That wasn't very kind......Originally Posted by Guisslapp
But just for you...... A rare daylight/sober post.:icon_wink:
Always keep your eye on the pitcher when you step off of your base.
|
|
|
|
|
That wasn't very kind......
But just for you...... A rare daylight/sober post.:icon_wink:
Always keep your eye on the pitcher when you step off of your base.
You forgot to say "Confuscious says..."
I guess this thread will never see the light of day. I suspect it is because this thread questions that which is most sacred to many people and it is therefore not subject to debate. That is what is most scary about religion, IMO. Religion and faith tend to petrify one's consciousness against the assaults of reason. Relatedly, I suppose that is also why there is no hope for the islamic fundamentalists (and before someone tries to misinterpret this, I am not saying that Christians are terrorists). I just think that REASON is more likely to cure this world of all its ills than religion is.
Reason will lead you to the existence of a prime mover...and then you'll start all over again.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
There is such a wide disconnect between rational thought and faith in a higher being when it comes to metaphysics. I do think there is a big difficulty in overcoming that, as people will hesitate to use rational thought if they know it will break down every thing that their faith has stood for. Interestingly (and as one would have probably expected), I think these threads on OBJ have tended to galvanize some Christian stalwarts on this into preaching their faith. You see, there is no way around it - talking logic is a mental "punch in the face" to religion.
If consciousness cannot exist without existence, then what exactly is this higher state of being that created existence?
Nope... see above. Why is it easier to accept the notion of a prime mover (that was conscious BEFORE existence, and that created existence with no mass and energy) than to accept that existence ALWAYS WAS?
That's a sweeping generalization that an objective person wouldn't make (of course, we all know that objectivism is an illusion...or dillusion...can't remember which). Some of the great thinkers of the faith would be sorely disappointed to read that. Just to name a few that would disagree with you...CS Lewis, Al Mohler, Norm Geisler, Charles Spurgeon, John Calvin, DA Carson, and John Piper.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
I'll let drumlogic37 handle this as he is more well versed. I've got to go to class, but that belief paints you into a very small box. He'll be able to explain better than I could.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
Finally, someone bites.
Your argument is not true. There is no reason that things could not JUST exist without being caused to exist. This assumes there was an initial "choice" and there is no basis for that assumption.
No, they are not properly exercising logic at the level of metaphysics. People can exercise logic in specific instances within religion, sure, but only if they accept an illogical thought at the forefront.
As mentioned in another thread (and secularly), Enlightenment thinkers were way off the mark by trying to define "human nature" as good/evil (or moral/immoral). Doesn't mean that enlightenment thinkers weren't logical in some specific circumstances (the economics of capitalism by Smith).
Not sure how objectivism is an illusion. It doesn't rely on consequences to promote an economic or governmental system. It's a defense of REASON, and all other philosophies, economic models, and systems of government fail for that reason.
True... there's a much larger "box" if you accept the concept of a prime mover, as you've disregarded all logic in leaping to consciousness creating existence. So, maybe it was a gremlin that created existence, or a tree, or a zumaduba, or any of an infinite number of gods. Many choices there, and all are equally arbitrary.
BTW, modern physicists have observed and conceptualized instances of "movement without a mover." As you are probably aware, Newtonian physics do not apply very well to quantum mechanics.
For those of you waiting on pins and needles for drumlogic to appear - here is what I assume the argument looks like:
EITHER
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
(2) The universe began to exist
(3) Thus the universe had a cause.
OR
(1) Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
(2) Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
(3) A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
(4) Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something which is not an effect.
Both arguments suffer from the same fallacies - the assumption of an INITIAL cause AND that causes cannot be infinitely regressive (the second proof relies on this point explicitly in step 3). There is no proof for these assumptions.
But with that in mind, why is the infiniteness of God easier to accept the infiniteness of existence?
Your argument proposes that human logic can answer all questions when we've proven incredibly inept at this. What you're proposing is a religion where logic is all powerful.
I'm not as well versed as some on this, but your argument doesn't make any sense to me. There's no reason that existance had a beginning? There's no reason that it didn't.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
My first post shows how it is the only RATIONAL explanation. Yes, reason and logic are the only thing a human consciousness can rely on, so in a way I am advocating a religion of reason and logic.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote