Advanced Search
Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili (Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.

This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.

xkcd • View topic - Philosophy of Religion [Philosophy]

Let's try a pre-emptive warning: This thread is about philosophy.

Just, for a minute, if you're unclear about the topic, pretend the word Religion isn't even there. If you want to talk about your personal beliefs, feelings or understandings of religion, this is not the place for you to post.

If you don't have a basic (or better) understanding of philosophy, this is not the place for you to post.

If you are unfamiliar with the concepts or terms used in this post, this is not the place for you to post .

Get thee to the religion thread. -Az This thread was created to intelligently discuss viewpoints regarding Philosophy of Religion. Mainly, I would like to discuss: the three common arguments for the existence of a god (Ontological, Cosmological, Teleological) the existence of evil and reconciling it with the existence of the god of Classical Theology the likelihood of an afterlife, heaven, etc. the moral repercussions should God exist / not exist is it possible to prove the existence of God through logic? how do creationism and evolution fit together -- can they coexist? - and anything else that fits under the umbrella of "Philosophy of Religion" To start, what do you think about the Ontological Argument?

Is it valid? Personally, I agree with Immanuel Kant that existence is not a property that can be ascribed to a being through the same means as omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence -- all traits that Anselm believed God had.

Existence does not change how something is, but where it is.

Thinking of a book and then having it exist changes nothing of the book but where it can be found;

It can now be found both in my mind and outside of it.

The same can be said of Anselm and Descartes' version of a God that must necessarily exist. Another point -- the god of Classical Theology is commonly believed to be omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omnibenevolent (all-good).

Occasionally, omnipresent (everywhere) is added to the list, but then that presents the problem "if God is everywhere, does that mean that I am God" etc.

If God is, as commonly believed, perfect, then He ( is God a He?) cannot have any emotions for to feel an emotion is to change one's state and if God is changing state then he cannot have been perfect.

But if God cannot feel emotions, then why do both the Old and New Testaments claim that god was "wrathful, angry, vengeful, jealous" and "loving and caring" respectively.

Again, speculating that God cannot feel emotion, if God cannot feel the emotion of "compassion" and "care" and "love" then is He really a God one would want to worship?

At the very least, doesn't that make prayer useless?

There are seeming contradictions all throughout the Bible that don't fit together. Anyway, I would just like to hear what other people have to think about these topics, as religion is something that has plagued me for a long time. Thanks!

Spoiler: Help me hatch my dragon eggs!

To me, the basic reason that any religion exists at all is the inherent inability of humans to actually really know anything for certain.

We are strewn across the earth without any prior knowledge of where we came from or where we will go to or why we even "exist".

We have no experience outside of what we know as our own existence.

Thus it leaves a big gap of un-know-able things. the concept of "God" has throughout the times proven to be a "justification" or "answer" to all the questions humans ask themselves but are unable to answer.

Whenever a previous concept of "god" or the reason for our existence becomes obsolete, a new and improved concept seem to appear to fill that gap. Kant and Anselm in your description is analogous to Descartes.

They realize that there is a probability that things are not as they seem, however they are still unable to answer "why" or "what for", thus they needed a justification and answer to all the questions.

Hence "god". Whenever humans reach a point where they are left with a gaping black hole, "god" is oh-so-easy to use and abuse... The funny thing is, even though it is inherently unknowable, some like to think that because there is a gaping hole and because throughout history these concepts of "god" etc have proven insufficient that there is no god at all... Humans should probably learn to accept that this existence is limited and that we can't ever really really "know" anything without making assumptions.

We have taken our existence for granted that we forget even the simplest of things are actually assumptions.

We cannot objectively see anything beyond what we can see alone and verify together that we take those things we can see and verify as "real".

We take for granted how our senses might just be playing games with us.

We too often think that what we "see" is how others "see" as well... In the big scheme of things we don't actually really know anything...

It's all assumption stacked on each other up to the point that we forget that they are assumptions... -w-

Quote: : Another point -- the god of Classical Theology is commonly believed to be omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omnibenevolent (all-good).

[...] If God is, as commonly believed, perfect, then He ( is God a He?) cannot have any emotions for to feel an emotion is to change one's state and if God is changing state then he cannot have been perfect.

I disagree that a perfect entity cannot change states.

First of all, for God to be able to do anything would also require changing states, because to perform any action at all requires change throughout time.

(Except for the "action" of doing nothing for eternity, which is no action at all.) If we decree that God cannot change because to change indicates a break from perfection, then we must also bar God from acting in any way, at least according to our spatio-temporal conception of action. Consider moreover that it may be a metaphysical law that thinking and being conscious require changing mental states.

How can God or any entity think to Itself that "X is good" at one time yet think that "Y is good" at another without having altered Its mental states?

We must deny God any ability to think or be aware whatsoever if we don't allow perfect beings to change.

Maybe that's an acceptable conclusion. However, I do think we can sensibly talk about perfect things that change.

Take a process perfectly executed, such as a perfect piano performance, a perfect basketball free throw, or a perfect data transfer.

Processes, by virtue of being processes, require changes in their material constituents until the process completes.

This does not, I trust, disqualify them from being "perfect"--we might say that a perfect data transfer occurs so long as the recipient's data matches the sender's data verbatim, even though the bits in the recipient's hard drive (or whatever) change throughout the exchange. The important thing about perfection is not an absence of change;

It's an absence only of a specific kind of change;

Namely, a change that violates the criteria for perfection.

The state of perfection must remain the same, but other kinds of states are free to change. As another example that's less of a process, we might look at student grades.

A "perfect" grade, expressed in terms of achieved points and possible points , increases steadily.

Maybe in the first week of class a student has achieved 10/10 for the first assignment;

But by the end of the semester she has accumulated, say, 760/760 (factoring in quizzes, attendance, final exams).

Here, the values have changed, so clearly the grade state is changing--but the relevant part, the overall ratio that yields perfection, has remained constant. I wrote a blog post a while ago on the topic of perfection and stasis, for any who might be interested;

It covers more or less the same points, but maybe in more detail.

Blog type thing

I have a friend from school (we graduated a few years ago now) who is inquisitive but never attempted subjects like physics or complex mathematics (unlike me, who attempted- and did poorly).

