D
Damian
Guest
So you’ve defined your deity out of justified belief. Your process for logic now makes it impossible to determine the difference between a fantasy and reality.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
Aquinas11
Guest
You’re on “Catholic Answers”, and this isn’t my deity, its the Catholic God. But again, feel free to dodge addressing the Catholic God, on Catholic Answers forum.So you’ve defined your deity…
D
Damian
Guest
I’ve ran this experiment before and got zero results. If I do this again, all I’ll be doing is demonstrating the cultural traditions for someone else to come along and see that religion is still meaningful in the 21st century. It’s just the “fake it till everyone else believes this about you” process of religion. When people have doubts about their faith and can’t talk about these doubts, they look around and see everyone participating in these cultural traditions to bring them back in so they don’t feel left out and eventually they just stop worrying about their lack of belief and just keep pretending for social reward and inclusiveness. Not going to be your billboard for proselytization. Your deity knows what would convince me and is either choosing not to or can not or is not there. Either way, not my problem since there’s nothing I can do about this anyways.
Also, as to the idea that I’m not willing to run the experiment again. Matt Dillahunty lived this experiment, Dan Barker lived this experiment, the website “The Clergy Project” is a living result of this experiment and it’s all failed. “The Clergy Project” is a website to help the clergy, who are now atheists but can not changes careers yet.
Religion was our first attempt at philosophy. Same as alchemy was our first attempt at chemistry and astrology was for astronomy. Two of the three have become irrelevant so far.
Also, as to the idea that I’m not willing to run the experiment again. Matt Dillahunty lived this experiment, Dan Barker lived this experiment, the website “The Clergy Project” is a living result of this experiment and it’s all failed. “The Clergy Project” is a website to help the clergy, who are now atheists but can not changes careers yet.
Religion was our first attempt at philosophy. Same as alchemy was our first attempt at chemistry and astrology was for astronomy. Two of the three have become irrelevant so far.
Last edited:
D
Damian
Guest
How was that a dodge? That is the direct next step from what you stated. I just pointed out the problem with what you presented. You can still believe that deity is there all you want, but I’m explaining why this doesn’t work for people like me. Your system of “justified” belief is broken to me. I’ll leave this to the fair minded readers to see the difference between what you are trying to do and what I actually did.
Last edited:
D
Damian
Guest
No it doesn’t. The pixies were always there, just like your deity.That violates the idea that everything has a beginning, unless these pixies transcend physical reality and the rules of this universe, i.e. they exist outside of it
D
Damian
Guest
Correct, that is the problem with your deity assumption. This is progress.No you can’t demonstrate that, because you’re only allowed to look for “evidence” of the painter in the painting, per your logic.
D
Damian
Guest
Again, it’s just a logical conclusion of where to look in reality for it, not that its there at all. The first cause argument just concludes that there must be a first cause. Okay, it’s universe making pixies that self destruct to create the universe. They always existed up until they decide to create and then, poof, are gone forever after that.
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
What are you doing here on CAF? What compelled you to come here and post?
W
Wesrock
Guest
Sigh…Yes you can logically conclude that there must be a first cause. What that is, we don’t know. Why can’t it be universe creating pixies that self destruct once they choose to create the universe? They were always there up until they exploded to create the universe as well.
One of the problems about being “before time” is that doesn’t make logical since. What does it mean to exist in negative or zero time?
To me, existence is necessarily temporal and able to be detected in reality in some way. Otherwise you are just defining something into existence.
Pixies are not purely actual, are composed of parts, are localizable, you’re attributing existence to them as a predicate, and any number of other things which are automatically ruled out by arguments for the Prime Mover or First Cause and such by ways of remotion
And who is speaking about negative time or a temporal before the universe? It seems to be only you.
Last edited:
A
Aquinas11
Guest
No that’s the whole point. You’re not even addressing our system of belief.Your system of “justified” belief is broken to me.
D
Damian
Guest
Because I’ve stopped at the point where it’s broken to me before you can go forward. So your complaint seems to be, “Well if you’ll just overlook the idea that magic isn’t demonstrated to exist, then we can go on to argue about what house is better to be in at Hogwarts.”
D
Damian
Guest
Pixies are the example to demonstrate that any label of X, God, Pixies, whatever, will work with the first cause argument.
To be out of space and time is the location of the deity correct? To be out of time, means you are in a realm where time does not operate like it does here. Where time isn’t linear it seems. So that means it is logical to conclude that something can exist before time, before time=0. That is negative time. Or at time=0 is a place to exist as well. That is not logically correct. It’s a married bachelor. Just by logic alone, that makes this deity not exist.And who is speaking about negative time or a temporal before the universe? It seems to be only you.
A
Aquinas11
Guest
You’ve stopped because you’re choosing not to address the God of Catholicism , which as I said is absolutely fine with me. There is no argument for us to even make since haven’t even addressed God of CatholicismBecause I’ve stopped at the point where it’s broken to me before you can go forward.
D
Damian
Guest
I like talking about religion, apologetics, etc.
Catholics will not stop at keeping this to themselves, so they are lobbying government to adhere to religious doctrine.
I don’t find being religious a benefit to society.
It’s a public forum to everyone, otherwise everyone here is in an echo chamber.
No one here was invited and you came to the party yourself.
Just to name a few.
Catholics will not stop at keeping this to themselves, so they are lobbying government to adhere to religious doctrine.
I don’t find being religious a benefit to society.
It’s a public forum to everyone, otherwise everyone here is in an echo chamber.
No one here was invited and you came to the party yourself.
Just to name a few.
W
Wesrock
Guest
If you want to say “Pixies” denotes one, unchanging, eternal, non-composite, purely actual, Subsistent Being, which is omnipotence and omniscience and perfectly good, then sure. But if you mean little humanoid critters with wings… no, it does not. They don’t fit the First Cause argument, because the First Cause argument necessarily leads to removing all potential, compositeness, changeability, finiteness, and so on, from it, for any of those effects must be caused.Pixies are the example to demonstrate that any label of X, God, Pixies, whatever, will work with the first cause argument.
No, that’s not what outside time means. It simply means not subject to time, or bound by time. It doesn’t exist in another realm. It isn’t higher dimensional. It would be more accurate to say it’s dimensionless (my own term).To be out of space and time is the location of the deity correct? To be out of time, means you are in a realm where time does not operate like it does here. Where time isn’t linear it seems. So that means it is logical to conclude that something can exist before time, before time=0. That is negative time. Or at time=0 is a place to exist as well. That is not logically correct. It’s a married bachelor. Just by logic alone, that makes this deity not exist.And who is speaking about negative time or a temporal before the universe? It seems to be only you.
Last edited:
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
Exactly. God doesn’t change, He has no potentiality. He just Is. He is being itself.
D
Damian
Guest
I have addressed your argument for your deity. I understand justified belief in the existence of something to mean two points: 1) that it is necessarily temporal. 2) detectable in reality in some way to us.
You defined your deity to be undetectable at all or ever. That creates a logical break for me. A married bachelor. So people are not justified to believe it exists at this point. That’s why I’m still an atheist and teaching people where my disconnect is with the religious when they want to convert people like me. I’m fine with having a model of reality that matches actual reality, regardless of how I feel about it. For example: the US Healthcare system causes people to ration their healthcare. I don’t like it, but it’s a truth of reality. I may not like the idea of your deity actually being part of reality, but that’s irrelevant to it actually being there. You can still be a theist and not worship the deity. I’m not even a theist yet.
You defined your deity to be undetectable at all or ever. That creates a logical break for me. A married bachelor. So people are not justified to believe it exists at this point. That’s why I’m still an atheist and teaching people where my disconnect is with the religious when they want to convert people like me. I’m fine with having a model of reality that matches actual reality, regardless of how I feel about it. For example: the US Healthcare system causes people to ration their healthcare. I don’t like it, but it’s a truth of reality. I may not like the idea of your deity actually being part of reality, but that’s irrelevant to it actually being there. You can still be a theist and not worship the deity. I’m not even a theist yet.
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Nope because you’re requiring it be finite entityhave addressed your argument for your deity.
D
Damian
Guest
How do you get that a first cause is unchanging?unchanging
How do you get that a first cause has to be eternal moving forward from t=0?
“non-composite” = that’s not a positive descriptor, its telling me what it isn’t. Ex: if I try to describe a shoe as not a glove, have I told you any positive description of the shoe?
“purely actual” = no idea what this means.
“substitent being” = no idea what this means
omnipotence = how can you tell the difference between any powerful being over a level that you can’t tell the difference in it’s power any more to determine this and that you’ve looked at all beings to compare? lesser pixies could make realities as well for example.
“omniscience” = how can you determine that someone knows everything or just knows the answers to all your questions?
omniscience and omnipotence = starting to sound like north korean government.
“perfectly good” = good is subjective, your deity is my version of a devil.
No it doesn’t. If you don’t explain how this is the case, other than an assertion, you’ll just get an assertion back.They don’t fit the First Cause argument, because the First Cause argument necessarily leads to removing all potential, compositeness, changeability, finiteness, and so on, from it, for any of those effects must be caused.
Married bachelor again. Thought is necessarily linear. A to B to C, and so on. So you’re saying that you can have a thought before you have your thought that you thought? Logic is broken here for me.It simply means not subject to time
“dimensionless” = again a term that tells me what it is not, not what it is. See my shoe/glove analogy.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Again, it’d make more sense to simply challenge Aquinas’ belief that you can arrive at universally real first principles from observing particulars. Go into skepticism, idealism, something else. I’d disagree with you, but to suggest that even if we take Aquinas’ arguments the “divine attributes” don’t follow and that it could be an invisible unicorn just fundamentally doesn’t get even the basics of the arguments.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.