/lit/ - Literature

>>5487619

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.

Most natural things lack knowledge.

But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.

Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

>‘They ought to take this Kant and give him a three-year stretch in Solovki for such proofs!’ Ivan Nikolaevich plumped quite unexpectedly.

>>5487619
So Aquinas.

Is not Truth God itself?

You can prove just about anything starting with stupid axioms.

Gr8 b8 m8

>>5487641
Prove it.

>>5487641
what makes an axiom not stupid?

If man can contemplate divinity does that not in a sense, make it real? What can be contemplated that has no seed of the truth?

>>5487619
>Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect
God's omnipotence requires that these are simultaneously true of God.

Proof requires contradiction.

Not a proof.

>>5487657
this seems dangerously close to saying anything you can imagine is real

If we define God as the first mover than we may define him as that which is the origin of the prime first material of the big bang.

If we assert that there was nothing before the big bang we can claim that nothingness itself is God.

For what is more divine? More unknowable? More mysterious than nothingness it's self?

But how can nothingness exist? Surely nothingness doesn't exist, it is negative existence.

Now let's apply gnostic and buddhist thought, reality becomes an imperfect and fake illusion. If all that exists is illusion then negative existence is the only truth.

What is more true than nothing? What can be more known?

>>5487654
If an axiom goes against observations and/or can be used to generate contradictions, then it is stupid.

>>5487619
the prime-mover argument rests on a pre-Newtonian understanding of intertia. That is, if left alone, things will eventually stop moving.


ITT: 8th century physics (and useless philosophy)

>>5487662
Everything you can imagine is based on what is real.

>>5487619
>>5487657
>>5487699
>le prime mover
>le blind watchmaker
>le intelligent design
>if you can imagine it it must be real

what ridiculous arguments

is this what passes for proof in apologetics circles?

>>5487619
>Nothing exists prior to itself.
Undemonstrated claim

>>5487619
>Assume that every being is a contingent being.
Assumption required.

>There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.

Imposition of a normative assumption on a non–normative category.

>>5487623
>We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.

Undemonstrated assumption, question begged.

>>5487707

....are we reddit now? It seems we non-sarcastically use le now.

Not to get off topic but damn.

>>5487631
>Solovki
SLON was too fucken hard for Kant.

>>5487707
If you imagine something it is always based on something real because for you to imagine something it must be an element of something that you saw, felt or thought.
It isn't really a super-strong argument for existance of God, but it was good enough for Dostoyevsky and it is good enough for me.

>>5487719
sounds like your irony detector is shot to shit

>>5487726
it's not just not a very strong argument for the existence of the divine, but it's a completely nonsensical argument with no real-world mapping, no evidence, and is basically an argument from ignorance

are you even able to coherently explain what you mean when you use the word "divinity" or "perfection"? your idea of perfection is just the idea of something that achieves its goal stretched to the nonsensical. something can be good FOR a certain purpose, but "perfection" is a meaningless abstraction.

i wouldn't even call it an abstraction because it's an incoherent concept

>>5487734

>he thinks something imperfect can accurately and perfectly comprehend the perfect and the divine

>>5487740
glad we wrapped this up and demonstrated that your argument is a weak tautology, I was starting to think you actually believed your position had merit

>>5487734
I didn't even use the words divinity and prefection.
I can't give you an coherent explanation of what a chair it, let alone divinity and perfection.
But perfection would be something without a flaw, if I had to come up with it in a short time period in between studying breaks. Divine is God I assume.

>>5487748
a "flaw" is either completely subjective in an aesthetic sense ("this painting isn't to my liking / taste"), or is entirely operative in an objectively functional sense ("we need a philips head screwdriver for this specific screw, not a flathead")

hence why perfection is meaningless and incoherent. the argument that "it must be real because we can imagine it" is utter nonsense and inherently false because nobody can even imagine it, let alone agree on what it is

>>5487760
Here, have a Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfection

>>5487699
Like leprechauns, right?

>>5487798
Leprechauns are obviously based on the Irish.

