|
| quote: | Originally posted by gd_nimrod
Lol, i learnt about "a priori" and "a posteriori" truths this year in my knowledge class.
So, to argue your point, where did people START off talking about Gods? Surely, this was a posteriori, thus, being in the mind BEFORE being taught it...just as the whole concept of really a triangle or a circle is...you can't see them, yet you know they exist.
And, of course, the a posteriori where implemented by a greater force, such as a *a* God. Now, read, *a* God, not "God" or THE "God", just *a* God. |
First of all, my use of *a priori* in my previous post had nothing to do with a priori in the epistemological sense, which is probably what you learned in your knowledge class. If you were simply mentioning it for the sake of mentioning it because it was a neat coincidence with what you had recently learned, then I'll let this one slide 
Second of all, your argument's wording is so convoluted that it took me a while to understand what you were trying to get at Anyway, it's "interesting" to say the least but suffers from *many* defects that I'll point out in a logical format, so that we understand each other clearly.
Before I start though, I assume you meant to say a priori rather than a posteriori when you referred to "[...]implemented by a greater force", otherwise, your argument is non-sensical. Making note of that, then what you were trying to say (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that:
1-)People started talking about Gods before they were taught about Gods.
2-)Which means that the capacity to conceive of the concept of Gods must have existed (in people's minds) to begin with.
3-)Which means that this concept must therefore have been "put there" (in their minds) by *a* God that thus exists.
Let me start by saying that this argument is absolutely and positively not valid. I'll argue this step by step. You draw implications between 1-) and 2-), then 2-) and 3-), which means that asserting 1-) must necessarily lead one to accept 3-). What I have to show, thus, is that you are not entitled to draw an implication between either 1-) and 2-) or 2-) and 3-) to prove my point. I'll focus on showing why 2-) to 3-) is not a valid inference, although I could do the same between 1-) and 2-) for shits and giggles but will not because I have other things to do
For the sake of argument, even if I accept 2-), the fact that people were able to start conceiving of the concept of *a* God does not necessarily mean that God must exist, in the objective sense, let alone have "put" that concept there.
You touched upon an interesting analogy with mathematical objects. There is a huge school of thaught in mathematics that claims that mathematical objects, like cicles and so forth are abstract fictional concepts that we invent, despite the fact we don't "see them" per say, and thus, that have no objective existence "on their own" (Constructivist school of thaught, which as a mathematician, I happen to adhere to). Without going into details, the point is that we are capable of conceiving of concepts and objects that do not exist in the objective sense through a process of abstraction once immersed in nature. For instance, we are capable of conceiving the concept of numbers such as 1, 2 and so forth, geometrical figures such as circles and squares because we are capable of abstracting from our objective surroundings abstract concepts such as figures and numbers. From a common sensical perspective, this is much more plausible than what we call a Platonic or realist metaphysical position, that asserts that numbers, in the objective sense exist, in some unsubstanciated metaphysical realm.
You are doing the exact same thing with regards to God. You are taking a realist or Platonic position, which in my opinion is baseless speculation. A much more plausible explanation is that we are hardwired in a certain way that allows us to abstract concepts such as numbers and God (if you then claim that we are hardwired in such a way because God made us like that or "put" that abstraction capacity in us, then you're simply begging the question and thus haven't shown anything). Indeed, people do not usually go around claiming that the number 4 or squares exist in the objective sense, so why should they with regards to God?
The point is that there's a much better explanation as to why we can conceive of such abstract concepts of God and the like, without delving into Platonic metaphysics which is grounded in nothing but speculation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| quote: | Originally posted by Krinker
actually
Epicurus
As Weird as that may sound coming from me, I do believe in some sort of higher entity that looks after us. Don't believe in paradise tho !
|
hahaha Krinker...I thaught you were smarter than that
| quote: | | I Just can't believe that someone isn't responsable for "us", there's tooo much luck involved. I do believe in evolution, although before evolution started there has been so much things that could have happened and "we" wouldn't be here anymore. |
This here is a good point. I wish I had more time to expand on this now (I'll do this later) but you're right, it is not obvious that life could have arisen from non-life by chance (abiogenesis) because of the low probabilities associated with that. However, it is still very much a good hypothesis and is continuously being worked on from an empirical perspective. Click here for more info.
| quote: | | Btw, u said that if someone was to create artificial intelligence, it would be a proof that god is a myth, but by implying that god is a myth, you're saying that he's actually part of history. I've just finished a research on Myths and ... well Myth are ACCEPTED historical facts, meaning taht he's part of history whether you like or not |
I don't understand the point of this comment. Yes, I claimed he's a myth, in the sense that we invented him, but that does not in any way shape or form entail that he exists, in the objective sense. Sure, he might exist as part of our history, but so what? That's not what we're debating. We're debating whether he exists in the objective sense, not as part of human culture (which of course I acknowledge since I believe that we created "him" and not the other way around).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| quote: | Originally posted by that guy
the in vitro conditions in the lab are nothing like the highly reductive conditions on primitive earth. you throw any of these so-called organisms into an atmosphere saturated in methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, etc. and you're no longer faithful to experimental conditions. these thing cannot live outside the lab. until we manage to make a something multicellular, i don't think the judeochristian camp are really taking a hit. after all, these "are not alive - they're performing simple chemical reactions that can also happen in cell-free biological fluids." if this isn't resolved in the next decade, it might give them more reason to believe in a god. if they made these artificial cells in conditions resembling the urey-miller experiment, then the implications would have more of an impact. |
I totally agree with this statement. Again, and like I said in my previous post, I hadn't read the article carefully and obviously, this research, if successful, would have no theological implications whatsoever, thus my acknowledgment that we should rather focus on its ethical ramifications. However, we can always start a thread on the origins of life where we can discuss the broader topic rather than this particular research and have fun with the creationists and the fundies. 
|
