Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI think God...
Actually I was curious as to your conception of what God is. There seem to be more than a few conceptual models of this floating around 🙂
Is omni-potent, omniscient, and omnipresent. I believe he is beyond space and time and yet still works through time.
There are alot of specifications, but let's just put it at the God of theism, that's what I believe.
The trouble is proving him, and it's proving a difficult chore.
Originally posted by EinsteinMindI've pretty much come to the conclusion that both the existence and non-existence of God are unprovable.
I think God...
Is omni-potent, omniscient, and omnipresent. I believe he is beyond space and time and yet still works through time.
There are alot of specifications, but let's just put it at the God of theism, that's what I believe.
The trouble is proving him, and it's proving a difficult chore.
I find it curious how many describe God as omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresent. I have to wonder if this largely grew out of 'my god is better than your god' arguments. I also have to wonder whether or not God is an active agent. It seems likely that God is not active.
Why do you want to prove the existence of God?
Originally posted by gaychessplayerI've yet to see any arguments that are conclusive.
Some really smart people can "prove" the God exists, and some other really smart people can "prove" that God does not exist. There are powerful arguments on both sides of the issue.
Please share any that you see as conclusive.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneEhhh... some arguments are indeed inconclusive, I will admit that.
I've yet to see any arguments that are conclusive.
Please share any that you see as conclusive.
Ok.
Let me share an argument with you.
(And Geisler condemns using a solely ontological argument as it will always contain some flaw, so I admit that the Number One is flawed.)
Some thing must undeniably exist, correct?
You undeniably exist. In order to deny your existence, you would have to exist beforehand in order to deny it. (And then, if someone else denies your existence, dubito, cogito, ergo sum. Voila. Disproven.)
So, some thing must undeniably exist.
This is the first premise.
Originally posted by EinsteinMindDo you intend to put forth the argument by Descartes?
Ehhh... some arguments are indeed inconclusive, I will admit that.
Ok.
Let me share an argument with you.
(And Geisler condemns using a solely ontological argument as it will always contain some flaw, so I admit that the Number One is flawed.)
Some thing must undeniably exist, correct?
You undeniably exist. In order to deny your existence ...[text shortened]... [/i]. Voila. Disproven.)
So, some thing must undeniably exist.
This is the first premise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Descartes.27_ontological_arguments
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOver my dead arse. Look at what I said above! A purley ontological argument is already defeated because it at least has one fallacy within it.
Do you intend to put forth the argument by Descartes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Descartes.27_ontological_arguments
One cannot base a full argument on ontology. There are too many assumptions.
Originally posted by EinsteinMindI read what you had said about purely ontological arguments, but your latest is reading much like one just as your original argument did.
Over my dead arse. Look at what I said above! A purley ontological argument is already defeated because it at least has one fallacy within it.
One cannot base a full argument on ontology. There are too many assumptions.
Why don't you just present it in its entirety?
Originally posted by EinsteinMindNorm Geisler??? Wow you're bringing out the big guns aren't ya? 🙄
Ehhh... some arguments are indeed inconclusive, I will admit that.
Ok.
Let me share an argument with you.
(And Geisler condemns using a solely ontological argument as it will always contain some flaw, so I admit that the Number One is flawed.)
Some thing must undeniably exist, correct?
You undeniably exist. In order to deny your existence ...[text shortened]... [/i]. Voila. Disproven.)
So, some thing must undeniably exist.
This is the first premise.
2 edits
Originally posted by telerionAha. So you do know Geisler? 🙄 I think it's pretty big for me being a senior in high school. 😏 I like unloading the biggest arguments that I can. =|
Norm Geisler??? Wow you're bringing out the big guns aren't ya? 🙄
Plus, Geisler's is not strictly ontological. 🙄🙄🙄
End of thread.
Telerion, if you know what I'm talking about, and if you can refute it, please do (through private messaging), because I'd love to learn about it, and I'll try to get back to you on it.
Oh, and by the way, it was nice to meet both my arguers and my supporters, whomever you are (even though it wasn't much of an argument).
Originally posted by EinsteinMindI may think it over and try to help you. Let me commend you on your apparent interest in learning. Never abandon it, no matter where it takes you. Like DavidC wrote you earlier, the best person to speak to about philosophy (if you ready to think and really want to learn something) is Bbar, a resident PhD (hopefully by now anyway) in Philosophy, who is especially interested in epistemiology. The good Dr. Scribbles is quite sharp and can lay it down, as can LemonJello. I believe that there are several members on here with formal backgrounds in philosophy as well as an even larger set that can think and write more clearly than me.
