I am debating with a friend of mine about Religion Vs. Science (yawn).
She asserts that because Science can be empirically measured, objectively observed, that it is infallible and true. Religion is subjective and, as she puts it, "non-objectively-observable", and separated from the measurements of physicality.
My friend argues that the philosophy, likewise, deals with the "ephemeral" qualities under mysticism, spirituality, and qualitative writings - as opposed to the quantitative and tangible playthings of science.
How may I better equip my side of the debate? I try and reason with her that Religion has been proven to be very helpful for a lot of people, especially families. Her arguments against it are immature (citing an "undead sky-zombie" or "because the Bible doesn't explicitly state 'do not rape kids', priests may subconsciously accept this as an ommission of law").
It's an exhaustive debate that has lasted weeks now and while I love debating her, I try hard to use reason, logic, and evidence on my side. The only problem is that she only accepts quantitative data manifesting in physically tangible evidence. She discounts the realm of philosophy as wank and superfluous when science offers the truth of existence.
It has never been "religion vs science".
This is a myth perpetuated by atheists.
It has always been a religious conflict.
Darwinism is a satanic cult that seeks to depose God. The conflict is religious in nature and this is what the Freemasons/occult societies know.
>>894178
>debating seriously with women
>>894178
The person you're debating is on the same level as a YEC or Flat Earther
Don't bother
>>894184
So.. an intelligent person that believes in facts and knows how the world works?
Glad I'm not debating with an evolutionist, those people are insane.
OP here. Let me be clear-
I'm debating:
a. Philosophy is important, and no more/less so than science
b. God exists
>>894199
Read Aquinas
Start with Aquinas by Edward Feser if you're a novice
>>894182
This
>implying women are interested in anything besides themselves
>>894199
Read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis
Your friend should read Thomas Kuhn.
You should read Luhmann.
>>894178
>Religion has been proven to be very helpful for a lot of people, especially families
This is not an argument for its truth value, merely the practicality in perpetuating belief. Your best bet is in emphasizing practical applications of religion and philosophy. For example, political philosophy and ethics leading directly to advancements on that front.
>>894178
What are her actual arguments? If they are what they presented then it isn't clear how her premises necessary lead to the conclusions she is holding.
She also doesn't sound like she knows much about science if she thinks that it is infallible.
Check out this link
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/
This will allow you to have a better grasp on science then she does by the sounds of it,
>>894194
>using "evolutionist" unironically
>>894178
>Science can be empirically measured
she sounds like an utter pleb
>>894199
>God exists
Have you tried explaining to her that God can still exist even if every religion is wrong? A lot of atheists cannot seperate religion from God and think that disporiving one automaticall disproves the other.
>>894199
Youre debating the wrong thing anon
Philosophy is the queen of the sciences
>>894199
>Philosophy is important, and no more/less so than science
How can science be more important than philosophy when science IS a philosophy?
Whether or not God exists is all a matter of choice of belief. You can not say with certainty that God exists or does not, because no proof can be measured for either side.
>>894178
>she only responds to data that fall within the purview of what she accepts and understands and supports
>you let her get away with giving you a massive handicap for this "debate" by allowing her to fix what can be accepted as argument
you're a retard, she's a retard, and both of you need to commit suicide right now
>>894409
Agnostics please go.
>>894178
Read up on Critical Realism - to talk about objectivity is absurdly childish. Subjective motives interfere with science all the time. Religious states may not be verifiable to the degree that scientific observations can be but they influence people to act, they therefore exert power in the world and worth studying.
>>894178
You're finding it hard to argue because she's somewhat right. Science is basically falsifiable philosophy. Philosophy is like speculative science. It covers things that science hasn't yet been able to empirically quantify such as ethics and religion which are thus open to multiple interpretations that can't be totally proven right or wrong. The existence of God likewise isn't falsifiable. I think the best thing you can do is look into some of the work (CTMU) of Chris Langan (who is a theist), which he claims will unite science, philosophy and theology into a single falsifiable science, as well as develop an ontological argument that actually works.
>>894178
Look, your friends conclusion that religion is "immature" and then hit you with a bunch of shitty Ad Hominems. That's is not a valid/sound argument, that's just an opinion.
She hasn't elevated her retort past the point of it just being her worthless 2cent opinion.
Since, we can all agree, that's just, like, her opinion, man.
IF you are serious about pursuing this argument with this broad then go read pic related... that's literally all you need cuz shes just another science worshipper.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y68mGbvZZZg
>>894178
Her whole argument rests on her perception of science being objective, which of course it isn't, so start there.
>>894411
sus
>>894178
>Religion vs Science
What a western meme. Only former catholics/protestants are capable of this tier of BS.
They are not in contradiction. Science is understanding the tangible universe. Religion is understanding the untangible universe. Putting them in opposition is illogical; they simply do not deal with the same things.
The whole debate is fallacious in the first place.
>Philosophy is like speculative science
It really is not. Philosophy almost wholly considers conceptual problems, which science will never have much to say about, because concepts will relate to one another regardless of the state of the physical world and our understanding of it.
She's not wrong, she's just an asshole. Organized religion becomes increasingly pointless as a society progresses desu.
>>894411
If you're arguing to convince the other person, rather than an audience or third party, using arguments you know they won't even consider is a waste of time.
But yeah, she's clearly not very well informed about Christianity. I mean the bible explicitly permits child rape (Numbers 31:18)
>>894761
She is wrong
>>894503
>Religion is understanding the untangible universe
No, religion is collectivised worship. Understanding doesn't enter into the equation.
Stop thinking in platitudes.
>>894178
>I try and reason with her that Religion has been proven to be very helpful
You're both talking about two different things at once. You're talking about religion being helpful, while she's talking about religion being true.
Tell her that she has no idea how science works and should be emarrassed at her inability to criticize a text adequately. Tell her that the school system is failing both of you, Western civilization is in moral and intellectual decline, and the only evolutionarily viable option for the two of you is monogamy. Propose to her and get married. She'll be more likely to accept your proposal than to listen to the poor arguments you've been making.
>>894178
>that it is infallible and true
I bet she doesn't actually say that, but if she does she's wrong. Its demonstrably more reliable than religion or any other system, but obviously not infallible.
>I try and reason with her that Religion has been proven to be very helpful for a lot of people, especially families
Thats useful vs. true. A lot of things can be useful but that doesn't make them true. You're wrong if you claim this as an argument for religions truth-claims.
>>894211
Lewis's arguments have nothing more to them than "i feel its true so it must be", same as Aquinas. There is no demonstrable/verifiable claims anywhere in his works, just daydreaming.
Religion is a failed science.
There is no conflict only in the sense that religion has presented nothing of any truth value to consider.
>>894825
Reminder that Aquinas proved God exists objectively
>>894830
>mfw people still believe this
>>894215
>Reasonable Faith
>Hurrr it's either a mind or numbers
>Minds can exist without bodies cuz I say so, prove it if you disagree
No.
>>894834
>Hume
>Real
>>894830
>wordgames equal proof
>everything needs a cause
>this one things doesn't
>so not all things need causes, contradicting the premise
This is, at best, a broken hypothesis. Even if it was a functioning/valid hypothesis without internal contradiction, it would then still need to be demonstrated to be true.
Wordgames/philosophy is interesting, but does not lead to reliable certainties without actual verification.
>wordgames
Shitpost discarded
>>894825
>Nothing demonstrable in Aquinas
I guess you're ready to dismiss Aristotle
>>894830
Do people actually take this argument seriously?
>>894830
I'm going to be charitable to Aquinas and assume this is a horrible misrepresentation by someone who can't do metaphors or examples well.
>>894830
The fifth way isn't good.
>>894859
Depends, did aristotle substitute wordgames as proof for the real factual existance of something instead of real data?
Then I'd say his claims to certainty in that case are unjustified.
>>894830
Isn't that the same as "from nothing nothing comes, therefore god"?
>>894859
If I applied the same undying devotion to Aristotle as you Christfags do to your holy books, I would believe uncritically in utter nonsense like the five elements
>>894881
Are you ready, though? I mean, are you actually capable of countering the Aristotelian logic in play here with better logic of your own? Could you define "proof for the real factual existance [sic] of something instead of real data?"
>>894830
>everything must have a cause, therefore there is an actual. this actual must be the god everybody believes in (IE names and identifies with)
top lunacy
>>894890
I'm not even defending Aristotelianism or Aristotelian logic, I'm asking if you guys are actually capable of giving better arguments than "Oh, those are a lot of words I haven't seen before so I'm not going to take the argument seriously." Are you at least willing to show that the proof hasn't proven anything instead of just whining about how you don't understand the words?
>>894830
This triggers the atheists.
God I love atheist tears.
>>894904
>I have no idea what the induction fallacy or the is-ought gap is
>>894916
An eggplant looks like my cock and makes my cock bigger. Thanks G-d! Thank you for creating such a beautiful world :')
>>894178
>I try and reason with her that Religion has been proven to be very helpful
which doesn't prove anything about its legitimacy. moron.
you literally have no arguments but you still want to believe. pretending to debate just makes you dishonest.
![latest[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/D7gq8EO.jpg "latest[1].png")
>>894178
Every argument about religion and science that's based on non-scientists writing text in front of each other without any scientific proof or proper arguments:
peecha chakka no wookie boonowa tweepi solo? Ho ho ho ho hooooo.
>>894912
But you haven't at all engaged with the Prime Mover argument. The ontological argument is based in terms that you literally don't understand.
If you read that picture, you'd probably have a
>>894909
>If Hume said it, it must be true
Can you take on transcendental idealism while you're doing Thomism?
>>894940
>ontological
Or cosmological, whatever the case may be.
>If you read that picture, you'd probably have a
If you read that picture, you'd probably have a better understanding*
>>894916
>sweet potato
>use image of Solanum tuberosum
>>894868
No. People potentially take the argument seriously, but there is no chain of dependence to a wholly actual entity causing the motion of this potential to its actual as such.
>>894940
>Can you take on transcendental idealism while you're doing Thomism?
Sure. It's based on assumptions, and not on anything that has a direct consequence in reality. Ignoring it completely has no consequences for me or anyone. Therefore, I'm not required to give a flying fuck about it
>>894940
yeah no, I did read the picture.
Two things:
1. Like the other guy pointed out, the premise is false to begin with. If God doesn't need an actualizer, everything doesn't need an actualizer, hence rendering the premise false.
2. Even if it wasn't a false premise, it would only prove the existence of AN actualizer, not God as we know him. By the logic of the picture, the big bang is just as sufficient proof, leaving that act as the actualizer. No part of the proof you posted requires conscious agency on part of the creator, nor does it in any way prove that this creator is God as opposed to Allah, Yahweh, Odin, Ra, Zeus, Vishnu or the big bang.
>>894956
>Latin words maymay
>>894916
> a tomato has four chambers
But it only has two...
>>894900
Everyone understands the words, its not that deep. Its been brought up thousands of times, and refuted another thousand. Its not new. Its not that profound.
And again, whatever the words. Is there a falsifiable hypothesis behind this that can be tested? No? Then its not proof is it.
Not even mentioning that he's completely wrong on uncaused causes part. Its a wordplay argument, because things wihtout causes happen all the time. Just usually not on the scales we can intuitively percieve.
Tell me this: If there was literally nothing(no laws, no causality), what would stop a universe like ours from just appearing? Why would that need a cause?
>>894972
But if you cut it in half, each half has two chambers and 2+2=4
Checkmate, atheists.
>>894985
inshallah my brother, you have convinced me. Which way is Mecca?
