houserichichi wrote:Trying to apply philosophical arguments to religious debate is like [removed]. It's also like bombing for peace.
houserichichi wrote:is like [removed]
Trying to apply philosophical arguments to religious debate is like [removed].
Christians have endowed their God with all of the following attributes: He is eternal, all-powerful, and created everything. He created all the laws of nature and can change anything by an act of will. He is all-good, all-loving, and perfectly just. He is a personal God who experiences all of the emotions a human does. He is all-knowing. He sees everything past and future.
PWrong wrote:Christians have endowed their God with all of the following attributes: He is eternal, all-powerful, and created everything. He created all the laws of nature and can change anything by an act of will. He is all-good, all-loving, and perfectly just. He is a personal God who experiences all of the emotions a human does. He is all-knowing. He sees everything past and future.
I'm sure some Christians claim that God has these properties. But there's also christians who would disagree with them. It might be possible to take any given set of beliefs about God, and prove that either they're inconsistent, or their God is nothing special at all. But disproving only a single example of a possible God doesn't prove much.
houserichichi wrote:...is like f***ing for virginity.
houserichichi wrote:houserichichi wrote:...is like f***ing for virginity.
is like making love? I guess I'll hold back on the '100% boobies' post I was going to create :wink:
The problem, as I see it, with arguing for or against certain attributes (or full blown existence) of the Christian god is that one has to take for granted what is written in a single source by a great many of authors that's been translated through a great many times and re-interpreted through countless generations. Why over one billion people believe in one common story over any other great book of myths is far and beyond my comprehension. There are such better stories out there...I much prefer some of the ancient Greek stuff, myself.
doing this or that because it maximize my desire function
To be short, I dont want to live in a rationalist's world (though I really like logical reasoning) and thatswhy I believe in something higher.
I'm currently reading "The Jesus Incident", by Frank Herbert and Bill Ransom, and the book is dealing with this problems, among others.
I've also read the first three books in the Dune series. Will soon read them all again. Chapterhouse: Dune is the 7th,and is written by Brian Herbert (Frank's son), right? I'm not sure about this...
PWrong wrote:What do you mean by rationalist here?
A lot of the early christians (starting with either St Augustine or Aquinas, I can't remember) believed that you could deduce God's existence from pure logic.
Wikipedia wrote:In philosophy and in its broadest sense, rationalism is "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification" (Lacey, 286). In more technical terms it is a method or a theory "in which the criterion of truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive" (Bourke, 263).
So for example the principle of utilitarianism can rationally not further be justified, but the system itself can be rationally well described.
Though it may depend what was understood by 'pure logic' in that time, as far as I know Goedel himself made a god existence proof.
PWrong wrote:Godel's proof is just the ontological argument expressed in maths. The argument was first made by Anselm of Canterbury. Descartes used the same argument, and then tried to prove that this god was in fact the christian God of the bible. (Basically, he proved that God is not a deciever, which implies that the bible is accurate.)
On the other hand, would you rely on this proof? I would guess not, and that shows how inapplicable logic reasoning is to religious questions.
houserichichi wrote:Someone censored this, then I uncensored it, but I put in astericks. Mind the language next time.
-Irockyou
Hm, I wondered more about Goedels mathematical proof. I would assume that it is valid, if he applies the rigorousness of his other mathematical works.
Icon wrote:Whats the astericks?
Wikipedia wrote:Gödel defines a positive property rather vaguely: "Positive means positive in the moral aesthetic sense (independently of the accidental structure of the world)... It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation (or containing privation)."
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest