Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

An Argument for the True Faith

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
    You don't logically prove something that results in a logical contradiction. Your sequences of deduction vaguely resemble logic, but they are simply philosophical posturing, and they hardly constitute any kind of proof.
    Again no argument presented.

    Disappointing to say the least.

    JM

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Roy View Post
      It actually attempts to arrive at the conclusion that there is a necessary being, and assumes that the necessary being is God.

      You'd know this if you ever learned symbolic logic rather than simply spewing random assertions.
      That being which is necessary is not a creature, for a creature is not necessary, but contingent.
      The name given to the necessary being is a name fitly given to a thing that indicates the thing is other than a creature.
      That name is fitly known as God.

      To object to the fitness of the name God is merely an empty game of nominalism.

      JM

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Roy View Post
        That which is other than a creature is fittingly called God.

        That would make a good sig, but it doesn't quite reach the depths of your previous idiocy.
        What then is a fit name for the necessary being which is other than any name that would indicate that thing is a creature?

        God?

        John?

        Cat?

        Tree?

        Roy?

        JM

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
          Again no argument presented.

          Disappointing to say the least.
          This appears to be your primary method of dealing with arguments against you. You pretend that they don't exist. Or more likely your cognitive dissonance prevents you from comprehending their existence.
          Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
            Your gods are empty vessels then, just like all other creatures.
            Actually, my gods aren't even that. My gods are characters in stories, legends, and myths with no actual existence in the real world. It wouldn't even make any sense to call them "empty vessels" or "creatures."
            "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
            --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
              What then is a fit name for the necessary being which is other than any name that would indicate that thing is a creature?
              "The necessary being".
              God?
              No. That carries too much additional baggage and leads to equivocation with the various gods of extant religions.
              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

              Comment


              • #37
                The last time I encountered such a blatant logical contradiction at tweb (in the old forums), the person also had a bad case of cognitive dissonance. He was a strong Calvinist who felt he could prove that God was completely and purely good and caring, and also that God allowed the vast majority of people who ever lived to suffer horrifically for eternity. He mentally couldn't comprehend that I was pointing out a contradiction. He didn't even try to call it a "mystery". He just kept going back to trying to prove his two conclusions using lots of scripture.

                So John has the contradiction of a God who completely controls everybody, while allowing people free will. On the bright side, John doesn't do much scripture mining. On the downside, he's religiously fixated on Thomas Aquinas, refusing to accept any arguments that contradict Aquinas' philosophy. So that would fall under his cognitive dissonance, along with his geocentrism fixation. Since John's been matrixed again, I guess this thread isn't going anywhere any time soon.
                Last edited by Yttrium; 03-14-2017, 10:13 AM.
                Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
                  So John has the contradiction of a God who completely controls everybody, while allowing people free will. On the bright side, John doesn't do much scripture mining.
                  On the bright side, John isn't.
                  Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                  MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                  MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                  seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
                    The last time I encountered such a blatant logical contradiction at tweb (in the old forums), the person also had a bad case of cognitive dissonance. He was a strong Calvinist who felt he could prove that God was completely and purely good and caring, and also that God allowed the vast majority of people who ever lived to suffer horrifically for eternity. He mentally couldn't comprehend that I was pointing out a contradiction. He didn't even try to call it a "mystery". He just kept going back to trying to prove his two conclusions using lots of scripture.

                    So John has the contradiction of a God who completely controls everybody, while allowing people free will. On the bright side, John doesn't do much scripture mining. On the downside, he's religiously fixated on Thomas Aquinas, refusing to accept any arguments that contradict Aquinas' philosophy. So that would fall under his cognitive dissonance, along with his geocentrism fixation. Since John's been matrixed again, I guess this thread isn't going anywhere any time soon.
                    Molinism solves the contradiction. God creates a world where every decision is made freely that aligns with his plans. Kinda fits in with the "many worlds" theory. Where for every decision ever made all of them happen causing multiple worlds. So there is one world line where every decision ever made lines up with God's wishes and are all done freely. That is the potential world that God actualized.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      These are all just cut & paste from his blog.
                      *sigh*
                      Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        Molinism solves the contradiction. God creates a world where every decision is made freely that aligns with his plans. Kinda fits in with the "many worlds" theory. Where for every decision ever made all of them happen causing multiple worlds. So there is one world line where every decision ever made lines up with God's wishes and are all done freely. That is the potential world that God actualized.
                        *looks up Molinism*

                        Hey, interesting stuff. Thanks for pointing that out.
                        Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Roy View Post
                          "The necessary being".No. That carries too much additional baggage and leads to equivocation with the various gods of extant religions.
                          So Roy cannot give a name to the necessary being. We all know creatures are not the necessary being, so the name of the necessary being should not indicate a creature. The name of God does just that, but Roy cannot bring himself to use it. Amazing.