I read some website about the speed of light, and how you can't go faster.

'But it's a law ' he protested when I told him about it, 'I can speed and break the law...' A little later, I found a physics book where Asimov was an author and he explained, better than I can, that he didn't like the term 'Laws of Physics' because it implied something that could be repealed.

I read it out to my friend and he immediately understood what I meant.

The point is that 10/10 is a perfect score, but it's not the sort of perfect we mean when we talk about God.

We mean infallible.

A 10/10, or 720/720 student, isn't infallible but has just been right so far (according to the culture of the school, and established knowledge at the time). What thefiddler is talking about is something different.

He does assume that perfection is static- not an absurd claim, but perhaps limited.

And thefiddler does leave themself open to the possibility that god isn't perfect, just possibly absolutely big.

But does that just mean he's a kinda powerful dude dispensing advice but ultimately doesn't have the answers we seek because he's, you know, less than perfect?

...and that's not just idle fact, it's cold hard speculation.

- Yahtzee

Spoiler: I've always felt that the possibility of the existence or non-existence of God was a trivial matter.

In all likelihood, whether or not God exists in one form or another is going to have no immediate impact on my life. Take for example the idea of going to school.

I drive about 50 kilometers to school each morning.

Will the existence of God suddenly change how far I have to drive?

Will the molecules in the car suddenly change into something else?

Will I suddenly enjoy the morning sun blinding me as I try to drive?

Not bloody likely.

As far as practical differences go, the existence of God won't change anything, because either He has existed all this time, or he has never existed.

The discovery of the truth about God will have no immediate impact unless God suddenly exists the moment He is discovered to exist.

And even then, nothing much will likely change. That's the way I see it, anyway. I've got nothing against people who believe in God, or people who believe in some other form of deity, force, fate, karma, or anything else for that matter.

However I do have a problem with people who claim to believe in something and yet perpetrate acts that are contrary to the teachings they profess belief in...

But that's another topic altogether. And as for Creationism vs Evolution, I do believe that they can coexist.

There is nothing saying that God could not be expressing Himself through what we call nature and be the guiding force behind what we perceive as evolution.

And just because Dinosaur bones have been found and "reliably" dated back before the time (new earth) creationists say the earth was created, doesn't mean that the earth wasn't created at that date.

For all we know, God could have created the universe with a history that stretches back to before it was actually created. If God is a being surviving outside of our traditional view of 3+1 dimensions, namely the 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension, then it would be possible to create something with a history that extends to before it was actually created.

The universe could have been created with earth in it's current form, and dinosaur bones already in the ground.

Maybe the dinosaurs never actually lived, and only exist as fossilized bones that suggest that they once did many more years ago then the earth/universe is.

The real question is: Does it matter?

I say no. As far as I can tell, it really doesn't matter what is right, because it doesn't change anything about the world around us at this very moment.

I believe that each person needs to find their own way to deal with things, their own system of morals, and so my morals won't change depending on whether God exists, or the earth is newer than science suggests.

I will still hold onto the same beliefs and values and live my life the way I see fit. Philosophy of Religion, not your views of religion in general - there's another thread for that.

Stay on topic please. -Az

Quote: : To start, what do you think about the Ontological Argument?

Is it valid? Yes and no. Strictly, if we define God as something that, obviously, must exist (say, as the first object in existence, or the Most Awesome Thing Ever), then obviously, that thing we're calling God exists. But that doesn't mean it shares any other attributes with what we would identify as God - 'God' as we have defined it in this argument could turn out to be a singularity, for instance, or maybe a really tricked-out surfboard owned by one of the ninja turtles. Used in this fashion, it less proves the existence of God, as redefines God into logically needing to exist - and such a 'God' is not necessarily what we talk about when we bring up the idea. If we use the argument less strictly, it disintegrates.

The ability to concieve of a specific thing, even if existence is part of the criteria for the idea, does not imply that it exists.

I can concieve of having a billion dollars (a conception that requires it to be true, as I can't have a billion dollars without a billion dollars to have) - this, unfortunately, does not make me rich. Quote: : Another point -- the god of Classical Theology is commonly believed to be omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omnibenevolent (all-good).

Occasionally, omnipresent (everywhere) is added to the list, but then that presents the problem "if God is everywhere, does that mean that I am God" etc.

If God is, as commonly believed, perfect, then He ( is God a He?) cannot have any emotions for to feel an emotion is to change one's state and if God is changing state then he cannot have been perfect.

But if God cannot feel emotions, then why do both the Old and New Testaments claim that god was "wrathful, angry, vengeful, jealous" and "loving and caring" respectively.

Again, speculating that God cannot feel emotion, if God cannot feel the emotion of "compassion" and "care" and "love" then is He really a God one would want to worship?

At the very least, doesn't that make prayer useless?

There are seeming contradictions all throughout the Bible that don't fit together. What if 'perfection' is a static array of dynamic responses?

(i.e. for any given situation, you make the optimal response) Edit: I think I'll throw in one more point, regarding using logic to prove the existence of God*. I think it's clear that the universe has an underlying, logical foundation to it: a system of coherent, consistent guidelines that govern any and all possible events (though those events themselves may not be coherent or consistent).

I think that it is possible for such a logical foundation to directly implicate the existence of a sentient creator - a very direct example would be the universe factory message, but I think it could be possible in a less direct method. So, logic alone, I don't think could be used to prove the existence or nonexistence of God.

I think logic applied to our knowledge of the universe may be able to resolve the question as some point, though. *-Personally, I'm a deist, as my discussion of the point will no doubt make obvious.

My blog, where I mostly compile/clarify stuff I say on this forum.

I think that the ontological argument for existence is weak.

It hinges on several fallacies.

The first is that it requires "existence" to be a perfection-- a false premise.

The other is that it assumes that because we conceive of a being with certain traits, and one of those traits is existence, that it actually has those traits.

I could imagine a purple giraffe whose traits include existence, but that would not make it extant.

Quote: : I could imagine a purple giraffe whose traits include existence, but that would not make it extant. I feel a sudden desire to falsify this assertion.

If only I could afford a giraffe, and hold it still while I got some paint. As for the existence of God: it's pretty clear that something supernatural exists, because the natural world that we observe provides no mechanism for free will to exist except as an illusion in our minds.

