Different Arguments and different definitions

Open discussion for all registered members.

Different Arguments and different definitions

Postby sepia » Thu Nov 22, 2012 6:52 pm

Some arguments for the existence of god unse different definitions for the term god. Some of them may be compatible, but I have never seen a proof, that all the different definitions actually describe the same thing.

According to many ontological arguments god is the "highest (imaginable) being". According to the cosmological argument god is a single first cause or cause of the universe. according to the argument from prophecies god is the god of a holy book.

I see no problem with this, when an apologist only uses one of these arguments. But I think it is just hypocritic to use 2 or 3 of them. And many do.

This means: god = highest being = first cause = Yahwe/Allah/other deity.

If this equation is paradox, at least one of them doesn't describe the god of the other arguments. If the option that they are all the same is left open, then there may be something which can be described by all of those definitions correctly, but this is still unproven.
sepia
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:38 pm
Location: austria

Re: Different Arguments and different definitions

Postby Lausten » Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:23 pm

Besides gish-gallop and a few logical fallacies you could file this under, it is based one of the biggest problems I see with any belief system. Anything that doesn't have the weight of evidence on its side has to be held up with the premise, "anything is possible". Yes, we could be a dream, dreamt by Elvis, dreaming himself. It's possible. But if you use that as an argument, you are obligated to accept that teapots in space and flying spaghetti monsters are also possible. Of course, if you bring those up, those believers immediately switch to using reason and asking for evidence and start comparing their evidence to yours and claiming it is superior. After you destroy their reasoning, they return to claiming their belief is possible, sometimes attacking your small mindedness for not being able to consider their minutely possible claim.

This is why some people are not getting together with their families on this American Thanksgiving weekend. Doesn't really seem worth it.
Lausten
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:53 pm
Location: N. Minnesota

Re: Different Arguments and different definitions

Postby lucas11 » Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:02 pm

I think most monotheistic religions would agree with defining god as the first cause of the universe, highest possible being, omnipotent and various other things beginning with omni. This is not paradoxical, inconsistent or hypocritical as far as I can tell.

Where they disagree, is in how this entity revealed itself to mankind i.e. which prophets, miracles, holy book etc.

While in theory anything is possible, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Just because something might actually be true, it doesn't mean that we should base any actions on the chance that it is. The odds of winning the jackpot in the California state lottery are about 175 million to 1. Buying a ticket and believing it to be the winning ticket (which demonstrably could be true) does not excuse the insanity of immediately quitting your job and spending lots of money before the draw actually takes place.
lucas11
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 8:57 am


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests