Taking the fight to the real issue

Post Reply New Topic

I would have to regard the question as either meaningless or unanswerable. It you assume the question is by what means is there something rather than nothing, it is assumed there is a means by which there is something rather than nothing, but that begs the question since it assumes that there is something. If you assume the question pertains to purpose then there must be some entity who has a purpose for making existence possible. But that assumes the possible, in postulating the existence of that entity. If one takes questions like this seriously, it will lead to brain fatigue. Sort of like asking what is the sound of one hand clapping or what happens when the Irresistable Force meets the Unmoveable Object. That is not a real query since neither the Irresistable Force nor the Unmoveable Object exists.

When I encounter pseudo philosophy, the like of which underlies such bogus questions, I reach for my thermodynamically operated metallic slug emitter.

ruveyn

I endorse wholly your evaluation of the question as meaningful as chicken clucking to anyone outside the chicken community. The quality of solid sense is as missing there as it is in most of the justification of theological maunderings here demonstrated in defense of Christianity.

I already addressed this in my post:

As an addendum to that Michio Kaku attempted to destroy the Cosmological Argument in his book Hyperspace where he put forward the issue of gas molecules moving on their own without outside interaction (the same would also be true of conservation of momentum). So before you start bringing up this point please consider that it has already been discredited as a non sequitur; since one cannot disprove the existence of primary causality by taking note of the persistence of secondary causality.

Causality is a macro phenomenon and at the quantum level it does not hold.

Causality is a macro phenomenon and at the quantum level it does not hold.[/quote]

That would be deterministic causality.

ruveyn

I don't think so, after all, you didn't have to prove the necessity of God to use the argument, so why should I have to prove the necessity of something. Of particular relevance is the fact that people who take the view of "it is impossible for nothing to exist", focus on the inconceivability of nothing. For instance, they'll point out that "nothing" isn't just time and space that is empty, but rather it is no time or space. That being said, given that I am using a possibility as a rebuttal, I do not feel beholden to the strength of it.


I know that some views of universe spawning rely on black holes. I am not sure that I have to admit to an unmoved mover though, as if we have an infinite past, then all movers are moved by other movers.

As for "teleological evidence", a problem is that given that this is a multiverse theory, and one that relies on infinity, I actually don't because this idea abolishes the problems of chance. Sort of like how getting 100 tails in a row is no longer a big thing if you flip a coin an absurd amount of times.


I've actually explicitly rejected premise 3 already. I am fine with infinite chains of causes.


Hunh, that's interesting, from what I've heard auto-causation was still an argument used. It tends to rely upon quantum randomness. And well... if uncaused events can occur, then why not at any level? I mean, there is the spontaneous generation of particles in reality. So, why CAN'T it be invoked?


There is no reason to suppose that there is a God. We're making an argument, but another possibility also works.

I am unsure what you meant by "contingent on the number...". Some philosophers are fine with infinities. I am fine with infinities.


Umm..... "ease" is irrelevant for an omnipotent and omniscient being. "Ease" makes no sense with such an entity in mind.

That being said, any naturalistic position that can account for the data works as a rebuttal to the teleological argument.


Immateriality has nothing to do with logical requirements of cognition.

No, I assert the opposite. You've asserted simplicity, which regards existence and essence as the same thing. I've rejected simplicity. The major model of simplicity given is often that existence and essence are the same.

Right, we both agree that the divine essence must be simple. I reject that the divine essence is simple.

That's interesting, because from what I understand, Plantinga argued against simplicity because it undercut the existence of a personal god.


Ah, and here I thought by "inverting logic", you meant that I was using the logical framings legitimately, and using them to get to a different point. Inversion in mathematics is valid.

As it stands, I am using that logic very much legitimately. In fact, the notion of the ontological argument proving "effectively evil" beings is something I stole from philosopher Steven Law on the issue, as Steven Law has emphasized the extent to which arguments for God equally argue for a completely evil being.


I didn't move from impossibility to actuality though. I moved from POSSIBILITY to actuality. The framings I used were really just uses of opposing premise 1s to the ontological argument, but pushing these different premises through the grinder to get an outcome. If the basic logic of the ontological argument is correct, then both of my ontological arguments are valid.

Correct, yet they do bear witness *of* evidence (at least as perceived by the witness).


No. The program is a process for taking specific actions without regard for thought, notion or feeling.


Wrong. If there were no "God", there could be no program.


Seemingly so, but not with the same class of clients.


For the real alcoholic such as myself, there is no other way.

Nonsense, plenty of real alcoholics fully recover without any sort of God-required program. Some people are genetically more prone to addiction (of all sorts) than others. I am one of these people, as are many members in my family. The ones that have bought into the AA dogma are in a constant struggle for sobriety. I, on the other hand, made a conscious decision to quit after many years of both drug and alcohol abuse and haven't looked back since. Of course it was hard, but it was my choice and I was in full control of my own actions at all times. The "powerless" notion is crap.

Smoking, for example, is said to be one of the hardest vices to overcome, and I agree. Somehow, people have managed to do it without a 12-step program. Most people don't consider themselves to be recovering smokers for the rest of their lives. They are ex-smokers. This doesn't mean that cravings are nonexistent, ex-smokers just conscientiously choose not to smoke so they can avoid a true disease, like lung cancer.

leejosepho, please don't take any of this personally. The program seems to be working for you, and that is a good thing that I would not want to interfere with. These are just my personal beliefs about the program. I have no ill will.

Why do people always spin things?! I have said nothing about any alleged "God-required program"! Rather, and following many thousands of A.A. and/or AA meetings since my own beginning in 1981, I am simply saying I have never seen any evidence of any real alcoholic ("Alcoholics Anonymous", the book, page 21) ever becoming permanently recovered from the hopelessness of chronic alcoholism apart from spiritual help. Now, I certainly have seen a few miserable "dry drunks" remaining abstinent for considerable periods of time, of course, but that only speaks for their continued defiance!


... have likely never even been offered/shown the original A.A. experience. So, their "constant struggle for sobriety" makes perfect sense and is quite likely even clearly described in "Alcoholics Anonymous", the book.


I am a real alcoholic who tried that many times before I had ever even heard of any A.A. or AA experience, and I would never have ended up accepting either for myself if I could have actually carried out that decision.


Not when one is powerless!


No offense felt, and you might consider discovering some actual facts about the *original* program for the sake of others around you who, like me, *cannot* do as you have done.

Tobacco addiction is just as persistent and nasty as alcohol addiction. I was able to free myself from The Weed by purely rational means. It was not easy, I can assure you. Ten times I tried to stop smoking cigarettes and the first nine times I failed. And I still consider myself a smoker. I have just stopped lighting up. At no time did I appeal to a "higher power". I just considered the alternatives which came down to life or death. Therefore chose life. I did the choosing. I did not have a "higher power" to help me. I did it myself for myself.

ruveyn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

Explains why most people have to believe there is a initial cause or some mover acting in the world, instead of just accepting there is a world.

... and I was not.

Precisely my point. Just as someone has the power and the choice to pick up a drink, cigarette, needle, etc. in the first place, they have the same power to put it down. This is the hard part, not the impossible part. Is an atheist incapable of quitting an addictive habit? No, it happens with some frequency.

The supposition of a "first cause" makes sense to a lot of people. The flatness of the earth is also quite obvious. Free will was granted by god but you have to ask extra nice to be allowed to exercise it over addiction, sometimes.

No. I'm sorry, but no. AA works for the same reason programs that don't require you to assume helplessness without a "higher power." if AA incorporated "the hokey pokey" as a mandatory pre-meeting exercise, would many people be as adament about it's necessity or magic powers?

Addiction: a hilarious bit of evidence against intelligent design? A rather not hilarious bit of evidence for god being playfully brutal? Or maybe it's an example of reality being more complex than a (sky)fairytale.

Though I do enjoy 91's consistent avoidance of the burden of proof by repeatedly presupposing a beginningless god and refusing to entertain any notion of a beginningless cosmos.

Somewhere between the earth and mars, a teapot is giggling, silently, to itself.

I guess another way to look at it could be through the serenity prayer, which I think is a very nice piece of poetic wisdom. We differ on whether quitting is part of the things we can or cannot change part.

That is just not so! I do not expect you or anyone else to believe me against your own will, but I do "challenge you to the death" as to the matter of proving my personal experience wrong! I could not possibly type enough capitalized words in any font sufficiently large enough to here convey how much effort I put into "Just don't drink!" even before ever attending an A.A. meeting, and finding a book written by people with exactly that same problem later shocked me: I had thought I was the only one!

If the things you are saying are true, then the entirety of that book is nothing but one monstrous lie, and especially this:

"For those who are unable to drink moderately the question is how to stop altogether. We are assuming, of course, that the reader desires to stop. Whether such a person can quit upon a nonspiritual basis depends upon the extent to which he has already lost the power to choose whether he will drink or not. Many of us felt that we had plenty of character. There was a tremendous urge to cease forever. Yet we found it impossible. This is the baffling feature of alcoholism as we know it - this utter inability to leave it alone, no matter how great the necessity or the wish." (page 34)

That might not have been your deal, but it certainly was mine!


No, facts are facts, and I had not even offered an opinion there!