Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 12:50 AM
29 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Pressie (4 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,843 Year: 9,879/19,786 Month: 2,301/2,119 Week: 337/724 Day: 0/62 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234567
8
Author Topic:   Questions for Atheists
Dash on the Darkside
Junior Member (Idle past 3842 days)
Posts: 2
From: Gig Harbor, WA
Joined: 09-15-2008


Message 106 of 110 (482146)
09-15-2008 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by mike the wiz
09-13-2008 2:30 PM


Mike writes:

Purpose of motive has been proven to exist in the physical universe. I refer to a "extra cause" being present within an event.


It seems that you are arguing the "Five Ways" according to St. Thomas Aquinas.
  1. First Way: The Argument of Motion
    1. Nothing can move itself.
    2. If every object in motion has a mover then the first object had a mover.
    3. The first mover is the immovable mover, God.

  2. Second Way: Causation Effect
    1. Things exist that were caused by other things.
    2. Nothing can cause itself.
    3. There cannot be an endless string of things causing other things.
    4. Therefore god must be the first cause.


Thomas goes on to list other factors and observations as part of his "logic" as to the "proof" of god/creator. It seems that Thomas based his "arguments" on the teachings of Aristotle.
I believe however, that the philosopher Parmenides was the first to offer the argument "Ex nihil nihil fit", or "From nothing, comes nothing". (A quick search on google shows I am correct about Parmenides (at least according to the web).)
I haven't read the "Five Ways" for sometime, but I've seen the argument enough times to recognize it quite readily, especially given the context here.
I could be incorrect about the order and exact wording, but it's one in the morning and I'm too lazy to research it much at this point, please forgive me if my memory is a bit fuzzy, and do point out if/where I am incorrect.

Edited by Dash on the Darkside, : Because I'm a moron and apparently I don't know how to format a list correctly.


I'm not trying to be antagonistic, that's just how your god made me.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by mike the wiz, posted 09-13-2008 2:30 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Rrhain, posted 09-16-2008 11:30 PM Dash on the Darkside has responded

  
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 3485 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 107 of 110 (482372)
09-16-2008 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by mike the wiz
09-12-2008 6:27 PM


Re: Fictional atheists!
mike the wiz writes:

If I am a bit harsh on Dawkins, forgive me, he just seems to be an arrogant pompous atheist who can't see past his own beliefs, or disbeliefs.

Except of course Dawkins did see beyond his beliefs, or at least those that were handed down to him by the society in which he grew up. Dawkins was brought up to believe in a god and was a believer until his mid-teens, when he began to discover a whole new world of knowledge, which made him realise that life was not as he’d previously been taught.

I can see why some people might not take to Dawkins; he can come across as a bit of an intellectual bully. I also get the impression he sees himself as an upholder of ‘scientific truth’, against an onslaught of ‘black propaganda’ by some fundamental Christian groups.

In the movie All The President’s Men, the term ‘rat f**king’ was used to describe the methods used by the Nixon administration to discredit political opponents, and there certainly seems to be elements of that strategy in the campaigns being waged by the ID movement, so I suspect Dawkins sees himself as a bit of a Woodward or Bernstien.

But I’ve probably wandered too far off topic to justify expanding any further, so I’ll wind up at this point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by mike the wiz, posted 09-12-2008 6:27 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 108 of 110 (482540)
09-16-2008 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Dash on the Darkside
09-15-2008 3:58 AM


Dash on the Darkside writes:

quote:
It seems that you are arguing the "Five Ways" according to St. Thomas Aquinas.

  1. First Way: The Argument of Motion

    1. Nothing can move itself.

    2. If every object in motion has a mover then the first object had a mover.

    3. The first mover is the immovable mover, God.

Of course, point c is contradicted by points a and b. If "nothing" can move itself, that also means god cannot, either.

quote:
  1. Second Way: Causation Effect

    1. Things exist that were caused by other things.

    2. Nothing can cause itself.

    3. There cannot be an endless string of things causing other things.

    4. Therefore god must be the first cause.

Same problem: Point d is contradicted by points a and b. If nothing can cause itself, that means god cannot either.

In both cases, if we allow that god can self-create and self-move, why can't the universe?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Dash on the Darkside, posted 09-15-2008 3:58 AM Dash on the Darkside has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Dash on the Darkside, posted 09-19-2008 2:21 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 109 of 110 (482677)
09-17-2008 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by mike the wiz
09-12-2008 6:16 PM


Re: On the necessity of God as an explanatory entity
Thanks for the quote from Dawkins, which matches what I have previously said more or less - that he states God is "unparsimonious".

It is not true because no one can establish whether physical causes alone present enough "purpose".

Indeed, but why would anyone need to establish that?

Don't forget, the claim is that everything we see, in all i's obvious brilliance, is just a chance consequent of a physical self-acting cause. This is a big claim.

And I think that ascribing it to being the craftwork of a superpowered father figure who is himself a chance consequent of reality is a bigger claim.

God CAN be parsimonious because you have to assume that everything in existence has no motive behind it which contradicts the truism of design.

You don't have to make that assumption. Dawkins argues that the tremendous explanatory power of science has shown us time and again that it can explain so many of the fundamentals of our universe it seems that it will continue to do so. Our confidence is boosted in science by virtue of its successes. Why postulate that God explains what parts science hasn't yet been able to explain? One can reasonably believe that science will provide further answers and this belief requires no God. We have a fairly decent start of explanation for the universe. We've got almost its entire history mapped out in broad details and we're getting to the nitty gritty on others.

Adding gods in there is just adding entities that we don't need and which themselves require explanations that we cannot even fathom.

God is only parsimonious if God is required to explain something that we know exists. God is not required to explain 'purpose' since we do not know if 'purpose' exists. If there is motivation, purpose etc. Then God would be one explanation. It might not be parsimonious depending on what the purpose is really.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by mike the wiz, posted 09-12-2008 6:16 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Dash on the Darkside
Junior Member (Idle past 3842 days)
Posts: 2
From: Gig Harbor, WA
Joined: 09-15-2008


Message 110 of 110 (482934)
09-19-2008 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Rrhain
09-16-2008 11:30 PM


Rrhain writes:

If nothing can cause itself, that means god cannot either.


Agreed.

Rrhain writes:

In both cases, if we allow that god can self-create and self-move, why can't the universe?


I was merely making an observation of Open Mind's argument, at no point did I say I agree with his premise. In fact, I do not.
The point of my post was to show that the argument has been done before and it was just as full of holes then. The logic simply doesn't support Thomas' argument.
I have no reason to believe that the universe cannot "self-start" or "re-start" for that matter.
I can't say with any degree of certainty that this is the first or the hundreth or the hundreth-thousand go around for this universe.

Edited by Dash on the Darkside, : Spelling error fix.


I'm not trying to be antagonistic, that's just how your god made me.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Rrhain, posted 09-16-2008 11:30 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
Prev1234567
8
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019