BaylorPRSer Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 First off, Molyneux is presupposing materialism in the outset by defining existence as "that which is composed of either matter or energy". But surely the realm of existence is part of the debate itself! From the theist's point of view, there is certainly more to reality than matter and energy. But because Molyneux is incorporating his conclusion into his definition of existence (which is his starting premise), he is effectively arguing in a circle. A better definition of existence would be "that which has actual being", as this would allow a more meaningful discussion as to whether or not immaterial concrete entities exist.Secondly, Molyneux is defining God as a physical deity who is confined to the universe and is subject to the laws of nature. I really hope you understand how big of a straw man this is. The most basic theistic conception of God involves an unembodied mind who transcends space-time. Molyneux is thus attacking a view of God that no theologian or philosopher would defend. I then wrote: I'm not sure how saying something exists n a different realm qualifies it as existing at all. I could make the case that Frodo Baggins exists or could exist in a different realm, but I have no reason to because I understand he is a fantasy being I have read about in books. Actual being is not something mythical. It is something objectively verifiable. Of course philosophers don't defend his definition of god or any substantial definition because they mostly create their own subjective version of god to meet their own needs. To which he replied: I think you're misunderstanding my point. I am not saying that the definition of existence should encompass all logically possible worlds (such as the hypothetical world in which Frodo Baggins exists); I am saying that the definition of existence should encompass all states of being in the actual world, whether those states are material or immaterial.As far as conceptions of God are concerned, I think you're ignoring the fact that virtually every view of God begins with an unembodied consciousness that transcends space-time. All differences of opinion are almost always going to be peripheral to this foundation.
dsayers Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 Where is all this taking place? You didn't provide any frame of reference.
Wuzzums Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 The most basic theistic conception of God involves an unembodied mind who transcends space-time. The mind is a result of the body (mainly the brain). How can a mind exist without that which the mind depends on existing? Water is a result of the interaction between Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms. Water cannot exist without Hydrogen and Oxygen. Now you can define "the mind" as anything you want but please make that clear. It's very confusing when you use a different definition of "the mind" to what is conventionally accepted but also imply your definition of "the mind" is exactly the same as the conventional one. Actual being is not something mythical. It is something objectively verifiable. Of course philosophers don't defend his definition of god or any substantial definition because they mostly create their own subjective version of god to meet their own needs. As far as conceptions of God are concerned, I think you're ignoring the fact that virtually every view of God begins with an unembodied consciousness that transcends space-time. How is your definition of god objectively verifiable and not created to meet your own needs? Because to me those two statements seem contradictory. The most basic theistic conception of God involves an unembodied mind who transcends space-time. Molyneux is thus attacking a view of God that no theologian or philosopher would defend. Never mind that. Have you heard about Ultra-Dude? The most basic conception of Ultra-Dude involves an disembodied mind who transcends space-time AND God. We should start praying to him cause he's a lot more powerful and loving than God. Oh, and, uhm... I'm his prophet.
BaylorPRSer Posted February 17, 2014 Author Posted February 17, 2014 Sorry, this was a Facebook thread. He asked for compelling arguments against the existence of god and I posted Stef's article. The first section is his rebuttal. This is my response to his rebuttal: "I'm not sure how saying something exists n a different realm qualifies it as existing at all. I could make the case that Frodo Baggins exists or could exist in a different realm, but I have no reason to because I understand he is a fantasy being I have read about in books. Actual being is not something mythical. It is something objectively verifiable. Of course philosophers don't defend his definition of god or any substantial definition because they mostly create their own subjective version of god to meet their own needs." I do not believe in God. Hopefully that clears up Wuzzums question about how my definition is not subjective. It is my fault for not making it clear who was posting. Next section is his answer to my response to his initial rebuttal: "I think you're misunderstanding my point. I am not saying that the definition of existence should encompass all logically possible worlds (such as the hypothetical world in which Frodo Baggins exists); I am saying that the definition of existence should encompass all states of being in the actual world, whether those states are material or immaterial.As far as conceptions of God are concerned, I think you're ignoring the fact that virtually every view of God begins with an unembodied consciousness that transcends space-time. All differences of opinion are almost always going to be peripheral to this foundation."
Wuzzums Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 It did clear that part up, thank you. But now I'm confused about the rest. So Stefan is arguing for the existence of god and you're arguing against his existence?
BaylorPRSer Posted February 17, 2014 Author Posted February 17, 2014 My friend (Taylor) disagrees with the truth claim: "God does not exist." I posted Stef's article that argues AGAINST the existence of God. He rebutted the article, I responded to said rebuttal and then he responded to my response. My Facebook friend with whom I shared the article is the one arguing against strong atheism. I have to apologize again as I made a bad assumption that people on this site have read this article and knew what I meant when I said Molyneux's argument for strong atheism. http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2007/02/strong-atheism-case-for-evacuating_07.html this is what I posted and what my friend is rebutting.
dsayers Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 My friend (Taylor) disagrees with the truth claim: "God does not exist." I posted Stef's article that argues AGAINST the existence of God. He rebutted the article, I responded to said rebuttal and then he responded to my response. My Facebook friend with whom I shared the article is the one arguing against strong atheism. I have to apologize again as I made a bad assumption that people on this site have read this article and knew what I meant when I said Molyneux's argument for strong atheism. http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2007/02/strong-atheism-case-for-evacuating_07.html this is what I posted and what my friend is rebutting. Ah, that's the frame of reference. Thank you. virtually every view of God begins with an unembodied consciousness that transcends space-time If he is putting this forth, why would it bother him that the definition of "exist" excludes deities? Or that people talking about the real world reject deities because they are claimed to not be bound by the laws of the real world? Isn't the virtue of religion believing in that which cannot be proven? It's the same as if we're talking about ghosts: Either they exist and therefor we can measure them, or we cannot measure them and therefor even if they existed, it would be no different than them not existing. We have many, way more important things to be talking about than the potential existence of something that has no bearing on our lives or the world we live in at all. That's what I think.
BaylorPRSer Posted February 22, 2014 Author Posted February 22, 2014 Really appreciated these replies. Thx guys.
cynicist Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 First off, Molyneux is presupposing materialism in the outset by defining existence as "that which is composed of either matter or energy". But surely the realm of existence is part of the debate itself! From the theist's point of view, there is certainly more to reality than matter and energy. But because Molyneux is incorporating his conclusion into his definition of existence (which is his starting premise), he is effectively arguing in a circle. A better definition of existence would be "that which has actual being", as this would allow a more meaningful discussion as to whether or not immaterial concrete entities exist. He says that Stefan's argument is circular, but then defines existence as "that which has actual being" or in other words, that which exists, lol.
Theoden Posted March 1, 2014 Posted March 1, 2014 At first I had a similar negative reaction to Steph's statements about matter and energy being the only modes of existence, and especially did not like the "consciousness without matter" argument. I wondered: "How does he know these things?" Then when he said that "saying that God exists outside of space and time is [practically] the same as saying that he doesn't exist..." that stuck a chord with me. We cannot detect God when he is outside of the material world. If he does exist then he will have to reveal himself to us in the material realm. It seems to me that he does not want to be clearly understood because if he did, he would make his existence and will known in a clear way to everyone. The revelation passed down to us in various books is contradictory and thus unusable. I think that while there may be some sort of anchor or final level of existence, there is nothing to be said about it. If it's a God, he keeps to himself and religion is bunk, if its not a God but something unconscious, then religion is bunk.
Recommended Posts