Logic dictates that there is a God!

[got tonkaed]

i suppose thats the true telelogical argument then....since socks go missing, it is evidence that there is a creator God, who wears the same shoe size as i do.

[unriggable]

i suppose thats the true telelogical argument then....since socks go missing, it is evidence that there is a creator God, who wears the same shoe size as i do.

I think God has three feet since he has one hand, so that could explain it.

[MeDeFe]

And since socks only come in pairs he has to get the third one from somewhere else. It all makes sense.

[unriggable]

And since socks only come in pairs he has to get the third one from somewhere else. It all makes sense.

Bible 2.0 - this time you don't want to wear the cloth.

[Guiscard]

1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.

Your argument isn't valid:the Creation isnt necessarily the greatest acheivment imginable.
Your argument isn't sound:Once we accept the conclusion, the premises cave in around it.

Well, thats by the by. Whatever the greatest achievement is, it would be greater to do it whilst not existing. Step 4 is the one you have to argue against.

I'm not saying this is an argument I believe to be bulletproof, or to be truthful. Just using it to illustrate the equally flawed nature of Descartes and the Ontological argument in general. Interestingly, a 'proof' for God rejected by both Aquinas and Kant.

[Guiscard]

I understand the potential fallacies involved. As I said earlier, I'm new to the sight and I wasn't sure if Descartes had been discussed yet. I was just bringing up an argument he used, I'm not saying I agree with it. But he was a very influential person in our history and I was just directing attention to his ideas on this subject.

Nothing more, nothing less

No problem. Do you believe the counter argument valid then?

Nice to debate with someone reasonable for a change.

[incognito_man]

I understand the potential fallacies involved. As I said earlier, I'm new to the sight and I wasn't sure if Descartes had been discussed yet. I was just bringing up an argument he used, I'm not saying I agree with it. But he was a very influential person in our history and I was just directing attention to his ideas on this subject.

Nothing more, nothing less

No problem. Do you believe the counter argument valid then?

Nice to debate with someone reasonable for a change.

The counter is surely just as valid as Descartes' original argument, but I'm not necessarily more convinced by one over the other. It's just two more ideas to consider, of which neither could, by itself, convince me one way or another...

Descartes' "I am, I exist" epiphany was much more moving for me, either way

[Guiscard]

I understand the potential fallacies involved. As I said earlier, I'm new to the sight and I wasn't sure if Descartes had been discussed yet. I was just bringing up an argument he used, I'm not saying I agree with it. But he was a very influential person in our history and I was just directing attention to his ideas on this subject.

Nothing more, nothing less

No problem. Do you believe the counter argument valid then?

Nice to debate with someone reasonable for a change.

The counter is surely just as valid as Descartes' original argument, but I'm not necessarily more convinced by one over the other. It's just two more ideas to consider, of which neither could, by itself, convince me one way or another...

Descartes' "I am, I exist" epiphany was much more moving for me, either way

Yeh. Thats how I feel about the whole situation. Napoleon's challenge was completely flawed, but I don't really feel either argument holds up to intense scrutiny.

[Napoleon Ier]

1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.

Your argument isn't valid:the Creation isnt necessarily the greatest acheivment imginable.
Your argument isn't sound:Once we accept the conclusion, the premises cave in around it.

Well, thats by the by. Whatever the greatest achievement is, it would be greater to do it whilst not existing. Step 4 is the one you have to argue against.

I'm not saying this is an argument I believe to be bulletproof, or to be truthful. Just using it to illustrate the equally flawed nature of Descartes and the Ontological argument in general. Interestingly, a 'proof' for God rejected by both Aquinas and Kant.

True, I guess the ontological argument just intuitively looks wrong.
Still, I think it holds more water than Gasking's. Also I kinda like it as evidence for Plato's world of forms, but my ideas arent really clear about that.

[Snorri1234]

Descartes' "I am, I exist" epiphany was much more moving for me, either way

Indeed, I like that bit of his philosophies very much. I usually take ideas and adjust them from many philosophers. I don't feel that any philosopher never made a mistake or so, but many had certain things they were spot on with. (To me, that is.)

I take beliefs from every source, I even feel Jesus had a good point in his teachings which paraphrases as: "Don't be dicks, guys. Okay?"

No man holds the copyright on truth (,except for David Hume ofcourse,) and it can only be found by using reason applied by many people.

Or some such shit.

[Napoleon Ier]

(,except for David Hume ofcourse,)

thats just genuinly funny

seriously, you're a determinist then?

[incognito_man]

Descartes' "I am, I exist" epiphany was much more moving for me, either way

Indeed, I like that bit of his philosophies very much. I usually take ideas and adjust them from many philosophers. I don't feel that any philosopher never made a mistake or so, but many had certain things they were spot on with. (To me, that is.)

I take beliefs from every source, I even feel Jesus had a good point in his teachings which paraphrases as: "Don't be dicks, guys. Okay?"

No man holds the copyright on truth (,except for David Hume ofcourse,) and it can only be found by using reason applied by many people.

Or some such shit.

Agree almost completely, not sure about the Hume reference though Though I did like his matters of fact vs. relations of ideas descriptions, I'm just not sure there's nothing more out there besides me being just a 'collection of experiences.' Perhaps egotistical, but it seems there's something else, to me anyway.

[Snorri1234]

(,except for David Hume ofcourse,)

thats just genuinly funny

seriously, you're a determinist then?

Hume wasn't so much a determinist as that he acknowledged the fact that free will can't exist without determinism.

He is motherfucking awesome because he uses reason to such a large extent that nothing makes sense.

Edit: Here is his wiki-page including all his stuff. It's a great read and it makes you think about what you take for granted while simultaneously making sense and no sense at all.

[suggs]

Being a philosopher with a BRAIN, Hume does indeed use reason.
But he down plays rationality to a considerable extent eg his moral philosophy can pretty well be summed up as "morality=feelings" ie you cant reason about moral dilemas, its just how you feel about something.

And the primary of experience means rationality is very much secondary.

I drink, therefore, i am.

[Snorri1234]

Being a philosopher with a BRAIN, Hume does indeed use reason.
But he down plays rationality to a considerable extent eg his moral philosophy can pretty well be summed up as "morality=feelings" ie you cant reason about moral dilemas, its just how you feel about something.

And the primary of experience means rationality is very much secondary.

The booze may be addling my senses, but are you saying that Hume was downplaying rationality to the extent that he said our morality is only induced by feelings.
Because while you are correct that he thought feelings pretty much determined our choice in action, you miss the part where he used rationality to the extent where he realised it couldn't help us make a choice.
In a sense, he was not claiming that morality was divinely inspired, but more attributed to our empathy. If you see an infant drown you do not jump into the pool because of a reasonable and well thought out argument, but because you don't like it. It appeals to your base senses which are appareant in (almost) every person.
Ofcourse, he did not know about evolution so he couldn't derive it from that.

I drink, therefore, i am.

Yay.

[suggs]

Yep thats all sound.
God i sound pretentious. But thats the irony in Hume isnt it?
That he uses reason to work it all out, and then says "Of course, its all feelings really".
But quite frankly, you sound like you know what you are talking about so ignore my piffle. I failed my philosophy MA so i'm a bit of a bullshit merchant.

[Beastly]

"Believe" is the key word here. There is no proof that god exist. It's a belief.

Religion is question of faith, not fact.

There is no proof that God doesn't exist! However over thousands and thousand of years, The bible has survived, and Money, kings, Places, tombs, and other Remains are found, Which is more Proof that god does exist, rather than not.

Prove God doesn't exist? you can't! there is more proof of the existence than not.

How the hell does that prove that God exists? It proves that some parts of the Bible has historical meaning, but other than that, WOW, GOD EXISTS BECAUSE MONEY WAS AROUND 2000 + YEARS AGO!

Seriously, Beastly, money doesn't prove that God exists. Kings of ages past does not prove that God exists. Places, tombs and other remains does not prove that God exists. It just proves that things were introduced into the Bible and put there as a historical meaning, nothing more, nothing less.

Dude, they found the money that is talked about in the bible, actual coins!

and the other things, proves more of evidence, then someone stating there is nothing? Do you get it now.... I was stating that actual artifacts have been found. Where is your proof there is no God?

[Snorri1234]

Dude, they found the money that is talked about in the bible, actual coins!

Wow, you can't seriously be that dumb.

and the other things, proves more of evidence, then someone stating there is nothing? Do you get it now.... I was stating that actual artifacts have been found. Where is your proof there is no God?

I was wrong.

HOW THE f*ck DO ARTIFACTS PROVE ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT GOD!????

[Neutrino]

Dude, they found the money that is talked about in the bible, actual coins!

So...?
All that proves is the people in the bible were wealthy enough to own coins: not too difficult a task.
Anyway, how was it proven that these were the specific coins mentioned in the Bible? I doubt that multiple paragraphs were devoted to describing the idiosyncrasy of a single coin and I doubt even more that that particular coin was discovered and identified.

and the other things, proves more of evidence, then someone stating there is nothing? Do you get it now.... I was stating that actual artifacts have been found. Where is your proof there is no God?

Question: How does this prove God?
All it does is show the writers of the Bible wern't on drugs the entire time and the items they described actually existed as more than hallucinations.
Unless these artifacts are glowing with godly power and levitating several feet off the ground, they prove nothing.

[Beastly]

It shows that there is truth to the words printed over 2 thousand years ago, more proof than you can find there is no God!

Again where is your proof there is no God?

[suggs]

please shut up.

[Neutrino]

It shows that there is truth to the words printed over 2 thousand years ago, more proof than you can find there is no God!

Again where is your proof there is no God?

So that means that every documentary, if left to age for a while, also becomes the words of god?

David Attenborough is God many times over!

[Beastly]

I guess you guys don't understand the simplicity of the thought, that there is more evidence of proof than not...

That was the point,

Again... Prove there is no God!

[hecter]

It shows that there is truth to the words printed over 2 thousand years ago, more proof than you can find there is no God!

So are you saying that in 2000 years, when they find some coins that were mentioned in the non-magic part of the Harry Potter books (IE pounds or Euros), that will prove that Harry Potter is true?

[suggs]

he is the Voice of God.