|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Proofs of God | |||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
This is a spin-off from post #122 of the "An honest anwer for a newbie" thread.
BambooGuy writes: There are quite a few, more than I could put on this forum. The combination of all three books would probably near 500+ pgs. To give you an idea, they deal with the problem of pain (i.e. why doesn't God stop bad things from happening), the existence or non-existence of morals in a philosophy (that's a confusing statement which means, why are morals important to a philosophy), why God doesn't suspend the laws of science (i.e. why isn't he more obvious?), & the reason why the Judeo-Christian God is the only one capable of meeting the requirements of existence. I'm sorry if I've had to be hard to understand, I don't know how I could fit all that info in a nutshell any other way. Read the books, they'll explain it better than I can. 'Mere Christianity' is a good book to start on, it's easier reading. And it's only $8 from Amazon. I can try to explain it if you want, but I think it might be better to read it (it's easy reading). I can't discuss this with a book, so I'd appreciate a summary and/or interpretation you'd be willing to defend. One argument at a time would likely make the thread move more smoothly. #122 of the "An honest anwer for a newbie" thread.
BambooGuy writes: There are quite a few, more than I could put on this forum. The combination of all three books would probably near 500+ pgs. To give you an idea, they deal with the problem of pain (i.e. why doesn't God stop bad things from happening), the existence or non-existence of morals in a philosophy (that's a confusing statement which means, why are morals important to a philosophy), why God doesn't suspend the laws of science (i.e. why isn't he more obvious?), & the reason why the Judeo-Christian God is the only one capable of meeting the requirements of existence. I'm sorry if I've had to be hard to understand, I don't know how I could fit all that info in a nutshell any other way. Read the books, they'll explain it better than I can. 'Mere Christianity' is a good book to start on, it's easier reading. And it's only $8 from Amazon. I can try to explain it if you want, but I think it might be better to read it (it's easy reading). I can't discuss this with a book, so I'd appreciate a summary and/or interpretation you'd be willing to defend. One argument at a time would likely make the thread move more smoothly. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 02-23-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: ... but... I wasn't warned before
quote: Thanks. It definitely needs updating though.
quote: The hard dichotomy between good and evil is the specified film is childish. Nothing is as simple as made out in that set-in-space morality tale.
quote: Suppose you watched someone die, then bit latter that person comes to your house for a chat. Would you not inquire into the situation? Look for stitches maybe? Check for makeup? Ask questions that you felt only the undead guy would know? I damn sure would. I can't help but think you are making excuses, building up a story around the story that is bigger than the story itself. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: hmmmm... responding to such a massive cut and paste job is usually a serious pain and is no fun. Basically, rather than you doing the work and presenting the argument, you are shifting the burden to everyone else. And I have a feeling the administrators will mind. What you propose will use a lot of storage space and space costs money. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I don't find this astounding at all. Humans live in groups and have lived in groups since long before we were human. Some behaviors are more conducive to life in a group than other behaviors. Simple. The argument Lewis tries to make just doesn't hold. As PaulK said, he ignores or is ignorant of the facts. ( I did go to Amazon and read the sample pages of his book. ) Sorry. Wanna try again? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I gave my reasons for this.
quote: Lewis doesn't really refute anything. He just says it ain't so. He doesn't really have an argument. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
CS Lewis just says what you want to hear. That doesn't make it incredible-- unless you opt for a strict definition based on the word's roots. That is, "not believable".
Sorry, funk, but Lewis is extraordinarily superficial. Maybe that is why he is so popular. He's a cheer leader. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
LOL.... yes, funk, when your team has nothing on the score board it is always wise to throw mud at the other side.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I took care of what there is of Lewis' arguments back in my post # 10, not to mention that at least one other responded as well. I have been waiting for a substantial response from you and joking with funk in the meantime. As for attacking the author, an attack would be "Lewis is a lilly-livered weenie." Saying that his arguments are insubstantive is not an personal attack. Nor is saying that he doesn't refute anything. Nor is saying that he doesn't have an argument. I said HE was superficial and that could be interpretted as a personal attack, but context ought to have told you that the real subject was the argument in Mere Christianity. That you don't like my take on Lewis' book does not make it a personal attack. He strikes me as perhaps a pretty nice guy, but that doesn't make superficial arguments/observations any less superficial.
quote: I am not the only one who has noticed how flawed the argument is.
quote: That is your take. I don't have to care.
quote: And... if that qualifies as an ad hominem your skin is much too thin. Besides, to qualify as a logical fallacy, the statement must be used in an argument. This wasn't so used. I was just trading ideas with funk.
quote: That is the only one meant in utter seriousness, but it funny that you quote only the tag-line and not the real substance. From my post #10
Some behaviors are more conducive to life in a group than other behaviors. For evidence, try anthropology-- I recommend Marvin Harris. Even non-human social structures function on the same principles ours do. The only difference is complexity. Lewis admits as much but then throws in 'a third thing that tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help and suppress the impulse to run away.' This third thing he uses to lift us out of the muck. The problem is that this third thing is already incorporated into what Lewis calls the 'herd instinct' and the 'instinct for self preservation' though I don't really like the duality. The two are more the same than different. Herd animals don't protect the herd out of some abstract desire to protect the herd. Herd animals protect the herd because the herd protects them, the herd helps them and their offspring survive. It isn't about selfish vs. altruistic, it is always selfish though it sometimes looks altruistic. Anyway, back to the third thing, this third thing that decides between the 'herd' and the 'self' is the brain churning through observation and experience, it isn't a Moral Law speaking to humanity. It is number crunching-- well, more like fuzzy logic. All reasonably complicated organisms must go through some decision making processes. Lewis just calls it by a different name and seems to think he's proven something.
quote: Shall we ask that of Lewis? I didn't see any citations. I saw no evidence. I just saw Lewis saying it ain't so and making a mess of what we do know of animal behavior. This propaganda is pretty uncontroversial cultural ecology, cultural anthropology, sociology, primatology, behavioral science... Back in post #8 you stated:
BambooGuy writes: It's as if both people were playing under a law or standard of fairness or morality about which they both really agreed. That standard is survival. Certain behaviors optimize one's chances for survival while others do not. Some apparently detrimental behaviors actually increase one's chances over time. These behaviors can be passed generation to generation. And since they are so fundamental it is no suprise that cultures share the same basic rules. There is no need, or even reason, to make this into an ACTUAL meta-physical thing. Consider a society in which it is acceptable for anyone to kill anyone else and suffer no consequences. Pretty soon people will become paranoid and start to cut deals, make alliances, and in no time there will be de facto restrictions on murder. If this doesn't happen, the culture will crumble. This is all very practical, no divinity necessary.
If they didn't really agree on this standard then they would fight like animals, one trying to dominate the other. Animals don't fight like animals. Conflict is very ritualized and follows the same basic rules across many genera, though the outward forms vary. I think that failing to notice this is one of Lewis' most fatal mistakes, since he uses a comparison with animals to differentiate them from us and lay a foundation for his arguments. It seems that he'd have to apply his Moral Law reasoning to the whole of the animal Kingdom. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: hmmm... C.S. Lewis presents an argument and doesn't bother to provide any evidence in support of it. In fact Lewis ignores facts that ought to be easily accessible. And all you can do is harp on the idea that I haven't provided evidence? Strange... Even more strange is that you have been told where such evidence can be found, and which disciplines provide that evidence. Stranger yet still, I have outlines precisely what is wrong with Lewis' logic and YOU aren't responding. You promised to defend Lewis. You aren't. Why am I starting to think you are just here to play games?
quote: You printed quotie-things around 'evidence' Do you dispute that this statement is accurate? Yes, Lewis agrees with this statement up to a point and then introduces other forces -- remember the Moral Law and the thing that chooses between the herd instinct and the self preservation instinct? This is the problem. But as I went into considerable detail in my previous post concerning just this point, I can only wonder why you are presenting this short version and not commenting on my more lengthy analysis. I do not think you know what qualifies as a straw man. This isn't it. A straw-man is a fallacy whereby one willfully presents a modified/weakened version of an opponents argument, attacks and kills the modified version, and declares victory. This, of course, is a shallow victory as you haven't been fighting your opponent at all. If you wish to accuse me of presenting straw men, please show where I have misrepresented Lewis' arguments. Otherwise, withdraw the accusation.
quote: Semantic games. We are speaking English. English isn't precise. You'll save yourself some heart ache by accepting that fact.
quote: You appear to have just recently tripped over an informal logic textbook. Maybe you should give it some time to sink in before starting to preach. For one, you seem to have a very hard time distinguishing between an argument and a statement, or between argument and conversation.
quote: Gee, thanks...!!!!
quote: I don't actually know to which statement this is a response. I'd answer 'yes' to the question, but conditionally. We'd have to talk about consciousness and thought.
quote: No. It is practical. Where is the morality in that? It is no more moral than "If I want to drive my car, then I have to put gas in it."
quote: That is the idea, but I think you are looking at it in a much too contractual way. And it won't work between two people the same way it works with larger numbers because there are no real guarantees that a particular individual will help. However, if there are a great many friends who MIGHT help, your chances go up that one of them actually WILL help when you need it.
quote: No it isn't, not really. If he were to leave things at this point I'd have no problem, but he doesn't. He takes what we've already seen to be a practical system, abstracts part of it, calls that part by a different name-- Moral Law-- and declares himself discoverer of something important. Lewis attempts to use the Moral Law to demonstrate something above or outside the physical, so it seems to me, but he abstracts this moral law from the physical. It is circular really. It would be like opening a bag of M&Ms, selecting the green ones, and then saying that the green ones are indicative of something outside the scope of M&Ms.
