unknown title: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate Discussion » unknown title » unknown title

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

unknown title

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002

Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 04/17/04 - 02:17 PM:	#1
Our first god debate... Hope it goes well. Enjoy!

sensabile
Hungry Mogwai

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England

Total Topics: 132
Total Posts: 4312

Posted 04/17/04 - 02:26 PM:	#2
Interlocutor wrote: Hope it goes well. Enjoy! I am sceptical of this debate. I hope it goes well and is fruitful, but I think it shall end in a labyrinth.
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002

Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 04/17/04 - 02:33 PM:	#3
I think it begins in a labyrinth on top of a peak shrouded in roiling thunderheads. These two are smart chaps. I'm hopeful that one of them will be able to lead us to the fair pastures below.

sensabile
Hungry Mogwai

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England

Total Topics: 132
Total Posts: 4312

Posted 04/17/04 - 02:43 PM:	#4
Interlocutor wrote: I think it begins in a labyrinth on top of a peak shrouded in roiling thunderheads. These two are smart chaps. I'm hopeful that one of them will be able to lead us to the fair pastures below. I am not disputing that the people debating are brave, intelligent and honourable - they are indeed far braver than myself - but I believe that no logical argument can secure a proof of the existence of anything. Words have no direct warrant on existence, and so only a conceptual, or metaphysical, supreme being can be argued; only a theoretical being can be discussed and so the real question is: can a theoretical supreme being exist? I am an agnostic, which I agree is a matter of belief, but I feel no temptation to change my viewpoint. I do wish them all the best though and I do hope for a productive debate; I am only sceptical of the outcome - and partly of the question.
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002

Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 04/17/04 - 03:00 PM:	#5
but I believe that no logical argument can secure a proof of the existence of anything. So you can't logically proove that you exist? Or do you mean that since our concepts perhaps don't represent to us any necessary understanding of things that all we can ever really prove is that a particular conceptual object exists, and not the real object itself?

sensabile
Hungry Mogwai

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England

Total Topics: 132
Total Posts: 4312

Posted 04/17/04 - 03:17 PM:	#6
Interlocutor wrote: So you can't logically proove that you exist? Or do you mean that since our concepts perhaps don't represent to us any necessary understanding of things that all we can ever really prove is that a particular conceptual object exists, and not the real object itself? I believe that logic links things together and is a good way of producing new truths from already known truths; it is foolish to use logic though, in a way to produce new truths from nothing. I can logically prove that I exist because there are certain things which are self evident to me, namely that I am a thinking thing and a type of induction is needed in which to procure a strata in which to base deduction on - I am a thinking thing and I am yet to find myself to be anything other than a thinking thing. By the very nature of the self evident truth, that I am a thinking thing, I can say I exist, not only in theory, but in actual fact because it requires a being's existence. The characteristics of a supreme being - i.e. that he is infinite and perfect - do not warrant his existence and only strengthen one's convinction that it can only be a theoretical discussion.
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002

Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 04/17/04 - 03:21 PM:	#7
I'm not sure that "infinite" and "perfect" are necessary attributes of a supreme being. Would you agree with Kant then, that speculative reason is simply incabable of proving or disproving God's existence?

sensabile
Hungry Mogwai

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England

Total Topics: 132
Total Posts: 4312

Posted 04/17/04 - 03:27 PM:	#8
Interlocutor wrote: Would you agree with Kant then, that speculative reason is simply incabable of proving or disproving God's existence? I have read nothing of Kant and so I would be unsure of whether I agree or disagree with him, but I do agree that most reasoning is futile in it's attempts to prove the existence of a supreme being. I will not deny that there perhaps is some way to prove the existence of a supreme being, because I agree with Bacon that lack of conviction should not mean that we do not at least make an attempt.
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 10, 2002

Total Topics: 465
Total Posts: 12175

Posted 04/17/04 - 08:09 PM:	#9
sensabile wrote: I believe that no logical argument can secure a proof of the existence of anything Certainly true (proving the self is not logical argument, but simple stipulation/definition), but that obviously doesn't make it impossible to argue for anything. I can't prove that there aren't pink elephants flying around overhead, but that does not imply that I can't convince a reasonable person that there aren't. All meaningful truths cannot be derived by logical proof, since if they were derived that way they would lack content. As 180 Proof would say, there is but one tautology and Wittgenstein is its prophet. If you make god into a logical proof then you've eliminated god by taking away all his content and thus the atheist wins. If you don't reduce him to tautology, then you can debate the evidence.

sensabile
Hungry Mogwai

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England

Total Topics: 132
Total Posts: 4312

Posted 04/18/04 - 02:38 AM:	#10
Paul wrote: If you don't reduce him to tautology, then you can debate the evidence. But what evidence is there that doesn't require faith?
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.