|
Post by trav10 on Jan 20, 2011 6:22:19 GMT
The Kalam argument was an argument originally put forward by Muslim scholars in the Middle Ages.
I don't believe there is any knock down argument for God. There's no rabbit in this hat, and nor would I expect there to be in the case that God did exist. Therefore, that's not a problem. Where theists and atheists really depart is that theists see things they believe are "fingerprints" or clues of God whereas atheists don't look at those things in the same way. Obviously it's a fairly subjective process.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Jan 20, 2011 7:35:55 GMT
The Kalam argument was an argument originally put forward by Muslim scholars in the Middle Ages. Even earlier, by Philoponus (that well known time traveler). However, and I think that was Himself's point, Kant was not aware of it as it was little used in western philosophy until Craig's book a generation ago. Anyhow, refering to Kant or Hume as making any decisive argument against proofs for God's existence is sloppy research. More important, it is no argument.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Jan 20, 2011 7:39:25 GMT
The first cause argument was not only predicted by Buddha but refuted by him as well and this was 2,500 years ago! Whether Buddha existed is another matter but it was written about 2,500 years ago by a clever chap. I like the idea that Craig was pwned two and a half thousands years ago. And I like the idea of having you giving an argument that refutes the first cause argument. Unsurprisingly, I have seen none so far.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jan 20, 2011 8:14:36 GMT
Since I wrote it while blind drunk you did well to even find it partly coherent. Is there any way we can know your sobriety at the time of writing so we know how to interpret things? (1) So how come you can make strong statements about God's non-existence using reason, but we cannot make equally strong statements about his existence using the same reason? Sounds like an uneven approach to me. (2) I never suggested anyone could prove God, only show his existence is more probable than not. I think you should address what theists actually say. I'm sorry Dave, but this is just nonsense. Some unbelievers are convinced by arguments (Anthony Flew was one such). The change isn;t from 'could' to 'is' but from 'probably' to 'I believe'. And the premise of the Kalam argument is not that "everything has a cause" but "everything that begins to exist as a cause". If we are going to discuss a topic which you raised (the Kalam argument), you need to know what it says. Are you interested in following up any of the examples I have given or will give you? Sure, but so what? Who says God only appears to christians? The study I quoted is there and the conclusion is that it is hard to find a psychological or neurological theory that fits. And what about the healing I mentioned - do you know many people pronounced dead by an expert team and then revived after prayer? I think you are offering excuses rather than reasons. He does. There are numerous stories of him appearing to Muslims (and I mean numerous). Try these for examples. Sure, most are unverifiable, but they are certainly claims and potential evidence, and there are many, many more. Until you investigate them all, you cannot fairly say any more Jesus doesn't appear to people. Yes I've seen it. I've also seen other studies which claimed to prove the opposite, though I don't think they were as rigorous. Yes, I am sorry it didn't prove otherwise, but I'm not sure I'm surprised. Prayer is a relationship, not a slot machine, and Jesus several times refused to perform for people. But in the end, what does the study prove? Nothing very much. So are you saying that we shouldn't take notice of the experts? Actually Dave, we were discussing the Kalam argument. Yes, such arguments (if successful) show that some sort of God exists, not specifically the christian God. But (1) it is a good start to get that far, other arguments then point to the God of jesus, and (2) how many Gods can you name which are (if they exist) powerful enough to create the universe out of nothing?
|
|
|
Post by himself on Jan 20, 2011 23:58:37 GMT
davedodo007 the universe exist all the rest is speculation
Himself And Kant said even the universe was sheer speculation
davedodo007 the so called natural 'laws' are a human construct...
Himself Doncha love the way that some people take aim at religion and wind up blowing the knees of [natural] science instead?
davedodo007 There was a study in the US about prayer amongst hospital patients and showed no positive results for the people being prayed for who didn't know it was happening and a negative result for those that did know.
Himself Thus demonstrating two things: a) God is not a vending machine; and b) The people involved had no idea of how to conduct a scientific experiment. People the world over routinely pray for everyone who is ill. They don't need to be by the bedside, holding their hands out over the patient.
davedodo007 changing the rules entirely as in everything has a cause then later on claiming that their god is the uncause cause (how does that work exactly.)
