Futurecraft Forums
A forum dedicated to communication and innovation!
|
Welcome, one and all, to the Futurecraft Forums! |
| | | The Dedicated Argument Thread |  |
|
+21fr0stbyte124 Joel ACH0225 Hierarch Fenway NeueSlowenischeKunst LaibachKunst MercurySteam Tau Keon Laibach Luna MrTargareyan Last_Jedi_Standing Delta Tiel+ Ivan2006 Lightspeed Pat Best Caramell Groot Commander Error 25 posters | |
| Author | Message |
|---|
Ivan2006
General
Posts : 2096
Join date : 2012-05-08
Age : 26
Location : The Dungeon.
| Subject: Re: The Dedicated Argument Thread  Mon Sep 23, 2013 1:46 pm | |
| @CMA: Eeh, you know the muslims invaded Europe well AFTER the crusades... right?
The crusades were between the 11th and 13th century whereas the muslim invasion of Europe reached its peak(s) in the 16th and 17th century (sieges of Vienna).
Get your historical facts straight.
The Crusades were only about wheras Jerusalem was to be ruled by christian or muslim rulers, which, as far as I understand it, both have the same right to this place.
It also wasn´t that the muslims didn´t let pilgrims in, they started attacking them only after the first crusade (tough they wanted a tribute I think). And THEN the templars were founded. | |
| | | | Last_Jedi_Standing
Moderator
Posts : 3033
Join date : 2012-02-19
Age : 111
Location : Coruscant
| | Subject: Re: The Dedicated Argument Thread Mon Sep 23, 2013 1:49 pm | |
| - Laibach wrote:
- Like what, miracles? I can't see how you can disprove the arguments for a 'first mover' without falling back on a variation of the 'infinite stack of things holding up the world' argument.
I certainly don't pretend to understand the physics behind the creation of the universe, but if I spent a couple years taking university courses on it I eventually would. That weakens my argument somewhat; I'm not really a great example of this. If I were Stephen Hawking I could give you a much better debate. EDIT: For the Crusades: The First Crusade was launched because the Muslims were invading the Byzantines, not Europe. The Byzantines were Christian, so when their Emperor asked the Pope for help he launched the Crusade. Capturing Jerusalem was a secondary goal, but that was what the Crusaders wanted to do once they got there, so helping the Byzantines was mostly forgotten.
Last edited by Last_Jedi_Standing on Mon Sep 23, 2013 1:52 pm; edited 1 time in total | |
| | | | Saravanth
Recruit
Posts : 287
Join date : 2012-09-08
Location : *snap snap*
| | Subject: Re: The Dedicated Argument Thread Mon Sep 23, 2013 1:50 pm | |
| - Laibach wrote:
@Saravanth: But he's saying that he's sure that something doesn't exist, it's sort of impossible to say that.
Well, that's why in my opinion agnosticism is the only logical belief/mindset. Humans are ignorant and know nothing, absolutely nothing, not even what they see the very moment they do. The search for guidance through religion always originates from either guilt, weakness or education since birth. The doors to heaven and hell are identical, and the windows are all too sooty to be seen through. Don't forget that. | |
| | | | Laibach
General
Posts : 2024
Join date : 2012-01-23
Age : 73
Location : Frozen Fields
| | Subject: Re: The Dedicated Argument Thread Mon Sep 23, 2013 2:29 pm | |
| - Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:
- Laibach wrote:
- Like what, miracles? I can't see how you can disprove the arguments for a 'first mover' without falling back on a variation of the 'infinite stack of things holding up the world' argument.
I certainly don't pretend to understand the physics behind the creation of the universe, but if I spent a couple years taking university courses on it I eventually would. That weakens my argument somewhat; I'm not really a great example of this. If I were Stephen Hawking I could give you a much better debate.
