I don't care about the most open definition, I care about the most accurate. If you aren't capable of giving an accurate definition of a thing you fervently don't believe in, your position is tenuous at best.
Obviously i can give an accurate definition of what i don't believe in. I did so.
Can you tell me what definition of god you think spinoza proves, and how its any different than just defining god into existance?
I just find it odd that you are so fervently against a belief that no one actually has and that you demean an entire group of people for believing something they actually don't.
Okay, I don't find it "odd", just unintentionally revealing of the weakness of your own position.
Many people hold the position that god CAN lie, he chooses not to. Thats not incompatible with his alleged omnipotence.
You're presuming to speak for the entire religion with what you think is rock solid biblical interpretation... it is not. Not addressing that point is either evasion or an oversight.
Can you give me YOUR definition of god? Can you show how Spinoza argues for that?
|
I find it vulgar that people can't just respect that others do or do not believe in whatever they wish to and instead like dredging up a list of "facts and arguments" to diminish their opposite instead of just being accepting of their views. This entire thread is nothing more than a list of "this is why your view is stupid" in regards to the subject. Very disappointing.
This entire thread is nothing more than a list of "this is why your view is stupid" in regards to the subject. Very disappointing.
I blame Fiendish Wilhelm and Invisible Soren whose views, indeed, are stupid.
I find it vulgar that people can't just respect that others do or do not believe in whatever they wish to and instead like dredging up a list of "facts and arguments" to diminish their opposite instead of just being accepting of their views. This entire thread is nothing more than a list of "this is why your view is stupid" in regards to the subject. Very disappointing.
And when peoples views lead them to toss people into the bonfire, disregard well established science in policy making, deny individuals their rights, brainwash their kids before they're old enough to know any better, and support a government system actively working against their own best interests do you simply "accept" that thats just the way they feel? When someone believes that you're a lying disingenuous immoral godless heathen and treats you as such do you put up with it or do you try to point out why you hold the ideas you do?
Tolerance may be a good thing, but so is moderation. Anything can be taken too far.
I didn't fabricate the list as a strawman. First of all, its a list of some of the higher end arguments for a position i don't agree with. No one seems eager to step up and produce a better argument.
Secondly I took the words, word for word, from someone advocating that they were good arguments.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't fabricate the list as a strawman. First of all, its a list of some of the higher end arguments for a position i don't agree with. No one seems eager to step up and produce a better argument.
Secondly I took the words, word for word, from someone advocating that they were good arguments.
In retrospect, starting threads based on Citizen Aretas's posts might not be the best of ideas.
In retrospect, starting threads based on Citizen Aretas's posts might not be the best of ideas.I didn't fabricate the list as a strawman. First of all, its a list of some of the higher end arguments for a position i don't agree with. No one seems eager to step up and produce a better argument.
Secondly I took the words, word for word, from someone advocating that they were good arguments.
If it was JUST him i think you'd have a point. However
1) What hes saying matches up with my experiences and readings on apologetics. Those are more or less the 5 bigger arguments for god that I've seen.
2) I've left the door wide open for arguments that are better than those five and I'll I've heard are either crickets chirping or a variation on one of the 5 that someone thought was a completely different argument.
In retrospect, starting threads based on Citizen Aretas's posts might not be the best of ideas.I didn't fabricate the list as a strawman. First of all, its a list of some of the higher end arguments for a position i don't agree with. No one seems eager to step up and produce a better argument.
Secondly I took the words, word for word, from someone advocating that they were good arguments.
Experience has taught me that Aretas is less atypical than one would hope.
Are we to lump in as 'Christian' anyone and everyone who claims to be so? How many astrologers claim to be scientists?
Many people hold the position that god CAN lie, he chooses not to. Thats not incompatible with his alleged omnipotence.
You pretty much have to, or somebody will squawk "no true Scotsman" and pwn you in your fyayshe wiff logix.
Are we to lump in as 'Christian' anyone and everyone who claims to be so? How many astrologers claim to be scientists?
Many people hold the position that god CAN lie, he chooses not to. Thats not incompatible with his alleged omnipotence.
What I'm not going to do is take one of iota of one sliver of a smithereens worth out of an entire body of theology and say that anyone that disagrees with Lilith's thrall on this issue is not a "true christian". The difference between can lie but never will lie and can't lie is so small a hair that it would take the hadron collider to split.
Many Christians, most if not damn near all, view god as omnipotent. You disagree. Fine.
Instead of nit picking my definition as wrong because it doesn't encompass your personal views of god, perhaps you could tell me what definition of god it is that you're using to think spinoza demonstrates him. (her. it. zork. Whatever)
Well, I am not at all familiar with Lillithsthrall's beliefs, but I'm pretty sure that Baruch Spinoza wasn't a typical Christian. Mostly because he was a Jew, but he wasn't a typical one of those, either.
By your logic, astrologers are scientists. We must see them as such 'less we fall into making a 'no true Scotsman' error.
You are really bad at figuring out what other peoples arguments mean.
Astrology is not a science because it is objectively wrong and does not explain or predict phenomenon with a statistically significant degree of accuracy.
You do not have the same level of assurance for an incredibly small and narrow piece of biblical interpretation or theology: they are far too subjective for such a tiny discrepancy to be considered objectively wrong.
Please stop dodging the issue, and I'm not responding again until you answer: what definition of god are you using and how does Spinoza show it exists?
Carl Sagin is to a scientcist!
edit "was"
Lilith, definition or nothing. Be fair. You got the definition, now please give one.
Well, I am not at all familiar with Lillithsthrall's beliefs, but I'm pretty sure that Baruch Spinoza wasn't a typical Christian. Mostly because he was a Jew, but he wasn't a typical one of those, either.I never claimed that Spinoza was a typical Christian. I never insinuated it. I said only that he gave a better argument for the existence of God than any that Atreus provided.
I didn't say you did. Seriously, man, this thread isn't all about you.
Well, then, my point was that, for mid-17th century Spain/Netherlands, Spinoza wasn't a typical anything.
I'm an atheist, can I define God for the rest of our debate?
God: a fictional being, often talked about in some Christian Bibles.
Lilith, definition or nothing. Be fair. You got the definition, now please give one.Here
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ethics_(Spinoza)
assuming that you aren't merely trolling,
Enough. I'm not taking that from anyone, least of all you. Goodbye.
Nice. Way to be accepting and tolerant of other people's beliefs. Hope you get like you give.I'm an atheist, can I define God for the rest of our debate?
God: a fictional being, often talked about in some Christian Bibles.
Feel free to provide your own definition and logical argument for his existence. But if you leave it to the people who don't believe in him, you're probably not going to get ones you like.
Two bulls were standing on top of a hill, looking down at their herd of cattle.
"Hey," said the young bull, "let's run down the hill and ____ one of those cows!"
The older bull said, "No. Let's walk down the hill and ____ 'em all!"
-Gnomish folk tale
How did I miss this post?!?
And I'm sure that perception makes you feel very good about yourself.
Without this concept, there could be. no. internet.
BS. Where else would I get my porn?
I think it's covered in the statement.
Now quick; say "no it isn't," so we can argue about semantics.
It's all Onanism, of one kind or another.
Thus, you make my point.
Only if your point is that enough unfounded, backhanded, demeaning, and intellectually disingenuous insults under the thinnest possible veneer of a genuine discussion will eventually tick someone off to the point that they ignore you. I will take insults with an argument i will not take it in place of one.
You aren't interested in exposing yourself to new ideas which is why you turn away when the opportunity is presented.
The ontological argument is not a new idea. It is an OLD idea. Its on the first page. Spinoza isn't doing anything different. He's, as i stated, putting a coat of philosobabblerazzledazzle over what i will generously refer to as a lemon. Phrase the ontological argument anyway you want, it remains fundamentally unchanged.
|
BS. Where else would I get my porn?I think it's covered in the statement.
Now quick; say "no it isn't," so we can argue about semantics.
You're clearly a dunderheaded fool if you think your statement covers your own backside. Please dress appropriately, there are...people of delicate conscience about.
You're clearly a dunderheaded fool if you think your statement covers your own backside. Please dress appropriately, there are...people of delicate conscience about.BS. Where else would I get my porn?I think it's covered in the statement.
Now quick; say "no it isn't," so we can argue about semantics.
Your feeble attempt at hyperbole not only shows that you have no grasp of the argument. It goes one step further: It actually proves the existence of God, and ensures that this thread will be studied by the Atheist Philosopher Kings of the future for now and all time, to include the past.
For without this very thread, time travel would never have been possible.
Some naked dude in an alley told me that.
|
|
Thus, you make my point.Only if your point is that enough unfounded, backhanded, demeaning, and intellectually disingenuous insults under the thinnest possible veneer of a genuine discussion will eventually tick someone off to the point that they ignore you. I will take insults with an argument i will not take it in place of one.
You aren't interested in exposing yourself to new ideas which is why you turn away when the opportunity is presented.The ontological argument is not a new idea. It is an OLD idea. Its on the first page. Spinoza isn't doing anything different. He's, as i stated, putting a coat of philosobabblerazzledazzle over what i will generously refer to as a lemon. Phrase the ontological argument anyway you want, it remains fundamentally unchanged.
So basically all arguments must be approved by you to be valid or they just don't count and are what amounts to an insult to you......
How can anyone argue with you when you don't accept anything as true but what you already believe is so. Your world is defined by you and you choose any ideals that back you up to be facts while denying any that oppose you. Your mind is closed to anything you don't feel fits in your definition and is thereby invalid.....can't argue with that now can we?I prefer my world and mind open to new ideas and free from a self-imposed prison defined by my own limited awareness. I accept that there could be things I don't understand for I am not all-knowing and my knowledge is not all-encompassing.
So basically all arguments must be approved by you to be valid or they just don't count and are what amounts to an insult to you......
I didn't say this.
I didn't imply this.
I didn't hint at this.
I did nothing that would give you cause to say this.
Lilith said that the arguments presented on the first page were poor. She mistakenly thought that spinoza used a different argument when he in fact used the ontological argument.
How can anyone argue with you when you don't accept anything as true but what you already believe is so.
Start with facts and logically work step by step to a conclusion. Test the ideas if possible. Same way you argue with anyone else.
Not calling me a troll for asking for a definition helps too.
I prefer my world and mind open to new ideas and free from a self-imposed prison defined by my own limited awareness.
There is a point of openmindedness at which ones brain will fall out. If an idea isn't worth defending then its not worth keeping.
I accept that there could be things I don't understand for I am not all-knowing and my knowledge is not all-encompassing.
But you don't accept everything that's offered to you, you select. For example if i tell you that there are aliens who will destroy the planet if you respond to this thread you evaluate it as false and go on with your life.
For example if i tell you that there are aliens who will destroy the planet if you respond to this thread you evaluate it as false and go on with your life.
Way to jinx it, man.
Frikkin aliens, proving without a shadow of a doubt the existence of God.
It's always discouraging to see logic met with hostility...but it is sadly common. Embrace rationality and you're a repressive troll douchebag. Nice.
|
I can't explain how Spinoza's argument leads to something you would call "God" unless you first tell me what you call "God".
God: A sentient omnipotent being.
Sentient= self aware
Omnipotent= being able to do any logically consistent thing.
Even the Christian God isn't omnipotent (Titus 1:2). So, you wish to judge a whole range of belief systems by a belief that none of them actually has?
Can not is not does not.
It really is the most open definition of god you're going to get.
I don't care about the most open definition, I care about the most accurate. If you aren't capable of giving an accurate definition of a thing you fervently don't believe in, your position is tenuous at best.
I'll borrow from what I've opined in the past: to be anything more than an advanced version of us, or a kind of immortal no-weaknesses Superman, I believe God must necessarily be both omniscient and omnipotent (and I don't see the need to use both terms; omnipotent should definitively cover everything, but I'll acquiesce in favor of clarity).
An omnipotent God means, to my mind,
(a) one that is transcendent of the material universe (I'm a Physicalist, philosophically) by virtue of the notion that
(b) this God's omnipotence (complete power) must necessarily allow control over all natural processes; and
(c) this God must have command of the creation and destruction of physical systems, including energy and information.
Everything I know of science and the universe does not allow for such a being, could not allow for such a being.
The God of Titus 1:2 is no more than Superman with an odd psychological weakness (the inability to deceive).
Spinoza's God might be defined as the underlying unification of the universe (not to be confused with Newton's watchmaker). It is necessary for the existence of the universe, but is not anthropomorphic, and, in fact, is unaware of our existence or attempts at supplication and worship...that's right; it's why he's considered an atheist.
I don't care about the most open definition, I care about the most accurate. If you aren't capable of giving an accurate definition of a thing you fervently don't believe in, your position is tenuous at best.
OK, so when I give an accurate Biblical definition (which I will require several, few of which will be consistently and uniformly agreed upon by individuals of faith), what I tend to describe--from my point of view, and from a rational, logical perspective--is Superman (red cape, blue tights, underwear on the outside) with the ability to reorganize particles into things.
My definition of God (see above) is Spinoza's God with the tacked-on recognition and concern for its creation (a directed intelligence acting deliberately), and the ability to introduce and remove information from the universe.
As a mere human, I should not be able to imagine God as more than he is.
The Bible's apparent limitations on God necessarily remove his godhood.
It's like giving me a cake and telling me that it meets all the requirements for 'chocolate cake' because that's what your cookbook says...except the cake has no actual chocolate in it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, not really. What would have made me feel good about myself is if I'd had been able to instill in him a desire to learn.
Maybe you should start by learning the definition of irony.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He's defining god, pointing out that Spinoza posits an impersonal god, fundamentally different from the Christian god that this thread implicitly started out talking about.
LilithsThrall, what you have been missing about the ontological argument is that while there are many formulations of it and some of them are indeed more advanced than others; the refutation of the argument is the same for any formulation. Thus bringing up all the different formulations of the ontological argument is pointless since they can all intrinsically be easily refuted in several different ways.