Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by Simo, Aug 4, 2016.
*notices ur ad hominem*
OwO what's this?
Can you see my response now?
OwO what's this? Another one? Oh, oh my~ >///<
...over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...
No, being an atheist doesn't make you a bad person. Part of the Christian faith- stated in the beginning of the Bible- is that mankind, female and male, is created in God's image. That is to say, we're all like God- who is completely good- in our innermost being. His image can be tarnished by sin (acting or thinking wrongly), but the fact remains that we are his children and can be forgiven for our sins. Indeed we were- on the cross at Calvary.
Actually, if you haven't noticed there are only 3 arguments, because the first 3 are all just variants of the prime mover.
'Motions all stem from an initial mover'.
'Effects all stem from an initial act'
'Existence cannot come from non existence, so there must be an initial cause'.
They're all the same argument, and they're all wrong, because we now know enough about physics to know that the planets are in motion because of the gravitational force, not because of a prime-mover (this was the original context of the prime mover argument, which is why it is also known as the 'cosmological' argument).
Thomas's other arguments aren't any more convincing, because we know that his claim that all gradients imply the existence of an extreme, which is the cause for all those associated phenomena, is wrong. We know that not all heat comes from fire, like Thomas suggests, because we can make heat without using fire.
If you want to try to argue that all types of heat are technically types of fire, then enjoy deluding yourself with semantics I guess.
Thomas's third argument was that the existence of complexity and order in the cosmos implies intelligent governance, but we actually know that order can arise spontaneously through physical processes. Snow flakes form beautiful crystals without any intelligent governance.
Essentially Thomas's ideas have been shown to be wrong by centuries of knowledge accumulated by scientists.
I'm unconvinced that a completely good god would forgive man kind through human sacrifice.
I'm unconvinced that a completely good god would flood the world; that's genocide and we tend to regard genocidal tyrants as evil in these enlightened times. ._.
Right at the top of the page: "The existence of God can be proved in five ways." 3 = 5.
Hmm, something sounds off about this. Let's have a closer look.
"The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God."
What you said about this has got to be as shallow of a response to that as I've ever seen.
I invite you to read the third proof more carefully.
Spoiler: I've got you covered, honeybuns. Don't worry about it.
"The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence--which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."
After reading it a number of times, I cannot find anything discussing intelligent governance and/or order. Do tell me where it talks about these things and not a proof leading up to the conclusion that God necessitates his own existence, and by his existence, brings about the existence of everything else.
Authority requires existence, and his existence is neither agreed upon nor provable. This unprovability is also reason to question the authority of those who defend his existence, as they are the ones who define his qualities, including his doctrine. As I said earlier, the entire system relies on this axiom of existence and falls apart without it.
The definition of a being as having authority does not give it authority because definition does not instill existence. Therefore it is reasonable to deny the authority of god and demand justifications that don't require his authority. This is why Fallowfox keeps declaring an appeal to authority, and he is not wrong to do so.
Thomas's gradient argument was that "the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things".
He thinks that because fire is the strongest form of heat that he knows of, that this means all heat is caused by a type of fire.
We know this is wrong, so it shows that Thomas's gradient argument isn't very good.
The argument which I described as the 'third' is the last argument that Thomas presented (the teleological argument). I mentioned that I grouped the first 3 arguments into just 1, because they were all variations of the same point.
The teleological argument surmises that the complex order in our universe implies that an intelligent designer exists:
Teleological argument - Wikipedia
I think this argument is too anthropocentric; it is like assuming that because volcanoes are fiery and tumultuous that it must imply the existence of an angry volcano god who controls them.
I might point out that none of these arguments for the existence of god are arguments for any particular definition of god. The cosmological argument, which I consider the strongest, is only sufficient to argue the existence of some invariant thing that caused our existence; and that thing may not even be sentient.
The gradient argument with fire and such is the weakest because it actually makes a mathematical claim based on mathematical assumptions. Specifically, it assumes the topologies of things such as temperature or justness or goodness are bounded above when they are not necessarily so. If these properties do not have an upper bound, which his backing metaphor of temperature does not, then there is no maximum that anything could achieve. This also assumes that all properties attributed to god can be simultaneously maximized by a single entity. For example, it is debatable whether anyone could be both maximally just and maximally merciful, assuming either can be maximized.
i believe in many dieties but i dont spread my religion i believe if they want to be found then you will find them and even then perhaps not all of them will desire your worship and thus will remain unknown to you. a bit cryptic and perhaps more than a bit ridiculous i know but its my belief. and no has nothing to do with my signature thats just some joke referencing something hilarious that happened in the old forums in the couple weeks before they were taken down
But don't you DARE try to get me into a church.