quote: I wouldn't say that any animal willfully dies but animals do put themselves in harms way. Various primates will gang up on tigers who venture too near the pack, for example. It happens. You only need to look into the literature to find out how frequent it is.
quote: Sorry, but it happens. Pack animals do in fact defend their babies.
quote: You appear to have gotten derailed. I am not arguing 'self-preservation' I am arguing 'behavior that promotes the survival of social species.' It is Lewis who is dividing things up into 'herd-instinct' and 'self-presevation instinct.' I think the line is falsely drawn and that the two are components of the same behavioral adaptation.
quote: How could I not be talking about society? We are talking about the behavior of social animals.
quote: Forget about morals. If you get beat up walking to school, you start walking to school with a couple of friends. Do you really not understand how that works?
quote: LOL... Which definition? That is exactly the point. Opinions about what a animal is vary over time. There is one, once popular, school of thought which portrays animals as nothing but savage chaotic monsters. The North American Indians tended to have a differing opinion. The blood thirsty savage beast of 150 years ago has now been replaced with a much more complicated critter. That is the point.
quote: BS. Animals fight for the same reasons we do-- because they sometimes must fight for food, shelter, mates or position.
quote: You really really really ought to study primates besides the humans you mention.
quote: So one kid smacks another on and takes his candy bar. The kid who lost the candy yells "No Fair!" and this makes the whole fight-- no, the whole of human fighting-- depend on fairness? Why couldn't we chose the other kid and say "The whole of human fighting depends upon theft?" A position which would probably be more accurate anyway. Suppose now that a baboon chases down another baboon and steals a piece of fruit. The other baboon protests. Seems that this fight could just as easily depend on "Fairness." Or, for that matter, on theft. Yet in the one case you choose the moralistic stance and in the other case you choose to focus on the violence. You seem to be using different criteria for humans and animals. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 02-28-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I don't especially want to argue the merits of C.S. Lewis, but BambooGuy promised to provide a proof of God and the best I can get from him are references to Lewis.
quote: An argument is an argument, zip. You don't have to read the whole collection of Hulk comics to realize that gamma rays ain't gonna turn Bruce Banner into a grean giant. Lewis may have some fine things to say but those good things don't correct the bad arguments. He may, perhaps have better arguments somewhere, but we aren't talking about those. We are talking about the segment of Mere Christianity presented by BamboGuy. You don't have to read the whole collection of Hulk comics to realize that gamma rays ain't gonna turn Bruce Banner into a grean giant.
quote: It is funny that you focus on a wee little book like this, yet don't consider what I have read and studied instead. City of God? The Dark Night of the Soul? Meister Eckhart? Bishop Berkeley? Saint Teresa of Avila? Why do I care that it is widely read? I haven't read most of the most widely read books in print. Widely read does not mean 'quality.'
quote: This is absurd. If I had knowledge of the truth, I'd not deny it. It just happens that there is no good reason to think your religion is true. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I typically don't reply to anything I take seriously withour first reading it several times. This falls into that category. You perhaps think your questions were answered. I do not think so, or I would not have asked. Do you seriously intend for this to go anywhere? Just curious. Perhaps you could get on with it now?
quote: Please, please, please learn what ad hominem means. An ad hominem attack, or argument, is an ARGUMENT wherein one dismisses an opponent's argument based on some perceived and irrelevant character flaw. The insult must be part of an argument. For example, you are a poo-poo head and so you are wrong. << ad hominem You are a poo-poo head. << NOT ad hominem There is no ARGUMENT. This is just an insult. IF you feel that I am insulting (I'd call it banter: a light teasing repartee. ), say so, but this fallacious use of 'fallacy' is irritating. Don't like my example? Try this one.
Example of Ad Hominem Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest." Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?" Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say." Page not found - Nizkor quote: LOL.... I know a cute little old german lady named Kalsi who'd disagree with you. I trust her more than you.
quote: Cows are green. << This is a statement. Apply logic to it. I dare you. The best you can do is translate it to "All cows are green" or "if C then G, where C=Cows and G=Green." You can do no more until you introduce more statements, and that is the point. Logic is the manipulation of several statements, two minimum, one being the conclusion. If you can formulate it as if/then, it is logic. If there is no 'if' or no 'then' it isn't logic but a bare statement. There is an analogy with mathematics. The number '1', or the number '2', is not math. "1+2=3" is math.
quote: Friend: Take me to the store. You: I don't have any gas. Friend: Please, I really need to go. You: I only have enough to get to the gas station and I don't have any money. Ooooppppp..... there is a contradiction!!!!! Why did 'you' not define precisely what you meant in the first statement? Instead you led your friend to believe something that is not true. You do have gas, just not enough. Shame on you !!! Why? Because English is not precise yet people generally understand how it works and deal with it. That is, most people have a bit of common sense when it comes to using language. The danger with the study of logic is that you can lose this ability.
quote: Do I need to repeat myself? And do you sincerely believe that this is even remotely important? Is this the fight you want to pick? If I wrote this is Boolean algebra you'd have a case, but I wrote it in English and this is perfectly acceptable English. If I thought it were important, I'd have worded it more carefully.
quote: Yes, it could be, in which case I'd call it a misunderstanding. The straw man fallacy-- any fallacy really-- carries a strong implication of intent.
