A classic: From creator god ==> Specific God

Author: ludofl3x

Posts

Total: 1,007
#661
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
But surely the argument is that as the bible contains an uncannily accurate prophecy of events more than 500 years in its future...
Therefore, that one prediction is accurate for unknown reasons (pure chance cannot be excluded) and this has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on any other part of the book, especially the parts that are not even written by the same author as the uncannily accurate prophecy section.
#662
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
The material realm is comprised of 100% pure noumenon.

The material realm is some unknown fraction of the whole (noumenon).
In the same way that your hand is comprised of 100% you.

And your hand is some fraction (0.66% by mass) of the whole you.
#663
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not saying I go for it!  But it seems to be what pga thinks.

My approach is to unpick what Daniel 9 really is.  It's not an uncanny prophecy - it's a description of past and current events written in the 2nd century BC made to look like an uncanny prophecy from hundreds of year before.  pga is unreceptive to that idea - but then, I don't expect him to be.
 
#664
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
Science changing its position is WHY SCIENCE WORKS as well as it does. It's how we advance: by not accepting the answer that the sun goes around the earth.
The point is that what we think is "right" via science changes as we learn more. We never understand the whole picture, just segments of it. How will you know when what you believe is true to what is? 

Let's say you were ill: would you want medical treatment described in the bible, or medical treatments described by modern science?
What does this have to do with origins? The difference is between medical science and origins is scientism. You can't repeat origins. You can only set up experiments that give credence to your paradigm and ignore the annoying issues that don't fit the paradigm.

The Bible described treatments for a period of history not as advanced as ours, yet principles still apply today. We understand that mould is a serious health issue, We understand that life is in the blood, whereas draining the blood (bloodletting) weakens and can kills the human.

You start having seizures, do you want a scientist who says "Let's look at your brain with all the advances of modern technology and neurological theory and information, find the problem and try to solve it," or do you want a doctor who says "Sorry, man, it's clearly demonic possession wrought upon you likely for something your grandfather did to offend the god who sits behind the sun, I'm afraid the only answer is to go out into the wilderness, beg for forgiveness until madness overtakes you"?
Medical science is science that can be repeated and confirmed. The science of origins is not. The assumption is that the present is the key to the past for we interpret the past from the present. 

One's biblically sound. The other is science. Choose carefully! 


Again, you confuse the relevant audience of address as to conditions applying to us today. The principle of burning the house down if mould was found was sound for that period of time because they did not have the chemicals or advanced understanding we do to treat mould. God is not speaking directly to us but to a culture vastly different in its knowledge from ours. There example witnesses to us. 
#665
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
The atheistic worldview has nothing to offer.

Except the truth.
But the truth really frightens you.
#666
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
But surely the argument is that as the bible contains an uncannily accurate prophecy of events more than 500 years in its future
But it doesn't.

#667
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
The Bible described treatments for a period of history
According to you the bible is the word of god ergo your god says that illness is caused by evil demons. Was your god being truthful?

#668
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
These were Hebrew manuscripts recorded on silver sheets, on these scrolls were dated to before the Babylonian captivity (586 B.C.) were portions of the priestly benediction from Numbers 6:24-26 and phrases from other books of the Bible, Exodus 20:6, Deuteronomy 5:10 and 20:6. [LINK]

The silver scrolls were mentioned on a show I was watching yesterday (season 1 episode 24 [LINK]).  Apparently at least some portions of the old testament have maintained their grammatical integrity since at least 586 BCE.
#669
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@disgusted
...evil demons...
Germs, evil demons, bacteria, viruses, malnutrition...  It's really just semantics right?

Have you balanced your humors today? [LINK]
#670
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@disgusted
But surely the argument is that as the bible contains an uncannily accurate prophecy of events more than 500 years in its future
But it doesn't.
bUT, let's say for the sake of argument that it does.  Hypothetically speaking, what would be the logical implications?
#671
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
The point is that what we think is "right" via science changes as we learn more. We never understand the whole picture, just segments of it. How will you know when what you believe is true to what is? 
Science merely aims for the bar of efficacy, not infallibility.