EDIT: For the Crusades: The First Crusade was launched because the Muslims were invading the Byzantines, not Europe. The Byzantines were Christian, so when their Emperor asked the Pope for help he launched the Crusade. Capturing Jerusalem was a secondary goal, but that was what the Crusaders wanted to do once they got there, so helping the Byzantines was mostly forgotten. AFAIK no one understands the physics behind the creation of the universe, there are some pretty strange theories, but nothing close to certain. And as for the Crusades, that's what I meant, Europe, Asia, same difference. @Saravanth: Agnosticism is a much better religion/philosophy than atheism, but unless you throw logic out of the window when talking about the creation of the universe there has to be a creator/prime mover/God/whatever. | |
| | | | Saravanth
Recruit
Posts : 287
Join date : 2012-09-08
Location : *snap snap*
| | Subject: Re: The Dedicated Argument Thread Mon Sep 23, 2013 2:38 pm | |
| - Laibach wrote:
@Saravanth: Agnosticism is a much better religion/philosophy than atheism, but unless you throw logic out of the window when talking about the creation of the universe there has to be a creator/prime mover/God/whatever. The logic there is the simplest of all, it's knowing that no one knows anything. I do neither believe in nor deny a deity creating the universe, but humans presuming to talk about such a thing is among the highest hubrises there are. | |
| | | | Iv121
General
Posts : 2396
Join date : 2012-02-05
Location : -> HERE ! <-
| | Subject: Re: The Dedicated Argument Thread Mon Sep 23, 2013 2:39 pm | |
| - Laibach wrote:
The Muslims were invading Europe, the Crusades pushed them out, and reclaimed Jerusalem, which, as far as I know, the muslims didn't have any more right to than the Crusaders. Later on they became immensely corrupt, and the entire purpose was basically lost in Greed, the last decent king of Jerusalem was Baldwin the IVth, I think. He lived around the time of the 3rd or 4th Crusade. I don't see why everyone thinks the conquest of Palestine was so evil, anyway. If it was, then the modern day 'opression' of Palestine by Israel is evil, the US war for independence was evil, the French revolution was evil, and pretty much any way in the middle east that's happened in the last 40 years was evil. As for my beliefs on what constitutes an evil/good war, see here. Again, I don't mean to be antagonistic etc. etc.
@Saravanth: But he's saying that he's sure that something doesn't exist, it's sort of impossible to say that.
@Tiel: I'm just trying to be clear, I have a bad enough reputation as it is. Don't forget the Muslims got their own holy places there too, also when they took out a city the slaughtered it's population to sort of cleanse it, on the way the robbed pretty much every settlement they saw being it Muslim or Christian, they didn’t care so long they got supplies and money off of it. It was pretty much like most of Europe of that time where religion was a mere tool used to rule the population, not only by religious leaders, kings for example ruled by the "right given to them by god", a step down from being "godlike creatures" like the prev kings were.
Last edited by Iv121 on Mon Sep 23, 2013 2:43 pm; edited 1 time in total | |
| | | | Laibach
General
Posts : 2024
Join date : 2012-01-23
Age : 73
Location : Frozen Fields
| | Subject: Re: The Dedicated Argument Thread Mon Sep 23, 2013 2:42 pm | |
| - Iv121 wrote:
- Laibach wrote:
The Muslims were invading Europe, the Crusades pushed them out, and reclaimed Jerusalem, which, as far as I know, the muslims didn't have any more right to than the Crusaders. Later on they became immensely corrupt, and the entire purpose was basically lost in Greed, the last decent king of Jerusalem was Baldwin the IVth, I think. He lived around the time of the 3rd or 4th Crusade. I don't see why everyone thinks the conquest of Palestine was so evil, anyway. If it was, then the modern day 'opression' of Palestine by Israel is evil, the US war for independence was evil, the French revolution was evil, and pretty much any way in the middle east that's happened in the last 40 years was evil. As for my beliefs on what constitutes an evil/good war, see here. Again, I don't mean to be antagonistic etc. etc.
@Saravanth: But he's saying that he's sure that something doesn't exist, it's sort of impossible to say that.
