Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
That may not necessaily be true
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Does God exist? (17 Viewers)
- Thread starter MoonlightSonata
- Start date
Silver Persian
Banned
Well, the fact that we can't see, hear etc magnetic fields doesn't disprove their existence.That may not necessaily be true
Although they may be disproved in other ways
/changes topic of conversation abruptly away from science.
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
No, what I meant was that we aren't necessarily unable to sense them. There's anecdotal "evidence" of people being able to sense magnetic fields, which isn't unusual in the animal kingdom (birds sense magnetic fields via magnetic-sensitive crystals in the brain, and navigate by it) and as such isn't implausible in humans, just unlikely.Well, the fact that we can't see, hear etc magnetic fields doesn't disprove their existence.
Although they may be disproved in other ways
/changes topic of conversation abruptly away from science.
But that's neither here nor there
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
As a function of stimulation of the.. hippocampus, I think.
Cookie182
Individui Superiore
You would have no relationship, if language ceased to exist. Given its all words...
Start with this: http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/introduction_to_semantic_apologetics/
Then this: http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_noncognitivism/
Then this: http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/conifers_refutation_of_noncognitivism/
And if your still not convinced by the argument from semantic apologetics: http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/process_based_noncognitivism/
Just some food for thought.
Cookie182
Individui Superiore
I find the Apathetic god Paradox very interesting:
If your unlimited, then you would have no needs.
"A god, by definition, has infinite metaphysical power, in that it has no limits whatsoever. It contains all actualities and potentialities within itself, and cannot experience desire or loss, or any other motivating factor.
This may require more explanation, however. How can we say that a god cannot experience any motivating factor? Because motivating factors come from limits. That which pushes us to act, or makes one action more desirable than another, is a value, a need, and therefore limits. Even exterior causes cannot push one to act unless one has a limit that is exploited by that cause.
Being all-knowing, it would have no knowledge to gain, and therefore could not feel any emotion – could never be surprised, angry, pleased, satisfied, dissatisfied, etc. To feel an emotion is an evolutionary shortcut that spurs us to action. A god, being infinite, has no need to act or to have shortcuts.
We can generalize the paradox to any level of metaphysical power. The Amoral God Paradox can be expressed like this:
I .Raising a volitional being’s metaphysical power will generally raise the scope and potentiality of its actions.
II. Raising a volitional being’s metaphysical power will generally lower its need to act, and therefore its moral scope.
Or even simpler, the higher the metaphysical power, the more powerful its moral choices are, but the least it needs or desires to make those choices.
As for how it applies specifically to the case of the god-concept, the Paradox can be used in atheology to disprove the idea that a god created anything. Without any motivation, there can be no action. This can be used in Materialist Apologetics (especially on theistic moral principles, but everything else too), the Problem of Evil and the Cosmological Argument. The Paradox can also be used as a separate argument.
The argument could be constructed like this:
1. If divine creation is true, then the universe was created by a non-limited god.
2. A god cannot have any internal motivating factor, including need, desire, ignorance, or emotion.
3. If divine creation is true, then there was no cause outside of a god before Creation.
4. If divine creation is true, then a god was not subject to exterior causes before Creation. (from 3)
5. A god before Creation cannot have any internal or exterior motivating factors. (from 2 and 4)
6. A god would never act, and divine creation cannot be true. (from 5)"
Apathetic God Paradox
If your unlimited, then you would have no needs.
"A god, by definition, has infinite metaphysical power, in that it has no limits whatsoever. It contains all actualities and potentialities within itself, and cannot experience desire or loss, or any other motivating factor.
This may require more explanation, however. How can we say that a god cannot experience any motivating factor? Because motivating factors come from limits. That which pushes us to act, or makes one action more desirable than another, is a value, a need, and therefore limits. Even exterior causes cannot push one to act unless one has a limit that is exploited by that cause.
Being all-knowing, it would have no knowledge to gain, and therefore could not feel any emotion – could never be surprised, angry, pleased, satisfied, dissatisfied, etc. To feel an emotion is an evolutionary shortcut that spurs us to action. A god, being infinite, has no need to act or to have shortcuts.
We can generalize the paradox to any level of metaphysical power. The Amoral God Paradox can be expressed like this:
I .Raising a volitional being’s metaphysical power will generally raise the scope and potentiality of its actions.
II. Raising a volitional being’s metaphysical power will generally lower its need to act, and therefore its moral scope.
Or even simpler, the higher the metaphysical power, the more powerful its moral choices are, but the least it needs or desires to make those choices.
As for how it applies specifically to the case of the god-concept, the Paradox can be used in atheology to disprove the idea that a god created anything. Without any motivation, there can be no action. This can be used in Materialist Apologetics (especially on theistic moral principles, but everything else too), the Problem of Evil and the Cosmological Argument. The Paradox can also be used as a separate argument.
The argument could be constructed like this:
1. If divine creation is true, then the universe was created by a non-limited god.
2. A god cannot have any internal motivating factor, including need, desire, ignorance, or emotion.
3. If divine creation is true, then there was no cause outside of a god before Creation.
4. If divine creation is true, then a god was not subject to exterior causes before Creation. (from 3)
5. A god before Creation cannot have any internal or exterior motivating factors. (from 2 and 4)
6. A god would never act, and divine creation cannot be true. (from 5)"
Apathetic God Paradox
Cookie182
Individui Superiore
The most fundamental question of all time. The underlying factor behind our "supposed" sense of morality, our laws, our politics. It needs to be rigorously debated. Next you'll be throwing out "we should just respect people's beliefs" garbage.
