|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
shifter2009
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Location: wisconsin
|
 Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 10:06 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| hamlet712 wrote: |
Again, people like me and the guy I applauded come off as geniuses by comparison. |
That's me!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hamlet712 wrote: |
| Again, people like me and the guy I applauded come off as geniuses by comparison. |
On the contrary, you've drastically oversimplified the issue and are seriously underestimating some intellectual heavyweights. Also you've misspelled "religious" and "religion" like a half-dozen times each.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AgDragon01
Joined: 13 Nov 2008
|
| Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hamlet712 wrote: |
Oh and to the last post, while I understand the differences you state about different philosophies, if one of them had proven that God exists or doesnt it would have made the papers. And Philosophy is hardly a PROOF of anything either since philosophy is basically a system of making arguments, not proofs.
I like what Thomas Aquinas writes about the "proofs' for angels, souls, one god, and other rlegious dogma, but he didnt prove that these things exist, only that its more logical to assume that they do as opposed to not.
I'm one of the kind that thinks it far more logical to think that there is a God as opposed to there not being one, and its ignorant to not think that I must be wrong, or that I have to be right. |
Philosophy might at first seem to be a system of arguments to many people, but philosophers themselves see it as a way of getting to the Truth of the world. Which is why when I mentioned "proof" I meant a logical proof....a definition that comes from philosophy of logic. As in, step by step progression from a series of assumptions, using logical laws, to get to conclusions. For example:
1) When it rains, it pours
2) it is raining now.
Conclusion: It is pouring, by modus ponens.
As for proofs for and against God, they HAVE come out - in philosophical journals. However, being a argumentative bunch, other philosophers generally disagree with various points in the logic. For example the Cosmological Proof for the existence of God (basic)
1. All things have a cause
2. The universe is a thing, and must have a cause
Conclusion - the universe has a cause, and that cause is God.
Philosophers who oppose this basic proof can state question the conclusion - is a first cause the only thing that defines God? If the universe was caused by a quantum singularity, is that really the same thing as what we mean when we say God? Don't we ascribe some sort of Goodness, or personality when we talk about God? This is just a basic example.
And, once again, I think theodicy is a great logical reason to not believe in God. I really haven't heard a good refutation of it.
But you seem, for some reason, to think that if a logical proof existed, people would all see that and change their beliefs (thereby "making the papers" instead of being a footnote in some musty tome on the history of philosophy). That's not the case, and it's never been the case for things involving spirituality (not mention a great many more mundane things) - personally I think we are creatures far more driven by emotion than reason or logic, but that's me.
And, of course, the question of whether or not logic is the end all be all when it comes to larger questions of truth and epistemology are an entirely different (and more interesting) matter... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hamlet712
Joined: 16 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| hamlet712 wrote: |
| Again, people like me and the guy I applauded come off as geniuses by comparison. |
On the contrary, you've drastically oversimplified the issue and are seriously underestimating some intellectual heavyweights. Also you've misspelled "religious" and "religion" like a half-dozen times each. |
DOES GOD EXIST??????
If you can prove it EITHER WAY then please by all means enlighten us, it would be nice to have confirmation. Until then I am oversimplifying nothing. It is one thing to make arguments that would seem to support God's existence ( or lack of it) its another thing to get into the face of the other and say, "You are flat out wrong moron"
I accept that there are some much smarter people than me on both sides of the debate, however every one of them that Says "I am right, you are wrong" or " There is no way that I could be wrong" or any variation on the theme is suffering from blatant stupidity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hamlet712
Joined: 16 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AgDragon01 wrote: |
| hamlet712 wrote: |
Oh and to the last post, while I understand the differences you state about different philosophies, if one of them had proven that God exists or doesnt it would have made the papers. And Philosophy is hardly a PROOF of anything either since philosophy is basically a system of making arguments, not proofs.
I like what Thomas Aquinas writes about the "proofs' for angels, souls, one god, and other rlegious dogma, but he didnt prove that these things exist, only that its more logical to assume that they do as opposed to not.
I'm one of the kind that thinks it far more logical to think that there is a God as opposed to there not being one, and its ignorant to not think that I must be wrong, or that I have to be right. |
Philosophy might at first seem to be a system of arguments to many people, but philosophers themselves see it as a way of getting to the Truth of the world. Which is why when I mentioned "proof" I meant a logical proof....a definition that comes from philosophy of logic. As in, step by step progression from a series of assumptions, using logical laws, to get to conclusions. For example:
1) When it rains, it pours
2) it is raining now.
Conclusion: It is pouring, by modus ponens.
As for proofs for and against God, they HAVE come out - in philosophical journals. However, being a argumentative bunch, other philosophers generally disagree with various points in the logic. For example the Cosmological Proof for the existence of God (basic)
1. All things have a cause
2. The universe is a thing, and must have a cause
Conclusion - the universe has a cause, and that cause is God.
Philosophers who oppose this basic proof can state question the conclusion - is a first cause the only thing that defines God? If the universe was caused by a quantum singularity, is that really the same thing as what we mean when we say God? Don't we ascribe some sort of Goodness, or personality when we talk about God? This is just a basic example.
And, once again, I think theodicy is a great logical reason to not believe in God. I really haven't heard a good refutation of it.
But you seem, for some reason, to think that if a logical proof existed, people would all see that and change their beliefs (thereby "making the papers" instead of being a footnote in some musty tome on the history of philosophy). That's not the case, and it's never been the case for things involving spirituality (not mention a great many more mundane things) - personally I think we are creatures far more driven by emotion than reason or logic, but that's me.
And, of course, the question of whether or not logic is the end all be all when it comes to larger questions of truth and epistemology are an entirely different (and more interesting) matter... |
If you are going to narrow down Gods existence to a logical syllogism then you could end the debate pretty easilly.
a) you can not get something from nothing
b)The universe, all atoms, and all energy is something
therefore
c) the Universe and everything in it didnt come from nothing
There you go, I just proved that something existed before the Universe did and therefore Disproved Athieism, and Validate Agnosticism, and possibly religion. Using Sound logic, the most basic of Human logic.
Im guessing no one is naive enough to think that I just solved it.
Do you?
That my issue with Philosophy, they throw around the word "proof" when they have "proven" nothing. There is not a single proof, not one that can verify Gods existence, they are simply compelling arguments.
I totally understand what you are saying, I have a degree in Philosophy, and its the very "proofs" you talk of that have led me to beleive it to be an impossibility that God does not exist.
Id like you to take notice of the word I used there in the last sentence.
BELIEVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can believe that if I jump out of a building that I can fly, but if I attempt it I will be proven wrong.
faith in something, even an argument does not prove it to be true.
This too is very simple logic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Draz
Joined: 27 Jun 2007
Location: Land of Morning Clam
|
| Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 1:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hamlet712 wrote: |
a) you can not get something from nothing
b)The universe, all atoms, and all energy is something
therefore
c) the Universe and everything in it didnt come from nothing
There you go, I just proved that something existed before the Universe did and therefore Disproved Athieism, and Validate Agnosticism, and possibly religion. Using Sound logic, the most basic of Human logic. |
I've heard this one before. If nothing comes from nothing, where'd God come from? 
I'd never heard the word theodicy before but I looked it up and that is basically the root of why I don't believe in God. I was raised to believe but I realized very young that God does not act on the world. It wasn't a huge leap to conclude that God does not act because God, as described by my school and parents, does not exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shifter2009
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Location: wisconsin
|
| Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Draz wrote: |
| hamlet712 wrote: |
a) you can not get something from nothing
b)The universe, all atoms, and all energy is something
therefore
c) the Universe and everything in it didnt come from nothing
There you go, I just proved that something existed before the Universe did and therefore Disproved Athieism, and Validate Agnosticism, and possibly religion. Using Sound logic, the most basic of Human logic. |
I've heard this one before. If nothing comes from nothing, where'd God come from?
