Now it might surprise you that premises 2-6 of the ontological argument are not disputed. That most philosophers will agree that as long as the concept of God is even possible he must exist. Now what it all depends on is the concept of God being logically possible. Now the detractor of the argument has to show whether God is a incoherent concept like a married bachelor or a round square. Now what do I mean by maximally great? Well a being who is omniscience, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent and he would exist in every logically way. Since a maximally great being must exist in every possible world it must exist in the actual world since this too is also a possible world. That is what it means to be maximally great. Now is God existence logically possible. I think so. There is nothing incoherent in God nature to make him logically impossible. The atheist has to maintain that God existence is impossible. So that is it for the ontological argument! Pretty short right? Next time I will answer some objections to the argument.
Well I haven't blogged about my personal life in a while. Right now I am doing a two week study on some topics I have been putting off. Right now I am doing a study on abstract objects. This is a serious topic to the Christian philosopher because many philosopher think that abstract objects exist necessarily. Therefore uncreated. But God is the source of all reality and thus created all things. But if God didn't create abstract objects then they exist independently of him. Which makes God part of a infinite number of abstract objects. This is a serious problem for the Christian philosopher. I need to resolve this. I also want to look into Intelligent design a bit more and see if a warrant for design is warranted in biology. Then I want to look into ethics and ethical choices and something about Cognitive faculties and ethics and moral progress.
So I have a lot to study. Maybe I will take a time off facebook. I said I was going to be off for 2 weeks but the number of topics I need to study is overwhelming. Maybe a couple of months. I don't know. Let's talk about that girl I like. I need to stop liking her she is not a Christian it is not going to work out. But there is this other girl that is a Christian who is also smart but I barely see her. But maybe I should ask her out. I don't know but sometimes I feel somewhat lonely. I am a man after all I want to have someone to share my knowledge with make them happy. To be there for them and to love and treasure them. I can't date a unbeliever because of the ethical thinking we differ. So a believer would be great. But most Christians teens are not really Christian as in born again. Because the girl I like she claims she is a Christian but the Bible says by their fruit you shall know them. She think sex before marriage is okay, and she curses etc. So obviously she is one of those people who think that going to church makes you a Christian. It's like saying going to the gym and sitting down makes you fit. So I have decided to look for a believer to date. Make God help me. Or else I will die alone. Well not alone as in God is with me. But you know what I mean. Not that being single is bad but.....
Okay that is it for this blog!
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Been busy studying
I have been busy studying philosophy trying to figure out about abstract entities. Now I can go into a article about what they are but that would be superfluous. So tomorrow I will being to ontological argument. I will be presenting the most current form of the argument which I believe goes like this.
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that maximally great being exists, than it must exist in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, than it exists in all possible worlds.
4. If a maximally great being exists in all possible worlds, than it exists in the actual world.
5. If maximally great being exists it exists in the actual world.
6. Therefore a maximally great being exists.
7. Therefore God exists.
Pretty long argument right? Well some of you might be asking what is possible worlds. Possible worlds is just a description of asking how could have been reality. For example the proposition that John mcain is president is false in the actual world but can be true in some possible world. A possible world is the description of reality with different propositions. Or a way reality could be. Re-read that a couple of times in order for you to get it. Well that is it for this article the ontological argument is fairly quick so it should be done in a day or two.
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that maximally great being exists, than it must exist in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, than it exists in all possible worlds.
4. If a maximally great being exists in all possible worlds, than it exists in the actual world.
5. If maximally great being exists it exists in the actual world.
6. Therefore a maximally great being exists.
7. Therefore God exists.
Pretty long argument right? Well some of you might be asking what is possible worlds. Possible worlds is just a description of asking how could have been reality. For example the proposition that John mcain is president is false in the actual world but can be true in some possible world. A possible world is the description of reality with different propositions. Or a way reality could be. Re-read that a couple of times in order for you to get it. Well that is it for this article the ontological argument is fairly quick so it should be done in a day or two.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Conclusion
Well the contingency argument seems sound. Now some of you might object what if the universe exists necessarily? Well not many atheists have been to eager to endorse this idea. Now when I say necessary I mean that the universe the way it is has to be this way there is no other way it could be. But I think we can grasp the universe contingency. With the rise of modern science we know that the planets and start etc, have been created some 4 billions years or so by some external cause. No one would seriously would endorse the idea that a planet is a necessary being. But the entire universe is composed of atom which are composed of quarks. Now to say that the universe exists out of necessity of it's own nature is to say that a quark is necessary. Now no one thinks the quarks has some special property that makes it necessary. The universe does not exist out of necessity of it's nature. Because we can envision that in some possible world a universe composed of different quarks can give arise to a universe. Now is that universe the same or different. It's different because it is composed of different quarks. Most scientist would agree that the universe doesn't have to be this way that it could have been different.