Iron
Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 7,765
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
But surely youd agree that debating this is ultimately not very helpful, Cookie?
Well I suppose you wouldnt. We win very few people through a formal appeal to reason. This is why you seek constant debate, because you know that I cant win anyone over myself though an appeal to some iron externality, but have to appeal to them to explore their inner-most sensitive, human feelings on the matter
Curses!
Cookie182
Individui Superiore
Oh your quite correct, no amount of good argument will sway (the problem with religion in the first place), but in saying that, this does not undermine the very need to argue.
Riet
Tomcat Pilot
The universe was created at the big bang and there is no god.
Cookie182
Individui Superiore
On a side note, I read the New Testament yesterday. Was bored at uni and some random dude handed them out.
The utter sexism present is horrendous. The whole gospel of Timothy is a treacherous work of literature, to say the least. Then there is revelations...shudder.
Although, admittedly I didn't mind Mathew's account of the Sermon on the Mount- he writes with a consistent, if possible, enjoyable prose.
Assuming Jesus is quoted correctly, he has a very predictable oratory style:
"Assuredly, it has long been said...BUT I say to you....for what reward is that...
*chuck in a few blessed this/that...boom, you've got it down pat.
I think I might copy this style for the speech I have to do in Finance next week on the GFC
Assuredly, it has long been said that property prices always rise, BUT I say to you, this is not the case...for if you only invest in property, what reward is there in that?
There are some undertones of violence as well- however at times I'd have to say, the NT as a whole kind of drones on/severe repetition. I think for readability, the Koran is much more fun. The NT reads with the pace of a film like the "Godfather", the Koran is fuckin "Die Hard" With a Vengeance".
Edit: Then there's the OT...nothing short of "A Clockwork Orange"
The utter sexism present is horrendous. The whole gospel of Timothy is a treacherous work of literature, to say the least. Then there is revelations...shudder.
Although, admittedly I didn't mind Mathew's account of the Sermon on the Mount- he writes with a consistent, if possible, enjoyable prose.
Assuming Jesus is quoted correctly, he has a very predictable oratory style:
"Assuredly, it has long been said...BUT I say to you....for what reward is that...
*chuck in a few blessed this/that...boom, you've got it down pat.
I think I might copy this style for the speech I have to do in Finance next week on the GFC
Assuredly, it has long been said that property prices always rise, BUT I say to you, this is not the case...for if you only invest in property, what reward is there in that?
There are some undertones of violence as well- however at times I'd have to say, the NT as a whole kind of drones on/severe repetition. I think for readability, the Koran is much more fun. The NT reads with the pace of a film like the "Godfather", the Koran is fuckin "Die Hard" With a Vengeance".
Edit: Then there's the OT...nothing short of "A Clockwork Orange"
Last edited:
Iron
Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 7,765
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
One doesnt follow the other, my fren. You cant read it literally.
And lol cookie, but that was cheap coming from you
Cookie182
Individui Superiore
But seriously, to the true Christian, the NT is not bad, but I think JK Rowling writes better...
But like, what is so impressive about it? Surely it doesn't stand with the classic works of literature- I find "A Brave New World" much more inspiring. Yea I disected out the message of love etc
But tbh I'm rather disappointed. I thought all this argument, the one book people die with it by bedside, the book given out in prisons, hospitals etc
What am I missing here ppl...what's the conclusion?
In fact, what's the problem/conflict in the first place?
But like, what is so impressive about it? Surely it doesn't stand with the classic works of literature- I find "A Brave New World" much more inspiring. Yea I disected out the message of love etc
But tbh I'm rather disappointed. I thought all this argument, the one book people die with it by bedside, the book given out in prisons, hospitals etc
What am I missing here ppl...what's the conclusion?
In fact, what's the problem/conflict in the first place?
Riet
Tomcat Pilot
There is no reason to believe a god has ever been involved in the development of the universe.
Cookie182
Individui Superiore
Cheap, yes, but I'm in a very stiring mood.
Ok, turning seriousness on...
I am actually astounded though that people are that inspired by this book. I'm concurrently reading the Quran, it's far more passionate and tenacious.
Like we get into some hefty debate here, philosophically etc
But after reading it, I'm kind of shocked at the lack of any real philosophical depth. No important questions of morality are answered or justified. The meaning of life is avoided, not tackled. Even Jesus shows signs of contradictory behaviour and if not all else, weakness at times. I see something far less then the "perfection" proclaimed. I feel like a critic coming down hard on one of those built up films, which collapsed halfway. Sorry, but all thats offered is a primitive vision of love that is quickly diluted by contradictions and bigotry. What is so special, really?
The classical Greeks offer me much more inquiry...if your after meaningful contemplation, get some Plato or Socrates in you.
I find more love in a Disney classic or a Jane Austin novel...just saying.
Last edited:
Iron
Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 7,765
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
But then, where would the fun be if there was? Youre referring to something that can satisfy men's intelligence in a material way. Faith is not this thing.
SylviaB
Just Bee Yourself 🐝
Yeah hey bro, it's funny how god acts as thought he doesn't exist.