Happy Atheist Forum

For anyone familiar with Decartes' "Meditations on First Philosophy," I have some interesting thinking points.

A link to a synopsis and full version:
Synopsis:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy
Full:http://filepedia.org/files/Descartes%27%20Meditations%20on%20First%20Philosophy.pdf

Throughout the Meditation, Descartes makes numerous claims to having "proven" gods existence.  These can easily be found on the Wikipedia article under Meditation 3.

Decartes makes a claim that as humans, we have free will.  The standard argument for the contradiction of an omnipotent and omniscient god and individual free will is well known.  It can however, easily be discounted by a theist by just saying that God's knowledge only lies within logic...

Thinking about Decartes' "proofs," however, simply allowed me to find another enormous contradiction that I have never heard talked about.  Descarte claims that God MUST exist because he could not have come up with such an idea.  The meditation continues to suggest that we cannot create ideas as individuals.  Every idea is either inspired by a previous experience or implanted by god.  Because of our inability to create any ideas, the idea of free will seems completely out of the question.  Sure, maybe we can choose between options, but we can never really have free will, because we can never create any ideas.

This is a very new idea that is still developing in my mind, so i thought i would post the schematics of it and see if discussion starts that will help me to refine it.

Discuss.

I think Descartes was wrong , therefore he is.


HAH.  HAH.  HAH.    

Quote from: "LARA"I think Descartes was wrong , therefore he is.


HAH.  HAH.  HAH.    roflol
Nice.

Descartes was brilliant, and his arguments are nuanced, and valid, but they require subtle assumptions that are often missed.

I agree with him that the imagination cannot fabricate from scratch, it can merely warp, bend, mix and match. I simply don't agree with him that a god is not an example of this. Absolute power is merely an extension of power. All of god's attributes are merely absolute extensions of existing attributes. Descartes does not describe god, god's ontology, or what spirit is like, or any thing else in a way that could not have been fabricated by the imagination.

This is one of the major reasons why I doubt alien abductions -- on a side note -- because the description of aliens are always anthropomorphic, and involve existing traits, and features that we know about from the animal kingdom.

Lets say that we had never heard of fur, but only had scales or some such, and nothing like fur. A description of fur would be convincing. I expect no less than the description of something completely new before I buy that they had any interaction with something completely new at all.

This man is a failed philosopher.

Quote from: "Sophus"This man is a failed philosopher.

Only someone who knows nothing about philosophy or mathematics can say that. Descartes' contributions to philosophy and mathematics are massive. Many consider him to be the father of both philosophy, and modern mathematics.

Disagreeing with his ontological arguments for god hardly makes him a failure. He was one of the most brilliant men who have ever lived. I suppose that you must also consider Newton a failure because you disagree with him about alchemy?

Quote from: "Hitsumei"I agree with him that the imagination cannot fabricate from scratch, it can merely warp, bend, mix and match. I simply don't agree with him that a god is not an example of this. Absolute power is merely an extension of power. All of god's attributes are merely absolute extensions of existing attributes. Descartes does not describe god, god's ontology, or what spirit is like, or any thing else in a way that could not have been fabricated by the imagination.

I agree about god(s) being an extension of existing reality.

But I'm not so sure we can't imagine something from scratch.
Let's say you think of something completely new (concept, object, what-have-you).
In order to describe this to others, you need to use a language that is bound by what is known.
So, it's impossible to tell if the idea came from scratch (make sense?)

... and I leave you with this gem:
[youtube:1rqxpko6]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMG20rBfkM8[/youtube:1rqxpko6]

JoeActor

Quote from: "Hitsumei"I expect no less than the description of something completely new before I buy that they had any interaction with something completely new at all.

This is my problem with a lot of religious "revelations" --- they don't seem to "reveal" anything really new.....

Hey joeactor - Python rules!

Quote from: "joeactor"I agree about god(s) being an extension of existing reality.

But I'm not so sure we can't imagine something from scratch.
Let's say you think of something completely new (concept, object, what-have-you).
In order to describe this to others, you need to use a language that is bound by what is known.
So, it's impossible to tell if the idea came from scratch (make sense?)

... and I leave you with this gem:
[youtube:17almq50]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMG20rBfkM8[/youtube:17almq50]

JoeActor

I agree that of course the description would be bound by existing concepts, but I think that a nuanced, and intelligent enough thinker could preset it in a way that would be persuasive enough to be considered something new.

