Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Options
1…7071737576…334

Comments

  • Options
    #2162
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Galvasean wrote: »
    I had to re-check, but do I hear right in that his argument is that if God could exist then God must exist? You could apply that logic to anything.
    Unicorns could exist, therefore they must exist.
    Philosophy, what a load of ****.


    The argument is that there must be something that is "greater" than everything else in existence which makes a kind of sense I suppose because in a finite universe if you rank things in order of "greatness" there must be something at the top. The problem comes in when you take this thing and stick the label god on it. It's the same problem we had with this thread where after 9 pages of faffing about it transpired that when Des Carter asked the hypothetical question "If god exists", what he meant was "Do you believe there is more to life and death and creation and the universe than simply living and dieing and thats it the end" because he labels anything that is greater than humans as "God".

    It's yet another problem caused by the fact that the word god can mean absolutely anything to anyone and can even mean different things to the same person depending on what they're talking about, e.g. how William Lane Craig will talk about god as "a being of which no greater can be conceived" when presenting the ontological argument when he actually believes that god is a man who walked on water in Israel 2000 years ago and who doesn't like gayness


  • Options
    #2163
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Galvasean wrote: »
    I had to re-check, but do I hear right in that his argument is that if God could exist then God must exist? You could apply that logic to anything.
    Unicorns could exist, therefore they must exist.
    Philosophy, what a load of ****.

    Thats an argument from C.S.Lewis' if I'm not mistaken. The best answer to it is the Furger Argorok response :D. (2mb mp3 file)


  • Options
    #2164
    keppler
    Registered Users Posts: 389 ✭✭keppler


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    The argument is that there must be something that is "greater" than everything else in existence which makes a kind of sense I suppose because in a finite universe if you rank things in order of "greatness" there must be something at the top. The problem comes in when you take this thing and stick the label god on it. It's the same problem we had with this thread where after 9 pages of faffing about it transpired that when Des Carter asked the hypothetical question "If god exists", what he meant was "Do you believe there is more to life and death and creation and the universe than simply living and dieing and thats it the end" because he labels anything that is greater than humans as "God".

    It's yet another problem caused by the fact that the word god can mean absolutely anything to anyone and can even mean different things to the same person depending on what they're talking about, e.g. how William Lane Craig will talk about god as "a being of which no greater can be conceived" when presenting the ontological argument when he actually believes that god is a man who walked on water in Israel 2000 years ago and who doesn't like gayness

    Also, what would someone like Craig define as 'greater'?


  • Options
    #2165
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    keppler wrote: »
    Also, what would someone like Craig define as 'greater'?

    great_britain_greater.jpg


  • Options
    #2166
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    liamw wrote: »
    That's William Lane Craig, a well respected christian apologist.

    I think that sums up the sorry state of modern Christian apologetics. :P

    When someone like Craig is the person who is pushed out to defend the rationality of Christian apologetics you know the other side has lost.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2167
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Galvasean wrote: »
    great_britain_greater.jpg
    I guess that is one of the reasons why the US Dollar is the most widely held reserve currency in the world ... and the British Pound is ... er ... the British Pound!!!!:eek::D


  • Options
    #2168
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I think that sums up the sorry state of modern Christian apologetics. :P

    When someone like Craig is the person who is pushed out to defend the rationality of Christian apologetics you know the other side has lost.
    ... yes indeed the other side (to Christianity) has indeed lost every argument when challenged by competent Christians indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God!!!!

    ... I'll put your comment down to a Freudian Slip, on your part!!!:)


  • Options
    #2169
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    I guess that is one of the reasons why the US Dollar is the most widely held reserve currency in the world
    The US Treasury should change the text to "In China We Trust", since the PRC holds $850 billion of US bonds -- just over 20% of the total:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#Foreign_ownership

    I would imagine that even the pseudo-omnipotent christian deity would hold back from intervening in a Chinese dump of US bonds.


  • Options
    #2170
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Galvasean wrote: »
    I had to re-check, but do I hear right in that his argument is that if God could exist then God must exist? You could apply that logic to anything.
    Not quite. The argument is Anselm's Ontological argument and it says that if some person can think that there is a greatest thing, then the greatest thing must exist. And that the greatest thing must be what christians call "god" (and not what muslims call "god", for they are self-evidently wrong in their belief).

