Main > Main Forum
Interesting Craigslist find.
Justin Z:
There is a ton of circumstantial/anecdotal evidence to support the existence of "ghosts", while essentially no adult that is not mentally-handicapped is even suggesting that "Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and The Tooth Fairy" are real
That, incidentally, is why I prefer comparisons to things like unicorns and leprechauns, things that were once believed to exist, but which fell out of favor.
Ghosts haven't. For whatever reason, the possibility of their existence seems more compatible with a "modern" mode of credulous thought.
ahofle:
--- Quote from: ChadTower on March 14, 2008, 03:34:46 pm ---
--- Quote from: MaximRecoil on March 14, 2008, 03:32:40 pm ---You don't quite have the hang of that, do you? BTW, what happened to your plan of not replying to any of my posts ever again?
--- End quote ---
You don't get to redefine my plan. You clearly don't understand my plan.
--- End quote ---
:laugh2:
MaximRecoil:
--- Quote from: Justin Z on March 14, 2008, 03:31:58 pm ---
--- Quote from: MaximRecoil on March 14, 2008, 03:14:53 pm ---"God", or, a "first mover" has to exist, or has to have once existed at least. Logic demands it. If there was ever nothing, there would still be nothing; by default. So "God" doesn't exactly fit into your list. "Ghosts" don't fit into your list either, simply by virtue of millions of sincere adult witnesses.
--- End quote ---
Why?
Is it necessary that for there ever to have been something, that something else must have "created" it?
If so, you are forced to explain the existence of something infinitely more complex than the universe. To use something more complex than the universe, like a "first" mover, to explain the existence and complexity of the universe has put you at an even more difficult place than when you started: Explaining what caused the "first" mover. So I suggest you rethink your position.
--- End quote ---
I don't need to "rethink" the position. It has already been stated far more eloquently than I could ever do it; hundreds of years ago. You don't need to explain what "caused" the "first mover" BTW; because if anything "caused" the "first mover" then the "first mover" would not be the "first mover", by definition; now would it?
RayB:
--- Quote from: Justin Z on March 14, 2008, 12:02:21 pm ---Are unicorns, leprechauns and cerberus likely to exist simply because it "would be pretty crazy" if they did?
--- End quote ---
According to Silvia Brown, there are. And the legions of suckers who buy her books and watch Montel just take her word for it. Kind of like most religions. If its in the book, it must be true?
Why degrade this into a God debate? We're talking about the UNDEAD floating around and yet also being able to interact with physical world. OooOOOo scarrrry.
It's human nature to want to believe in fantastic things. I grew up reading everything about UFOs, ghosts, psychics, big foot, etc. In adulthood I came to understand that psychologically, it was just wishful thinking. It's human to wish there is more than the mundance reality we percieve. But that's the key there. Just because we wish for something more exciting to be real, doesn't make it real. We have to accept that maybe what's out there on this planet is what we make of it ourselves. Creator god or not.
Justin Z:
--- Quote from: MaximRecoil on March 14, 2008, 03:37:05 pm ---I don't need to "rethink" the position. It has already been stated far more eloquently than I could ever do it; hundreds of years ago. You don't need to explain what "caused" the "first mover" BTW; because if anything "caused" the first mover than the "first mover" would not be the "first mover", by definition; now would it?
--- End quote ---
Yup. This is why only "first" gets put in quotes when I refer to a "first" mover. All you're doing by positing a "first" mover is shifting the goalposts back. You still need one more kick to get through, but just as you approach the ball, by the very nature of your argument you've backed them up another 50 yards.
By definition, a first mover is more complex than whatever it is he moved. So if you're going to use such a device to explain our existence, you've created yourself quite a problem: You now have to explain where in the world something even MORE complex came from in the first place. As I mentioned before, you have an infinite regress of "first" movers on your hands.
Edited to add: Aquinas was quite the thinker . . . in his day. We've come a long way since hundreds of years ago.