@Tiel: I'm just trying to be clear, I have a bad enough reputation as it is. Don't forget the muslims got their own holy palces there too, also when they took out a city the slaughtered it's population to sort of cleanse it, on the way the robbed pretty much every settlement they saw being it Muslim or christian, they didnt care so long they got supplies and money off of it. That's sort of my point, the only reason the Crusades and Crusaders are considered 'bad' is because it's politically correct to blame things on Christianity/Europe. - Desdenova wrote:
- Laibach wrote:
@Saravanth: Agnosticism is a much better religion/philosophy than atheism, but unless you throw logic out of the window when talking about the creation of the universe there has to be a creator/prime mover/God/whatever. The logic there is the simplest of all, it's knowing that no one knows anything. I do neither believe in nor deny a deity creating the universe, but humans presuming to talk about such a thing is among the highest hubrises there are. It's simple, but Occams razor doesn't work that way, the idea that order could come from disorder is sort of ridiculous. | |
| | | | Saravanth
Recruit
Posts : 287
Join date : 2012-09-08
Location : *snap snap*
| | Subject: Re: The Dedicated Argument Thread Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:03 pm | |
| - Laibach wrote:
- Desdenova wrote:
- Laibach wrote:
@Saravanth: Agnosticism is a much better religion/philosophy than atheism, but unless you throw logic out of the window when talking about the creation of the universe there has to be a creator/prime mover/God/whatever. The logic there is the simplest of all, it's knowing that no one knows anything. I do neither believe in nor deny a deity creating the universe, but humans presuming to talk about such a thing is among the highest hubrises there are. It's simple, but Occams razor doesn't work that way, the idea that order could come from disorder is sort of ridiculous. They said toilet paper was ridiculous as well. Got you there. PS: It's funny, ride the lightning was playing when I've seen your new profile pic... huehue... | |
| | | | MrTargareyan
Infantry
Posts : 438
Join date : 2012-10-15
Age : 24
Location : Eating your dismembered limbs.
| | Subject: Re: The Dedicated Argument Thread Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:03 pm | |
| - Laibach wrote:
It's simple, but Occams razor doesn't work that way, the idea that order could come from disorder is sort of ridiculous. The western world is on its way to becoming fairly orderly; and that came about from a bunch of amoeba; which unless they turn out to have a rich and varied culture; I probably wouldn't consider orderly. The same goes for a forest growing back after an enormous fire; order often comes from disorder eventually. | |
| | | | Laibach
General
Posts : 2024
Join date : 2012-01-23
Age : 73
Location : Frozen Fields
| | Subject: Re: The Dedicated Argument Thread Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:10 pm | |
| - MrTargareyan wrote:
- Laibach wrote:
It's simple, but Occams razor doesn't work that way, the idea that order could come from disorder is sort of ridiculous. The western world is on its way to becoming fairly orderly; and that came about from a bunch of amoeba; which unless they turn out to have a rich and varied culture; I probably wouldn't consider orderly. The same goes for a forest growing back after an enormous fire; order often comes from disorder eventually. That's sort of circular reasoning, you're assuming that evolution occurred without any guiding force/God and then you use that as an example of order coming from disorder. Does that make any sense? - Desdenova wrote:
- Laibach wrote:
- Desdenova wrote:
- Laibach wrote:
@Saravanth: Agnosticism is a much better religion/philosophy than atheism, but unless you throw logic out of the window when talking about the creation of the universe there has to be a creator/prime mover/God/whatever. The logic there is the simplest of all, it's knowing that no one knows anything. I do neither believe in nor deny a deity creating the universe, but humans presuming to talk about such a thing is among the highest hubrises there are. It's simple, but Occams razor doesn't work that way, the idea that order could come from disorder is sort of ridiculous. They said toilet paper was ridiculous as well. Got you there.
PS: It's funny, ride the lightning was playing when I've seen your new profile pic... huehue... What I meant by ridiculous is fallacious, actually. It even contradicts the second(?) law of thermodynamics. And did they? I've always wondered how some of our more esoteric practices(toilet paper, drinking milk, etc.) came about. Also I love that album/song. | |
| | | | Last_Jedi_Standing
Moderator
Posts : 3033
Join date : 2012-02-19
Age : 111
Location : Coruscant
| | Subject: Re: The Dedicated Argument Thread Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:27 pm | |
| - Laibach wrote:
- It's simple, but Occams razor doesn't work that way, the idea that order could come from disorder is sort of ridiculous.