>>5487776
>so intellectually lazy he links to a wikipedia article because he literally is incapable of imagining something that neither exists nor can be imagined

glad we agree that you're wrong

>The First Way: Argument from Motion
>nothing can move itself
>except god, because magic

>The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes
>nothing can cause itself
>except god, because magic

>The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)
>something can't come out of nothing
>except god, because magic

>The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being
>God exists because I can define him into existence

>The Fifth Way: Argument from Design
>we don't know how everything came to be, therefore goddidit

>>5487707
The second, third and fourth argument are logically inconsistent. However if we assume that causal loop cannot exist and an infinite regress of causes is impossible then first cause argument holds up very well.

It's an argument for deity's existence though, not deity identification.

>>5488018
>if we assume

This being a very important thing to remember. Also, it still wouldn't be logically consistent as it declares causality an absolute rule and then breaks this rule at least once

>>5488018
I see what you're saying, but if you can't identify the deity - the prime mover - in any meaningful way, then the argument is pointless. Using this line of reasoning, the prime mover could very well be just a quantum anomaly, just as easily as it could be Aquinas's skybeard.

But therein lies the point: they don't actually care about knowledge or providing an evidence-based answer to the question of a causal loop. It's just a way for apologists to get their foot in the door, and once you give them that inch they'll pry the door open and start screaming YAHWEH until their vocal cords snap. That's why they fixate on this one area so much.

>>5488026

>muh special pleadining

Not really. Special pleading fallacy is itself fallacious in application to the Absolute (not necessarily Christian God). The infinite regress' impossibility implies logical necessity for a first cause to occur.

What's more set theory shows us that our logic cannot be applied to something outside of the set therefore special pleading fallacy cannot be applied to God that precedes existence of the set itself.

>>5488047
>Special pleading fallacy is itself fallacious in application to the Absolute (not necessarily Christian God).

I love how you whine about special pleading, while at the same time, making up this completely unfounded class of the Absolute. Why not just call it 'Stuff that can cheat'?

>>5487619
Go away, Thomas.

On a sidenote: It's hilarious how Aquinas proved ''God'', but could not prove the holy trinity - the only thing making catholicism catholicism -, basically, Aquinas ''proved'' every monotheistic religion except the one he was supporting.

>>5488060

It's not cheating. It's formal logic.

From set theory we're aware that if we identify omnipotent deity as A (potential element of the set) and universe it creates (set) as B with our logic and laws of nature (conditions of the set) then:

1. For A to cause B's existence A must precede B's existence
2. Therefore A cannot be an element of set B
3. Therefore A doesn't need to abide by conditions of set B

Understood, friendo?

>>5488082

No it's not. It's setting up this chain of rules and then at the end going "Oh and by the way, there's this entity that doesn't obey these rules because I say so". It's the illusion of logic. It's bullshit trying to pose as logic, while in the end it can't cover up the fact that it simply isn't logic.

Logic is all about consistency. Making rules and then breaking them because of your argument which you've already concluded beforehand to be 100% true has fuck all to do with logic

Mfw God in OP is just a fluid that your pour in the voids we still have to fill with explanations.

ITT: Daily reminder that science is nothing but chasing God. And you can be part of the journey.

"Just a place for a God! I said it twice."

>>5488089

Alright. I already see that you don't have a basic grasp of set theory. I just used really basic formal logic to qualify the truth of a judgement "Special pleading fallacy is not applicable to omnipotent deity". If you don't understand this, then thanks anyway for contribution, but you're not qualified to speak on the topic

>>5488114

And I see that you don't have a basic idea of consistency. You do know that logic isn't "I can just make up all sorts of categories and then by virtue of me saying it, they become true and are exempt from the very rules I just set up", right?

Let's go back to your example

>A = omnipotent deity

First off, you didn't demonstrate this, you merely asserted this. If you want your poorly thought out idea to work, it helps to demonstrate the very first assertions

>but you're not qualified to speak on the topic

Toplel, you accuse others of incompetence, while failing at the very first step of your 'irrefutable proof'. I guess you've once again proven Socrates right

>>5488114
>but you're not qualified to speak on the topic
No U

>>5488121

I love opinionated dummies such as you. A and B are parts of an abstract set and I can substitute "God" or "universe" or anything with any letter I want for sake of simplicity. Did you have fucking elementary algebra at school? Why the fuck do I need to demonstrate you basic mathematics? Algebra is a study of symbols and the rules for manipulating symbols. A and B are only symbols/variables.

I demonstrated you why the special pleading is not applicable to something outside of the set (universe) and therefore the logical consistency is not broken in any way. I know that I'm probably arguing with literature undergraduate, but for fucks sake you'd be laughed at in a high school maths classroom if you said what you've stated above.

>hurr u can't use abstractions, such as using letters to stand for numbers (or concepts, or else)

>>5488082
>our logic
Which is what exactly, smartass? When you answer that, answer this: How do you dodge logical pluralism?

>laws of nature
Which are what exactly? Do you have an exhaustive set of these laws?

The argument: 2. and 3. are not necessarily true.

>>5487619
>Our senses prove that some things are in motion

Hey look, already wrong from the first sentence. And for multiple reasons: Even if we made the absurd assumption that we can trust our senses to any degree (which is the first reason why it's wrong), the concept of motion is completely relative in space-time (source: graduate level dynamics).

Yet, I did the decent thing and read further. I have to say that your understanding of rigid body mechanics (or rather, the lack thereof) is depressing.

There's also something called quantum mechanics, but I won't bother touching that if you have difficulty overcoming 8th century physics as >>5487698 mentioned.

>>5488143

First off argument 2. is logically necessary on the ground of argument 1. and argument 3. is logically necessary on the ground of argument 2. This very reasoning is a causal chain. Short one, but still.

Logic very basically is a deductive system with number of laws used to qualify the validity of certain argument in certain language. And I do not need to have a full list of laws of nature to know that in case of my argument they can be substituted as conditions of the set, being literally that.

>>5488167
>First off argument 2. is logically necessary on the ground of argument 1. and argument 3. is logically necessary on the ground of argument 2. This very reasoning is a causal chain. Short one, but still.
I'm was not talking about validity you dullard; Truth.

>Logic very basically is a deductive system with number of laws used to qualify the validity of certain argument in certain language.
I was asking WHICH logic is OUR logic, not what constitutes A logic. Work on your reading comprehension.

>>5487619
I already disproved the existence of God.

I don't even have to read your proofs to know they are bogus.

>>5487619
There is no convincing argument against the cosmological argument. The best hope for those taking the mechanical approach is to take the position that God was a kind of pre-universal force that lacked cognition yet began the process of creation (simply: there is a first cause but it was not a conscious thing). Of course this brings up the question of how a pre-universal substance/force goes about creating/causing said universe without internal volition.

>>5488237
you are pretty stupid.

>>5488238
no u

>>5488240
how do you know?

for instance I know you are stupid because you consider this piece of garbage you wrote

>>5488237

as an intelligent contribution.

Nice job, but you're missing the proof that this is the same entity that wrote the Bible and that he'll punish us if we don't believe in him.

>>5488248
>assblasted atheist playing resorting to >muh samefag
Tragic.

>>5488265
great post buddy.

you sure showed everyone how not stupid you are.

>>5488270
great post buddy.

you sure showed everyone how not stupid you are.

>>5488274
mad

>>5487716
>assumption required
Did you actually read the whole argument presented there? He is not using this assumption as one of his axioms. Rather, he is assuming it only long enough to prove that it results in an absurdity. He is using an assumption to prove the converse. So admitting that not every being has to be a contingent being actually only helps his argument.

>>5488270
>>5488274

great posts buddies

you sure showed everyone how not stupid you are.

>>5488287
Jesus, can anyone be this wrekt?

arguments for the existence of god always end up being pure mental masturbation and lunacy.

you just want to believe so bad you don't mind butchering logic completely.

>>5488298
how can anyone be this jew?

kek

>>5488309

great example. Kant developed his own moral argument

>>5488307
>jew
enjoy your ban

>>5488384
Is jew an insult?

