Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Divine Non-Contradiction Principle and Why it Fails-Refuted

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Divine Non-Contradiction Principle and Why it Fails-Refuted

    http://www.strongatheism.net/library...ion_principle/

    The problems come from, again, the arguments are based on unsubstantiated premises that basically amount to question begging, such as:
    This seems reasonable at first glance. However, we then fall upon a problem, since the following proposition is also true from the materialist standpoint:

    (P3) The existence and nature of the universe is a logical necessity.
    and this:

    In reality, we know that this is a fallacy because, from the materialist viewpoint, there is only one kind of existent – material – and only one kind of fact – empirical.
    Eh, Francois, you 'do' know that theists aren't materialists, right? So we have literally, no reason to accept either of those premises.
    Last edited by TimelessTheist; 05-16-2014, 10:32 PM.
    Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

    -Thomas Aquinas

    I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

    -Hernando Cortez

    What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

    -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

  • #2
    Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
    Eh, Francois, you 'do' know that theists aren't materialists, right? So we have literally, no reason to accept either of those premises.
    You do know that he's not talking to or about theists in the section quoted, right? He's talking to skeptics who already accept the materialist view.
    I'm not here anymore.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
      You do know that he's not talking to or about theists in the section quoted, right? He's talking to skeptics who already accept the materialist view.
      Never said he was. The point is that he's using a premise that theists don't accept to refute a theological argument.
      Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

      -Thomas Aquinas

      I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

      -Hernando Cortez

      What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

      -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
        Never said he was. The point is that he's using a premise that theists don't accept to refute a theological argument.
        So what's new? theists use premises in their argument that atheists don't accept.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          So what's new? theists use premises in their argument that atheists don't accept.
          Name some.
          Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

          -Thomas Aquinas

          I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

          -Hernando Cortez

          What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

          -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
            Never said he was. The point is that he's using a premise that theists don't accept to refute a theological argument.
            This is false. He's refuting two things. The first is a theological argument made by theists with the temporary granting of the premise of materialism (materialist apologetics he calls it). The second is to expose the fallacy of splitting logic from empiricism as is commonly done by materialist atheists.
            I'm not here anymore.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
              This is false. He's refuting two things. The first is a theological argument made by theists with the temporary granting of the premise of materialism (materialist apologetics he calls it). The second is to expose the fallacy of splitting logic from empiricism as is commonly done by materialist atheists.
              Wait....what? Eh, the solution to the Problem of Divine Contradiction does not grant materialism. The Problem of Divine Contradiction is a purely logical problem. It, and it's solution, have nothing to do with materialism. Not sure where you two are getting that from.

              Edit: Ohhhh, wait, now I see it. Nevermind, my bad....still though. This does not refute the Solution to the Problem of Divine Contradiction, when making it from a stance that does not grant materialism.
              Last edited by TimelessTheist; 05-16-2014, 10:23 PM.
              Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

              -Thomas Aquinas

              I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

              -Hernando Cortez

              What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

              -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                Wait....what? Eh, the solution to the Problem of Divine Contradiction does not grant materialism. The Problem of Divine Contradiction is a purely logical problem. It, and it's solution, have nothing to do with materialism. Not sure where you two are getting that from.

                Edit: Ohhhh, wait, now I see it. Nevermind, my bad....still though. This does not refute the Solution to the Problem of Divine Contradiction, when making it from a stance that does not grant materialism.
                You're right, it does not refute the solution when made from a stance that does not grant materialism. As far as I can tell, that wasn't the intent.
                I'm not here anymore.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                  You're right, it does not refute the solution when made from a stance that does not grant materialism. As far as I can tell, that wasn't the intent.
                  Well, I misunderstood the intent, I see that now.
                  Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                  -Thomas Aquinas

                  I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                  -Hernando Cortez

                  What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                  -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                    Well, I misunderstood the intent, I see that now.
                    I'm not here anymore.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                      Name some.
                      That the nature of existence is necessarily finite, and there must be 'Source' other then natural outside our physical existence.

                      Human morality could not have evolved naturally.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon
                        So what's new? theists use premises in their argument that atheists don't accept.

                        Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                        Name some.
                        It depends on the argument. Atheists don't all reason the same way or from the same premises, and neither do theists.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                          It depends on the argument. Atheists don't all reason the same way or from the same premises, and neither do theists.
                          Correct, I was just asked for 'some' of the assumptions theists make for their arguments for God that atheists do not make, and of course 'some' atheists make 'some' assumption that theists do not make.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            Correct, I was just asked for 'some' of the assumptions theists make for their arguments for God that atheists do not make, and of course 'some' atheists make 'some' assumption that theists do not make.
                            William Lane Craig presents a few of them on his website: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-n...uments-for-god.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              and of course 'some' atheists make 'some' assumption that theists do not make.
                              It's probably a safe guess that most atheists, at least among those who are active on Internet forums, assume the truth of philosophical naturalism.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Diogenes, 10-10-2020, 08:38 PM
                              15 responses
                              118 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Andius, 10-07-2020, 07:38 PM
                              10 responses
                              75 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X