anthonyqkiernan
|
Re: Is it OK for veges to eat penguins
Jan 14, 2003, 11:44
|
|
They were kinda my points.
|
necropolist
|
Re: Is it OK for veges to eat policemen?
Jan 14, 2003, 12:45
|
"I am not in China"
i could prove that!
and one can demonstrate the impossibility of various attributes attributed to this god type being (which is what i attempted to do)
your general point tho, i would tend to agree with, i think
|
grufty jim
|
oooh theology - my favourite!
Jan 14, 2003, 15:00
|
There is no proof for the non-existence of God. You're proof that "I am not in China" would be contingent upon defining the boundaries of a place called China and proving that you are not within them - ergo your actual proof would be "I am in a place which is not China". That (despite the word "not") isn't proving a negative. Or you could prove that you are within - say - the UK, and that China and the UK are mutually exclusive (agtain, not proving a negative).
To the best of my knowledge there are no exception to the "you cannot prove a negative" rule; merely semantic constructions which make it appear as though there are.
Also, on the God thing (assuming you're talking monotheistic God sentient creator entity - a la the Big Three) you have the problem of omnipotence, so that any apparent rational "proof" you derive can be explained by "God wishes for the universe to *appear* that way" (as trite as it sounds, still a valid argument). And omnipotence is compounded by "mysterious ways" which conveniently allows God a get-out clause from anything which might appear irrational or inconsistent to we mere humans.
I do not believe - for the record - in the existence of a God that comes even close to the ones depicted in our sacred-text religions, but having had one of those bizarre educations which focusses on practical subjects like theology and latin, i'm fairly certain there are no simple "proofs for the non-existence of God". In my years of arguing with jesuit academics, i'm fairly certain i'd have unearthed them.
|
Zastrozzi
|
Re: oooh theology - my favourite!
Jan 14, 2003, 15:13
|
‘Can God create an object so heavy that He Himself cannot lift it?’
That one’ll get you a thick ear in R.E. class.
|
necropolist
|
Re: oooh theology - my favourite!
Jan 14, 2003, 15:42
|
grufty, you are of course right on both particulars.
my ayttempt to get round the 'mysterious ways' argument was based around the fact that if we are to accept mysterious ways, then we cannot have any understanding of the nature of god. however as christians (it being the christian thrology i was arguing against) do not say, 'oo we can't understand god, so we better not even try talking about him', i used the same (il)logic to go 'bollox mate'.
(basically my argument was on he idea of heaven being a place of ever increasding happiness, when hapiness as a concept can only be meaningful if it exists in contrasts to its lack/opposite. so its impossible to be ever happier all the time. i was only a 2nd year undergrad at the time i'll point out!)
|
grufty jim
|
Re: oooh theology - my favourite!
Jan 14, 2003, 15:52
|
> Can God create an object so heavy that even
> He couldn't lift it?
>
That question provides the appearance of a paradox without actually being one. It's solution is the same one as the solution to "what would happen if an irresistable force met an immovable object".
In this case we can see God as the 'irresistable force'. If we take the existence of God as given, then the concept of "immovable object" (or "object too heavy for God to lift") because literally nonsensical. Such an object cannot *by definition* exist in a universe where we have already accepted the existence of an irresistable force. The concept itself becomes invalid, making the question meaningless.
|
grufty jim
|
correction
Jan 14, 2003, 15:54
|
>
> ... "immovable object" (or "object too heavy for
> God to lift") because literally...
>
should read:
>
> ... "immovable object" (or "object too heavy for
> God to lift") BECOMES literally...
>
(i really need to proof read before hitting "send")
|
sputum munger
|
Re: Stella Artois is not Vegetarian
Jan 14, 2003, 20:39
|
|
thats why its so god damn expensive . good init!!!
|
Merrick
|
Re: Freeganism
Jan 14, 2003, 20:52
|
I'm actually just back from getting food out of the skip. Today there were green peppers, baby carrots, organic blackberries, strawberries, bananas, fresh basil, sweet potatoes, mange tout and courgettes. All of them in better condition than the stuff at the market.
Sure, I give them all a good wash first, but otherwise, yep I'll eat it.
I don't do the freegan animal products thing meself, but I know people who've found salami and still in-date caviar and suchlike, which did them no harm.
Regarding the use of pig insulin (or the contraceptive pill which is made from horses piss, or all the animal-tested pharmaceuticals), it's up to the individual really.
The key issue with the eating of animal products is that we have a choice. If I were marooned in the Antarctic then sure I'd eat penguin to stay alive. For life-threatening illnesses I'd take the drugs, I reckon. But for situations of personal taste in food - ie just a matter of greed or convenience - I won't do it.
|
Merrick
|
Re: Freeganism
Jan 14, 2003, 20:56
|
|
Oh, freeganism doesn't just apply to things out of skips though - it applies to stuff that won't have had chance to go manky; leftovers in restaurants and service stations, stuff from the work canteen that'll go off by tomorrow, etc.
|