LOL

>>5487968
So I should research before posting on 4chan and have to spend a lot of time in pointless arguments?

>people getting this butt frustrated over an argument for a definition of what people consider God.

>>5488409
> Is jew an insult?
Yes, being a jew is already insult enough. Kek.

>>5488237
>There is no convincing argument against the cosmological argument.

The first cause is unknowable, contradicts itself and is never properly demonstrated to possess a conscious will

There, that wasn't so hard, was it?

>>5488459
To be fair your argument is as bad as his.
Both of you fail to demonstrate why it is so.

itt: cartesian babbling

>the existence of God

Do peasants still ponder this meaningless question?

>>5488473

>Both of you fail to demonstrate why it is so.

Here you go

>The first cause is unknowable

The first cause refers to something outside of reality. No one has access to a perspective outside of reality.

>contradicts itself

The first cause argument sets up causality as an unbreakable rule, while at the same time having at least on instance in which it was broken. This is a contradiction

>is never properly demonstrated to possess a conscious will

The final step of the first cause argument usually concludes with "and we call this cause God". This is never justified. God is a label that comes with several assumptions, most importantly the assumption of a conscious will. The claim that the universe was the result of the actions of a conscious will are never justified anywhere in this argument.

I'm not even going to bother with definitions, testability, etc., because to me all these 'arguments' are nothing more than semantic games that offer nothing of actual substance

>>5487645
This bullshit right here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox

Which God though?

the power... to move you

>>5489100
OP said that god is a first mover, the first efficient cause, a being that exists of its own necessity, something that causes all other beings and something that directs all natural things to their end

>>5487692

Sounds like a stupid axiom you've got there, comrade.

>>5487657
Nah, Aquinas found Agustine explanation stupid since your idea of perfect is imperfect. You can't actually understand a perfect god, even if you can construct the idea of perfection you're not really having it in your mind.

>>5487798
Yes, irish midgets exists, some of them have gold and for all we know there could be something at the end of the rainbow since you can't get there.

>>5487719
le is pretty much only used on 4chan to mock reddit.

>>5487619
Goddamnit, Aquinas, you can't just say how something on Earth 'should' work and apply that prove the existence of a supreme meta-physical being that is beyond all conceptions of understanding or any conventional logic that you can even come up with.
>A thing can't move by itself, it must be pushed, therefor there must be a supreme pusher, and said supreme pusher also happens to be the Christian God, which just happens to be the God that I believe in, to make things easy.
Is like saying
>Nothing lasts forever, therefore God will die of old age. Since other things have species, there is obviously a species of gods, and eventually one of his species will take his place. This god will just happen to be an omniscient horse named "Princess Celestia", which just happens to be a character from the television show that I watch, to make things easy.
Maybe you should wait until the human race is advanced enough to invent toilet paper before you decide the fundamental nature of reality just happens to be the same as what the guys in charge of you said it was.

>>5489319

>>5487619
god exists because god
checkmate logic

this board is truly the worst

>>5488140
#rekt

lol, I don't even agree with the way you deal with cosmological argument, but that nigga's clinically retarded. people who post their homework on /sci/ got better comprehension of maths than that guy

>>5488288
It doesn't work like that. You can't make a positive and extraordinary claim by setting up false dichotomies and demonstrating one element of the dichotomy is false.

>>5487691
I like this.

Problem is if we're talking about something outside of our realm of physics somehow giving birth to it, then the number of possible explanations is conceptually infinite. "God" (even most abstractly) is an answer based on our limited ability to conceive of anything outside of our own experience. In reality, the cause for our universe or our existence could be something of which we cannot even imagine, let alone understand.

>>5489687

I don't get it how's reality an illusion?

>>5489100
>>5489319
Book 1 of Summa Contra Gentiles starts with the eternal first mover and builds up to the Christian God step by step.

>>5490567
>implying

>>5487619
>Assume that every being is a contingent being.
>...
>Therefore not every being is a contingent being.

