I did not make that assumption. That’s you putting words in my mouth so you can argue something that I wasn’t talking about.
If you can’t tell the difference between an argument for something existing and proving something exists, then you should not be talking about Kant in the first place.
Force is just energy used for movement. You’ve been watching too much sci fi.
To my knowledge, the various proofs of the origin of the universe require a substaintial unbacked leap to call whatever spawned us all as a ‘being.’
It’s not a leap if you understand the arguments.
Ah that must be it
These arguments have been around for centuries. The one criticism no one can or has made is that there is a leap from the premises to the conclusion. The premises lead directly to the conclusion, where only the conclusion that can be drawn come directly from the premises.
So the only thing you can legitimately attack is the premises. If the premises are false, then so is the argument. It’s not an invalid argument structure nor an invalid conclusion based on the premises.
Ya I’m aware.
Oh absolutely. Just because it’s unprovable doesn’t mean the argument structure itself is flawed, it’s simply the nature of the entire concept itself.
Of course what pat omitted was that it isn’t the only conclusion that can be drawn from the argument.
Yeah I know lol.
Personally I like the version that’s identical to his, except instead of a god, it’s a few billion year old mega fart that spawned from nothing and developed a conciousness. Said fart then created the universe and disappeared forever.
Same amount of proof behind it, and easily 10x cooler.
What’s un-provable? The arguments are proof, it’s metaphysics… Even in physical science, you have to have an argument or theory as to why something is true before you can test it. But in metaphysics, all the points are binary. They are either true or false. Since we’re dealing with the abstract, we not dealing in percentages or probabilities. We deal in absolutes.
I did not omit that. I was pretty sure that was self evident.
Whether or not god exists
This feels like a Zep moment… we have had this discussion on these forums in multiple threads and pat’s argument been demolished in every one. It is amazing that this keeps coming up again and again.
1 Like
It’s hard for me to understand the mindset of Pat. My wife (and others I know) have faith in a God that created them, and their belief is enough. It’s not an intellectual or scientific belief, but their personal faith. Pat is trying so hard to make his belief the consequence of an intellectual exercise that leads to the proof of a God. Using circular arguments and talking about Kant in ways that seem like they’re friends (his temperament and physical appearance have been mentioned), he is about as convincing as a member of the modern flat Earth society.
Also, even if one were to buy his argument, that would not make you a religious person. Why would the “proof” of a creator mean this being has any interest in humans more than an interest in locusts or fungi or prairie voles? Why would this mean the creator wants to be acknowledged, worshipped, or even believed in? This would reduce the “creator” to the same thing as, for example, a Higgs Boson; just a scientific discovery that is acknowledged by scientists and intellects and nothing for the lay person to get worked up about.
2 Likes
It’s rather simple, he can’t accept that faith is an irrational belief. It’s why it is called faith.
1 Like
So am I allowed to interpret them or
I was born into it, of course. Like most people. And after thinking about that for a while, that’s why I have formed a personal belief that we all (believers) worship the same God. Someone exactly like me in Syria most likely believes that Allah is the one true god. Someone 1,000 years ago may have believed in Zeus, or Thor, or Anubis, Shiva, etc. These are all man-made caricatures and forms that humans have historically chosen to worship based on their surroundings and the ideas of the people who came before them in their societies. Point is, it wouldn’t be fair for God to create a world that he KNOWS will ultimately form different opinions/viewpoints/rituals/etc, if he was going to say “alright, out of the 7 billion people I’ve got here right now, only 3 billion of them profess Christianity, and only 1.4 billion truly believe in me. Everyone else is fucked, see you in hell.” That doesn’t make sense to me.
I believe in a God that is right and just, and therefore just because someone worships a different form of Him, doesn’t mean that they’re going to be eternally damned. I think the only thing that He really cares about is that people recognize Him as the Creator and the true higher power. I 1,000% believe that the only stipulation for getting into Heaven is believing in God. That’s all it takes. And before someone hits me with a “what about Hitler, what about XYZ,” yes. Hitler was mentally ill and is the worst human who ever lived, but if he ACTUALLY believed in God (which I kind of doubt that he really truly did) then he’s in Heaven right now.
I appreciate that man. But I must say, it’s easy for me to form these opinions from the comfort of my home. I was raised Catholic but have since sort of formed my own viewpoints on things based on what I personally think a forgiving and merciful god would think. I could be totally wrong and destined for damnation, I really don’t know. But I’m sorta on that all-inclusive, one-love shit at this point in my religious development. And unless God appears to me and says “you’ve got it all wrong you fucking moron,” I’m probably going to hold onto these beliefs for the rest of my life.
And I agree. Like I said, 2,000 years is a long time. Even if every single person who translated the Bible was as unbiased and objective as possible (which they definitely were not), things would get mucked up many times. Imagine trying to play a game of telephone with billions of people for 2,000 years in every language ever created. That would be very tricky
1 Like
No, and I’m not sure where you got that from either.
Yeah, to me that’s laughable. To me, when people say “there’s a universe out there where I’m dating Jennifer Anniston and Beyonce at the same time!” I automatically receive it as a joke, but of course there’s no such thing as multiple universes. The universe is infinite, therefore there can only be one. Unless we want to change the definition of “infinite,” of course.
And this:
not laughing at people here bud. The people who have the intellectual capacity to get on the level that is required to seriously academically theorize about these things make me look like I have the intelligence of a 4 month old standing next to a Harvard grad. But like I said before, the idea of there being multiple universes? No. Logically, that just makes no sense to me.
1 Like
That’s what I’m asking. How do you interpret what leaves no room for interpretation? Muhammad existed and he did kill people.
And Hitler was not mentally ill. That’s just something to make us feel better about ourselves.
Not gonna lie, if those are my options I kinda prefer hell.
What Paradise is Paradise if it’s filled with most of the worst people in history?