>>894900
I think the people here are arguing that Aquinas is basing his argument off of words themselves. He assumes that there is a universal actual. This actual is non-physical, perfect, and omniscient.
Does this omniscient perfect being condone the use of flaming anal skewers, bamboo fingernail splinters, evisceration on POWs, a Congolese orphan taking care of her five children being raped and infected with AIDS, genetic disorders such as Huntington's Disease, Ehler Danlos, Syphillis, Microencephaly, the crushing of Russian nobles under planks, these are just examples in the sphere of humanity. Let's not forget the rich universe of parasites, toxoplasmicity and brain damage leading to debilitating illness, sexual dysfunction, and permanent mental derangement
The rose is produced through trial and error through natural selection. Competition with all the other flowers and weeds and forms of grass for sunlight and nutrients placed in the soil. Co-evolution with bees. Proper weather. It grows thorns in order to discourage predators. Without natural selection, acting through death, there would be no rose.
That you can attribute the flowering of the rose to ONE CAUSE is a fluke of language.
The only constant actual shaping all of nature is death.
>>895012
> le ebin troll meme
hope you had fun =)
>>895012
>mass quote
>Pepe
The trash bin it is then
>>894916
>tomatoes look like hearts
maybe a cartoon heart you get on valentines day
>grapes look like blood cells
fucking dropped
>>894961
That isn't an argument. Are you a pragmatist in every aspect of life, or do you have more interesting views on some things?
>I'm not required
You should be, desu. This is not good.
>>894964
>If God doesn't need an actualizer, everything doesn't need an actualizer
Why not? God seems to be treated as a special class of being.
>Even if it wasn't a false premise, it would only prove the existence of AN actualizer, not God as we know him
I'm not the guy that posted it. I don't think Aquinas wants people to accept the existence of the Christian God based on his logic alone, he admits all over the place that his arguments have to be supplemented by faith.
>>894973
>its not that deep
Not claiming it is.
Your whole post is evading the content of the argument. Other than
>he's completely wrong on uncaused causes
On what grounds do you make this claim?
>If there was literally nothing(no laws, no causality), what would stop a universe like ours from just appearing? Why would that need a cause?
I think Nothing would stop that from happening :^)
I also think you should consider that this is an argument about the actual world, not some possible world, and in the future present arguments like this in terms more like those of modal logic.
>>895017
>The only constant actual shaping all of nature is death.
This seems like an even bigger leap than the one Aquinas makes.
>trial and error
That's not how evolution works.
>>895046
>That isn't an argument.
I don't give a shit about arguments, I give a shit about consequences. Particularly consequences for my survival and those around me.
If you think arguments are more important than consequences, I want you to do something for me. I want you to go stand in the middle of a field, so it's just you and God/the ground of all being/the unmoved mover/whatever. I want you to say "I don't have an argument for my own survival". After you've said this, will you die instantly? Will you get struck by a heart attack? Will you get hit by a meteorite?
No, of course not, because arguments don't mean shit in the real world. It's consequences that matter in the real world
>>895046
>that's not how evolution works
really? that's what i learned in high school biology. enlighten me on my error.
>>895046
>Your whole post is evading the content of the argument
You can claim that without showing why, but that doesn't make it true. You can claim that about any argument to keep up any delusion whatsoever.
Again: his argument is based on a accepting the universality of a rule to then in the next step contradict its universality to make his point.
>On what grounds do you make this claim?
"uncaused causes":
radioactive decay has no observable causes, just a statistical rate of occuring
quantum mechanics shits all over causality
> this is an argument about the actual world, not some possible world
What?
And still, again, does aquinas argument lead to any falsifiable hypothesis, or is it just words that are substituted for lack of actual demonstrable proof?
>>894973
I'm willing to say I don't understand some of it. I don't understand how they use the term "omniscient". They're saying the purely actual is knowledge, rather than having knowledge. I'd like to see what they have to say about what knowledge is, what it means to know, what it means to have knowledge, and what it means to contain knowledge, and whether there's a distinction between the last three.