Given one mental state (in the absence of some supernatural event) we can't "choose" between subsequent mental states: the subsequent state is completely determined by the former state and by quantum randomness. If anything we could call "people" exists, it's because some rationality-producing, supernatural cause is endowing the matter of which we are made with will and agency.

Does this entity have any of the other properties which people ascribe to God--for example, love?

More information required. A webcomic funnier than life itself.

Updated Monday-Friday.

Comic Quote: : As for the existence of God: it's pretty clear that something supernatural exists, because the natural world that we observe provides no mechanism for free will to exist except as an illusion in our minds.

Given one mental state (in the absence of some supernatural event) we can't "choose" between subsequent mental states: the subsequent state is completely determined by the former state and by quantum randomness. It seems your argument is contingent on the ability to demonstrate what you describe as 'free will' as being more than a first-person perception of a decision-making algorithm. So...?

My blog, where I mostly compile/clarify stuff I say on this forum.

Comic Quote: : As for the existence of God: it's pretty clear that something supernatural exists Says who?

No supernatural entity has to exist, by definition of the universe.

Can you prove that such forces exist?

Occam's Razor states that the more simple of the explanations is usually the truth;

By this definition, "simple" only means "requiring less metaphysical questions".

Say that a God exists, and suddenly there are metaphysical questions all over the place.

Who is God? What is He?

Is He good? Does He love us? And if there is a God, does that mean He is flawed?

Look at the world around us;

This is clearly not the best of all possible worlds when children are raped and murdered, wars are constant, genocide is commonplace.

If there is an all-powerful God, would He not want to give His creation the best life possible?

This leads me to conclude one of several things, by way of David Hume, that God: - Is flawed - Does not like us - Died after creating us - Created us on accident and does not even know we exist And given that there is evil in the world, what kind of God would want that for a just-created world?

Hume states that the existence of evil is due to one of four things: - God made pain part of our motivational system, i.e.

He enabled us to feel pain - God governs the universe through impartial laws of nature rather than divine intervention, ensuring that because of the above, we are guaranteed to feel pain - God was frugal when distributing parts among His creations;

The giraffe has a long neck to reach the higher vegetation, but that's it.

Humans only have intelligence;

If a human lacking technology were to encounter a bear in the wild, the only thing that might save them would be their brains and ability to think, whereas the bear was only given one notable exception: strength - God's workmanship is shoddy, poor, undesirable What I'm saying is, if there is a God, he's a jerk.

What kind of parent wants their child or children to learn through pain?

What kind of parent would want to make sure that the child felt pain?

Spoiler: Help me hatch my dragon eggs!

Quote: : What I'm saying is, if there is a God, he's a jerk.

What kind of parent wants their child or children to learn through pain?

What kind of parent would want to make sure that the child felt pain? If there's a God, he's probably not a mammal, and quite possibly (I'd say probably) not a living thing as we know it - why would we expect such a being to adhere to our parental standards?

My blog, where I mostly compile/clarify stuff I say on this forum.

Quote: : If there's a God, he's probably not a mammal, and quite possibly (I'd say probably) not a living thing as we know it - why would we expect such a being to adhere to our parental standards? That is to say, God made sure we felt pain, and the Bible says that man was made in the image of God.

Most theologians believe that to mean that God gave us free will, but also, I would think, that we might have some of God's ideologies.

If nothing else, why would God, who claims to be the Father, and from whom many Scriptures regarding how to parent come from, want us to feel pain?

Spoiler: Help me hatch my dragon eggs!

Quote: : Comic Quote: : As for the existence of God: it's pretty clear that something supernatural exists, because the natural world that we observe provides no mechanism for free will to exist except as an illusion in our minds.

Given one mental state (in the absence of some supernatural event) we can't "choose" between subsequent mental states: the subsequent state is completely determined by the former state and by quantum randomness. It seems your argument is contingent on the ability to demonstrate what you describe as 'free will' as being more than a first-person perception of a decision-making algorithm. So...? If your post were written by a decision-making algorithm, I wouldn't reply to it.

Arguing that you have no free will is nonsense--if you're right, then you remove any reason for arguing in the first place.

And calling yourself an algorithm is just another way of saying you have no free will. And if you're an algorithm, who's this "first person" you mentioned?

What is doing the perceiving, if not the algorithm itself?

Unless something supernatural, like a soul, is going on. A webcomic funnier than life itself.

Updated Monday-Friday.

Quote: : Anyway, I would just like to hear what other people have to think about these topics, as religion is something that has plagued me for a long time. Thanks I tend to think of religion and God as two separate issues.

The idea of God is one that hinges entirely on the question of an afterlife and the supposition of God exists merely to support that claim.

Through consciousness and foresight we've grown an ability to question death, and after death, regardless that one is merely a facility of life itself and the other is an assumption.

Yet the fallacy is contained in the grouping of the two, the actuality of one includes the other, and furthering the concept to include something that created the after-life and has the power in-itself to hide it from us.

Rascally rabbit. Starting from scratch, taking the other tact and assuming there is no afterlife, you quickly find that the universe is undeniably a self enclosed system.

Even without going into depth on the topic that logically to understand, let alone create the entire universe, you would need a logical working model of the universe that includes yourself, but the model would have to be in the universe in some form, thus the model contains the model. I wonder how God got around this?

Did he exist outside the universe? Why then do we not just broaden the concept of the universe to include his dimension, and then ask the question who created that universe? As far as religion goes, it's a framework to uphold the concepts and ideology's created for the reasons previously mentioned.

Their main function is that of dispensing law in the form of post-living benevolence, and dispersing the far reaching affects of believe in a simple end for a simple existence. Comic Quote: : Quote: : Comic Quote: : As for the existence of God: it's pretty clear that something supernatural exists, because the natural world that we observe provides no mechanism for free will to exist except as an illusion in our minds.

Given one mental state (in the absence of some supernatural event) we can't "choose" between subsequent mental states: the subsequent state is completely determined by the former state and by quantum randomness. It seems your argument is contingent on the ability to demonstrate what you describe as 'free will' as being more than a first-person perception of a decision-making algorithm. So...? If your post were written by a decision-making algorithm, I wouldn't reply to it.

Arguing that you have no free will is nonsense--if you're right, then you remove any reason for arguing in the first place.