Say you are a person from the first century, C.E. and you are suddenly transported to modern times for a day, in a major city. You play video games, you go to a theater, and you see computers, airplanes, and cars and such, and then you are transported back.

You may lack the words to accurately describe what you have seen to those that have not experienced anything like it, but I think that an intelligent enough person could put forward a description that would be persuasive, and convincing.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Only someone who knows nothing about philosophy or mathematics can say that. Descartes' contributions to philosophy and mathematics are massive. Many consider him to be the father of both philosophy, and modern mathematics.

Disagreeing with his ontological arguments for god hardly makes him a failure. He was one of the most brilliant men who have ever lived. I suppose that you must also consider Newton a failure because you disagree with him about alchemy?

I'm talking about in regard to this philosophy. His arguments are absolutely pathetic.

Quote from: "Sophus"I'm talking about in regard to this philosophy. His arguments are absolutely pathetic.

They are all logically valid, nuanced, and brilliant. For centuries the worlds most brilliant people have been arguing about them, attempting to unravel them, and many intelligent people today still accept them as proofs of god.

By far the largest problem with all of the arguments of Descartes I think are false are false on evidential, and scientific grounds. In the early seventeen century, when they were devised, he was employing the best scientific knowledge of the day. Our ability to find fault with his ontological arguments for god today is hardly an act of intellect. It is because we posses knowledge and understanding that he did not.

Whatever flaws in his arguments that were pointed out were subtle indeed.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"

Quote from: "Sophus"I'm talking about in regard to this philosophy. His arguments are absolutely pathetic.

They are all logically valid, nuanced, and brilliant. For centuries the worlds most brilliant people have been arguing about them, attempting to unravel them, and many intelligent people today still accept them as proofs of god.

By far the largest problem with all of the arguments of Descartes I think are false are false on evidential, and scientific grounds. In the early seventeen century, when they were devised, he was employing the best scientific knowledge of the day. Our ability to find fault with his ontological arguments for god today is hardly an act of intellect. It is because we posses knowledge and understanding that he did not.

Whatever flaws in his arguments that were pointed out were subtle indeed.

They're glaringly obvious and practically refute themselves. Need I even waste my time with it?

Quote from: "Sophus"They're glaringly obvious and practically refute themselves. Need I even waste my time with it?

Of course not! Why unleash your Olympian intellect when you can just make wildly outlandish assertions?

Quote from: "Hitsumei"

Quote from: "Sophus"They're glaringly obvious and practically refute themselves. Need I even waste my time with it?

Of course not! Why unleash your Olympian intellect when you can just make wildly outlandish assertions?

It doesn't require a genius to see the flaws. The idea behind the statements is to provoke thought in yourself to help me save my breath. All too often do I waste time refuting irrational arguments and get nowhere because the person I'm debating with is close minded. So first, try showing some objectiveness to this man's arguments yourself. If you still can't see the flaws then I will point them out.

Quote from: "Sophus"It doesn't require a genius to see the flaws. The idea behind the statements is to provoke thought in yourself to help me save my breath. All too often do I waste time refuting irrational arguments and get nowhere because the person I'm debating with is close minded. So first, try showing some objectiveness to this man's arguments yourself. If you still can't see the flaws then I will point them out.

I don't accept his ontological arguments for god, so I'm hardly closed minded to seeing flaws. I already mentioned that I thought they were flawed, and why. That hardly makes them "absolutely pathetic". So your attempted redirect is misplaced.

Of course! "Yeah, I could totally rip that to shreds, but I chose not to..." (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.connect2edmonton.ca%2Fforum%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Ficon_rolleyes.gif&hash=e77af2599504ed252f7f07eb6b645df934002f18)

Quote from: "Hitsumei"I don't accept his ontological arguments for god, so I'm hardly closed minded to seeing flaws. I already mentioned that I thought they were flawed, and why. That hardly makes them "absolutely pathetic". So your attempted redirect is misplaced.

Of course! "Yeah, I could totally rip that to shreds, but I chose not to..." (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.connect2edmonton.ca%2Fforum%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Ficon_rolleyes.gif&hash=e77af2599504ed252f7f07eb6b645df934002f18)

If the Bible said the sky was phantasmagoric barrage of red and purple lights I would never be able to convince a Christian the sky is blue. That's why recently I've tried to figure out if going into the meat of an argument is going to be worth it. I don't want to debate lawyers, I want to debate scientists. I've yet to figure out which you are.

So we agreed that they're flawed but not to the same degree? How can flawed arguements be brilliant?   You've just completely lost me.

