Christianity QA » Christian God » Help! philosophical argument.
Question:
I am in the middle of a very long philosophical argument with a philosophy proffessor (I know I bit off way more than I could chew) Can anyone help me with ontological, teleological, and cosmological support for Wicca. This is his argument: 1) God is All Knowing 2) God is All Powerful 3) God is All Loving 4) Uneccesary Suffering exists. There for God does not exist. I have been trying to attack the 3rd and 4th premisisies. I also have a conter argument: 1) There is a fundemental mathematical order to the Universe (given) 2) This is refered to as Nature (given) 3) There is nothing outside of Nature (given) Therfore Nature is all powerful (succesfully argued) 1) God is all powerful (given) 2) Nature is all powerful (proved) therefor Nature is God (succesfully argued) We have an agreement that Nature is God, but I cannot find an argument for Wicca. Any help is apreciated. — You may have to delete [no spam] to reply Shadowlark’s Sanctum – http://home.earthlink.net/~shadowlark/ Love is the Whole of the Law, Love is the Light, Love under Will
Response:
I am in the middle of a very long philosophical argument with a philosophy proffessor (I know I bit off way more than I could chew) Can anyone help me with ontological, teleological, and cosmological support for Wicca.
Ouch! Y’know most people have simpler hobbies…. <g This is his argument: 1) God is All Knowing 2) God is All Powerful 3) God is All Loving 4) Uneccesary Suffering exists. There for God does not exist.
Flaw: point 4. "Unnecessary Suffering" is defined subjectively. How does the prof know what is unnecessary? He has no idea what an infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful being sees as being necessary.
Response:
Flaw: point 4. "Unnecessary Suffering" is defined subjectively. How does the prof know what is unnecessary? He has no idea what an infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful being sees as being necessary.
I tried that. He thwacked me over the head with his book, and saked me if that was necessary *grin* I think I have got him on point 4. I’ve succesfully argued that God exists and that God is Nature. If I can just come up with an argument for Karmanic Law, and the Necessity of Love I will have successfully defended my religion. Blessings, Shadowlark — You may have to delete [no spam] to reply Shadowlark’s Sanctum – http://home.earthlink.net/~shadowlark/ Love is the Whole of the Law, Love is the Light, Love under Will
Response:
Flaw: point 4. "Unnecessary Suffering" is defined subjectively. How does the prof know what is unnecessary? He has no idea what an infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful being sees as being necessary. I tried that. He thwacked me over the head with his book, and saked me if that was necessary *grin* I think I have got him on point 4. I’ve succesfully argued that God exists and that God is Nature. If I can just come up with an argument for Karmanic Law, and the Necessity of Love I will have successfully defended my religion. Blessings, Shadowlark
Well you might well have an argument on Emotion, which includes love, without it there would be no reason for women and men to pair, except for sex, and no interest taken in the children produced from either male or female, if the children are not loved,by their mother at least, they develope badly, or they get thrown out with the rubbish, in other words, the populatation growth would be less than nil. No human race. Emotion is a survival of the species instinct, anger, hate, love grief, all are necicarry to survival. and to producing the next generation. — The ‘Old Craft’ lady http://www.oldcity.demon.co.uk/
Response:
Why do we incessantly argue about the existence of God? Does this existence of a being or a pervasive energy validate anything – is it the reason we behave one way and not a another? should it be the reason we live this way or that way? There are so many definitions of what God is that ultimately what we do is validate or invalidate a definition of god, and then we do something horrendous; we live our lives by the validation or the invalidation of a definition. If we validate our definition, we go around snooty, feeling we have a private insight to the glorious universe – if our definition is invalidated we can loose our "faith", and if our faith is what transported our reason for community and so-called "love" we become dis-heartened, dis-eased, and depressed — we have participated in soul-murder — both of us. I very much like the word "aspect" it is used a lot in wiccan traditions as well as others. From my point of view divinity is manifested in the face i look at in the mirror and faces i see passing in the halls on my way to work, my dog and cat, the wind and trees, etc. To me – I am God, you are God. Why do we assume that a god is all powerful, all knowing, what’s the precendence. The creation of the universe? Doesn’t this beg the question: what is all powerfull/all knowing — wouldn’t someone/something have to be these things in order to recognize and rightly assess what is such? In order to create the universe all you need to know is how to do it, assemble materials, and manifest the world. nothing more. it does not require inifinite power, nor inifinite knowledge; BTW, these are useless terms. to me truth is trancendent of condition, it is trancendent of validity. truth does not seek to validate itself – it’s absurd. truth is truth whether i believe it or not, whether your definition of god is better than my defition. what i think we seek to do is validate our "belief" in "something as true". we become lazy and associate personal belief with impersonal truth. belief is always a prision, truth is always a freedom because is transcendant of condition. "The necessity of Love" this is another absurdity; Love is transcendant of condition as well… love cannot manifest itself if this, that, or the other must be met. Love manifests itself when dogma, specifications, right, wrong, meek, strong, illusion, reality, need, desire , and want are removed. The very insistence that love is needed, becomes a barrier to the presence of love. It also begs the question: Love is needed for what? Cicero said: "There are two ways love and want of love", i say "there are two ways freedom and fear.", truth and love are freedom, the desire for truth and love ultimately becomes a barrier to freedom, this wall becomes the prision manifested of fear – the fear of right/wrong belief, the fear of what i should/shouldn’t be, the fear of not meeting this or that condition, the fear of not knowing, the fear of not being worthy of love, the fear of not being intelligent enough to recognize truth. does this make sense? love and trust, mark. I will have successfully defended my religion.
ps: why do you feel the need to to defend your religion – does validity of your religion lie in your prof or other outsiders who you feel is authority or master… or does the validity lie within you, in your belief. Will you reject the concepts you cherish in your religion because this or that person won’t validate or accept your "proof of validity" for your religion? ..look at these worlds spinning out of nothingness, scattering stars like dust – this is within you power; out beyond ideas of wrong doing and right doing there is a field — i will meet you there… — rumi —= -=- -=- =— ..we come spinning out of nothingness scattering stars like dust; look at these worlds spinning out of nothingness — this is within your power. out beyond ideas of right doing and wrong doing there is a field – i’ll meet you there. – rumi
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am in the middle of a very long philosophical argument with a philosophy proffessor (I know I bit off way more than I could chew) Can anyone help me with ontological, teleological, and cosmological support for Wicca. Ouch! Y’know most people have simpler hobbies…. <g This is his argument: 1) God is All Knowing 2) God is All Powerful 3) God is All Loving 4) Uneccesary Suffering exists. There for God does not exist. Flaw: point 4. "Unnecessary Suffering" is defined subjectively. How does the prof know what is unnecessary? He has no idea what an infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful being sees as being necessary.
Problem here re wicca is that the first three points are definitions of the Christian God, not necessarily of other gods, so that this can only be used to prove the nonexistence of a specific form of deity. If the Gods are all-powerful, why do they need our help? — Jeffrey Quick http://www.en.com/users/jaquick
no comment untill now