                          JM

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
                            The last time I encountered such a blatant logical contradiction at tweb (in the old forums), the person also had a bad case of cognitive dissonance. He was a strong Calvinist who felt he could prove that God was completely and purely good and caring, and also that God allowed the vast majority of people who ever lived to suffer horrifically for eternity. He mentally couldn't comprehend that I was pointing out a contradiction. He didn't even try to call it a "mystery". He just kept going back to trying to prove his two conclusions using lots of scripture.

                            So John has the contradiction of a God who completely controls everybody, while allowing people free will. On the bright side, John doesn't do much scripture mining. On the downside, he's religiously fixated on Thomas Aquinas, refusing to accept any arguments that contradict Aquinas' philosophy. So that would fall under his cognitive dissonance, along with his geocentrism fixation. Since John's been matrixed again, I guess this thread isn't going anywhere any time soon.
                            You don't have any arguments that contradict Aquinas' philosophy. You only have claims which were easily answered, then follow up statements without merit. God created the human will to be free. That's just part of creation in relation to man as a rational animal. If God chooses to create things that have free will, then God's sovereignty is not compromised in the least, for God already knows all actions men are going to take and has a plan that accounts for such.

                            The truths of free will and divine sovereignty are truths that act together in a mystery and in no way imply a contradiction.

                            JM

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                              The will is defined as an appetite for understood good.
                              Who says so? The relevant entry in the Oxford English Dictionary is “Desire, wish, longing; liking, inclination, disposition (to do something).” There is nothing there about “understood good.”

                              Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                              What is understood is in some manner known to be good
                              Nonsense. Will you deny that Christians understand evil? Or will you affirm that evil is known to be good?

                              Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                              and in another manner knowledge to be a limited good, and thereby not good under the aspect of a limit.
                              Here you are simply being unintelligible.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                                The will is defined as an appetite for understood good.

                                Who says so? The relevant entry in the Oxford English Dictionary is “Desire, wish, longing; liking, inclination, disposition (to do something).” There is nothing there about “understood good.”
                                St Thomas says so in the Summa.

                                On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 3) that choice is "the desire of those things which are in us." But desire is an act of the appetitive power: therefore choice is also. But free-will is that by which we choose. Therefore free-will is an appetitive power.

                                I answer that, The proper act of free-will is choice: for we say that we have a free-will because we can take one thing while refusing another; and this is to choose. Therefore we must consider the nature of free-will, by considering the nature of choice. Now two things concur in choice: one on the part of the cognitive power, the other on the part of the appetitive power. On the part of the cognitive power, counsel is required, by which we judge one thing to be preferred to another: and on the part of the appetitive power, it is required that the appetite should accept the judgment of counsel. Therefore Aristotle (Ethic. vi, 2) leaves it in doubt whether choice belongs principally to the appetitive or the cognitive power: since he says that choice is either "an appetitive intellect or an intellectual appetite." But (Ethic. iii, 3) he inclines to its being an intellectual appetite when he describes choice as "a desire proceeding from counsel." And the reason of this is because the proper object of choice is the means to the end: and this, as such, is in the nature of that good which is called useful: wherefore since good, as such, is the object of the appetite, it follows that choice is principally an act of the appetitive power. And thus free-will is an appetitive power.
                                Good is the object of the will.
                                The will is an appetite.
                                That which is appetised, is first known by the intellect, for appetite follows knowledge of form.
                                The will is then the appetite for the good following upon knowledge of form.
                                Therefore the will is an appetite for understood good.

                                Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
                                What is understood is in some manner known to be good
                                Nonsense. Will you deny that Christians understand evil? Or will you affirm that evil is known to be good?
                                Evil is a lack of a due good. Hence evil is only known in contrast to the good. Good is a mode of being, Evil is a lack of the good, and thereby a lack of a mode of being. Hence evil is only known through a relation to the good.

                                Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
                                and in another manner knowledge to be a limited good, and thereby not good under the aspect of a limit.
                                Here you are simply being unintelligible.
                                The apple is good as an apple and lacks good with regard to the apple as being limited. The will appetises that which is good within the apple, but is unbound by the limited goodness of the apple. Hence the will is always free with regard to finite goods.

                                JM

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                157 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X