Also I find omnipotence a bit odd. Doesn't doing a thing require potential, in that aristotelian action is potential becoming actual? I think not being able to do something can mean either not having the potential to do a thing, or having the potential but being prevented from actualising that potential. So something without potentials would, being immutable, perfect, and eternal, would be unable to do anything at all. What am I not getting?
>>895061
>I don't give a shit about arguments, I give a shit about consequences. Particularly consequences for my survival and those around me.
Then we aren't doing the same thing ITT. I'm talking about truth, you're talking about survival. You should honestly keep arguments like the ones you're making on /pol/ or /k/ or /out/. Not even rejecting your view, but this is a humanities board where a high level of discourse is expected. Read the sticky.
>>895065
There's nothing teleological about the standard view of evolution. "Trial and error" implies that there's more going on than natural selection of genes that promote fitness.
This is what I learned in my university anthropology class about evolution.
>>895085
>What?
Wew lad
>>895089
It's a metaphor, and not that bad as long as you make sure they know there's not some actual agent trying things and deciding which ones worked.
>>895089
> but this is a humanities board where a high level of discourse is expected. Read the sticky.
>Wew lad
I think you're done here.
>>895089
>nothing teleological about the standard view of evolution
you're the one arguing for causation, i believe.
>trial
compete for resources in your environment. procreate.
>error
you die without reproducing, or you reproduce less than your competitors. on the grand scale, your species goes extinct.
this is very simple stuff here.
>>894199
If you are trying to argue that God exists you have quite an uphill battle ahead of you.
>>895114
>lel u can't ban me so I have no reason to care about the rules
Nice, I can see you're a bright light in a dark world. I hope you're actually doing things that will help you and your civilization thrive.
>>895124
I find that people who throw evolution into arguments about God usually don't understand what 'agency' is and what some descriptions imply about its significance to the theory. I'm just trying g to clarify things.
>>895127
Well, if your response to someone asking you to talk about possible and actual worlds is 'what?' I think it's already too late to expect such things.
>>895145
How many times do I have to say that I'm not a Thomist? I'm just telling you your grounds for rejecting this argument are faulty. You can do better than you're doing, many have.
I don't see how dying without reproducing is an error, and I don't see ehow competition g for resources is a 'trial.' If you don't mean to describe it legalistically, don't use legal terms. If you don't wish to describe it like a guided process, don't imply that there actually is a 'moral imperative' or an 'ought' to reproduction. There isn't. It's entirely a matter of fitness. The most fit specimen is the one which is best equipped to pass on its genes (the source of its fitness) to the next generation. Survival, personal and on a species level, is correlated to environmental fitness. It has nothing to do with error.
>>894178
>I try and reason with her that Religion has been proven to be very helpful for a lot of people, especially families.
That's appeal to consequences. It doesn't relate to truth.
Tell her of times when scientific consensus was changed drastically, like how lobotomies were used to treat things like ADHD, or tell her of the miles of intestine thrown out due to the notion of "focal infection". These were recent things. Showing science as a fallible, evolving thing.
But, again, religion and science mustn't be opposed. Some people do both. As long as religious dogma doesn't stand in the research, no problem.
>>895688
>Nice, I can see you're a bright light in a dark world. I hope you're actually doing things that will help you and your civilization thrive.
Way to dodge my point. Anyway, I'm still here. Looks like your high level of discourse is a complete sham and your demand for it a complete farce
>>895740
I already addressed your point. As I said, this is a matter of truth, not of survival. I was seriously suggesting that you should take your assertions to a board where arguments aren't expected. Honestly, do people even read the sticky?
>>895765
What the fuck are you talking about?
>>894178
Tell her that she's a logical positivist, and that this is a philosophical position. In fact, the whole argument is philosophical- it certainly isn't empirical. I think religion is outdated though so I won't help you there. Also philosophy is not mysticism. They are very different.
>>895834
To be fair, most philosophy is essentially mysticism.
