Recently I have been going around and debating with people about the existance of God. In my travels so to speak, I came accross a theist who made a very strong argument. In the philisophical paradigm there are considered to many different "levels" of existance. By this I mean that each thing that is considered to exist is ranked based upon how certain we can be that it exists. So, the primary level of existance consists solely of the mind. This is the case in that the mind logically proves itself. If one were to doubt the existance of their mind, they would be using their mind to doubt it. Thus, it must exist. The colloquial version of this proof is the simple phrase "I think therefore I am."
Secondary existance consists of things that we can percieve with one of the major senses. Tangible objects which we can feel and see. It is rare to find someone who refutes an object of secondary existance. So with this background, the theists argument went as follows.
1. Things we can feel or see have secondary existance
2. I can feel the love of God in me.
conclusion: God has secondary existance.
The strength of this argument lies in the fact that it is valid through simple logical proof.
the argument parallels the following.
If A then B
Given A
Therefore B
The validity is irrefutable thus one must attempt to reject the premises so as to prevent soundness of the argument. The first premise is generally accepted so I cannot challenge that, and the second can only be determined by the theist so I cannot refute that either. I had no counter to his argument and he won the debate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
feelings? feelings are abstract and not the same for any two people; still thinking of what to counter the theist logic with but i'm somewhat stuck right now
OK so you saw the Matrix and you think you are special. There's lots of evidence for the existence of God. Why don't you look up evidence of God's existence in a book instead of your dumbass head? Go on wikipedia and look up Thomas Aquinas, you'd think people would have picked up on it after a few hundred years but I guess not. Blame the public schools for that, and for your grammatical inabilities.
Anonymous sounds angry, and that's always the best strategy of persuasion(?). Just because one person is familiar with one topic doesn't mean everyone will be or should be. There's a reason the university has disciplines . . .
Anyway, A's suggestion seems to be to look at Aquinas' "Quinquae viae." They're interesting, but it's beyond my area of expertise to evaluate. Maybe you can find more recent scholarship on the Quinquae viae, and maybe even Dawkins writes about them.
It wouls be interesting to hear what he says about the Quinquae viae.
Post a Comment