This singular quote caused such an episode of apathy that over the course of a three day weekend where I had nothing to do I couldn't be bothered to make the effort even to point out how hopelessly shallow your analysis (or complete ignorance of) the rest of Aquinas' argument is. Try using your analysis skills; make a couple assumptions. You know, read between the lines. You did that plenty when you reported a certain author's Facebook page before they'd even said a word. Go on; make even the barest effort to do that here. Give me something actually worth responding to. I know you're far more intelligent than that argument was.
Alright. I can see where you're coming from on this, but based on how other things are progressing, let's agree to disagree because frankly it's a tangent to the main dialectic.
I apologise. I misunderstood the point you were making and dismissed it because the point I thought you were making seemed invalid. When you said "third argument," I forgot you were grouping Aquinas' arguments 1-3 together, and that the "third argument" is actually Aquinas' fifth. I'll address the point you were actually making momentarily.
You know what, I agree with you here. Aquinas' fifth argument isn't very strong, and the Neoplatonists would similarly agree that the argument isn't very strong, but they would still think it acceptable (found in your Wikipedia article). However, I do not agree with the example you gave. "Therefore, some intelligent being (note: singular) exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end."
Fantastic point. I must concur with you here, however. While I will agree with you that it is more or less improbable to prove the existence of a deity imperically, I think that it is possible to do through posteriori arguments and reasoning.
You've absolutely got me there. That was a great argument. Take notes, Fallow.
After that, I will agree with you that he was not wrong to declare an appeal to authority. However, I was more going after his particular choice of "appeal to false authority." I suppose that's beside the point now, though.
Goodness gracious, you're getting all the brownie points. Again, here, I agree, but I think that some of the arguments are sufficient to argue for the sentience of this deity that caused our existence.
I would like to point out that there is (supposed to be) a temperature at which the laws of physics cease functioning: 1.41683385 x 10^32° Kelvin (not 100% definite, but the current temperature believed to be the maximum [source]). That's the temperature at which the wavelength of light radiated by a particle at that temperature is equal to the lowest possible wavelength according to Planck's Law (source). It's likely to remain that temperature unless an overarching theory for general relativity and how gravity works in the quantum realm is developed and can describe the behaviour of particles hotter than that. Additionally, as a lower bound there's absolute zero (0° K). Well, maybe. While writing this, I came across this, pardon my French, fucking awesome article: no, seriously, this is more awesome than I can convey through words. So that leaves the question of a lower bound as a toss-up; there's always the chance that there is another lower bound, say, -10K, to pick an arbitrary example. Pardon me. I have to go squee because really awesome science
"Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God," (Same website as before). I'm not sure whether that fully answers your question. I'm a bit loopy right now due to lack of sleep, so I duly apologise if that is a poor response.
First, holy crap that negative temperature article was a blast from the past. I remember asking my chemistry professor about that result. I must warn you, though, that they're using a slightly different definition of temperature than you're used to. Apparently it's more of a measure of entropy, and that change in definition lets them define negative temperature consistently. As I understand it, they restricted a cloud of atoms to a lattice using lasers to create a maximum energy state and pumped enough energy into the system to make that maximum state the most stable state.
Back on the topic, I probably shouldn't have talked about maximum temperatures because we don't really know how physics works beyond the capabilities of the LHC. You're right that our current models do actually have a maximum, so bleh. I guess we can laugh at the irony of my mistake there. My main point still stands, though. Arguments which claim that the maximum of some quality must be embodied fail in general because they assume the quality has a maximum to begin with, and the same is true for minima. This arises primarily from problems with our definitions of "god-like" qualities, not unlike negative kelvin making no sense with the conventional definition of temperature. Of course, to be persuasive, you have to agree on the definitions beforehand.
Ehhhh he temporarily avoided that particular issue by not really addressing the identity problem, just like the cosmological argument does not. Unfortunately this makes his gradient argument invalid because certain definitions of perfection and goodness cannot be maximized (assuming they are not contradictory). Thus his premises do not imply his conclusion. This kind of argument requires compatibly addressing the identity problem as a premises, which he did not do.
Don't start that shit with me. You're not in any position to be an elitist prick with Fallowfox, let alone patronizing to me.