Have you ever seen a simple computer program to organize a randomized black and white background into a checkerboard? Order from disorder is really easy. ~40 lines of code. Although I suppose the obvious retort there is that programming requires a programmer, so that may also be a crappy example. :/ | |
| | | | MrTargareyan
Infantry
Posts : 438
Join date : 2012-10-15
Age : 24
Location : Eating your dismembered limbs.
| | Subject: Re: The Dedicated Argument Thread Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:28 pm | |
| @ laibach That's whyi included the example about forest fires, I would argue that an all powerful god would have managed order a little quicker though; with far less lives spent. | |
| | | | Laibach
General
Posts : 2024
Join date : 2012-01-23
Age : 73
Location : Frozen Fields
| | Subject: Re: The Dedicated Argument Thread Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:31 pm | |
| - Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:
- Laibach wrote:
- It's simple, but Occams razor doesn't work that way, the idea that order could come from disorder is sort of ridiculous.
Have you ever seen a simple computer program to organize a randomized black and white background into a checkerboard? Order from disorder is really easy. ~40 lines of code. Although I suppose the obvious retort there is that programming requires a programmer, so that may also be a crappy example. :/ Yeah, that doesn't really work, the order isn't coming from random agitations of the black and white squares, but from the instructions the programmer wrote. - MrTargareyan wrote:
- @ laibach That's whyi included the example about forest fires, I would argue that an all powerful god would have managed order a little quicker though; with far less lives spent.
According to most religions(I think?) humanity screwed things up for ourselves. And if there is a soul, and the chance of heaven, then death on Earth really isn't a big deal. Other people have answered this much better than I have, I'll see if I can find a link.
Last edited by Laibach on Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:35 pm; edited 1 time in total | |
| | | | Ivan2006
General
Posts : 2096
Join date : 2012-05-08
Age : 26
Location : The Dungeon.
| | Subject: Re: The Dedicated Argument Thread Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:34 pm | |
| Can we just say god(if existant, noone can prove or disprove) got lazy and implemented the laws of nature into the universe to avoid doing everything by himself and be happy/go home? | |
| | | | Laibach
General
Posts : 2024
Join date : 2012-01-23
Age : 73
Location : Frozen Fields
| | Subject: Re: The Dedicated Argument Thread Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:37 pm | |
| @targareyan: here's what St. Thomas Aquinas had to say about it. - Spoiler:
Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.
The reasoning:
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.
- Ivan2006 wrote:
- Can we just say god(if existant, noone can prove or disprove) got lazy and implemented the laws of nature into the universe to avoid doing everything by himself and be happy/go home?
Why would we say that? If y'all don't want to discuss this anymore that's fine.
Last edited by Laibach on Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:39 pm; edited 1 time in total | |
| | | | Luna
Recruit
Posts : 330
Join date : 2012-02-13
Age : 25
Location : Your Dreams
| | Subject: Re: The Dedicated Argument Thread Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:39 pm | |
| - Laibach wrote:
- That's sort of circular reasoning, you're assuming that evolution occurred without any guiding force/God and then you use that as an example of order coming from disorder. Does that make any sense?
But who is to say that something needs a guiding force? Is god telling you to get up each day and go to school/work. Although there is a guiding force their, it is very easy for you to change course and say "nah I don't feel like it". Also, you could argue that natural selection is a guiding force as it picks off the weak. But Natural selection isn't a conscious body, it's more of a theory or concept. | |
| | | | Laibach
General
Posts : 2024
Join date : 2012-01-23
Age : 73
Location : Frozen Fields
| | Subject: Re: The Dedicated Argument Thread Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:45 pm | |
| - Luna wrote:
- Laibach wrote:
- That's sort of circular reasoning, you're assuming that evolution occurred without any guiding force/God and then you use that as an example of order coming from disorder. Does that make any sense?
But who is to say that something needs a guiding force? Is god telling you to get up each day and go to school/work. Although there is a guiding force their, it is very easy for you to change course and say "nah I don't feel like it". Also, you could argue that natural selection is a guiding force as it picks off the weak. But Natural selection isn't a conscious body, it's more of a theory or concept. By guiding force I mean intelligent design, my mind is what makes me get up(or not get up) in the mornings, not some arbitrary chemical process. Natural selection, in the little biology I've had, only seems to optimize an organism to the local environment, I can't think of any plausible explanation for why life progressed past the single-celled stage without some sort of 'engineer.' Not to mention Abiogenesis is just silly. - Luna wrote:
- But who is to say that something needs a guiding force?