No there is one more way to escape the argument. Now some will object okay the universe might not exist necessarily but nonetheless something must exist! It is impossible that nothing exist. Since the universe is that something it does not need a explanation. Well this objection seems absurd. Now note this reasoning let's just agree with this for the moment. Something must exist. Well let's say that nothing exists and that it is impossible for anything but a unicorn to exist. And since something must exist it entails that a unicorn must exist. This strikes me as absurd.
Tomorrow I will discuss the ontological argument for the existence of God.
No there is one more way to escape the argument. Now some will object okay the universe might not exist necessarily but nonetheless something must exist! It is impossible that nothing exist. Since the universe is that something it does not need a explanation. Well this objection seems absurd. Now note this reasoning let's just agree with this for the moment. Something must exist. Well let's say that nothing exists and that it is impossible for anything but a unicorn to exist. And since something must exist it entails that a unicorn must exist. This strikes me as absurd.
Tomorrow I will discuss the ontological argument for the existence of God.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Second premise and thrid premise.
2. The universe has a explanation of it's existence and that explanation is God.
This might seem question begging but it is not. This is logically equivalent when the atheist asserts that the universe has no explanation for it's existence. If atheism is true the universe has no explanation for it's existence but if atheism is false than the latter theism is true, and the universe has a explanation of it's existence which would be God. Now if you don't understand what I am saying re-read this. Because you wont understand until you do. Now the third premise says the universe exists. Now is there anyone who would like to volunteer to raise a objection to that? Now premise 1 confirms 3 which confirm 2. Now since everything that exists has a explanation for it's existence and the universe exists, therefore the universe has a explanation for it's existence, and that explanation is God since on atheism the universe has no explanation. Hopefully you understand now what I am saying.
Plus, premise 2 is plausible in it's own right. Since the universe has a explanation for it's existence and the universe cannot be explained in terms of necessity of it's own nature. It must lie in a external cause which must be beyond space and time. Which must be personal as well. Which fits well with the description of God.
Next time we will conclude the argument and then move onto objections of the argument. Then I will do a article on the ontological argument for the existence of God and show why I think it is coherent.
This might seem question begging but it is not. This is logically equivalent when the atheist asserts that the universe has no explanation for it's existence. If atheism is true the universe has no explanation for it's existence but if atheism is false than the latter theism is true, and the universe has a explanation of it's existence which would be God. Now if you don't understand what I am saying re-read this. Because you wont understand until you do. Now the third premise says the universe exists. Now is there anyone who would like to volunteer to raise a objection to that? Now premise 1 confirms 3 which confirm 2. Now since everything that exists has a explanation for it's existence and the universe exists, therefore the universe has a explanation for it's existence, and that explanation is God since on atheism the universe has no explanation. Hopefully you understand now what I am saying.
Plus, premise 2 is plausible in it's own right. Since the universe has a explanation for it's existence and the universe cannot be explained in terms of necessity of it's own nature. It must lie in a external cause which must be beyond space and time. Which must be personal as well. Which fits well with the description of God.
Next time we will conclude the argument and then move onto objections of the argument. Then I will do a article on the ontological argument for the existence of God and show why I think it is coherent.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Contigency argument.
The first premise of the argument is as follows:
1. Everything that exists has a explanation of it's existence either in necessity of it's own nature or in a external cause.
Now let me explain some terms than move on to a defense of the premise. So what does it mean to exist necessarily. Well many philosophers think number exist this way. That they cannot not exist they are necessary. For example numbers always exist because quantity always exists. For example if I have three oranges in front of my what is the number? 3. It immediately corresponds to reality. Now to the next one a external cause. What does that mean? Well something contingent. Something that came into existence from something else. Like cars or planets or stars etc.
Now this argument is great because it would apply to everything even if the object is eternal. So this argument would hold if the universe was eternal. So the premise is rooted in the principle of sufficient reason. That everything must have a explanation. That there is nothing that exists that has no explanation. This is consistently confirmed in science. If everything did not have a explanation than science would be destroyed. To give a analogy, suppose I find a ball in the woods. You stumble across it during a hiking expedition with your friend. You look at the ball and say how did it get here? And your friend just said forget it! It exists inexplicably! Would you take that response? NO! You would find his answer without logic. You know it must have a explanation. Now suppose the ball was the size of a car. Wouldn't still cry out for a explanation? Suppose it was the size of a building? Wouldn't cry out for a explanation? Suppose now it was the size of a planet? Wouldn't still cry out for a explanation? Suppose now that it was the size of the universe. Wouldn't it still cry out for a explanation? So does the size somehow make it inexplicable the object in question? No! It still requires a explanation. Now some people respond that since the universe came into being from nothing and since there was nothing before it. It is a exception to the principle. Well this is question begging because they are presupposing atheism to be true. But on theism there is a state of affair prior to the big bang namely God. Now some just say the principle is true to things inside the universe but not the universe as a whole. This is just committing the taxi cab fallacy. Which is dismissing a principle because it doesn't fit your conclusions. For example I say all guys are perverts. Than I call my brother not a pervert. Well what makes him a exception? He still a guy. Then he is a pervert. Just because he is my brother doesn't make him a exception. So either I am wrong in my assertion all guys are perverts or that my reasoning is wrong. So with atheist who claim the universe has no explanation they do not like the conclusion it would lead to if it did. What makes the universe a exception to the principle it exists therefore a explanation is needed.
That is it for today. Tomorrow I will discuss the second premise.
1. Everything that exists has a explanation of it's existence either in necessity of it's own nature or in a external cause.
Now let me explain some terms than move on to a defense of the premise. So what does it mean to exist necessarily. Well many philosophers think number exist this way. That they cannot not exist they are necessary. For example numbers always exist because quantity always exists. For example if I have three oranges in front of my what is the number? 3. It immediately corresponds to reality. Now to the next one a external cause. What does that mean? Well something contingent. Something that came into existence from something else. Like cars or planets or stars etc.
Now this argument is great because it would apply to everything even if the object is eternal. So this argument would hold if the universe was eternal. So the premise is rooted in the principle of sufficient reason. That everything must have a explanation. That there is nothing that exists that has no explanation. This is consistently confirmed in science. If everything did not have a explanation than science would be destroyed. To give a analogy, suppose I find a ball in the woods. You stumble across it during a hiking expedition with your friend. You look at the ball and say how did it get here? And your friend just said forget it! It exists inexplicably! Would you take that response? NO! You would find his answer without logic. You know it must have a explanation. Now suppose the ball was the size of a car. Wouldn't still cry out for a explanation? Suppose it was the size of a building? Wouldn't cry out for a explanation? Suppose now it was the size of a planet? Wouldn't still cry out for a explanation? Suppose now that it was the size of the universe. Wouldn't it still cry out for a explanation? So does the size somehow make it inexplicable the object in question? No! It still requires a explanation. Now some people respond that since the universe came into being from nothing and since there was nothing before it. It is a exception to the principle. Well this is question begging because they are presupposing atheism to be true. But on theism there is a state of affair prior to the big bang namely God. Now some just say the principle is true to things inside the universe but not the universe as a whole. This is just committing the taxi cab fallacy. Which is dismissing a principle because it doesn't fit your conclusions. For example I say all guys are perverts. Than I call my brother not a pervert. Well what makes him a exception? He still a guy. Then he is a pervert. Just because he is my brother doesn't make him a exception. So either I am wrong in my assertion all guys are perverts or that my reasoning is wrong. So with atheist who claim the universe has no explanation they do not like the conclusion it would lead to if it did. What makes the universe a exception to the principle it exists therefore a explanation is needed.
That is it for today. Tomorrow I will discuss the second premise.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Sorry if I kept you waiting.
Today I won't talk about the argument just share some thoughts I been thinking about lately. First off I am debating a atheist on the problem of evil and God existence I will write that a later. So that is why I didn't blog yesterday. And also I hung out with the girl I am in love with yesterday. We stayed after school for chemistry. But I didn't stay for her I really didn't get the material we covered in class. Okay I did it for her like 80% the other 20% was for myself. Hey that is how it is. She graduates this year after that I will never see her again she says she will keep in touch but how long is that going to last? Okay I am blogging my personal life her bear with me. I am really going to miss her.
Anyway I am writing a article on post Christian culture. Which I will discuss how the culture of the united states is now more against traditional values. Such as marriage. Well That is what I have been doing recently. Tomorrow I promise if I don't stay after school that I will continue the contingency argument for the existence of God.
Anyway I am writing a article on post Christian culture. Which I will discuss how the culture of the united states is now more against traditional values. Such as marriage. Well That is what I have been doing recently. Tomorrow I promise if I don't stay after school that I will continue the contingency argument for the existence of God.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Contingency Argument.
Let's move on shall we? This is the introduction to each of the premises of the argument. I will just lay out the argument and argue each of the premises on a another post. So here is the argument.
1. Everything that exists has a explanation for it's existence either in a external cause or in necessity of it's nature.
2. If the universe has a explanation, than that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore the universe has a explanation of it's existence.
5. Therefore the universe has a explanation of it's existence and that explanation it God
6. Therefore God exists.
Pretty long argument. So I want you to think over the premises and think about how each one follows logically to the conclusion. Let me get this out of the way now. WHO HAS A OBJECTION TO PREMISE 3?!!!!!!!!!
1. Everything that exists has a explanation for it's existence either in a external cause or in necessity of it's nature.
2. If the universe has a explanation, than that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore the universe has a explanation of it's existence.
5. Therefore the universe has a explanation of it's existence and that explanation it God
6. Therefore God exists.
Pretty long argument. So I want you to think over the premises and think about how each one follows logically to the conclusion. Let me get this out of the way now. WHO HAS A OBJECTION TO PREMISE 3?!!!!!!!!!
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Conclusion
As we have seen the moral argument for God's existence seems to be sound. So the conclusion is God must exist. So yeah I guess that is it for this blog. I believe last time we discussed the second premise. Well I guess I can mention why I was so angry yesterday. You can imagine why though. If you know me personally. Anyway I decided to give it one last shot but this time I am going all out. One last shot for love to find a way. If I fail yet again it is over I am done. One more time I am going to get back in the ring and win her over.
Well next time I will move on to contingency argument for the existence of God.
Well next time I will move on to contingency argument for the existence of God.
Friday, November 12, 2010
I give up.
Well I am not going to say what I am blogging about today or will I ever say it. It's time to close the books on this one. Forget it bury it under the water. I give up it's pointless, superfluous waste of my precious time which the Lord has given. To be worrying for such trivial pursuits. I give! Screw it! I give! Forget it's over a door shut right in my face. Why should I care?! What's the point?! I try I try I try and fail, fail, fail, fail. My reason tells me yes you failed it's okay to give up. But my heart says no keep trying it will work. When I am alone contemplating I say to myself " reason is right it's the logical thing to do..." When I am around her reasons goes right out the damn window. Let go of my intellect and go out on the heart. But why trust this wicked heart and for what?! It's over and tried and I fail. You can't tell me I didn't try because I did. I tried and failed while daring greatly! Waste of my time and heart and effort. Screw it! I tried.
Tomorrow when I cool down I will give my argument I am just to vexed right now to do it.
Tomorrow when I cool down I will give my argument I am just to vexed right now to do it.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Premise two of my argument.
Well last time we observed premise one of the argument. Let's look a premise two.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
Well I think our moral experience give us enough warrant to believe this is true if you don't believe me go out and rob somebody and see what happens. But let me respond to a few challenges. Some people say because evolution is true and our morals evolved than they are not true. Well this is a good textbook example of the genetic fallacy. Which is trying to disprove a belief by how it originated. Our moral values can still be true regardless of how they came to be about. There is a stronger version of this argument which states since our moral evolved they were chosen for their survival value and not for their truth value. So we have no warrant in believing in them. Well two answer can be given. First off it is question begging to say that since they evolved we should not trust them. Why because the person giving the argument is presupposing naturalism. But if God does exist than our morals can still be correct regardless of how they came to be about. Two it is self refuting to say that since our morals evolved that we have no warrant for believing in them. Why? Because on naturalism all of our beliefs are without warrant. Including naturalism itself so therefore it literally refutes itself.
Well some people endorse moral relativism. Which is what is good for me may be bad for you. Well I don't think anyone can live with this philosophy. Why? Well moral relativist cannot condemn moral actions. For example if I rape a child and abuse it. The moral relativist cannot say that was wrong. Because what I am doing might be right to me. It happens all the time in the animal kingdom. But here is the thing that everyone who is a relativist usually support gay rights, abortion, etc. Well where does this notions of rights come from? We are just animals and animals are not moral agents. Well if we have right so should animals. It should be illegal to kill chickens. And vice versa we should arrest a animal for killing humans. But here is the thing people say well animals do have rights. Okay let's me put their reasoning.
1. Humans are animals.
2. Humans have rights.
3. Therefore animals should have rights.
Well let's see where this leads us.
1. Humans kill animals when we no longer need them or when we must eat.
2. Humans are animals.
3. Therefore we can kill humans when we no longer need them or when we must eat.
You see the problem here. I am sure animal rights don't see the logic of it. I agree animals should have rights but against abuse that is it. Some of you might look at this and say well it is not right to kill a human being. Why not? We kill animals and we are just advance primates why not kill humans? Whoever says because we shouldn't because is wrong is guilty of specism. A unjustified biase for one's own species. Well the relativist must accept all of this and stay quiet and say it is okay. But who can honestly say that!
Michael ruse one said in another context.
" For the man who says that rape is morally justified is just as mistaken as the man who says 2+2= 5"
Well that is it for today. Tomorrow I will conclude my argument respond to common objections.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
Well I think our moral experience give us enough warrant to believe this is true if you don't believe me go out and rob somebody and see what happens. But let me respond to a few challenges. Some people say because evolution is true and our morals evolved than they are not true. Well this is a good textbook example of the genetic fallacy. Which is trying to disprove a belief by how it originated. Our moral values can still be true regardless of how they came to be about. There is a stronger version of this argument which states since our moral evolved they were chosen for their survival value and not for their truth value. So we have no warrant in believing in them. Well two answer can be given. First off it is question begging to say that since they evolved we should not trust them. Why because the person giving the argument is presupposing naturalism. But if God does exist than our morals can still be correct regardless of how they came to be about. Two it is self refuting to say that since our morals evolved that we have no warrant for believing in them. Why? Because on naturalism all of our beliefs are without warrant. Including naturalism itself so therefore it literally refutes itself.
Well some people endorse moral relativism. Which is what is good for me may be bad for you. Well I don't think anyone can live with this philosophy. Why? Well moral relativist cannot condemn moral actions. For example if I rape a child and abuse it. The moral relativist cannot say that was wrong. Because what I am doing might be right to me. It happens all the time in the animal kingdom. But here is the thing that everyone who is a relativist usually support gay rights, abortion, etc. Well where does this notions of rights come from? We are just animals and animals are not moral agents. Well if we have right so should animals. It should be illegal to kill chickens. And vice versa we should arrest a animal for killing humans. But here is the thing people say well animals do have rights. Okay let's me put their reasoning.
1. Humans are animals.
2. Humans have rights.
3. Therefore animals should have rights.
Well let's see where this leads us.
1. Humans kill animals when we no longer need them or when we must eat.
2. Humans are animals.
3. Therefore we can kill humans when we no longer need them or when we must eat.
You see the problem here. I am sure animal rights don't see the logic of it. I agree animals should have rights but against abuse that is it. Some of you might look at this and say well it is not right to kill a human being. Why not? We kill animals and we are just advance primates why not kill humans? Whoever says because we shouldn't because is wrong is guilty of specism. A unjustified biase for one's own species. Well the relativist must accept all of this and stay quiet and say it is okay. But who can honestly say that!
Michael ruse one said in another context.
" For the man who says that rape is morally justified is just as mistaken as the man who says 2+2= 5"
Well that is it for today. Tomorrow I will conclude my argument respond to common objections.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Well let's get to buisness.
I will be discussing the moral argument for the existence of God. Now if you refer to my blog on tuesday I lay out the premises. So I will be discussing premise one which most atheists and theists agree on.
1. If God does not exist the objective moral values do not exist.
Now before I begin I think it is crucial I make some of my terms clear. First off, I am not saying God is necessary to know right from wrong. I don't need God to tell me that I should not abuse my child and torture him/her. God is not necessary for our knowledge of moral values. Now what I am saying God is necessary for them to be objective. Now this is the difference Moral ontology means the existence of moral values. Moral epistemology means the knowledge of moral values. Many detractors of the argument always seem to raise that common misunderstanding. So read this a few times.
Okay now we all know evolution is true. Livingstone if your reading this please bear with me. So we evolved so everything that we as humans have are byproducts of evolution. So since we evolved than the sense of moral values we have also evolved and are merely subjective. Michael ruse explains
" The position of the modern evolutionist....is that humans have an awareness morality...because such a awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than our hands, feet and teeth.... Considered as a justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate it when somebody says ' love thy neighbor as you love thyself ' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves..... nevertheless.... such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just a aid to survival and reproduction and any deeper meaning is illusory...."
Since we evolved morals did too. And moral values weren't selected for their truth value but for their survival value. Since they help our species survive they are just subjective. They don't mean anything they are just the result of socio-biological evolution. So when the rapist or the sex offender commits a crime they are just acting out of fashion in contrary to our subjective beliefs of morality. They didn't do anything wrong. If God does not exist we are just accidents of nature and we are not special in anyway. We are morally equal to the life of a pig or fly. Our morals are just accidents and don't mean anything.
So I think that premise one is something most atheists would agree with after some reflection. Now to be clear I don't adopt this view of morality I think morals are objective and whoever breaks the moral code is worth of being punished. Next time we will discuss premise two of the argument. Then after that I will give answers to objections and then I will finally move on to my next argument which is the contingency argument for the existence of God.
1. If God does not exist the objective moral values do not exist.
Now before I begin I think it is crucial I make some of my terms clear. First off, I am not saying God is necessary to know right from wrong. I don't need God to tell me that I should not abuse my child and torture him/her. God is not necessary for our knowledge of moral values. Now what I am saying God is necessary for them to be objective. Now this is the difference Moral ontology means the existence of moral values. Moral epistemology means the knowledge of moral values. Many detractors of the argument always seem to raise that common misunderstanding. So read this a few times.
Okay now we all know evolution is true. Livingstone if your reading this please bear with me. So we evolved so everything that we as humans have are byproducts of evolution. So since we evolved than the sense of moral values we have also evolved and are merely subjective. Michael ruse explains
" The position of the modern evolutionist....is that humans have an awareness morality...because such a awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than our hands, feet and teeth.... Considered as a justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate it when somebody says ' love thy neighbor as you love thyself ' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves..... nevertheless.... such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just a aid to survival and reproduction and any deeper meaning is illusory...."
Since we evolved morals did too. And moral values weren't selected for their truth value but for their survival value. Since they help our species survive they are just subjective. They don't mean anything they are just the result of socio-biological evolution. So when the rapist or the sex offender commits a crime they are just acting out of fashion in contrary to our subjective beliefs of morality. They didn't do anything wrong. If God does not exist we are just accidents of nature and we are not special in anyway. We are morally equal to the life of a pig or fly. Our morals are just accidents and don't mean anything.
So I think that premise one is something most atheists would agree with after some reflection. Now to be clear I don't adopt this view of morality I think morals are objective and whoever breaks the moral code is worth of being punished. Next time we will discuss premise two of the argument. Then after that I will give answers to objections and then I will finally move on to my next argument which is the contingency argument for the existence of God.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
So happy!
Today forget the argument I will start tomorrow. First off, I was talking to the girl I absolutely like right now and we went on for 3 hours or 2 and half. A lot of feelings came out. Well there was a point in the conversation where she told me she couldn't go out with me because of her parents. So I told her to be honest with me completely honest. She agreed. I had enough audacity to ask her if your parents said you could go out with anyone would you go out with me? Before I answer what she said I was a nervous wreck at this point! I was talking to livingstone while doing it. We were discussing some debates we had. Anyway she answers and say the most wonderful words I have ever hear.
Totally.
YES
I was flabbergasted I stayed quiet for a while trying to conjure up some sort of retort. I answered Woah! After that we talked some more I felt she opened up some more. But I noticed she acts a tad different when we area talking online alone than at school. Like she doesn't let her feeling show in school but when online alone with her she does. I find that rather strange. So you can only imagine how I feel right now. So that is enough for this blog sorry for losing my demeanor for a second. Tomorrow I will discuss the argument for morality.
Totally.
YES
I was flabbergasted I stayed quiet for a while trying to conjure up some sort of retort. I answered Woah! After that we talked some more I felt she opened up some more. But I noticed she acts a tad different when we area talking online alone than at school. Like she doesn't let her feeling show in school but when online alone with her she does. I find that rather strange. So you can only imagine how I feel right now. So that is enough for this blog sorry for losing my demeanor for a second. Tomorrow I will discuss the argument for morality.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Moral argument.
Well for today since I have a billions of things to do. I am only in high school I don't have the time to sit around on a computer and debate all day. So I will make this quick.
1. If God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore God exists.
I will just introduce you to the argument and let you think on each of the premises and if they sound reasonable to you. And one more thing I want to make the distinction between knowledge of moral values and existence of moral values.
1. If God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore God exists.
I will just introduce you to the argument and let you think on each of the premises and if they sound reasonable to you. And one more thing I want to make the distinction between knowledge of moral values and existence of moral values.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
My views on evolution.
This is quite random but I think it is necessary to talk about. What do I believe about evolution? Well my friend Livingstone put forth a good argument against evolution I must admit. But, I am not going to say that ID is something I will affirm. Nor am I saying that evolution has the upper hand. What I will say though is that I see both sides. And there is nothing theologically holding me from belief in evolution. If fact Dr Aayla (probably spelled wrong my apologies) puts forth a good argument against ID and his believe in what is called theistic evolution. Now ID proponents also give good reason to deny evolution. Like Michael Behe. So what do I affirm about evolution.
Nothing I really don't think it makes a difference on whether or not God exists. So I am free to believe it. But I remain a agnostic on evolution. I don't know if it is true. If someone were to ask me if I believe in evolution I usually respond. I think the arguments on both sides are equally balanced so I have no formal opinion. So that is it for this blog I am sure livingstone will find it interesting. Next time we will do whatever. God bless!
Nothing I really don't think it makes a difference on whether or not God exists. So I am free to believe it. But I remain a agnostic on evolution. I don't know if it is true. If someone were to ask me if I believe in evolution I usually respond. I think the arguments on both sides are equally balanced so I have no formal opinion. So that is it for this blog I am sure livingstone will find it interesting. Next time we will do whatever. God bless!
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Ramblings about love.
Today apart from the debate does God exist? I would like to take the moment to blog about my personal life. I love talking about my issues because it helps me deal with stress. I met this girl a few months back and ever since I started liking her then some more then some more. Now I am absolutely crazy about her. I can't study because she is on my mind. Any miscellaneous activity I do I either thinking about her or thinking about her. I just can't get her off my mind. In some of my blogs I even mention her! I never felt this was about a girl before. So I naturally did the logical thing and ask her out. I was rejected. But I didn't give up. Something about her behavior tells me that she does have some feelings for me. So I want to give up on her she said no about 4 times. But whenever I am around her I just lose control I can't think rationally. I don't use logic. I just act out on the heart.
Now let's talk something rational. Does love exist? Or is it some chemical hormone released by the brain to propagate the human species. But it seems to me to be abstract apart from the physical world beyond it. Perhaps it is a essential property of the mind? Well it can't be abstract because in the absence of people love would not exist. So it must be grounded in God? Perhaps since we are made in his image and God is a mind with no body. We are minds with bodies. So perhaps love is grounded in God and when God made use he gave us love. But then we delve into another issue does the mind exist? But we can argue that later.
So back to my personal life. I have no idea what to do with her anymore. Not even natural theology is harder than trying to figure the mind of a girl! One can be a scientist but that is the one thing we as men will never figure out! Well I guess that is enough for now. I leave you with the philosophical rambling about love and mind etc.
Now let's talk something rational. Does love exist? Or is it some chemical hormone released by the brain to propagate the human species. But it seems to me to be abstract apart from the physical world beyond it. Perhaps it is a essential property of the mind? Well it can't be abstract because in the absence of people love would not exist. So it must be grounded in God? Perhaps since we are made in his image and God is a mind with no body. We are minds with bodies. So perhaps love is grounded in God and when God made use he gave us love. But then we delve into another issue does the mind exist? But we can argue that later.
So back to my personal life. I have no idea what to do with her anymore. Not even natural theology is harder than trying to figure the mind of a girl! One can be a scientist but that is the one thing we as men will never figure out! Well I guess that is enough for now. I leave you with the philosophical rambling about love and mind etc.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Philosophical argument against infinite and some personal issues.
My next argument will be formally called the impossibility of tranversing the infinite. The argument goes as follows.
1. A actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition.
2. A universe that is eternal implies a infinite formed by successive addition.
3. Therefore a eternal universe cannot exist.
Now first let me make clear but what I mean by infinite. There is two types of infinite. The actual and potential. The actual infinite is a collection of members whose numbers exceeded any natural number. The potential infinite is a set whose member progress toward infinity as a limit point but never get there.
Now let me talk about philosophy of time. There is two theories of time. The a theory and the b theory. A theory holds that the present is all that exists. That the past is done and the future has yet to exist. That we do endured moment by moment. The b theory holds that all time is actual that the people in 1988 are just as real as the people now and the people in 2020. That it is a illusion that time progresses moment by moment. For my argument I will assert a theory. Since I see it as sound and confirmed in our experience.
Now if the universe never began than the number of past events is infinite. That the universe has endured infinite days prior to today. But if that is true than we could never reach today. Since before today exist yesterday would have to arrive but if yesterday were have to arrive than the day before yesterday would have to arrive and so on a so forth. To give a analogy suppose person 1 goes to person 2 for a pen but person two doesn't have one so he goes to person 3 but he doesn't have one. And so on and so forth. Person 1 will never get that pen since everyone in this series is a borrowing lender. So back to my argument if the universe never began then we could never reach today. But here we are so the universe must have a beginning.
Now some of my personal issues. I recall this girl I blogged about now I asked her out and she rejected me etc. But I need to stop trying I feel that I am all over her. We are constantly fighting and flirting. But she has a boy friend. I need to give up but when I am around her I don't know something comes over me that I cannot control myself I lose my demeanor. I start acting barbaric. Like a caveman or something but I need to stop. But I really like her a lot. But she is not a Christian and it would be unwise to go out with her because she can distract me from God. So I need to give her some space. So yeah! That it for now next time I might share my second favorite argument for the existence of God namely the Axiological argument or the moral argument. Well tally ho!
1. A actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition.
2. A universe that is eternal implies a infinite formed by successive addition.
3. Therefore a eternal universe cannot exist.
Now first let me make clear but what I mean by infinite. There is two types of infinite. The actual and potential. The actual infinite is a collection of members whose numbers exceeded any natural number. The potential infinite is a set whose member progress toward infinity as a limit point but never get there.
Now let me talk about philosophy of time. There is two theories of time. The a theory and the b theory. A theory holds that the present is all that exists. That the past is done and the future has yet to exist. That we do endured moment by moment. The b theory holds that all time is actual that the people in 1988 are just as real as the people now and the people in 2020. That it is a illusion that time progresses moment by moment. For my argument I will assert a theory. Since I see it as sound and confirmed in our experience.
Now if the universe never began than the number of past events is infinite. That the universe has endured infinite days prior to today. But if that is true than we could never reach today. Since before today exist yesterday would have to arrive but if yesterday were have to arrive than the day before yesterday would have to arrive and so on a so forth. To give a analogy suppose person 1 goes to person 2 for a pen but person two doesn't have one so he goes to person 3 but he doesn't have one. And so on and so forth. Person 1 will never get that pen since everyone in this series is a borrowing lender. So back to my argument if the universe never began then we could never reach today. But here we are so the universe must have a beginning.
Now some of my personal issues. I recall this girl I blogged about now I asked her out and she rejected me etc. But I need to stop trying I feel that I am all over her. We are constantly fighting and flirting. But she has a boy friend. I need to give up but when I am around her I don't know something comes over me that I cannot control myself I lose my demeanor. I start acting barbaric. Like a caveman or something but I need to stop. But I really like her a lot. But she is not a Christian and it would be unwise to go out with her because she can distract me from God. So I need to give her some space. So yeah! That it for now next time I might share my second favorite argument for the existence of God namely the Axiological argument or the moral argument. Well tally ho!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)