Pursuing infallibility is a fool's errand.
Topic's author
#672
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Again, you confuse the relevant audience of address as to conditions applying to us today. The principle of burning the house down if mould was found was sound for that period of time because they did not have the chemicals or advanced understanding we do to treat mould. God is not speaking directly to us but to a culture vastly different in its knowledge from ours. There example witnesses to us. 
Your argument then is that parts of the bible should not be applied to today's far more intelligent and advanced culture, correct? NOw we know mold is not a "burn your house down" problem. Now we know seizures are not a "demonic possession problem," but they are rooted in other medical conditions, and we can solve those. Cool, agree, I wouldn't use a 2000 year old medical textbook for any reason, at all. I wouldn't take home maintenance advice from people who lived in huts and tents and thought if you found mold, the only way to solve it was to burn down your house. That would be dumb, especially considering I have no way to tell who the authors are, what they knew, or if anything in their book is real. Apparently back then talking donkeys existed, so clearly, things have changed. 

Except...why then would I put any stock in the moral pronouncements in this book? IN other words, what process are you using to say "this part here only really applied to this time period in this region to these people," from the parts that we can now discard because they clearly no longer apply? Is that process scientific in any way? If I wouldn't use a 2000 year old medical textbook, why would I use a 2000 year old moral code? Why would I use a 2000 year old ANYTHING, actually? I mean if I couldn't verify it against what we know today, right?

Wouldn't the same thinking apply to the biblical moral compass: how do I know this part was meant for today, and that part was meant for just back then? For example, should I stone a non-virgin bride in front of her dad? Does THAT principle apply today? Probably not, because it makes you uncomfortable, right? THIS IS RELATIVISM. Should I not eat shellfish? Maybe I am going to burn in hell for wearing mixed fabrics? Or was that one of the ones that we can ignore now? Slave ownership, yay or nay? Stoning gays, should or shouldn't? Either morality is objective and unchanging, or it's relative and situational. It can't be both. But you can quit with the only way to tell right from wrong is by Jesus, because that book, which you just said only seems to have applied in full to an illiterate people from thousands of years ago, is outdated in parts. 

Not to mention its pronouncements are contingent on the character being real, and it being the one who created the universe, annnnnnnddd....you've not stepped in that direction yet. Page 27.
Topic's author
#673
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
I would argue on the impossibility of the contrary. I don't understand how a universe without a necessary Being is possible. 

You keep stepping in this. 
Then explain how it is possible and how it makes sense. I want to see the logic of your position once you jettison God as to how it is possible or makes sense.
I'm putting this here for clarity sake. For the sake of THIS TOPIC, I'm granting that indeed a necessary being is not only possible, but it is what created the universe. The challenge is to connect 'necessary being' to the character bolded without either asserting it or pointing to a holy text, because that's a claim, not evidence, and every faith with holy texts will make the same claim with the same level of certainty. NEcessary being, agree. Particular being, please demonstrate. 

#674
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
If you have any evidence that is not anecdotal in nature I would be happy to see it. I love to learn. That does not however mean that I am able to believe in things that have not been demonstrated and a definition is not a demonstration. 

Please explain how you are (more) correct and pga is (less) correct from the perspective of the evidence you each claim to have. He claims to have a book of revealed truth from some god(s) which is purportedly transcendent and necessary and which gives true and accurate prophesy and also that he pga is (more) correct and that you Yessine are (less) correct or perhaps even wrong I'm not sure which.

Given that you make very similar claims with evidence that is anecdotal or based on tautologies that have not been demonstrated how shall I possibly choose between christianity or Islam? That is if either is in fact (more) correct since disproving one would in no way prove the other.

- What tautologies...? I already provided the demonstration, which you consistently deleted. One more time:


Definition:
God is a Necessary (necessarily existent) Singular (simple & unique) Absolute (with absolutely free will) & Transcendent (distinct from all creation) being, from the scriptural definition of Allah in Chapter 112 of the Quran.

Argument:
1. A contingent being (a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed) exists. [ evident ]
2. This contingent being has a cause of its existence. [ follows from 1. ]
3. The cause of its existence is something other than itself. [ follows from 1. & 2. ]
4. This cause must either be a contingent or a non-contingent -necessary- being. [ law of excluded middle ]
5. Contingent beings solely are not sufficient for the existence of a contingent being. [ follows from 3. ]
6. This cause must include a necessary being. [ follows from 4. & 5. ]
7. Therefore, a Necessary being (a being such that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists. [ follows from 1. & 7. ]
8. Two necessary distinct beings exist. [ assumption ]
9. A difference between the distinct necessary beings exists. [ follows from 8. ]
10. This difference is either necessary or contingent. [ law of excluded middle ]
11. If the difference is necessary, then three necessary beings exist. [ absurd! ]
12. If the difference is contingent (has a cause or an explanation for its existence), then at least one of the two necessary beings is contingent (has a cause or explanation for its/their existence). [ absurd! ]
13. Therefore, a necessary being is one (i.e. unique). [ follows from 10. & 11. & 12.]
14. Similarly, a necessary being is simple (i.e does not have parts) [ substitute "necessary beings" with "parts" in 9. ]
15. Therefore, the necessary being is Singular (i.e. unique & simple). [ follows from 13. & 14. ]
16. The sum of all contingent beings is not singular. [ evident ]
17. Therefore, the sum of all contingent beings is Distinct from the necessary being. [follows from 15. & 16. ]
18. Therefore, the necessary being is Transcendent from the sum all contingent beings. [ follows from 17. ]
19. The sum of all contingent beings is contingent (not necessary, i.e. not identical to the necessary being). [ follows from 15. & 17. ]
20. The sum of all contingent beings is contingent on a necessary being. [ follows from 2. & 3. & 6. & 19. ]
21. The necessary being is the sole cause of the existence of the sum of all contingent beings. [ follows from 15. & 20. ]
22. The attribute to cause the sum of all contingent being exists (Will). [ evident from 19. ]
23. All contingent beings are equally non-existent prior to existence. [ evident ]
24. The Will is Absolutely Free. [ follows from 22. & 23. ] 
25. Therefore, a Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute being exists. [ follows from 7. & 15. & 18. & 24. ] 
C. Therefore, God exits. [ as defined in the Quran ]

#675
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
You define "first mover and sustainer" as a logical necessity.  You call this "first mover and sustainer" god.
I define "first mover and sustainer" as a logical necessity.  I call this "first mover and sustainer" noumenon.
When an atheist says "your god doesn't exist", you jump to the conclusion that they are denying the logical necessity and call them "illogical".

- If they are, then indeed they are.


They are not denying the logical necessity.  They just call it by a different name.  The big bang, the unknown, noumenon, Magnum Mysterium.

- Different names don't change the definition itself.


The key problem we are here to explore and hopefully solve is, "(IFF) there must be a creator (THEN) what can we possibly know about it? (AND) which of the mythical gods (if any) best describe the logical necessity?"

- You really don't know what IFF means...
#676
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Yassine
1. A contingent being (a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed) exists. [ evident ]
If this is true why are all gods the creation of men.

#677
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
What tautologies...?
This one 
Definition:
God is a Necessary (necessarily existent) Singular (simple & unique) Absolute (with absolutely free will) & Transcendent (distinct from all creation) being, from the scriptural definition of Allah in Chapter 112 of the Quran.

Let's try this.

Definition:
God is a Necessary (necessarily existent) Singular (simple & unique) Absolute (with absolutely free will) & Transcendent (distinct from all creation) being, definition of the FSM courtesy of The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Now I did not look in The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster I just copied your text but the FSM is perportedly all those things so even if the wording is different than yours let's consider this an approximation. Now does this deffinition necessitate the flying spaghetti monster? If the definition is not enough then logically 

Argument:
1. A contingent being (a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed) exists. [ evident ]
2. This contingent being has a cause of its existence. [ follows from 1. ]
3. The cause of its existence is something other than itself. [ follows from 1. & 2. ]
4. This cause must either be a contingent or a non-contingent -necessary- being. [ law of excluded middle ]
5. Contingent beings solely are not sufficient for the existence of a contingent being. [ follows from 3. ]
6. This cause must include a necessary being. [ follows from 4. & 5. ]
7. Therefore, a Necessary being (a being such that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists. [ follows from 1. & 7. ]
8. Two necessary distinct beings exist. [ assumption ]
9. A difference between the distinct necessary beings exists. [ follows from 8. ]
10. This difference is either necessary or contingent. [ law of excluded middle ]
11. If the difference is necessary, then three necessary beings exist. [ absurd! ]
12. If the difference is contingent (has a cause or an explanation for its existence), then at least one of the two necessary beings is contingent (has a cause or explanation for its/their existence). [ absurd! ]
13. Therefore, a necessary being is one (i.e. unique). [ follows from 10. & 11. & 12.]
14. Similarly, a necessary being is simple (i.e does not have parts) [ substitute "necessary beings" with "parts" in 9. ]
15. Therefore, the necessary being is Singular (i.e. unique & simple). [ follows from 13. & 14. ]
16. The sum of all contingent beings is not singular. [ evident ]
17. Therefore, the sum of all contingent beings is Distinct from the necessary being. [follows from 15. & 16. ]
18. Therefore, the necessary being is Transcendent from the sum all contingent beings. [ follows from 17. ]
19. The sum of all contingent beings is contingent (not necessary, i.e. not identical to the necessary being). [ follows from 15. & 17. ]
20. The sum of all contingent beings is contingent on a necessary being. [ follows from 2. & 3. & 6. & 19. ]
21. The necessary being is the sole cause of the existence of the sum of all contingent beings. [ follows from 15. & 20. ]
22. The attribute to cause the sum of all contingent being exists (Will). [ evident from 19. ]
23. All contingent beings are equally non-existent prior to existence. [ evident ]
24. The Will is Absolutely Free. [ follows from 22. & 23. ] 
25. Therefore, a Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute being exists. [ follows from 7. & 15. & 18. & 24. ] 
C. Therefore, the FSM exits. [ as defined in The Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I see no reason to accept the Quran and deny The Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster. 

#678
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@disgusted
1. A contingent being (a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed) exists. [ evident ]
If this is true why are all gods the creation of men.

- Non-sequitur. Do you have an objection?
#679
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin

What tautologies...?
This one 
Definition:
God is a Necessary (necessarily existent) Singular (simple & unique) Absolute (with absolutely free will) & Transcendent (distinct from all creation) being, from the scriptural definition of Allah in Chapter 112 of the Quran.
- LOL! No it isn't. Seriously?! -_-


Let's try this.

Definition:
God is a Necessary (necessarily existent) Singular (simple & unique) Absolute (with absolutely free will) & Transcendent (distinct from all creation) being, definition of the FSM courtesy of The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Now I did not look in The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster I just copied your text but the FSM is perportedly all those things so even if the wording is different than yours let's consider this an approximation. Now does this deffinition necessitate the flying spaghetti monster? If the definition is not enough then logically 

Argument:
1. A contingent being (a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed) exists. [ evident ]
2. This contingent being has a cause of its existence. [ follows from 1. ]
3. The cause of its existence is something other than itself. [ follows from 1. & 2. ]
4. This cause must either be a contingent or a non-contingent -necessary- being. [ law of excluded middle ]
5. Contingent beings solely are not sufficient for the existence of a contingent being. [ follows from 3. ]
6. This cause must include a necessary being. [ follows from 4. & 5. ]
7. Therefore, a Necessary being (a being such that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists. [ follows from 1. & 7. ]
8. Two necessary distinct beings exist. [ assumption ]
9. A difference between the distinct necessary beings exists. [ follows from 8. ]
10. This difference is either necessary or contingent. [ law of excluded middle ]
11. If the difference is necessary, then three necessary beings exist. [ absurd! ]
12. If the difference is contingent (has a cause or an explanation for its existence), then at least one of the two necessary beings is contingent (has a cause or explanation for its/their existence). [ absurd! ]
13. Therefore, a necessary being is one (i.e. unique). [ follows from 10. & 11. & 12.]
14. Similarly, a necessary being is simple (i.e does not have parts) [ substitute "necessary beings" with "parts" in 9. ]
15. Therefore, the necessary being is Singular (i.e. unique & simple). [ follows from 13. & 14. ]
16. The sum of all contingent beings is not singular. [ evident ]
17. Therefore, the sum of all contingent beings is Distinct from the necessary being. [follows from 15. & 16. ]
18. Therefore, the necessary being is Transcendent from the sum all contingent beings. [ follows from 17. ]
19. The sum of all contingent beings is contingent (not necessary, i.e. not identical to the necessary being). [ follows from 15. & 17. ]
20. The sum of all contingent beings is contingent on a necessary being. [ follows from 2. & 3. & 6. & 19. ]
21. The necessary being is the sole cause of the existence of the sum of all contingent beings. [ follows from 15. & 20. ]
22. The attribute to cause the sum of all contingent being exists (Will). [ evident from 19. ]
23. All contingent beings are equally non-existent prior to existence. [ evident ]
24. The Will is Absolutely Free. [ follows from 22. & 23. ] 
25. Therefore, a Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute being exists. [ follows from 7. & 15. & 18. & 24. ] 
C. Therefore, the FSM exits. [ as defined in The Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I see no reason to accept the Quran and deny The Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster. 

- It's the strictly the same thing, you defined FSM as God is defined in the Quran. You can't accept one & deny the other, for they are one & identical The demonstration establishes that a Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute being exists. This being just happens to be identical to God as defined in the Quran. Calling this being 'FSM' or '007' or '&(!%&)!' does not change the meaning. 
#680
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Yassine
We know that all gods are the creation of men, so whatever god you worship, like all gods is contingent on men.
#681
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@disgusted
We know that all gods are the creation of men, so whatever god you worship, like all gods is contingent on men.

- How do we know this? Proof. On the other hand, as established, a noncontingent Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute being exists.

#682
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
- It's the strictly the same thing, you defined FSM as God is defined in the Quran. You can't accept one & deny the other, for they are one & identical The demonstration establishes that a Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute being exists. This being just happens to be identical to God as defined in the Quran. Calling this being 'FSM' or '007' or '&(!%&)!' does not change the meaning. 
Allah is a giant plate of sentient spaghetti? That is something that I didn't know about him.

#683
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6

Allah is a giant plate of sentient spaghetti? That is something that I didn't know about him.
- No, that involves an entirely different definition. Once you define FSM as the necessary singular transcendent & absolute being, it can not also be some spaghetti character, for that is decidedly not a necessary being, for it is contingent on space. Any thing which is contingent on space or time can not be a necessary being, by definition. This is called an equivocation fallacy.
#684
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Yassine
We know this because it's only ever men who claim millions of gods exist.
#685
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
- No, that involves an entirely different definition. Once you define FSM as the necessary singular transcendent & absolute being, it can not also be some spaghetti character, for that is decidedly not a necessary being, for it is contingent on space. Any thing which is contingent on space or time can not be a necessary being, by definition. This is called an equivocation fallacy.
That's a rotten piece of argumentation!  If you define the FSM as the 'necessary singular transcendent & absolute being' then the FSM is neccessary by definition.  To see that, check out the definition of the FSM just given!

I can apply that to anything.  If I define Yhwh, Allah or Zeus as neccessary they become neccessary by definition!  But that doesn't make them actually neccessary.

One can - using word games and chop logic - show that the origin of the universe was damn odd.  But you can't prove its oddness was due to a god, even less can you prove it was the god of some preferred religion.   That is matter of unprovable faith.


 
#686
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Yassine
- It's the strictly the same thing, you defined FSM as God is defined in the Quran. You can't accept one & deny the other, for they are one & identical The demonstration establishes that a Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute being exists. This being just happens to be identical to God as defined in the Quran. Calling this being 'FSM' or '007' or '&(!%&)!' does not change the meaning. 
Great, so we all agree.

It would seem that we've arrived at DEISM.

Please explain how any of this (Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute) hypothetically necessitates one particular religious tradition and excludes all others?
#687
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Yassine
The key problem we are here to explore and hopefully solve is, "(IFF) there must be a creator (THEN) what can we possibly know about it? (AND) which of the mythical gods (if any) best describe the logical necessity?"
- You really don't know what IFF means...
The key problem we are here to explore and hopefully solve is, "IF THERE MUST BE A CREATOR, THEN WHAT CAN WE POSSIBLY KNOW ABOUT IT?  AND WHICH OF THE MYTHICAL GODS (IF ANY) BEST DESCRIBE THE LOGICAL NECESSITY?"

Is that phrasing easier for you to understand?
#688
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
- No, that involves an entirely different definition. Once you define FSM as the necessary singular transcendent & absolute being, it can not also be some spaghetti character, for that is decidedly not a necessary being, for it is contingent on space. Any thing which is contingent on space or time can not be a necessary being, by definition. This is called an equivocation fallacy.

I only applied a definition to the FSM that prove a the FSM is necessary. Necessary and necessarily Allah are not the same thing. You are the one that said Allah and the FSM are one not me.
#689
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
That's a rotten piece of argumentation!
- You mean rotten understanding, not rotten argumentation.


If you define the FSM as the 'necessary singular transcendent & absolute being' then the FSM is neccessary by definition.  To see that, check out the definition of the FSM just given!
I can apply that to anything.  If I define Yhwh, Allah or Zeus as neccessary they become neccessary by definition!  But that doesn't make them actually neccessary.
- No. That's called existential import. Even if you identify 'necessary singular transcendent & absolute being' with FSM or Zeus or what have you, it does not follow that these exist. You have to give that identification an existential import, i.e. demonstrate the existence of the 'necessary singular transcendent & absolute being'. Once demonstrated, then it exists regardless of what you like to call it or identify it with. In this case, the Quran indeed defines God as the 'necessary singular transcendent & absolute being', if the latter exists then God (as defined in the Quran) exists, by definition. As demonstrated priorly, indeed, a 'necessary singular transcendent & absolute being' exists, therefore God exists, by definition. If you like to call this being Zeus, it's just a label. However, in this sense Zeus can not be identified with its mythological character while at teh same time being identified with this being, for he simply is not necessarily existent (being contingent) nor transcendent (being material) nor absolute (not being omnipotent) & nor singular (being complex & not simple). The same goes for the other characters.

- To illustrate an example drawing from what you said, I can define Zeus as 'the god of the Greeks' & say, therefore 'Zeus is God', both propositions may be true, but have no existential import. Even if Zeus is God, this doesn't say anything about wether he exists. Going back to what you said, even if Zeus is defined as a necessary being, this doesn't say anything about his existence. That has to be demonstrated on its own right.


One can - using word games and chop logic - show that the origin of the universe was damn odd.  But you can't prove its oddness was due to a god, even less can you prove it was the god of some preferred religion. That is matter of unprovable faith.
- Once you demonstrate the origin of the universe is a 'necessary singular transcendent & absolute being', as priorly done, it is safe for a Muslim to assume this is indeed God, for it is thus defined in the Quran.

#690
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Great, so we all agree.

It would seem that we've arrived at DEISM.

Please explain how any of this (Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute) hypothetically necessitates one particular religious tradition and excludes all others?

- Again, the Quran defines God as the Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute being. This, however, does not exclude other tradition, as long as they believe in God too.