|
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 |
DeLaRed
Joined: 16 Oct 2008
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:43 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| See Kant's Fourth Antimony, which I referenced earlier. |
The problem with the 4th antimony is that it's perhaps the broadest cloze test of all time.
Allow me to demonstrate:
The Fourth Antinomy (of ____)
Thesis:
There belongs to the world, either as its part or as its cause, _____that is absolutely necessary.
Anti-thesis:
___________________ nowhere exists in the world, nor does it exist outside the world as its cause.
You can put whatever you want into that slot.
And, I understand the time it was written in, but who suddenly decided God is a "necessary" being?
Either way, if we input "Flying Spaghetti Monster", does that give the FSM some higher accord because we can't disprove it?
This looks a lot like the essential conceit being widely (and wildly) bantied about in America because creation and evolution are essentially on a level playing field. Is that really your position?
Just say yes and I'll leave it at that, but I can't imagine how you can assail Dawkins without seriously considering your own arrogance.
|
Capital G God as the one true God and creator of the world is a necessary being. Kant's definition of necessary being is efficient, because it eschews other theological conditions, such as:
a supposed covenant God may have made with a chosen people;
or a supposed incarnation sent in the flesh to be sacrificed;
or a book written of his very word and dictated by an angel to a putative prophet.
I'm not going to argue with you, Nowhere Man, because I've learned it is pointless. Your guiding principle is antagonism and insult, and you seem incapable of conducting a discussion in good faith, much less do you ever seem to take the time to consider the foundations of a contrary opinion or perspective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Sultan of Seoul
Joined: 17 Apr 2012
Location: right... behind.. YOU
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Capital G God as the one true God and creator of the world is a necessary being. |
Most certainly is not. Pure human projection of their own experience.
'I was created and will pass, and experience temporeal subjectivity so the universe must have been created too.'
Nope.
Who created the creator?
Makes much more sense that all is part of a whole that has always been and which experiences fluctuations of state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Capital G God as the one true God and creator of the world is a necessary being. Kant's definition of necessary being is efficient, because it eschews other theological conditions, such as:
a supposed covenant God may have made with a chosen people;
or a supposed incarnation sent in the flesh to be sacrificed;
or a book written of his very word and dictated by an angel to a putative prophet.
I'm not going to argue with you, Nowhere Man, because I've learned it is pointless. Your guiding principle is antagonism and insult, and you seem incapable of conducting a discussion in good faith, much less do you ever seem to take the time to consider the foundations of a contrary opinion or perspective. |
Yer, leave out the bit that you're a pansy when it comes to serious debate.
But I'm glad we're back to this. The problem with your original argument:
| Quote: |
| Logic tells us no evidence will ever exist for God. |
based on your own defense, should actually read:
| Quote: |
Kant tells us no evidence will ever exist for God. |
Kant is not logic. Done.
Now, you can acknowledge that or follow tradition:maybe burn some Beatles albums?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NohopeSeriously
Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Location: The Christian Right-Wing Educational Republic of Korea
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 8:05 am Post subject: Re: The BBC and poverty in America |
|
|
| GreatUnderachiever wrote: |
| http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01c2y2b/Panorama_Poor_America/ |
I can't see the video as I'm in Korea. But I can at least admit that the Anglican Church of England has done more harm to the English public than I personally thought. |
|
| 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