And calling yourself an algorithm is just another way of saying you have no free will. And if you're an algorithm, who's this "first person" you mentioned?

What is doing the perceiving, if not the algorithm itself?

Unless something supernatural, like a soul, is going on. You wouldn't reply to it, assuming you have free will, which you just said he doesn't.

You're both human so the assumption he doesn't have free will would include you.

Who says you have the choice not to reply to his post? Who says that he doesn't know it's nonsense and can't help arguing, maybe he can't help not knowing? Bad newbie, don't double post.

-Az

Quote: : Quote: : What I'm saying is, if there is a God, he's a jerk.

What kind of parent wants their child or children to learn through pain?

What kind of parent would want to make sure that the child felt pain? If there's a God, he's probably not a mammal, and quite possibly (I'd say probably) not a living thing as we know it - why would we expect such a being to adhere to our parental standards?

In addition to thefiddler's response, I would add that they aren't just parental standards;

To a certain degree this is simply a moral issue.

We can claim that God's morals have no reason to match our own (he's not a mammal, not a living thing), and that's true, but it's problematic for anyone who wants to claim that God is "good" in a way that makes sense to us. On another note, if we endorse the Judeo-Christian tradition, it makes all those "God as the Father" analogies and parables seem a lot less meaningful if God doesn't care about us the way a mammalian, human parent would.

Blog type thing

Quote: : the existence of evil and reconciling it with the existence of the god of Classical Theology Perhaps it should be made explicit just what about these two theses needs to be reconciled. Quote: : how do creationism and evolution fit together -- can they coexist? Strictly speaking, these two have no quarrel.

Creationism describes the origin of life while evolution describes the progress of life.

Conflict can arise, however, when one's faith is that a particular species was created ex nihilo by God whereas science predicts that the species was preceded by other species.

But these are specifics;

In general, creationism and evolution are not exclusive. Quote: : Another point -- the god of Classical Theology is commonly believed to be omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omnibenevolent (all-good).

Occasionally, omnipresent (everywhere) is added to the list, but then that presents the problem "if God is everywhere, does that mean that I am God" etc.

If God is, as commonly believed, perfect, then He (is God a He?) cannot have any emotions for to feel an emotion is to change one's state and if God is changing state then he cannot have been perfect.

But if God cannot feel emotions, then why do both the Old and New Testaments claim that god was "wrathful, angry, vengeful, jealous" and "loving and caring" respectively.

Again, speculating that God cannot feel emotion, if God cannot feel the emotion of "compassion" and "care" and "love" then is He really a God one would want to worship?

At the very least, doesn't that make prayer useless?

There are seeming contradictions all throughout the Bible that don't fit together. For the sake of this discussion I am going to presume that by "classical theology" you mean "orthodox Christian theology." Correct me if I am wrong. Rather than omnipresent I would use the term "non-local" (to borrow a term from quantum physics).

This non-locality does not mean that all local objects are a part of God (pantheism) nor that God suffuses all local objects (panentheism).

Rather it means (in my interpretation) that God, being spirit, is not bound by locality as we are. With regard to emotions, the popular term for God being unable to experience emotions because of his unchangeableness is the impassibility of God.

Supporters of this doctrine argue that expressions of divine emotion in the scriptures are metaphors (anthropopathisms).

I do not fall into that camp.

There are many reasons why people might want to worship God - they are not necessarily related to his ability (or lack thereof) to experience emotions. Good discussion.

Quote: : ... if God cannot feel the emotion of "compassion" and "care" and "love" then is He really a God one would want to worship?

At the very least, doesn't that make prayer useless?

There are seeming contradictions all throughout the Bible that don't fit together. Assuming you've come to the conclusion there is a God, but he doesn't feel emotions, is not worshiping him a serious option?

Honestly, if i did believe, he'd have a severe half of the web-o-sphere dedicated to him.

Or her, and all appropriate female pronouns.

I'd chalk down the not feeling to some rock-star-esq superiority complex and lets face it, my God has the right to feel superior.

This thread needs to keep in mind that without the philosophical outlook it will become nothing but another thread full of people debating religion.

And it will either be heavily raided, or merged.

Comic Quote: : If your post were written by a decision-making algorithm, I wouldn't reply to it. Uh, you have no way of demonstrating that I am not, in cognitive terms, precisely that.

For that matter, how could you demonstrate that you aren't? Comic Quote: : Arguing that you have no free will is nonsense--if you're right, then you remove any reason for arguing in the first place.

And calling yourself an algorithm is just another way of saying you have no free will. Unless I'm programmed to correct people. Comic Quote: : And if you're an algorithm, who's this "first person" you mentioned?

What is doing the perceiving, if not the algorithm itself?

Unless something supernatural, like a soul, is going on. You're confusing identity with this phenomenon you call 'free will'. Barring a definition of the concept on your part, I'll try my hand at defining what you're trying to mean by the concept: The ability to make decisions in a way entirely independent of any physical law.

No determinism, no atoms making your decisions, and similarly, no non-determinism, no quarks randomly giving you thoughts in your head. You are asserting that there is an aspect of your behavior that has zero relevance to the physical world. Prove it*. *-Alternately, clarify what you mean by 'free will' in a way consistent with your argument.

My blog, where I mostly compile/clarify stuff I say on this forum.

Quote: : Quote: : ...

If God cannot feel the emotion of "compassion" and "care" and "love" then is He really a God one would want to worship?

At the very least, doesn't that make prayer useless?

There are seeming contradictions all throughout the Bible that don't fit together. Assuming you've come to the conclusion there is a God, but he doesn't feel emotions, is not worshiping him a serious option? What I meant was that if God cannot feel simple emotions such as compassion, then a typical prayer, usually uttered in a time of need (e.g., God, please save my father, dying of cancer;

God let me have passed that test, etc.) would have no effect on such an entity because He cannot be moved to care, thus rendering prayer useless, and if prayer is useless then the Christian faith is, not necessarily based on, but comprised of many lies.

Spoiler: Help me hatch my dragon eggs!

Quote: : the three common arguments for the existence of a god (Ontological, Cosmological, Teleological) The main issues with the ontological argument have already been dealt with.

I''ll just throw in a point I'm fond of that has been stated somewhat implicitly so far: Talking about something in any formal system implies the object exists.

Thus, when I talk about say an odd perfect number and deduce properties of it I am implicitly assuming there is such a number.

Thus, the ontological argument more or less boils down to when stated in any approach resembling formal logic: If God exists then God exists.

That's not very impressive. To briefly discuss the two other arguments you bring up: The cosmological argument is more interesting.

It does however have at least three problems: First, It isn't at all clear why one couldn't have an indefinite chain of causes going backwards with no first cause.

Second, even if we accept the argument, it isn't at all clear that the thing in question is at all divine or Godlike.

Aquinas stated when discussing this argument "we understand this being to be God" (slight paraphrase) but it isn't at all clear why this identification is justifiable other than that many religions traditionally assert that the First Cause is God.

Indeed, in some sense one could be an atheist and accept the existence of a First Cause.

Third, the cosmological argument doesn't really resolve the fundamental question that it is trying to solve: Why is their something rather than nothing?

One can just as reasonably ask that question about whatever one has labeled the First Cause. The teleological argument has a variety of versions.

Some are better than others.

Many versions of this argument overlap with versions of the cosmological argument.

Moreover, they can be combined in some forms to argue that the First Cause has intelligence.

(I seem to recall that Ibn Rushd did this more or less and Wikipedia agrees with me but the relevant Wikipedia section has zero sources so I wouldn't trust that).

Discussing the teleological argument requires possibly its own thread, or at least a lot of time. There is however for the Abrahamic faiths a serious problem: Even if one accepts rough versions of all three arguments it is very hard to establish that any of the beings in question are the same being at all.

I suppose if I were trying to be a Christian apologist I might try to argue that each was really a different part of the Trinity we're in Serious Business...

Religion, Sets, and Politics (my blog)

Quote: : Comic Quote: : If your post were written by a decision-making algorithm, I wouldn't reply to it. Uh, you have no way of demonstrating that I am not, in cognitive terms, precisely that.

For that matter, how could you demonstrate that you aren't? I find it very tiresome when someone says "you can't do that!" about something I'm doing at the time.

Maybe I'm not demonstrating it well , but that doesn't mean I have no way of doing so. Quote: : Comic Quote: : Arguing that you have no free will is nonsense--if you're right, then you remove any reason for arguing in the first place.

And calling yourself an algorithm is just another way of saying you have no free will. Unless I'm programmed to correct people. "Programmed" by whom?

What people are adapted to do in nature is to find food and mate, not argue philosophy.

And even if your correction was somehow logical despite proceeding from a-logical causes, it still wouldn't be your choice to make it--thus you would have no free will, as I said. Quote: : Comic Quote: : And if you're an algorithm, who's this "first person" you mentioned?

What is doing the perceiving, if not the algorithm itself?

Unless something supernatural, like a soul, is going on. You're confusing identity with this phenomenon you call 'free will'. Explain to me then how you can have an identity, when "your" actions are no more under "your" control than the orbit of Jupiter.

You're drawing an arbitrary line around one group of molecules in a sea of others, none of which are under the control of anything but the laws of physics, and saying "this is me." Free will and identity are not confused. Quote: : Barring a definition of the concept on your part, I'll try my hand at defining what you're trying to mean by the concept: The ability to make decisions in a way entirely independent of any physical law.

No determinism, no atoms making your decisions, and similarly, no non-determinism, no quarks randomly giving you thoughts in your head. You are asserting that there is an aspect of your behavior that has zero relevance to the physical world. Your phrase " entirely independent " is the crux of the problem.

Free will is that which is not entirely dependent on physical laws--stretching this to "entirely independent" is just a way of producing red herrings. In materialism, everything is entirely dependent on physical laws--there is nothing else to depend on.

But in order to have beings like we think we are, beings which choose between one thing and another and don't merely observe a choice made for them by quantum mechanics, there has to be at least some tiny aspect of our behavior which is not entirely dependent on physics.

And this small observation shatters materialism and brings in, unbidden, the supernatural. A webcomic funnier than life itself.

Updated Monday-Friday.

Quote: : My posts were moved to the religion thread because I have no clue what "Ontological, Cosmological, Teleological" means.

Ontological = concerned with the study of and the nature of being .

An ontological argument for God's existence generally tries to prove that God exists because it is fundamentally part of God's nature to exist. Cosmological = concerning the universe as a whole.

Cosmological arguments typically look at the fact that every effect appears to have a cause;

And every cause, in turn, appears to be the effect of yet another cause before it.

This suggests that there must have been a single first cause to start all other causes in motion, thus explaining why the universe exists at all.

And, the argument goes, God is the only plausible explanation for that first cause. Teleological = having to do with design, intent, or purpose.

Teleological arguments for God's existence make the case that the makeup of the world, or some specific aspects of the world (like humans/life), indicate a purposeful designer.

According to teleological arguments, it is unlikely (or impossible) for the order/structure/complexity that we observe to have come about without intelligence guiding it. This page also gives more details. Despoilered because it is quite relevant.

Thanks! -Az Comic Quote: : I find it very tiresome when someone says "you can't do that!" about something I'm doing at the time.

Maybe I'm not demonstrating it well, but that doesn't mean I have no way of doing so.

I don't mean to intrude on your exchange with Indon, but I must say, this latest response still has not demonstrated that Indon is not a decision-making algorithm.

You're right that the absence of demonstration does not mean there is no way to do so whatsoever.

However, neither does that mean there is a way to demonstrate that, and I think the burden of proof is on your side.

(Similar to asserting "Unicorns exist";

Absence of evidence does not mean they don't exist, but the burden of proof is on whoever tries to say they do exist.) Blog type thing

Comic Quote: : In materialism, everything is entirely dependent on physical laws--there is nothing else to depend on.

But in order to have beings like we think we are, beings which choose between one thing and another and don't merely observe a choice made for them by quantum mechanics, there has to be at least some tiny aspect of our behavior which is not entirely dependent on physics.

And this small observation shatters materialism and brings in, unbidden, the supernatural. For the identity issue: clearly as humans we create distinct objects as causes instead of thinking of everything as a chain of events with only one cause at the beginning.

Most people believe in tornadoes as following completely materialistic causes.

But few would say: "That tornado didn't cause the house to fall down, the big bang did, because that's what set the causal chain which the tornado is just a link in to occur".

Likewise, even determinists such as myself say that a person caused something to happen, because "person" like "tornado" is a bundle of causal patterns we identify as a distinct object. As for why we believe we have choice not determined by what came before, I like David Hume's attempt at a psychological explanation: we see that in the material world, one kind of event always follows another when conditions are exactly the same.

We call this "determinism" and describe it with various laws.

In describing it, we come to believe (incorrectly, Hume thought) that we really know the "force" that links cause to effect, we come to believe that we actually perceive the causality itself, rather than just constantly see one event follow another.

Then, because we perceive no such force of causality in our choices, we assume that our choices are free from determinism. I think a similar explanation accounts for why many people have trouble believing a "cloud of particles" or "an algorithm" as perceiving something.

We think that we perceive physical properties (such as mass) directly, that we see them as clearly as we see numbers on a blackboard.

Thus they seem as mechanical and "lifeless" as lines and numbers, and when our own consciousness seems so fundamentally different, we assume that it can't possibly be part of the same physical system.

But the truth is that we perceive mass only by its effects, it seems so cold and numerical because we are only inferring its existence from quantifiable effects it has.

Consciousness seems so different because we *are* consciousness (I know this is a sloppy way of putting it, but you get the idea).

It could very well be a physical property like mass, and still seem so different because we aren't just inferring it by its effects.

David Quote: : Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.

Comic Quote: : Your phrase " entirely independent " is the crux of the problem.

Free will is that which is not entirely dependent on physical laws--stretching this to "entirely independent" is just a way of producing red herrings. Okay, then.

Demonstrate an aspect of human behavior which is demonstrably not entirely dependent from physical laws. Alternately, I can just call you on this right now, and say that not only will you not bother to try, but even if you did, you would fail.

Your argument is similar to a "god of the gaps" argument - an argument solely continent on a lack of knowledge.

Each further development in mind science demonstrates in more depth precisely how physical laws determine our behavior, but as each proves you more and more wrong, you will simply point to the ever-dwindling amount of ignorance we will have in regards to our own thought processes, and say, "Well, my God has to be in there somewhere." The reason it's called "God of the gaps" is because once deities were attributed to causing physical events.

Lightning, earthquakes, disease, all have been attributed to being caused by supernatural forces at one time, but we now know better.

A god that you attribute physical events to can only be responsible for physical events of which we are ignorant of - gaps in our knowledge.

Thus, a god of the gaps, that forever grows more feeble the more we learn, and the more we demonstrate phenomenon to be purely natural. It's an intellectually dishonest approach to theology, and to philosophy in general.

Just because we're talking about God doesn't mean the burden of proof vanishes from the equasion.

You still have to prove God, you can't just point at something we lack perfect knowledge of and tell us God (or unicorns, or leprechauns, or any supernatural force) is hiding there. Comic Quote: : But in order to have beings like we think we are, beings which choose between one thing and another and don't merely observe a choice made for them by quantum mechanics, there has to be at least some tiny aspect of our behavior which is not entirely dependent on physics. Look.

Your argument goes like this: 1.Human thought is neither deterministic nor non-deterministic, and is in fact in some way physically impossible. 2.It follows from point 1 that supernatural forces exist. Your first point is entirely made up , has zero proof for it, and your say-so is completely worthless for defending it.

Your argument is bad , and does not work, because it assumes a premise that is not demonstrated, and frankly, you won't demonstrate it. I got no problem with your second point.

If you can demonstrate that human thought is not entirely dependent on physical laws, you'll have demonstrated the existence of the supernatural, and I will be eagerly awaiting your paper on the subject.

My blog, where I mostly compile/clarify stuff I say on this forum.

Quote: : Quote: : the existence of evil and reconciling it with the existence of the god of Classical Theology Perhaps it should be made explicit just what about these two theses needs to be reconciled. This one I can actually answer.

It begins with the assumption of a Loving Omniscient God of the sort envisioned by Judeo-Christian philosophy.

It boils down to two questions: if a God allows evil to exist how can he be loving?

And if God cannot prevent evil, how can he be Omniscient.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. - JFK

To start, what do you think about the Ontological Argument?

Is it valid? No. There are two strong refutations of the Ontological Argument which combined more or less make it invalid: 1) Anselm assumes that existence makes a good thing better.

This is a difficult thing to prove (or disprove for that matter).

At first it seems obvious, but there is no logical reason why it must be so.

In fact there are some things which we imagine that are good to imagine, but if they were real would not be good (a married man's fantasies about a woman other than his wife might meet this criteria).

Anselm's Greatest Thing Ever could be no better real than imagined, in which case it would not necessarily have to exist (it might, but it wouldn't prove it's existence). 2) Anselm begs the question.

Even if we grant Anselm the dubious claim that existence makes a thing better, his argument is essentially that: a) I define God as the Greatest Thing Ever b) Assume that the Greatest Thing Ever doesn't exist. c) Now there is something better than the Greatest Thing Ever (a potential Greatest Thing Ever that did exist) d) this is impossible, nothing can be better than the Greatest Thing Ever , therefore the Greatest Thing Ever must exist. Essentially, Anselm is defining God as The Greatest Thing Ever That Exists and then proving that that thing exists.

Anselm gives God the property of existence by his definition and uses that definition to prove God exists, and thus begs the question. Anyone who wants to argue the other side is more than welcome to, maybe it will be fun.

Quote: : Quote: : Quote: : the existence of evil and reconciling it with the existence of the god of Classical Theology Perhaps it should be made explicit just what about these two theses needs to be reconciled. This one I can actually answer.

It begins with the assumption of a Loving Omniscient God of the sort envisioned by Judeo-Christian philosophy.

It boils down to two questions: if a God allows evil to exist how can he be loving?

And if God cannot prevent evil, how can he be Omniscient. The God needs to be omnipotent too.

It's just slightly more complicated - if God is able to stop evil and unwilling, he is not omnibenevolent, if he is willing and not able, he is not omnipotent.

If he is able and willing but doesn't know it's occurring, then he is not omniscient.

Quote: : Anyone who wants to argue the other side is more than welcome to, maybe it will be fun. Here's the only thing I have: Assume some form of Platonism is true.

So when we think about "Greatness" we aren't making up definitions in our heads, we're actually contemplating something that exists in the "realm of forms" or equivalent.

After contemplating it, anyone perceptive and honest will have to realize that part of the nature of "Greatness" is that its maximum must manifest as an actual existing thing.

Just as we know that a triangle must have three angles, we know that Greatness must be manifested in an actually existing being. Granted, this kind of goes against traditional Platonism, where material existence is inferior to the abstract forms.

David Quote: : Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.

Quote: : Quote: : Quote: : Quote: : the existence of evil and reconciling it with the existence of the god of Classical Theology Perhaps it should be made explicit just what about these two theses needs to be reconciled. This one I can actually answer.

It begins with the assumption of a Loving Omniscient God of the sort envisioned by Judeo-Christian philosophy.

It boils down to two questions: if a God allows evil to exist how can he be loving?

And if God cannot prevent evil, how can he be Omniscient. The God needs to be omnipotent too.

It's just slightly more complicated - if God is able to stop evil and unwilling, he is not omnibenevolent, if he is willing and not able, he is not omnipotent.

If he is able and willing but doesn't know it's occurring, then he is not omniscient. That's true.

I'd forgotten the omnipotent angle. This line of reasoning, of course, begs the question, what is Gods moral framework?

I saw that mentioned earlier in the thread and was struck by what an interesting idea that is.

What if evil isn't evil to God?

Maybe it's necessary.

Of course that doesn't really help support our current Judeo-Christian religion so I'm not sure if it's really a question that gets asked a lot.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. - JFK

Quote: : This line of reasoning, of course, begs the question, what is Gods moral framework?

I saw that mentioned earlier in the thread and was struck by what an interesting idea that is.

What if evil isn't evil to God?

Maybe it's necessary.

Of course that doesn't really help support our current Judeo-Christian religion so I'm not sure if it's really a question that gets asked a lot. This is interesting, but really kind of an impractical line of thought.

If God truly operates under a different moral framework different than ours, then without it explaining it, we can't really begin to understand it.

So it's pointless to try and be moral, because there both is absolute morality and we don't know what it is, except that it's NOT what we think it is.

Alternatively, there is no absolute morality and God operates differently, giving the appearance that we have an immoral God, which is basically unacceptable in most religions (though it is possible if we're discussing a god in general).

I have a question for discussion. Abiding by a rule of respecting the will of whatever you create, and knowing that under that condition, the living won't be, well, really anything remotely positive for the majority of their time in life, would it be moral for you to create the living? Consider that you can give advice, just not override wills directly.

GENERATION 4: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.

Social experiment.

Quote: : Quote: : This line of reasoning, of course, begs the question, what is Gods moral framework?

I saw that mentioned earlier in the thread and was struck by what an interesting idea that is.

What if evil isn't evil to God?

Maybe it's necessary.

Of course that doesn't really help support our current Judeo-Christian religion so I'm not sure if it's really a question that gets asked a lot. This is interesting, but really kind of an impractical line of thought.

If God truly operates under a different moral framework different than ours, then without it explaining it, we can't really begin to understand it.

So it's pointless to try and be moral, because there both is absolute morality and we don't know what it is, except that it's NOT what we think it is.

Alternatively, there is no absolute morality and God operates differently, giving the appearance that we have an immoral God, which is basically unacceptable in most religions (though it is possible if we're discussing a god in general). Assuming that your typical Christian God created the universe without his need to interfere, with omnipresence a complete understanding of his creation this is more then compatible with the Christian God, and he abides by a different set of morality then it follows that we are in fact suffering no moral harm in the eyes of the Christian God.

As far as i can see it, the causal world lives by physical laws, it can't help it.

Disasters of any nature, acts of any evil, are all causations of the universe, and as such the moral code that God would have to follow to remain omniscient/omnibenevolent /omnipotent would be one of nature.

A "Callicles"-ian moral code.

Quote: : Assuming that your typical Christian God created the universe without his need to interfere, with omnipresence a complete understanding of his creation this is more then compatible with the Christian God, and he abides by a different set of morality then it follows that we are in fact suffering no moral harm in the eyes of the Christian God.

As far as i can see it, the causal world lives by physical laws, it can't help it.

Disasters of any nature, acts of any evil, are all causations of the universe, and as such the moral code that God would have to follow to remain omniscient/omnibenevolent /omnipotent would be one of nature.

A "Callicles"-ian moral code. Yes, assuming all that then we aren't undergoing moral harm, or God is not acting immorally.

That does not really refute my point on the essential inanity of morality in that case - it is something we do not necessarily know or understand, and thus cannot follow unless by accident or coincidence.

Or are you arguing that morality is naturalistic, and that "natural" and "moral" are synonymous?

Quote: : Quote: : Assuming that your typical Christian God created the universe without his need to interfere, with omnipresence a complete understanding of his creation this is more then compatible with the Christian God, and he abides by a different set of morality then it follows that we are in fact suffering no moral harm in the eyes of the Christian God.

As far as i can see it, the causal world lives by physical laws, it can't help it.

Disasters of any nature, acts of any evil, are all causations of the universe, and as such the moral code that God would have to follow to remain omniscient/omnibenevolent /omnipotent would be one of nature.

A "Callicles"-ian moral code. Yes, assuming all that then we aren't undergoing moral harm, or God is not acting immorally.

That does not really refute my point on the essential inanity of morality in that case - it is something we do not necessarily know or understand, and thus cannot follow unless by accident or coincidence.

Or are you arguing that morality is naturalistic, and that "natural" and "moral" are synonymous? I'm arguing based on previous stated assumptions, and inherit theological ones, that the Christian God cannot cause us moral harm in his eyes.

Using that as a standard, guesstimation should be added to your subset of accident or coincidence when concerned with what God's moral code really is .

The entire universe as a creation becomes evidence for the inner workings of a supreme beings mind and ethics.

If we're assuming in this particular instance that we know God is, we know what he is and we know what his moral code ISN'T, then we aren't exactly blind on the subject.

My argument for morality being synonymous with nature was taking my assumptions and digging an extremely shallow framework into what is a possibility.

Quote: : I'm arguing based on previous stated assumptions, and inherit theological ones, that the Christian God cannot cause us moral harm in his eyes.

Using that as a standard, guesstimation should be added to your subset of accident or coincidence when concerned with what God's moral code really is .

The entire universe as a creation becomes evidence for the inner workings of a supreme beings mind and ethics.

If we're assuming in this particular instance that we know God is, we know what he is and we know what his moral code ISN'T, then we aren't exactly blind on the subject.

My argument for morality being synonymous with nature was taking my assumptions and digging an extremely shallow framework into what is a possibility. It seems then, that we've been given a loose set of things that just *happen* and are expected to reverse engineer a moral code from them.

We're forced to then follow this code that we've reverse engineered, that *may* be right, and can never really know for sure.

I suppose this would be a good time to point out the Eurythro dilemma - either God is subservient to another moral code, or morality is inherent in God, and thus basically arbitrary (as what God does is good because God did it).

If there's a separate, universal moral code then the universe doesn't provide any insight at all into the morals of God, just how it implemented some system of omnipresent ethics.

And if things are good because God says so, then morality's basically subjective - the only reason God's morals are more moral than any person's is because God's the one with the power.

Quote: : ...the only reason God's morals are more moral than any person's is because God's the one with the power. That's morality for you.

Then take God as a "supposed" being, with "supposed" power.

The questions "Who is this guy and why are we doing what he says?" springs to mind.

All those years i could of cheated my neighbor.

One thought I've had about why the ontological argument could work (but doesn't really) is this: Suppose someone could fully understand the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god.

By understand, I don't mean merely listing its attributes;

I mean having a complete understanding of how such a god could exist and work in our universe.

In short, they would have to have an algorithm for godliness in their head. This algorithm, holding the secrets to omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence, and being perfect in every way, would be able to affect its host's thoughts in such a way as to realize these attributes in the real world.

In effect, by conceiving of a perfect god, one would become, if not the god itself, at least a vessel for it in the real world. The reason this doesn't work is that, as far as we know, it's physically impossible for a human (or any other physical being) to be omnipotent.

At the very least, nobody can break the speed of light.

So no such godly algorithm can exist, let alone fit into a human head. But I think this thought experiment leads to an alternative idea - if we relax the assumptions of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence, we still have the idea that to conceive of god is to become, to some extent, a vessel for god.

Even if you allow that conception to be less than perfect, you're still left with the idea that the meme of godliness, just by being thought of , brings some degree of godliness into effect. In short, as the old otter in Go God Go, (the South Park episode) said - maybe by believing in god, we make him real.

Or look at Terry Pratchett's Discworld books, where the more true believers a god has, the greater its influence in the world. Which is kind of trivial once you've heard about memes, but still, I think it's interesting how it can be seen as a weaker form of the ontological argument.

And unlike other memes, memes that embody greatness have a way of persisting.

If you define as religion any set of memes that enables societies to function better, then religion really does come into being just by being thought about. It really comes down to definitions - what does it mean to truly 'understand' god?

As far as the classical definition of god is concerned, I don't think anyone can - so Anselm's argument is unfalsifiable. The cosmological and teleological arguments are more like alternative definitions than real arguments for existence.

Cosmological: define god as the ultimate cause.

Ok, so why is this god omnibenevolent or anything else?

Teleological: like cosmological but assumes that the first cause is intelligent - which according to Murray Gell-Mann means it's probably a complex adaptive system .

But if it existed before anything else, what did it adapt to?

Avatar from Daemon Rising. There are \pi kinds of people in the world.

Ok, I haven't read all of the thread yet, but I just want to mention something interesting. ...

It's only one page long.

And by saying that out loud you've made it perfectly clear you haven't read the SB section rules.

Please do so. -Az Spoiler: The ontological argument is found in the bible: Exo 3:13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you;

And they shall say to me, What is his name?

What shall I say unto them? Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. Now, the ontological argument, or at least one formulation of it, says that God's essence implies existence.

Essence is an idea: for example, the essence of "chair" could be the idea in your head of a chair, and it doesn't have to exist.

But God being so great and big and in the sky, having the idea of him means that he has to exist. I AM THAT I AM: That's a summary of the argument: I AM (that is, I exist) THAT I AM (because it's my essence). At least, that's my interpretation.

Hey, I'm not saying it's valid or anything, this is just a thought exercise I had to wake me up this morning.

Hope it gets a few laughs

Quote: : One thought I've had about why the ontological argument could work (but doesn't really) is this: Suppose someone could fully understand the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god.

By understand, I don't mean merely listing its attributes;

I mean having a complete understanding of how such a god could exist and work in our universe.

In short, they would have to have an algorithm for godliness in their head. This algorithm, holding the secrets to omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence, and being perfect in every way, would be able to affect its host's thoughts in such a way as to realize these attributes in the real world.

In effect, by conceiving of a perfect god, one would become, if not the god itself, at least a vessel for it in the real world. The reason this doesn't work is that, as far as we know, it's physically impossible for a human (or any other physical being) to be omnipotent.

At the very least, nobody can break the speed of light.

So no such godly algorithm can exist, let alone fit into a human head. But I think this thought experiment leads to an alternative idea - if we relax the assumptions of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence, we still have the idea that to conceive of god is to become, to some extent, a vessel for god.

Even if you allow that conception to be less than perfect, you're still left with the idea that the meme of godliness, just by being thought of , brings some degree of godliness into effect. ` That doesn't really follow.

It's not logically inconsistent to be able to fully understand how a perfect being could exist and function in our universe, while being physically incapable of being that god.

For your statement to be true, it would have to be an algorithm for turning any human into a god with no physical or resource requirements.

That probably doesn't exist, but there is no reason the godly algorithm you described couldn't both exist and be impossible to realize.

The term "vessel" is too vague for me to know whether that's possible or not.

But even if it's loosely defined as acting more "godly" or acting "as if an omni-god exists" it doesn't have to follow from knowing your godly algorithm.

I could know the algorithm and also know that what it describes has not been realized in our universe, and therefore have it not significantly affect my actions.

David Quote: : Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.

Discussion Title: Philosophy of Religion [Philosophy]
Title Keywords: xkcd  View  topic  Philosophy  Religion  [Philosophy] 



Omgili Home About FAQ Plugins Usenet