I would encourage anyone to reply to this thread with an argument for the existence of non-physical entities (gods, your particular god, spirits, souls, etc.) Which has not been already destroyed by other philosophers, scientists, or itself. This is a challenge, as I do not think it can be done. Here are the rules:
1) it must be an argument FOR your side, not an argument AGAINST something else, the reason for this is simple, you are automatically presenting a false dichotomy, which is not a valid argument.
2) it must be clear and concise, verbosity is not permitted
3) it must not employ any other logical fallacies
4) if you present a completely flawless argument which cannot be explained by myself, a philosopher, or another scientist in 24 hours, you win.
Subscribe
Posts
Comments
About Me
- Jared
- I have a Bachelor of Science degree (biology) from Louisiana State University and very nearly a minor in Classical Studies. I intend to return for additional education with or without additional degrees as one can never be too educated.
My Blog List
-
-
Amanda Gorman3 years ago
-
Motivation3 years ago
-
-
-
Cthulhu's Bar and Grill for the Holidays16 years ago
-
-
2 comments:
You know that there's no real argument to prove the existence of G_d...
The only one that I think even comes close is Aquinas's metaphysical proof of the idea of perfection stemming from a perfect being, but you'd try to quash that one with the perfect island argument. That argument in itself is faulty because by imagining a perfect island that can't exist, you immediately set up a false dichotomy that attempts to disprove the original argument.
The idea of a perfect human doesn't proceed from any singular idea of humanity, but rather the combination of many cultural mores that are rooted in basic human existence and survival. This is the root for the idea of an ideal being that inspires that perfection in us, and that perfect being is G_d (at least it should be, lol).
No, I'd say it's wrong because it assumes existence to be better than nonexistence. It can also be argued that it can be used to prove the existence of "perfect" anything and thereby it can lead to false conclusions. Also, it does not set up a false dichotomy, it sets up an example by which that logic is incorrect. If anything, it would be reductio ad absurdum. But it skips over this by using the exact same wording with the exception of replacing "god" and "being" with "paradise" and "island" respectively.
Post a Comment