I'm attempting to prove god or no god through rhetoric or logic. Please drop preconceived notions and pleas to solipism or emotion. Let's look at the world the way it really is.
Aristotle:
Axiom 1: “all men suppose what is called wisdom (sophia) to deal with the first causes (aitia) and the principles (archai) of things” (Aristotle's Metaphysics)
Proof : This is self evident
Axiom 2: "ALL men by nature desire to know" [Ibid]
Proof: "An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves; and above all others the sense of sight. For not only with a view to action, but even when we are not going to do anything, we prefer seeing (one might say) to everything else. The reason is that this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things. " [Ibid]
Axiom 3: "With a view to action experience seems in no respect inferior to art, and men of experience succeed even better than those who have theory without experience. (The reason is that experience is knowledge of individuals, art of universals, and actions and productions are all concerned with the individual;" [Ibid]
Proof: "for the physician does not cure man, except in an incidental way,... If, then, a man has the theory without the experience, and recognizes the universal but does not know the individual included in this, he will often fail to cure; for it is the individual that is to be cured" [Ibid]
Corollary to Axiom 3: "Again, we do not regard any of the senses as Wisdom; yet surely these give the most authoritative knowledge of particulars. But they do not tell us the 'why' of anything-e.g. why fire is hot; they only say that it is hot." [ibid]
Axiom 4: "Evidently we have to acquire knowledge of the original causes (for we say we know each thing only when we think we recognize its first cause), and causes are spoken of in four senses. In one of these we mean the substance, i.e. the essence (for the 'why' is reducible finally to the definition, and the ultimate 'why' is a cause and principle); in another the matter or substratum, in a third the source of the change, and in a fourth the cause opposed to this, the purpose and the good (for this is the end of all generation and change). We have studied these causes sufficiently in our work on nature, but yet let us call to our aid those who have attacked the investigation of being and philosophized about reality before us. For obviously they too speak of certain principles and causes; to go over their views, then, will be of profit to the present inquiry, for we shall either find another kind of cause, or be more convinced of the correctness of those which we now maintain. " [Ibid]
Proof: proving this would give me too much of a headache.
[to be continued.............]
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
First off: you don't prove axioms. They are your starting points. Typically you make your axioms simple, self evident, and non-controversial; so no one will question/reject them (hopefully). If you find yourself defending them right away, you probably bit off too much to start, and need simpler axioms.
If I assume you labelled them axioms by mistake then:
I see no reason to accept #1 or #4
I think #2 is probably false
#3 might be acceptable, but it is so wishy-washy I doubt it will be of any use
Rhetoric does not provide proof.
Nyarlathjotep and Anser, I welcome the rebuke with open arms. I'm trying to find a good philosophical argument for framing discussion, discourse and debate. I thought I would start with aristotle. But if that is not acceptable, I am open to another line of logic
@Vincent paul tran,
No rebuke was intended on my part. In fact, I applaud your effort to actually frame a logical discussion.
It occurs to me that in order to logically discuss the possibility of the existence or lack there of of god that a definition of god must be proposed.
"in order to logically discuss the possibility of the existence or lack there of of god that a definition of god must be proposed."
Exactly.
But that, like Nyarlathotep wrote about, is an example of an axiom that is too much to chew. Is it even possible for two theists to agree on a definition of their god?
VPT - "I thought I would start with aristotle. But if that is not acceptable, I am open to another line of logic"
I agree with Anser: it is a noble effort.
And I don't think there is anything wrong with your basic idea. I'm just offering the advise:
step 1: give a list of simple axioms you can get most people to agree with, without an argument
step 2: create a logical line of reasoning from those axioms to lead to the conclusion(s) you are trying to reach.
example:
Given:
1. God is the most powerful being in existence.
2. Joe is more powerful than Bob.
Conclusion(s):
1. Bob is not god.
Now anyone who accepts those 2 axioms, will probably be forced to agree with the conclusion (because it seems logical). In essence you should be trying to lay a trap: That once someone accepts your axioms, then they will be forced to accept your conclusions. The more wiggle room you introduce/allow, the less powerful your trap will be.
Nyarlathotep, I appreciated the kind advice, but I'm not looking to win souls to my twisted ideologies. I'm trying to untwist them and get my mind as aligned to reality as I possibly can.
Anser, I would have to hold a minor contention with you there. If an argument does not hold up rhetorically, either the person forming the argument needs better rhetoric or needs to abandon her argument. I wish for this thread to be a thought experiment to see if a linguistically consistent case can be made for either or both atheism and theism, and if so, which is the best for either case.
Rhetoric is the art of persuasion but in itself is not proof. Using rhetoric to convince another person of the truth of your argument doesn't necessarily prove it's true but only convinces another that it's true.
" I wish for this thread to be a thought experiment to see if a linguistically consistent case can be made for either or both atheism and theism, and if so, which is the best for either case."
I see now what you're attempting.
Okay, I'll start:
All human beings are born atheists. As they have no language and little comprehension besides direct stimulus they do not believe in god.
I will take up the platonic thought experiment then. Are we born with all the knowledge we will ever know, and life is just a process of uncovering what we already know and disproving what we have been told is true but what we already know is wrong?
We are born with almost no knowledge of what surrounds us. We immediately begin to learn. The only knowledge intrinsic to us is that we need to survive.
so what other knowledge is there to learn other than that needed for survival?
There is no knowledge other than that of survival.
Anser, could you elaborate your position? I learn stuff all the time that doesn't seem to impact whether I live or die
All information feeds into survival even if you disregard some information as false.
A tongue in cheek example is having enough knowledge to not shout Praise Jesus! in a Mosque full of devote Moslems.
Then there's "being all you can be".
http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/hierarchyneeds.htm
Anser, thank you. The problem with stating the definition of a possible god is no one has actually encountered one in the tangible world :/ (unless you count Jesus, which I do)
unless he was some sort of dark sorcerer..........
Yea I like that one better. Jesus was a dark magician :D
VPT - "The problem with stating the definition of a possible god is no one has actually encountered one in the tangible world"
Right, which means when someone tells you something about god, at best it is wild speculation, at worst it is sheer fantasy.
I suggest this is why most of us here don't take anything serious believers (like Jamal) have to say about deities; because we can just walk 10 feet down the road and find a second believer who is just as adamant as the first, and will contradict everything said by the first. Accepting all stories leads to contradiction, and there is no good reason to accept one over the multitude of others. Leaving only one rational response: reject them all, at least until one rises above the rest with something fucking substantial.
Language is imprecise, and can't be made precise, which is why philosophers spend their time arguing, not about the arguments, but about the meaning of words. We have it here immediately: what is god?
Study maths and physics.
The story of Jesus was told in the story of Horus the sun god. The Sun God became the Son of God and there were changes made but there are no records that even show this Jesus person existed. How do you count something that has no tangible evidence as being a tangible god? I'm mesmerized. I must go find something to do, idle hands you know...
I think Adam was the first tangible god, and Eve the first goddess. We are all gods. EVERYWHERE!
*sigh*
Kataclismic, I'm gonna have to go with Jeff on this one. There were a lot of gospels of Jesus that were destroyed by the romans. Four is not a large enough sample size to get an idea of what people thought he was
Also those 4 gospels were not written by people who ever met Jesus, so you probably shouldn't use them to "get an idea of what people thought he was".
Romans didn't destroy gospels.
Check into the "Councle of Mycea".
but stop dereailing us. please for the love of God, I am tired of people jumping in with irrelevent opinions
That's vey neat, recommending the love of god to a bunch of atheists......one of your better efforts. LOL