Not_Biased said: hboson said: Not_Biased said: Concluding that the universe is perfect is quite absurd. Our understanding of the universe is very limited. It could be the imperfections in the universe that allow it to be. We have nothing to compare it with, and you must also keep in mind that 'perfect' is a human concept.Like you said, everything about our universe is so perfect and everything works in exact condictions. So it's hard to believe that there isn't a greater force. You forgot to mention agnosticism. Well, if it really was, how could I tell you anyway? I do think it's perfect. Earth size is perfect The Earth is located in the right distance from the sun, our moon has the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull i think our planet is way too perfect in every way to have been made by random coincidence, everything is ideal not to mention the ocean @creativiti i haven't heard of any theory like that here's a nice article to read http://www.icr.org/article/61/239/ Full video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo |
| > The Fellow MAL Users Social Link has reached level 6! > Your power to create Forum Posts of the Anime Arcana has grown! |
| Hmm... Didn't know intelligent design nonsense has infiltrated Brazil. True Christians with any ounce of intellectual integrity know not to lie to themselves by misapplication of science. Either you ignore science altogether and become an idealist, or you stop trying to use science to disprove itself. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Not_Biased said: Then it begs the question why you keep quoting from a biased site dedicated to lies.katsucats I am not trying to disprove anything, and even if I tried, science is the best way to disprove science. I am not ignorant just because I am christian. I will never ignore science. I for one, don't believe that Adam and Eve were the first inhabitants of earth, most people think that the bible is literal but a big part of it is metaphorical. The Scientific Case Against Evolution attempts to disprove an essential scientific concept that's the base of all biological fields using sophistry masquerading as "science". The one thing Intelligent Design theorists never seem to understand is that there is no such thing as "macroevolution". A species is determined post-priori, which is why you could never determine a species as it is evolving. An organism only needs to evolve past several degrees of separation before they are no longer sexually compatible. |
katsucatsJan 5, 2013 2:47 PM
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Not_Biased said: Appeal to authority. I'm not interested in debating a hack.I don't follow the site but the articles I've quoted seemed to be OK. The article you've posted is a bit long and I don't feel like reading it right now, sorry. If you think it's biased, I wasn't the one who wrote it. However, the guy is Ph.D so he might know more than us about the subject. I suggest you e-mail the site ;p. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| It is unfortunate, that whenever someone says 'God' with a capital G, they lose the moment they try and discuss 'god' with a lower case g if they are not really referencing the individual central to the Judeo Christian Islamic beliefs. Could there be a lower case god not of the bible? Sure why not, the universe is vast and mankind is still trying to wrap it's mind around much of reality. You might all just be part of my imagination, or we all might be (me included) just part of a program being run by life existing further up the macro scale of existence. The person of the 'Bible' though has so little believability value worth mention when it comes to establishing any form of realistic credibility, that it staggers the imagination that people actually still doggedly insist in believing. I am not an atheist, I prefer to be referred to as educated properly. It was a choice. |
| While not technically anime, currently I am a big fan of Hatsune Miku. At least I can go see her in concert. |
| @Not_Biased The propositions made by Creationists are almost entirely made from arguments from ignorance or arguments from personal incredulity. Extrapolating, you lack the ability to understand reality without the presupposition of your own readily defined God and interject such a supernatural being, which is unknown to begin with to explain another unknown or improbable phenomena. Event X occurs. Being Y defined as a supernatural being You look in retrospect and purport Y being as the cause of X, yet you fail to realize you conceived of the being yourself a priori. To illustrate this more appropriately take the situation of a ghost sighting and follow the same model. X event occurs with you seeing a being "Y" that fits the definition of a "Ghost". But alas you defined "Ghost" to the fit the definition of Y to reconcile your ignorance and promote it to a status of pseudo-knowledge. You haven't spoken with the ghost, experienced the ghost insofar that you understand its occurrence, you do not understand its being, its limitations, and yet you propose to know exactly its intentions, its purpose and in detail what this being implicates. People infer fallaciously an afterlife from the sighting of a "Ghost", but there is no basis to lay upon your inferences if your basis is ignorance, especially to Y being. So this should become crystal clear especially with a deity involved. We do not know why exactly some events occur, but attributing them to a God is no better than attributing them to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We do not gain knowledge when we purport a God, in fact it becomes infinitely more complicated to explain, because then we have to explain X event *with* being Y. To express this, say God did create the earth, that proposition does not explain the fossil record, evolution, cosmology, or any other fact in reality. Only through rigorous investigation that is backed by the scientific method do we really begin to understand our context and the phenomena that we are surrounded by. |
SmexySnoopy said: I am a theist because I believe that a perfect being must exist, the reasoning goes like this: 1 - There is an idea of a perfect being. 2 - Something that exists is greater than the idea of that same thing. 3 - An existing perfect being is greater than the idea of a perfect being. 4 - To be perfect it must be the greatest thing. 5 - Ergo there exists a perfect being. The two issues with this are Kant's first critique; this only asserts that a perfect being exists only necessarily, and the second premise made (the bold one) is disputable. 1/4 - Perfection is subjective, but with (4) taken into consideration, if we are not talking about aesthetic perfection, but about metaphysical perfection (i.e. omnipotence), then a "perfect being" cannot be imagined because omnipotence is logically impossible. 2 - Art exists only in the mind. 5 - This conclusion is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Just because the idea of something exists doesn't mean it exists in reality. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
SmexySnoopy said: Theism What you just defined is Deism. Theism is Deism, but with a personal and intervening God as another premise. Also, how is existence a requirement? Investigating the question "Does God exist?" There seems to be too many presuppositions about the being in question, and vagueness permeates from this being God. 1. We presume to know the constitutive properties of God, and therefore presuppose what defines the ontology of such a being. 2. Necessarily with the first point, we imply epistemically that the ontology of such a being is in our reach. 3. We extrapolate our own definition of existence which is suited to the physical nature of reality, onto god. To understand the complications further we can take the implications of the Kalam Cosmological Argument if we grant the conclusion of God. God would have to be aspatial, atemporal, immaterial and causeless. What we just defined is a being that does not interact with physical reality, this being has a different mode of existence than say this chair I am sitting on. But its "existence" has been readily defined as something that also carries baggage, that baggage can be identified as non-existence. How do we differentiate God from non-existence concepts? We cannot commit a case of special pleading by saying God is a unique case. If I were a theist, I would just say God is. Keep in mind these are the implications if the arguments premises and conclusion were granted. SmexySnoopy said: Ontological Argument for the existence of God P1. There is an idea of a perfect being P2. Something that exists is greater than the idea of that same thing P3. An existing perfect being is greater than the idea of a perfect being P4. To be perfect it must be the greatest thing C1: From the premises a perfect being must exist. P1: By whose standards do we readily define a perfect being? How can we claim the ontology of such a being if this being is immediately derived a priori and not a posteriori. Understanding our context epistemically as humans how can we judge our definition of "perfect" to be adequate. P2: Again by whose standard does existence of a being X equate to being greater than the concept of X. P3: Refer to the problems of existence above with a being that is attributed to be the cause of the universe. It seems that this argument relies on two extremely ambiguous words, perfect being, and greatness. Until these are readily defined in a logically fashion there cannot be any further deduction in a valid and sound manner. We can also use this model of argumentation to attain ridiculous conclusions. P1: Achilles is the greatest warrior in history. P2: A warrior that existed is greater than one that did not. C1: Therefore, Achilles existed. Now the problems are stunningly obvious. The same ambiguous terms create problems, but instead of perfect being it is greatest warrior. |
CitizeninsaneJan 5, 2013 5:34 PM
SmexySnoopy said: Let me expand on this. Since people cannot know anything beyond what is perceived, only the idea of something can possibly be made known. An idea can be great or not because greatness is subjective, up to individual interpretation. An object as it exists, if it exists, is neither great nor not great.P2. Something that exists is greater than the idea of that same thing |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
SmexySnoopy said: Metaphysical perfection has not been defined in a way that could be agreed upon by any significant populace. Something illogical cannot be imagined like a triangle with more than 3 angles.Number my shizz :O katsucats said: 1/4 - Perfection is subjective, but with (4) taken into consideration, if we are not talking about aesthetic perfection, but about metaphysical perfection (i.e. omnipotence), then a "perfect being" cannot be imagined because omnipotence is logically impossible Since when can't you imagine something illogical? People do it all the time... Plus perfection has been defined and thus imagined. SmexySnoopy said: Perfection, greatness, or any other abstract adjective or hyperbole is necessarily subjective because they require interpretation from an agent. "Greatness" cannot exist objectively because it doesn't describe anything by itself -- it is incomprehensible.katsucats said: 2 - Art exists only in the mind. Art is subjective unlike perfection. SmexySnoopy said: Where your argument fails is you fail to differentiate "conceivability" and "existence".katsucats said: 5 - This conclusion is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Just because the idea of something exists doesn't mean it exists in reality. Huh? I know! Anselm's proposed the idea of a perfect island to counter the argument but where that falls is that there can only be one greatest thing. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
SmexySnoopy said: That is mere tautology, not an explanation. Define flawlessness. What is a flaw if there is no one to judge that flaw? In addition, I will give a couple counter-arguments:Perfection: a state of flawlessness, this is a definition that philosophers have excepted for hundreds of years. First up is an ontological argument against perfection: 1. Something is perfect if and only if it cannot be bettered in any category. 2. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. 3. It is conceivable that someone could think perfection is not beautiful. 4. Therefore, perfection is impossible. Next, an argument against omnipotence: 1. An entity is omnipotent if it is more capable than any entity. 2. An entity cannot be more capable than itself. 3. Therefore, omnipotence is impossible. SmexySnoopy said: I presented it as a logical impossibility. Otherwise, the assertion "X and not X does not contradict" must be true because I wrote it, when it is in fact false by definition.You can imagine a triangle with four sides as otherwise how would you have thought to write it? SmexySnoopy said: There is no objective greatness in subjective thoughts.But the idea is idiosyncratic, and the idea of perfect cannot be to uphold the argument, but perfection is not unable to be agreed upon as nothing better can be conceived. Apply this to the ontological argument the perfect being can only be as great as the best thought. This idea limits the perfect being but still upholds to the argument; weak theism. SmexySnoopy said: Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy.It is circular reasoning and deductively valid. Adjectives which are not tied to any natural property require comparison in order to be comprehensible. Someone asserts, "X is tall", but tall compared to what? The sentence is meaningless without a reference point. Greatness similarly requires an agent to establish its context, it is incomprehensible by itself. You cannot free "greatness" from the person making the assertion -- it is subjective by nature. SmexySnoopy said: Why of course, Anselm's Ontological Argument and Plantinga's Ontological Argument... bring them on. Just because it's known doesn't mean it cannot be refuted.This is not my argument by the way it is a very popular philosophical debate. Conceivability differs from existence as one is the ability to exist in the mind one exists externally from it, there you go I differentiated them for ya ;) Now try applying your differentiation within the context of Anselm's argument. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
TheAutocrat said: Religion is dying out though. Hardly. Christianity is booming in Africa and China right now and Islam has been steadily gaining more and converts over the past 20-30 years worldwide. |
| Salmon is delicious. |
Exaccus said: TheAutocrat said: Religion is dying out though. Hardly. Christianity is booming in Africa and China right now and Islam has been steadily gaining more and converts over the past 20-30 years worldwide. This is very true, though in case of China several religions are on the rise. It has even made a huge comeback in Russia. But most people in asia I would say are still more...spirital, beliefe in higher power, superstitions, etc, but not part of any religion. The only places it is dying out are largely White Europe and maybe parts of the US. In hindsight not a huge issue given the populations of those regions are nearing minority status. |
Not_Biased said: I just don't understand why most atheists are such angry and judgmental people, they always have some rude comment and they always seem so bitter. Obviously, not having the Lord Jesus Christ in their life plays a big part.  Welcome back, Not_Biased. |
Not_Biased said: The Lord Jesus Christ knocks on my door every once in a while to give me a free abridged version of the Bible and anti-homosexuality pamphlets, so he is definitely part of my life.Obviously, not having the Lord Jesus Christ in their life plays a big part. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| I have the Freyr in my life. (wiki it to get the joke) |
| > The Fellow MAL Users Social Link has reached level 6! > Your power to create Forum Posts of the Anime Arcana has grown! |
| I see the Ontological Argument in this thread. I personally favor Alvin Plantinga's version over Anselm's formulation of the argument. Modal logic FTW! |
| Salmon is delicious. |
Tavor said: MasterTengkorak said: Tavor said: MasterTengkorak said: Not_Biased said: Religion is good for the society - Catholicism used to control people and is a dying religion now. Christianity, however, is stronger than ever and it's a good thing. People stop using drugs, alcohol, anything that is harmful to themselves and other people. Ever heard of the Puritans and the Salem Witch Trials? Those were obviously demons that needed to be executed, the Puritans' actions are justified! Most of the accuse were Innocent. They had little to no evidence of them being Witches. This is how it basically went. One men says, "I think this woman is a witch." The Governor says, "Capture her and put her in prison and she'll be awaiting trial." All they wanted was a false confession, instead they refuse and they get the rope. If it's in God's vain, it's a justified cause! You cannot prosecute a witch through law, that's going against God's wish, instead, demons deserve to be hung! especially demons on the net, who after getting banned, waits for another one |
 |
| These threads should be made part of the Olympics. Excellent spectator sport. Carry on gentlemen. |
More topics from this board
» スキンケア事は男性にとって必要でしょうか？ is skin care necessary for men ?ISeeLifePeople - 5 hours ago |
10 |
by JaniSIr
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» The Proust phenomenonRobertBobert - 11 hours ago |
8 |
by Stavrogin_
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» "Connoisseurs" of MAL, what are your thoughts on ART NOUVEAU? ( 1 2 3 )Fario-P - Mar 11, 2021 |
129 |
by Fario-P
»»
3 hours ago |
|
» Is it easy to detect fictional drawings from real photographs?DesuMaiden - Yesterday |
18 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
3 hours ago |
|
» About MBTI ミビチアイの事ISeeLifePeople - Yesterday |
7 |
by Auron_
»»
3 hours ago |