I'd never heard the word theodicy before but I looked it up and that is basically the root of why I don't believe in God. I was raised to believe but I realized very young that God does not act on the world. It wasn't a huge leap to conclude that God does not act because God, as described by my school and parents, does not exist. |
That presumes that this god is anything like what your parents or school described (most explanations I got were pretty silly) . We exist in a universe of billions (trillions?) of stars and galaxies that we have little to no idea whats going on in any of them then make blanket statements about the universe's origin is astoundingly arrogant. We're a mere spec of dust in all of this and to speak in smug absolutes like Dawkins and his ilk is just as off putting as the religious zealots who think only the saved get to the promised land. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AgDragon01
Joined: 13 Nov 2008
|
| Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hamlet712 wrote: |
| AgDragon01 wrote: |
| hamlet712 wrote: |
Oh and to the last post, while I understand the differences you state about different philosophies, if one of them had proven that God exists or doesnt it would have made the papers. And Philosophy is hardly a PROOF of anything either since philosophy is basically a system of making arguments, not proofs.
I like what Thomas Aquinas writes about the "proofs' for angels, souls, one god, and other rlegious dogma, but he didnt prove that these things exist, only that its more logical to assume that they do as opposed to not.
I'm one of the kind that thinks it far more logical to think that there is a God as opposed to there not being one, and its ignorant to not think that I must be wrong, or that I have to be right. |
Philosophy might at first seem to be a system of arguments to many people, but philosophers themselves see it as a way of getting to the Truth of the world. Which is why when I mentioned "proof" I meant a logical proof....a definition that comes from philosophy of logic. As in, step by step progression from a series of assumptions, using logical laws, to get to conclusions. For example:
1) When it rains, it pours
2) it is raining now.
Conclusion: It is pouring, by modus ponens.
As for proofs for and against God, they HAVE come out - in philosophical journals. However, being a argumentative bunch, other philosophers generally disagree with various points in the logic. For example the Cosmological Proof for the existence of God (basic)
1. All things have a cause
2. The universe is a thing, and must have a cause
Conclusion - the universe has a cause, and that cause is God.
Philosophers who oppose this basic proof can state question the conclusion - is a first cause the only thing that defines God? If the universe was caused by a quantum singularity, is that really the same thing as what we mean when we say God? Don't we ascribe some sort of Goodness, or personality when we talk about God? This is just a basic example.
And, once again, I think theodicy is a great logical reason to not believe in God. I really haven't heard a good refutation of it.
But you seem, for some reason, to think that if a logical proof existed, people would all see that and change their beliefs (thereby "making the papers" instead of being a footnote in some musty tome on the history of philosophy). That's not the case, and it's never been the case for things involving spirituality (not mention a great many more mundane things) - personally I think we are creatures far more driven by emotion than reason or logic, but that's me.
And, of course, the question of whether or not logic is the end all be all when it comes to larger questions of truth and epistemology are an entirely different (and more interesting) matter... |
If you are going to narrow down Gods existence to a logical syllogism then you could end the debate pretty easilly.
a) you can not get something from nothing
b)The universe, all atoms, and all energy is something
therefore
c) the Universe and everything in it didnt come from nothing
There you go, I just proved that something existed before the Universe did and therefore Disproved Athieism, and Validate Agnosticism, and possibly religion. Using Sound logic, the most basic of Human logic.
Im guessing no one is naive enough to think that I just solved it.
Do you?
That my issue with Philosophy, they throw around the word "proof" when they have "proven" nothing. There is not a single proof, not one that can verify Gods existence, they are simply compelling arguments.
I totally understand what you are saying, I have a degree in Philosophy, and its the very "proofs" you talk of that have led me to beleive it to be an impossibility that God does not exist.
Id like you to take notice of the word I used there in the last sentence.
BELIEVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can believe that if I jump out of a building that I can fly, but if I attempt it I will be proven wrong.
faith in something, even an argument does not prove it to be true.
This too is very simple logic |
Jesus dude, did you even read my posts? I'm an agnostic atheist. I'm agreeing with you. I'm saying that, under the rules of logic, there's enough to show that God does not exist. Under logic, which is a rationalist epistemology built around the idea that the thoughts in our head, if clearly laid out, reflect the reality outside our heads. Not 'prove' under another system like empiricism, where we have to go out into the world and use our senses to ascertain true facts about the world. I do not think that logic is necessarily the end all be all to the discussion of truth. Hence my agnosticism.
Secondly, I used to word "proof" to mean a logical "proof" - not 'prove' as in to show without a doubt that something is true. Like I outlined before proofs are not a knockout argument in logic. Your philosophy degree hopefully covered a course in intro to logic where they went over this.
Thirdly, I have no idea what kind of point you are trying to make by restating the cosmological argument that I gave in my previous post.
Lastly, you make really broad statements about Philosophy - Analytic Philosophy, specifically logic, one branch of the field, does throw around words like 'proof' a lot. Other types of philosophy do not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itaewonguy
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
jesus christ!! here we go again!!!
it was a quiet couple months..so who is gonna raise the threads from the dead???
someone just watched Angels and demons?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DC in Suwon
Joined: 14 Dec 2008
|
| Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Was the OP pissed because us agnostics (or at least most of us) don't even care to get into the religious debate? I love the idea that someone is a "coward" because they don't decide to just go full force into something that cannot be proven nor disproven.
Stick to your arguments with atheists and people of other religious beliefs. You got plenty of wars ahead of you to defend your god(s). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DC in Suwon wrote: |
Was the OP pissed because us agnostics (or at least most of us) don't even care to get into the religious debate? I love the idea that someone is a "coward" because they don't decide to just go full force into something that cannot be proven nor disproven.
Stick to your arguments with atheists and people of other religious beliefs. You got plenty of wars ahead of you to defend your god(s). |
Has the OP stated whether she believes or not?
Anyway, its just 'net karma, because the OP has before criticized me for the hypocrisy of believing in a dogma to which I had never subscribed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| itaewonguy wrote: |
jesus christ!! here we go again!!!
it was a quiet couple months..so who is gonna raise the threads from the dead???
someone just watched Angels and demons?? |
I was wondering when you were going to raise your ugly head. Still waiting for Rteacher's big blue baby to make an appearance. No one here is denying evolution anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theotherlebowski
Joined: 12 May 2009
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| eamo wrote: |
| It's not cowardly in any way to be an agnostic. It's just an intellectual decision. From the empirical evidence we have, there seems to not be a God. But I can't prove the non-existence of God. So I'm an agnostic. |
This is probably the best way I understand it as well. I can't prove that God exists, butI can't prove that he doesn't eixist as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AmericanExile
Joined: 04 May 2009
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AgDragon01 wrote: |
As for proofs for and against God, they HAVE come out - in philosophical journals. However, being a argumentative bunch, other philosophers generally disagree with various points in the logic. For example the Cosmological Proof for the existence of God (basic)
1. All things have a cause
2. The universe is a thing, and must have a cause
Conclusion - the universe has a cause, and that cause is God.
|
There is a fundamental problem here. You are good until the ",and..." in the conclusion. God appears at the end of your syllogism out of nowhere. The universe must have a cause. That cause doesn't have to be God.
Isn't there an old joke about a math prof teaching a proof and in the middle he write "and then a miracle happens." I can't remember how it goes exactly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itaewonguy
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
I was wondering when you were going to raise your ugly head. |
dude that head of yours from your avatar goes beyond Ugly!
| Quote: |
| Still waiting for Rteacher's big blue baby to make an appearance. No one here is denying evolution anyway. |
seen your buddy MIND me 2 lately? hahahahaha
maybe he is demonstrating outside churches becuase science thinks they have finally found the missing link !! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