    Even by the grim standards of christian argumentation, Anselms argument is particularly bone-headed.
    Galvasean wrote: »
    Philosophy, what a load of ****.
    Anselm's argument is not philosophy. It's a closely-related pseudo-disciple named sophistry which uses language games to "prove" the truth of the propositions that the sophist wishes to demonstrate.

    Sophistry's relation to philosophy is the same as creationism's is to modern evolutionary biology. Plato + Socrates were philosophers. Anselm and the truly worthless -- and hilariously camp-- WC are pontificating, hyperventilating sophists in the purest tradition of highflown windbaggery and pompous, vacuous erudition.


  • Options
    #2171
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    J C wrote: »
    I guess that is one of the reasons why the US Dollar is the most widely held reserve currency in the world ... and the British Pound is ... er ... the British Pound!!!!:eek::D

    ...and the British pound is worth over 50% more than the US dollar.
    Check for yourself:
    http://www.x-rates.com/calculator.html


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2172
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    ... I'll put your comment down to a Freudian Slip, on your part!!!:)

    Very witty manipulation of the grammar there J C ;) Still though, we both
    know that you are ignoring the substance of Wick's post & resorting to
    trivial grammar games on this one :rolleyes: Craig's long-winded lectures about
    the big bang and time and space.... do nothing to justify the christian
    position.


  • Options
    #2173
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    The argument is that there must be something that is "greater" than everything else in existence which makes a kind of sense I suppose because in a finite universe if you rank things in order of "greatness" there must be something at the top.

    Sure, but once you've ranked everything in order of "greatness", it's still illogical to say that the highest ranked item is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient.


  • Options
    #2174
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    liamw wrote: »
    Sure, but once you've ranked everything in order of "greatness", it's still illogical to say that the highest ranked item is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient.

    True. That's why my next sentence was "The problem comes in when you take this thing and stick the label god on it" ;)

    In the ontological argument being the greatest thing for some reason means that it automatically gets the label god. You just have to forget all of the other attributes that are commonly associated with a god and it suddenly becomes logical. Then you silently tack back on all those other attributes and hope no one notices


  • Options
    #2175
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by Sam Vimes
    The argument is that there must be something that is "greater" than everything else in existence which makes a kind of sense I suppose because in a finite universe if you rank things in order of "greatness" there must be something at the top.
    wrote:
    Originally Posted by Galvasean
    Philosophy, what a load of ****.

    Is that 'sour grapes' ... or what???

    Our God reigns ... and exists!!:)

    ... and loves you very much ... and wants to save you.


  • Options
    #2176
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    The US Treasury should change the text to "In China We Trust", since the PRC holds $850 billion of US bonds -- just over 20% of the total:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#Foreign_ownership

    I would imagine that even the pseudo-omnipotent christian deity would hold back from intervening in a Chinese dump of US bonds.
    ... by holding dollars the Chinese are obviously trusting in God ... as well as the Americans!!!:)


  • Options
    #2177
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Oh no, looks like JC has failed to address my post, yet again.

    So JC how does it feel now I've disproved God using your own "logic"?


  • Options
    #2178
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Galvasean wrote: »
    ...and the British pound is worth over 50% more than the US dollar.
    Check for yourself:
    http://www.x-rates.com/calculator.html
    ... doesn't alter the fact that the US Dollar is the currency of world trade ... and the most widely held world reserve currency!!!!

    ... it seems that placing your trust in God ... rather than Darwin ... also has monetary benefits!!!!:)


  • Options
    #2179
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    King Mob wrote: »
    Oh no, looks like JC has failed to address my post, yet again.

    So JC how does it feel now I've disproved God using your own "logic"?
    God must have a wry smile when faced with such erroneous arrogance ... I certainly do!!!:)


  • Options
    #2180
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    J C wrote: »
    God must have a wry smile when faced with such erroneous arrogance ... I certainly do!!!:)
    Well since I'm using your "logic" maybe you should be a little more careful with accusations of arrogance.

    So care to explain why my proof fails?
    And then explain how the same reason doesn't apply to your argument?


