Forum Index            

Cookies Consent Information
SelectSmart.com®
Before you decide
Over 20,000 selectors

Join to post comments.
Share
Try These Selectors:
Best college values

Good jobs in gig economy

Right religion for you

Presidential candidates

Best US city for you

Know your philosophy

Landmark decisions
Is your name welcomed below? Then you can post here. Otherwise, click "Log In" to post!
Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

The day the sun danced in the sky.

Posted by Dick 
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 27, 2015 12:10AM
If it's meaningful to claim a godthing possibly exists, then, yes. You won't admit it's irrational to make the claim that a purpose exists without a purposegiver and without knowing anything about it including whether or not it is self-contradicting. Why not?

You said "If something makes sense it's logically possible." Really? Ok, then it makes sense to me that we live in a world absent of God as you like to put it. This is certainly logically possible because there is no possible way for a nonexistent thing to be self-contradicting. OTOH, you cannot rationally claim the opposite is true. If you claim something exists, I am perfectly rational in believing it doesn't (because it IS logically possible) until or unless you can demonstrate it is not logically impossible.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 01, 2015 09:42AM
So to recap: Tuk, Sam, and me say that there is no solid evidence for the existence of God and Islander and TheThorn argue that there is.

Anyone (Tuk?) want to switch teams? winking smiley
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 01, 2015 08:57PM
Quote
Dick
So to recap: Tuk, Sam, and me say that there is no solid evidence for the existence of God and Islander and TheThorn argue that there is.

Anyone (Tuk?) want to switch teams? winking smiley

Not quite.

I am saying there is no evidence for a meaningless universe, no evidence for a purposeful universe.
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 01, 2015 09:18PM
Do you think meaning and purpose are the same things?
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 01, 2015 11:01PM
Quote
Sam
Do you think meaning and purpose are the same things?

I'm not bothered which words we use. You know by now what I am trying to talk about. If you don't like these words, suggest others.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 01, 2015 11:14PM
Well, we could be honest and use "God" for purpose-giver. What do you think?

Who else could give the universe purpose? The dumb, blind, indifferent universe, no more than a pile of rocks, can give itself purpose.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 12:43AM
Quote
Sam Wrote:
Do you know everything there is to know about FSM so that you can rule out that it's self-contradictory? If not, you cannot rationally say that it is logically possible that it exists.

Sam! How did you come up with that premise?

Nobody knows everything there is to know about the 7th dimension postulated by String Theory, but it's not irrational to say it's logically possible it exists, unless you have your own unique way of defining rational.

Keep in mind, claiming that a 7th dimension's (Or a Supreme Being's) existence is possible, is not an assertion that either one exists. A 7th dimension, or a Supreme Being, is not a logical contradiction. A married bachelor is a logical contradiction by definition, as is a square circle. A pencil existing and not existing in the same way at the same time is a logical contradiction. It violates the rule of the excluded middle. Which logical rule would the existence of a 7th dimension or a Supreme being violate?

I have no idea whether there is or is not a pencil in my desk drawer. It's not a logical contradiction to say "It's possible that there is a pencil in my desk drawer".
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 12:52AM
Thorn, I don't care either. Just be consistent.

Isle, Re: "A 7th dimension, or a Supreme Being, is not a logical contradiction."

That is irrational to say because you don't know that. How could you?
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 01:11AM
Sam, Yes I do know know that. Because I know what a logical contradiction is.
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 01:21AM
But you don't know what a Supreme Being is. Or do you?
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 01:56AM
Of course I do! A Supreme Being is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. If you know what a logical contradiction is---you should be able to explain why such a concept is a logical contradiction.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 02:14AM
"A Supreme Being is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived"

That expression is vague almost to the point of incoherency. Greater in what way? Greater in doing evil?

Many things can be conceived that do not exist. I can imagine a man faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound but this doesn't mean that Superman actually exists outside comic books, tv shows, and movie screens.
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 02:52AM
If this "being" is greater than the whole universe than it must have ALL the attributes of everything in the universe plus some. This would include self-contradiction so it can't possibly exist. Also, such a being would, I assume, be perfect in every way, perfectly good and perfectly evil, perfectly omniscient and perfectly omnipotent which are also self-contradictory. IOW, a supreme being cannot possibly exist.
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 03:11AM
Here's the biggest flaw in the ontological argument, imo. It says if a being is possibly existent in one possible world then it is possibly existent in all possible worlds including our actual world. Nonsense. I love this: "The ontological argument would be meaningful only to someone who understands the essence of God completely. Aquinas reasoned that, as only God can completely know His essence, only He could use the argument." I think we've discovered a couple of agnogs with a god complex, lol....
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 03:35AM
Sam, none of the attributes you've brought up are a part of my argument. And it would not be necessary for a Supreme Being to have attributes which involve a logical contradiction. In fact, it would, by definition, be impossible. Why are you arguing against the possibility of a Supreme Being with attributes that are logically impossible? A Supreme Being couldn't have such attributes. You're not arguing against 'my' position. You're arguing against a straw-man.

Your arguments thus far seems to be based on the fact that it would not be possible for a Supreme Being who has logically contradictory attributes to exist. And I would only say "Duh!" Of course! I"m not suggesting that it would be possible for such a being to exist.

Now---I'm going to ask you again: Can you explain why the concept of a Supreme Being is a logical contradiction and could not, therefore, possibly exist?

And again, keep in mind this argument is not about whether such a being does, indeed, exist.
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 03:50AM
It COULD possibly exist. You just can't rationally say it possibly DOES exist because you don't know whether or not it self-contradicts. You can, however, rationally say it possibly DOES NOT exist because you don't have to know any of its attributes or even if it has any attributes at all. If you are saying this being possibly exists, would you please tell us if this being is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent which are characteristics typically attributed to supreme beings.

P.S. A supreme being with no attributes is meaningless. A thing with no attributes is impossible to exist. So let's hear those attributes, eh?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2015 04:09AM by Sam.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 05:13AM
Quote
Sam Wrote:
It COULD possibly exist. You just can't rationally say it possibly DOES exist because you don't know whether or not it self-contradicts.

Your thoughts are fractured and all over the place on this, Sam. If it could possibly exist, that means it's possible that it does exist---just as it's possible that it does not exist. I'm sure you understand what possible means?

Again, keep in mind that this is not an argument as to whether or not such a being exists.

A Supreme Being's attributes would be paramount for all attributes that do not contain a logical contradiction. For instance, a Supreme Being would be the strongest possible entity but could not be the strongest entity and the weakest entity at the same time in the same way.

"Now---I'm going to ask you again: Can you explain why the concept of a Supreme Being is a logical contradiction and could not, therefore, possibly exist?"
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 06:41AM
MY thoughts are fractured? lol More likely your deep belief in a supreme being is in your way. This happens to all those who insist on using the ontological argument. It's nonsense. You can say the being possibly exists if you want to. You just wouldn't be rational when you say it. I'm surprised you don't get the difference between "possibly could exist" and "possibly does exist". The latter is an expression of knowledge that the being does not self-contradict. Soooo, is your Being omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent or does it have any other attributes or what? Oops, you don't know, do you? lol
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 10:56AM
Quote
Sam
It COULD possibly exist. You just can't rationally say it possibly DOES exist because you don't know whether or not it self-contradicts. You can, however, rationally say it possibly DOES NOT exist because you don't have to know any of its attributes or even if it has any attributes at all. If you are saying this being possibly exists, would you please tell us if this being is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent which are characteristics typically attributed to supreme beings.

P.S. A supreme being with no attributes is meaningless. A thing with no attributes is impossible to exist. So let's hear those attributes, eh?

Christ is this still going?

Sam,
If you say something could exist but you don't know what it is, you are saying it could be any possible thing. Obviously, it could not exist as an impossible thing. This is self-evident and doesn't need explaining.

Try applying your argument to other things and seeing how silly it sounds.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 10:58AM
Quote
Dick
Well, we could be honest and use "God" for purpose-giver. What do you think?

Who else could give the universe purpose? The dumb, blind, indifferent universe, no more than a pile of rocks, can give itself purpose.

Too much baggage.

Is the Tao a God?

I would guess you'd have a different answer from everyone you asked, which shows that the word is not helpful in a meaningful discussion.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login


This forum powered by Phorum

Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!