@Saiko Thomas Aquinas's premise, that the maximum of any genus is the cause of all phenonemnon in that genus, isn't correct anyway.
Hence his gradient argument would still be nonsense, even if temperature had a maximum limit.
Of course, I think we can forgive Thomas Aquinas for making poor arguments, because he lived in an age when any argument that challenged the Catholic church could be prosecuted as heresy and result in torture or death.
So maybe Thomas Aquinas, and other medieval theologians, were smart enough to save their skins from murderous Catholic inquisitions.
Personally I think that, if the case for the existence of a god was compelling, there would have been no need to set up inquisitions to murder heretics.
No seriously, I meant that. I was being 100% sincere when I said you're getting all the brownie points. You've been absolutely fantastic to talk with so far. Just wanted to say this really quickly and then I'll edit in the rest of my reply later.
Also, I'm being an "elitist prick" to Fallowfox? I didn't think so. Sure, I'm being just a regular prick, but to be honest Fallowfox has practically been inviting me to do that.
"Hi, is this the FurAffinity Forums?"
"No, this is perpetual arguing simulator!"
*slams phone down*
Fair enough :Þ
Jeez, here we go again. You've yet to fail to... well, not disappoint. I thought I was polite in asking you to come up with a good argument.
Fallowfox in other threads: I am going to analyse every single word you say so that I can use them against you because it supports my argument.
Fallowfox in this thread: I refuse to look at anything other than the face value of these words because doing otherwise hurts my argument.
Spoiler: ...and over and over and over and over and over and over...
Also, thanks. Your statement led to me finding that gem.
Spoiler: ...and over and over and over and over and over and over (continued)...
And this one. Of course, in this instance, Aquinas is your "opponent."
Let's (begrudgingly) return to this for a moment.
Aquinas' fourth argument from various sources:
"Aquinas’s fourth argument is that from degrees of perfection. All things exhibit greater or lesser degrees of perfection. There must therefore exist a supreme perfection that all imperfect beings approach yet fall short of. In Aquinas’s system, God is that paramount perfection," (link).
"IV. The Argument from Perfection
Every trait we see, in every object, is compared to some standard: health, morality, strength, and so forth. The fact that we instinctively see degrees in these areas implies that there is some ultimate standard against which to judge that property. And all comparative properties share a common sense of “perfection.” This means there must be some ultimate standard of “perfection” from which to judge all other properties; those objects cannot be the source or definition of that property in and of themselves.
In other words, Aquinas’s fourth argument in favor of God’s existence points out that, in order to speak of “goodness” or “power,” we must have an absolute standard against which to judge those terms; there must be some other thing from which they ultimately derive that characteristic: God, the Ultimate Standard," (link).
"4. There is an evidence gradation of the quality of things in the world. Some things are better than others, some things are truer than others and so forth. But the gradation of things in the world makes sense only when there is a being in the universe that is the best, the noblest, the truest. And this being we call God," (link).
And I could go on, frankly.
So, what does that make of your argument? Hmm, I can't quite think of the word...
Ah, yes, that's it. Many thanks.
On a similar note: nice webpage, bro.
Oh dear. I'm running out of material... Back to a reliable one, then.
Really? Damn, that's so awesome! And they used magnetic fields along with the lasers you mentioned to help coerce the NaK molecules to do what they wanted them to do. Science, man. Can't get enough of it.
I'm still not sure I understand how you're arriving at the conclusion that perfection and goodness cannot be maximised, nor do I understand where the notion that they may be contradictory comes from. Would you mind elaborating, please?
Cristina Rad provides a good assessment of these questions in about 8 minutes, including an explanation for why the attributes afforded to god, like perfect knowledge, perfect goodness and all-powerfulness, are not logically consistent ideas, so any being defined as possessing these attributes cannot exist.
Returning to our original discussion about the merit of catholic ethical positions, this means that the appeals to divine authority, which you recognise you have made in defense of catholic ethics, are rejected.
As Saiko explained to you, you must find alternative justifications for your ethical claims which don't require the authority of magical gods, if you expect anybody else to be convinced by them.
I believe in the paranormal. But that we don't have the technology (or possibly even the brain capacity) to fully understand it yet.
I'm writing a response, but it's going to take me longer than I expected to formulate. Although I stand by my point about maxima and such, it's proving surprisingly difficult to construct a valid and illustrative example of it that I like. I probably won't have it until next week because of school and things.
Separate names with a comma.