Aha. So you do know Geisler? 🙄 I think it's pretty big for me being a senior in high school. 😏 I like unloading the biggest arguments that I can. =|
Plus, Geisler's is not strictly ontological. 🙄🙄🙄
[b]End of thread.
Telerion, if you know what I'm talking about, and if you can refute it, please do (through private messaging), be ...[text shortened]... y arguers and my supporters, whomever you are (even though it wasn't much of an argument).[/b]
Personally, I'm always a little hesistant to enter into conversations with people who draw on guys like Geisler (or McDowell or Strobel, etc.) as their sources. Reading through some of their work (what little I could tolerate), left me with the impression that these men have no interest in intellectual truth but rather in making money and preaching to the choir. Their central arguments always rely on disturbingly conspicuous fallacies, obvious to most all but their fan club. In this respect, they are to philosophy what Answers in Genesis or the Discovery Institute is to science.
Reading back over the structure of your argument is unclear to me. It seems that you want to lead us along some prescribed line of reasoning (most likely sketched out in one of Norm's texts). It would be nice if you would state your entire argument in a single post, beginning with any major assumption, and then working logically to your intended conclusion. That way you can get your point across without being led off your intended path by many pages of questions, minor counterpoints, and confused objections (since likely none of us really knows where you're heading with this). Likewise we can read your idea for ourselves and evaluate it as a whole rather than playing a game of cat and mouse.
This would be particularly nice because just in my first reading of your posts I think I've found some strong confusion. For instance you make a claim that you will be arriving at a proof of "the God of Theism," but it should be apparent that "the God of Theism" does not exist. As a simple counterexample, note that theism contains polytheism as a proper subset. Polytheism is characterized by the belief in more than one god. Therefore there cannot be a single "God of Theism." Later in the thread you amend your claim a bit (though it appears you do not yet realize it) by describing this god you have in mind as "omni-potent (sic), omniscient, and omnipresent" as well as "beyond space and time and yet still works through time." Now the second phrase is incomprehensible. It is easy to claim but has no logical value in the same way as if you had said that your god is more north than the North Pole. It makes for a handy semantic parachute in case you get into trouble at somewhere, but from an intellectual standpoint it is nonsense. So, again, I think that you would do well to be up front and present your entire argument for the existence of an "omni-potent (sic), omniscient, and omnipresent" being that you will call "God" in a single post that we might better understand (helping us) and perhaps better critique you (helping you).
Also as an aside, if you are truly interested in philosophy, I'd drop apologists from your reading list. They go about learning backwards. They assume without genuine question that they have the answers and then attempt to find some logical path to prove it, ignoring any evidence or reasoning which casts doubt upon or rejects their primal assumptions. One should let her reasoning guide her conclusions, not the other way around.
Originally posted by EinsteinMindI disagree, concepts do not have physical existence and therefore cannot be measured by dimensions. They do not have a position in time and space and cannot be said to be eternal.
And this number one cannot have its origination traced. How long has the number one existed? It always has, ever since time began, correct? Not even the earliest human has explained the origination of the number one. Therefore, it must have existed before man ever did.
Therefore the conclusions here are that the number one is eternal and unchanging, unchanging from the first argument and eternal from the second.
If your aim is to show that God is a concept then I would agree with you. But that would make you an atheist.
Originally posted by telerionSo, apologetics is not the way to go about things?
I may think it over and try to help you. Let me commend you on your apparent interest in learning. Never abandon it, no matter where it takes you. Like DavidC wrote you earlier, the best person to speak to about philosophy (if you ready to think and really want to learn something) is Bbar, a resident PhD (hopefully by now anyway) in Philosophy, who is es ...[text shortened]... One should let her reasoning guide her conclusions, not the other way around.
I never would have expected that.
THnx.
'Stein.
Originally posted by EinsteinMindWhen I was in high school I thought it was. Then I was introduced to actual philosophers. I must admit that at first I was disappointed. The silver bullets that I thought made me one tough intellectual gunslinger in fact turned out to be cheap fakes. However, after getting shot down a few times, I realized that in fact those who I thought were my adversaries had actually befriended me tremendously. They had exposed my delusion and opened my eyes to a much better way of approaching things.
So, apologetics is not the way to go about things?
I never would have expected that.
THnx.
'Stein.
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionAnything is better that accepting something on simple faith. Is'nt that right?
When I was in high school I thought it was. Then I was introduced to actual philosophers. I must admit that at first I was disappointed. The silver bullets that I thought made me one tough intellectual gunslinger in fact turned out to be cheap fakes. However, after getting shot down a few times, I realized that in fact those who I thought were my advers ...[text shortened]... ly. They had exposed my delusion and opened my eyes to a much better way of approaching things.