quote:

Originally posted by PeacefulWarrior 1. Ex nihilo nihil fit

So you're assuming that at some point in the past there was nothing? There is no strong empirical evidence indicating this. It seems a far more rational explaination that there has always been something than that a being of inherently paradoxical properties created it.

quote:

Originally posted by PeacefulWarrior 1. I conceive of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived (ABTWNGCBC), call it A. 2. Suppose that A does not exist in actuality but only in the mind. 3. But some being (call it B) would be greater than A if it (B) existed not only in the mind but also in actuality. 4. Then, in fact, B would be ABTWNGCBC. 5. A and B are not the same, so it follows that ABTWNGCBC is not ABTWNGCBC. But, this is contradictory. 6. Therefore, if we can conceive of ABTWNGCBC, then such a being must necessarily exist.

Are you suggesting that the human conceptualization of something impacts whether or not it exists? That logic may look pretty but
a) It's flawed because 4 is non sequitur and
b) Pragmatically speaking, what you're suggesting is ludicrous.

I don't claim to know that God doesn't exist, but to suggest there is proof is totally preposterous.

quote:

So you're assuming that at some point in the past there was nothing? There is no strong empirical evidence indicating this. It seems a far more rational explaination that there has always been something than that a being of inherently paradoxical properties created it.

"Ex nihilo nihil fit" just suggests that something MUST come from something (and not from nothing). For example, in cause and effect relationships, any effect must have an underlying cause.

quote:

Are you suggesting that the human conceptualization of something impacts whether or not it exists? That logic may look pretty but

If you concede that premises (1), (2) and (3) are true, then (4) is just a conclusion that follows from those premises, and is necesarily true.

i believe in God..

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by sifntj0r all posts above and below this one are just plain gay.

quote:

Originally posted by PeacefulWarrior "Ex nihilo nihil fit" just suggests that something MUST come from something (and not from nothing). For example, in cause and effect relationships, any effect must have an underlying cause. If you concede that premises (1), (2) and (3) are true, then (4) is just a conclusion that follows from those premises, and is necesarily true.

You don't seem to understand. While I would agree that something must come from something, your first argument drew conclusions from that point which are dependent on the fact that there was at one point in the past nothing, which I do not see any evidence to suggest.

And finally, you might want to drag out your logic textbook and try to find the logical property that makes (4) correctly follow from (1), (2), and (3). I'm asserting that it doesn't exist. However, that is not the only problem with the proof...

1. It is impossible to concieve of ABTWNGCBC in the same way that it is impossible to concieve of the greatest integer. You can always concieve of the same thing, plus some additional property. For example, suppose you concieved of a being which could do anything. You could then concieve of a second being which could not only do anything the first being could do, but could also resist control of the first being and exert control over it. You could then concieve of a third being which relates to the second being in the same way the second does to the first. Thus, no being is greater than any other than can be concieved.

2. In (3) being B would be greater than being A IFF it existed in actuality. However, being A would be greater than being A if it existed in actuality as well. Therefore, you are not concieving two seperate beings, but one only that you consider the possibility for (B) to exist, while you ignore the possibility for (A) to exist.

3. In (5), for the reason described above, (A) and (B) ARE the same, but are percieved as being different, however this perception is incorrect.

4. Your argument implicitly suggests that the human capacity for conception is a valid standard by which to evaluate the actuality of existence. However, there is no reason to believe the conceptual capacity of human beings influences the existence of anything. If something exists, it exists whether or not anyone has ever thought of it, otherwise it is only a thought, which exists only in the mind.

Cheers,

Arbiter

quote:

You don't seem to understand. While I would agree that something must come from something, your first argument drew conclusions from that point which are dependent on the fact that there was at one point in the past nothing, which I do not see any evidence to suggest.

Not at all. If I am underdstanding you correctly, you view it an immpossibility for God to come out of nothing. You seem to make a distinction between God and the universe as being two DIFFERENT entities. However, the underlying assumption of "ex nihilo nihil fit" is that God and the cosmos are one, and have ALWAYS existed. As some might say: Both are "eternal" entities.

So infact, you already accept this truth.

quote:

And finally, you might want to drag out your logic textbook and try to find the logical property that makes (4) correctly follow from (1), (2), and (3). I'm asserting that it doesn't exist.

The logic in this argument is absolutely valid, and follows the general outline:
(1) general truth
(2) assumption
(3) true by definition (actual existence is MORE PERFECT than metaphysical existence~ie something that exist only in the mind)
(4) follows directly from 1,2,3
(5) true by definition (of identity)
(6) follows directly from 4,5

quote:

Your argument implicitly suggests that the human capacity for conception is a valid standard by which to evaluate the actuality of existence. However, there is no reason to believe the conceptual capacity of human beings influences the existence of anything. If something exists, it exists whether or not anyone has ever thought of it, otherwise it is only a thought, which exists only in the mind.

However, there is also NO reason to NOT believe that existence relies on human conception. This is best presented by Descartes in the Meditations, where he argues that the only thing he is certain of is that he exists based SOLELY on the fact that he knows he thinks and nothing else; "cogito ergo sum" or "I think therefore, I am"

I'm not sure there might be and there might not be. I have no proof although some don't need it. I really don't know though, then again who made us? Must be God....

___________________
Image removed, is over max allowd file size - see your profile options for the advance sig editor - Wicked Neo

quote:

Originally posted by PeacefulWarrior Not at all. If I am underdstanding you correctly, you view it an immpossibility for God to come out of nothing. You seem to make a distinction between God and the universe as being two DIFFERENT entities. However, the underlying assumption of "ex nihilo nihil fit" is that God and the cosmos are one, and have ALWAYS existed. As some might say: Both are "eternal" entities. So infact, you already accept this truth.

What I'm suggesting is that matter and energy and the equilibrii of their existences may have always existed as well, and thus, there is no valid reason to postulate a "God" entity as the source of them.

quote:

The logic in this argument is absolutely valid, and follows the general outline: (1) general truth (2) assumption (3) true by definition (actual existence is MORE PERFECT than metaphysical existence~ie something that exist only in the mind) (4) follows directly from 1,2,3 (5) true by definition (of identity) (6) follows directly from 4,5

This proof is known as Anselm's Proof. It is regarded as a failure by most theologists for one or more of the following reasons:

(4) does not follow form 1,2, and 3. No logical property exists to support this.

(3) is true by definition only if you accept that actual existence is more perfect than metaphysical existence, however there is no logical standard by which such a determination can be made.

(1) is not a general truth, since perfection is a paradox and thus beyond human capacity to concieve.

quote:

However, there is also NO reason to NOT believe that existence relies on human conception. This is best presented by Descartes in the Meditations, where he argues that the only thing he is certain of is that he exists based SOLELY on the fact that he knows he thinks and nothing else; "cogito ergo sum" or "I think therefore, I am"

Is existence a prerequisite for thought? Until this is proven, Descartes' assertion is of unknown truth value. That aside, there are plenty of reasons to believe that existence relies on human conception. First, humans have not always existed, yet we know that things existed before us (otherwise, we could never have come into existence "ex nihilo nihil fit"). So at some point before human conception even existed, there were things that either existed or did not independently of human conception. To postulate that the creation of humans eradicated the previous standard for existence and replaced it with their conception is not only unfounded, but wildly egotistical.

Cheers,

Arbiter

Last edited by Arbiter on Jul-21-2002 at 02:34

wow... what a question... i figured someone would bust this out sometime...

quote:

Originally posted by PeacefulWarrior You seem to make a distinction between God and the universe as being two DIFFERENT entities. However, the underlying assumption of "ex nihilo nihil fit" is that God and the cosmos are one, and have ALWAYS existed. As some might say: Both are "eternal" entities.

i can see you point in this. but to religious people God has a human form and watches over us at all times. God and the universe being one defies this thought.

logically you could say we were created by the universe. we, and all things we know to be real, are made up of substances found throught the universe and we were created of them. if you definition God is the creator of life as we know it, then yes, God and the universe are one in the same. i would agree with this.

that does not say that there is A God. it only gives the title of God to the universe. (Something which we know to exist).

i hope you can follow my path of thinking in this.

I beleive that the Bible and religion is open to interpretation where scriptures are based on human subjective perceptions.

I do beleive that there is a creator, but I do not worship. Why worship? You don't know whether you are worshipping the TRUE creator.

Religion vs Science, or just religion has always been up for debate.

Alright, I know Im coming in real late to this thread, but I want to just get a few of my thoughts out. Oh, and for the record, Im somewhere in the middle, I really have no clue about god/religion/ect, its all confusing

Anyways, the main argument I see atheists/religous people toss back and forward is this: The atheists generally play the science card (like evolution, big bang, ect), and the religious use the "we couldnt have come from nothing" card. Honestly, neither of these are really good answers. Science time and time again has been absolutely sure of something, then turns around and beleives something totally different. 1500 years ago we were sure that Earth was the center of the universe. 1000 years ago we were sure that the Sun revolved around the Earth. 500 years ago we were sure that the Earth was flat. If you could look 100 years into the future, there would be all sorts of new radical (well, WE would find them radical) scientific answers to all sorts of questions about the universe, creation, ect.

Religion likes to beleive that the universe couldnt come from nothing. I tend to concur, but the religous persons answer to this and most all anomalies is that it came from God. Of course, 5, 10, 50 years from now we could discover that the big bang is really just a small part in the (scientific) creation of ... everything. Or that the big bang never occured. I read an article about a theory of multiple universes floating around in a 5 dimensional area, that create new universes when they collide. Who knows? It could be like in the end of Men in Black, where the camera zooms way out, showing the whole galaxy floating in some giant aliens marble.

The human race has only been around 20-30 thousand years, a geological blink of an eye! And millions of years before us, all sorts of strange mammals and other creatures. And millions of years before that, dinosaurs, and billions of years before that, a big floating ball of lava. All of that leading up to us, on our little tiny rock in our little tiny solar system in our little tiny corner of the galaxy, a galaxy MILLIONS of lightyears across, just one of HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of galaxies, all just as big, and bigger as ours, each one BILLIONS AND TRILLIONS of lightyears away from each other! All of that space out there, all the changes and creatures our planet has seen, our universe has seen, all that.... just for us??? I find that hard to beleive.

I think the ONLY absolute truth in the science vs relgion/god vs no god argument is that no one can be absolutely sure. I personally beleive in some sort of creator, and some sort of afterlife. I just cant imagine that we, humans with emotion, intelligence, and free will just cease to exist entirely after our biological bodies die. I also dont beleive in hell, I think its something designed to induce fear. I think you can scare anyone by telling him that if he doesnt beleive in a religion that he will burn and suffer ... for eternity!

I also beleive that if God is as loving, merciful and kind as everyone says he is, he will truly understand that I am a smart, intelligent person who tries to be righteous and good to others, and am absolutely swamped with all the different religions, theories, and random thoughts as to why and how we are here, and I have absolutely no way of knowing with 100% certainty that the one I choose is the right one. I have severial friends who are Christian, Ive spoken to them about religion and they each come from a church/religions upbringing that varies, sometimes greatly, from another of my friends. Some beleive that if you beleive in Jesus that your saved, others beleive you have to beleive/not sin, or you end up in hell anyways. Some beleive that you are pre-destined to go to heaven or hell, others beleive that its all free will, ect.

In the end, we all need to realize that life is a precious gift thats way too short to be pissed, bitter, depressed, or to work in a cubicle or other shit job 9-5 + overtime. So just enjoy what youve got!

Btw, to clarify, Buhddism is NOT a religion. It makes no references to any god/creator, any afterlife, creation of the universe, ect. Its simply a way of thinking, a philosophy that generally deals with achieving mental clairity. So please stop using Buhddism as an example of a religion

___________________
NEW MIX [Feb/March 2008]

Oh, one more thing to think about. Most religions with written bibles that speak of all sorts of great events and stories... they all seem to just stop happening as they approach the present... and none of them have definate dates. Why do we see no great biblical events in modern times? Of course Im really only familiar with Christianity, so I might be way off target with other religions.

___________________
NEW MIX [Feb/March 2008]