The conclusion invalidates the assumption that it was based on. Why can't theologians into logic?

>>5490647
Because then their wouldn't be any theologians in the first place

which god? judeo god?

>>5490647


are you retarded? the whole process is a demonstration of how the assumption did not hold.

>>5487698

ITP: a failure to understand formal causation

>>5490665
Which accomplishes nothing other than saying that God is an absurdity.

>>5490679


uhh
>Therefore not every being is a contingent being.

do you need remedial english courses?

>>5490665
>assume all things are X
>reach a logical absurdity
>therefore not all things are X
>therefore all things are X, except this one thing which is not X

It doesn't fucking work.

>>5490708
>therefore not all things are X

but thats exactly how logic works

>>5490712
That part works. The part directly after that doesn't. Post-hoc rationalization in a formal setting.

>>5490721


well i dont care enough about the discussion to actually check the meat and potatoes of the proof, im just taking objection to superficial dismissals.

at anyrate ill say atleast on an intutive level considering the possibility space for what 'Things' fit the criteria would lead to some interesting implications.

>>5490708
This is EXACTLY the form of all arguments for God.

>>5490751
The argument disproves the assumption, then it immediately takes the assumption as is, with the bare minimum modification. If not all beings are contingent, then it's a little hasty to make the conclusion that there is one and only one non-contingent being. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to at least consider the possibility that there are more non-contingent beings? But, of course a theologian would readily confirm his own theology.

>>5487619
What about feedback i.e the force generated by an effect which causes a cause similar to the initial one?stantsuc

>>5487619
>Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
laughing parmesan .jpeg

>>5490751
>well i dont care enough about the discussion to actually check the meat and potatoes of the proof, i'm just going to assume god anyway and hope nobody notices my sloppy logica

sounds par for the course for apologists

>>5490920


par this course *unzips dick*

>>5490942
*grabs him by the throat* BACK THE FUCK UP!!?!?

>>5487639
What is truth?

>>5490964
*teleports behind you and un-velcros a NIV bible from his fanny pack*

Psssh, nothing personnel, kid.

>>5490975
Jesus CHRIST that painting is good its making me feel drunk

>>5490964
*swings katana*
YOU THINK I MISSED ON ACCIDENT;
FOOL

>>5491005
Are you sure you're not ACTUALLY drunk?

>>5492034
*does an ollie and hits with you with the skateboard*

>>5487619

>The First Way: "Doesn't the Principle of Sufficient Reason lead to a paradox? Yes, therefore God exists"

lol, okay if believing in God is just saying "I don't understand causation" then sure, I believe in God

>The Second Way

same thing

>The Third Way

the same argument, a 3rd time, all this proves is that it doesn't make sense that everything requires a preceding cause

>The Fourth Way

The second premise is false, things have relative value despite no known maximum, even your example doesn't fit such a description, there is no such thing as "the hottest"

The third premise is also wrong, "uttermost" is a conception of the mind, conceptions do not cause each other

>The Fifth Way

this one is ignorant of science, or at best, it's a more convoluted version of the first 3 arguments, all it proves is that we can't make sense of an endless chain of physical causes

This is all pointless, OP. You can't prove the existence of a supreme being with human logic and word games. It's a waste of time on par with Anselm's foolishness, which blithely equates the feeble limits of our imagination with a supreme being as if they were in any way contingent. Each of your arguments can be dismantled at any point (the "first efficient cause, for instance, has nothing to do with proving the Bible isn't a fairy tale: if anything, it argues for the Big Bang).

>>5487619
Congratulations, OP. You're contributing to the idea that all christafgs are insufferable faggots who can't into logic.

then, you replace every instance of the word god with the word Isalnd

>>5490975
That really is a beautiful painting

>5487619
>Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
beliebers always take huge leaps through logic, philosophy and science. it's like they are not educated.

>>5487760
Damn, you're dumb.

>>5487968
>WHAT DOS DAT WORD MEENS
Ugh, analytics.. Please don't

>>5488114
You're good. I like you.

>>5488140
R E K T
E
K
T