| Proofs of God's non-existence |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog 
|
posted by: Trent (reply) post date: 06.13.04 (6:48 pm) Do you exist? posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 06.13.04 (6:53 pm) Reply to: Trent Yes, I do. I am a physical being. Cogito ergo sum. posted by: Trent (reply) post date: 06.14.04 (6:01 am) Reply to: DragonBait22 How do I know that? posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 06.14.04 (7:53 am) Reply to: DragonBait22 You may con a rationalist with that, but not an empiricist. ;-) posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 06.14.04 (8:25 am) I look forward to this, but how are you going to avoid the pitfalls? If Pascal's wager is inherently unsound and illogical, how will using it in reverse be any more sound? If it is not logical to begin with, the reverse will prove nothing. Traditional arguments rely on assumptions, but so do all arguments. You cannot have an argument without a set of premises. The premises must be assumed to be true. But if you have to prove that they are true, then you would ultimately run into the same problem again. Either they are based on assumptions or they would be based on premises that you must prove also. Ultimately, it all boils down to axioms. But an axiom or postulate is nothing more than an unproven assumption that is merely accepted. While axioms may appear true because of experience, that shows at most that inductive reasoning gives them support, and that ultimately, all deductive reasoning is inductive since its postulates are inductive. But if all reasoning is ultimately based on assumption, and you don't consider assumption to be relevant when it comes to proof, then that would mean that there is no such thing as a rational argument since all arguments rely on assumptions. For point four, I have two words: Petitio Principii. Be careful to avoid it. Make sure that this point is your conclusion and not your premise. If point five is true, that does not disprove the existence of God. It merely shows that morality is something that transcends many conceptions of God. The problem with Bertrand Russell's argument is that if God could not have simply stated a different set of rules for morality, that does not imply that they are somehow independent of God or from something beyond God. It simply means that God cannot do what is logically inconsistent. That's not a limitation for the same reason that the "create a stone that even He cannot lift it" is not a true limitation. If things are inherently moral or immoral independently of whether God said so, that merely shows that the two are consistent, or that people have the wrong conception of morality or of God's will. It's like saying that the fact that Hot Wheels cars stay on the track has nothing to do with Mattel's design, but with the laws of physics. The reality is that they are one in the same since the cars and tracks are designed to work with the laws of physics. If morality is evolutionary, that has nothing to do with whether there is a creator or not. It may raise questions as to specific beliefs of some religions, but even there, religious doctrine is often consistent with your evolutionary view, not something that goes against it. But even if it contradicted it, it would not be relevant. Understanding morality is a learning process, and like all learning, it's evolutionary. That's no more inconsistent with the idea of a God than the notion that children can learn is inconsistent with the idea that they were produced by a mother and father. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 06.14.04 (10:07 am) Reply to: mblog You can't prove there is no God- that's not her point. It's always going to be possible there is one. She's just showing the improbability of one, especially the specific conceptions of them. posted by: DrForbush (reply) post date: 06.14.04 (1:00 pm) If you first define God as a being, then you just need to prove that no being could exist that is infinite. Infinite power would require all the energy of the Universe inorder to be a being and to exist in our universe. So, either God is outside or beyond our universe, or God is beyond or outside our definition of being a being. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 06.14.04 (4:07 pm) Reply to: Trent I could prove to you that I exist if you came to where I live. The difference between my existence and the possibility of God's is that you wouldn't have to die to find out if I exist, and I don't ask you to make any sacrifices in your life. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 06.14.04 (4:12 pm) Reply to: mblog Lol, way to argue with my points before I even make them! ;) Yes, there are definitely counterpoints to be made in this discussion - I certainly wouldn't be able to achieve what so many great minds before me have attempted, and there's no way any proof either way can be given, short of God coming out and admitting He exists. So, I'm not really trying to prove God doesn't exist- that would be silly- I am only explaining and defending my views. And I'll get to your points made here when I post more. :) posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 06.14.04 (4:14 pm) Reply to: DrForbush So then, if the manner of God's existence can't be defined, how does He exist? And if so, what is His existence, how do we know this, and why? posted by: DrForbush (reply) post date: 06.14.04 (4:26 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 Actually I didn't say it couldn't be defined, I just said what the problem was with defining God in that specific way. posted by: Trent (reply) post date: 06.14.04 (5:22 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 I already know that God exists, it is your existence that has yet to be proven to me. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 06.14.04 (5:25 pm) Reply to: Trent And how do you 'know' God exists? posted by: Trent (reply) post date: 06.16.04 (12:53 am) Reply to: DragonBait22 How do I know you exist? posted by: Roy (reply) post date: 06.16.04 (7:38 pm) If God did not exist, Man would find it nessessary to create Him. |
|