Phoenix and Indy discuss God's Existence

[Chrawnus]

All I can say is that if the five ways are good enough for you than I am delighted that you are so easily pleased.

I have said nothing against or for the five ways, I've only spoken out against your invalid criticism that the arguments are circular. And it's invalid criticism, because all deductive arguments are circular. They wouldn't be deductive arguments if they weren't circular.

[firstfloor]

I am not. Just read up on deductive arguments, and you'll find that one aspect of deductive reasoning/logic is that the conclusion will always be hidden in the premises as long as the argument is a valid deductive argument. When dealing with a valid deductive argument the question is mostly whether the premises are true, not whether the conclusion follows from the premises (because if it is a valid deductive argument the conclusion must necessarily follow, as long as the premises are true).

OK, I think we are in broad agreement there.

[firstfloor]

I have said nothing against or for the five ways, I've only spoken out against your invalid criticism that the arguments are circular. And it's invalid criticism, because all deductive arguments are circular. They wouldn't be deductive arguments if they weren't circular.

Sorry, that remark was not adressed to you.
I am just frustrated that some Christians pick over insignificant details, but fail, it seems, to see the big picture. I assume they are very young.

[Cerebrum123]

I urge you to hear Karen Armstrong who I am pushing at every opportunity

This is something you should NOT be doing. She is downright untrustworthy, and doesn't know very much about what she is talking about(or she is plain lying about stuff, mostly Islam though). Seriously step back from her, and try to find a better scholar who supports your views. Ok?

[firstfloor]

This is something you should NOT be doing. She is downright untrustworthy, and doesn't know very much about what she is talking about(or she is plain lying about stuff, mostly Islam though). Seriously step back from her, and try to find a better scholar who supports your views. Ok?

As long as you are not lashed to the creed, she makes a lot of sense.

[Chrawnus]

She makes a lot of sense only if you're obsessively intent on making her make sense.

[Cerebrum123]

As long as you are not lashed to the creed, she makes a lot of sense.

If you want to listen to someone who has blatant falsehoods(which she should be aware of btw)in her speeches, then go ahead, knock yourself out.

[firstfloor]

And if you rely on your objections to Christianity ...................

I do not object to Christianity. But I do think that aspects of the modern variant are corrupted. I would like to see a better course steered.

[lilpixieofterror]

I do not object to Christianity. But I do think that aspects of the modern variant are corrupted. I would like to see a better course steered.

Such as...

[lilpixieofterror]

You have the wrong end of the stick here.

Nah, you just don't know what you're talking about and it shows.

"Unhealthy" refers to the attempt in this discussion to prove the existence of God, not your rebuke.

So since firstfloor has defined 'unhealthy' as trying to prove the existance of God, it must be 'unhealthy' to! Got to love assertions.

I can see that I will have to be careful what I say to you.

If you expect me to make sense of what you say instead of going off on topics I didn't say... then yes you need to be quite careful since I left my mind reading pills at home this morning...

[firstfloor]

Such as...

I think that Christianity and other religions, would be much better if they took a leaf out of Karen Armstrong's book. My current fixation you understand.

[firstfloor]

Nah, you just don't know what you're talking about and it shows.

So since firstfloor has defined 'unhealthy' as trying to prove the existance of God, it must be 'unhealthy' to! Got to love assertions.

If you expect me to make sense of what you say instead of going off on topics I didn't say... then yes you need to be quite careful since I left my mind reading pills at home this morning...

What happened to Christian charity?

[Chrawnus]

What happened to Christian charity?

Charity without truth (even when it's harsh) is pointless.

[Soyeong]

These “proofs” are not logical in the sense you mean because they depend on an object, God, which is undefined. We are always told that we explain our lack of understanding by use of the word God.

Aquinas argues for the classical God of theism. While we do not understand everything, in fact cannot in a current state, there still are some things we can understand. Aquinas argues that a being that has these characteristics does exist.

Unmoved mover and first cause go like this: Infinities don’t work, so let’s introduce God to paint over our ignorance. We are equally ignorant about God.

Aquinas was not attempting to show that the universe had a beginning and that God must have caused it. He grants that it could be possible to have an infinite ordered series per accidens, but it is not possible to have an infinite ordered series per se because that would involve an series of infinite instrumental causes with no efficient cause, which would be unintelligible. The first mover is not first chronologically, but first ontologically. What he had in mind was a series of movers that all exist together here and now and are all being moved simultaneously “as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand." Whatever else God is supposed to be, he is supposed to be the ultimate explanation for why things happen, so if it is proved that there is a being who explains this, then there is a being in reality that corresponds to our idea of God.

Contingency: Why is it a being? No reason is given. This is something else we know nothing about so let’s just call that God. Result!

What else would it be? Aquinas says in his Third Way, "Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God." Again, whatever else God is supposed to be, this corresponds to our idea of God.

Degree claims that perfection must have a pinnacle, Oh, and let’s just call that God as well shall we. What is perfection? Who assesses perfection? There is infinity of possibilities here as well. Bring me a perfect apple and I will show you a better one. Or equally, I can think of a better God than yours.

Quoted for the truth:

No. This is referring to the transcendentals which were necessary attributes of being. Degrees only make sense in the transcendentals if you have a maximum somewhere. Seriously. Do a little bit of study before you further embarrass yourself.

Teleological: Makes the unfounded claim that everything has a purpose. Why should it?

Aquinas is not saying that everything has a purpose, but that every efficient cause points toward or is directed at a specific effect or range of effects at its natural end.

It is equivalent to saying that God is the first mover; nothing can move itself, so God is the first Mover. You never consider the possibility that the first mover can be other than God. Or, putting it another way, the claim given without proof is that the properties of the first mover are the properties of God.

If you look cared to actually look at what you are arguing against, you would see that the argument it doesn't start by saying God is the first mover. Aquinas argues for the necessity of the first mover, then says that this is known as God. Again, whatever else God is, this would correspond to our idea of God.

[firstfloor]

So, can we have the vote now? Yes, God has it. But you have to admit He's a bit slippery - very mysterious. I'm off to catch some more Karen Armstrong.