>>894178
Introduce her to the concept of the falsifiable hypothesis and statistics.
Science doesn't objectively know anything.
It can make hypotheses about the world and if they hold true against rigorous critical examination then you've probably learned a bit more about how the universe might work but with a skeptical mindset the possibility must still be considered that the theory could eventually be proven false or incomplete.
It won't actually help your own position and she'll probably get on your case about your core arguments being unfalsifiable but it'll at least make her slightly less wrong.
>>894854
He never uses that premise though. " Everything needs a cause" doesn't show up once in the argument. The point is that for a potential to be actualized you need something actual- God is something that is never in potential turning actual- but is always actual. Something that fits that description is what is needed for the whole chain to exist.
>>894873
Luckily that is the first way- the fifth way is about teleology, this one is about act/potency aka change. Once you admit change happens you have to deal with the argument seriously.
>>894881
Listen can you stop giving us word games about this proof only being word games and give us some real data instead ?
>>894964
The point is that you need at least one thing with does not go from potential to actual to have everything else go from potential to actual. It isn't some overarching law that everything needs an actualizer- its a consequence of the way the series works that you need something that has its actuality primarily rather than derivately for the rest to have their actuality derivatively.
For your second point, the bottom of the image has arguments for why this first cause fits the description of God. Also, this is about what is happening at each moment- the Big Bang is not still happening- that was a temporal event in the past, not a present cause sustaining everything like what is being made a case for here.
>>894973
>And again, whatever the words. Is there a falsifiable hypothesis behind this that can be tested?
Does change exist ? That is testable. If it does then by logical necessity everything else follows if the argument has no logical holes in it.Thomas also allows that something can cause without being caused itself- that is not a premise in the argument.
>Tell me this: If there was literally nothing(no laws, no causality), what would stop a universe like ours from just appearing? Why would that need a cause?
According to you then every possible thing would exist unless something stops it from existing. Why do you posit this as a principle ? It is totally irrelevant anyways because this argument is about what sustains change in the world- not about the creation of the universe. Thomas held that it was possible that the universe existed for infinite past time- this argument is about what keeps it going at each moment.
>>895087
God does everything he does in one moment in eternity, being purely actual. Going from not doing something to do doing something requires going from potential to act. But God has no state of not doing something- everything he does he does eternally/atemporally- we experience the effects of this across time- but for him it is all at once.
>>894178
Scientism is the intellectual pathology of our time.
Well, for one thing, you could direct her to positivism and its downfall in the 20th century.
Secondly, philosophy deals with concepts. Philosophers looks at things as they are conceptually possible. It's not about "mysticism" or any of that nonsense.
>>896573
Isn't potentiality/actuality a bit at odds with how we think energy works now, since we think energy is only ever converted but never actually created or destroyed?
>>896584
But what does "doing something" mean if it doesn't involve some state or property changing? And how can something "do" atemporally? Wouldn't it just "be"?
>>894830
Whatever lets you sleep at night
>>896609
You could see it as entropy rather than energy.
>>894178
>I try and reason with her that Religion has been proven to be very helpful for a lot of people, especially families.
A) that doesn't make it true, and B) it's also proved extremely destructive.
>>896609
Not really. Potentiality is just having the capacity to become the thing you are in potentially to. All energy is potential in some sense and actual in another. It doesn't make any difference really.
>>896622
Well the state of not doing something before hand is irrelevant ultimately to the activity itself- it is just that we experience the world in that way so that it seems that all activity must arise from inactivity in some sense. In a sense- yes- God's actions just "are" since they are eternal and never began or were initiated in any way. But there are still effects resulting from God- so in the sense that stuff arises from him he is "doing something". We experience effects from him across time as well- so to us it seems like he is "doing" in the sense prima facie accessible to us even if he actually has one activity that is eternal.
Religion is a joke, nothing new under the sun.
There probably is something resembling a deity, since the universe is composed of information. But it's not a Judeo Christian god.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_RwcGzGurc
>>894178
use dank solipsism
epistemological, of course
objective truth doesn't exist, so science and religion are equally viable worldviews
>>896573
>Luckily that is the first way
I was responding to the comment, not the image.
Science and religion are both just means of understanding the universe, but science is, however, objective, measurable, and testable. Religion is not. Science looks at observational data and postulates an explanation. When new data contradicts the original data, the original explanation is changed. Religion looks at observational data and postulates an explanation. When new data contradicts the original data, a explanation is formed for why the new data is wrong. Science is not infallible, but the scientific method is an objectively superior way of analyzing information.
Religion is best used as a means of answering questions science can not answer. When old religious beliefs contradict modern scientific discoveries, humanity as a whole suffers.
Science answers what and how. Objective.
Religion and philosophy answer why. Subjective.
>>897022
Philosophy isn't subjective.
>>897022
>I know nothing about science, philosophy, history, or religion the post
>>894178
Tell her that scientific equipment will always be flawed when compared to a heavenly absolute, or the ideal of that equipment that it emulates. Then ask her where the sceinceness emanates from.
>>897227
Tell me why I'm wrong
>>897244
prove your heavenly absolute to exist.
All items are made to emulate an ideal reality. For instance, a cup is in emulation of a perfect cup. Its cuppness defines its value and existence. Our reality is an obvious illusion mimicking a perfect reality.
>>897313
This is so fucking retarded that it physically hurts me.
>>897321
Suppose there is a cave with a fire in front of it in such a way that anything in front of the fire, but not in the cave, will cast a shadow inside the cave. A man living in the cave all his life will only know of the outside world through shadows. A perfect vase will cast a shadow on the wall emulating the perfect vase. Likewise, our reality operates in the same manner; physical forms mimic ideal forms.
>>897313
Plato, I think it's time for you to come back to earth.
>>897330
>because things could be more than they are, they are
There is no perfection. A cup is not an emulation of a perfect cup, a cup is a tool that holds liquids.
>>897346
You're not even thinking about where the cuppness emanates from!
>>895726
But doing both dont make them compatible principles. Some jews eat pork, some priests rape kids, some believers do science. The concepts are still contradictory, faith vs evidence based knowledge.
>>894199
a. Philosophy laid a foundation for science and philosophy is still valuable for its explorations of what cannot be easily measured like what it means to be or what should be considered moral or ethical. You can win this. Also, science is not, nor does it ever claim to be, objective. Anything we know from science is our best possible guess and it is open to alteration/change due to new discoveries and data. Scientific concepts like gravity, Mass, etc... Are very concrete philosophical concepts; we have enough good data on them to reliably say they are real but, even if it's exceedingly unlikely, something could come about that changes how we view these concepts. No different from how philosophical ideas or arguments evolve except it's much harder to make pure philosophy hardened in any case.
b. Are you arguing for God or for the Judeo-Christian God? If you want to argue a creator it can be done but it cannot be definitively proven so I'm not sure you'll ever convince her of it. If you want to argue the specific Judeo-Christian God then you're in some trouble.
>>894182
Just nod and smile and tell her "wow, I've never thought of it like that before..."
Then you get didn't-debate sex.
>>895827
To think that an intelligent designer could make something so stupid.
>>896517
It is the same thing. He just changed the word "cause" to "actual" and uses "potential" instead of "caused". Sort of. The end result is the same
>>896584
Even if this was true. What kind of god is this. It is not the god that tell the jews that they are the chosen people or a god that is somehow incarnated as a jew to die at a cross. It is more of a nature law without personality.
Science is a branch of philosophy that has rendered most of the other branches obsolete.
You're defending branches that are dying near the trunk of the tree.
>>898397
Why do you suppose that?
Why can't God decide in his one moment to communicate all those things to his creation for those temporal moments when he wants them to come about ? God as a big man in the sky was abandoned by the time the early Church Father's started doing theology- even someone as early in the Church's history as Augustine would find such a conception of God bizarre and unorthodox.
