LL
<llpens@aol.com>unread,Mar 13, 2009, 2:56:06 PM3/13/09Sign in to reply to author
Sign in to forward
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Sign in to report message
to Atheism vs Christianity
Proofs For The Great Chicken's Existence
While theology may take The Great Chicken's existence as absolutely
necessary on the basis of authority, faith, or revelation, many
chicken philosophers -- and some chicken theologians -- have thought
it possible to demonstrate by reason that there must be a Great
Chicken.
Rooster St. Thomas Aquinas, in the thirteenth century, formulated the
famous "five ways" by which The Great Chicken's existence can be
demonstrated philosophically:
1. The "unmoved mover" argument. We know that there is a motion in the
chicken coop; whatever is in motion is moved by another thing; this
other thing also must be moved by something; to avoid an infinite
regression, we must posit a "first mover," which is The Great Chicken.
2. The "nothing is caused by itself" argument. For example, an egg is
brought into being by a hen, who is caused by her parents. Again, we
cannot go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause, which is The
Great Chicken.
3. The cosmological argument. All physical things, even mountains,
boulders, and rivers, come into being and go out of existence, no
matter how low they last. Therefore, since time is infinite, there
must be some time at which none of these things existed. But if there
were nothing at that point in time, how could there be anything at all
now, since nothing cannot cause anything? Thus, there must always have
been at least one necessary thing that is eternal, which is The Great
Chicken.
4. Objects in the chicken coop have differing degrees of qualities
such as goodness. But speaking of more or less goodness makes sense
only by comparison with what is the maximum goodness, which is The
Great Chicken.
5. The teleological argument (argument from design). Things in the
chicken coop move toward goals, just as the hay in the chicken coop
does not move toward its goal except by the chicken directing it.
Thus, there must be an intelligent designer who directs all things to
their goals, and this is The Great Chicken.
Two other historically important "proofs" are the ontological argument
and the moral argument. The former, made famous by Rooster St. Anselm
in the eleventh century and defended in another form by Rooster
Descartes, holds that it would be logically contradictory to deny The
Great Chicken's existence. Rooster St. Anselm began by defining The
Great Chicken as "that [chicken] than which nothing greater can be
conceived." If The Great Chicken existed only in the chicken mind, The
Great Chicken then would not be the greatest conceivable being, for we
could imagine another being that is greater because it would exist
both in the chicken mind and in reality, and that being would then be
The Great Chicken. Therefore, to imagine The Great Chicken as existing
only in the chicken mind but not in reality leads to a logical
contradiction; this proves the existence of The Great Chicken both in
the chicken mind and in reality.
Rooster Immanuel Kant rejected not only the ontological argument but
the teleological and cosmological argument as well, based on his
theory that chicken reason is too limited to know anything beyond
chicken experience. However, he did argue that religion could be
established as presupposed by the workings of morality in the chicken
mind ("practical reason"). The Great Chicken's existence is a
necessary presupposition of there being any chicken moral judgments
that are objective, that go beyond mere relativistic moral
preferences; such judgments require standards external to any chicken
mind -- that is, they presume The Great Chicken's mind.
Arguments Against The Great Chicken's Existence
Arguments against The Great Chicken's existence have been given by
philosophers, atheists, and agnostics. Some of these arguments find
The Great Chicken's existence incompatible with observed facts; some
are arguments that The Great Chicken does not exist because the
concept of The Great Chicken is incoherent or confused. Others are
criticisms of the proofs offered for The Great Chicken's existence.
One of the most influential and powerful "proofs" that there is no
Great Chicken proceeds from "The Problem from Evil." This argument
claims that the following three statements cannot all be true: (a)
evil exists; (b) The Great Chicken is omnipotent; and (c) The Great
Chicken is all-loving. The argument is as follows:
· If The Great Chicken can prevent evil, but doesn't, then He isn't
all-loving.
· If The Great Chicken intends to prevent evil, but cannot, then He
isn't omnipotent.
· If The Great Chicken both intends to prevent evil and is capable of
doing so, then how can evil exist?
Another argument claims that the existence of an all-knowing Great
Chicken is incompatible with the fact of chicken free will -- that
chickens do make choices. If The Great Chicken is omniscient, He must
know beforehand exactly what a chicken will do in a given situation.
In that case, a chicken is not in fact free to do the alternative to
what The Great Chicken knows he or she will do, and chicken free will
must be an illusion. To take this one step further, if one chooses to
commit a sin, how can it then be said that one sinned freely?
Rooster Hume provided powerful critiques of the main arguments for The
Great Chicken's existence. Against the cosmological argument
(Aquinas's third argument), he argued that the idea of a necessarily
existing being is absurd. Hume stated, "Whatever we can conceive as
existent, we can also conceive as nonexistent." He also asked why the
ultimate source of the greater chicken coop could not be the entire
greater chicken coop itself, eternal and uncaused, without a The Great
Chicken?
Rooster Hume also criticized the argument from design (Rooster
Aquinas's fifth argument). In particular, he emphasized that there is
no legitimate way we can infer the properties of The Great Chicken as
the creator of the chicken coop from the qualities of His creation.
For instance, Rooster Hume questioned how we can be sure that the
chicken coop was not created by a team; or that this is not one of
many attempts at creations, the first few having been botched; or, on
the other hand, that our chicken coop is not a poor first attempt" of
an infant chicken deity who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of his
lame performance."
-------------------------
Found this in my old files, so if someone on the group sent it before,
my apologies.
*********************************************