post more questions like this in this thread?
 

Aught3

New Member
There is a way to ignore users if you find their posts irritating. Simply go to their profile page and add their name to your foe list. Voilà , troll-free browsing!
 

Millennium

New Member
DonExodus said:
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.

-=DonExodus=-

This idea leaves a lot to be desired, since 1:Even if it were true, it could only support a deist god.
2:God:the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions Ok, how does an original "mover" have to be a god who created the universe?
3:6 is true, in it's own way, but actions triggering movement do not have to be movement. If you have ever seen an explosion, you can understand. This says that there is in fact no need for a first mover, cutting 7 and 8 off of the list of things on this list that are logical.
 

Millennium

New Member
DonExodus said:
Homework for the day! Rebuttals?


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.
-=DonExodus=-

Basically the same as the last answer, but lets add the fact that you are also saying, that if god is bound by the rules of the universe(which he would be if he was inside of it) he would also need something prior to him.
 

Millennium

New Member
DonExodus said:
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.

A sufficient explaination to nothing forming something is here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
DonExodus said:
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.


This is a joke, right? The maximum high-score in your video game is 10000. That must be because god made it that way. This deserves a good *facepalm* Having a maximum is just the natural order of things, and not even everything has one.
DonExodus said:
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.


1:This really depends on what you describe as a natural body. Adding al to the end of the word means to be of whatever the beginning is. Natural means of nature. Nature encompasses everything to a natural body by normal definition is something, since everything exists within everything, otherwise, it is not something. So what you are saying is that things work towards a goal, and do so not by chance. What is the goal of a rock? Whether it gets touched or thrown is based on chance.
2:Lets use something else for this. Say, evolution on the basic levels. The point of evolution is to take the good traits, keep them, and get rid of the bad ones. Evolution has no intelligence.
3:No, this is not true. Evolution still works, and needed no metaphorical archer. It is set into action by the laws of the universe. Also, in the archer example, the archer only puts the arrow into action, which just shows again that there is no support for a theist god. I think that thunderf00t covered topics like these in his "Why people laugh at creationists" series with the person who said that there is since there is good there has to be morals, since there are morals, there has to be a moral law giver. These arguments take a few commonly accepted facts, string them together and then bring out a single possibility out of the other ones which are far more logical.
Lets not use evolution, because some might argue. Lets use gravity. Gravity's goal is to make sure that everything has a certain amount of attraction to everything else based on the objects mass. It is something, and therefore natural. It lacks logic, but does not in fact need to have any god or archer to start it up.
 

pdka2004

New Member
I am not a physicist in any way, but here goes....
DonExodus said:
Homework for the day! Rebuttals?



The First Way: Argument from Motion

1.

Our senses prove that some things are in motion.

Our senses induce us to believe that some things are in motion
2.

Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.

There is no such thing as potential motion, only motion or non-motion. An immobile object can be made to appear to move by the application of energy
3.

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

Only the application of additional energy can do this, it does not have to be the result of a collision of two masses. Think of a how a balloon will rise if the air inside is heated. No motion has been applied and no additional air added, but the balloon will rise due to an imbalance in the air density inside and out due to the addition of energy in the form of heat
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).

I am not sure why, but I am thinking of spinning tops here. Its potentai movement (falling down) is completely dependant on its actual movement (spinning). As soon as it stops spinning it will fall over
5.

Therefore nothing can move itself.

See #3. Things will only move if additional energy is applied. They can move themselves without being pushed
6.

Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.

Each thing in motion is the result of applied energy transforming potential into kinetic energy
7.

The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.

Yes it can as long as no energy is lost to friction, heat, sound, etc. in this case The energy itself is not lost , just transferred
8.

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

"Stupidity is also a gift of God, but one mustn't misuse it"

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

1.

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

OK
2.

Nothing exists prior to itself.

It does, just in another state. For example a diamond was once a tree, but you cant get engaged to a girl by giving her a splinter
3.

Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.

Not sure what you mean by this? Nothing will spontaneously transform from one state to another under any circumstance, ever. And in fact the only efficient cause of nothing, is nothing - which doesn't exist
4.

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

Doesnt really follow. The only thing that doesn't exist is nothing. Therefore everything else is something, whether we can perceive it or not
5.

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

Nope, we were just wrong in guessing what the first thing was.
6.

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

Everything we perceive is just a state of energy. The energy is not lost, just transferred to another state
7.

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

"Stupidity is the deliberate cultivation of ignorance"

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.

There are things we understand and things we don't. Everything is possible, some things are just more plausible
2.

Assume that every being is a contingent being.

Assume anything and you just make an Ass of U and ME. I'd be quite happy if some of my kids were just continent beings
3.

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

There was a time when the molecules, proteins, etc existed in another state and/or another body. For example: sperm + egg + mothers dietary habits = baby. None of these things on their own could ever be thought of as a baby and babies do not spontaneously appear, fully formed, inside the womb. If they did there would be no need for Hugh Grant to have a career
4.

Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.

Nope. Just really, really unlikely. And they may not even exist in a way that would be recognizable to us. Matter is only our perception of various states of energy.
5.

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

Time is relative to existance. Therefore what ever happened before things existed did not happen in time and therefore could not happen in any we we could ever understand

6.

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

As I pointed out already the only thing that can not exist is nothing. Whether we perceive it or not "something" is there
7.

Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
Which is patently absurd
8.

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

Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
Straw meet Man. Just because not every being is contingent doe not mean that none of them are
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.

"There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life."

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.

Too dependant on circumstance. Generally speaking I prefer shooting puppies to sharks, but only when I have a camera instead of a spear gun. But then of course I make more money from the shark shots if I have my camera and not my spear gun. So which are better, puppies or sharks?
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).

Wrong, on a basic level ice does not resemble hot water does not resemble steam
3.

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

Our obesity epidemic was caused by one massively fat man?
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.

And what about their imperfections?


"Stupidity has a knack of getting its way."
The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

1.

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

Who sees this? The only "goal" is the continued propogation of the genus and this is not done on a concious level. In fact it does not even take place on an individual level. Successful propogation should be considered as the furthering of the species, not the individual gene line
2.

Most natural things lack knowledge.
They have exactly as much knowledge as is relevant to their circumstance. Worms may not be able to work a DVD player but they know a lot more about how to survive underground eating dirt than I ever will
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.

Nope, intelligence is what we use to survive long enough to attract a mate and propogate our genes. Others use camoflage, large teeth, colorful displays or canniballistic violence to the same end.

Especially in Glasgow

4. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

"When stupidity is a sufficient explanation, there is no need to have recourse to any other"





-=DonExodus=-


Thank you for this, I am jet lagged and caffeine jagged. My brain needed a stretch
 
Top