Quote from: "Sophus"I don't want to debate lawyers, I want to debate scientists. I've yet to figure out which you are.

I'm a homemaker, see my profile.

QuoteSo we agreed that they're flawed but not to the same degree? How can flawed arguements be brilliant?   :P

Quote from: "Hitsumei"You must not think anything is brilliant, or that some have achieved philosophical perfection in their arguments and positions.

I think Tolle is brilliant but that doesn't mean I still don't think his reasons for believing in god or classifying all ego as a sickness is pathetic.

QuoteThough I notice how you are still evading

Now I don't know if we're on the same page or not. Are there parts that you agree with? If so bring them up and we'll discuss them.

Quote from: "Sophus"I think Tolle is brilliant but that doesn't mean I still don't think his reasons for believing in god or classifying all ego as a sickness is pathetic.

This isn't a response to what I said -- or have I found you?  

QuoteNow I don't know if we're on the same page or not. Are there parts that you agree with? If so bring them up and we'll discuss them.

I'm beginning to wonder if you even know what his arguments are.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"This isn't a response to what I said -- or have I found you?  :|

QuoteI'm beginning to wonder if you even know what his arguments are.

There is a dog gone link at the beginning of this entry.    Are you going to answer the original question?

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Hitsumei"This isn't a response to what I said -- or have I found you?  :|

I guess you didn't quite grasp what I meant by me finding you then. If you agree that one's arguments need not be flawless to be brilliant, then you are no longer lost.

QuoteThere is a dog gone link at the beginning of this entry.    Are you going to answer the original question?

You are clearly unwilling to outline your brilliant and amazing disproofs, as this is your fifth time refusing to, and attempting to redirect the issue onto me. I don't know if I agree with you about what the flaws are, and I certainly am not going to outline what I think they are before you elucidate your brilliant rebuttals. That would of course defeat the purpose of calling you out on your outlandish boasting.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"I guess you didn't quite grasp what I meant by me finding you then. If you agree that one's arguments need not be flawless to be brilliant, then you are no longer lost.

Certain arguments of Tolle's were brilliant. The pathetic ones were not. I asked "how can a flawed argument be brilliant?".

QuoteYou are clearly unwilling to outline your brilliant and amazing disproofs, as this is your fifth time refusing to, and attempting to redirect the issue onto me. I don't know if I agree with you about what the flaws are, and I certainly am not going to outline what I think they are before you elucidate your brilliant rebuttals. That would of course defeat the purpose of calling you out on your outlandish boasting.

Not the flaws. The parts you agree with. Jesus Christ.

Quote from: "Sophus"Certain arguments of Tolle's were brilliant. The pathetic ones were not. I asked "how can a flawed argument be brilliant?".

Then I reiterate my earlier statement: you must think that some people have achieved philosophical perfection in their arguments and positions, or that none are brilliant. These are mutually exclusive.

QuoteNot the flaws. The parts you agree with. Jesus Christ.

Which would leave out which parts I thought were flawed. The result is the same.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Then I reiterate my earlier statement: you must think that some people have achieved philosophical perfection in their arguments and positions, or that none are brilliant. These are mutually exclusive.

Brilliance is not the same as perfection.

QuoteWhich would leave out which parts I thought were flawed. The result is the same.

Wrong.    Are we or are we not trying to discover new flaws? There's no need to go over material that need not be addressed.

Quote from: "Sophus"Brilliance is not the same as perfection.

No shit Sherlock, that is why I said that I thought Descartes' arguments were brilliant, regardless of being flawed.  

QuoteWrong.    Are we or are we not trying to discover new flaws? There's no need to go over material that need not be addressed.

The principle of the thing is not important enough for me to continue this dance. You're off the hook.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"No shit Sherlock, that is why I said that I thought Descartes' arguments were brilliant, regardless of being flawed.  

Hmmm... But that would contradict the statement of yours that I was responding to. Nice job.

Flaws cannot be brilliant. The philosopher can be brilliant because of his many perfected philosophies. Though any of the arguments themselves if flawed would not be brilliant. If it has an error in any way it's useless toward proving its crux. If a great man makes one mistake he has enough good deeds to back him up. That doesn't make the mistake good.

QuoteThe principle of the thing is not important enough for me to contain this dance. You're off the hook.

You're nuts. Ha. All you have to do is bring up the points you think are "bullet proof." Whatever.

Quote from: "Sophus"Hmmm... But that would contradict the statement of yours that I was responding to. Nice job.