Himself Then it is fortunate indeed that neither Aristotle nor Aquinas ever made such an assertion. Look up what they actually did claim and get back to us.
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Jan 21, 2011 3:08:43 GMT
himself wrote:
Jeez, what next? Just a few days ago we had 'Christians' saying that not all who profess to be Christians are really Christians. Now we have folks saying that not everyone praying is really praying because a real Christian doesn't "need to be by the bedside, holding their hands out over the patient."
This is becoming more amusing by the hour.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 21, 2011 14:29:16 GMT
The first cause argument was not only predicted by Buddha but refuted by him as well and this was 2,500 years ago! Whether Buddha existed is another matter but it was written about 2,500 years ago by a clever chap. I like the idea that Craig was pwned two and a half thousands years ago. And I like the idea of having you giving an argument that refutes the first cause argument. Unsurprisingly, I have seen none so far. Simple, really. (P1) constitutes a blind assertion. (P2) constitutes another blind assertion, and the argument taken as a whole constitutes a fallacy of composition.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 21, 2011 14:40:59 GMT
I do feel that this thread is going off topic and not in a good way i. e. pubs. I'm not here to 'convert' anyone to atheism and I have no intention of joining the ranks of the religious. I will reply to all that have addressed me when I have time but can we now keep the thread on topic. If anyone wants to open a thread on philosophic arguments for/against god I will be happy to post on it.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Jan 21, 2011 16:07:48 GMT
And I like the idea of having you giving an argument that refutes the first cause argument. Unsurprisingly, I have seen none so far. Simple, really. (P1) constitutes a blind assertion. (P2) constitutes another blind assertion, and the argument taken as a whole constitutes a fallacy of composition. Dave, this is not how it is done. You have to state (P1) and then show why it is "a blind assertion". Then you have to state (P2) and show why that also is "a blind assertion". If not, your statements about something being "blind assertions" are simply blind assertions.
|
|
|
Post by captainzman on Jan 23, 2011 3:52:00 GMT
I am at a complete loss at how you could have misinterpreted himself's point so badly. The point is that if I pray for good health for everyone in the world, that includes everyone. If that's the case, a scientist would be unable to single out a single prayer or a single set of prayers directed at someone and see if that had an effect. It has nothing, I repeat, nothing to do with who is really a Christian and who is not.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 24, 2011 19:27:49 GMT
Simple, really. (P1) constitutes a blind assertion. (P2) constitutes another blind assertion, and the argument taken as a whole constitutes a fallacy of composition. Dave, this is not how it is done. You have to state (P1) and then show why it is "a blind assertion". Then you have to state (P2) and show why that also is "a blind assertion". If not, your statements about something being "blind assertions" are simply blind assertions. How about this then sung to the tune of Mr Ed. A cause is a cause of course of course. And no cause can be uncaused of course. Except of course for the first cause. Therefore (Mr. Ed.) Roman Catholicism.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Jan 24, 2011 21:54:25 GMT
Dave, this is not how it is done. You have to state (P1) and then show why it is "a blind assertion". Then you have to state (P2) and show why that also is "a blind assertion". If not, your statements about something being "blind assertions" are simply blind assertions. How about this then sung to the tune of Mr Ed. A cause is a cause of course of course. And no cause can be uncaused of course. Except of course for the first cause. Therefore (Mr. Ed.) Roman Catholicism. Of course. You don't want to argue. They don't make atheists like they did in my youth. It is no longer about reason or arguments, it is about having fun.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 24, 2011 23:23:55 GMT
How about this then sung to the tune of Mr Ed. A cause is a cause of course of course. And no cause can be uncaused of course. Except of course for the first cause. Therefore (Mr. Ed.) Roman Catholicism. Of course. You don't want to argue. They don't make atheists like they did in my youth. It is no longer about reason or arguments, it is about having fun. You have to bear in mind that there are only so many arguments for god and I have heard them all, so to stop getting bored I have to be a bit creative but if you don't appreciate that then I have copied the KCA from Wikipedia. Do you except this version, if so I will tackle it, if not please give your own. The Kalam Cosmological Argument: 1.Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence. 2.The universe has a beginning of its existence. 3.Thus the universe has a cause of its existence. 4.This first uncaused cause must transcend physical reality. 5.This uncaused cause that transcends physical reality is the description of God. 6.Therefore God exists. I wont be using their objections and criticism as it's a bit lame.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Jan 25, 2011 7:47:34 GMT
