Eudaimonist
I believe in life before death!
- Jan 1, 2003
- 27,482
- 2,738
- 58
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Arguments about God
- Thread starter griggs1947
- Start date
- Status
Since no divine intent appears per the Coyne-Mayr-Lamberth teleonomic argument, then theism is just as superstitious as are full animism and polytheism per Lamberth's reduced animism argument!
Posts 97 [griggs1947]
Posts 97 [griggs1947]
Upvote
0
Science disproves the supernatural: no miracles, no Muhammad's Ascension on horse, no his splitting the Moon, no parthenogenetic birth, no Resurrection and no Ascension of Mary. It finds through the quantum fields eternal Existence, and so to add Him would be to violate the Ockham.
Aquinas' superfluity argument boomerangs on him with his five failed ways.Percy Bysshe Shelley implicitly makes that argument: " To suppose that some existence beyond, or above them [ the descriptions- laws- of Nature] is to invent a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what already is accounted for." Then to find here a category mistake begs the question thereof.
Thus, to not only does the teleonomic argument eviscerate theism about divine intent but also do the Ockham and the superfluity and the presumption of naturalism arguments.The latter demands evidence, not theistic misinterpretations of evidence!
Here are Aquinas' failed five ways:
[1] His Prime Mover argument suffers from the laws of motion that honor the inherent motions of Nature.
[2] His etiological argument- the Primary Cause suffers from his begging the question of taking away the primary cause takes away all other efficient causes [explanations]
[3] His argument from contingency suffers from the law of conservation applied to the eternal quantum fields, whence the source of the Big Transformation [Bang].
[4] His ontological argument from perfections suffers from its being no more than a reification of the continuum of qualities.
[5] His argument to design suffers from post application of it onto patterns: its as though a bowman put his bull's-eye on the arrow after it landed.
And they all suffer from begging that question of divine intent as Carneades' atelic argument notes.
Leibniz's colossal blunder is not to notice that non-existence is not possible: so why is there something rather than nothing is a pseudo - query with a pseudo-answer.Ti's just another manifestation of the arguments from personal incredulity with the answer from the argument from ignorance.
His other blunder is his sufficient reason argument that the presumption of naturalism eviscerates as natural causes and explanations themselves suffice as efficient, primary, necessary and sufficient.
The Kalam cosmological suffers from begging a starting point, the red herrings of the hotel and such: WLC conflates the qualities of infinite and finite qualities, that the potential is the actual and thereby the addition makes for infinity. And his misunderstands the astrophysics! No origination but the transformation of energy explains our Universe
Again, [Hans] Reichenbach's argument from existence notes that as Existence is all, no possible transcendent being can exist and no other thing whence the Cosmos comes. To argue against that yes, begs the question.
People murder others in the name of that superfluity!
Aquinas' superfluity argument boomerangs on him with his five failed ways.Percy Bysshe Shelley implicitly makes that argument: " To suppose that some existence beyond, or above them [ the descriptions- laws- of Nature] is to invent a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what already is accounted for." Then to find here a category mistake begs the question thereof.
Thus, to not only does the teleonomic argument eviscerate theism about divine intent but also do the Ockham and the superfluity and the presumption of naturalism arguments.The latter demands evidence, not theistic misinterpretations of evidence!
Here are Aquinas' failed five ways:
[1] His Prime Mover argument suffers from the laws of motion that honor the inherent motions of Nature.
[2] His etiological argument- the Primary Cause suffers from his begging the question of taking away the primary cause takes away all other efficient causes [explanations]
[3] His argument from contingency suffers from the law of conservation applied to the eternal quantum fields, whence the source of the Big Transformation [Bang].
[4] His ontological argument from perfections suffers from its being no more than a reification of the continuum of qualities.
[5] His argument to design suffers from post application of it onto patterns: its as though a bowman put his bull's-eye on the arrow after it landed.
And they all suffer from begging that question of divine intent as Carneades' atelic argument notes.
Leibniz's colossal blunder is not to notice that non-existence is not possible: so why is there something rather than nothing is a pseudo - query with a pseudo-answer.Ti's just another manifestation of the arguments from personal incredulity with the answer from the argument from ignorance.
His other blunder is his sufficient reason argument that the presumption of naturalism eviscerates as natural causes and explanations themselves suffice as efficient, primary, necessary and sufficient.
The Kalam cosmological suffers from begging a starting point, the red herrings of the hotel and such: WLC conflates the qualities of infinite and finite qualities, that the potential is the actual and thereby the addition makes for infinity. And his misunderstands the astrophysics! No origination but the transformation of energy explains our Universe
Again, [Hans] Reichenbach's argument from existence notes that as Existence is all, no possible transcendent being can exist and no other thing whence the Cosmos comes. To argue against that yes, begs the question.
People murder others in the name of that superfluity!
Upvote
0
The divine protection racket argument is ad baculum- from force. I t maintains that in order to find favor with God, we must just be his clay robot in the matter of total allegiance to Him or else one undergoes eternal torture. This is just what mere misanthropes just made up from their tastes and whims.
No intellectual force lies behind it-just cruelty that people as under Stalin confessed to non-existent crimes for which they deserved punishment.
Lamberth's argument from autonomy proclaims our independence from all other beings due to our level of consciousness as the UN Charter for Human RIghts notes and in line with Morgan's Canon. This means that neither from the state nor from the Deity do we derive our rights and liberties. Therefore, no God has rights over us or could punish us.
This proclaims the radical reality that indeed we have the right to refuse any relationship morally with any putative God! To argue otherwise begs the question of divine right! Neither is there the divine right of kings nor even of the Deity.
As morality is independent of Him as are the descriptions -laws of- Nature, He depend on them as the secondary,efficient cause,never the primary one!
What temerity of temperamental temptation to declare that, why, His omniscience would make Him such that by that He should have the right to judge us. No, because that is just another argument from ignorance: with our level, we can discern right from wrong without the need to ground ontologically morality in Him, but rather in human nature. Why, it does betray reason and -humanity to disregard our evolved,refined moral sense. We therefore can logically,despite Calvin Plantinga, declare that evils do eviscerate Him as His attributes here contradict reality.
Whose divine command theory should one follow when, He speaks with a forked tongue, and those biblical and qur'anic commands defy reason and -morality in the main.
I combine and permute arguments.
No intellectual force lies behind it-just cruelty that people as under Stalin confessed to non-existent crimes for which they deserved punishment.
Lamberth's argument from autonomy proclaims our independence from all other beings due to our level of consciousness as the UN Charter for Human RIghts notes and in line with Morgan's Canon. This means that neither from the state nor from the Deity do we derive our rights and liberties. Therefore, no God has rights over us or could punish us.
This proclaims the radical reality that indeed we have the right to refuse any relationship morally with any putative God! To argue otherwise begs the question of divine right! Neither is there the divine right of kings nor even of the Deity.
As morality is independent of Him as are the descriptions -laws of- Nature, He depend on them as the secondary,efficient cause,never the primary one!
What temerity of temperamental temptation to declare that, why, His omniscience would make Him such that by that He should have the right to judge us. No, because that is just another argument from ignorance: with our level, we can discern right from wrong without the need to ground ontologically morality in Him, but rather in human nature. Why, it does betray reason and -humanity to disregard our evolved,refined moral sense. We therefore can logically,despite Calvin Plantinga, declare that evils do eviscerate Him as His attributes here contradict reality.
Whose divine command theory should one follow when, He speaks with a forked tongue, and those biblical and qur'anic commands defy reason and -morality in the main.
I combine and permute arguments.
Upvote
0
By asking Him a question, Pray to The Father, and The Son, and The Holy Spirit.
The same way anyone else answers you, without a body. talking to God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) is like talking to anyone else, when you talk to someone, who listens to what your saying? their mind or their mindless physical body? the mind. think about it, under "naturalism" when you talk to someone, you're talking to yourself. however with God you're living in reality and talking to that being. we are Spirits.
Descartes demon is impossible, to be All powerful, Of Which No Greater Can Conceived and etc God must be all Good, as evil is a lack of good. so God cannot be evil, but God Is Good.
Upvote
0
Actually He does, as the state can punish someone, God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) can punish His creation when they're wrong.
True, but then God takes His right and punishes that person for that crime. just like someone has the right to disobey the law, they can freely do so, but they will be punished.
Nope, Morality cannot exist without God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit), answer this question, under "naturalism" what's the reason for rape being wrong?
Because 1, rape is definitely objectively wrong, and 2, under "naturalism" there is no reason, therefore "naturalism" is false.
Upvote
0
rape is an Objective Wrong, now under "naturalism" why is it wrong?
Here's The Facts,
1, if "naturalism" is true then it can explain every moral issue, right, and wrong. if it fails to do so then "naturalism" is false.
2, "naturalism" cannot explain why one of the worst objective wrongs ever is wrong and actually would justify it.
3, Therefore "naturalism" is false, God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) exists
Upvote
0
ranunculus
Well-Known Member
1, if "gravity" is true then it can explain every moral issue, right, and wrong. if it fails to do so then "gravity" is false.
2, "gravity" cannot explain why one of the worst objective wrongs ever is wrong and actually would justify it.
3, Therefore "gravity" is false, Odin(Thor, Freya, and Loki) exists.
Upvote
0
Dave Ellis
Contributor
- Dec 27, 2011
- 8,933
- 821
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Upvote
0
We have to encounter God and God's Reality on His own terms, not ours. That reality, that blessing, that infinite Bliss, I have come to realize, is Shree Krishna.
Upvote
0
Strawmanish there,
1, Gravity exists under the "naturalist" and the Theistic Worldview.
2, Gravity is a material property, Morals are immaterial therefore correct cannot explain morals.
