|
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 |
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
 Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 5:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| itaewonguy wrote: |
| seen your buddy MIND me 2 lately? hahahahaha |
Just because we both defend evolution in the face of your mindless ranting doesn't make us buddies. What happened to him anyway? I saw his avatar get replaced with some nasty cartoon porno Korea bashing thing, but I seriously doubt he did that.
| itwg wrote: |
| maybe he is demonstrating outside churches becuase science thinks they have finally found the missing link !! |
Maybe he found God and is ashamed to show his face around here?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hamlet712 wrote: |
| And Philosophy is hardly a PROOF of anything either since philosophy is basically a system of making arguments, not proofs. |
Deductive logic -- which is a philosophic tool -- can be used to genuinely prove things. That is, in fact, it's only purpose: to take a true set of facts and arrive at a conclusion that necessarily must be true as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AgDragon01
Joined: 13 Nov 2008
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 4:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| 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. |
Right. Which is exactly what I say in the next paragraph. Thanks for playing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AmericanExile
Joined: 04 May 2009
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AgDragon01 wrote: |
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| 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. |
Right. Which is exactly what I say in the next paragraph. Thanks for playing. |
Yes, you mention that people question the conclusion that God created the universe. I'm telling you that isn't the conclusion to the proof you offered. You got the form wrong. You added an extra bit that is not allowed by the form. Then you call that the conclusion.
Here is an example of what you did.
1) All humans have souls.
2) Bob is a human.
3) Bob has a soul and can play basketball really well.
Playing basketball was never established in this proof just as God was never established in you proof.
You made an error. It happens. I make errors. I merely point out the error. There is no need for attitude. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, AmericanExile, if one re-reads the part again, AgDragon01 was re-citing what philosophers have argued (he wasn't arguing that point himself). It's a total nonsequitur, I know, but some philosophers have indeed, amazingly enough, submitted that fallacy (though I forget who). It's also a wildly unsatisfactory argument for the reason that it says .....
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
But, if all things have a cause, then God must have a cause, and that cause is....what? At this point, the theist says "God has always existed" and the atheist says, as Dawkins did, "well, you may as well just say DNA has always existed".
But the thing is, some things don't have a cause and the premise is false. On the contrary, particles appearing from nothing (and for absolutely no discernible reason) is observed routinely in particle accelorators (in quantum physics). Also, Professor Hawking got his Phd (and was awarded the Nobel Prize) for proving, mathematically, that the universe was once smaller than an electron. At that tiny size, in other words, quantum phenomena - things coming from nothing (and for no reason) - would have been prevalent on a cosmic scale. It doesn't solve much, but it's a good reason to assume the origins of the universe may have been godless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| 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 |
|
|
AmericanExile
Joined: 04 May 2009
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Well, AmericanExile, if one re-reads the part again, AgDragon01 was re-citing what philosophers have argued (he wasn't arguing that point himself). |
Fair enough.
My understanding is it's turtles all the way down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kinerry
Joined: 01 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| samcheokguy wrote: |
agnostics argue that they are not athiests...as a God's existance, is defined in ways, it could never be proven or disproven. In other words an athiest feels that believing in God is a sign of stupidity, while an agnostic simply says there are not enough grounds to convince him of the existance of God.
-In other words If you are blind, there is really no convincing way to show you what colors are. However, a blind person doesn't argue 'color' does not exist. The agnostic is a blind guy saying "I wish I could get into this whole color thing." The Dawkins Athiest is saying "Colors? Are a myth, made to enslave MAN!" |
This is so wrong, it's not even funny.
Atheist's don't think anyone is stupid, just ignorant. Ignorance simply means you don't know, stupidity means you cannot know because you do not possess the mental prowess.
Most of the time people end up using flawed reasoning to justify belief one way or another, but in the end it's a matter of what you choose to follow and define as facts. Some of it is merely semantics.
If you believe in the theories and laws of science, then you cannot reasonably believe in ANY of the millions of Gods all claiming to be the true one because there is not means to test for a God.
If you believe in God, it's all about faith to you because if you follow the scientific definition of facts, there is a low likelihood of a supernatural being (an honest Atheist realizes that there is a chance, albeit the same chance as leprechauns and unicorns).
If you care to debate it, please visit whywontgodhealamputees.com and read through the different chapters there, then go to the forums afterward. I spend many years debating on there because coming to definitive conclusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DWAEJIMORIGUKBAP
Joined: 28 May 2009
Location: Electron cloud
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
Well, AmericanExile, if one re-reads the part again, AgDragon01 was re-citing what philosophers have argued (he wasn't arguing that point himself). It's a total nonsequitur, I know, but some philosophers have indeed, amazingly enough, submitted that fallacy (though I forget who). It's also a wildly unsatisfactory argument for the reason that it says .....
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
But, if all things have a cause, then God must have a cause, and that cause is....what? At this point, the theist says "God has always existed" and the atheist says, as Dawkins did, "well, you may as well just say DNA has always existed".
But the thing is, some things don't have a cause and the premise is false. On the contrary, particles appearing from nothing (and for absolutely no discernible reason) is observed routinely in particle accelorators (in quantum physics). Also, Professor Hawking got his Phd (and was awarded the Nobel Prize) for proving, mathematically, that the universe was once smaller than an electron. At that tiny size, in other words, quantum phenomena - things coming from nothing (and for no reason) - would have been prevalent on a cosmic scale. It doesn't solve much, but it's a good reason to assume the origins of the universe may have been godless. |
It's actually a good reason to at least entertain the notion that our concept of time is flawed and that there was no begining - just that the universe has always been. Hard concept for humans to get their heads round though... Makes me feel dizzy just thinking about it.
What is agnosticism - 'I don't know, so I wont commit to an answer just yet.'
tee hee |
|
| 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