  • Options
    #2181
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ... over 60,000 views ... and 2,180 posts ... this is rapidly becoming another megathread!!!!

    ... isn't amazing the interest that there is in the 'Origins Question' .... by both the Atheists and the Theists!!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2182
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Anyone else notice how devoid of questions/points/"disproofs" with regard
    to evolution JC's posts have become in the past month? I mean back then
    it was 20-30 posts a day about evolution non-stop beating him back further
    & further, now most of his posts are religion tinged :pac: The only thing
    we have now @ all to do with evolution is the repeated refrain about his
    proof which everytime we focus on the details he just ignores that
    post & refuses to respond to it :D Wow, an anthropologists dream :p


  • Options
    #2183
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Galvasean wrote: »
    I had to re-check, but do I hear right in that his argument is that if God could exist then God must exist? You could apply that logic to anything.
    Unicorns could exist, therefore they must exist.
    ... Unicorns aren't maximally powerful entities ... whereas God is.

    ... so if God could exist ... then God must exist ... but Unicorns may not exist ... even if they could!!!


  • Options
    #2184
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    J C wrote: »
    ... Unicorns aren't maximally powerful entities ... whereas God is.

    ... so if God could exist ... then God must exist ... but Unicorns may not exist ... even if they could!!!

    Pfft unicorns are maimally powerful. Obviously.

    Oh and newsflash JC, the ontological argument has been debunked for a few hundred years.

    And now using your own logic I've disproved your God...
    Not a good day for you is it?


  • Options
    #2185
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    King Mob wrote: »
    Pfft unicorns are maimally powerful. Obviously.

    Oh and newsflash JC, the ontological argument has been debunked for a few hundred years.

    And now using your own logic I've disproved your God...
    ... where did you do that??!!!


  • Options
    #2186
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    J C wrote: »
    ... where did you do that??!!!

    Oh don't pretend, you must have read the post.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69423164&postcount=2157
    King Mob wrote: »
    The chances of God existing are well in excess of 1 to 10^100...

    So we see that the chances of God existing are much greater than the time it takes for a snail to move all the electrons across the universe. ...blah blah blah...
    Therefore I have mathematically disproven God.
    So care to explain why this argument fails, and then why the same doesn't apply to your "proof"?
    If you're looking for a hint, I've already explained why.


  • Options
    #2187
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    King Mob wrote: »
    Oh don't pretend, you must have read the post.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69423164&postcount=2157

    Originally Posted by King Mob
    The chances of God existing are well in excess of 1 to 10^100...

    So we see that the chances of God existing are much greater than the time it takes for a snail to move all the electrons across the universe. ...blah blah blah...
    Therefore I have mathematically disproven God.


    So care to explain why this argument fails, and then why the same doesn't apply to your "proof"?
    If you're looking for a hint, I've already explained why.
    What is the basis of your claim that the chance of God existing is in excess of 1 to 10^100?


  • Options
    #2188
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    J C wrote: »
    What is the basis of your claim that the chance of God existing is in excess of 1 to 10^100?
    Because there are upwards of that many possibilities for a god.

    Looks like you're zeroing in on the flaw, but not identifying how your arguement avoids it...
    What is the basis for your claim?


  • Options
    #2189
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    J C wrote: »
    ... so if God could exist ... then God must exist ... but Unicorns may not exist ... even if they could!!!

    you-make-me-laugh-dog-funny-demotivational-poster-1283549511.jpg


  • Options
    #2190
    GO_Bear
    Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭GO_Bear


    J C wrote: »
    ... so if God could exist ... then God must exist ...


    WOW , I did not think you would drop that bomb , really. What a croc 'o' crap .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2191
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    ... Unicorns aren't maximally powerful entities ... whereas God is.

    ... so if God could exist ... then God must exist ... but Unicorns may not exist ... even if they could!!!

    It is the other way around. Existence is a sign of imperfection. There can always be a more perfect non-existent concept of something that exists.

    The perfect chair for example doesn't exist. It is arguable could the perfect chair exist, since any chair that did exist you could imagine a better chair, containing properties that this existent chair doesn't, or couldn't have.

    So if God is the most perfect thing he cannot exist. His existence would relegate him from this level of perfection.

    QED, just proved God doesn't exist :pac:


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement