|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Charlie-BooCharlie-Boo Date: Nov 30, 2006 01:30
George Dance wrote:
> V wrote:
>> I've heard all
>> the claims as to why God exists, but what are your arguments that the
>> God of the monotheists is false?
Standard CBL formalizes these questions and their answers:
TRUE(x)* = God = Create everything and then stop.
~YES(x,x) = The Prophets = It is impossible to predict the complete
future.
LT(x,I)* = There is only a finite past = The Big Bang Theory
I = Input
x = Output
YES(a,b) means procedure a accepts input b.
LT(a,b) means a
W* = Do W then stop.
P = (P^TRUE)
|
| Show full article (2.53Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: George DanceGeorge Dance Date: Nov 11, 2006 07:06
V wrote:
> I am split between the religious types on one end and pure atheists on
> the other end in my circles. I like to be open to all views on a
> subject as long as it is truth based and not fantasy. I've heard all
> the claims as to why God exists, but what are your arguments that the
> God of the monotheists is false?
Here's the best one I can come up with. Note that it's partly
'inductive', since not all the premises (marked with (*)) are
tautologies, and one inference isn't even deductively valid, but an
inductive generalization - so it shouldn't be considered a proof in any
way.
|
| Show full article (1.39Kb) |
|
| | 325 Comments |
|
|
Author: superbohatersuperbohater Date: Nov 11, 2006 09:10
> 4. Every physical that we have ever observed was created by other
> physical existents. *
> 5. Physical existents are created only by other physical existents. (4,
> Gen.)
i guess this inference is weak part of your argument
|
| |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: VV Date: Nov 11, 2006 15:16
George Dance wrote:
> V wrote:
>> I am split between the religious types on one end and pure atheists on
>> the other end in my circles. I like to be open to all views on a
>> subject as long as it is truth based and not fantasy. I've heard all
>> the claims as to why God exists, but what are your arguments that the
>> God of the monotheists is false?
>
> Here's the best one I can come up with. Note that it's partly
> 'inductive', since not all the premises (marked with (*)) are
> tautologies, and one inference isn't even deductively valid, but an
> inductive generalization - so it shouldn't be considered a proof in any
> way.
>
> 1. The God of the monotheists, if it exists, created all physical
> existents. *
> 2. The God of the monotheists did not create Itself. *
> 3. The God of the monotheists, if it exists, is not a physical
> existent. (1,2)
> 4. Every physical that we have ever observed was created by other ...
|
| Show full article (2.37Kb) |
| 52 Comments |
|
|
Author: Al KleinAl Klein Date: Nov 11, 2006 21:22
On 11 Nov 2006 15:16:53 -0800, "V" aol.com> wrote:
>Hi and thanks for your reply. To clarify things, I am looking for
>cracks in the argument for God using the dogma of the monotheists
>religions beliefs. I am not looking for evidence of God as we have
>none, as this is like trying to prove aliens are real or not without
>having an alien.
The Free Will problem:
The Christian god created the universe, therefore he had to be outside
it. (Otherwise it had to exist before he did, which is contrary to
his having created it.) The universe is a singularity, so there's...
|
| Show full article (4.65Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: George DanceGeorge Dance Date: Nov 12, 2006 09:47
superbohater wrote:
>> 4. Every physical that we have ever observed was created by other
>> physical existents. *
>> 5. Physical existents are created only by other physical existents. (4,
>> Gen.)
>
> i guess this inference is weak part of your argument
Yes, it is; because it is not deductively valid. (It's logically
possible for there to be physical events uncaused by any physical
events, that we haven't observed.)
However, it is the same inference that monotheists themselves make in
the Cosmological arguments; that everything has a cause, because every
physical event we've observed has a cause. And they can't accept the
inference as strong in one case, while denying its strength in the
other; so if this argument fails, so do the Cosmoogical arguments.
|
| |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: leelee Date: Nov 13, 2006 04:35
V wrote:
> George Dance wrote:
>> V wrote:
>>> I am split between the religious types on one end and pure atheists on
>>> the other end in my circles. I like to be open to all views on a
>>> subject as long as it is truth based and not fantasy. I've heard all
>>> the claims as to why God exists, but what are your arguments that the
>>> God of the monotheists is false?
>>
>> Here's the best one I can come up with. Note that it's partly
>> 'inductive', since not all the premises (marked with (*)) are
>> tautologies, and one inference isn't even deductively valid, but an
>> inductive generalization - so it shouldn't be considered a proof in any
>> way.
>>
>> 1. The God of the monotheists, if it exists, created all physical
>> existents. *
>> 2. The God of the monotheists did not create Itself. *
>> 3. The God of the monotheists, if it exists, is not a physical
>> existent. (1,2) ...
|
| Show full article (2.39Kb) |
| 47 Comments |
|
|
Author: caleecalee Date: Nov 13, 2006 04:43
On 13 Nov 2006 04:35:50 -0800, "lee@ rdfmedia.com" rdfmedia.com>
wrote:
>
>V wrote:
>> George Dance wrote:
>>> V wrote:
>>>> I am split between the religious types on one end and pure atheists on
>>>> the other end in my circles. I like to be open to all views on a
>...
|
| Show full article (2.86Kb) |
| 46 Comments |
|
|
Author: leelee Date: Nov 13, 2006 05:22
>>Yes agreed, it is merely a matter of choice. belive or not, your life,
>>your choice.
>
> There's no choice involved, moron. Just intellectual honesty.
*sigh* here we go.
Okay Wanker, by that comment I take it that you mean anybody who
belives in God is not being intelectualy honest, because there is no
proof of God's existance, to belive without proof means one is being
both lazy and dishonest, intectualy speaking?
|
| |
| 7 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Chris DegnenChris Degnen Date: Nov 13, 2006 05:25
George Dance wrote:
> V wrote:
>> I am split between the religious types on one end and pure
>> atheists on the other end in my circles. I like to be open
>> to all views on a subject as long as it is truth based and
>> not fantasy. I've heard all the claims as to why God exists,
>> but what are your arguments that the God of the monotheists
>> is false?
>
> Here's the best one I can come up with. Note that it's partly
> 'inductive', since not all the premises (marked with (*)) are
> tautologies, and one inference isn't even deductively valid,
> but an inductive generalization - so it shouldn't be considered
> a proof in any way.
>
> 1. The God of the monotheists, if it exists, created all physical
> existents. *
> 2. The God of the monotheists did not create Itself. *
> 3. The God of the monotheists, if it exists, is not a physical
> existent. (1,2) ...
|
| Show full article (2.56Kb) |
| 267 Comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
