Philosophy

Comment

Comment by Smiley Courtney on September 21, 2011 at 8:13am

Board moderator;

You have some good sources here. Can you put up an expandable biblio? A place for us all to share books, etc. we've founf informative?

Comment by Bryon on December 11, 2010 at 3:24am

ummm... If you are a southerner you can crash on my couch for a night or so while you find your way out of hell....free even.

Comment by Vangelis Stamatopoulos on October 24, 2010 at 2:53am

According to wikipedia, the 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher Diagoras is known as the "first atheist". But I imagine that atheism has existed in some form or other ever since (wo)man first created god(s) for their amusement/fear. Philosophers and free thinkers down the century have come across great opposition from theists, even Charles Darwin himself delayed publishing his great work due to the consequences to theism and therefore the repercussions that he would experience from theists. Today in Australia, atheism seeks to exclude non-theist groups it does not see as fitting in its modified definition of atheism. You can read more in my blog here.

Comment by Kelvin Hilerio on September 19, 2010 at 7:12pm

Language as the root of religion, that' is interesting but i think the problem is more deeply imbeded in us. Language may indeed make the problem bigger though.

Comment by Kevin Ray Smith on September 19, 2010 at 3:52pm

Okie, I think you are on to something. There is a theory among those who study how religion began that states,religion began as a result of a virus of language. A virus where certain words were taken to mean something spiritual. When in fact, they were never intended to be understaood in that way.

Comment by Okie Tokie on June 10, 2010 at 4:48pm

IF language had never been developed, there never could have been religion since it is spread by words, spoken and written.

Comment by Keith Brian Johnson on June 7, 2010 at 2:19pm

I meant to say that he then needs to show necessary existence or necessary nonexistence *before accepting premiss (2) as well.*

Comment by Keith Brian Johnson on June 7, 2010 at 2:18pm

Here's one:
1. If God possibly exists, then God necessarily exists. (Premiss)
2. Possibly, God does not exist. (Premiss)
3. God does not necessarily exist. (2, P~q=~Nq)
4. God does not possibly exist. (1,3, Modus Tollens)
5. God necessarily does not exist. (4, ~Pq=N~q)
6. God does not exist. (5, N~q-->~q)

It's just Hartshorne's and Plantinga's version (well, essentially) with "Possibly, God exists" replaced by "Possibly, God does not exist." I stress that neither their version nor the one above should be taken as conclusive, as there is a problem with accepting both premisses simultaneously--once one accepts (1), he then needs to show (for Hartshorne's or Plantinga's proof) that God necessarily doesn't exist or (for the proof above) that God necessarily does exist. But, of course, anyone who could show such a thing wouldn't need an ontological proof in the first place!

Comment by D R Hosie on June 7, 2010 at 1:51pm

In response to Kevin Ray Smith:
I will, of course, have to leave it to you, to determine just how great it is, but I did just post an article on this subject - An Ontological Basis, For the Denial of God

Comment by Kevin Ray Smith on February 6, 2010 at 9:26pm

Howdy! Does anyone have a link to a great ontological "disproof" other than Douglas Gaskin's ironic disproof?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page