Debate 2 Discussion: Whether there exists a supreme being: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate Discussion » Debate 2 Discussion: Whether there exists a supreme being » Debate 2 Discussion: Whether there exists a supreme being

Debate 2 Discussion: Whether there exists a supreme being

Page: 1 2 3 4

Debate 2 Discussion: Whether there exists a supreme being

spamspamspamandham
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 19, 2003
Location: Antigua 2020 (Dallas area for now)
Total Topics: 83
Total Posts: 4153

Posted 08/04/04 - 07:29 PM:	#76
SimplyPlatonic wrote: If we are talking about a superior being than how more powerful are we talking? If God is indeed pretty darn smart than can't He, like a smart theif(refering to the court of law part) not leave fingerprint's? Also who is saying that an argument is complete, i've yet to see a complete argument. Well, this debate pretty much died. Yes, a really smart being can find a way not to leave fingerprints. The same can be said of a nonexistent being. If you propose the former, why? Why would you assume something exists that leaves no trace? Clearly, you must think it has left a trace, even if that trace is simply your mother telling you about it. If you are willing to entertain things existing that leave no trace, you have your work cut out, since the possible beings are potentially unbounded.
But who is to guard the guards themselves?

SimplyPlatonic
Level 24 RogueWonderer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
Location: Maryland
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 102

Posted 08/05/04 - 08:57 PM:	#77
spamspamspamandham wrote: Well, this debate pretty much died. Yes, a really smart being can find a way not to leave fingerprints. The same can be said of a nonexistent being. If you propose the former, why? Why would you assume something exists that leaves no trace? Clearly, you must think it has left a trace, even if that trace is simply your mother telling you about it. If you are willing to entertain things existing that leave no trace, you have your work cut out, since the possible beings are potentially unbounded. To the debate dying, yes. However I'm sorry I wasn't clearer in the beginning. It seemed that the superior being (God only three letter's so let's go with that) wasn't getting the credit He was due. It seem's to me if God exist's then we exist at, or more likely for, His pleasure. What fun is being God if no one is around to appreciate it? Also, let's say we messed up and did something he didn't like, like selecting the wrong produce . He may still want us, because like Ghandi he 'hates the sin, loves the sinner' (that was Ghandi right? I think I saw that somewhere.) So He still want's us to be around. Well then we have a choice to make then don't we? We can chose hanging out with God, or option B (insert various lifestyle choices). God then, having know all this would happen anyway, wouldn't leave billion's of hat's around so that His existence would be completely obvious. Where is the choice if you know with absolute certainty (or as absolute as it get's) that God exist's. That would be similar to betting on the horse your buddy the mobster already knows will win. To give human's a proper choice, God probably would let human's find out how exactely built for their existence this planet, universe, dimension is. Also he may write a book or have one written for him . And build into the species, like the mating instinct (oh look another built in thing in our universe to keep human's alive), the desire to use their choosing mechanism to ask question's that would lead them to him. Question's like ' Is there a superior being' or 'what is the meaning of life' or 'are there absolute's'. If God does exist and was very smart, like we concedded, then everyone here posting messages is proof that His plan work's.
Your skill in Reading has increased by 1 point

spamspamspamandham
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 19, 2003
Location: Antigua 2020 (Dallas area for now)
Total Topics: 83
Total Posts: 4153

Posted 08/06/04 - 05:39 AM:	#78
SimplyPlatonic wrote: ... Where is the choice if you know with absolute certainty (or as absolute as it get's) that God exist's... People know governments exist, and some choose to break laws anyway. There is no choice without knowledge. You can not make a decision to obey/disobey unless you first know god exists, and you are also aware of his rules.
But who is to guard the guards themselves?

SimplyPlatonic
Level 24 RogueWonderer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
Location: Maryland
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 102

Posted 08/06/04 - 08:51 AM:	#79
spamspamspamandham wrote: People know governments exist, and some choose to break laws anyway. There is no choice without knowledge. You can not make a decision to obey/disobey unless you first know god exists, and you are also aware of his rules. If you break a law made by the government, most people would term this person a criminal. In the same way someone who break's God's law would be termed a sinner. You can make a mistake but still serve God/government. I would obviously be in need of correction if I said that people don't make mistake's. The difference is in the following, a person that doesn't follow God is termed an unbeliever. A person who doesn't follow a government is termed an anarchist. The lawbreaker made a mistake but is still capable of following the government, an anarchist won't (it is agaisnt his/her belief system). A sinner makes a mistake and is still capable of following God(since His/Her core belief's are still bent toward following God), however an unbeliever would have to give up their belief system.
Your skill in Reading has increased by 1 point

spamspamspamandham
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 19, 2003
Location: Antigua 2020 (Dallas area for now)
Total Topics: 83
Total Posts: 4153

Posted 08/06/04 - 10:10 AM:	#80
SimplyPlatonic wrote: If you break a law made by the government, most people would term this person a criminal. In the same way someone who break's God's law would be termed a sinner. You can make a mistake but still serve God/government. I would obviously be in need of correction if I said that people don't make mistake's. Mistakes, are not the same as choices. You insinuated god hides from us so that we can choose whether or not to follow him. I claim that is incoherent, since no such choice can be made about a hidden being, as it is not possible to know his will, or even know of his existence. How do you know his will isn't for us to disbelieve in him? How do you know he doesn't want us to exterminate ourselves? Perhaps his will is for us to disobey his will. Without knowledge of his will, no choice can be made regarding obeying such will.
But who is to guard the guards themselves?

CalypsoPensante
Concordius Ariel appeto

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 16, 2005
Location: Roma
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 444

Posted 08/26/05 - 04:58 PM:	#81
How would you prefer God to revel himself and his will? Once that’s answered ask him to do it, then get back to us to tell us what happened. If he doesn’t do it your way maybe that’s because he thinks his way is better I assume he’s right since the concept of God is infinite wisdom, do you disagree wisdom exists? If so what’s the point of the intellect if not to be applied to the discovery of truth (science) or use truth to improve life (technology)? Also you need to disprove infinity? Since we are finite we can only grasp degrees of infinity, but were is this infinite knowledge existing if its not a self-sufficient causeless causer of truth?
And the next day God made waffles for the man and they were delicious.

RandomPrecision
Divisible by 3

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Elsewhere
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1383

Posted 08/27/05 - 10:32 PM:	#82
Maybe I shouldn't, but... CalypsoPensante wrote: How would you prefer God to revel himself and his will? Once that’s answered ask him to do it, then get back to us to tell us what happened. If he doesn’t do it your way maybe that’s because he thinks his way is better Are you saying that if we ask God to reveal himself, and there is no response, that this is evidence of God's existence? I assume he’s right since the concept of God is infinite wisdom, do you disagree wisdom exists? No - your definition of what God is doesn't necessarily tack on to what we do and do not believe. You may consider God to be infinite wisdom, but if an atheist claims to not believe in God, they may not share the same definition. If I claim that God is a fish, that does not imply that all atheists are also anichthysists, or whatever you call non-believers in fish. If so what’s the point of the intellect if not to be applied to the discovery of truth (science) or use truth to improve life (technology)? Eh? What? Also you need to disprove infinity? Since we are finite we can only grasp degrees of infinity, but were is this infinite knowledge existing if its not a self-sufficient causeless causer of truth? I'm not certain what that means, but once again, not believing in God certainly doesn't mean that one doesn't believe in infinity. I can believe in infinity by noticing that as x increases without bound, it doesn't stop increasing. But, for example, the limit of 1/x as x increases without bound is not my idea of a deity. Godliness isn't an assumed part of infinity. Perhaps your misunderstanding comes from assuming that to not believe in God, we must also not believe in all of God's properties. This is obviously untrue with consideration. An object typically used in demonstrations of non-existent objects is a unicorn. Unicorns have horns, or if you disagree like Owen would, you could say that if they existed, they would have horns. But we can believe in horns without believing in unicorns, because I believe in rhinoceri, goats, and Satchmo.

Page: 1 2 3 4

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.