Well if you think they are all begging the question (affirmation of the consequent) then they are not very good are they?

First Cause is NOT begging the question. The issue is origin. The paradox is between finite origin versus infinite origin.

Prime Mover is NOT begging the question. The issue is again origin, only the focus is now on the origin of the movement of the heavenly bodies which we can tell move. We now know in these latter modern times that all heavenly bodies including the stars also move. So it would seem this knowledge therefore enhances even further this argument.

Artistic Artificer is NOT begging the question, it is also an issue of origin but this time the object of origin is beauty and symmetry.

I would say those are the 3 strongest arguments. So maybe the other 17 are indeed straw men.

You seem to think they are all straw men. Is that you speaking or is it Lucifer speaking through you?

If you are jogging on a long empty beach and you see fresh footprints in the sands ahead of you going in the same direction as you are going, would you still conclude that you are completely alone? I know this could go either way, but ostensibly there is evidence of a sort that you are not alone at all.

First Cause, Prime Mover, and Artistic Artificer are philosophical informed speculative logical evidence.

, that's a pretty good list of 20 proofs, thank you.

I did not see the prime mover in that list, so adding it makes 21.

Remember the ancient and Medieval philosophers looked up in the skies and noticed the Sun, Moon, planets, comets, and meteors moving through the skies, presuming the Earth to be motionless and at the Universe's center.

Thus a Prime Mover is required to put all these into motion. This is God.

Thanks again for the list. I'll need to study these more closely.

, a very thoughtful discourse and very well done. I will reply to you on behalf of the Philosophy God, since this is a Philosophy forum, and not Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian, Jain, Taoist, Shinto, or Zen.

I love my cat and he loves me. I therefore want my cat to be the happiest cat in the world. If he did not love me and/or I did not love him then I would not care.

If I had 7 billion cats such as is the current population of people on the Earth then I would think it would be difficult to love any one of them more than the others because all cats are beautiful and amusing and delightful and they keep you company when no other humans will or can.

Furthermore, if I also had several billion galaxies to my credit, each one with several billions of cats in it, then it would be especially hard to find a way to love them all carte blanche.

Ergo I cannot believe that the Philosophy God's love for humankind is carte blanche. There must be something that the Philosophy God wants out of us in exchange for His/Her/It's love.

I will presume therefore that the Philosophy God wants virtuous and ethical behavior out of us. Because He/She/It is Itself virtuous and ethical by definition of the various philosophers who are romantics and who thusly believe in a Philosophy God. Thus likes are attracted to each other, and the Philosophy God would be attracted to me and to my virtuous and ethical works.

Essentially this is what Matthew Chapter 25 in the Greek New Testament also tells us. So at least the late St. Matthew formerly known as Levi the tax collector agrees with me on this:

http://biblehub.com/ylt/matthew/25.htm

I normally use YLT when I quote the Bible in English because I have found that it follows the original Greek fairly closely. I have also found that the KJV is the worst of the various English translations. The Catholic Douay-Rheims is somewhere between YLT and KJV in terms of accuracy.

In the meantime, while we are developing our own personal philosophies and performing our own good works, it would seem that the Philosophy God remains a recluse from us for whatever reasons, one of which is obviously so as to free us from any fear and compulsion from doing that which we would do in the absence of the Philosophy God Himself/Herself/Itself.

Is that enough of an explanation for you, or do you need more?

see supra re Protestant mysticism.

this latter post is strictly a question of Protestant mysticism and as such not really worthy of response. Mysticism is mysticism. It woos people with awe and wonder and it fills the collection plate on Sundays.

, it sounds like you have confused "atheist" with "agnostic".

You should do yourself a favor and look those both up.

I forgot what kind of fallacy it is that relies on the complete refutation of an unrelated topic and then goes on to assume your own proposition is therefore somehow valid. Argument from ignorance? I don't feel like poring over the fallacy list to find it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

The obvious fallacy in the O/P (original post) of this thread is that there was no justification for atheism given. There was also no definition for atheism given. So let me start by providing the missing definitions and then we can go from there.

Theism is the belief in gods and angels and evil spirits. It is a specific form of metaphysics that is loaded with doctrine, dogma, and presumably revelation. Christian revelation has been transmitted by the apostles and evangelists of Jesus in the Greek New Testament, in Greek.

Muslim revelation has been transmitted by the scribes of Muhammad in the Quran.

Hindu revelation comes from several books notably the Gita's. And so forth. There are about a dozen major world religions.

In addition to these major religions, Philosophy contains the notion of the Philosophy God, an indistinct Being presumed to be all knowing, all powerful, all seeing, all present, immortal and infinite. Those are the characteristics that the various philosophers from Socrates to Leibniz have given for Him/Her/It. The notion of the Philosophy God is monotheist because there is no logical reason to assume there is more than one such God, even though in reality in the Universe outside of the study of metaphysics there very well may be a plurality of Gods, such as in Hinduism. The primary argument in favor of the existence of a Philosophy God are the various proofs of God from the Romantics (those who love God): First Cause, Prime Mover, Purposeful Designer, Artistic Artificer, etc.

Atheism assumes there is no God. This is a negative and as such cannot be proven. To prove a negative you would need to search every square inch of the entire Universe in order to be able to report there is no God or that God is dead. There are billions of galaxies in the Universe, and we have only send a few quick manned probes to our own Moon and unmanned probes to a few of our own relatively close planets. Ergo it is impossible to prove anything about atheism. Thus lurching onto the belief of atheism is no more rational than doing so with theism. Q.E.D.

Agnosticism on the other hand is perfectly valid as a viewpoint. Agnostics simply say "show me a sign and I will believe in a God." And in the meantime they suspend judgment one way or the other. Naturally theist religion condemns this viewpoint as lacking faith. I'm not sure that faith is a requirement for being rewarded in any of the various religions' Heavenly Kingdoms. Good works is normally the criterion for any reward, whether you have faith or not. Therefore whether you are an agnostic or a theist, you should strive for good works, such as those described in Matthew Chapter 25: to feed the hungry, to quench the thirsty, to clothe the naked, to shelter the homeless, to heal the sick, and to visit the imprisoned. Then you can expect a reward, even though your faith is weak or nonexistent.

http://biblehub.com/ylt/matthew/25.htm

Young does the best job of literally translating the Bible in his YLT version so I normally quote that one when I quote anything.

Atheism is a lie. Atheists are liars. Hell has a special place for liars in every religion. People view atheists with disdain for good reason. Q.E.D.

Now work within those specific definitions and refute my philosophy if you can.

"... but ..." is where you are making the issue really complex.

Prison inmates get treated a certain way and have certain resources afforded to them. While they are inmates I doubt they are very high on the list for organ transplants and exotic medical treatment.

Once they finish their sentences and are discharged, then they return to society and should be treated like anybody else.

That's the only philosophical issue -- the ethics of how you triage.

Massive folk movements like the Syrians overwhelm nations' ability to cope with them. It is just like taking food out of the mouths of their own residents and putting it into the mouths of the newcomers. The tax and resource burdens are overwhelming for any nation's budget. All nations have put up fences long ago to control the movement of immigration. Ultimately the problem is one of uncontrolled population growth. China, India, and Pakistan have dealt with this problem responsibly rather than shipping their excess populations out of their country. The Greeks and Turks should have asked for UN help rather than kicking the can down the road to their neighbors. Only idiots would have done what the Greeks and Turks did to the rest of Europe.

As for what the solution now is, the migrants need to be stopped. Refugee camps need to be set up. Keeping those camps on or near the borders of Greece and Turkey pays the Greeks and Turks back for their indiscretions.

The UN still needs to help. Normally the UN is not good for much, but in this case there is something they can do with financial support from the various member states. This spreads the tax and resource burden around the whole world. China, India, and Pakistan should be exempt. The USA is already the world's policeman and has deficits enough from that. The rest of the freeloading world should therefore participate in the solution.

The solution is to set up refugee camps and house, feed, and cloth the migrants there. Otherwise the migrants should not be rewarded for their migrations. This is also the only way to contain the Muslim terrorist risk, which is a mere pinprick but still a security issue.

Whenever soldiers and sailors are not fighting wars, they are best equipped to dole out food and water during crises like these. They also need to establish security and protect their own borders from invasions from the refugee camps.

The Palestinians in Jordan have taught us over the past 68 years since 1948 that refugee camps never go away. They are however a necessary evil in the process of slowly admitting small numbers of refugees into another country.

This whole situation is bad all around. It is sad that Assad cannot govern his people peacefully and feels that he has to bomb and murder them. Sadder still that the USA got involved to support the rebellion there. And even more complex that the Russians jumped-in to support him against the USA. The USA only made things worse. The Arab Spring has been a complete failure. It should not have been supported by the USA in Syria. What was BHO thinking ?!

The only relevant philosophical issues are the ethics of international politics. BHO should have minded his own business and stayed out of Syria. BHO ran on a platform of returning US troops back to the USA and out of Iraq and Afghanistan. And 52% of the people elected him for that. It thus makes no sense to flaunt his own mandate from the people of the USA by jumping into Syria. What a huge mess !!

I think most people in the English speaking world know who Shakespeare was.

Triage does not concern itself with the administration of criminal justice.

The Turks are blackmailing and the Greeks are kicking the can down the road (across their country).

Both are shameful.

Facilitating the folk invasions seems a-priori like an act of war to me.

a-priori = self-evident.

I think of triage as simply the logical allocation of scarce resources.

The only ethical consideration would be to be fair and consistent in your judgments.

The 1's are the ones who are most worth trying to save because they have the greatest chance of making it through alive.

The 2's are the ones that are ok to try if practicable.

The 3's are going to die anyway so just make them comfortable and get them a drink or something.

One man's asinine is another man's genius.

Are you the one who plays Lucifer here?

I think self preservation needs to be the prime motivation, at least from a logical perspective.

Heroism is appropriate when personal objective ethics and morals appear in a crisis and warrant a noble sacrifice or grave risk however.

Almost everyone would be heroic for the benefit of their loved ones, including their pets -- horses, ponies, dogs, cats, etc. I love my cat.

I will protect and defend anyone within reasonable bounds where it is morel likely that I can assist them than it is likely that I will suffer injury to myself. That is the Masonic Creed.

A small risk of injury is not necessarily a bad thing. An overwhelming risk of injury with no likelihood of being able to intervene successfully is rash however.

Looks like lots of new members on the member list just sign up but never post anything.

Wondering if they got lost somehow in the Internet jungle and could not find their way back?

Thanks!

There is no big deal about any screenwriter.

You might as well be quoting John Milius as Shakespeare.

"I love the smell of napalm in the morning."

Workers should be free to chose to join the union or not.

I like freedom.

I hate slavery.

The other forum limits you to 60 posts per 24 hours. That is maddening. So I gave up over there and came here instead. Good to see you again!

I would not consider these ethics issues.

These are triage issues.

Agnosticism is a perfectly logical and honest approach to religion. It is precisely what would be expected from a university professor or a lab technician or any other "scientist".

Christianity, both anciently and modern versions, condemn it however under the cloak of lack of faith.

If you are godless it is easy to be viewed as being without ethics as well, although many philosophers do not require any religion for themselves to be ethical. However others such as Machiavelli and Nietzsche and their followers and admirers would have a hard time with any objective ethics.

While I am not offended by agnostics, anyone professing to be atheist is offensive in that this is an untenable philosophical position. To be valid it requires proving a negative, and with such a very large universe as the one before us, filled with billions of galaxies, one would need to search every square inch of it to prove there is no god, or that god is dead. That position is simply not logical.

Falling off the other side of the horse and becoming fanatical like a Muslim extremist or an Evangelical Protestant is just as bad in my opinion. In fact in that case I would rather hang out with the atheist.

As for the existence or not of the Philosophy God, I think Aquinas has already said it all.

First Cause, Prime Mover, Purposeful Designer, Artistic Artificer -- these all speak volumes and require serious philosophical consideration.

I go to Catholic mass at Xmas and Easter every year. The rest of the year I try to keep all of Christ's commandments and Immanuel Kant's exhortations. If there is no god then the world is therefore no worse off because of me.

The POTUS is a progressive activist.

The current US Senate is led by conservative strict constructionists.

Until the Senate changes hands and/or the office of POTUS changes hands, I cannot imagine a new SCOTUS justice being ratified.

None of that can happen before November 2016 anyway. And it may not even happen after that until the elections of 2020. I would not be surprised if the SCOTUS runs short of headcount for the next 4 years even.

I was fully expecting Ginsberg to be the next one to croak however she keeps on ticking while still taking a licking. She is probably the worst justice ever appointed to the Court.

Shorthand:

POTUS = President Of The USA
SCOTUS = Supreme Court Of The USA

[Quoting Darth:

"What, if anything, should we do regarding the refugee crisis?

Recently I read an interesting article written by Slavoj Žižek, in which he criticizes both the liberals and the conservatives. The conservatives he criticizes for being willfully ignorant to the plight of the drowning refugees, and the liberals he criticizes for being too idealistic and using this idealism as an excuse for not doing anything.

I personally don't really have a solid position on this current event, although I am leaning towards the view that we should offer temporary asylum for refugees, no questions asked (unless highly suspicious). As soon as the home country has become stable, the refugees must leave or become citizens of the country they are staying in.

Forcibly kicking them out is bigoted, close minded and spreads fear, while allowing every single person in for as long as they want is an impossible dream."]

This is a really hard question.

Transporting refugees across your own nation to the country on the other side of you is kicking the can down the road and a violation of that other country's sovereign rights.

So Greece and Turkey are most to blame for this European crisis.

If people start flooding into your country from your borders however, it would seem that your nation owes them some kind of assistance and space for their refugee camps.

Then the UN needs to step in and help solve the problem.

As I said, what Greece and Turkey are doing is immoral and unethical by transporting them across their own boundaries.

I would consider Greece and Turkey's actions to be an act of war.

When discussing modern Christianity (that which is currently practiced by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants), I believe (no pun intended) that one must bear in mind the two or three various major independent sources of doctrines and dogmas of Christianity.

First is the Bible itself. If you are not reading from the original Greek New Testament, then you need to make sure you have a really good local country language translation. I like YLT best but I can read the Greek on my own. YLT is Young's Literal Translation, and I have found it to be quite accurate most of the time. I have found the KJV to be the most inaccurate however.

Second is the Council Of Nicaea. This council imposed Athanasianism on the world, which is completely inconsistent with the Bible.

Third is the modern Christian lore and fads, such as instant born again salvation without good works. Matthew Chapter 25 refutes this modern dogma within Evangelical Protestantism.

Having said all that, I suppose that original guilt is probably some kind of Catholic fantasy.

People will most likely be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam and Eve's "transgression", in my own personal opinion.

[Quoting Darth:

"Seems to me there are two arguments here:

1.) God does not exist, and therefore life is absurd.

2.) Life is absurd without god, therefore god exists.

The first argument is a reaction to the apparent non existence of a deity, while the second is a proof for a deity.

Absurdity here is meaning not only the metaphor of the actor without a stage, but also the complete uncanniness, or peculiarity, of existence as a whole if god does not exist.

Or is this just an appeal to emotions and ignorance? "]

The above as quoted not strike me as any kind of proof simply because they are not a syllogism.

They are merely two assumptions each one without any compelling argument or proof.

The classic proofs of God by Aristotle, Descartes, and Aquinas are more along the following lines, as I am sure you know already or perhaps you have forgotten and need a refresher maybe:

- First Cause
- Prime Mover
- Purposeful Designer
- Artistic Artificer
- Most Perfect Conception Imaginable.

When I eat seafood and fish I do so guilt free.

When I eat any other kind of meat I feel guilty.

I still do it. I just feel guilty about it.

Rights are conferred by governments on people.

The right to work is a good thing.

Without work you cannot eat.

Without eating you cannot survive.

I remember that movie, with Donald Sutherland playing Jesus.

It was creepy.

To me it makes more sense to quote philosophers rather than a playwright.

I think of morality as a subset of ethics.

I think of all morality and ethics as objective not as subjective.

Protagoras the Sophist believed and taught that all things are subjective even so called "truth". But this would only serve to justify liars.

As Immanuel Kant said, we should not objective-ize anyone. But when your morality and ethics are subjective then you are objective-izing others.

Ergo subjective morality and ethics are inappropriate for a thoughtful philosopher although just fine for a lying Sophist.

Q.E.D.

Nondisfiguring torture is only useful for interrogation.

Disfiguring torture is never appropriate.

Target stores have a 3rd restroom that anyone can use. It is private.

That would seem to be the best solution overall to a new problem that really should not be a problem in the first place. Or so it would seem.