LogisticEarth:David, lets just make a few things clear: Your logical proof of the divine is that our universe requires some kind of "Prime Mover" to get things started, some, as you put it, "infinite being". This has many problems, because we don't know enough about the structure of our universe, the nature of human conciousness, or the laws of physics to make such a statement that it is a priori that this infinite being exists. For the purposes of discussion though, lets say that your definition of "God" exists. Please then, explain, how it logically follows that we know that: God is a conciousness that communicates with us. There is an afterlife. Relgious texts like the Bible/Koran/Torah are in any way divinely inspired. The existance of this prime mover should have any impact on how we live our lives. You're couching your entire arguement on the somewhat flawed but respectable position that "Creation requires a creator", but then making all these logical leaps and tacking on thing revealed through "revalation", and justifying them with your original logical proof of God. Your reasons thus far have consisted of the repetition of two arguments: "Historical events" and "People give bad reasons". Put very simply, your entire point is one of these: Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
Your logical proof of the divine is that our universe requires some kind of "Prime Mover" to get things started, some, as you put it, "infinite being". This has many problems, because we don't know enough about the structure of our universe, the nature of human conciousness, or the laws of physics to make such a statement that it is a priori that this infinite being exists. For the purposes of discussion though, lets say that your definition of "God" exists.
Please then, explain, how it logically follows that we know that:
You're couching your entire arguement on the somewhat flawed but respectable position that "Creation requires a creator", but then making all these logical leaps and tacking on thing revealed through "revalation", and justifying them with your original logical proof of God. Your reasons thus far have consisted of the repetition of two arguments: "Historical events" and "People give bad reasons". Put very simply, your entire point is one of these:
Indeed. I essentially made this same request of Mr. Roemer in an earlier post. Either he missed it or he's avoiding it.
Mr. Roemer, as far as I can see, you have yet to define "free will" or explain why it necessarily cannot be defined. You've also failed to explain how the cosmological argument for a creator of existence necessarily leads to the conclusion that this creator of existence must be the God of the Bible. Finally, I'll once again point out that you seem to be engaging in circular reasoning -- that is, assuming the very thing (the truth of the God of the Bible) that you're trying to prove.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Basically, Mr. Roemer, I'd like you to respond to everything I've written in this post, point by point.
You can prove that an infinite being (God) exists in two senses: 1) It is a formal result in metaphysics. 2) As a criticism of people who either don't know the proof or pretend they don't know it.
In metaphysics, we don't define free will, except to say it means humans possess a center of action. In metaphysics, a being that changes is composed of substance and accident; a being that is a member of a class or category of being is composed of form (soul) and matter (body); and a finite being is composed of essence and existence. God is a pure act of existence.
In metaphysics, we also don't define reason and causality and we assume the universe is intelligible. What exactly are the logical flaws in the proof? It is certainly fallacious to talk about a "prime mover." The proof is based on the idea that finite beings exist and a finite being needs a cause. Is this the non sequitur? If you doubt that a finite being needs a cause, what about a being that begins to exist at some point in time?
The reasons I believe that God sent the prophets and inspired the authors of the Bible and the Koran are 1) the historical Jesus, 2) proof of God's existence (such as it is), and 3) the bad reasons people give for not believing.
David Roemer
David Roemer:You can prove that an infinite being (God) exists in two senses: 1) It is a formal result in metaphysics. 2) As a criticism of people who either don't know the proof or pretend they don't know it.
At this point, I'm going to have to ask you what you mean by "metaphysics".
David Roemer:In metaphysics, we don't define free will, except to say it means humans possess a center of action.
Well, why not?
David Roemer:In metaphysics, a being that changes is composed of substance and accident; a being that is a member of a class or category of being is composed of form (soul) and matter (body); and a finite being is composed of essence and existence. God is a pure act of existence.
With all due respect, all I see here are a number of unconnected assertions. Can you please explain how they relate to one another?
David Roemer:In metaphysics, we also don't define reason and causality and we assume the universe is intelligible. What exactly are the logical flaws in the proof? It is certainly fallacious to talk about a "prime mover." The proof is based on the idea that finite beings exist and a finite being needs a cause. Is this the non sequitur? If you doubt that a finite being needs a cause, what about a being that begins to exist at some point in time?
Why aren't "reason" and "causality" defined? If they're not defined, how can they even be used in discourse (metaphysical or otherwise)?
Are you taking it as a premise that finite beings need causes? That is to say, are you defining "finite being" such that causality is implied there? How are you defining "being" in general?
David Roemer:The reasons I believe that God sent the prophets and inspired the authors of the Bible and the Koran are 1) the historical Jesus, 2) proof of God's existence (such as it is), and 3) the bad reasons people give for not believing.
I'll address each in turn:
You still haven't explained to me where government gets its "power" over people, or even what you mean by "power". I'm most interested in hearing from you on these two things.
As Autolykos said, why don't you define reason and causality, and how do you use them in any discourse then? I mean, you're obviously claiming to use the well known concepts of reason and cause in your arguements. Yet you refuse to define them?
Also, the non-sequitur you're presenting that I'm taking issue with is not the existance of God, but your assertions that because you posit that the universe requires this "infinite being", therefore that being is the God of the Bible, that it communicates with you, etc. The question of the existance of the divine is another matter that could easily take up the whole thread itself.
1.) Historical Jesus: We have scant records of a man who claimed or was proclaimed to be a prophet, and some "witness" accounts from his buddies about him coming back from the dead. We also have twenty centuries worth of obfuscation as various committees and kings twisted the stories to thier own ends. Why do you believe these stories to be true? What is the corroborating evidence?
2.) Proof of God's existance: Total non sequitur here. You're basically saying, "I believe the prophets were divinely inspired because God exists". One does not follow the other.
3.) Bad reasons people give for not believing: So what? This is purely arguement from ignorance. "I assume that the God of the Bible exists, and because nobody can prove me wrong to my satisfaction, he therefore exists!"
Seems like you guys should start a theists vs atheists thread.
Not so sure about this, as his theology seems to be at the core of his arguement. Here's his thesis:
"My theory is that defining liberalism and conservatism in terms of concern for property rights is no longer relevant. This is my definition of liberalism: According to the Bible and the Koran, our purpose in life is to serve God in this world and be with him in the world to come. There are many who don’t believe this, but they keep their negative response to revelation to themselves and give religion to their children. They have the maturity to realize they are deprived of the gift of faith and a meaningful life. A liberal, however, thinks that believing in the Bible is “unenlightened.” Liberals think of themselves as being intellectually superior to people of faith. This lack of integrity and immaturity makes them prone to political fanaticism."
It's really hard to tell, since he refuses to define many of his terms, and seems to be stuck in the usual "liberal vs. conservative" usage mindset. Actually, honestly it's hard to tell exactly what his point is.
What is the goal of continuing the debate then? To convert him to atheism? Do you naively assume he hasn't already heard the arguments?
1) The historical Jesus was a Jewish prophet who preached the coming of the kingdom of God. He was an exorcist and a healer, rose from the dead, and saved mankind for meaning. The same sources that said he was a Jewish prophet say he was an exorcist and a healer. These stories are historical truths.
2) What I believe and am summoning you to believe is that Jesus is alive in a new life with God and that if you follow Jesus the same thing can happen to you. I am not claiming it is a logical deduction. Faith is both a decision and a gift from God. Liberals/humanists/atheists are not people who don't believe. Liberals/humanists/atheists are people who think faith in the Bible and the Koran is irrational.
3) If people who didn't believe gave good reasons for not believing, it would be an obstacle to faith. How could I tell that they were wrong and I was right? Maybe they have better judgment, a better understanding of history, and a deeper understanding of the proof of God's existence than I have.
Mr. Roemer, with all due respect, I can only take your latest post to imply that you're giving up entirely on intellectual honesty in this thread. If that is indeed the case, then I won't engage you any further.
LogisticEarth has shown that he doesn't understand or know the cosmological proof of God's existence. He should understand the proof by now. There is a chance now he will reconsider the historical events in our salvation history and get a meaningful life.
It shows a lack of understanding of economics to not understand the limitations of economics. Murray Rothbard's understanding of economics was limited in this regard. I'm thinking of his analysis to the effect that on an island with two people, utility is maximized if both persons cooperate. What is the point of talking about islands if you are not stating what you will do if stranded on an island with another person. Rothbard was saying he would not make that person his slave. This is irrational. A rational person would say it depends on the circumstances. Whether or not Rothbard had irrational ideas about religion, I don't know.
Rothbard was saying he would not make that person his slave. This is irrational. A rational person would say it depends on the circumstances. Whether or not Rothbard had irrational ideas about religion, I don't know.
And we'll just say slavery is nothing but a legal term, all that really matters is if you interact in someway and not kill eachother / function in complete isolation. It is not your judgment of "good" or "bad", "free" or "unfree" (what ever any of those terms mean) that is the issue, but whether or not that person serves any use to you in any way.
>LogisticEarth has shown that he doesn't understand or know the cosmological proof of God's existence
I'm not familiar with that proof, but tell me, is it capable of proving that there is one God and not multiple or zero Gods?
>He was an exorcist and a healer, rose from the dead
There are a lot of possible explanations for this.
For example, he may have been an extraterrestrial with advanced technology.
More likely, we're living in a computer simulation. A gltich in the simulation isn't that big of a deal to accept. It could be one of the programmers or administrators monkeying around for all I know. See this paper from Oxford:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
The gist is this: if your descendants are likely to grow powerful enough to run many ancestor-simulations, how do you know you aren’t living in an ancestor-simulation right now?
Riigggghhhttttt. Point out anywhere where I denied the possibility of a god. Please, do so. It would be odd since I consider myself somewhat of an agnostic/ignostic. What I have been argueing against, instead, is your assertation that a cosmological god is the same as the Biblical God, that this God gives life meaning, and that "liberals" are lacking this meaning and are therefore open to political fanaticism to fill some divine gap. The idea that "the universe had to come from somewhere, and that force is God" is old hat to me. I have considered it and found it lacking for making any absolute conclusions. That said it is still a respectable position to hold. The line is crossed, however, when you try to extent that logic to theologies like Christianity, Islam, etc.
On a personal note, I hope that you can overcome your narrow-mindedness when it comes to what constitutes a "meaningful life". Personally, abandoning the dogmas of religion helped me achieve a much more solid feeling of fufilment, and a connection to fellow humans. We should be working towards making our existance the best it possibly can be for ourselves, our children, and on down the line into history. This, in my view, means less time and effort spent on supporting priests and building churches and mosques, and more time spent supporting reseachers and doctors, and building factories, hospitals, and universities. Stop worrying about what awaits your in the afterlife that may or may not exist, and start worrying about the welfare of your fellow humans. Isn't that what the better parts of Christianity teach anyway? Just cast off the mysticism.
That's really all I have to say to you as you're not responding to my questions in any substantiative way.
Hey, no harm in giving it the old college try. I always find it worthwhile to engage people, and I also don't think assertations as bold as David's go unchallenged if only for the audience's sake. He's being pretty obtuse though, so I'll only waste so much of my time, ha.
1) Since finite beings exist, there must exist at least one infinite being. Further reasoning leads to the idea that there can be only one infinite being.
2) The followers of Jesus swore up and down that he was alive. This is an historical fact. There is no need in history to come up with explanations. The resurrection of Jesus is just one of many reasons to believe that Jesus is alive in a new life with God. Another reason is that Jesus saved mankind for meaning.
What meaning does life have it it is not to serve God in this world and be with him in the next? Self-realiztion? "Making our existence the best" is very vague because we have to decide what is best. It is not as well-defined as obeying the Ten Commandments and storing up treasures in heaven.
Right....because if there is one thing the internet needs it is another theism versus atheism thread.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
^ I have a feeling this one will be productive. P.S. I also bet on the Generals to beat the Harlem Globtrotters this weak (Simpsons reference)
David Roemer:What meaning does life have it it is not to serve God in this world and be with him in the next?
I like to think helping starving children in Africa by endorsing and supporting markets is a descent meaning for life. Self sacrificing Christian's do nothing to promote God in a positive fashion. I've heard so many sermons of impoverishment from the pulpit, all in the name of "Living for God", it's disturbing.
Why not learn economics and see how you can offer a real positive benefit to Man. Become a producer, a creator. Employ the tools that have been given to you so that we can know that they were not given in vain. Living by examples means doing, not talking your head off, begging, and pleading with those around you to agree with your reasoning. Which is, as a theist, inherently illogical. Actions speak louder then words, no? Talk is cheap, and almost every theist around the globe is ready to jump on the talking bandwagon explaining why their beliefs are more correct.
Why not move beyond the childs play, become a Man that would make God proud. Become a true servent of society. Join into the fellowship of those around you via the promotion of voluntaryrism, markets, and peace.
This coming from theist to theist. What your doing right now is fruitless. It benefits no one. Your not going to get any extra goodies from God when you die, for attempting to convert atheists who have already made their decision. A decision which of coarse is theirs to make.
I didn't see any attempts by David to actually convert anyone- sounds more like he just feels very strongly about his position. Sounds like a turnoff to some but people who come to atheism have usually put all sorts of thought into it so its always a heated discussion. My personal idea regarding faith is that its not about blind belief- but more the willingness to try.
The great mystery of life is that people who devote themselves to the welfare of others tend to be happy. It is a mystery, not a principle.
It is easy enough to say someone with a lot of general goals (job, family, ending starvation) have meaningful lives, but it is not so easy to explain what that meaning is. A homeless person has to decide where to sleep every night. It sounds to me like you are saying you are superior to a homeless person because you help others.
I commend you for admitting that God exists and that our freedom is before God. Jesus and Mohammad taught mankind that God gathers up our past when we die. It is this belief that makes life meaningful.
>we don't know enough about the structure of our universe, the nature of human conciousness, or the laws of physics to make such a statement that it is a priori that this infinite being exists
How do you know it's an infinite being?
How do you know it's one being?
If it turns out that the God you worship currently has its own Ubergod, would you keep on worshiping God or would you switch to worshiping the Ubergod instead?
David, do you believe that God exists in a state of perfection?
>David, do you believe that God exists in a state of perfection?
Hmmm... If it were true, then there must be an infinite number of universes.
Because a God that created (N + 1) unverses, would surely be more perfect than an inferior God that only created N universes.
There are two kinds of knowledge: faith and reason. In reason, we know something is true because we can see the truth of it. In faith, we can't see the truth of it but we know it is true because God is telling us.
I don't believe that an infinite being exists, I know an infinite being exists. I know this from the method of inquiry called metaphysics. An infinite being is a pure act of existence. This is a state of perfection. There can be no change in God and no improvement.
Your question about a God that created more finite beings is like asking: "Why did God create any finite beings at all?" The only thing that could motivate God to do anything is self love. God created finite beings because He loved himself as giving. But he could have loved himself without creating finite beings. Hence, the question of why God created finite beings is a mystery. Why God created the universe He did create is also a mystery.
It is physically impossible for a perfect being to act upon the universe as he thereby negates his own perfection (perfect doesn't make mistakes). So, either "God" is perfect, and the Bible is BS on many of its claims. Or the Bible's claims are true, and God is not perfect. You can only have one. Or, both of them are BS..... either way, it matters not to me. I will dedicate my life to upkeep and progression of existence (God's creation, if you will) and let the chips fall where they will (probably with me rotting in the ground, no afterlife).
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
When Jesus was on the cross, he told the thief on his right that he would be with him soon in paradise. That he said nothing to the other thief should scare us all. The idea that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob should not be feared because He doesn't know our actions, or cannot act upon us, or will not act upon us is irresponsible and irrational. I suggest you re-think your decision not to believe in the Bible.
Ah, nothing like that good ol' timey bogeyman evangelism.
I advise you to re-think whether you support a perfect God or an acting God. You can't have both.
Why the Bible and not the Upanishads and the Baghavad Gita? Brahman is monotheistic. Why christianity? Or a better question... why do you care? Do you think atheism is irrational? If so... why do you have a problem with them thinking theism is irrational?
<~~moral ignostic. God/soul/afterlife is unknowable in the physical world. it is litterally "non-sense." I don't know. You don't know. We will never know. Just be a good person and let the chips fall where they will.
(Besides if God only lets you in heavan out of vanity (worship of/faith in him), regardless of one's actions to upkeep his creation, God is a jerk and I will gladly take purgatory)
You are quite right to see the contradiction in thinking of an acting God and a perfect God. What I believe is that our freedom is before God and that when we die out past will somehow be gathered up and become the defining moment of our lives. The question of why God created finite beings is a mystery. He created us out of self-love, but He could just as well loved himself without giving finite beings existence.
Buddhists and Hindus believe in life after death. They believe that Jesus is alive in heaven, just as in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
What is irrational and immature is thinking that Hindus, Christians, etc are irrational or unenlightened. Such immature people are liberals/atheists/humanist and are prone to acting out their psychological demons. They are deceiving themselves when they think they are more rational than people who believe in the Bible and the Upanishads. They are deceiving themselves when they think serving their fellow man makes their life meaningful.
It's just what you "believe." You don't know. I don't know. The Pope doesn't know. None of us will know until we die. It is "Non sense," literally.
Buddhists and Hindus believe in life after death. They believe that Jesus is alive in heaven, just as in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. What is irrational and immature is thinking that Hindus, Christians, etc are irrational or unenlightened. Such immature people are liberals/atheists/humanist and are prone to acting out their psychological demons. They are deceiving themselves when they think they are more rational than people who believe in the Bible and the Upanishads.
What is irrational and immature is thinking that Hindus, Christians, etc are irrational or unenlightened. Such immature people are liberals/atheists/humanist and are prone to acting out their psychological demons. They are deceiving themselves when they think they are more rational than people who believe in the Bible and the Upanishads.
I'm with you up to here... but then you say...
They are deceiving themselves when they think serving their fellow man makes their life meaningful.
bullox. Prove to me their is an afterlife.
Epicurus:bullox. Prove to me their is an afterlife.
What exactly do you hope to accomplish here Epicurus? And what are you doing that sets yourself apart from the previous 5 pages?
It's "bollocks", but yeah, that's one of the main things I was trying to get David to justifiy. We don't know there is one, and there's no reason to believe one exists outside of religous texts. I would imagine a life spent preparing for an afterlife, that it turns out doesn't exist, would have a whole lot more "wasted" time and less meaning, than one that was spent bettering our current existance. Why not work to better this life and let the chips fall where they may if there is an afterlife? Sort of like an anti-pascal's wager.
Well even working to better the current existence can be argued to be wasted time with no meaning seeing as everything is transient. Even the best will crumble and fall away so whats it all for?
I understand what you're getting at- its noble to work towards reducing suffering- its just that I don't think this line of argument to "let the chips fall where they may" means anything to someone who believes in an afterlife and religious texts.(Who don't oppose bettering the current existence, its just not seen as the end goal)
Originally when the thread was created, I read the first one or two pages and then gave up on it.
Now I see why it's been going on for so long!
David, hot tip: Answer your objectors point for point. You guys seem to be missing each other in the dark. And if you want to argue using a cosmological argument, just lay out the premises and justify each one, else this could just go on for fifty more pages and nothing would be accomplished.
Also, define your terms. By the way, I think I recall someone asking above about whether 'the' cosmological argument gets us one or many gods. There are many different versions, and different ones will say different things about that problem. However, just on the surface, many tend to use Ockham's razor (to eliminate a multiplicity of causes) or an ontological argument coupled with the logical conflicts of multiple gods because of how some of the attributes would interact.
auctionguy10:
Why does something have to be eternal to have meaning? What if all we can build in life is just sandcastles? Does this mean we shouldn't build them? Why waste your time preparing an attractive and tastey meal when it will just be consumed and destroyed? "Meaning" is a human concept, thought, that leads me to think that there is no objective answer. I don't think that the result of my actions have to be persistent or eternal for them to have meaning to myself, loved ones, or fellow humans.
Well, myself and others have been asking David to justify his belief in the afterlife without falling back on "it's faith". If you claim "faith" it's really hard to convince that person otherwise. It's like trying to have a rational discussion over, for example, the nationalization of healthcare. You ask the pro-nationalization person to justify thier position, and they say "I just believe it should be". It's a non-arguement.
MrSchnapps
I'm pretty sure several of us have asked him to do this, it really would help further the conversation.
I have given my reasons for believing in life after death and I am summoning everyone to believe. Faith is both a decision and a gift from God. You can't prove something whose truth you cannot see. It would be irrational of me to criticize someone who did not believe in life after death.
However, I can prove that someone who does not believe does not have a meaningful life. I prove it simply by asking what meaning does your life have? The burden of proof is on you. You have to explain what meaning your life has. My purpose in life is to serve God in this world to be with him in the next. I am hoping to be saved by following the ten commandments and storing up treasures in heaven when I can.
David Roemer:However, I can prove that someone who does not believe does not have a meaningful life. I prove it simply by asking what meaning does your life have? The burden of proof is on you. You have to explain what meaning your life has.
What? Do you know what a proof is?
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
Just like to point out that you are the one making the positive statement that life has an objective meaning. I have yet to see you respond seriously to any requests to support that assertion.
There are two kinds of knowledge: faith and reason. In reason, we know something is true because we can see the truth of it. In faith, we know something is true because God is telling us. The statement, "we don't know there is an afterlife," is nonsense. What a rational and mature person would say is, "I don't believe in an afterlife." A mature rational person would admit that God exists and that the reasons to believe are persuasive.