engardeknave Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Spoiler: Hands and neurotransmitters move simultaneously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andkon Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 So God as pure act... how can we separate out act from physical beings as if we're separating egg yolk from the egg white? Does "actuality" just float somewhere? And how does it make sense to have this actuality outside of spacetime on top of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aFireInside Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 I was actually going to post this yesterday, I wonder if he would be willing to debate stef. Its been a while since stef had a debate on the idea of GOD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
engardeknave Posted October 29, 2014 Author Share Posted October 29, 2014 I'm no logic expert but I'm pretty sure you can't derive the conclusion that there is an unmoved mover starting with the premise that all things are moved by a mover. And frankly, I am not grasping how the conclusion is even related to the premises. All I'm getting from this is: 1) all things are moved by other things; 2) the only alternative is an infinite regression of movers, which we are assuming to be impossible; 3) therefore an unmoved mover, ie. god must exist. Which is exactly the same as saying "existence exists, therefore god". Not only does the conclusion not even follow, but there's an assumption that the natural state of the universe is somehow frozen and changeless. This assumed state is why you'd need an unmoved mover, but objects in motion remain in motion until acted upon by some force. (Aristotle and Aquinas get a pass on this error because they lived long before Newton. Tom Woods not so much.) The dependency on total abstractions like "potentiality" and "actualization" seems problematic too. These are not properties of things, but the intellectual projection of our knowledge of properties of the universe. There's no toast-potential hiding in bread. And there's just an interstellar collision of other common self-detonating god-paradoxes strewn on top of all that. Everything from omnipotence and omniscience, to the concept of "outside" applied to space itself (a place outside of places). I know there's more I haven't even begun to unravel. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelafina Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 How can anyone know if God exists or not? When an atheist claims that God doesn't exist, I would ask that person: how can you know for sure that something doesn't exist? You can't use logic to conclude that something doesn't exist. You can only use guesses and assumptions and state that "God probably doesn't exist", or "my best guess is that God doesn't exist", or you can even say "theists need to prove their claims". If I asked you: Does a triangular-shaped iPhone exist? You would respond, "I don't think Apple make triangular iPhones" and you might even bet me that it doesn't exist -- but you cannot say "I am sure that it doesn't exist" because that would be illogical. The same rule applies to atheism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 The difference is that the extraordinary claim that god exists requires some extraordinary evidence. The ordinary claim that god does not exist (because there is no direct evidence), especially that he does not exist in the form that a particular religion describes does not require an extraordinary lack of evidence, and could be easily proven wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I should add that reading Against The Gods? is helpful here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. D. Stembal Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Nice analysis, engarde. Woods was talking circles around my brain, and I couldn't make out his reasoning so I just thought - SOPHIST. Pelafina, The biblical definition of "God" cannot not logically exist because the very definition is self-detonating in every respect. God is described as a consciousness that is omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, and ethereal. The universe is made up of matter, which has mass and volume, so God cannot be ethereal if we are to prove that he exists empirically. He can never be detected. If God existed before the universe began (LET THERE BE STUFF!), he cannot be part of the universe, by definition. He existed before anything could possibly exist. See point one. Putting point one and two aside, if we assume God really does exist in the universe with all the stuff, we have to deal with the paradox of omnipotence. Can an all-powerful deity create an impossible task, like creating a mountain that he cannot erode? If so, then he's not really omnipotent. If not, then again, he's not infinitely powerful. Omniscience, or all-knowing, is also a self-detonating concept and cannot be applied to any consciousness. For example, if God knew everything, he would also be aware of ignorance. To be aware of ignorance, you have to admit there are limits to your knowledge. Therefore, God cannot know everything and is not omniscient. In summary, if you can't apply logic, physics, or any rational definition to God, he is synonymous with non-existence. Therefore, no one can ever objectively prove God exists. No possibility of God is the default position. I hope this helps! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelafina Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 What about all the other definitions of God that don't include omniscience, or omnipotence and that are not counter-logical, but just are unproven by science? By defining God in this way, one cannot say that they know God doesn't exist, therefore atheism is wrong and illogical. They can only say that there is no proof of God's existence and end it there. That is why I think that atheism is a religion, because it is based on the faith that one has a special power of being sure that something doesn't exist. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 What about all the other definitions of God that don't include omniscience, or omnipotence and that are not counter-logical, but just are unproven by science? By defining God in this way, one cannot say that they know God doesn't exist, therefore atheism is wrong and illogical. They can only say that there is no proof of God's existence and end it there. That is why I think that atheism is a religion, because it is based on the faith that one has a special power of being sure that something doesn't exist. Again I'll recommend Against The Gods? (which is a free book). Which definition of "god" would you like to use here? In general, when you whittle away the anthropomorphic aspects, they boil down to something that exists outside the observable universe but has an effect on the universe. This is a contradiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelafina Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Shirgall, I will read that book at your suggestion. What about this definition from Webster - a being that has great power, strength, knowledge, and that can affect nature and the lives of people. Do you agree that, according to this definition, there is no way to prove that this being does not or cannot exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 What about this definition from Webster - a being that has great power, strength, knowledge, and that can affect nature and the lives of people. Do you agree that, according to this definition, there is no way to prove that this being does not or cannot exist? If it has an observable effect ("can affect nature and lives") it's easy to prove that it exists and the argument would indeed be over. Go visit the Amazing Randy and collect your $1,000,000 prize. If it does not have a observable effect then there's no point to it existing or not so why bother with a useless abstraction the unnecessarily complicates our life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NGardner Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 I love that people offer minor "evidences" for god and then feel so much more secure in their religion. Even if their evidence did hold up it is at best evidence of a god. Not their specific white robed guy. This point always seemed skipped over in argument with the believers. If its brought up they usually say "well I have faith", but if you have faith and are going to blindly accept things, why offer evidence at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libertus Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Sadly, I don't see Tom debate any Atheist on the topic. He hasn't responded to reasoned, sourced, well thought out comments on his Facebook page or his Youtube channel. Only to polemic and name calling. He has ignored all the good points. Deep down he knows he can't defend those long debunked sophist "arguments" against a skilled Atheist debater. Like most Theists. I mean, he's smart, he's not debating his belief system when there is the danger of being crushed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts