UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
my point is that the existence of god is scientifically untestable.
that means that the existence of a god can neither be proven nor disproven.
care to differ?
Hitler Was A Leftist
- Thread starter Windsblow
- Start date
- Status
that means that the existence of a god can neither be proven nor disproven.
care to differ?
JohnTheFarmer
Member
UB, must I really hold your hand as a parent does a child crossing the road?
The "burden of proof" is there, you just have to find it. If you are not willing to do so and learn for yourself, no amount of writing on my behalf will convince you.
Oh, and there are 7 standards of proof....do YOU know them all?
The "burden of proof" is there, you just have to find it. If you are not willing to do so and learn for yourself, no amount of writing on my behalf will convince you.
Oh, and there are 7 standards of proof....do YOU know them all?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
seriously? you want to play this childish game?
you made the assertion. thus, you get to stand behind it.
end of story.
you might want to start out by demonstrating how the existence of a god is even scientifically testable, for one.
hint: descartes is PHILOSOPHY, not science.
fucking amateurs.
deprave
New Member
Really now that I look into a little I see hitlers politics is a greatly debated topic because its not fully understood.
"Historians and biographers note some difficulty in identifying Adolf Hitler's political views. His writings and methods were often adapted to need and circumstance although anti-Semitism, anti-capitalism, anti-communism, anti-parliamentarianism, German expansionism, belief in the superiority of an "Aryan race" and an extreme form of German nationalism were steady themes. Hitler personally claimed he was fighting against Jewish Marxism."
"Historians and biographers note some difficulty in identifying Adolf Hitler's political views. His writings and methods were often adapted to need and circumstance although anti-Semitism, anti-capitalism, anti-communism, anti-parliamentarianism, German expansionism, belief in the superiority of an "Aryan race" and an extreme form of German nationalism were steady themes. Hitler personally claimed he was fighting against Jewish Marxism."
JohnTheFarmer
Member
If you actually had any familarity with Descartes and the question of God's existance, it would point you to Aristotle....
In Metaphysics, Aristotle develops a first science that studies being as being. The goal of this study is to discover the first cause or causes (Metaphysics -1). He concludes that there is an Unmoved Mover that is the only being capable of causing eternal motion and thus is the ultimate cause of the universe. Aristotle calls this Mover God (Ch.7). As a result, the first science is theology. Whatever explains substances explains all things, and for Aristotle, God or the divine explains the nature of substance by virtue of being the highest substance. If there were no substance, there would be nothing. Therefore, the science of divine being, theology, is the most universal science, prior to all other sciences, explaining everything by reference to the divine Unmoved Mover.
Descartes, although through a different methodology, ultimately proves the existence of this Aristotelian God, on the level of ideas, not beings in his Meditations on First Philosophy.
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][/FONT][/FONT]
Though Aristotle and Descartes took somewhat different approaches to discovering the first cause of the universe, they arrived at similar conclusions. First, that there is in fact a first cause to the universe, and second, that this cause can be nothing other than God. Aristotle proved the existence of a God that is the most complete being, eternal, and immovable. He reached this conclusion through an inquiry into substance. Descartes attempted to prove the existence of a perfect, eternal, infinite, and immovable God by borrowing Aristotelian concepts. However, he did so not through an inquiry into substance, which he was not particularly concerned with, but through his search for the cause of ideas. Ultimately, God is the cause of the universe for both Aristotle and Descartes. For both, God is necessary for existence.
Add in Newton's Laws of Motion, and it agrees with both Aristotle and Descartes views in that God is the first unmoved mover. In fact, it proves them in nothing less than cold hard logic and science. The rest is faith.
In Metaphysics, Aristotle develops a first science that studies being as being. The goal of this study is to discover the first cause or causes (Metaphysics -1). He concludes that there is an Unmoved Mover that is the only being capable of causing eternal motion and thus is the ultimate cause of the universe. Aristotle calls this Mover God (Ch.7). As a result, the first science is theology. Whatever explains substances explains all things, and for Aristotle, God or the divine explains the nature of substance by virtue of being the highest substance. If there were no substance, there would be nothing. Therefore, the science of divine being, theology, is the most universal science, prior to all other sciences, explaining everything by reference to the divine Unmoved Mover.
Descartes, although through a different methodology, ultimately proves the existence of this Aristotelian God, on the level of ideas, not beings in his Meditations on First Philosophy.
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][/FONT][/FONT]
Though Aristotle and Descartes took somewhat different approaches to discovering the first cause of the universe, they arrived at similar conclusions. First, that there is in fact a first cause to the universe, and second, that this cause can be nothing other than God. Aristotle proved the existence of a God that is the most complete being, eternal, and immovable. He reached this conclusion through an inquiry into substance. Descartes attempted to prove the existence of a perfect, eternal, infinite, and immovable God by borrowing Aristotelian concepts. However, he did so not through an inquiry into substance, which he was not particularly concerned with, but through his search for the cause of ideas. Ultimately, God is the cause of the universe for both Aristotle and Descartes. For both, God is necessary for existence.
Add in Newton's Laws of Motion, and it agrees with both Aristotle and Descartes views in that God is the first unmoved mover. In fact, it proves them in nothing less than cold hard logic and science. The rest is faith.
JohnTheFarmer
Member
SO you have Aristotle, Descartes, and Newton all in agreement with thier theories about the existence of God. That's WAY more intellectually honest than any of the "data" the "climate change" / "global warming" hacks have conjured.
Windsblow
Well-Known Member
What the hell does this mean? Nazi? What a clown......... Read your history. The slave issue, though not just an American issue, was a scourge on humanity and nowhere in the Constitution does it allow for the ownership of other HUmans. Politicians, Lawyers and Judges, in other words the Statist ideologue were the cause of slavery. The fact that you are calling people NAzi's shows your lack of historic knowledge.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
And anarchy is on the other end of the spectrum. That is the right wing equivalent. When ever you just to either extreme it's going to result in huge problems.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
no one is on a path to be like hitler. that's just silly.
Maybe the government of the Sudan and a couple other African political groups, but that's about it.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
do you even understand what science is? how to test a hypothesis?
clearly not, or else you would not have backed up your philosophy with more philosophy.
fucking amateur.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
Also the republican party from Ike-Nixon could be considered far left by todays standards in America.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Attachments
Windsblow
Well-Known Member
+rep for being logical. This statement is true.
KlosetKing
Well-Known Member
Ok, we get it, you don't understand the difference between science and philosophy. "god was proven by a guy who thought alot about it, then another dude who thought about it alot agreed".
Newton was a scientist, but he was also damn mad. He practiced alchemy, theology, and philosophy. Trying to reference Newtons first law of motion as a scientific source as proof of 'god' is ridiculous.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i'm talking about a line in the sand, johnny. across this line you DO NOT...also, dude, chinamen is not the preferred nomenclature. asian-american, please"Would you forget about the fucking toe?!"
ChronicObsession
Well-Known Member
Windsblow
Well-Known Member
That is menacing and delicious at the same time.Bacon Nazi likes this thread
JohnTheFarmer
Member
"Newton was "mad"". I couldn't help but laugh my ass off. Might as well reject the ideals of the Declaration of Independence because Jefferson owned slaves too, huh? By your logic, Ben Franklin, who was a postmaster, a printer, an inventor, oh, and a SCIENTIST is a "hack" too because he did other things besides be a "scientist". Damn, there goes all the revelry for discovering electricity and inventing the light bulb and all those patents..
In Science and physics we still learn of the importance of Newtons discoveries. Whether he was "mad" as you say has got jack shit to do with his discoveries. Fact is humankind will still be learning about Newton 200 years from now while the top "global warming/climate change" scientists will be nothing more than a name on a grave, known only to thier contemporaries.
Said it before and I'll say it again, I led you to the truth, if you aren't capable of understanding it it's on you, not me. Retorting with non-sequitor replies only proves my point further.
- Status