>>898390
No, there is no premise that says " everything that is actual must have gone from potential to actual- due to something else already actual" he only says that " everything that goes from potential to actual can only have this done to it by something already actual". They are totally different premises. It would be like saying " everything that is caused must be caused by something that is not the effect being caused" as opposed to " everything must be caused". The former is unproblematic and is mainly what the argument posits- the latter has nothing to do with the actual argument.
>>898470
If god was "outside of time" he would never change his mind or even have a thought process. He would be like a set of rules, like laws of physics.
It is possible that the Church Fathers had left the "guy in the sky"-idea, but the Christianity did not. The bible would not fit such a god, and prayers would be in vain and so on.
>>900503
Why are you committed to the idea that God the Father has always been anthropomorphized?
>>900509
For me it is part of the definition of a "god" that he must have a "will" in the moment, else he becomes just physics laws or such.
What would make, say, Gravity a god? What need to be added to make it more than rules? I think it need to have some arbitrariness, a possibility to change it mind some times. A will.
The gods don't need to be anything like humans, but they need to have that free-ish will.
>>894780
>But save for yourselves every girl who has never gone to bed with a man
(http://biblehub.com/numbers/31-18.htm)
>>897346
A cup is an emulation of an ideality/essence, namely "that which holds liquids". Get your autism checked
>>897321
the idea that you're getting trolled by a 2400-year-old philosophical concept physically tickles me.
Give her the D
>>894181
Lol
>>900503
>>900503
This is all unnecessary. God has one single act of will in his eternity- he could have willed otherwise than he did in his eternity, but he did not. Just because he is'nt the kind of thing that changes does not mean that he has no freedom. The freedom comes in the possibilities of how he could have been, not in how he might become at a future time. If he were to change his mind that would degrade him- we change our minds because we make mistakes and rectify them- if God was like that he would not be God.
What makes him more than rules is that he is something with actual being and efficacy. "Laws" of nature are just mathematical abstractions we make based on the real beings we experience in the world and their behaviour, they are'nt real things. Nor do they compel anything. It is real things that compel us to posit generalizations about them, not the other way around. God is something with real existence that creates and compels, and has will and intelligence so to do so. He lacks the accidental features of our thinking and our willing that involves us being bound to time- but the freedom and knowing that makes up the end results of these processes and are essential to them are present in God- in an even greater way than how we have them.
>>897733
They aren't any more contradictory than art and science or realpolitik and philosophy. They set out to do different things. You can have guys like Mendel and Lemaitre. Lemaitre actually got a bit put aside because his Big Bang idea sounded a bit creation-y but he still rejected Church endorsement out of scientific integrity.
It's not like the fundamentals of logic can even be grounded on any evidence outside their own productions. Intuition plays a part, and just like we trust math, morality and junk, some people trust stuff like divinity - it's not something people can simply shut down, so let's all just try to accept what we cannot change.
>if x cant be measured it must be false.
am I doing this right?
>>902179
I can't measure that sentence, so it is false. ;)
>Science can be empirically measured
stopped reading there
I fucking hate you kids
>>901940
I'm sorry but that sounds completely made up.
>>894178
Reading all of this, as well as the other religious threads on /his/, I'm ironically reminded of Julian the Apostate, and his decision to take up a highly elitist and bastardised Hellenism with Christian properties. Only in this case, we have a new, reactionary community of Christians responding to secular philosophies that they see as immature and uncultured- and are using history and science to augment their old value systems so that they may prosper in the foreseeable future. They probably won't, but I personally find the ensuing literature fascinating.
>>900560
Yes but this is simplistic. Perhaps spiritually in some obfuscated realm, God does have a physical form, like when he revealed his 'face' to Moses. However, why think of it explicitly like that? Everything IS God. I know it's a very broad inflexible statement, but literally everything in reality is God and Humans as well. We can disobey God and have a shitty time on his Earth or obey him and only then is progress had
>>897313
Is the cup empty?