You have to bear in mind that there are only so many arguments for god and I have heard them all, so to stop getting bored I have to be a bit creative but if you don't appreciate that then I have copied the KCA from Wikipedia. Do you except this version, if so I will tackle it, if not please give your own. Dave, this is getting ridiculous. Why don't you want to provide " an argument that refutes the first cause argument" if - as you have told us - it is so easy? To repeat myself: Unsurprisingly, I have seen none so far. Neither at Dennett or Grayling or Harris who you mentioned earlier as the ones you read in this area. To repeat some of your own allegations: "The first cause argument was not only predicted by Buddha but refuted by him as well and this was 2,500 years ago!".And then, mysteriously, you refuse to show how and with what argument... When pressed a bit you answered that "(P1) constitutes a blind assertion. (P2) constitutes another blind assertion, and the argument taken as a whole constitutes a fallacy of composition".Without providing neither (P1) nor (P2) nor any argument. In short you have given nothing but blind assertions. The question is not if you are able to copy and paste the Kalam argument from Wikipedia, it is how you (and Buddha, no comparision intended) do refute the First Cause Argument. So, please provide the easy and obvious arguments you have been boasting about so many times, the (P1), (P2) etc. I am willing to give you a last chance before I drop out of this debate.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 25, 2011 11:40:47 GMT
"The first cause argument was not only predicted by Buddha but refuted by him as well and this was 2,500 years ago!". In recent centuries, there have been many arguments formulated for and against God's existence. The insightful Siddhartha had anticipated these arguments so he made sure to refute these future errors in his Dharma. The following argument is a combination of the Argument from Evil combined with a refutation of the Kalam's Cosmological Argument of the first cause. ======================= Excerpt from "The Buddha and His Dharma": "After taking his seat Anathapindika expressed a desire to hear a discourse on some religious subject. "The Blessed Lord responding to his wishes raised the question, Who is it that shapes our lives? Is it God, a personal creator? If God be the maker, all living things should have silently to submit to their maker's power. They would be like vessels formed by the potter's hand. If the world had been made by God there should be no such thing as sorrow, or calamity, or sin; for both pure and impure deeds must come from him. If not, there would be another cause beside him, and he would not be the self-existent one. Thus, you see, the thought of God is overthrown. "Again, it is said that the Absolute cannot be a cause. All things around us come from a cause as the plant comes from the seed; how can the Absolute be the cause of all things alike? If it pervades them, then certainly it does not make them. "Again, it is said that the self is the maker. But if self is the maker, why did he not make things pleasing? The cases of sorrow and joy are real and objective. How can they have been made by self? (Note: I think he is referring to a supreme spirit/soul [like a Holy Spirit I guess] because in English, "the self" refers to the Hindu notion of a soul [atman].) "Again, if you adopt the argument, there is no maker, or fate in such as it is, and there is no causation, what use would there be in shaping our lives and adjusting means to an end? "Therefore, we argue that all things that exist are not without a cause. However, neither God, nor the Absolute, nor the self, no causeless chance, is the maker, but our deeds produce results both good and evil. "The whole world is under the law of causation, and the causes that act are not un-mental, for the gold of which the cup is made is gold throughout. "Let us, then, surrender the heresies of worshipping God and praying to him; let us not lose ourselves in vain speculations of profitless subtleties; let us surrender self and all selfishness, and as all things are fixed by causation, let us practice good so that good may result from our actions." Source: The Buddha and His Dharma, by B.R. Ambedkar, pp. 147-148. (This book contains a selection of teachings taken straight from Buddhist scripture.) ==================== From BuddhaNet.net:"In the West a number of "arguments" have been adduced to prove or disprove the existence of God. Some of these were anticipated by the Buddha. One of the most popular is the "first cause" argument according to which everything must have a cause, and God is considered the first cause of the Universe. The Buddhist theory of causation says that every thing must have preconditions for its existence, and this law must also extend to "God" should such an entity exist. But while the "first cause" claims that God creates everything, it exempts God from the ambit of this law. However if exemptions are made with respect to God such exemptions could be made with respect to other things also hereby contradicting the principle of the first cause."
|
|