mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
True. But it worsens the S/N ratio considerably, and casts aspersions on credibility.
Bible Thread
- Thread starter ddrueding
- Start date
Sol
Storage is cool
To my mind Howell that classic version of the ontological argument, which is what Dawkins criticized and which bears pretty much no resemblance I can see to the other description defended in the other article and expressed above falls down right at point one.
I would contend that we can not in fact even imagine a perfect being (Which is not to say that I'll admit that doing so would validate the theory anyway). A being which is both omnipotent and omniscient is not something which anyone has demonstrated can be intrinsically reconciled. If it knows what it is going to do, which it must, then can it really be said to have the power to do anything else?
You could propose an entity which knows through doing and does everything simultaneously and outside of time as we know it to resolve the above, but could such an entity be considered perfectly good (or moral or whatever)? Can something be perfectly moral when religious apologists will admit no independent definition of moral with which to define the scale?
And even to suggest that we could imagine such perfection. What is to say that existence is actually more perfect than non-existence. That just seems like an unjustified leap of logic to me like saying that something that's big is intrinsically more perfect than something small.
Perfection is a point on an arbitrary scale. Anything can be perfect if you pick the right scale. To attempt to define something which is perfect on all scales is futile since some of the set of possible scales will be mutually exclusive. You can just pick the ones you like, but what would that prove?
I would contend that we can not in fact even imagine a perfect being (Which is not to say that I'll admit that doing so would validate the theory anyway). A being which is both omnipotent and omniscient is not something which anyone has demonstrated can be intrinsically reconciled. If it knows what it is going to do, which it must, then can it really be said to have the power to do anything else?
You could propose an entity which knows through doing and does everything simultaneously and outside of time as we know it to resolve the above, but could such an entity be considered perfectly good (or moral or whatever)? Can something be perfectly moral when religious apologists will admit no independent definition of moral with which to define the scale?
And even to suggest that we could imagine such perfection. What is to say that existence is actually more perfect than non-existence. That just seems like an unjustified leap of logic to me like saying that something that's big is intrinsically more perfect than something small.
Perfection is a point on an arbitrary scale. Anything can be perfect if you pick the right scale. To attempt to define something which is perfect on all scales is futile since some of the set of possible scales will be mutually exclusive. You can just pick the ones you like, but what would that prove?
Sol
Storage is cool
As for the second version of the argument I would disagree with the point
4. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
A universe in which there is no God and yet existence ticks on seems to me to be a good candidate.
4. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
A universe in which there is no God and yet existence ticks on seems to me to be a good candidate.
Howell
Storage? I am Storage!
Sol, the arguments are exactly the same. Maybe you can be more explicit. Can you direct me to any philosopher who holds the same view as you?
You are generous to call Dawkins argument a critique. More accurately it should be called simple name calling. He doesn't even try to identify a logical fallacy.
You are generous to call Dawkins argument a critique. More accurately it should be called simple name calling. He doesn't even try to identify a logical fallacy.
Howell
Storage? I am Storage!
Sol
Storage is cool
Howell said:
That is only the case if you accept that the greatest thing that it is possible to imagine is necessarily a being.
Since "Great" is kind of subjective I see no problem with an elegant complex system which evolved based on simple principles being "Greater" than a being that could create a similarly complex system.
To perhaps stretch the point a little I think a universe in which a God isn't necessary is greater than one to which a God is necessary.
I suspect there is an argument there that God necessarily diminishes the universe and therefore can't exist but then I'm wandering into territory covered by Douglas Gasking in his farcical use of the argument to prove Gods non-existence and mine would doubtless be no more valid.
To be fair I don't think I really made any points that the article you linked to missed I was really just reiterating the ones that had immediately occurred to me.
I think the point that Dawkins tried to make and with which I agree is that the ontological argument looks on the surface like it must be completely full of holes. When you dig a little deeper, it turns out, unsurprisingly enough, that it is. But to be fair a lot of philosophers seems to have spent a lot of time fleshing out the bit between it's looking like a poor argument and actually being one and Dawkins may have dismissed all that a little too quickly...
Howell
Storage? I am Storage!
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Some numbers for various nations and the propensity to believe in a higher power. Check out those Scandinavians!
Onomatopoeic
Learning Storage Performance
And on the fifth day, the grand exaulted chief muckity-muck of all technologies proclaimed:
- Thou shalt produce weekly/full and daily/incremental backups and keep a copy of these backups offsite in a secure place. And, by the way, billgates sux.
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
Howell
Storage? I am Storage!
Sol
Storage is cool
I think the first part is a joke, the cartoons seem likely to be legit I've seen near identical stuff crop up on legit fundie sites.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Fundies say the Darndest things. (Coral Cache version)
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
The cartoons look like a scanned Chick Tract
Jack Chick is very real, very sincere and very hateful. Even has it out for all the pope-worshiping Catholics.
Jack Chick is very real, very sincere and very hateful. Even has it out for all the pope-worshiping Catholics.
I don't know of anything that Jack Chick has published that I would consider hateful. Misguided at times, maybe. But Merc, I certainly would not consider you hateful if you sincerely believed that I was wrong, told me so, and tried to convert me to your way of thinking. In fact, that could be considered "caring" about me. That wouldn't mean I would ever come to agree necessarily, or even that you were right (or wrong), but I would not resent it either.
It's not even close to "well done." I'm afraid this reveals the ignorance that many who hate Christians have of the thing that they hate. I think it would be a fear of the unknown. We automatically tend to dislike what we do not understand. It's human nature.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
RW, I think that your religious beliefs - anyone's, for that matter - are harmless as long as they remain personal. Proselytizing and inflicting one's morality on others are the things that I find offensive.
I also do not understand where christians get off claiming to be a persecuted minority, or feeling the need to bear witness in public places. 70something% of the US population is christian, or at least has some belief in the christian god. That means that 1. By definition, you can't be a minority, and the rational application of the rights granted to christians for centuries to other religious groups does not equal persecution (e.g. christians who take personal offense to having a "winter break" instead of a "christmas break") and 2. When some jackass feels the need to tell a bunch of people in a grocery store parking lot about the savior on a stick, 70something% of them probably already know the whole song and dance already.
And yeah, Jack Chick equates pretty much everything he doesn't like with Satanism or some infernal agency. Associating all other religions than evangelical protestantism, any alternate lifestyles and even mainstream youth culture with an eternal life of torment seems pretty hateful to me.
I also do not understand where christians get off claiming to be a persecuted minority, or feeling the need to bear witness in public places. 70something% of the US population is christian, or at least has some belief in the christian god. That means that 1. By definition, you can't be a minority, and the rational application of the rights granted to christians for centuries to other religious groups does not equal persecution (e.g. christians who take personal offense to having a "winter break" instead of a "christmas break") and 2. When some jackass feels the need to tell a bunch of people in a grocery store parking lot about the savior on a stick, 70something% of them probably already know the whole song and dance already.
And yeah, Jack Chick equates pretty much everything he doesn't like with Satanism or some infernal agency. Associating all other religions than evangelical protestantism, any alternate lifestyles and even mainstream youth culture with an eternal life of torment seems pretty hateful to me.
ddrueding
Fixture
unless you think eternal torment is a good thing?
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
I don't think it's the good kind of eternal torment.
ddrueding
Fixture
He could be a sadist? In which case he is wishing everyone the best...
My point is that I don't believe he is "wishing" eternal torment on anyone. By definition (according to the Bible), if we do this then we are headed to the same place. If he claims to be a Christian then he will certainly claim to love all and want all people to go to heaven.
That's why I think "misguided" is a more applicable term than "hateful," because we can't tell what his motives are if we aren't him. Perhaps he is just trying to warn those he believes are going to hell. I know that's what he would say anyway.
I didn't intend this to be a defense of Jack Chick, but an appeal to understanding of the motives of many professing Christians.
That's why I think "misguided" is a more applicable term than "hateful," because we can't tell what his motives are if we aren't him. Perhaps he is just trying to warn those he believes are going to hell. I know that's what he would say anyway.
I didn't intend this to be a defense of Jack Chick, but an appeal to understanding of the motives of many professing Christians.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
To the extent that the bible requires that some people suffer eternal torment because they behave in non-harmful ways that do not match the tenants of christianity, I'd say the bible is also a hate-filled book.
Particularly if you read the bits in the old testament about how to keep slaves or what to do with the heathens whose land you just conquered. Jesus had some hilarious things to say about what his followers should do with their wives and families as well.
Particularly if you read the bits in the old testament about how to keep slaves or what to do with the heathens whose land you just conquered. Jesus had some hilarious things to say about what his followers should do with their wives and families as well.
The Bible doesn't "require" anything, it simply states what many, including myself, to be truth. The issue is still that Christians should not be faulted for publishing a warning to help people avoid something terrible. Or for believing something that some others consider to be false. Maybe someone could call them ignorant, but hateful is not the case. Surely we can agree that no one has perfect knowledge, and each of us has some false ideas.
What did Jesus say to do with wives? I'm not sure I know what you're talking about.
What did Jesus say to do with wives? I'm not sure I know what you're talking about.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Jesus told his followers to leave their families if they wanted to follow a righteous path. I'll dig up chapter and verse later, but it was in one of the four gospels.
Everyone should keep their religious beliefs out of public life. That is something that would make the world genuinely better. Christians absolutely should be faulted for their incessant need to condemn anyone who doesn't follow their specific path or behavior, if for no other reason than the fact that its highly presumptuous for a christian to think he or she has knowledge of your god's judgement.
Everyone should keep their religious beliefs out of public life. That is something that would make the world genuinely better. Christians absolutely should be faulted for their incessant need to condemn anyone who doesn't follow their specific path or behavior, if for no other reason than the fact that its highly presumptuous for a christian to think he or she has knowledge of your god's judgement.
Sol
Storage is cool
Random thought: The term blissfully ignorant really doesn't sound scary at all until you run into someone who actually derives happyness from thier own ignorance, and encourages others to do the same...