Entropy, I think. | |
| | | | Saravanth
Recruit
Posts : 287
Join date : 2012-09-08
Location : *snap snap*
| | Subject: Re: The Dedicated Argument Thread Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:54 pm | |
| @Laibach I remember an episode of Futurama, where professor farnsworth goes to exile on some barren planet. There was a little puddle of water, which unfortunately wasn't clean enough for consuming. He released some little adaptive nanobots to clean it, and overnight, they have evolved into more complex "life". Over course of the episode, they witnessed some kind of accelerated robot-evolution. Nice episode, I'll try to find it's title. ================================= Found it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Origin . Also, this is the argument thread. Ironic that there is no argument up until now, despite religion being discussed. | |
| | | | MrTargareyan
Infantry
Posts : 438
Join date : 2012-10-15
Age : 24
Location : Eating your dismembered limbs.
| | Subject: Re: The Dedicated Argument Thread Mon Sep 23, 2013 4:00 pm | |
| I would say humans are probably more successful than single celled organisms, and are able to travel further and adapt better than single celled organisms. And another example of random chance creating order is flipping a coin and getting 10 heads in a row, flip it enough times, and it will happen eventually. | |
| | | | Laibach
General
Posts : 2024
Join date : 2012-01-23
Age : 73
Location : Frozen Fields
| | Subject: Re: The Dedicated Argument Thread Mon Sep 23, 2013 4:02 pm | |
| - Desdenova wrote:
- @Laibach I remember an episode of Futurama, where professor farnsworth goes to exile on some barren planet. There was a little puddle of water, which unfortunately wasn't clean enough for consuming. He released some little adaptive nanobots to clean it, and overnight, they have evolved into more complex "life". Over course of the episode, they witnessed some kind of accelerated robot-evolution. Nice episode, I'll try to find it's title.
=================================
Found it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Origin .
Also, this is the argument thread. Ironic that there is no argument up until now, despite religion being discussed. Lol, I love that episode. - MrTargareyan wrote:
- I would say humans are probably more successful than single celled organisms, and are able to travel further and adapt better than single celled organisms. And another example of random chance creating order is flipping a coin and getting 10 heads in a row, flip it enough times, and it will happen eventually.
Archebacteria(I think that's the word) are infinitely more adaptable than humans, they can live in all sorts of extreme environments. | |
| | | | Tiel+
Lord/Lady Rear Admiral 1st
Posts : 5497
Join date : 2012-02-20
Age : 26
Location : AFK
| | Subject: Re: The Dedicated Argument Thread Mon Sep 23, 2013 4:05 pm | |
| - Laibach wrote:
- @targareyan: here's what St. Thomas Aquinas had to say about it.
- Spoiler:
Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.
The reasoning:
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.
- Ivan2006 wrote:
- Can we just say god(if existant, noone can prove or disprove) got lazy and implemented the laws of nature into the universe to avoid doing everything by himself and be happy/go home?
Why would we say that? If y'all don't want to discuss this anymore that's fine. Ivan doesn't like critical discussion for whatever reason. May be a touchy subject for him. I'm kinda happy we're going somewhere with this. | |
| | | | Laibach
General
Posts : 2024
Join date : 2012-01-23
Age : 73
Location : Frozen Fields
| | Subject: Re: The Dedicated Argument Thread Mon Sep 23, 2013 4:09 pm | |
| - Tiel+ wrote:
- Laibach wrote:
- @targareyan: here's what St. Thomas Aquinas had to say about it.
- Spoiler:
Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.
The reasoning:
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.
- Ivan2006 wrote:
- Can we just say god(if existant, noone can prove or disprove) got lazy and implemented the laws of nature into the universe to avoid doing everything by himself and be happy/go home?
Why would we say that? If y'all don't want to discuss this anymore that's fine. Ivan doesn't like critical discussion for whatever reason. May be a touchy subject for him.
I'm kinda happy we're going somewhere with this. It's fine with me if he doesn't want to talk about it, but I tend to enjoy this sort of thing. | |
| | | | Saravanth
Recruit
Posts : 287
Join date : 2012-09-08
Location : *snap snap*
| | Subject: Re: The Dedicated Argument Thread Mon Sep 23, 2013 4:26 pm | |
| So... Where were we? It'd be a shame to let this die now... | |
| | | | fr0stbyte124
Super Developrator
Posts : 1835
Join date : 2011-10-13
| | Subject: Re: The Dedicated Argument Thread Mon Sep 23, 2013 4:28 pm | |
| - Laibach wrote:
- Luna wrote:
- Laibach wrote:
- That's sort of circular reasoning, you're assuming that evolution occurred without any guiding force/God and then you use that as an example of order coming from disorder. Does that make any sense?
But who is to say that something needs a guiding force? Is god telling you to get up each day and go to school/work. Although there is a guiding force their, it is very easy for you to change course and say "nah I don't feel like it". Also, you could argue that natural selection is a guiding force as it picks off the weak. But Natural selection isn't a conscious body, it's more of a theory or concept. By guiding force I mean intelligent design, my mind is what makes me get up(or not get up) in the mornings, not some arbitrary chemical process. Natural selection, in the little biology I've had, only seems to optimize an organism to the local environment, I can't think of any plausible explanation for why life progressed past the single-celled stage without some sort of 'engineer.' Not to mention Abiogenesis is just silly. The recurrent laryngeal nerve is the common example of how evolution doesn't doesn't always magically improve things. It is a nerve that travels from the brain to the larynx by way of the heart, making the trip several feet longer than it needs to be. It is like that for all vertebrates, and in the case of the giraffe, it is 15 feet long. This nerve developed back when we were fish, predating even the modern larynx it would eventually control. At the time it was a straight connection from point A to point B, but generation after generation, the nerve was unable to pop to the other side of the heart and there was no significant evolutionary impetus to do so. And now we're just stuck with it. For every favorable mutation there are 100,000 failures which are either useless or get the carrier killed, so it ends up looking like a magical process in retrospect. But it's not. It's a very messy lottery that's been going on for an unfathomably long time. | |
| | | | Laibach
General
Posts : 2024
Join date : 2012-01-23
Age : 73
Location : Frozen Fields
| | Subject: Re: The Dedicated Argument Thread Mon Sep 23, 2013 4:35 pm | |
| - fr0stbyte124 wrote:
- Laibach wrote:
- Luna wrote:
- Laibach wrote:
- That's sort of circular reasoning, you're assuming that evolution occurred without any guiding force/God and then you use that as an example of order coming from disorder. Does that make any sense?
But who is to say that something needs a guiding force? Is god telling you to get up each day and go to school/work. Although there is a guiding force their, it is very easy for you to change course and say "nah I don't feel like it". Also, you could argue that natural selection is a guiding force as it picks off the weak. But Natural selection isn't a conscious body, it's more of a theory or concept. By guiding force I mean intelligent design, my mind is what makes me get up(or not get up) in the mornings, not some arbitrary chemical process. Natural selection, in the little biology I've had, only seems to optimize an organism to the local environment, I can't think of any plausible explanation for why life progressed past the single-celled stage without some sort of 'engineer.' Not to mention Abiogenesis is just silly. The recurrent laryngeal nerve is the common example of how evolution doesn't doesn't always magically improve things. It is a nerve that travels from the brain to the larynx by way of the heart, making the trip several feet longer than it needs to be. It is like that for all vertebrates, and in the case of the giraffe, it is 15 feet long. This nerve developed back when we were fish, predating even the modern larynx it would eventually control. At the time it was a straight connection from point A to point B, but generation after generation, the nerve was unable to pop to the other side of the heart and there was no significant evolutionary impetus to do so. And now we're just stuck with it. For every favorable mutation there are 100,000 failures which are either useless or get the carrier killed, so it ends up looking like a magical process in retrospect. But it's not. It's a very messy lottery that's been going on for an unfathomably long time. You know more about it then I do, but I'm still convinced there was an intelligent aspect in certain stages, at least in the jump to sentience from... I don't know, whatever gorillas are. And Abiogenesis still seems impossible, or at least implausible to the point of impossibility. - Desdenova wrote:
- So... Where were we? It'd be a shame to let this die now...
I had a point I was making but I forgot it, damn. Anyway, read Aquinas. | |
| | | | Sponsored content
| | Subject: Re: The Dedicated Argument Thread | |
| |
| | | | | | The Dedicated Argument Thread | |
|
Similar topics | |
|
| | Permissions in this forum: | You cannot reply to topics in this forum
| |
| |
| |
|