3, "naturalism" is stictly material like gravity, however is used as an explanation of all life. gravity on the other hand exists on any worldview. Morals, an Immaterial property are the main property to life, therefore explanation for morals are required for any worldview which has to do with the origins of life.
4, Gravity exists under any worldview therefore no explanation needed for morals and gravity obviously exists. "naturalism" is about the origins of life therefore explanation for The Immaterial Property of Morals, specifically why rape is objectively wrong is need.
5, rape is Objectively Wrong
6, under "naturalism" rape can be justified and has no reason for being wrong and Immaterial properties don't exist under "naturalism"
7, Since rape is wrong and Immaterial properties do exist. "naturalism" is therefore Factually false.
"atheism"/"naturalism" fails again. nice try, but never ever try to deceive anyone again.
Upvote
0
Strawmanish there,
1, Gravity exists under the "naturalist" and the Theistic Worldview.
2, Gravity is a material property, Morals are immaterial therefore correct cannot explain morals.
3, "naturalism" is stictly material like gravity, however is used as an explanation of all life. gravity on the other hand exists on any worldview. Morals, an Immaterial property are the main property to life, therefore explanation for morals are required for any worldview which has to do with the origins of life.
4, Gravity exists under any worldview therefore no explanation needed for morals and gravity obviously exists. "naturalism" is about the origins of life therefore explanation for The Immaterial Property of Morals, specifically why rape is objectively wrong is need.
5, rape is Objectively Wrong
6, under "naturalism" rape can be justified and has no reason for being wrong and Immaterial properties don't exist under "naturalism"
7, Since rape is wrong and Immaterial properties do exist. "naturalism" is therefore Factually false.
"atheism"/"naturalism" fails again. nice try, but never ever try to deceive anyone again.
You haven't shown 5. to be true. And 6. is false.
Nice try...
Upvote
0
5 Is True, if you do not believe rape is Objectively Wrong then I don't know what to say to you, In Reality it's Objectively Wrong.
6 is True as well, if not answer the question, what's the reason for rape being wrong under "naturalism"?
There is no reason, and under "naturalism" and "macro-evolution" it would actually be justified.
"macro-evolution" and "naturalism" are fairy tale.
Upvote
0
Capital Words do not Equal Truth...
If you think that rape is objectively wrong, by all means present your case. Or retract the premise.
Naturalism doesn't say anything about rape. Because it doesn't need to. The rules of chess don't say anything about rape either.
You clearly don't understand what naturalism is all about...
Upvote
0
Agreed. also I might add pointing out inconveniences does not make you smart, cool or win an argument.
Easy, by using the question, can rape ever be right? hopefully you are sane and answer no.
Exactly, that's why "naturalism" is false.
Yes it does, rape is an Objective Moral Wrong, Morals are Priority in Life and were created with life/humanity. therefore "naturalism" in order to be a valid worldview/explanation needs to easily explanation why rape is Objectively Wrong.
Not only does "naturalism" fail to do that but "naturalism" actually justifies it. "naturalism" therefore goes in the trash.
The rules of chess has nothing to do with the origins of life.
When someone fails in an argument they usually tell the other, "you don't understand..." etc etc.
"naturalism" is dead, bringing it up again would be a deception as anything that isn't True is a deception.
Upvote
0
Let me try that!
1, If the bible is true then it can explain every moral issue, right, and wrong. If it fails to do so then the bible is false
2, The bible does not explain why slavery or many ofthe worst objective wrongs ever is wrong and actually would justify it
3, therefore, the bible is false along with god the father,, the son and the Holy spirit
Ken
Upvote
0
Dave Ellis
Contributor
- Dec 27, 2011
- 8,933
- 821
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
That's a non-sequitur.
It's a quite common error as well among theists... Just because I can't think of a situation where rape would be acceptable, doesn't say at all whether it's objective or subjective. It literally has no bearing on it.
Here's why:
Subjective morality is morality based on reason, personal experience, empathy and common sense. Using those factors, there is no example any mentally healthy person could point to, that would make rape a good thing under any circumstance.
Objective morality is the belief morality is inherent or dictated to us in some cosmic set of rules. There is no rhyme nor reason to why the rules are they way they are. If in your set of rules, rape is wrong, then it's wrong. The reasoning is irrelevant.
That's another non-sequitur.
There is no explanation why rape is wrong from an objective standpoint (apart from the fact that's the way your rules were written).
There is an explanation why rape is wrong from a subjective standpoint though. In fact, there's all kinds of reasons we can point to why rape is wrong.
Really... Well then, please demonstrate using naturalism why rape is ok.
Now continue your thought...
No... when someone doesn't understand the argument a person is making, they tend to point out they don't understand.
When someone fails in an argument, they do one of two things:
1) Continue making an argument even though they lack evidence for their claims.
2) Concede the argument.
"naturalism" is dead, bringing it up again would be a deception as anything that isn't True is a deception.
This line is a clear indication that you actually do not understand the subject matter.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
