Prove me wrong

[Cogitoergosum]

Everybody is convinced that their GOD is true and is the way to heaven. Jews, christians and moslims alike. We all call him GOD even though the teachings are drastically different in all three but we'll call him the same so we won't argue about it.
But does the fact that many people believe the same absurd thing, make that thing real? how about people that believed David koresh and followed his davidian branch? how about the cargo cult people of new guinee? how about the cult of John FRUM there, their supposed messiah who will come back sometime in february on an air plane and deliver the cargo to his people? their belief might be absurd to u but they believe it like u believe yours because they have brought up to believe this.
so how about this:

I believe that there is a pink unicorn that created the universe, and that pink unicorn doesn't care what i do on earth, all he asks for is that i be nice to all its creatures on earth, not to believe any of the charlatans that tell me otherwise, and then when i die i will go to unicorn valley where there is complete happiness. I know this because the unicorn came to me in a dream and told me so (yeah it speaks too).
It might sound absurd to u, but i'm sure i can convince people it is true if i embellish it further. How would you prove me wrong? who invented the universe my unicorn or your GOD? who can tell?
Should i be allowed to make a religion out of that? do u have to show me the same respect of belief you show other people? i would like it if i could be exempted of taxes too. Prove me wrong, convince me of the absurdity of my belief.

[Goat]

The one that says that the earth is old, but believes that Man did not evolve, and accepts the Adam and Eve story has history has been debunked.

There's the "old earth" paradigm that says Adam was the first human who had an eternal spirit (after man had supposedly "evolved"). That's never been debunked.

That depends on which one you are looking at.

There are multiple versions of the "Old Earth". Yes, one of the "old earth" one says that Adamis the first one with a soul. Others subscribe to 'special creation', where all the animals except for man evolved.

[Cephus]

However, "OEC" might or might not have been, depending on the flavor. The one that says that the earth is old, but believes that Man did not evolve, and accepts the Adam and Eve story has history has been debunked. However, the 'thestic evolution' idea has not been.

There really isn't anything to that brand of 'theistic evolution' though. You could just as easily say that invisible elves used evolution to create man and you've made no significant changes from 'theistic evolution'. That part is completely untestable and therefore, completely unscientific.

[Metacrock]

Everybody is convinced that their GOD is true and is the way to heaven. Jews, christians and moslims alike. We all call him GOD even though the teachings are drastically different in all three but we'll call him the same so we won't argue about it.
But does the fact that many people believe the same absurd thing, make that thing real? how about people that believed David koresh and followed his davidian branch? how about the cargo cult people of new guinee? how about the cult of John FRUM there, their supposed messiah who will come back sometime in february on an air plane and deliver the cargo to his people? their belief might be absurd to u but they believe it like u believe yours because they have brought up to believe this.
so how about this:

I believe that there is a pink unicorn that created the universe, and that pink unicorn doesn't care what i do on earth, all he asks for is that i be nice to all its creatures on earth, not to believe any of the charlatans that tell me otherwise, and then when i die i will go to unicorn valley where there is complete happiness. I know this because the unicorn came to me in a dream and told me so (yeah it speaks too).
It might sound absurd to u, but i'm sure i can convince people it is true if i embellish it further. How would you prove me wrong? who invented the universe my unicorn or your GOD? who can tell?
Should i be allowed to make a religion out of that? do u have to show me the same respect of belief you show other people? i would like it if i could be exempted of taxes too. Prove me wrong, convince me of the absurdity of my belief.

by definition God is eteranl and necessary. no continencies allowed. that lets out any kind of unicorn.

[bernee51]

[


by definition God is eteranl and necessary. no continencies allowed. that lets out any kind of unicorn.

Not if the unicorn, in addition to being pink and eloquent, is also eternal and necessary.

You would just call the unicorn 'god'.

[Metacrock]

[


by definition God is eteranl and necessary. no continencies allowed. that lets out any kind of unicorn.

Not if the unicorn, in addition to being pink and eloquent, is also eternal and necessary.

You would just call the unicorn 'god'.

Unicorns are not necessities you know

[bernee51]

[


by definition God is eteranl and necessary. no continencies allowed. that lets out any kind of unicorn.

Not if the unicorn, in addition to being pink and eloquent, is also eternal and necessary.

You would just call the unicorn 'god'.

Unicorns are not necessities you know

Neither is your god.

Nonetheless...C.E.S wrote:...I believe that there is a pink unicorn that created the universe, .... That would seem to be a necessity as far as this universe is concerned

[Goat]

However, "OEC" might or might not have been, depending on the flavor. The one that says that the earth is old, but believes that Man did not evolve, and accepts the Adam and Eve story has history has been debunked. However, the 'thestic evolution' idea has not been.

There really isn't anything to that brand of 'theistic evolution' though. You could just as easily say that invisible elves used evolution to create man and you've made no significant changes from 'theistic evolution'. That part is completely untestable and therefore, completely unscientific.

I will agree with that. It isn't science, and it isn't making scientific claims. YEC, and some brands of OEC do make specific claims that can be tested, and have been falsified.

[Metacrock]

[


by definition God is eteranl and necessary. no continencies allowed. that lets out any kind of unicorn.

Not if the unicorn, in addition to being pink and eloquent, is also eternal and necessary.

You would just call the unicorn 'god'.

Unicorns are not necessities you know

Neither is your god.

Nonetheless...C.E.S wrote:...I believe that there is a pink unicorn that created the universe, .... That would seem to be a necessity as far as this universe is concerned

you are not getting it. I dont think you know what "necessity" means in this sense as in "ontolgoical necessity."

Yes, God is necessary, but more to the point I make here, God is ontologiaclly necessary if he exists and impossible if he doesnt' exist. so he can't be a unicorn becasue unicorn and contignent and not necessary.


God has to be necessary there would be no point in thinking of a mere cnotingency as God. It's basically just provne by logicl



This is an argument by a friend of mine named Garrett Soalt. I've linked to his board and website above if anyone wants to argue with him. It's number 2 because he has another much much longer argument, but I don't agree with the conclusion of it, so I've put this up instead.

I think that God exists out of logical necessity and so does not need a cause anymore that something had to cause the law of excluded middle to be true.

Each thing has two 'modalities', an actual modality and a logical modality. There are three of each kind of modality:


A)Actual modalities:

1)'actually necessary' in real world(could not have failed to exist)

2)'actually impossible' in real world(could not have existed)

3)'actually contingent'(not actually necessary and not actually impossible)


B)Logical modalities:

1)'logically necessary'(the denial of its existence is a contradiction)

2)'logically impossible'(the thing is a contradiction)

3)'logically contingent'(not a logical necessity and not a contradiction)

Now if let L=Logically and A=Actually, N=Necessary, I=Impossible, C=Contingent and for example Logically Impossible=LI then these are all the theoretically possible combinations of the two kinds of modality that a thing might have:


1)LN-AN

2)LN-AI

3)LN-AC


4)LI-AN
5)LI-AI
6)LI-AC

7)LC-AN
8)LC-AI
9)LC-AC
Right up front we can eliminate four of these as obviously not occuring in the real world(for example, 6)LI-AC, couldn't be, since a contradiction is always false and so could not at the same time exist of necessity in the real world). An we are left with these:


1)LN-AN

5)LI-AI

7)LC-AN

8)LC-AI

9)LC-AC

I find it very intuitive that 7 and 8 are impossible. If either one of those were true so would the other since logically contingent things have mutually exclusive alternatives that are also logically contingent.

An arbitrary necessity is something that is logically contingent but actually necessary. I believe they are impossible. If they are impossible they must be impossible of logical necessity which would mean it would have to be a contradiction that something be logically contingent but actually necessary. In other words I believe that everythings actual modality is the same as its logical modality.

This means that all logically contingent things must be caused by pasted decisions. Only life can make such decisions that effect the world therefore the existence of life in the whole of reality here and there though all past eternity is a logical necessity. And God is the ultimate life form-cosmic level determiner of reality's infinite state of affairs.

[Metacrock]

However, "OEC" might or might not have been, depending on the flavor. The one that says that the earth is old, but believes that Man did not evolve, and accepts the Adam and Eve story has history has been debunked. However, the 'thestic evolution' idea has not been.

There really isn't anything to that brand of 'theistic evolution' though. You could just as easily say that invisible elves used evolution to create man and you've made no significant changes from 'theistic evolution'. That part is completely untestable and therefore, completely unscientific.

I will agree with that. It isn't science, and it isn't making scientific claims. YEC, and some brands of OEC do make specific claims that can be tested, and have been falsified.

never heard of vin diagram? Logical claims can be tested

[bernee51]

[


by definition God is eteranl and necessary. no continencies allowed. that lets out any kind of unicorn.

Not if the unicorn, in addition to being pink and eloquent, is also eternal and necessary.

You would just call the unicorn 'god'.

Unicorns are not necessities you know

Neither is your god.

Nonetheless...C.E.S wrote:...I believe that there is a pink unicorn that created the universe, .... That would seem to be a necessity as far as this universe is concerned

you are not getting it. I dont think you know what "necessity" means in this sense as in "ontolgoical necessity."

You are talking about aseity. The unicorn is defined as having that attribute.

-
Yes, God is necessary, but more to the point I make here, God is ontologiaclly necessary if he exists and impossible if he doesnt' exist.

Is your special topic this week "the bleeding obvious"?

Do you know what aseity means?

God has to be necessary there would be no point in thinking of a mere cnotingency as God. It's basically just provne by logicl

So god exists because you believe (logically) god exists.

Perhaps god is contingent on your belief.

This means that all logically contingent things must be caused by pasted decisions. Only life can make such decisions that effect the world therefore the existence of life in the whole of reality here and there though all past eternity is a logical necessity. And God is the ultimate life form-cosmic level determiner of reality's infinite state of affairs.

I'm with you up to the last sentance. Then all of a sudden a god concept is introduced, out of the blue, as an attempt to explain "the bleeding obvious".

Life is.