This argument is different from many others (including the Kalam argument on this forum) in that it does not require (or really tolerate) the minutia of various theories of the special Sciences (like physics). It thoroughly anticipates and dismisses most major objections in the structure of the argument, itself.
You can find a full post of my argument, along with many clarifying comments and objections answered here: http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com ... ble-mover/
1) Things can only act according to their natures. This is the law of causality.
2) Regarding action, the nature of a thing is either purposeful or accidental – meaning that an action is either purposeful or un-purposeful, intentional or unintentional. This is the law of the excluded middle applied to the nature of action.
3) Accidental actions are necessarily the result of some sort of interaction – which means that every accidental action necessitates a prior action of some kind.
4) There cannot be an infinite regress of accidental actions. An infinite regress of a series cannot exist because a series must have a beginning in order to exist.
5) There must have been an action which triggered the beginning of accidental action (3 & 4), and this ‘trigger’ action could not, itself, have been accidental (3).
6) If the beginning to accidental action could not have been accidental, then it must have been purposeful (2).
7) A purposeful action is a volitional action and volition presupposes a mind and values.
8) An actor with mind, values, and volition is a person.
9) A personal actor began all accidental action in the universe.
A Philosophical Argument for the Existence of God
Moderator: Moderators
-
TheChristianEgoist
- Student
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 1:12 pm
- Contact:
-
thepandemicson
- Student
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:45 am
- Location: Sacramento, California
Post #173
I have to say, I've learned quite a bit from this particular topic, and certainly not what I've expected to learn.
While I picked up a bit on the actual subject matter, I think one of the underlying subjects of importance here was the civility of one's own argument, and how it will affect the credibility of the participant.
While I will not mention names, I'm certain the players here will know who I'm referring to. I rather enjoyed reading the arguments when they are intelligent, polite, and thoroughly open-minded when it comes to trying to understand the mind of his/her opponent. And I must stress the polite bit; this speaks worlds of the debater.
I learned there is such a thing as impolite politeness. Or rather, a feigned civility; such as repeatedly insulting someone without stooping specifically to harsh language, which in itself is just as rude.
I learned that you can discredit yourself and your argument by ignoring the words of others who disagree with you while making assumptions about what they actually meant to say, or yelling your own points over and over again while claiming immediate victory and demanding anyone else with a differing point of view to concede. As an outsider, I find value in trying to understand the perspectives of others, rather than view them as personal attacks upon my own.
Logic and reason aside, treating one's opponent as an equal rather than as an inferior is very important in trying to convince them to see your side of the argument.
While I picked up a bit on the actual subject matter, I think one of the underlying subjects of importance here was the civility of one's own argument, and how it will affect the credibility of the participant.
While I will not mention names, I'm certain the players here will know who I'm referring to. I rather enjoyed reading the arguments when they are intelligent, polite, and thoroughly open-minded when it comes to trying to understand the mind of his/her opponent. And I must stress the polite bit; this speaks worlds of the debater.
I learned there is such a thing as impolite politeness. Or rather, a feigned civility; such as repeatedly insulting someone without stooping specifically to harsh language, which in itself is just as rude.
I learned that you can discredit yourself and your argument by ignoring the words of others who disagree with you while making assumptions about what they actually meant to say, or yelling your own points over and over again while claiming immediate victory and demanding anyone else with a differing point of view to concede. As an outsider, I find value in trying to understand the perspectives of others, rather than view them as personal attacks upon my own.
Logic and reason aside, treating one's opponent as an equal rather than as an inferior is very important in trying to convince them to see your side of the argument.
-
thepandemicson
- Student
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:45 am
- Location: Sacramento, California
Post #174
A reiteration of my post.
One of the players has decided to message me personally in query and attempted to start a message flame war. I suppose that means my message was clear enough for the individual to understand who I was talking about.
Rather than accept that he/she is taking an EXTREMELY abrasive approach in which he/she continues to purposefully offend anyone that disagrees with his/her method, that person has decided to attack me personally.
Which is why I've clicked the ignore button for this person.
I'd rather not get caught up in that game of illiteracy and poorly-researched accusations with no logical ground.
To those of you who are not this person, I've felt inspired by the amount of patience I've seen you exhibit during this escalated debacle. Thank you for showing a tenacity of which I've never seen the like.
One of the players has decided to message me personally in query and attempted to start a message flame war. I suppose that means my message was clear enough for the individual to understand who I was talking about.
Rather than accept that he/she is taking an EXTREMELY abrasive approach in which he/she continues to purposefully offend anyone that disagrees with his/her method, that person has decided to attack me personally.
Which is why I've clicked the ignore button for this person.
I'd rather not get caught up in that game of illiteracy and poorly-researched accusations with no logical ground.
To those of you who are not this person, I've felt inspired by the amount of patience I've seen you exhibit during this escalated debacle. Thank you for showing a tenacity of which I've never seen the like.
Post #175
Oh please.thepandemicson wrote: A reiteration of my post.
One of the players has decided to message me personally in query and attempted to start a message flame war. I suppose that means my message was clear enough for the individual to understand who I was talking about.
Rather than accept that he/she is taking an EXTREMELY abrasive approach in which he/she continues to purposefully offend anyone that disagrees with his/her method, that person has decided to attack me personally.
Which is why I've clicked the ignore button for this person.
I'd rather not get caught up in that game of illiteracy and poorly-researched accusations with no logical ground.
To those of you who are not this person, I've felt inspired by the amount of patience I've seen you exhibit during this escalated debacle. Thank you for showing a tenacity of which I've never seen the like.
Here is the PM I sent to you. I asked you for clarification what was uncivil in your claims. Your claims that no other poster had issues with.....
Subject: Issue?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 123#603123
What you seem to have missed is that you can not argue with objective facts.
Your argument of emotional plea is fallacious, but you already knew that I suspect.
Which posts did you find uncivil? Or as you say impolite politeness (feigned civility)?
Some posters should be commanded for repeating the same facts as substituted for drivel.
It strikes me that Appeal to emotion is fallacious.
Seems like you have nothing to add to the forum other that your subjective emotion.
School is out dear.
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20831
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 213 times
- Been thanked: 362 times
- Contact:
Post #176
JohnA wrote: Seems like you have nothing to add to the forum other that your subjective emotion.
School is out dear.
Moderator WarningPlease do not make any personal or uncivil comments.
Please review our Rules.
______________
Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
Post #177
thepandemicson wrote: I have to say, I've learned quite a bit from this particular topic, and certainly not what I've expected to learn.
While I picked up a bit on the actual subject matter, I think one of the underlying subjects of importance here was the civility of one's own argument, and how it will affect the credibility of the participant.
While I will not mention names, I'm certain the players here will know who I'm referring to. I rather enjoyed reading the arguments when they are intelligent, polite, and thoroughly open-minded when it comes to trying to understand the mind of his/her opponent. And I must stress the polite bit; this speaks worlds of the debater.
I learned there is such a thing as impolite politeness. Or rather, a feigned civility; such as repeatedly insulting someone without stooping specifically to harsh language, which in itself is just as rude.
I learned that you can discredit yourself and your argument by ignoring the words of others who disagree with you while making assumptions about what they actually meant to say, or yelling your own points over and over again while claiming immediate victory and demanding anyone else with a differing point of view to concede. As an outsider, I find value in trying to understand the perspectives of others, rather than view them as personal attacks upon my own.
Logic and reason aside, treating one's opponent as an equal rather than as an inferior is very important in trying to convince them to see your side of the argument.
Moderator Comment
It is not really appropriate to digress into discussions of the behavior of other members, named or not, within the threads. It is also better not to bring up PM discussions. If you think someone is breaking the rules, report them and let the moderators deal with it. Even your indirect and anonymous accusations here can be considered personal and uncivil.
Please review the Rules.
______________
Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
-
thepandemicson
- Student
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:45 am
- Location: Sacramento, California
Post #178
Looking back at my post, I realize that what I'd said was inappropriate, and I apologize. I'm actually quite embarrassed for having posted it.
I did, however, look at the two video links. The Nova one was interesting, and very educational on the nature of quantum physics.
The QualiaSoup one, however, I found to be simply biased against anyone with a religious belief. It depicted people of faith to be zealous, vindictive, and arrogant, with no supporting evidence to indicate that religious belief should always result in people behaving this way. It also immediately dismisses the possibility of a deity by claiming we can use logic to do this without explaining the how or providing examples. This felt like the equivalent of reading one of Jack Chick's infamous Chick Tracts, had he been a devout atheist.
I could not find the link for the dice-in-a-bag video I've seen discussed here, but if I've followed correctly, the argument goes something like this:
You have an unknown number of dice in a bag. We pick a number and try to determine if it's possible to roll the sum of that number with the dice contained in the bag.
Either it's impossible, as there could be too few or too many dice in the bag, or it's possible because we might be lucky and there might just be enough dice.
If we pick 18 for the number, and there ends up being only 2 (or more than 18) dice, then it was impossible. However, if we luck out and have a number of dice that could result in a rolled sum of 18, then it was possible, and the only problem we face is how probable such a number may be to achieve.
I fail to see a third option when it comes down to the definitions of possible vs. impossible.
I did, however, look at the two video links. The Nova one was interesting, and very educational on the nature of quantum physics.
The QualiaSoup one, however, I found to be simply biased against anyone with a religious belief. It depicted people of faith to be zealous, vindictive, and arrogant, with no supporting evidence to indicate that religious belief should always result in people behaving this way. It also immediately dismisses the possibility of a deity by claiming we can use logic to do this without explaining the how or providing examples. This felt like the equivalent of reading one of Jack Chick's infamous Chick Tracts, had he been a devout atheist.
I could not find the link for the dice-in-a-bag video I've seen discussed here, but if I've followed correctly, the argument goes something like this:
You have an unknown number of dice in a bag. We pick a number and try to determine if it's possible to roll the sum of that number with the dice contained in the bag.
Either it's impossible, as there could be too few or too many dice in the bag, or it's possible because we might be lucky and there might just be enough dice.
If we pick 18 for the number, and there ends up being only 2 (or more than 18) dice, then it was impossible. However, if we luck out and have a number of dice that could result in a rolled sum of 18, then it was possible, and the only problem we face is how probable such a number may be to achieve.
I fail to see a third option when it comes down to the definitions of possible vs. impossible.
-
nayrbsnilloc
- Scholar
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 3:03 pm
Post #179
[Replying to post 178 by thepandemicson]
sigh... it is discouraging to go away for a couple weeks and see that this conversation is still stuck at the same place that I left it. I would have to agree with you thepandemicson on your conclusions and your description of the dice situation summed up the outcomes quite nicely. As I had stated in my admittedly wordy comment previously, not knowing the number of dice inside the bag does not prevent the possibility of 18. In fact, it is that added variable of there possibly being at least three dice in the bag that make it a possibility for an 18 to be rolled.
I am also still curious as to how it can be logically argued that something that is by nature dichotomous (like possibility and impossibility) can be said to have a third option.
sigh... it is discouraging to go away for a couple weeks and see that this conversation is still stuck at the same place that I left it. I would have to agree with you thepandemicson on your conclusions and your description of the dice situation summed up the outcomes quite nicely. As I had stated in my admittedly wordy comment previously, not knowing the number of dice inside the bag does not prevent the possibility of 18. In fact, it is that added variable of there possibly being at least three dice in the bag that make it a possibility for an 18 to be rolled.
I am also still curious as to how it can be logically argued that something that is by nature dichotomous (like possibility and impossibility) can be said to have a third option.
Post #180
I have a bag containing an unknown number of 6 sided dice. Is it possible that you can roll an 18 with the dice in the bag? You claim "yes" because, for example, there could be 3 dice in the bag and could therefore roll 3 sixes.nayrbsnilloc wrote:
I am also still curious as to how it can be logically argued that something that is by nature dichotomous (like possibility and impossibility) can be said to have a third option.
I open the bag and reveal that there is only one die in the bag.
Is it possible to roll an 18 with one die in the bag? No.
Before you claimed it was possible and now its been shown as impossible. That is a contradiction. It can't have been possible before and impossible now. If its impossible now then it must have been impossible before. If its impossible then it can't be possible. But before we claimed it was possible. How do we resolve this paradox?
Religion remains the only mode of discourse that encourages grown men and women to pretend to know things they manifestly do not know.