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
Page not found - Nizkor quote: Not an argument really, it is IRRITATION. Largely, irritation that you won't just get on with it. BTW, I repeated yet again why we aren't taking Lewis seriously-- he ignores evidence that ought to be included in an argument such as he makes. I've been saying this from the get-go. It is really quite hard to be guilty of "you too" when I am the one who made the initial claim that Lewis ignores evidence -- ie. has no real argument. ( Actually, I think PaulK said it even before I did. )
quote: Bud, my initial rejection of his argument is simply because he ain't got no evidence. This is fallacious? Friend: My car can fly. Me: Prove it. Friend: I can't. It doesn't work when people are looking. Me: Then I don't believe you. Oooppppps.... guess I just committed a fallacy.
quote: Do consider a bear walking to the river just as the salmon arrive to be calculating? Animals do have a sometimes remarkable ability to calculate. Bats calculate the trajectory and future position of insects by analyzing echoes-- that sort of thing. But that is not really what I was getting at. There are genetic components to behavior. Import an set of individuals of, say, deer, to a region infested with crocodile. Assuming that the deer come from a region without crocodile, they will not have behavior targeted at crocodile avoidance. Some will venture too close to the water, some will stay too long at the water's edge, but some will be quick and cautious. After awhile the careless ones die. The next generation will have the DNA of the survivors and hence at least some of the tendency towards cautious behavior. Add to this that many animals learn behavior. Humans are not the only ones who do this. Bears teach there young what to hunt and how to hunt. You've heard of programs designed to re-introduce captive animals into the wild? A big hurdle is teaching these animals what to eat and how to go about it. They did not learn such things as babies. Cultural, social, herd conventions are no different. It isn't calculating in the sense of whipping out a laptop and firing up the stats package. It is using accumulated knowledge, whether learned or hard coded into DNA.
quote: I have no doubt that it is.
quote: This is exactly the part I don't like. There is no need for the meta-physical and no evidence for it either. Everything I have said has been to explain this point.
quote: That's nice. WHY? and HOW?
quote: I'm sorry. Can you repeat that? Maybe repeat it to yourself until you realize what you just said? Observation doesn't prove anything?
quote: I believe I states so explicitly, at least in a practical sense for social animals. For strongly social animals, you can't talk about 'self-preservation' outside the group. Outside the group, survival doesn't happen. Not living in the group is suicide. Making some sacrifices to stay in the group is the best way to survive.
quote: Thus you define things such as to 'prove' your point, or attempt to do so. Argument by definition is not argument. And I don't have to care. It doesn't do the argument any good though. 'Fair' is no more metaphysical than 'I want my stuff' or 'I want more stuff'. added by edit--- Lewis wants to use 'fairness' to pull us into the metaphysical. It can also be understood and quite adequately described as a necessary component of stable social structure. You can see this in monkey and ape societies, even in naked mole rats if I remember correctly. You can see this in the way that group members who do not share are treated-- ie. other group members don't share with the stingy party.
quote: IF step one fails, the rest is pointless.
quote: To be honest, I don't think you've quite figured out what I am saying. And I don't really care what you find unreasonable unless you can tell me why. This you haven't done. I'm not sure you've even tried.
quote: No. It seems that 'really oppose' means 'say something that makes sense to you.' Or, alternatively, 'find a strict logical contradiction internal to the argument.' Well, if you haven't noticed, there are a lot of internally consistent arguments that have nothing to do with the real world. The problem with such arguments usually being the premises. If you are going to insist that the only criteria is logical consistency, we may as well stop right here. I can make up a dozen such arguments in a matter of minutes. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 03-02-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
To echo PaulK, if Lewis is so compelling why have the objections to his arguments thus far gone unanswered? Perhaps you could address any of the points already made in this thread?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
Did we lose you, BambooGuy? Wherefore art thou?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
I too am waiting for 'the next bit' but the loyal opposition seems to have vanished.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Do they? I've never encountered a moral. Never stubbed my toe on gluttony, or banged my head on sloth. If these things exist, where are they?
quote: They are labels we put on patterns of behavior. Moral == that which averages out to be beneficial under a particular set of circumstances.
quote: I've had a cold. Have you said something profound? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024