You're being exceptionally obtuse. If you think this, then you really need to read over my posts again.

Regardless of wanting to address the other things you said, if the future can be inferred from the past, then I don't see it going anywhere, so I will just leave things off with you here and now. If I have failed to make my point by now, then I don't think that I am capable of making it to you.

QuoteThen I reiterate my earlier statement: you must think that some people have achieved philosophical perfection in their arguments and positions, or that none are brilliant.

They're either perfect or not brilliant. Oh yeah, I'm dead wrong in thinking you somehow equated brilliance with perfection.

Way to ignore everything else too.    I'm happy now.

I'm going to do this one more time, and then I am going to not respond to you in the future.

I specifically said "you must think" each time, because I clearly said originally that I did not think this.

Equating perfection with brilliance is what you have done, as I said from the beginning that a flawed argument can still be brilliant, and you said that it could not. I then said that you must think that either brilliance does not exist, or some people have achieved philosophical perfection in their arguments and positions.

Now clearly I'm using "perfection" as a modifying adjective for "arguments and positions", and thus am saying that unless you think:

1)Some arguments and positions are completely without flaw, and perfect
2)There exists no brilliant arguments or positions.

You must agree that a flawed argument or position can still be brilliant. I have not said that I think they are mutually exclusive at any time, and that is why I said "you must think" and then outlined the dilemma, as you have said that Descartes' ontological arguments can not be brilliant if flawed.

This is as simplified as I can make it, but I suspect it is stubbornness that has kept you contrary, and not slowness, so it is for that reason that I think replying to you in the future would be a waste of time.

QuoteI'm going to do this one more time, and then I am going to not respond to you in the future.

:eek:

Hey Sophus and Hitsumei. Can't we all just get along?  :pop:

Sorry Daddy. She started it! lol.

I don't usually get that way. Some people just know how to press buttons.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"

Quote from: "Sophus"It doesn't require a genius to see the flaws. The idea behind the statements is to provoke thought in yourself to help me save my breath. All too often do I waste time refuting irrational arguments and get nowhere because the person I'm debating with is close minded. So first, try showing some objectiveness to this man's arguments yourself. If you still can't see the flaws then I will point them out.

I don't accept his ontological arguments for god, so I'm hardly closed minded to seeing flaws. I already mentioned that I thought they were flawed, and why. That hardly makes them "absolutely pathetic". So your attempted redirect is misplaced.

Of course! "Yeah, I could totally rip that to shreds, but I chose not to..." (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.connect2edmonton.ca%2Fforum%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Ficon_rolleyes.gif&hash=e77af2599504ed252f7f07eb6b645df934002f18)

Hitsumei, I think you and I are on board with a lot of the same ideas... But I think you may have read my original post incorrectly.  I was pointing out the logical progression that would lead to a contradiction.

Descartes argues:
(simply)
-I cannot create
-I have a perception of a "god"
therefore: god exists.
 
Later in the argument (don't know where off the top of my head) Descartes points out his belief in Free Will.

THEN-
This is my observation (sloppily presented here)
-If I can't create new Ideas
-That means that my ideas are influenced by my surroundings (warped, twisted, mixed, etc.)
-Decisions would classify as an idea, as "ideas" are the foundation of cognitive thought"
-I could not make my own decisions
therefore: I cannot have free will while simultaneously presenting the ontological argument.
THEREFORE: by Descartes logic, I cannot have free will if god exists.

I guess what I am saying here, is I realize the ontological argument is sound, albeit not persuasive. Also, Descartes was clearly a brilliant philosopher and logician.  His arguments laid the groundwork for nearly every field of philosophy.  While many might not agree with his beliefs, illogical arguments are difficult to spot.  In my original post, I was just trying to point out this cross-argument paradox that I happened to notice.   As I said, I haven't really gotten around to delving into thought about this, so I was just hoping to ignite some conversation about the ABOVE listed paradox... Not the ontological itself.

But thank you for your logical responses nonetheless... it's refreshing to see ANYWHERE on the internet.

This reminds me somehow of the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

My favorite bit is probably the argument that the Babel fish proves the non-existence of God.
The argument goes like this:

Quote`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

Descartes was a genius, his first two meditations don't even touch the subject of god. His contributions to the fields of epistemology and mathematics were massive (his use of the epistemic closure principle was revolutionary) not to mention all his work on the mind body problem. Sure, he had some weak arguments, big deal. He was the greatest philosopher of the 17th century.

Locke can't touch his skepticism :]