Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Another hidden postulate.
-----------------------------------------------------------
And another!
ok, a necessary being could cease to exist because it's contingent.
and what is lacking/needing/dependent is not contingent.
*A Postulate ALERT
this discussion is pointless.
It was pointless before we even started. Even if god were real, I don't think it would be possible to produce a proof for it. You have harnessed yourself to an impossible task; and that is why you continually find yourself adding postulates ex post facto.
No, it wasn't Pointless, at least not until you started to address every single statement you can not understand or do not want to accept, as if it was unsubstantiated one
i explained in the argument what it means to be necessary and what it means to be contingent. yet, you still think a necessary being can be annihilated.
You think a necessary being could be causally dependent on something else, however, causally dependence denotes contingency as stated in the argument.
To be a necessary being is to be uncaused as concluded in the argument. so, to be necessary and dependent/lacking/needing is a contradiction
You are the only one i ever had a discussion with, that finds those statements problematic or unsubstantiated or not necessarily true just by knowing the concept of NE & CE.
How am i adding postulates ex post facto?
A great example is your statement that a necessary being can't be annihilated. That was not included as a postulate, but you immediately turned to that statement to defend the argument. If you need that statement to support the argument, you need to include it as a postulate before the conclusion. It is the same problem you had with your first argument. EVERYTHING your conclusion depends on, should be listed BEFORE the conclusion; not dribbled out after the fact as you need them.
-----------------------------
Then maybe you should talk to more people; especially people who have been formally train to develop and scrutinize formal proofs, like myself. I mean isn't that what you wanted when you posted here?
I think you have a problem with infering. "a necessary being can not be annihilated" is an analytic proposition, it's true by necessity. that's what a necessary being means. a being whose essence necessitates its existence cannot be annihilated, For the fact that it would've been dependent on a cause in order for it to exist. and that means its existence is caused and uncaused at the same time and that's a contradiction. Moreover, Being causally dependent means being contingent. but saying " a necessary being is contingent being" is contradictory
In short
a contingent being: can exist or not exist, an impossible one cannot exist, and a necessary one can not fail to exist
i'd like to know what is your source of your concept of contingency, necessity and impossibility, if you ever came across them?
Great! Then include that before you use those terms to make conclusions!
It also explains guys' junk
your argument for gods essence and existence goes back to Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, Aquinas borrowed from Aristotle . We have to ask ourselves if this characteristic of god knowable to man? Can we grasp its meaning?Since man can not comprehend god, God is not knowable.WE can`t get to know and unknowable God through unknowable characteristics.
"man can not comprehend god, God is not knowable. WE can't get to know an unkowable God through unknowable characteristics."
thoso are mere assertions, why do i have to accept them?
kettle calling the pot black
i knew you'd reply to that comment :D
but they both are different, since "God is unknowable" is not true by definition. knowing what both the subject and the predicate mean is not enough to say that the proposition is true. you'd need an argument to intervene
so they both are different cases
Do you have proof that a god is unknowable? Do you have any proof that a god is real?
the Original post stating such a proof, and i find it pretty convincing to me. if you want to discuss its premises that's ok, tell me which one/ones u found problematic. if u see it inconsistent and don't want to have a discussion that's ok too
Right, I see the difference. But you've actually laid the problem very well for me. In your case, we don't know what the subject and predicate mean; because you didn't define them before you used them (for example, you didn't define what a necessary being is before you started making conclusions about them). Then when their definitions because important, you tried to sneak them in the back door. Include that stuff at the start! That what I've been saying all along!
Edited to add: I see you have retroactively altered your original argument/post; without even noting it. Yikes...
I defined the necessary being in that way: a being whose essence necessitates/guarantees its existence. and that definition is enough to infer that such essence cannot fail to exist. it means the same thing and i thought it's obvious
When we say "All x is y", that doesn't mean that the proposition "Some y is x" is mere assertion. you can know it by inference and use them interchangeably since they mean the same thing
as for the Original argument. yes, i added the premise about the preponderator after u insisted that there must be a premise somewhere stating a cause
What is a necessary being? Is that the same as a god? You still haven't proven a god is real.
a necessary being is a being that exists necessarily through itself, uncaused, and all other things that exists exist through it i.e.they're contingent upon it. it's the Origin/source/principle of all existents. that's what the argument is saying
That phrase (or a reasonably approximate version) does not appear in your proof/argument. That is what I'm being trying to get through to you, over and over again. Go back and read it. And maybe post a new corrected version; instead of slipping in edits on the sly.
You're right, i thought it's written but it isn't. i apologize for you
If you are planning on reposting it; please make sure to mark which lines are postulates and which ones are conclusions; so I don't have guess.
Perhaps something like:
1P: all poodles are dogs
2P: all dogs are animals
3C: therefore, all poodles are animals
of course, and thank you. it was a pleasure having a discussion with you
Not for long it won't be a "pleasure." Atheists will cut you off at the knees and then boast about it....unless you simply agree with them, of course.
Like this:
MCD:
Add #10. And we call this wise, compassionate life giving entity the Flying Spaghetti Monster (phms).
phms = praise his meaty sauce
While this probably has no bearing on your proof; those two statements do not mean the same things:
Clearly they are not the same thing.
Maybe this diagram will help, please forgive my horrible art skills.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Peripatetic: Do you understand the difference between an argument or claim and proof for that argument? Nothing in the Kalam argument is verifiable. Christians use this argument ad nauseam. William Lane Craig has been beating it to death. It is an argument, not proof , not evidence.
For instance : "3- If something has an essence which in itself is neutral with respect to existence then it's a CONTINGENT being, like things around us (the universe, in general), They might exist or not exist."
What is an "essence" ? Provide evidence that I have an essence. What does it consist of?
What does "neutral with respect to existence" mean? Provide evidence that anything could be neutral in that way.
The Kalam argument is nothing but a lymerick , a little word game that religious people find profound. To me it is nothing but unverifiable gibberish.
Thanks for that post, chimp!
Your welcome! I prefer bawdy limericks myself.
this is not even the kalam argument. even craig's argument, it's a distorted version of the Original one
an essence is the intrinsic/basic qualities/nature that identifies a thing and distinguishes it from other things. it's the answering of a question "What is?" What is a human? it's a rational animal.
"neutral with respect to existence", by that we mean that the mere conceptualization of a thing's essence does not imply its existence nor the impossibility of it
for example we can not conceptualize a body that is not a space-occupying object. that would be contradictory, there cant be such a thing, a body, by definition is a space occupying object. that's intrinsic to its essence.
a man that is a married bachelor cannot exist for the fact that two contraries can not be predicated upon one subject at the same time. just mere conceptualization of "married" and "bachelor" is enough to derive the impossibility of such a thing.
on the other hand, there are some essences that does not include their impossibility to exist nor their necessity to exist i.e existence isn't intrinsic to their nature, considered in themselves they might exist or not, and for these reasons we say that their essences are neutral with respect to existence i.e they do not necessitate their existence nor do they necessitate their non-existence. and that's what we called a contingent being.
but in order for such essence to exist, its existence must outweigh its nothingness, so we'd need a preponderator to preponderate its existence.
that preponderator, we call it a necessary being i.e its essence necessitates its existence, its existence is intrinsic to its essence.
What about R²?
Pages